View Full Version : Memory Before Language
MotherNurture
03-10-2007, 00:25
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/09/memory_before_language_preverb.php
Infantile "amnesia" refers to the apparent absence or weakness of memories formed at ages younger than 3 or 4. Some evidence indicates that these early-life memories are not actually lost or forgotten, but are rather merely mislabeled or otherwise inaccessible to adult cognition. One potential reason for this inaccessibility is that adults tend to use language in encoding and retrieving memories, and this strategy may not be sufficient for retrieving memories formed in early-life, which may have been encoded before language is firmly entrenched in the developing brain. A recent study in Child Development may challenge this hypothesis...
Jen
serendipity22
27-10-2007, 08:27
One of my psychology lecturers said that everything is recorded and no memories are lost except they can sometimes be very difficult to retrieve.
When one of my nieces was three she said she remembered the colour of the inside of a previous family car.
The car had been written off when she was 3 months old.
This is just old example of young children relating memories from when they were in infancy.
Having now read this and then having followed up the original studies mentioned I have to say that this blog, whilst interesting does not rely on good science. The studies did not seem to use proper control groups and seemed poorly designed and they have not in any way been replicated.
Memory retention, recall and it's inter-relationship with cognition is complex an as affected by individual variation as all other areas of development. Providing a specific and novel stimuli within a specific environment and then measuring the response and the extrapolating to general abilities is fraught at best...particularly in the developing human brain.
There are far better studies out there but the results are still inconclusive.
Tam-I-Am
30-10-2007, 14:33
I know anecdotal evidence isn't scientific - but my own experience is that this is correct....I remember my grandmother dying when I was 18 months old - I didn't learn to speak in sentences until well after my 2nd birthday...
unfortunately for an argument to have power and here I would assume that MN has posed this blog to support her previously expressed view that children remember the 'trauma' of the circumcision, then the position needs to have evidence. Evidence needs to have proof and proof in such matters needs to have a scientific basis in 'medical' matters.
Tam-I-Am
30-10-2007, 14:39
Neil - I agree. As I said in my post, I was giving an anecdote only. I understood from the outset that this would not indicate proof or evidence of a scientific nature :)
Shanaynay
30-10-2007, 16:18
This is the basis of my honours thesis :smiliedance:
will you be doing new novel work or a meta analysis of previous studies?
I would love to see some definitive studies....unfortunately Australia does not seem to fund such research well enough.
Shanaynay
30-10-2007, 19:16
A meta-analysis - such objective research is REALLY hard to to design. Hopefully post-grad, some new work though - I'd like to study correlations between early language development and early memories in individuals - to my knowledge there are no decent studies looking at that yet.
There have been many theories developed proposing to account for childhood amnesia but one of the less researched ones is that infants and children lack a linguistic framework to store early memories, hence the childhood amnesia. It's really interesting :yes:
serendipity22
30-10-2007, 22:29
I would like to add that there is a difference between not being able to store a memory and not being able to recall a memory.
One way to help retrieve an old memory is to re-establish the context. Reconstructing sounds, smells, feelings etc. from the past can sometimes revive a lost memory.
Ive recalled thing I had forgotten in dreams.
MotherNurture
31-10-2007, 00:59
Neil, you seem very determined to defend circumcision; of course I posted this because it supports my position that we really haven't done enough research on the issue of early memory and it is *possible* that babies could remember early trauma including circumcision. Those conducting the study also clearly say more research needs to be done. I agree.
It's disturbing to me that so many parents assume, "He won't remember it" when the reality may really simply be that the future man cannot put the experience into *words*. What we do know is that early in life children are sponges...they're absorbing the world around them and every experience is a lesson. Their brains are rapidly developing and growing.
None of us would think of justifying any type of child abuse, physical, sexual, or verbal during the first few years of life on the basis that "they won't remember it". No, we comfort our children, we snuggle, we swaddle, we sing and play music, we kiss them and teach them and laugh, we surround them with developmentally appropriate toys and fun colors and tactile stimulation because we inherently know as parents that early experiences DO matter. When we hear of a very young child experiencing medical trauma or being abused by a caregiver or stranger we are *horrified*, not only because of the initial and immediate suffering but because we have a strong sense that that child will be permanently affected.
Jen
ahh...no you are factually incorrect. As I posted some time ago my reasons for being here have little to do with my personal view on circumcision and a lot to do with my professional practice in working with parents and one parent in particular.
Because I work with parents, caregivers and organisations I naturally dislike the hyperbole of *possible* based on poor material for obvious reasons, especially when swaddleled in misinformation...it is the equvalent of a 'who' magazine article.
