5 ms·

Centuries of Childhood

84 points by benbreen 2y ago

esd_g0d 2y ago
Yeah. I find this romanticization of the past, this search for the "true" or "natural" way of doing things... I've seen it done for things other than childhood, like relationships in general, physical activity, diet* (does the paleo diet apply here? I know nothing but the name)... I think we do this because society and the typical human life is changing really fast, which prompts us to consider different ways of doing things, and wonder what would be the best. It's kinda disappointing at first that there are no clear answers in the past... but maybe at least we should be reassured because it means that our chances of doing it the "wrong" way today aren't that high. Along those lines... the other day there was that discussion about the play-based childhood from decades ago, and I feel sometimes people were romanticizing it -- I don't think the increased rate of physical bullying and pressure for fitting in were mentioned enough (though there were some mentions). Personally, I think I'd rather not have been born in the 60s. The Internet is directly or indirectly responsible for like 99% of my knowledge (speaking English included), which in turn is responsible for so much in my life that's different and better... If I look back to the folks my age in my home town (which I think I'd never have left), I don't desire their life AT ALL. * Unlike for behaviors and social conventions, I don't think we have so much freedom with things like diets. Humans do have some hard dietary needs...
- anovikov 2y ago
  Surely the romanticization happens with people who were on the receiving end of the change. Not kids from poor towns in 3rd world - they definitely have benefitted. But those who already had it all - and now have to share it with everyone.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - TimedToasts 2y ago
    It's not "sharing" if it's forced.
    - nathan_compton 2y ago
      Don't leave us hanging, my man, tell me what has been forced!
- jerf 2y ago
  One of the memes the Enlightenment established is the idea of the "noble savage". If you want to learn more about it, that's the search term for it. For instance, Wikipedia pops something up that is a decent introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage I find the memeset quite dehumanizing. "Savages", even putting aside the baggage that term carries, are as fully human as the "civilized", and as such, are as fully capable of the heights of humanity and the full plumbing of the depths. While I admit I have not seen the movie the author is talking about, it sounds to me like it reeks of the "noble savage" memeset. I'm sure there are wonderful parents in the more primitive cultures (I think I can use that terminology in this context, it just refers to their technology usage and not humanity), but the primitive cultures also used to let unwanted children die by exposure... and there was worse, too. Because they're human, and as such, as prone to the heights and the depths as the rest of us. The modern "civilized" world has all the heights and the depths too; the civilized world is just somewhat better at hiding the depths where other people won't see it. (Anyone who wants to complain about the terminology for "noble savage" is invited to take it up with the rest of the world; I'm just using the common name given to it. If it is not clear, I am dripping with contempt for the meme and have no interest in defending it in any form, name included.)
  - dexwiz 2y ago
    Yeah, it’s pretty common. You can recognize supporters by: - A call to return to a primarily agrarian culture. - A claim that prehistoric humans were somehow in more harmony with nature and their community. - Focus on small, tribe like communities. - Avoidance or downplay of any modern advantages like medicine or logistics.
    - lmpdev 2y ago
      Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater though While some may - as this thread make out - fall for that archetypal trope; some of those elements are indeed worth studying For example, scientists don’t place a huge effort on documenting the peoples of Papua New Guinea for some weird Exoticism. They genuinely provide unbridled access to effectively untouched (from western influence) and highly diverse groups. This access in turn is breeding ground for anthropologic, historic and psychological theory development and empirical studies Don’t fall into the trap of immediately disregarding genuine areas of research due to previous experience with these “noble savage” admirers To go further with this example: western doctors and researchers immediately began to force PNG groups to stop their burial rites after finally discovering Kuru (deadly prion disease) was being caused by some of their rites (consumption of brain tissue after death) You can both be an advocate for smaller cultures in undeveloped areas without fetishising it and still support modern medicine, science and logistics
ysofunny 2y ago
how do we measure the aumont of information my head can hallucinate out of 40 seconds of two babies interacting?
arrowsmith 2y ago
"Watching Babies was just a small part of a regimen that included close-reads of Emily Oster" Tangential, but I find it harder to take this person seriously knowing that they take Emily Oster seriously. Oster's book about parenting is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
- ad 2y ago
  Would you mind continuing your tangent? I have a set of friends who really like Oster and I don’t know much about her. Feel free to email me (address is in my profile) if you don’t want to discuss in these comments.
  - arrowsmith 2y ago
    See my sister comment in same thread.
- thecrims0nchin 2y ago
