Is modern civilization a mistake?

That author does not address it.

Out of curiosity did you read the more than a one paragraph summary of his thesis? Even a full interview with him?
FWIW I’d agree that HG societies have less socioeconomic inequity than do agricultural and more modern societies. OTOH even as socioeconomic inequality has increased within America in recent years, global socioeconomic inequality has dramatically lessened. And links to discussions about the dramatic decreases in global poverty in recent decades in particular were provided (and ignored) earlier in the thread.

Our closest living relatives have hierarchies, and extant and historic H-Gs have/had hierarchies - sometimes quite elaborate ones, with chiefdoms, inequalities of income, slavery, etc.

Well, as for proof I’d go with high-status burials with high-status grave goods as a good indication of hierarchy. This is certainly used in post-agricultural societies to determine status in a hierarchy. Other than that, we can observe HG societies that still exist today, all of which, AFAIK, have some sort of hierarchy. We can observe other species with similar hunting strategies and note that they also have hierarchies (wolves being the prime instance…and interesting that a sub-group of those highly hierarchical species voluntarily joined with us long before there was agriculture).

http://www.continuum-concept.org/reading/Q_and_A.html
http://www.continuum-concept.org/reading/adultOrphan.html
http://www.continuum-concept.org/reading/neurotics.html

What about in regards to the way that they raise children? It seems to be better than what we do in modernity. They emphasis constant contact with the mother instead of the way we separate them from the mother and place them in cribs.

Point the first: Which one to you is actually “better”? Societies in which infants are not the object of such exclusive (and, one may add, narcissistic) intensity, or societies that do keep infants so attended to, never being left out of mother’s grasp? And which one are HGs supposed to be again? You have presented them as each. Really make up your mind. Which is it?

Point the second: “the crib”, let alone a separate room for a baby, is not a standard feature of civilization. Throughout the history of civilization, at least into the 19th century, young children have more commonly shared the parents’ bed. That remains so today other than in the United States, Europe, and Australia. So to be clear: in the world co-sleeping by bedsharing, not cribs, is the norm in China (79% of pre-school children and 53% of school-aged children) and in India (“Co- sleeping, a traditional cultural practice in India was found in 93% of the children.”); most children in the world are not sleeping in cribs. Of course bed-sharing also may be the most common cause of death under three months of age as well (suffocation and SIDS).

Point the third: infanticide as a norm does not seem to me to be the child-raising attitude I’d aspire to.
But what is “better” is a judgement call. YMMV.

Apparently according to the links, the excessive attention we give to young kids is damaging to them even though we mean well.

And “we” are not doing as good of a job as HG because they give the kids more constant attention.

Two completely opposite positions in just over an hour.

Don’t you discriminate at all?!?

I don’t do drive by links…if you think they have something to add, quote from them and then add your thoughts. Otherwise I’m going to ignore them. I think most other are too, so you might want to put a bit more effort in if you want to use them as part of your argument.

As for your question, as others have already pointed out, the norm in human history, whether HG or agricultural, was for kids to sleep with their parents. Only incredibly wealthy societies, such as the US and Europe (and not even across the board in either of those) have separate rooms for kids (I, for instance, grew up in a house with 2 bedrooms, maybe 700 square feet, and 5 siblings, and our parents room didn’t have a door between their room and ours. And this was after we moved to the US…and it was considered the height of luxury to have such a space)…or even kids in separate rooms. So, what you are really comparing here is modern American or European life to HGs and post-agricultural societies. Which isn’t what you were talking about before. Your argument, such as it is, keeps morphing as folks counter your obviously limited understanding of history…and that’s because you are making arguments based on your own or others lack of understanding of even the basics of the subject.

Here’s the thing about this latest foray. Humans are adaptable. We can thrive in environments as different as HG in sub-Saharan Africa, jungles of Borneo, steppes in Russia, American plains, various coastal regions throughout the world…pretty much everywhere on Earth except Antarctica. The same goes for agriculture and horticulture. And the same goes for the modern lifestyle. Humans have thrived and continue to thrive in all of these environments, and it’s possible that, eventually, we’ll thrive in environments off this planet. The question ‘Is modern civilization a mistake?’ is fairly meaningless from the perspective of the human species from a survival perspective, in the end.

