Does Your Boy Develop Unevenly?

After hundreds of comments from moms dealing with their speech-delayed boys who walk on tiptoes or have other such idiosyncrasies, it occurred to me to write another post on the boy/autism thing.  This time, with a focus on the developmental timetable.

I have another post on how boys develop differently than girls, but to recap an important point: boys often do not follow the timetables.  In fact, they are spotty.  They grow unevenly.  At times, they will hit the developmental mark right on the money.  Other times, they will be way off.  And often, they will have some abilities way ahead for their age—while at the same time, they will have glaring weaknesses way behind for their age.

For example, when my firstborn son was 2 going on 3, he could do 100 piece puzzles from memory.  No box, no pausing.  Just snap, snap, piece after piece together.  Like a robot actually.  He even found out, by doing the puzzles on top of each other, that some of them used the same template!  For a toddler who didn’t talk yet or even say “Mommy” or “Daddy,” this was strange to us. Then when combined with some of his habits like walking on tiptoe, spinning and crashing cars (but not really playing with them), memorizing long scripts from video, repeating himself, and not pointing or gesturing, we started realizing he had some of the autism signs.

In fact, when we read down the lists of symptoms, he had lots of them.  He had language delays, some social and emotional issues, and some of the sensory signs.  He seemed to have no imagination or interest in crayons or action figures.  But he seemed way ahead in spatial skills, knew all his letters and numbers etc., had great focus, loved to be cuddled, and generally seemed bright and charming.  His motor skills were great, and any non-verbal tests he got, he passed with flying colors.  Or things that needed one-word answers he could do.  He was way ahead in some cognitive areas and way behind in others.

Then my second son came along and was the mirror image of my firstborn.  Extremely verbal, very early, artistic and creative, but way behind in motor skills.  Emotionally unstable and very anxious, he had almost all the sensory problems common to autistic children, including choking issues, hatred of socks and tags, inability to cross the midline, and freaking out sometimes.  He didn’t bond well to others (except Mom) and couldn’t do puzzles or visual tracking activities.  So even though he was talking, imaginative, and sociable enough in his own way, HE was all over the charts.  And thus possibly autistic.

Then my third boy came along.  You know the story by now.  He hit some milestones right on time (i.e. walking), hit some way early (i.e. sentences by 19months old), and some way behind (i.e. toileting issues until his fourth birthday).  And he had some strange issues (i.e. severe fear of water).  By this time, however, we had trashed the charts.  We figured he was fine!  He didn’t have to love everything 3 year olds loved, he didn’t have to talk like 3 year olds talked, and he didn’t have to fit in some “autistic Spectrum” bucket because he had some emotional immaturity. And now that he’s nearly five, we’re SURE he’s not autistic!  (or any of our other boys either).

So this is my encouragement to you if your boys are geniuses at some things but embarrassingly behind at other things.  Do you know that book, “Men are Like Waffles and Women are Like Spaghetti”?    That book effectively describes how my little boys think.  Their brains are like waffles, with separate compartments for each kind of skill or knowledge.  They can dive in real deep within any one box, but the knowledge doesn’t seem to transfer over into other boxes or compartments.  The connections aren’t there, and there isn’t much infrastructure to help them build up their weaknesses. So they grow very unevenly.  It can be worrisome for a time because their strengths get stronger but their weaknesses seem to get weaker, especially when you start comparing them to other kids.  3 year olds tend to be the most diverse.  Sometimes therapy doesn’t even seem to make a difference, at least not right away.  Little boys just plunge ahead with their strengths (what they naturally get) and prefer to stay there, enjoying it and totally oblivious to your concerns that they aren’t “normal” all around.

Consequently it is now no longer surprising to me that my six year old son currently can take apart radios and electric circuits, but doesn’t understand that if he stands close to the stairs, he might fall down them.  My almost 5 year old son can talk to me about heaven and dying, and what he wants to be when he grows up, but still hates even the tiniest drop of water on him or will change his underwear or socks if they get a speck of dirt on them.  My seven year old son currently can pass second and third grade English and Math tests, on paper, but has a five year old’s vocabulary, says “What?” a lot, and uses awkward phrases all the time.  They are just not even developers.  Some things way ahead and some things behind.  Some normal habits and some strange idiosyncrasies.

In comparison to my girl, who is precocious socially and emotionally, and has met every deadline on time, there is just no similarity.  My conclusion: It’s ok for boys to be uneven and worrisome.  That’s just often how it goes.

Jean Liedloff & Continuum Concept

Recently I was asked by a friend to check out Jean Liedloff’s work on the “Continuum Concept.” Jean Liedloff is an esteemed cultural anthropologist who is largely known for her work among primitive tribes, studying parenting and baby-raising. She is perhaps most famous for her work in Bali, and also the Yequana tribe. Much of her work has become the foundation of attachment parenting, which in America has taken the form of numerous books on slinging, co-bedding, breastfeeding on demand, etc.

I have to say I was fascinated by her articles. She is clearly good at what she does and committed to her work. And she has not, at least from what I can tell, overstepped her bounds as an academic by going into political arenas. In this sense, I give her work the benefit of the doubt that she is truly trying to help Western society deal with their dysfunctional childraising techniques… as a counselor she sees tons of problems that she doesn’t see in her anthropological missions. Why is that?

She says, as all attachment theorists do, that it is because primitive societies use child-raising techniques which do not provoke anxiety. Specifically, they carry their babies all day, feed them on demand, and co-bed. And with their little children, they do not take an authoritarian stance or discipline them. Rather, they encourage the child to do adult tasks (like carry babies and help with the chores) and direct them only when necessary without an attitude of moral high-ground. Techniques such as these honor children as naturally social beings, says Liedloff, and therefore stave off rebellion, disobedience, and other less desired behavior that we see in almost every Western family.