  I wasn't aware she was controversial. Can you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious
  - 1bent 2y ago
    I'd never heard of her, so I checked wikipedia. Try that.
    - thecrims0nchin 2y ago
      Thanks
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      The only thing that stands out as controversial about her books was: > In the book [Expecting Better, 2013], Oster argues against the general rule of thumb to avoid alcohol consumption while pregnant, contends that there is no evidence that (low) levels of alcohol consumption by pregnant women adversely affect their children. This claim, however, has drawn criticism from the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and others. I don't have any strong opinion on the topic of the claim[0], but the way it is reported as having "drawn criticism from [Some National Organization Specializing in Arguing the Opposite of the Claim]" in my experience pattern-matches in favor of the claim. So beyond that, what's exactly so controversial about her books? -- [0] - Like everyone, I've had "zero alcohol while pregnant or breastfeeding" message drilled into me for decades, and that's my prior, though I've personally heard an experienced gynecologist, widely respected in the region, giving pregnant women allowance for a small glass of champagne for New Year's Eve...
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
The author lists historic examples as counters to envisioned idyllic childhoods (ex:kids working dangerous jobs). I think his examples run into a few issues. 1) His strongest examples of child death causes are highly local. ex: Labor caused deaths. The opportunities for kids to work new, dangerous jobs are local to that region. They're also local to many other regions but the driver is corporations that are headquartered in that region. Going back decade by decade, those corporate presences are less and less. ex: Health caused deaths. What we know of historical child death rates comes times/places when human population is the densest (when records are better). Groups outside of this metric include per-European indigenous people - people who's death rate skyrocketed when Europeans appear in their lives. To be fair, I can't find data on child deaths for per-discovered indigenous people. But absent two massive drivers of disease death, lower death rates seem like a thing that would be. 2) The authors comparisons are super limited. The structure of child development has taken many 10k years to socially evolve and it encompasses much of Earth's landmass. His arguments concentrate on the last two centuries of industrial nations. This minuscule sliver doesn't represent ~100% of when and how historical child development happened (commonly among paleolithic peoples). The author's piece isn't poorly written but I think it's value about explaining how things really sucked for kids in some places, 150 years ago. As far as ideal childhood environments go, we need to look outside of the areas he's considering. (one potential ex): https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/09/616928895/how-to-get-your-kids-to-do-chores-without-resenting-it https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/09/6169288... ref: I spend a lot of time thinking about Euro/US lives from my birth back to 1800, because genealogy.
em-bee 2y ago
just because attachment parenting uses historical or "primitive" cultures as example to support it while there exists counter examples from other historic or "primitive" cultures, doesn't mean that the practice itself is a bad idea. the article is not directly making that claim, but i feel it does imply it. but does that really matter? what we really need to look at is how different parenting styles affect children growing up. there isn't enough research on that because the effects are subtle and hard to see. it took me a few decades to understand how my childhood affected me, and how i spend most of my life searching for the love that my parents could not give me. i have had the opportunity as a young man to observe different parenting styles with friends, like lovingly involved dads but also the crying out method of putting a baby to sleep, which to me intuitively just felt cruel. there is a lot of insecurity by young parents, so we tend to look to others for help. our own parents of course and our community. but in this modern times we also have access to examples from other cultures as well as history, and i find it only natural that we use those examples to support our beliefs. just because counterexamples exist, doesn't mean those examples are wrong. the counter argument is rather, if attachment parenting were wrong, then we should not find any historic examples of it at all. of course the same is true for the opposite, which is why the truth is that we simply do not know enough yet about what is really the best way to raise children. more research is necessary. personally i feel that going with your own intuition is a safe approach.
- aym62SAE49CZ684 2y ago
  A good way to figure out how we are "supposed" to parent might be to study primates and other mammals.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    That suggests strategies to test, but doesn't tell us if they are good strategies. (Risk of naturalistic fallacy.) Compare to "what is the best way to walk" and then studying gorillas. We might learn something, but we obviously should not--heh--ape those evolutionary relatives. We've had more than enough time to develop our own separate-possibly incompatible--situation and needs.
graycat 2y ago
Approaches to parenting? Since our birth rate, less than two per woman, is so low, we could use better parenting. Uh, Darwin has a solution, but maybe we can find a faster one!