It’s not contradictory at all. It says that we try to manage the behavior of the children too much.

"We give far too many choices and we give them far too early. It leads to frustration and fury and parents then trying to figure out why their children are so angry. We keep giving them more choices, saying, “well, what would you rather do?” and the children get even more furious because that’s what’s making them angry and they can’t explain themselves. As to alternatives to giving choices, it’s hard to take it out of context. Let’s just for the moment talk about one child and one parent. A mother at breakfast saying, “would you like to have rice crispies or corn flakes?” to a three-year-old should just put it down on the table, whatever she is serving. What the child needs — and it also happens to be more convenient for the parent — is to feel that the parent is authoritative, calm, self-reliant, and knows what she’s doing. She shouldn’t keep asking the child because at only two years old children don’t want to be expected to know what to do. They want the parent to know.

Giving choices not only looks like uncertainty on the part of the parent, it’s also, a very visible attempt to placate the child who then feels as though the mother doesn’t know how to treat him and is worried and feeling guilty and insecure. So this wheedling or pleading tone of voice makes children angry because they’re trying to get their parents to stand firm. They want them to stand firm because they rely on them, they want to feel that their parents know what they’re doing so that they, the children, can not only feel safe, but will have someone authoritative to follow around and to watch and imitate and assist."

And additionally from here: http://www.continuum-concept.org/reading/consequences.html

"
To get away from consequences, rewards and other kinds of “behaviour management” it can be helpful to think in terms of living with your children, rather than controlling them. Unfortunately, many of us find it hard to have faith in our children. We’re afraid that if we don’t push, coax or coerce them into acceptable behaviour, they’ll never learn to be cooperative or responsible. This is probably a message passed on through our own childhood experiences and exacerbated by pressure from other adults. But Liedloff’s experience, and that of many parents, shows that exactly the opposite is true. When we stop trying to control and manage our children’s behaviour, their innate desire to follow our examples is able to come to the surface."

And from this very same page in regards to the “child centered view of (the west)”:

The crucial difference is that the Yequana are not child-centered. They may occasionally nuzzle their babies affectionately, play peek-a-boo, or sing to them, yet the great majority of the caretaker’s time is spent paying attention to something else…not the baby! Children taking care of babies also regard baby care as a non-activity and, although they carry them everywhere, rarely give them direct attention. Thus, Yequana babies find themselves in the midst of activities they will later join as they proceed through the stages of creeping, crawling, walking, and talking. The panoramic view of their future life’s experiences, behavior, pace, and language provides a rich basis for their developing participation.

Being played with, talked to, or admired all day deprives the babe of this in-arms spectator phase that would feel right to him. Unable to say what he needs, he will act out his discontentment. He is trying to get his caretaker’s attention, yet — and here is the cause of the understandable confusion — his purpose is to get the caretaker to change his unsatisfactory experience, to go about her own business with confidence and without seeming to ask his permission. Once the situation is corrected, the attention-getting behavior we mistake for a permanent impulse can subside. The same principle applies in the stages following the in-arms phase.

One devoted mother on the East Coast, when beginning sessions with me on the telephone, was near the end of her tether. She was at war with her beloved three-year-old son, who was often barging into her, sometimes hitting her, and shouting, “Shut up!” among other distressing expressions of anger and disrespect. She had tried reasoning with him, asking him what he wanted her to do, bribing him, and speaking sweetly as long as she could before losing her patience and shouting at him. Afterward, she would be consumed with guilt and try to “make it up to him” with apologies, explanations, hugs, or special treats to prove her love — whereupon her precious little boy would respond by issuing new ill-tempered demands.

