14 ms·
> the researchers say that children may be "evolutionarily primed" to expect exceptionally high levels of physical contact and care, What strikes me here is th
by getpost 3y ago
> the researchers say that children may be "evolutionarily primed" to expect exceptionally high levels of physical contact and care,
What strikes me here is the phrase, "exceptionally high levels." I imagine children need a "normal" level of care; it's only "exceptionally high" in comparison to the deprived state of family systems in these degenerate times.
I often reflect on the understanding in Attachment Theory, wherein a child a needs to have a caregiver who is sufficiently attuned to the child's needs. And it turns out, "sufficiently attuned" means that the caregiver responds in an attuned manner to 30%-50% the child's entreaties. As one of my meditation teachers says, 'That's not a high bar. What grade did you get the last time you scored 50% on a test?'
- temp112123 3y ago> 'That's not a high bar. What grade did you get the last time you scored 50% on a test?' An A: it was graded on a curve.
- watwut 3y agoGiven that we actually give kids massive amount of attention compared to historical standards ... calling current situation "degenerate" is absurd. Also considering that by many statistics, children do better then they used to just a few decades ago.
- elmomle 3y agoFor some definitions of attention, yes, but not necessarily historically massive amounts of physical contact and (non -neurotic) care. Think of the images from the world over of indigenous women going about their days largely with their young children strapped to them.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> Think of the images from the world over of indigenous women going about their days largely with their young children strapped to them. Until they can walk at which point they are increasingly gone to do the vital growing that happens away from adults.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cplusplusfellow 3y agoThis is not advocacy for replicating indigenous societies parental habits, but perhaps a key is hyper-focused for 2-3 years and then a steeper dropoff on the hand-holding (literally and figuratively).
- watwut 3y agoThey have another child in 18 months. This one is then unstrapped and you don't see it on the pic. Nor you see even older siblings. And those women work with infant strapped cause they have to, they can't stop working once the kid is toddler. And by the time they are 5 they play alone unsupervised. Which was even the same in villages in Europe even after WWII. My grandma was herding goats with pack of kids at 5 and remember it as normal. School started at 6.
- latency-guy2 3y ago> Think of the images from the world over of indigenous women going about their days largely with their young children strapped to them. Note how the extent you went is imagery rather than hard numbers, you don't have a leg to stand on.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> Given that we actually give kids massive amount of attention compared to historical standards ... calling current situation "degenerate" is absurd. This seems to assume that ~all attention is positive and that attention is still beneficial after the Xth hour. After a time the adult role becomes less parent and more like prison guard duty. It also seems to assume adult-time is enough for kids and that peer-only time isn't an irreplaceable environment for kids to develop their core social skills.
- watwut 3y agoWe also spank them significantly less and yell at them significantly less (speaking of negative attention).
- LegibleCrimson 3y agoSignificantly better than some historical standards and significantly worse than others. We aren't doing the best that has ever been done across all cultures and history in this regard, not by far.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Given that we actually give kids massive amount of attention compared to historical standards ... This is literally based on a comparison with hunger-gatherer societies. To the extent that there is any accuracy to your "compared to historical standards", its probably based on a low point reached (in the "developed" world) somewhere between the first industrial revolution and mid-20th century,
- Erratic6576 3y agoPrimitive hunter-gatherer societies might have raised their children in a communal way, with relatives and friends living nearby, always interrupting and nagging us. We, the supreme civilisation, at the summit of evolution, are locked in in individual cages, disconnected from each other, so we can spend more quality time attached to our screens. We are “civilised to death”
- latency-guy2 3y agoThe accuracy of most statements in this thread are the same.
- 11235813213455 3y agoI think it's not really about responding to 100% of a child demands, it's maybe even detrimental, and probably better to start teaching him patience, and let him learn what to do in boredom. But the other part is having long and meaningful activities/experiences with a child
- rexpop 3y agoWe decry "demands" when we should acknowledge "dependencies;" kids won't properly compile without their needs met.
- lifeisstillgood 3y agoFantastic analogy :-)
- pixl97 3y agoThe question here is one of alignment. I child may think "I need to eat right now" but that doesn't necessarily mean the "right now" part is correct. Open world problems are difficult to define, even the word 'properly' you use has a vast amount of interpretability as to what you believe the 'proper' outcome should be.
- XorNot 3y agoThere is absolutely no parent who's problem is a child who thinks "I need to eat right now".