84 points by benbreen 2y ago

Yeah. I find this romanticization of the past, this search for the "true" or "natural" way of doing things... I've seen it done for things other than childhood, like relationships in general, physical activity, diet* (does the paleo diet apply here? I know nothing but the name)... I think we do this because society and the typical human life is changing really fast, which prompts us to consider different ways of doing things, and wonder what would be the best. It's kinda disappointing at first that there are no clear answers in the past... but maybe at least we should be reassured because it means that our chances of doing it the "wrong" way today aren't that high. Along those lines... the other day there was that discussion about the play-based childhood from decades ago, and I feel sometimes people were romanticizing it -- I don't think the increased rate of physical bullying and pressure for fitting in were mentioned enough (though there were some mentions). Personally, I think I'd rather not have been born in the 60s. The Internet is directly or indirectly responsible for like 99% of my knowledge (speaking English included), which in turn is responsible for so much in my life that's different and better... If I look back to the folks my age in my home town (which I think I'd never have left), I don't desire their life AT ALL. * Unlike for behaviors and social conventions, I don't think we have so much freedom with things like diets. Humans do have some hard dietary needs...

anovikov 2y ago
Surely the romanticization happens with people who were on the receiving end of the change. Not kids from poor towns in 3rd world - they definitely have benefitted. But those who already had it all - and now have to share it with everyone.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- TimedToasts 2y ago
  It's not "sharing" if it's forced.
  - nathan_compton 2y ago
    Don't leave us hanging, my man, tell me what has been forced!
jerf 2y ago
One of the memes the Enlightenment established is the idea of the "noble savage". If you want to learn more about it, that's the search term for it. For instance, Wikipedia pops something up that is a decent introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage I find the memeset quite dehumanizing. "Savages", even putting aside the baggage that term carries, are as fully human as the "civilized", and as such, are as fully capable of the heights of humanity and the full plumbing of the depths. While I admit I have not seen the movie the author is talking about, it sounds to me like it reeks of the "noble savage" memeset. I'm sure there are wonderful parents in the more primitive cultures (I think I can use that terminology in this context, it just refers to their technology usage and not humanity), but the primitive cultures also used to let unwanted children die by exposure... and there was worse, too. Because they're human, and as such, as prone to the heights and the depths as the rest of us. The modern "civilized" world has all the heights and the depths too; the civilized world is just somewhat better at hiding the depths where other people won't see it. (Anyone who wants to complain about the terminology for "noble savage" is invited to take it up with the rest of the world; I'm just using the common name given to it. If it is not clear, I am dripping with contempt for the meme and have no interest in defending it in any form, name included.)
- dexwiz 2y ago
  Yeah, it’s pretty common. You can recognize supporters by: - A call to return to a primarily agrarian culture. - A claim that prehistoric humans were somehow in more harmony with nature and their community. - Focus on small, tribe like communities. - Avoidance or downplay of any modern advantages like medicine or logistics.
  - lmpdev 2y ago
    Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater though While some may - as this thread make out - fall for that archetypal trope; some of those elements are indeed worth studying For example, scientists don’t place a huge effort on documenting the peoples of Papua New Guinea for some weird Exoticism. They genuinely provide unbridled access to effectively untouched (from western influence) and highly diverse groups. This access in turn is breeding ground for anthropologic, historic and psychological theory development and empirical studies Don’t fall into the trap of immediately disregarding genuine areas of research due to previous experience with these “noble savage” admirers To go further with this example: western doctors and researchers immediately began to force PNG groups to stop their burial rites after finally discovering Kuru (deadly prion disease) was being caused by some of their rites (consumption of brain tissue after death) You can both be an advocate for smaller cultures in undeveloped areas without fetishising it and still support modern medicine, science and logistics

ysofunny 2y ago

how do we measure the aumont of information my head can hallucinate out of 40 seconds of two babies interacting?

