Return of the "Refrigerator Mother" Theory?

Post Reply New Topic

A 'novel mutation' is plausible.

I've often thought of this too. I was surprised it wasn't brought up more often.

It would have to be some interaction of genetics and environment if this theory were true. There have been some recent studies though that suggest autism is not entirely genetic. If you google "autism twins separated at birth" you will find that there are identical twins where one has autism and the other does not.

Since there is a great deal of debunking of the truth of the refrigerator mom, I feel a need to inject some facts and experience here.
An autistic (asperger and sometimes related mildly schizophrenic) child becomes this way as a result of genetics. The inherited gene symptoms can be a predisposition toward autism or aspergers or severe symptoms of autism. So, there is a spectrum of very very slightly autistic to extremely autistic. In either case, the influence of the parents is going to affect the child. People in the autistic family; i.e. siblings, parents, aunts/uncles etc. can range from warm, caring not autistic at all to extremely autistic, cold, controlling or antisocial.
Since it is a fact that children inherit autism, or a tendency toward autism, from their parents, it is also a fact that the mom or dad of the autistic child may have some degree of autism themselves. It is also a fact that as a mom of an autistic child, you may not have autism yourself at all, but may carry the gene and pass it on to your child; or you or your husband may have slight autism.
In my case, my mother was the cold, controlling, non-bonding refrigerator mom. However, she put on a good social front with other people. My father was more socially withdrawn than my mother was and showed very very slight autistic symptoms of rigidity and social withdrawal. My father's entire family exhibited some of the rigid behavior. My mother's sister was very warm and loving and married a very warm and loving man. Her children were all pretty much normal. Even though I wasn't autistic myself, I did suffer the effects of living with what I saw as abusive parents.
Since my brother inherited a large dose of the autism gene, he didn't have much of a chance of overcoming this with my rigid, withdrawn father and controlling, cold mother.
I would like to submit that ther are positive qualities to the autism gene. Someone with very slight autism is more likely to be very highly intelligent as well as more sensitive and psychically gifted. If someone born with this gene in the slight degree is lucky enough to have a warm and caring mom, and even luckier to also have a warm and caring Dad, then That person is likely to reach high levels of brilliance and accomplishment in his/her life. And, that person, with their sensitivity, is likely to become even more warm and caring through out their life. What a legacy to carry forward.

if anything I was the distant one in the relationship growing up

my mom would want to do stuff with me all the time but I just wanted to be alone and play with my trucks on the big dirt pile we had

I am impressed by the intelligence of a lot of the messages on this thread. Yes, Rabbitears this is a really valuable insight which helps me see things more clearly; however, regarding the mother and child relationship from the perspective of everything being interdependent, the cause and effect are not exactly reversed, as it is not technically possible to determine the exact beginning of a casual chain. This is not to imply that when looking at how various phenomena interact one does not start at a certain point, but a helpful way to look is in terms of function From the perspective of function things can become much clearer much faster, as all cause and effect comes to fruit in ones present actions, so if a person wants the world to be different or even to understand the world better, it is all dependent on the activity of ones own mind which will lead to an alive and intelligent movement that is connected to everything in the world, and so is world changing.

To the person who wrote that this topic is not being discussed on other places on this system, that is not really true, as this is my main topic of interest, and I touch on it every chance I get, but the slant on wp seems to be more toward nature rather than nurture, and I think-it is a seemingly self-serving but actually a very naive and limiting position designed to keep things in a certain slot, so thanks to the person who started this thread. By the way, I am basically anti-therapy, but as I have written before on another thread, it does not mean to throw the baby (ideas) out with the bathwater (the cultist, elitist aspects of the psychoanalytical practice). For instance, if you think about the term "refrigerator mother," that is maybe not such a good way to think for either a therapist or someone reacting to that term, as it is a way over-generalized concept. So who told anybody to take their children and themselves to therapists? A lot of the writing on wp is about going to therapists and getting tested and diagnosed for this or that. I would be more inclined to look at why people do this kind of diagnosis and what is the thinking behind it. Obviously there is some practical value (function), but ultimately how practical? It could be that they are kind of dead inside and cut-off--so what makes them/us be this way, and how to not be this way? I would say the solution is for the mind to become more comprehensive and consciously enfolding, and "mother" is a symbol of this. We have the power to define the meanings of the words we use, and I would not let anyone take that away, as it can wipe out an entire generative field of meaning.

Trying to find ways to explain neurodevelopmental disorders in terms of parenting is something that people are unlikely to stop any time soon. Gabor Mate has been pushing his theories that ADHD and autism are attachment disorders caused and exacerbated by parental stress.

There are probably still people who view autism as psychogenic - French psychotherapists, for example.

Iam slowly reading through a book about loneliness at the moment,
I read a couple of pages yesterday that describe a test on baby monkeys that were taken from their Mothers and deprived of any contact, one of the observers made the comment that these monkeys displayed all the symptoms of Autistic Humans.

