I was reading another thread where a number of posters insist there must be a link between the OP's childhood and her present state.

This frequently pops up on the board--specific events or patterns in a person's childhood being used to explain current tendencies. No matter how old that person is.

My therapist used to do this with me, where she would attempt to weave a narrative using whatever childhood incidences I shared with her as a base. And then she stopped. It seems that having a neurobiological diagnosis gums up the "you were raised wrong" hypothesis machine very quickly.

I'm not talking about abuse or trauma. I can see how big events can shape one's life. But then there's stuff that I consider so common that it's hard to see it being a good explanation for anything. Like having a father who wasn't very affectionate or talkative. Or being a latchkey kid. Or being born a month premature and being the smallest kid in kindergarten. Or being an only child. I have heard someone blame their problems with socializing on being an only child, and I just want to scream at them, "I grew up with three other siblings and I have problems socializing. What's my diagnosis, doctor?"

I guess my frustration is that this kind of thinking presumes the existence of an ideal childhood. That only IF my parents had done X, Y, or Z, then I'd be "normal". But when you have siblings that turned out okay, doesn't this render moot any grand conclusions about the past? Does blaming Mommy and Daddy really work when you're the only one in the family that got screwed up?

When your therapist plays up the importance of things that happened long ago, do you ever feel any resistance? How do you know when a life narrative makes sense or when it's maudlin, cliched dreck?