It sounds heavenly… get rid of disobedience and rebellion? Who wouldn’t want that? Unfortunately, for those who think they can just co-bed and sling, and raise an anxiety-free child, there will be glaring disappointments. Here are some of the deceptions which underlie Liedloff thinking…

“The World is My Oyster.” You cannot pick and choose elements of one culture, put them in another, and get the same results. While it is important to be open and learn from other cultures, you cannot pick what you want and leave the rest. Well, you can, but don’t expect the same results! Anthropologists have admired traits from all cultural and ethnic backgrounds: joy in Africans, social benevolence in Pacific Islanders, diligence in Asians, earth-tenderness from Native Americans… just to name a few. But if we think we can be the Super-Race by picking and choosing while we still live in our normal American context and geography, we are mistaken. Trust me that the average wars over Cocoa Puffs and X-box limits will compensate for any anxiety missed in the earlier years =) Our babies are going to grow up American, like it or not, because we live in America and have an entire system with unique pressures and rewards that aren’t going to change whether or not we co-bed.

“I read half of it…” Most people who read Liedloff pick and choose only the elements they like from her observations. While she does advocate the standard attachment parenting practices, she also advocates unpopular principles: having a parent-centered regime, giving the baby a passive experience of life in the early months, having a non-entertainment worldview, etc. Rather than endorsing the permissive parenting style so common in America, she actually endorses a kind of authoritative one (with a spin on the traditional understanding). She also observes primitive parenting which is kind of startling at times, such as the responsibility given to preschoolers around fire or with younger siblings. And she refuses to endorse aspects of her observations which are not politically correct, such as very distinct gender roles, limited (if any) education, corporal punishment, religious beliefs and practices, and teasing or other tribal social dynamics to enforce conformity. But if you really want the premodern, “uncivilized” results, you need to have premodern, “uncivilized” package… they all go together.

“The Grass is Always Greener.” There is nothing wrong with appreciating other people groups! But there are admirable traits in the West too, and to think that another group has it all right while we have it all wrong is an illusion. All groups have strengths and weaknesses, crimes and altruists, and good times and bad. Travel internationally just a little bit, and you will understand this at a gut level.

“Down with the West.” While it is good to try and reduce anxiety and dysfunction, we can’t forget that we value traits which are essentially non-Eastern and modern. Look at our heroes and icons, what we want our children to be when they grow up: statesmen, musicians, doctors, thinkers… these are Western and modern ideals which have given joy and blessing to multitudes of people. And no matter how we raise our babies, most of us switch over to raising modern Westerners at some point. (Orthodox communities such as Hassidim and FLDS are exceptions, of course). Most of us value, for example: creativity, imagination, individuality, expression, inventiveness, popularity, self-actualization, education, classical training (i.e. including art, music, sports), materialism/possessions, romanticism, achievement, citizenship, humanitarianism, contribution, travel, or science. These types of things cannot co-exist with primitive or pre-modern cultures, which is why democracy, urbanization, and industry always transform a culture. And why hospitals, welfare, charity, architecture, medicine, and other advances have only grown from Western soil. If we aren’t going to be hypocritical, we have to acknowledge Western contributions to the world scene and not toss out the baby with the bathwater.

“Freud was right.” Freudianism has been largely discredited. Liedloff, and her colleagues, are basically Freudian anthropologists (neo-Freudian, actually), but Freudianism has been largely disproved by science and discredited in psychology. Of course it has a prestigious history and esoteric counselors still charge a million dollars to the rich and famous for psychoanalysis. But the best points of Freudianism have been sublimated into other psychology paradigms which make much more sense. And most points have been dropped entirely.  The idea, for example, that anxiety can cause neurosis is essentially true. But to say that morally training a child causes anxiety that will lead to a neurotic adult is a false conclusion. First of all, moral training is right whether or not we like the idea of it. Second of all, moral training can be done in a non-condemning way. Thirdly, anxiety can be caused by all kinds of things not related to moral training, including personality and environment. Fourthly, much of childhood experience is forgotten or reworked by adulthood when an individual has a chance to reflect on his or her life. Fifthly, any moral training that has caused anxiety can be addressed when one is an adult. And lastly—most importantly—moral training actually prevents neurosis by providing a good path for an individual to walk (i.e. a life of sexual freedom and promiscuity will cause more dysfunction in a twenty-something girl than a life of purity and chastity). False reasoning runs throughout Freudianism, which is basically a paradigm that blames Protestantism (with its strict moral codes, assumptions of sin and evil, and promise for judgment) for Western Culture’s weaknesses.  This perspective, while shared by many in academia, is a faith statement not a scientific one… an opinion. And the “science” purported to explain Freudian notions of sexuality, wish fulfillment, complexes, neurosis, etc., is very soft at best.

I would submit to the attachment parent that they have bought into some of these deceptions, which are worth carefully considering. While there certainly are child-raising practices which are bad, and a lot of personal dysfunction in Western society, we should be careful what we point to as the culprit. Is it morality? Authority? Nationalism? Industry? Education? Individualism? I would submit to the attachment parent that while these things can be abused, the biggest benefits to mankind have results from a proper implementation of these things (which Liedloffism is, by association, against). I would also argue that the disproportionate number of anxious and depressed Westerners in the last fifty years has been due to existentialism, or an abandonment of those culprits which Liedloffism targets. What we need is a more scientific and specific approach to fixing our civilization and its discontents. And we need one that recognizes the importance of the individual, the adult, and agency… not culture, the baby, and victimization.