RE: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/teen-brain-shuts-hears-moms-criticism/

Here’s the main take-away: when listening to Moms’ criticism, and for a period afterwards, the teens’ brains showed more activity in areas involved in negative emotions (no surprise there), but they actually showed reduced activity in regions involved in emotional control and in taking other people’s point of view. This suggests, the researchers said, that in response to maternal criticism: “youth shut down social processing [and] possibly do not think about their parents’ mental states.” They add: “… the decrement in brain activity in regions involved in mentalizing or perspective taking could help to explain the high frequency of maladaptive conflict resolution in parent-adolescent dyads.”

The article then goes on to question the validity of the assumptions underlying the study, the sample size (a mere 32 kids; 22 females and 10 males), the rather dubious singular interpretation of the results, etc.

But what I found MORE interesting about the study's conclusion & presentation of it, is what NEITHER the researchers, nor the article author noticed (i.e. they are blind/oblivious to it).

  • MOM'S criticism [nagging] and maternal criticism is -- without much apparent thought (much less justification or empirical basis) -- generalized to be the entirety of parent-adolescent interactions.
  • The response is seen -- again without justification or empirical basis -- not as a positive (purposeful) evolutionary adaptation; but as a negative (maladaptive) one.

Anyone else see what (several things) they are missing?

At the time I'm writing this, the top-vote getting comment on the the /r/science thread, (and reiterated/supported in the various replies to it) certainly seems reveals one major area the researchers were oblivious to:

surreal_blue 2627 points 17 hours ago
I think this might be true on other age groups as well

Another commenter within that thread presented an anecdote that provides other hints towards what they're overlooking:

johnnyringo41 53 points 14 hours ago
I loved them both equally, but my mom I would tune out after 5 minutes of going over the same stuff again and again. My dad would just say "I'm disappointed" and I would do anything to make it right.

Another -- from checking the account history apparently a MALE teacher -- commenter adds a few further hints:

bxtjmvznhxcb 365 points 14 hours ago
I've found talking to kids as young as seven as if they were an adult makes a dramatic difference over nagging or speaking to them like they're dumb. I can take a nightmare class and turn them into friendly and productive kids in days.

And ALL of those anecdotes match with my own past experiences and observations working with youth (mainly boys: pre-teens and teens, but a few teen girls as well), as well as seeing a few functional families as well as a plethora of DYSfunctional ones -- and especially observing the maternal vs paternal interactions.

EDIT: Also, while I agree with the male teachers observation as a general thing (especially when you have a GROUP of kids to work with) -- I have also found that, when the [s]mothering has been allowed to go on too long, and been too intensive, then even the MALE voice of calm reason gets shut out; and/or while it can have a positive effect, just a limited (even a single) "nagging" interaction again with the [s]mother can negate WEEKS and MONTHS of forward progress, and the (young adult) then reverts to a wholly dysfunctional way of operating -- IOW this study provides proof of just how debilitating dysfunctional mother-child relationships can become: it LITERALLY affects the brain's operations (and not in a good way), closing it off from rational thought & actions.


So what is it they are missing? I think it is several things, first we'll begin with the obvious/primary aspects:

  1. As has been WELL documented in different/separate research (with completely different, independent purposes/goals), the typical adult female (mother) has significantly different vocal PITCH, TONE and INTENSITY versus that of a typical adult male (father).

  2. Beyond the physical characteristics, is the CONTENT and the MANNER of what is (often) being conveyed and how it is being conveyed:

    • continual, repetitive, almost endlessly verbose, overly "dramatic" (often narcissistic) ongoing "nagging" (i.e. talking DOWN to a child, and seeking to impose a co-dependent "guilt" in how they are harming {and thus need to be responsible for} the mother's emotions, etc)
    • versus brief, firm, calm (generally non-dramatic) statements of expectations.
  3. Third is the current cultural bias -- the default view seems to be not to view such things in a truly scientific fashion (i.e. as an observation of what "is") -- i.e. the null hypothesis that this could be a positive (purposeful) evolutionary adaptation (or created attribute/trait); but instead the default is to see them as a negative (maladaptive) one. IOW the kids response is seen as a sign of "malfunctioning brain" rather than being a natural stage of development. IOW the researchers take "Mom's" side -- and without seeing (at all) how narcissistic that feminine/feminist view is -- and basically default to the conclusion that the kids are "brain damaged". (Really? Given the fact that this response is ALSO likely seen {at least it is confirmed by a LOT of anecdotal self-testimony} in full adults... this seems to be a sign of NORMAL development.)


So here's my take on this:

The researchers and article author, and really even the comments on /r/science (though the latter seem to be almost stumbling on it) are blinded by out current cultural "pedestalization" of not just FEMALES, but of the ridiculous notion that MOTHERING = PARENTING -- and moreover the complete failure to see that the "problem" here is not a problem at all -- it is in fact a SIGN that there are TWO (significantly different) parenting roles; and that FATHERING is not only distinct in style, but that it is a GENETICALLY necessary role relative to older children.

IOW, the voice, pitch, tone and verbose, repetitive statements of the FEMALE (mother) which are reassuring, useful, and even necessary during the child's early years -- for among other things acquisition of language skills (if you grew up among mutes who didn't talk, you would likely yourself be mute or at least you would never acquire language -- if your only adult/parent was a father who said "few words" you would likely have delayed/inhibited language skills*)...

Well, once there purpose has been served, and full language acquisition has been completed -- thereafter the brain NATURALLY begins to "tune it out" -- why? Because there are now (especially TEEN years) other things that are far more important.

And at THAT stage -- the process of becoming (or attempting to become) an ADULT -- what is needed, (and naturally) wanted is guidance that spurs critical (and independent) thinking... reasoning and not "emotional drama".

IOW... humans (boys AND girls) are in need, not of further "[s]mothering" and belittlement -- at which they naturally BALK and take offense (because it inhibits independence) -- but instead they need FATHERING... they need PATERNAL guidance: the quiet, calm but FIRM statements of a man.


So why do these researchers MISS that? I think the answer is fairly obvious -- they miss it, and default to the maternal view because that is now our society's default view: the "patriarchy" has been denigrated, and for the vast majority of people (a larger number every year) is something they have never (or seldom and in only limited fashion) experienced.

We have a society that views everything from the narcissistic viewpoint of the female/mother: if/when children "misbehave" (i.e. when they do ANYTHING that is "inconvenient" to the mother) then we default to the view that they are "brain damaged" (i.e. they have ADHD, they're BiPolar, and so on...)

Why is this "necessary"? Why is it THE default view?

Well -- because the implication of any OTHER view would lead to the conclusion that the [s]mothering is detrimental, that IT is the cause of the problems -- that undercuts the dogmatic view that females are NEVER to be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions: ergo someone ELSE must be to blame (the deadbeat dad, the nasty mean glass ceiling, religion, whoever, whatever ... and even sacrificing their own children {i.e. labeling them as having something medically/chemically "wrong/broken" in their brains}) is seen as preferable to accepting the possibility that "mother" may NOT be the be-all-and-end-all of parenting, and that in fact "[s]mother" may in fact be HUGELY damaging and detrimental to their children, and to society at large.

And THAT would mean re-examining (and almost just as certainly DISCARDING) the premises of the major sociopolitical themes of feminism and what has become a "matriarchal" society ... and returning to far more healthy (independent adult creating) "patriarchal" one.


*And this "fundamental" phenom is confirmed by many studies, things that indicate for example that children with parents (regardless of gender) who read to them (i.e. tell long, wordy stories, often repeating the same story over several times) especially at an early age, tend to have much more advanced language skills (and of course multilingual abilities are likewise a confirmation of this, as they are acquired effortlessly by children who are exposed to, or "immersed in", a plethora of conversations in various languages.