
Childhood Adversity Linked to Earlier Puberty, Premature Brain Development - conse_lad
https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2019/may/childhood-adversity-linked-to-earlier-puberty
======
posbehsf
It took me into my late 20s to realize that I had a traumatic childhood. The
thing is I did not grow up in a poor or abusive household. I grew up in an
upper middle class family that looked extremely normal, and for a long time
believed it myself, until I started wondering why I had since jr high felt
acutely depressed, empty, and unable to hold on to meaningful relationships.
Only a few years ago did I realize that both my parents were emotionally
neglectful and did not validate my emotions at all growing up, and did not act
or behave in a way that seemed like they were even aware that emotional care
and validation of their child is at the core of good parenting, and not just
feeding them and putting a roof over their head.

It explained a lot about how I act today, and why I became very independent at
an early age. I continue to struggle with feelings of emptiness,
depersonalization, emotional numbness. It sucks to feel like you cannot escape
your childhood even as a grown adult.

~~~
overton
I relate to this story personally. Wish you the best, and here are some
resources that have helped me:

\- after many failed attempts doing CBT and mindfulness based therapy, doing
psychodynamic psychotherapy with a therapist who takes relationships and
trauma seriously

\- "Complex PTSD: From surviving to Thriving" (Pete Walker)

\- "The Tao of Fully Feeling" (Pete Walker)

\- "Treating Adult Survivors of Emotional Abuse and Neglect"
(Hopper/Grossman/Spinazzola/Zucker)

\- "Adult children of emotionally immature parents" (Gibson)

~~~
eee_honda
Would also recommend Dr. Bessel Van Der Kolk's lengthy tome, "The Body Keeps
The Score". Been recommended on HN several times before (including once by me,
I think).

Haven't checked out some of these other titles (only know of pete walker,
loving "From Surviving To Thriving"), thanks. Do you know about EMDR? Worth
looking into, IMO.

------
nashashmi
There is something funny about the way this article portrays early brain
development.

Ask families with relatives in lean world countries who visit those countries
often and they will tell you that those kids mature far more quickly than the
kids here. And they see it as a positive impact. And lament how children in
America do not mature as quickly. Foreign kids who come here to study do
better than the kids who are from here.

Yet adversity in the article is portrayed negatively. And further, faster
brain development is portrayed negatively. Then early puberty is portrayed
negatively. And it is all tied together with the statement that there is more
depression, anxiety and psychosis.

Mind you but those traumatic experiences become so when you are taken from a
world of high stress where everyone grows up like you do to a world more
relaxed where people are different from you.

Think PTSD soldiers finding it difficult to live at home. But ok to live back
in war country. Think martial arts training you to be defensive and then going
back to a world with only peace.

It is not the high stress that causes the trauma but rather how different life
becomes when you change gears back to peace.

I will always remember the quote from the Walking Dead. Until war is over, we
are just walking dead.

~~~
vanderZwan
> Yet adversity in the article is portrayed negatively.

Well, there is "adversity", and there is the sexual abuse and other trauma
that the article is talking about.

~~~
nashashmi
I don't find that in the article. It keeps mentioning poverty and
socioeconomic conditions and refugee situations.

~~~
sn9
>Growing up in poverty and experiencing traumatic events like a bad accident
or __sexual assault __can impact brain development and behavior in children
and young adults.

It's literally the first line.

------
Mary-Jane
"The study suggests that it makes sense for parents and anyone involved in
raising a child to try and shield or protect the child from exposure to
adversity."

I'm sorry, this is just silly. Prior to the industrial revolution, low SES and
high TES were normal; _life_ was hardship and adversity. Think about that:
humans have been around for about 200,000 years - that's a lot of generations
of f'ed up kids. How did we ever survive?

~~~
martindbp
Could be that there is a kind of developmental switch. If life is tough as a
child, it makes sense to speed up development to improve odds of survival. If
you find yourself in a safe, loving and caring place, then you have the option
of spending more time and energy developing the brain.

> life was hardship and adversity

Not necessarily. Many argue that hunters and gatherers lived a much better
life than during most of recorded history. There is plenty of evidence for
this. It's entirely possible that a child would find itself in a small, well
functioning group of people, without any major adversity during childhood.

~~~
layoutIfNeeded
>Many argue that hunters and gatherers lived a much better life than during
most of recorded history.

Then why did we stop being hunter-gatherers?

