Adoption Changes Our Biology

responding to OP I can't change DD's biology. That would be absurd to state At the risk of offending everyone here, the whole nature nurture debate is simple to me. it mirrors what I do for a living In computer automation testing, there are 2 dimensions.. the state of the system and the stimulus to the system. When you put them together you get results that reflect part of the surface I see my adoption that way. DD has a state - combination of her DNA and her life before me. I can absolutely effect a ton of her life - positive reinforcement, healthy eating, role modelling But I can't alter her original state How her body reacts to a low fat diet will be different than how MY body reacts to a low fat diet. I can give her every math tutor in the world, but she will never be minoring in math at college (like i did) On the flip side, just because i suck at sports doesn't mean she will lose her upper body strength and lose her ability to do gymnastics, just because she lives with me. I absolutely believe we are committed to do the best we can to ensure J has a great, and positive life. But it would be naive for me to ignore her genetics and the role they play

I need to clarify: I watched the whole video TRAILER. I'm guessing the AP who blogged the quote actually paid for and watched the 2-set DVD. Since a similar quote was used in the video, I'm guessing that either Dr. Purvis or someone else in the video did actually use the exact words that I originally posted. I'm still waiting to hear back. I would like to know if it was actually said in the video. Since I'm not going to buy it, I have to wait to hear back from Dr. Purvis. The blogger also quoted research from the Institute of Child Development, which Dr. Purvis heads: ""You are the biological parent, for you are shaping the biology of their brain." So, again, if these are accurate quotes, I get what they're saying, it's just that they've taken too much of a leap. I have been affected by my adoptive family. My interactions with them probably have changed some neural pathways. But, to conclude from that that my adoptive family has become my biological family through connection, no!, just no! My adoptive family may have helped shape me, may have affected my brain development, but they are not of me, and I am not of them. Classmates also helped shape me. They don't become my biological siblings. Just because one impacts another's biology does not logically mean that they become biologically related. wcurry, while I definitely believe the interplay between nature and nurture is complex, and it is still being studied, I tend to agree with your assessment of the interplay of nature vs. nurture.

This is exactly what I think when I watch LO being amazing to me, solving a problem, figuring things out. . . . . And it makes me wonder what they could have been/done with different circumstances. It also makes me humble because not one of us got to choose what circumstances we grew up in.

Okay, so I heard back from the Institute, and this is what I was told: "Thank you so much for your question. That quote is by Dr. Daniel Siegel and comes from our DVD, "Attachment: Why It Matters." Here is the original quote, found in Chapter 8 of that DVD. "So sometimes parents who have adopted kids or taken them into foster care come to me and say, well, I'm not the biological parent. And I quickly say to them, you know something? The relationship experiences you're providing for your child are influencing the biology of the brain. The kinds of ways we communicate with our child, the environment that we create, all those things literally shape the structure of the brain. And I don't know anything more biological than that. So you are, I say to them, the biological parent. Because you're shaping the biology of your child's brain." - Dr. Daniel Siegel" So, as of right now, there is no confirmation on the exact quote that has been going around the internet. It's close, though. And, it proves that at least one member of the Institute headed by Dr. Purvis believes it.... Dr. Purvis' assistant is the one who answered my question. But, it does make me wonder if the quote as written in my OP isn't out there somewhere. Most of what he's saying makes sense. But, when he calls adoptive parents biological parents, he loses me.

I understand what the person in the video is trying to get across, but I'm rather miffed that this group wasn't more careful with their language, especially given how much distortion this issue seems to get as it is.

Yes, Sitta, I know. I may contact Dr. Siegel directly.

L4R please do... ...the sheer damage that type of mystical thinking can create... will be back to the blank slate theory in no time... ...adoptees don't need to know they were adopted because they are our biological kids now... good grief... D

They wish. This is a variant of the old view of yesteryear, where adoptive parents feel entitled to everything, first parents are scrubbed from the planet, and adopted individuals are expected to live 'as if born to' etc etc. Why can't the child simply be loved for EXACTLY who they are? Why is the ability to change their biology so important to the adoptive parents? Yuk.

Sooooo....my stepmother was really my biological parent too? And my dog? I loved that dog. And my neighbour? She was very important to me - I spent many evenings round at hers after school. What about my teachers at school? They were very influential, I probably spent more conscious time with them than with my parents.This stuff is just mush, aimed at telling aparents what they most want to hear.However, its attempts to minimise, even dismiss, the actual and unique biological connection between an individual and their original family is disgraceful and deceitful.It is entirely self-serving, and yells 'conditional love'.

Sooooo....my stepmother was really my biological parent too? And my dog? I loved that dog. And my neighbour? She was very important to me - I spent many evenings round at hers after school. What about my teachers at school? They were very influential, I probably spent more conscious time with them than with my parents. This stuff is just mush, aimed at telling aparents what they most want to hear. However, its attempts to minimise, even dismiss, the actual and unique biological connection between an individual and their original family is disgraceful and deceitful. It is entirely self-serving, and yells 'conditional love'.

I agree. I hope that doesn't mean my husband is my biological husband, or even worse, biological parent! I have lived with him as family for far longer than anyone else on the planet. If that's what it takes to create a situation where I can feel like a real biological parent, not just an adoptive parent... or to erase my original biological family so my adoptive family can be my most important biological family, on paper and in mind/heart... count me out. I'm in the camp of nature and nurture are equally important in shaping who I am.

I agree (although I would say nurture/environment rather than just nurture by itself) I've said this earlier but to me the most telling word in the sentence as quoted in the original post: was the word THE. It is amazing what the difference the word "the" can make in a sentence. It is similar to the "real" statements - "I am a real parent" compared with "I am the real parent". Sentence one states a stand alone fact - if one is parenting a child, they are a real parent - this is regardless of whether other parents are in the picture or not. Sentence two is making it into more of a competition eg "I am the real parent, not THEM" - it is pitting oneself against another.

My Finger prints CHANGED!??!?!?!? Jk What about dogs and their owners :rolleyes:

This quote came from a so-called professional -"Adoptive parents become the biological #parents through connection. We change their biology." - Dr. Karyn Purvis #adoptionawareness yes adoption awareness indeed, lessons in how to skew and control the adoptee narrative. How disgraceful

This is absolute garbage and untrue. As an adoptee, I take offense to this because not only is it a desire and nothing more but it's degrading to one's lineage. I can also attest that not all of us (and more than you think) did not have happy childhoods. I was abused by my adoptive parents in every way. Both were alcoholics and the adoptive mother is a sociopath. I'm 39 years old and she was so abusive, I was brainwashed by her into my 30s.