Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 325 posts

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#81

Post by lettergram »

brvsft wrote: post #47
lettergram wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo it’s a derogatory term people in … alternative circles, like to use.

I'm guessing the term is supposed to point out the idea that what we think of as normal is actually not.

Except it is normal to have a nuclear family?

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publicatio...

It’s actually more common in the rest of the world than Europe and the US. It’s kind of crazy to say it’s WEIRD to expect nuclear families, when it’s the west that is the least likely (still the majority have nuclear families).

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#82

Post by lifeisstillgood »

rexpop wrote: post #73
11235813213455 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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

We decry "demands" when we should acknowledge "dependencies;" kids won't properly compile without their needs met.

Fantastic analogy :-)

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#83

Post by theodric »

alasdair_ wrote: post #77
getpost wrote: post #54

> 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, w…

In the UK, 50% is a c and anything over 70% is an A.

"Nobody gets 100%"

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#84

Post by throwaway22032 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #57
treespace09 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m thinking about everyone being more involved with kids. Not just parents of young children.

Lots of folks don’t want kids or to be involved with them too, another important consideration.

Not wanting to be a parent is one thing, but people who don't want to be involved with kids need to work on themselves, that's a deeply antisocial trait - your own existence depended on everyone around you being involved with you to some degree.

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#85

Post by saiya-jin »

Eumenes wrote: post #12

> "For more than 95% of our evolutionary history we lived as hunter-gatherers. Therefore, contemporary hunter-gatherer societies can offer clues as to whether there are certain child-rearing systems to which infants, and their mothers, may be psychologically adapted," You can cherry pick anything that fits a narrative. This narrative advocates for more funding for state sponsored daycare, which does not resemble anyt…

You realize that off-loading overwhelmed parents even a bit is already a massive step in positive direction for literally everybody including companies and taxman, and kindergartens can help a lot.

You can be much happier and better parent when rested rather than being semi-constantly on the verge of breakdown. Who hasn't walked this valley with at least 2 kids can't really comprehend the topic appropriately. Apart maybe of those suffering long term insomnia combined with some serious stressors in their lives.

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#86

Post by financltravsty »

ajb wrote: post #62

This is once of the things that remote work/homeworking may enable, if companies don't succeed in taking it away. If people can rely on getting remote work, they can arrange their living situation to improve the rest of their life, instead of for work: - young people living in large halls, to improve their dating prospects - groups of friends living close together across job moves, enabling longer term friendships -…

I’m already doing this with a set of friends in a big city with decent public transportation (relative to the world).

We all share a two story two flat. It’s quite fun, and my mental health is great. The big “but” is that it’s unlikely to last because people value different things. Most of us are doing this arrangement because it’s ridiculously inexpensive compared to other forms of housing. One has already moved out to live with his girlfriend, and another is probably going to move to another city.

This is of course ignoring the other very real problems: job prospects for industries are not uniform across cities (you may have friends in another industry that is in decline for your local)… etc.

I wouldn’t mind a return to communal apartments, with a dining hall, and a lounge away from the property manager and the entrance. But it’s doubtful very many people will ever use those facilities (when you have more interesting stuff to do outside the complex, or inside your own room, why settle for the third place?). The culture of friendship is also lacking in my current country (U.S.), and communal values are nonexistent.

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#87

Post by MandieD »

stareatgoats wrote: post #5
mandmandam wrote: post #2

As much as I welcome more actual science on this topic, I don't think the words 'new key' are at all justified here (and they aren't used in tfa). New to some WEIRD nuclear families maybe, but not actually new or surprising.

The title had to be shortened - 'new' was the best I could think of. But it can be justified I think, both in relation to the gist of the article and the original title. If this was well established knowledge that that is new to me at least, albeit not really surprising, admittedly. (tfa? I couldn't get a hit on that acronym anywhere)

The (Fine|Friendly|F-ing) Article

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#88

Post by apwell23 »

em-bee wrote: post #55
lotsofpulp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting hypothesis, but I don’t know if I buy it. Much of India had also long barred cousin marriages, probably long before the Roman Catholic Church, but the dependencies and village raising the kids dynamic still existed (until recently). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapinda If I were to guess, the main causal factor is economic/security independence. If living in a tight knit village, sacrificing your freedom…

If living in a tight knit village, sacrificing your freedoms is the best option you have, then that is what most people choose. If there exists an option for you retain your freedom and have financial independence and physical security, then people tend to choose that you make it sound like these are opposing incompatible choices. why not choose both? i'd love to live in a small tight knit community. going to school…

Because they are incompatible choices. You have to live by the rules of the said small tight knit community. since gp said indian, in indian communities you have to marry within the community otherwise you "bring shame" to the community. This coercion doesn't even have to be explicit like that it acts on you in insidious ways .

Its the classic tradeoff between security and freedom.

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#89

Post by apwell23 »

dsign wrote: post #58
em-bee wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If living in a tight knit village, sacrificing your freedoms is the best option you have, then that is what most people choose. If there exists an option for you retain your freedom and have financial independence and physical security, then people tend to choose that you make it sound like these are opposing incompatible choices. why not choose both? i'd love to live in a small tight knit community. going to school…

This. I grew up poor and moved far away from my family to change it. In the rich land where I now live, most people I’ve met could do a little better by moving to another town but they choose to remain close to their families and their birth community. With that said, they still have to raise their children on their own, because it is culturally inappropriate to ask, accept or (god forbid![^1]) offer help. [^1]: You…

I am guessing women have low labor force participation rates in the poor land you moved from ?

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#90

Post by seec »

I hate those types of "research" that base all their "findings" on observation of what is undesirable primitive living. What's more they don't even meaningfully quantify what can be qualified as neglect or abuse.

My opinion as well as my own experience is that those children are far more likely to be subjected to much higher levels of abuse and neglect in this type of situation. As someone who has been neglected by his parents very early in life, and been given to be taken care of by various family members/friends/institutions I cannot wish this for anyone. You will forever wear a feeling of abandonment and insecurity that is unfixable. That someone seriously pushes this as a valid method for raising kids is beyond ridiculous and just shows how disconnected from reality modern "researcher" can be.

It also entirely removes the principle of responsibility in reproduction. We are conscientious animals and we have a responsibility to not reproduce if it is suboptimal to do so. The problems we face right now as a species are precisely because we created a system that removed many of the problems preventing too large reproduction but without also enforcing full responsibility (without the modern support system the sentence would be death).

I get pissed off at all of this nonsense modern take. We had a system; it was working pretty well. In fact, it successfully kickstarted the industrial revolution and continued until relatively recently. Then feminism happened and suddenly nothing works. Women are the only one biologically able to create new humans and they have all the necessary toolkit to grow them to maturity; up to the point they are ready and stable as humans to be able to learn and collaborate with others. But we destroyed all that, following dangerous ideologies that distort reality. And now we going to "fix it" by going back to primitive behavior. I guess that's a way to go full circle, no very efficient, but that's a way alright...

Post reply on HN