~~~
fulafel
The theory is that agriculture let populations better survive bad years by
grain stockpiling so they could outcompete the hunter gatheres.

In general, nothing says that better average quality of life necessarily makes
you out-compete other populations.

~~~
rmcpherson
Agriculture is also more intensive than hunting / gathering, supporting more
humans per area. When the two conflicted, the agriculturalists won by strength
of numbers.

Generally, more intensive civilizations outcompete less intensive ones, even
though the average individual may be worse off in that society.

------
Questionmarkme
This is very culturally specific. Childhood itself is a social construct, some
cultures treat childhood very differently with various outcomes. It seems that
this is one interpretation of the study results and by no means applicable to
children globally. Psychology parades as a science of humanity, but in reality
results are often strictly limited to the sample or population of interest.
'abnormal' development in place A may be normal in place B. Or normal under
circumstance X. Researchers do their best to make sense of their data within
their own cultural framework of thinking and experience.

It makes sense for difficult experience to mature the brain, that's how our
neural networks strengthen. It makes sense to develop in response to adversity
in order to overcome it again in the future. I would suspect the links to
mental health conditions are due to another culturally constructed aspect of
Western society. I.e. Mental unwellness is as much to do with how people
respond to us as it is to do with any difference in brain function. The social
world shapes our brain. If I withdraw from society for a while that may change
some of my brain function but when I stop withdrawing and someone treats me a
certain way that has another influence on my brain function. This latter
influence may well be more influential that the effect of my original
withdrawal. Therefore it's often difficult to firmly state that a difference
in brain structure or function is due to X, when X is intrinsically related to
Y, Z (and the whole alphabet).

We know that adversity is linked to mental health and therefore it must be
related to brain changes. What we don't know is how exactly.if this is a
beneficial evolutionary response - probably - that is almost inappropriate to
a western society then it's not the evolutionary response that is problematic,
it's the societal response to it.

------
themgt
My layman's impression from paying some attention to psych/neuroscience is
that there's an increased amount of scrutiny/skepticism towards this type of
study which (afaict) fails to take into account potential genetic confounding
while the authors describe the discovered correlations in causal terms.

We can be nearly certain that SES and TES are significantly heritable. Without
accounting for that innate heritability, how can they say to what degree the
outcomes are the result of circumstances/events?

~~~
RubberbandSoul
I think they usually use twin studies to try to compensate for heritability
but I couldn't find any mention of it in the article.

~~~
sambe
I think they usually _don’t_ use twin studies because they are harder/more
expensive. In this case they used the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort:

[https://www.med.upenn.edu/bbl/philadelphianeurodevelopmental...](https://www.med.upenn.edu/bbl/philadelphianeurodevelopmentalcohort.html)

I don’t see any mention of twins here or on JAMA, although I can’t access the
full text currently.

------
nabla9
Childhood adversity and abuse has been linked to decreased trust, low impulse
control, violence, learning problems, promiscuous sexual behaviour etc.
before.

One way to look at this is damage caused by stress and stress hormones.

Some of the traits above may be evolutionary adaption strategy. Growing in
chronic stress environment requires different traits. The limbic system may
have plan B when it's flooded with stress hormones constantly. Long term
thinking and planning is less valuable when the life expectancy is low.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"One way to look at this is damage caused by stress and stress hormones"

Another way is simply learning by example.

"Daddy said don't ever trust nobody, they always tryin' to get ya" (and maybe
it's true in some communities) ... well it makes sense.

Or else "My father always said to just trust people, and they'll trust you
back" \- which also may be true for other communities.

The variables: physical/genetic, family experience, and community experience I
think all add up.

I don't have the ref by I remember reading that poor kids who simply moved to
a 'better neighbourhood' did a lot better in life, normalizing for everything
else.