It's a lot more complicated than 'large amygdala = autism'. Firstly, there are some autistics with small amygdala, as well as some with normal amygdala who have other unrelated issues.

Secondly, the link between the amygdala and social behavior is not very clear-cut. The clearest link between amygdala and behavior is in the area of fear - large amygdala tends to mean high fearfulness, while damaged or absent amygdala tends to mean reduced or no fear.

There is a lot of data suggesting that people who undergo traumatic experiences or receive problematic parenting tend to have larger amygdala. But there is a lot less data suggesting any link between such experiences and autistic behavior. Just because children of depressed mothers have larger amygdala does not indicate that they'll have autistic traits - in fact, more likely they'll just have anxiety disorders and other internalizing disorders, which is no big surprise anyway.

Yes, I think that is correct.



No, I don't think there is a causative link between larger amygdala and difficulty reading NTs.



Yes, I think depression rates are correlated with higher rates of ASD diagnoses.

Then how do you explain that autistic children are born to parents with other children who are not autistic (nor suffering the same behaviours) when they all have the same parenting?

Whilst I simply related something I had just read in a book, I will answer your question with my own long term held belief, namely that Genetics causes a part of the brain to develop in a way that brings to birth Aspergers, and that certain emotional trauma and neglect can cause an otherwise normal babies brain to develop in just the same way the genetic cause resulted in Aspergers.

Two roads arriving at the same place.
If you have one baby born without legs, and another whose legs get cut off at birth, what will be the difference?, (apart from of course the passing on of the genetic trait).

I would like to point out that just because two kids have the same parents does not mean they receive the same parenting.

Firstly, unless they're twins, they're born at different times in the parents' life. Maybe the parents' situation has changed in some way. A later-born might be born to richer parents, for example. Or the change in parents' age might make a difference (especially if the age difference is large, or if the parent was under the age of 20 when they had their first child). Or something may have happened to cause emotional problems in the parent that weren't there before, or conversely they may have gotten over a problem they used to have.

In addition, siblings affect each other. A firstborn gets undivided attention for awhile, and then suddenly has to adjust to competing for attention with a sibling, while a laterborn competes for attention from the start. In addition, older siblings directly interact with younger siblings, which means the older child gets social interaction with a younger child while the younger child gets interaction with an older child. (Incidentally, younger siblings are slightly faster in ToM development, on average, than their oldest sibling, because preschoolers are less able to accommodate a younger child's perspective and therefore take more effort to interact with than an adult does.)

And lastly, children's behavior affects the parenting they receive, which in turns affects the child's behavior more. For example, extremely shy kids often elicit overprotective parenting, which tends to make them more shy. Meanwhile, hyperactive kids often elicit harsh discipline, which tends to make them act out more.

I know for a fact that my brother and I received very different parenting. I was a firstborn, and had undivided parental attention until the age of 10 months. Then my parents became kinship foster carers to two severely disturbed teenagers, and suddenly I was being cared for by extremely stressed-out parents who were often distracted by arguments with the older two kids. Sometimes I witnessed those kids being violent or verbally abusive to my parents. (They also abused me directly, but I'm focusing on parenting here.) In addition, finding out that my cousins had been abused had triggered my mother to start recovering memories of abuse, so she was having flashbacks during this time period as well.

In contrast, my brother was born to two parents who were dealing with one 8 year old with milder behavioral issues, who was also extremely enamored of her younger sibling and played with him a lot. He sometimes got a bit overlooked when my parents dealt with me, but not nearly as much. My parents were a lot happier, too, and my Mom had gone through a bunch of counseling and was a lot further along in her healing. I sometimes helped out with my younger brother. On the other hand, I also got overloaded by some of his behavior, and when he was old enough to understand me I often tried to insist on more quiet than was realistic for a child his age.

So yeah. My brother and I have different genes, but we also got different parenting. As well as different non-parenting-related environmental influences, such as me being abused by two older siblings, and having fewer friends growing up than he's had. And our developing personalities shaped our environments as well. It's not just the different genes that have made us different people.

Where did you ever get this idea from? All children from the same family do NOT have the same parenting.

If you want to think the way you are is entirely genetic, then go for it, but in my opinion that is a very developmentally limiting view which will keep a person stuck in a box. Genetics and environment are interdependent and play back and forth with each other..

Sorry, Whirlingmind...Please forgive me if my message was harsh. I was in a big hurry and wanted to cut the grease, but also didn't see the excellent message right before mine (as it was not posted, as far as I can recall, at the time I was writing, or maybe I just missed it, but unlikely). In any case; if I had seen it I wouldn't have posted, but maybe it is for the best as I brought up one new point:

It is obvious that two children raised by the same parent can receive different kinds of parenting,, so why would a person think it is the same? It could be because it fits in with another idea, for instance that all of ones problems are because of genetics, so in order to fit in with that concept, the mind skips a step. I think that all or at least almost all humans beings do this in some way or other, depending on the context, in order to support the groove that is habitual for that person to think in and defend from---could be any groove, but serious problems and great suffering can result because of this kind of data processing..