Paleo parenting

[Toban Wiebe]

I just finished reading The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris. She makes a very strong case that parents have insignificant influence on how their childrens' personalities turn out in adulthood. (Socialization research is another field rank with bad science. It turns out that half the variation in personality is genetic and the other half due to the peer group, but none can be traced to the family.)

I was very happy to see that she relied on the evolutionary logic to see what our species is adapted to. She basically recommends paleo parenting, raising children the way humans have evolved to raise and to be raised.

Here are some basic practices that conflict somewhat with the conventional wisdom:

• breast feeding
• sleeping with the baby
• being responsive to babies' crying (and not intentionally ignoring them to teach them not to cry)
• not giving the baby all sorts of "stimulation" (reading to it, educational toys, etc) - wild humans don't even talk to their babies
• not spending "quality time" with children. Harris writes: "The idea that parents should have to entertain their children is bizarre to people in [traditional] societies. They would fall down laughing if you tried to tell them about "quality time"."
• after weaning, leaving the child to be reared by an older sibling (usually a sister) - parents don't do all the work, they farm it out to the older children so they can focus on their newborn. The older child takes full responsibility for their charge and is expected to dominate. Preventing this domination is unnatural.

Has anybody written anything on paleo parenting? I couldn't find much. This info seems quite valuable—just think of how much time and energy is invested in parenting, and how much could be saved by understanding what works and what doesn't.

[Don Matesz]

Hi Toban,

Try The Continuum Concept by Jean Leidloff

http://www.continuum-concept.org/

Cordially, 

Don

[Mary H]

cod liver oil for mom

unprocessed

greenpastures.com

very hard to find unprocessed

with natural vit d and a

most cod liver oil is processed, stripped of everything

then they add in fake a and d

 

then cod liver oil for baby

[Mary H]

i'm sorry

it should be greenpasture.org

[Toban Wiebe]

Thanks Don, I actually saw someone suggest that in a forum thread on paleo parenting. From reading the definition page, it looks good. But I'm still a bit worried that the nurture assumption will be smuggled in... it's everywhere. I would be really impressed if she rejected it.

[Don Matesz]

Well, she maintains that paleo parenting (i.e. breast feeding + constant contact until baby spontaneously explores away from mom) provides baby with all the nurturing it requires at the time he requires it (i.e. when he is more or less helpless), and that this prevents the so-called "terrible twos" which according to Liedloff occurs only in societies where baby is not given constant contact as an infant.  Aside from that, she emphasizes that in native cultures, mom or other caretaker just goes about her normal business without paying any special attention to baby.  For example, mom will carry baby everywhere she goes, gathering, tending gardens, making clothes, whatever, and does not ever focus on baby unless baby needs toilet or feeding or cries.  Otherwise, mom does what she needs to do as an adult to contribute to the family, and baby goes along for the ride.  

As I recall, one of her main points is that modern people treat babies as if they were not babies in that they ignore or deny babies' need for continuous contact and proper food (i.e. breast milk), and force an unnaturally early separation (e.g. cribs and playpens, etc.), which creates a baby that cries for attention not only during infancy but throughout life; and yet modern people also treat babies as if they were some foreigners, not to be present at normal adult human interactions, but requiring some special attention ("quality time").  We create their need for attention by leaving them out of our daily activities, whereas in native tribes children get all the "attention" they need by simply being with adults at all times from day one.

So I would say that Liedloff is in favor of "nurturing" as represented by breast feeding, safe sleeping (no healthy animal would leave its defenseless offspring in a bed away from parents...that would mean certain death for baby at the clutches of predators, and certain extinction of that species), and continuous carrying until baby spontaneously explores away from caretaker, like this:

But she would consider "quality time" ridiculous.  Baby or child doesn't need any special "quality" time if it is just naturally accepted into and involved in adult activities at all times if only by presence (e.g. baby riding on mom as she goes out gathering).  

Cordially, 

Don

"Do not limit their dwellings,  Do not suppress their livelihood.  Simply because you do not suppress them, they will not grow weary of you."  Tao Te Ching Chapter 72

[Toban Wiebe]

I was reading some more about her book, and it's looking better and better. From what I can tell, the book is about infancy, not about the rest of childhood. Everything I've read about the book I agree with, it's exactly in line with the evolutionary logic. Though she's maybe overselling the benefits. Still, the paleo way is tried and true, you can always trust it to be a safe and effective method.

I was using "quality time" in the context of older children, not infants. e.g., having family night or playing catch with your son. Kids play with each other, not their parents.

In any case, this is an important topic and deserves some attention in the paleosphere. I'm gonna write up a blog post start some conversation.

[Don Matesz]

A few more thoughts:

1.  As I recall, Liedloff makes some references to "natural" child care post infancy.  Those that I remember were anecdotes from her experiences "studying" H-G and other primitive child care, reporting that children also did not get any special attention from parents, and that parents did not play with children; rather, children appeared eager to quietly hang out with parents while parents went about their daily business.  What child needs quality time when he has the opportunity to hang out and learn with beneficient adults at any time of the day?

2.  If that other author is claiming nurturing doesn't matter, but then saying that the best way to parent (i.e. nurture) is to mimic paleo parenting, then she is involved in a contradiction.  See point 3 below.

3.  Which brings me to my last point.  Paleo parenting looks like "no nurturing" to some people because it doesn't have what we think of as "nurturing."  But it doesn't need what we call nurturing because it is so fundamentally different from what we do; just as paleo eaters didn't need dentists or diabetes treatments because their lives/diets were so fundamentally different.  