~~~
0815test
> "Daddy said don't ever trust nobody, they always tryin' to get ya" ... Or
> else "My father always said to just trust people, and they'll trust you
> back"

But in fact, both of these are wrong! Our ability to fully develop affective
empathy, and thus to intuitively and effectively strive for _win-win_ outcomes
in the way that's constantly required of us by any modern society, is
critically reliant on a basic foundation of intuitive trust; on the other
hand, "just" trusting anyone with no fall-back of any sort simply invites
abuse by unscrupulous or even actively malicious (i.e. socially predatory to
the point of dysfunction, without even the most cursory interest in - or for
that matter, the understanding of - the wellbeing of those they interact
with!) actors, and might even leave us utterly unable to effectively counter
such abuse even when we _can_ acknowledge that trust has, in fact, failed. The
one effective policy is "trust but verify", and with the right attitude it can
work in a wide range of communities!

~~~
sonnyblarney
I kind of disagree.

There are communities in which you should basically not trust anyone by
default.

There are communities in which trust is generally a given.

(Obviously, both within reason)

There is also the possibility that people 'have it wrong' (i.e. cynical of a
community that is trusting, and overly trusting in a bad neighbourhood)

My grandfather made windows as part of his business in the 1950's, most of his
customers were farmers. He would trade his work often for livestock, say 'a
pig' or '1/2 cow' or whatever - but he would get paid during slaughter season
often many months away. There was no contract, just a handshake, and he never
had to worry about the farmer taking the animal straight to the butcher. (This
is before super common refrigeration, and everyone it town had a 'locker at
the butcher's).

In some ways, there can be fairly deep trust, depending on the context.

I don't disagree with the other respondent's point about chemical changes
either, but I suggest that a lot of our behaviour is simply learned.

~~~
0815test
> My grandfather made windows as part of his business in the 1950's, most of
> his customers were farmers. ... There was no contract, just a handshake, and
> he never had to worry about the farmer taking the animal straight to the
> butcher.

Interesting. This sort of almost unnaturally-deep trust is actually very
common to small, stable communities, with sky-high levels of social capital
and a deep shared understanding of common obligations. It might be that having
such stable communities around is an exceedingly-convenient catalyst to "jump-
starting" broad-based social and economic development; a sort of "primitive
accumulation" stage in the historically-materialistic sense where it's
_social_ capital that's being accumulated, not resources. Economic history
would certainly seem to point in that direction. And it raises some
uncomfortable questions about the future, since many people think of "late
stage capitalism" and its social correlates as being highly _corrosive_ of
that trust-inducing social capital.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Yes, but I should add that 'everyone knows everyone' and so while I do like to
think of this situation as a 'noble thing' ... if you do bad things, there's
no escape from your reputation.

Which can be difficult as well, as there's all sorts of behavioural pressures
that come from that.

I should add that some of this exists today. The local mechanic, if he knows
you, will surely do a deal something like that. Also, there are favours for
favours. For minor things he will definitely not charge. I don't think he's
keeping track of favours, but certainly there is that.

As for the 'corrosive' aspects of social organization ... I think as we gain
more wealth, we tend to be nicer and more trusting. I wouldn't say most of my
modern, urban friends are distrustful for the most part.

You can see generally among the 'professional class' a fairly high degree of
conscientiousness ... I'm hopeful we'll become more like that.

------
kuzehanka
Why is it 'premature' brain development? This seems to have picked a
particular lens to interpret the results.

I grew up in a European country and moved to a developed western nation at age
10. The first few years of school were a really jarring experience because the
kids in my class were infantile and mentally under-developed compared to where
I came from. This was also reflected in a huge gap in curriculum, we were
covering skills that were taught 2-3 years earlier where I came from. Parents
in western nations infantalise their children and prevent them from developing
autonomy/responsibility for far too long. It's even reflected in the law, 10
year old me was shocked to learn that it's illegal to leave children under 12
unattended at home.

A different interpretation of the same findings is 'lack of adversity causes
delayed brain development'.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"I grew up in a European country and moved to a developed western nation at
age 10. "

European countries are 'Western nations'.

~~~
tenaciousDaniel
op could've meant Eastern Europe.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Eastern European nations are 'Western Nations'.

My down-voters are utterly wrong.

'The Western World' is a term derived from antiquity, in which 'the middle
east' is at the centre, East would be China etc.

In modern terms, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be considered
Wester nations.