Phineas, I have no problem with the concept that procedural memory can be encoded at such an age. But issues of linguistic coding as the basis for memory storage whilst interesting as a concept seems to be ignoring the developmental milestones of normal language development, let alone abnormal development. You see screening for normal vs abnormal language development in young children is very very challenging and I am afraid that familial history etc may not be a good indicator either.
Take a good paed Speech Path and Neuropsyche out to lunch and ask them some questions...it might save some time wading through some of the studies.
Serendipity I agree completely, smell for me can help recall some long forgotten memory. The difficulty I have is that such memories are often on partial and we can then try to find the bits that are missing and we are not sure if the memory is true and acurate or constructed from snippets of other memories as a partial narrative. Issues of past abuse and false memory recall are legion and have sadly lead to many miscarrages of justice.
serendipity22
01-11-2007, 12:36
2,000 years China was a country with the most advanced civilization. Then they stagnated for 2,000 years and the west totally overtook them by the 1800s.
Why? Because the Chinese thinking was based on certainies. The Western idea of the scientific hypothesis (even though it has weaknesses) was much more effective.
Possibilties and probabilities are very important. We are often working with incomplete knowledge.
If people had been a little more intelligent, smoking would have been prohibited in public places a long time ago. People could have acted on the possibility or even a high probability that passive smoking was harmful, instead of waiting for many decades till it was a proven certainty.
The cautious and responsible approach is to avoid unnecessary harm.
Whilst I might agree in some respects to the slow and cautious approach, I am enough of a humanist to know that it is not the way most humanity functions.
The China aspect is interesting. I have also heard that the industrial revolution would have occurred 200 years earlier had the crusades not taken place as Islam would have become the dominant religion and it was during one of the enlightened periods of Islam.
The natural critique of current scientific methodology is that it does not encourage new and novel ideas...but it does reduce mistakes.
My concern with 'possible' WRT this topic is as always my concern the potential negative impacts and also that we can develop sound arguments without resorting to imaginary fears...there are far too many of the latter in simply being a parent.
UmmInayah
01-11-2007, 19:45
That's amazing! I think it makes sense :)
We circumsize due to religious reasons. I hate to think about putting bub in pain :( But it's just a done thing. I am so glad they they do "forget" when they are older.
metalhead713
01-11-2007, 19:54
from what ive heard, it is the short term memory that isnt properly developed up until age 2 or 3. So we dont remember very much at all, but our long term memory of significant events that had a big impact on us is still able to be remembered. Im not sure how accurate this is though.
UmmInayah
01-11-2007, 20:38
There was nothing to "buy" from my statement at all. It's the "done" thing in my religion. I am not about to start a religious debate here - and I know there are a lot of opposing views about circumsizing due to religion, but to me it is the right thing to do. Thanks. I was merely talking about the OP and how it makes sense that babies have a memory before language. I thought it best to clarify that I am pro-circ.
All the older males (ie hubby, father, brother) I know who have been circumsized have not had any sort of "memory" of being circumsized as babies - they don't recall the pain that happened when they were babies. I am not saying that while it was happening, or while they were still babies they didn't remember the pain of being circumsized - but right NOW, they don't remember specifics - like having being cut and how much that hurt there and then. I never mentioned anything about what OTHER ramifications or problems might arise in adulthood due to having been circumsized - I was referring solely to memory. But you have given me some insight, thank you :)
lukaelmo
02-11-2007, 07:15
Hey!
I thought we were talking about memory, not circumcision...
For what it's worth, my earliest memory is lying on the floor while my mother is in the kitchen making up a bottle... I remember the direction the kitchen faced and that it was open plan.
We moved from there when I was around 18 months old, and have no photos of the interior of that house, so it really is my memory, and not something I have created from photos...
I have deleted some off topic posts, please stick to the topic of the thread and do not reduce this interesting discussion into a general circ debate.
Any further off topic posts will be deleted.
I tried to link into some journal articles via medline, but they are wise to this and the links did not work. There are some good articles out there on the net for those willing to search, naturally there are also many poor ones too.
Sorry but i dont buy that statement at all.
For one, you dont know if they forget about the pain or not. You have no idea in what way it could potentially affect a man in his sexual life ect. I know men who have issues about the loss of their foreskin and how they hate the scar tissue that is left behind afterward.
Secondly, there ARE alternatives to religous circumcisions nowadays. Its not the "done" thing at all.