- argiopetech 3y agoOf course there are. That's one of the three states of infants (asleep, hungry, soiled). It's one of the major causes of upset and bad behavior in toddlers. It's obviously the case for children who don't get enough to eat due to deprivation. That doesn't mean my toddler wouldn't prefer ice cream over whatever is for dinner, though.
- amelius 3y agoMaybe in comparison to other species?
- alasdair_ 3y agoIn the UK, 50% is a c and anything over 70% is an A.
- theodric 3y ago"Nobody gets 100%"
- kaskakokos 3y agoI think the word "exceptionally" arises when comparing with other animals, the amount of effort a human child needs from its parents and family until an advanced age is unprecedented in other terrestrial companions.
- secondcoming 3y agoIndeed, it always a source of surprise to me that human babies will cry regardless of the situation, whereas the offspring of other animals seem to have an instinct to remain quiet while the mother is not about, or there's a perceived danger.
- Guthur 3y agoWell if you come with an assumption we are like the other animals you are going to make an ass of someone.
- HenryBemis 3y agoWell not like ALL animals, since not all animals act the same way. I don't expect we are like fish, that (some?many?most?) are abandoned as eggs to make it on our own, or like sharks that have two wombs and the mama-shark keeps generating eggs to feed the two stronger babies (one in each womb). I assume that those who "group" us based on similarities on the behavior and manner we raise our offspring must have use some logic to the process.
- Erratic6576 3y agoUnlike kittens and superior animals, ape babies are not meant to be abandoned at any point, under no circumstances. They are meant to be carried around by their mothers or substitute relatives, clinging to them, so their sudden whimsical needs can be catered to immediately, or else you run the risk of developing an insecure attachment relationship. Google images for “monkey attached mother”.
- Erratic6576 3y agoYeah maybe that’s why women live longer in order to help with the exhausting process of raising their grandchildren [1]. We love to take care of babies, regardless of (or maybe because of) how clingy and dependent they are. From an Evolutionary point of view, This relationship between needy babies and abnegated caregivers might have given rise to a complementary schimogenesis according to Gregory Bateson, in which babies might have evolved to be more and more dependent, because having more and more invested caregivers produces fitter offspring. Parenthood is a self-inflicted sabotage and I cannot understand how come there are so many parents bearing children worldwide. 1. The Gardener and the Carpenter: Alison Gopnik, Erin Bennett: 9781536617832
- caesil 3y ago[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 3y ago[flagged]
- hattmall 3y agoSort of, but not really. Obviously it's possible for the man to be the care giver, but there is a significant unavoidable amount of time required by the mother through pregnancy and recovery that makes it more logical for men to be primarily in the non-caregiver role, but sure it does violate some people's narrative even it's been the majority case since the inception of humanity.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago[flagged]
- dragonwriter 3y agoNo, it doesn't. What it seems to suggest more strongly is that the modern (capitalist in general and American in particular) destruction of the traditional extended support networks (both family and nonfamily) in favor of tiny, more mobile, atomic social units that are easier to plug in to places convenient for industrial needs is unhealthy. Reverting to "traditional" gender roles in the modern capitalist family structure doesn't get you many caregivers (and especially not "personal attention from several caregivers in addition to their biological parents", as the paper points out seems to be important), reverting to an otherwise more traditional family structure even without reverting to "traditional" gender roles does. In fact, in any family structure, not making child care part of an exclusive gender role gets you more caregivers, each with more time to recharge, but you need a bigger support network, not just different roles within it, for what this article is discussing. To borrow a phrase, "It takes a village..."
- j45 3y agoRespectfully, I did not read it as this. If anything, I read about how helpful it is to support parents and children, especially the parent that gives birth. See how I said that without gender? I understand it used the word mother. And child. But learning to read into and past something can leave valuable advice undiscovered. Sometimes the partner that doesn’t give birth can’t fill the gaps no matter how much they do. They should never stop trying, including seeking support. While it might not be every case, it’s not uncommon either. Instead of taking this in a negative direction, we could say ask is there anything insightful there could apply to some or most parenting situations? I’m starting to learn about the studies that are exploring how much postpartum can or cannot be affected by unconditional support that is not there to make the parents feel any less capable. As a the non birthing partner, this approach might have more of an effect of silencing conversation than was intended. It’s in the spirit of keeping the discussion open that I am responding. Edit: typo, clarity
- aidenn0 3y agoThey make a lot of entreaties. And if they are sick, there may be nothing the caregiver can do about it. If 20% of the entreaties are things like an upset stomach, then that 30-50% becomes 38-62%. If the baby has colic, good luck!