arrowsmith 2y ago

"Watching Babies was just a small part of a regimen that included close-reads of Emily Oster" Tangential, but I find it harder to take this person seriously knowing that they take Emily Oster seriously. Oster's book about parenting is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

ad 2y ago
Would you mind continuing your tangent? I have a set of friends who really like Oster and I don’t know much about her. Feel free to email me (address is in my profile) if you don’t want to discuss in these comments.
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  See my sister comment in same thread.
thecrims0nchin 2y ago
I wasn't aware she was controversial. Can you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious
- 1bent 2y ago
  I'd never heard of her, so I checked wikipedia. Try that.
  - thecrims0nchin 2y ago
    Thanks
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    The only thing that stands out as controversial about her books was: > In the book [Expecting Better, 2013], Oster argues against the general rule of thumb to avoid alcohol consumption while pregnant, contends that there is no evidence that (low) levels of alcohol consumption by pregnant women adversely affect their children. This claim, however, has drawn criticism from the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and others. I don't have any strong opinion on the topic of the claim[0], but the way it is reported as having "drawn criticism from [Some National Organization Specializing in Arguing the Opposite of the Claim]" in my experience pattern-matches in favor of the claim. So beyond that, what's exactly so controversial about her books? -- [0] - Like everyone, I've had "zero alcohol while pregnant or breastfeeding" message drilled into me for decades, and that's my prior, though I've personally heard an experienced gynecologist, widely respected in the region, giving pregnant women allowance for a small glass of champagne for New Year's Eve...

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

The author lists historic examples as counters to envisioned idyllic childhoods (ex:kids working dangerous jobs). I think his examples run into a few issues. 1) His strongest examples of child death causes are highly local. ex: Labor caused deaths. The opportunities for kids to work new, dangerous jobs are local to that region. They're also local to many other regions but the driver is corporations that are headquartered in that region. Going back decade by decade, those corporate presences are less and less. ex: Health caused deaths. What we know of historical child death rates comes times/places when human population is the densest (when records are better). Groups outside of this metric include per-European indigenous people - people who's death rate skyrocketed when Europeans appear in their lives. To be fair, I can't find data on child deaths for per-discovered indigenous people. But absent two massive drivers of disease death, lower death rates seem like a thing that would be. 2) The authors comparisons are super limited. The structure of child development has taken many 10k years to socially evolve and it encompasses much of Earth's landmass. His arguments concentrate on the last two centuries of industrial nations. This minuscule sliver doesn't represent ~100% of when and how historical child development happened (commonly among paleolithic peoples). The author's piece isn't poorly written but I think it's value about explaining how things really sucked for kids in some places, 150 years ago. As far as ideal childhood environments go, we need to look outside of the areas he's considering. (one potential ex): https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/09/616928895/how-to-get-your-kids-to-do-chores-without-resenting-it https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/09/6169288... ref: I spend a lot of time thinking about Euro/US lives from my birth back to 1800, because genealogy.

em-bee 2y ago

just because attachment parenting uses historical or "primitive" cultures as example to support it while there exists counter examples from other historic or "primitive" cultures, doesn't mean that the practice itself is a bad idea. the article is not directly making that claim, but i feel it does imply it. but does that really matter? what we really need to look at is how different parenting styles affect children growing up. there isn't enough research on that because the effects are subtle and hard to see. it took me a few decades to understand how my childhood affected me, and how i spend most of my life searching for the love that my parents could not give me. i have had the opportunity as a young man to observe different parenting styles with friends, like lovingly involved dads but also the crying out method of putting a baby to sleep, which to me intuitively just felt cruel. there is a lot of insecurity by young parents, so we tend to look to others for help. our own parents of course and our community. but in this modern times we also have access to examples from other cultures as well as history, and i find it only natural that we use those examples to support our beliefs. just because counterexamples exist, doesn't mean those examples are wrong. the counter argument is rather, if attachment parenting were wrong, then we should not find any historic examples of it at all. of course the same is true for the opposite, which is why the truth is that we simply do not know enough yet about what is really the best way to raise children. more research is necessary. personally i feel that going with your own intuition is a safe approach.

aym62SAE49CZ684 2y ago
A good way to figure out how we are "supposed" to parent might be to study primates and other mammals.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  That suggests strategies to test, but doesn't tell us if they are good strategies. (Risk of naturalistic fallacy.) Compare to "what is the best way to walk" and then studying gorillas. We might learn something, but we obviously should not--heh--ape those evolutionary relatives. We've had more than enough time to develop our own separate-possibly incompatible--situation and needs.

graycat 2y ago

Approaches to parenting? Since our birth rate, less than two per woman, is so low, we could use better parenting. Uh, Darwin has a solution, but maybe we can find a faster one!