Ho hum, right? I know. But two things kind of caught my eye.
According to study co-director Oscar Vilarroya: "The findings point to an adaptive process related to the benefits of better detecting the needs of the child, such as identifying the newborn's emotional state.It occurs to me, having had triplets, that "detecting the needs of a child" and its "emotional state" are relatively easy. Early on, the child is either hungry, has pooped, is generally angry, or is content. Generally, if the child is screaming its upset. If the child isn't screaming, its content.
Determining a newborn's emotional state is as simple as reading their face. Is the newborn crying? Its upset. Is it cooing? Newborn is happy. Later, the second one goes away, but the rest generally remain.
Its about that simple with newborns.
At least now my theory that having kids made me a super hero has some serious scientific backing.
I noticed one other thing. And I like how they tack this on at the end. Apparently, if you get pregnant through fertility your brain experiences the same changes. Ground breaking, I know. But its right there:
The changes were similar whether women got pregnant naturally or through fertility treatments.Really?
I get that its two different methods of conceiving. But this type of thinking is why we parents of multiples get questions about whether we conceived "naturally." Hell yeah it was natural. Why would fertility make one iota of difference? Because the egg and sperm met in a petri dish instead of a Fallopian tube? Because conception was given an scientific assist? Scientists might as well study whether conceiving on a couch, bed, or kitchen counter makes a difference. Honestly.