Sometimes she would stop trying to please him and go tight-lipped about her own activities, despite his howls and protestations. If she finally managed to hold out long enough for him to give up trying to control her and calm down, he might gaze up at her out of his meltingly beautiful eyes and say, “I love you, Mommy!” and she, almost abject in her gratitude for this momentary reprieve from the leaden guilt in her bosom, would soon be eating out of his dimpled, jam-stained little hand again. He would become bossy, then angry and rude, and the whole heartbreaking scenario would be replayed, whereupon my client’s despair would deepen.

It appears that many parents of toddlers, in their anxiety to be neither negligent nor disrespectful, have gone overboard in what may seem to be the other direction. Like the thankless martyrs of the in-arms stage, they have become centered upon their children instead of being occupied by adult activities that the children can watch, follow, imitate, and assist in as is their natural tendency. In other words, because a toddler wants to learn what his people do, he expects to be able to center his attention on an adult who is centered on her own business. An adult who stops whatever she is doing and tries to ascertain what her child wants her to do is short-circuiting this expectation. Just as significantly, she appears to the tot not to know how to behave, to be lacking in confidence and, even more alarmingly, looking for guidance from him, a two or three year old who is relying on her to be calm, competent, and sure of herself.

A toddler’s fairly predictable reaction to parental uncertainty is to push his parents even further off-balance, testing for a place where they will stand firm and thus allay his anxiety about who is in charge. He may continue to draw pictures on the wall after his mother has pleaded with him to desist, in an apologetic voice that lets him know she does not believe he will obey. When she then takes away his markers, all the while showing fear of his wrath, he — as surely as he is a social creature — meets her expectations and flies into a screaming rage.

If misreading his anger, she tries even harder to ascertain what he wants, pleads, explains, and appears ever more desperate to placate him, the child will be impelled to make more outrageous, more unacceptable demands. This he must continue to do until at last she does take over leadership and he can feel that order is restored. He may still not have a calm, confident, reliable authority figure to learn from, as his mother is now moving from the point of losing her temper to the point at which guilt and doubts about her competence are again rearing their wobbly heads. Nevertheless, he will have the meager reassurance of seeing that when the chips were down, she did relieve him of command and of his panicky feeling that he should somehow know what she should do.

Put simply, when a child is impelled to try to control the behavior of an adult, it is not because the child wants to succeed, but because the child needs to be certain that the adult knows what he or she is doing. Furthermore, the child cannot resist such testing until the adult stands firm and the child can have that certainty. No child would dream of trying to take over the initiative from an adult unless that child receives a clear message that such action is expected — not wanted, but expected! Moreover, once the child feels he has attained control, he becomes confused and frightened and must go to any extreme to compel the adult to take the leadership back where it belongs.

When this is understood, the parents’ fear of imposing upon their child is allayed, and they see that there is no call for adversariality. By maintaining control, they are fulfilling their beloved child’s needs, rather than acting in opposition to them."

How the fuck is this a response to the post you’re supposedly responding to?

It’s to add to modernity. There is some research that child practices that are the result of our modern ways are actually detrimental to the children of today.

Um no. There is not. At least nothing that you have offered up. If you think so then you have a false understanding of what research is. One person, even a bunch of people, offering up their pontifications and bloviations about a subject (even if there was some reason to believe the person to have some expertise rather than someone who pretty clearly is ignorant of both child development and the variety of parenting approaches in the world’s cultures) is not research.

And um no. It does not in any way explain the random connection from the post you quote to childrearing.
You consistently pretty much ignore the content of people replying to you in good faith and move on to some other random assertion. Why? Are you a bot?

First you tell people how to clean rugs, now you are giving your expert advice on how to raise children. Where do you get the nerve, having done neither?

As a pediatrician and a parent one of my favorite lines has always been to let people who do not have kids know that should give out all the child raising advice they can now as this is only time they can claim to never have made a mistake parenting.

Who better to give expert advice than someone who has never done it wrong?

The claim that once needs to have children before giving advice is fallacious and incorrect.

Did you read the segments I quoted?

Yes I read it … which was difficult to do given the fact it made my eyes roll so much at the same time.

Did I claim one needs to have children before one can give advice? Nah. I claimed that that’s the best time to give advice because one has never yet done anything wrong. I can assure you, and my kids will verify, I’ve made plenty of mistakes.