I think thats an excuse people like to use to justify modifying their unconsenting sons penis.
The issue with religious circumcision is the concept that they WANT the baby to have a subconcious recollection of the circumcision, a recollection before the concious memory can analyse it.
I know the Jewish people do it as a sign that the penis is not to be worshiped, that it is to purposefully be defiled to remind men that it is not the organ in which their brain lives. It is to teach them that the penis is not to be the thing in control when it comes to decision making. It is their way of defiling the phalic symbol (ie patriarchy), just like their lamb sacrifice at Pesach was to defile the Egyptian god which was represented by a lamb, and the bull sacrifices were to defile the golden calf idol.
So telling someone religious (I dont know if Muslims have a similar philosophy) that their baby may remember their circumcision in some way is not going to convince them to stop. It will just convince them moreso that they are doing the right thing according to their beliefs.
When you are entering into the realm of people doing things for spiritual reasons, all forms of non-spiritual reasons will be moot to them.
YKWIM? this is what I have gathered in my research efforts :detective: For more info: http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=568&o=2084384&pg=2
Rabbi Shlomo: This is to teach a Jew from a very early age what we just discussed - that in life we are to do things that make G-d happy - it doesn't really matter if we understand it or not. In that way, we can transcend human abilities and have a relationship with G-d on a divine, rather than human, level
Rabbi Shlomo: reason 3)
Rabbi Shlomo: There are two primary reasons why G-d commanded us to place the symbol of our covenant on the male sexual organ: 1. G-d wanted this sign to be in the very part of the body which symbolizes pleasure. This is supposed to be a constant reminder to us that we should be focused on our special relationship with G-d and not get lost in life's pleasures and vices. Basically, we should always keep in mind that which is important and that which is quite trivial. 2. We place our sign on our reproductive member for we pass on our covenant with G-d to our children.
Can't they just dye it blue or something? :p
For some reason, the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure" springs into my mind. I guess it depends on how an 'item' is culturely percieved. Whether that item be sacred ground, a sacred symbol, or a body part....
To tell religious people like the Jewish people to stop circumcising is like asking the Indigenous people of this country to just stop caring so much about Uluru....get over it, build a hotel on it....(this is not a direct analogy, it is more to demonstrate the emotional/spiritual connection that a culture has with something they see as sacred).
Such is the passions of spiritual people....
anyway, I'm going off track....but yes, the subconcious memory of the bris only reinforces the beliefs of those who practice it.
If you could prove to them that the baby has no memory of it, that it has no impact on their future lives, that it makes absolutely no difference whether or not they circumcise - then THAT would be more likely to raise eyebrows and cause them to ask questions.
I wonder, have you actually spoken to a Rabbi about this interpretation? I might suggest that the jewish community is not a homogenous as you might think and saying something like 'the jewish people' is much like saying 'the christains'...there is much divergence in beliefs dependant upon cultural backgroud as well as religious beliefs. Some communities would be open to the concept of change and of course some would not.
I am slightly concerned about your reportage of sacrifice as part of religious observance as I belive that this has not been done for over a thousand years?
However we do get back to the fact that the belief does not make a fact and so far there is little evidence that the memory of circumcision could be encoded such that it has any effect on an adult. I would love to see some credible evidence either way.
I wonder, have you actually spoken to a Rabbi about this interpretation? I might suggest that the jewish community is not a homogenous as you might think and saying something like 'the jewish people' is much like saying 'the christains'...there is much divergence in beliefs dependant upon cultural backgroud as well as religious beliefs. Some communities would be open to the concept of change and of course some would not.
I am slightly concerned about your reportage of sacrifice as part of religious observance as I belive that this has not been done for over a thousand years?
However we do get back to the fact that the belief does not make a fact and so far there is little evidence that the memory of circumcision could be encoded such that it has any effect on an adult. I would love to see some credible evidence either way.
half my family are orthodox jews, i have just found out that 'halachically' I am too. Up till now I havent been living 'jewishly', but I've always had a deep fascination. I now have a huge spanner in the works, so to speak....so I'm studying up.
Havent had to face the 'circumcision for religious reasons' till this point in my life. It is a topic I cant avoid as I am confronted by it nearly daily, having 4 sons: My brother is an Orthodox Rabbi. So yes, I have spoken to several orthodox Rabbis on this subject, including him.
I want to get to the tin tacks, the facts - when you look at any orthodox jewish reference to bris milah, you will get the exact interpretion I have put up. I am sure conservative/reform/non-religious Jews do things differently.