~~~
detaro
The poster quite possibly was using the cold war definition of "west" (which
is likely way more relevant to the comparison they are making), not the
antiquity one.

~~~
tenaciousDaniel
Yep. In terms of adversity, there's a clear enough divide between western and
eastern Europe that it fits the comparison.

------
mellowdream
Early puberty is linked to shorter adult height. A vicious cycle of poor
genetic profiles eliminating themselves via offspring from the gene pool after
natural selection?

------
armenarmen
Is this linked to relative poverty? Being the poor kid in a rich
neighborhood/country?

Or real "there isn't enough food today" style poverty

------
scotty79
I have a sad feeling that what we called adult brain is just hollowed out,
scarred husk of desirable human brain and people who really develop our
technology (and in result society) are mostly individuals that by some genetic
and environmental accident managed to retain bits of their child brains.

------
nudq
> The racially and economically diverse cohort

We already know that the races differ in speed of maturation and various
measures of adversity. Was race controlled for? (Paper is paywalled for me.)

------
ganzuul
Don't judge them too harshly. They may have done much better than what their
parents managed in turn, and not too long ago food and shelter was all that
people had time for.

I don't think Western society is ready to bring up children without some kind
of major problem for decades still. School kids right now commonly suffer from
existential crisis due to climate change.

~~~
ryandrake
> School kids right now commonly suffer from existential crisis due to climate
> change.

Wait, what? You can’t just drop that one in there at the end without some
follow up! I know Climate Change is the current boogeyman that’s causing all
sorts of bad things, but now it’s causing mental health problems? Is there
anything Climate Change can’t do?

~~~
pizza
Climate change is this generation’s duck and cover but instead of being burnt
to crisp within seconds its over a course of decades. And I mean that they are
the same not in the sense that it may or may not be something worth having a
daily existential crisis over, but rather, today’s kids are being drilled by
today’s adults that yesterday’s adults have caused this looming threat they
are helpless to do anything about. It’s pretty unsurprising this will cause
some mental anguish in children.

School shootings probably have a similar effect on children’s mental health,
too.

~~~
overton
People often make the nuclear war comparison but it's different. With nuclear
war, we just have to hope that a couple hundred people are sane enough to not
push the button. In comparison, with climate change, it seems like the vast
majority of older (and much of younger) generations simply don't care that the
status quo is going to screw us. Also consider the fact that a private
corporation (Exxon) had all the knowledge to give us enough lead time to avert
this situation and decided to make piles money instead, and it gives you a
pretty bleak picture of humanity.

------
new2628
I don't know how to put it politely, but you may be creating a problem out of
nothing. If you didn't know you had a traumatic childhood, then most likely
you didn't have one. No families are perfect and most parents try to do best
they can, occasionally failing. Growing up is not without problems, and things
turn out mostly OK most of the time. Not knowing your specifics it sounds like
you try to find someone to blame and try to find some exotic condition you can
identify with. " did not validate my emotions at all growing up " \-- what
about giving life to you and feeding you though? What does "validating
emotions" even mean. I encourage you to let this resentment go and move on
with life.

~~~
dang
I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but this comment crosses into personal
attack, which breaks the site guidelines:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20067793](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20067793)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
xeeeeeeeeeeenu
I really don't see how it's a personal attack.

~~~
dang
When someone shares their personal story, they put themselves in a vulnerable
position. If an internet commenter comes along and presumes to know better
about that person's experience, psychologizing, giving condescending advice,
and dismissing their understanding of their own life, that's presumptuous and
invasive. Since it crosses a line into an intimate place disrespectfully, I
call it crossing into personal attack unintentionally. I realize that people
often think they're helping the other person this way—e.g. the tough-love
approach. But comments on an internet forum lack the relational connection
that's necessary for someone to receive help in this way. Instead, it just
feels like being talked down to or scolded or worse.

I replied that way to the GP comment because those elements were in there.
Knowing better: "You may be creating a problem out of nothing." Condescending:
"Growing up is not without problems". Condescending advice: "I encourage you
to let this resentment go and move on with life". Psychologizing: "You try and
find someone to blame and to find some exotic condition you can identify
with". Dismissive: "What does validating emotions even mean". Even if the
commenter is guessing perfectly and all those points are correct, this is not
the way to communicate such information. Indeed, being correct would make it
even more humiliating.

~~~
new2628
For the record, I agreed with your comment and your decision to detach the
thread and regretted my hasty comment. Seeing my initial comment now dissected
like that is somewhat humiliating as well.

In any case, keep up the good work, and all the best.