In fact one can give advice without any experience or expertise, and often those are the people who do it the most and with the most confidence. Some people even buy their bullshit.

The ignorant, like the the person whose bloviations on child-rearing you linked to, are usually the most sure that they know the correct answers. Yes, Jean Liedoff, product of the New York elite, former Paris Vogue model, lived for two and half years with one South American HG tribe, the Yequana. This could possibly make her a reasonable naive untrained observer of habits of that specific tribe. It does not make her an expert on that tribe, let alone HG child-rearing in general, let alone on the variety of child-rearing practices across the modern world or on their impacts. She took the way she was raised as part of the New York wealthy elite scene, and imagined that to be the norm in the civilized world. She lived on a houseboat with her cat, never raised a child herself, and made shit up, and had opinions on what those who had kids were doing wrong, as those without kids often do. It made her a popular guest on Johnny Carson and John Lennon liked her, George Plimpton too, but regrettably those are not what qualifies as “research.”

Are there learned analyses of HG child-rearing patterns? Likely so. But on what basis would one conclude that whatever they are is “better” or “worse” than any of the many other child-rearing models that civilization has had? The likes of Liedoff took the perspective that it was by default what we’ve evolved for. If she felt that way then why did she live alone on a houseboat and not in a band of 30 people in the jungle for the rest of her life?

The claim that one needs to be a medical professional before giving medical advice is fallacious and incorrect.

The claim that one needs to be a scientist before giving scientific advice is fallacious and incorrect.

The claim that one needs to be an engineer before giving engineering advice is fallacious and incorrect.

The claim that one needs to be a professional IT expert before giving technology advice is fallacious and incorrect.

The claim that one needs to be a successful novelist before giving writing advice is fallacious and incorrect.

The claim that one needs to be a building contractor before giving home repair advice is fallacious and incorrect.
…etc…etc…etc…
All* technically* true.

But what’s demonstrably true is when you rely on amateurs for expert opinion, you have no-one to blame but yourself for fallacious arguments and incorrect conclusions. i.e.: You don’t even know enough to know that what you think you know is wrong.

Machinaforce, you don’t even know the context in which Liedloff found her following. The '60s had seen Dr. Spock’s “Baby and Child Care” become a best seller in America and was read by many of America’s suburban middle class. Her own experiences as a spoiled child of wealthy socialite parents and that book’s child-centered (critics of the day felt “permissive”) approach was her standard for modernity. These suburban parents were very atypical by historical standards in many ways, relevant to this discussion in particular because there was much less involvement of extended family and use of that resource for expertise. By the time she wrote her book, beating up on Spock and blaming him for “the trouble with kids today” was a cottage industry. Her gimmick was to tie in the Victorian old school “kids should be seen and not heard” with a “back to nature” “mother, wear your child” veneer that sold it to a hippie-influenced ethos of people looking for a countercultural guru counterpoint to Spock (of course never actually understanding or reading what Spock had actually written or was promoting, which was actually encouraging parents to trust their instincts more, and listen to the cues their kids were giving).
For shits and giggles though let’s accept accept that HG child-rearing really was in general wearing kids but pretty much ignoring them, certainly not spending time focussed on interacting with them, talking to them, playing with them, enjoying them, and duh certainly not reading to them. And that “modern civilization” child-rearing actually is and has been worldwide what Liedloff fantasized it is and has been - both excessive interaction and child focus when together and “unnatural” separation from the mother especially at night (and also would include in today’s world often “unnatural” involvement of fathers with their young children who “should” be on their mothers backs almost all of the day through age three to four).

Other than a few pontificators stating so, what evidence do you have to present that one model is somehow healthier (for mental health or otherwise) or otherwise “better” than the other?
Really, bring something to this discussion other than citing the pontifications of pop culture gurus and mass murderers, and trotting them out as “some people say …” and “some research …”. Engage in debate not in JAQing off.

BTW, pretty confident that my request for such evidence and actual debate will be ignored in favor of another unrelated “But what about …”