So not to get off topic, you can ask any Orthodox Rabbi if it bothers them that a baby might have some deep memory of the bris milah - no it wont bother them. If anything, it reinforces their idea. Just like the idea that sensitivity is reduced through bris milah - again, I have heard it mentioned a million times, that that is the whole point.
They see it as man being an unfinished creation. Without getting too technical, they see it as an elevation. Humans are considered co-creators, here to finish 'business' so to speak. Circumcision is just one of the unfinished 'businesses' they believe they must complete. They believe that bris milah is a way of de-animalising man....(I just made that word up, but I cant think of another way to put it.)
Dont shoot the messenger, I did not author the Torah - I am merely repeating back what I have gathered on my learning journey....
more info may be found here: http://www.aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/Bris_Milah_Beautiful_or_********$.asp
The truth is, there is no "logical" argument for cutting a piece of flesh off a helpless baby.
Yet circumcision has been practiced on Jewish males for close to 4,000 years, ever since Abraham was so commanded by God. Why does the foreskin need to be removed?
In Kabbalistic terms, the foreskin symbolizes a barrier which prevents growth. For example, when the Torah speaks about getting close to God, it calls upon us to "remove the Orlah, the foreskin of your heart" (Deut. 10:16).
When Abraham circumcised himself at age 99, God added the letter "heh" to his name. "Heh" is part of God's own name, signifying that through Bris Milah, the human being adds a dimension of spirituality to the physical body.
It is a foundation of Judaism that we are to control our animal desires and direct them into spiritual pursuits. Nowhere does a person have more potential for expressing "********" behavior than in the sex drive. That's why the Bris is done on this specific organ. If we bring holiness into our life there, then all other areas will follow.
Being anti-unnecessary surgery, as I am, this circumcision issue is nearly giving me a nervous breakdown, trying to get my head around it. Neither side of the arguments seem to help me, neither sides present FACTS, just emotional blackmail. So far, we just stay as we are, till I can have some kind of lightbulb moment :idea: :gloomy: :(
I am sick of anecdotes, like this one about 'memory'.
As soon as I can see some actual facts, research papers and the like, like you get with caesarean/vaginal birth research, then I will start to feel a lot clearer.
but I'm beginning to understand why women are bullied into c/sections. I am beginning to find great forgiveness for my husband not being strong enough to prevent my unnecessary c/sections. Emotional blackmail from either side of an argument is, in itself, extremely damaging and totally unproductive. Decision making is just exaggerated and made much harder and unclear, when emotional blackmail is being laid on you.
Facts people, facts. Then the truth might emerge. Cold hard ones please.
assumptions are useless. emotional language is useless. subjectivity is groundless.
I'll stop whinging now....
Becca, I just had to post to say that I find your "whinging" quite enlightening really.
Circ is B&W to some, but it helps me to see that it is shades of grey for others, and so dependent on your own culture and history. Thanks :)
Becca you have an interesting story. If you are in Melb there is the Leo Baek (not sure of spelling) centre that is of a liberal Jewish stream. Perhaps you can discuss it further there? At the end of the day it is your choice both as to religion and to circ.
melissa.r
19-11-2007, 13:03
I find this topic very interesting, and when I read the initial quote at the beginning of this thread I thought I should read on to see how others responded (although I have not had a chance to read them all). I firmly believe that the mind is very powerful and the depth of memory is underestimated. It makes sense to me that events that occur to us pre-verbally are generally not able to be verbally recalled but played out in our psyche in other ways. Pain on all levels affects us and when someone experiences pain pre-verbally then I believe it isn't just forgotton (although this would make me feel better to believe this) but as the pathways in the brain changes and develop over time the person begins to interpret this pain in ways that can protect him/her. This is a survival mechanism that enables us to experience multiple traumas over time and continue to function. In the trauma field the affects of trauma on children under the age of 6 (which one could argue that circumcision is a trauma) has been studied, particularly in the area of sexual abuse and the affects of trauma on the developing brain is becoming more apparent.
Yes, circumcision is an emotive issue and I think it is particularly emotive if you have chosen to circumcise your son and then read information or being confronted with the possiblity that you may have caused trauma. What a terrible thought...
Becca, I just had to post to say that I find your "whinging" quite enlightening really.
Circ is B&W to some, but it helps me to see that it is shades of grey for others, and so dependent on your own culture and history. Thanks :)
grey for sure! I've never felt more alienated before in my life :gloomy: :crying: .
thanks xkwzit, you never fail to encourage and support without judgement - you are a wonderful woman :hugs:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.