 Just because paleo parenting doesn't have what modern people call nurturing, doesn't mean it isn't nurturing.  Natural nurturing isn't pretentious or obvious, but organic and genuine, whereas modern "nurturing" is obvious,  pretentious, and mechanical and probably useless or even harmful.  

It is similar with learning.  Paleo kids don't need school because they are allowed to learn naturally/spontaneously by just hanging out with and mimicking adults and participating in the tribal activities.  Our "quality time" and "nurturing" activities and schools are all sad attempts to remedy fundamental dysfunctions, the same way that diabetes drugs are sad attempts to remedy a dysfunctional lifestyle/diet.  

This reminds me of a passage from the Tao Te Ching; in the first section try substituting "nurturing" for "integrity":

The person of superior integrity does not insist upon his integrity;

For this reason, he has integrity.

The person of inferior integrity never loses sight of his integrity; For this reason, he lacks integrity.

The person of superior integrity takes no action, nor has he a purpose for acting.

The person of superior humaneness takes action, but has no purpose for acting.

The person of superior righteousness takes action, and has a purpose for acting.

The person of superior etiquette takes action, but others do not respond to him; 

Whereupon he rolls up his sleeves and coerces them.

Therefore,

When the Way is lost, afterward comes integrity.

When integrity is lost, afterward comes humaneness.

When humaneness is lost, afterward comes righteousness.

When righteousness is lost, afterward comes etiquette.

Now, Etiquette is the attenuation of trustworthiness, and the source of disorder.

Foreknowledge is but the blossomy ornament of the Way, and the source of ignorance.

For this reason, 

The great man resides in substance, not in attenuation.

He resides in fruitful reality, not in blossomy ornament.

Therefore, he rejects one and adopts the other.

In other words, following our "knowledge" we took apart the natural way, created a lifestyle fundamentally at odds with human nature, then when dysfunctions arise, we attempt to fix them by inserting another artifice even further from human nature (like pretentious "quality time" or giving Ritalin to restless children).  

That reminds me of another passage from the Tao Te Ching (Ch. 48):  

The pursuit of learning leads to daily increase,

Hearing the Way leads to daily decrease.

Decrease and again decrease, until you reach nonaction,

Through nonaction, nothing is left undone.

Cordially, 

Don

"Do not limit their dwellings,  Do not suppress their livelihood.  Simply because you do not suppress them, they will not grow weary of you."  Tao Te Ching Chapter 72

On Dec 17, 2010, at 10:33 PM, Toban Wiebe wrote:

I was reading some more about her book, and it's looking better and better. From what I can tell, the book is about infancy, not about the rest of childhood. Everything I've read about the book I agree with, it's exactly in line with the evolutionary logic. Though she's maybe overselling the benefits. Still, the paleo way is tried and true, you can always trust it to be a safe and effective method.

I was using "quality time" in the context of older children, not infants. e.g., having family night or playing catch with your son. Kids play with each other, not their parents.

In any case, this is an important topic and deserves some attention in the paleosphere. I'm gonna write up a blog post start some conversation.

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Don Matesz <donm...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Well, she maintains that paleo parenting (i.e. breast feeding + constant contact until baby spontaneously explores away from mom) provides baby with all the nurturing it requires at the time he requires it (i.e. when he is more or less helpless), and that this prevents the so-called "terrible twos" which according to Liedloff occurs only in societies where baby is not given constant contact as an infant.  Aside from that, she emphasizes that in native cultures, mom or other caretaker just goes about her normal business without paying any special attention to baby.  For example, mom will carry baby everywhere she goes, gathering, tending gardens, making clothes, whatever, and does not ever focus on baby unless baby needs toilet or feeding or cries.  Otherwise, mom does what she needs to do as an adult to contribute to the family, and baby goes along for the ride.  

As I recall, one of her main points is that modern people treat babies as if they were not babies in that they ignore or deny babies' need for continuous contact and proper food (i.e. breast milk), and force an unnaturally early separation (e.g. cribs and playpens, etc.), which creates a baby that cries for attention not only during infancy but throughout life; and yet modern people also treat babies as if they were some foreigners, not to be present at normal adult human interactions, but requiring some special attention ("quality time").  We create their need for attention by leaving them out of our daily activities, whereas in native tribes children get all the "attention" they need by simply being with adults at all times from day one.

So I would say that Liedloff is in favor of "nurturing" as represented by breast feeding, safe sleeping (no healthy animal would leave its defenseless offspring in a bed away from parents...that would mean certain death for baby at the clutches of predators, and certain extinction of that species), and continuous carrying until baby spontaneously explores away from caretaker, like this:

<pastedGraphic.jpg><pastedGraphic.jpg>

[Toban Wiebe]

Responses:

1. That's exactly what Harris found in her survey of the anthropological literature.

2. Not necessarily a contradiction—she denies that parental nurture has any long run effects on personality, but that doesn't mean that paleo parenting couldn't be valuable for making the present more pleasant, or for raising a healthier child.

3. I think we're using "nurture" in slightly different senses: infant nurturing vs childhood and teenage nurturing

[Toban Wiebe]

I should make it clear that The Nurture Assumption is a scholarly work on the causes of socialization, not a parenting advice book. There was one short section in the conclusion where she gave her thoughts on the few things parents can do. Her advice is more what not to do—all the things that are ineffective and waste time and energy. So she basically says: "don't waste your time with the current fashions in child-rearing, just raise them as humans have evolved to be raised." This is the approach of doing what comes naturally—which is much more hands-off, or laissez-faire.