Newborns benefit from leaving home

tht

akstavrh
am i being wildly anthropocentric in wondering that however internally consistent their method may be, the gap between those coprophilic little nasties and their rodent counterparts is just too large for extrapolation

pavlov is simple stuff but is 'full social and cognitive development' consisent between the two species?

all the conclusions are by the numbers stuff that developmental psychologists probably established with actual non rodent children ages ago, and consistent with a lot of psychoanalytic theory i would think (if you consider the implications of the british independent tradition anyway)

a suspicion i have is that the increasing diagnoses of things like asperger syndrome, considered a neurological condition with genetic and antenatal factors, also could have enviromental factors eg the prevalence of restricted home environments

and isn't the tendency towards increased socialisation in early childhood increasing in a lot of places anyway? the tendency for 'selfishly' dumping kids on nannies or in daycare centres will invariably increase the number of non-familial relationships with adults and other children
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
Well, the scientist at the end is careful to say that the tendency is to extrapolate from the findings our own conclusions about humans, but that this is still a stretch as of now. Mammals do tend to be similar across species in other developmental issues regarding socialization, though. I'm sure it's howhere near as simple for human babies--there are probably more factors that weigh into their social and cognitive development and just taking them outside them home more, ceteris paribus, might have no net effect whatsoever. But I would not be surprised if scientists were able to replicate these findings with humans somehow in the future.

I think the old "nurture" model, where it is assumed that it is ALWAYS the healthiest thing for infants to be at home with mom for as long as possible, needs to be challenged big time. Otherwise we'll never see what alternative models may be beneficial.

PS I think Aspberger's is too complex to be a function of restrictive home environments, but I wouldn't be surprised if diagnosis happens later because children are too isolated in their own homes, and their families themselves are less likely to see a problem than outside authority figures or adults--either because of denial, the truth being too hard, or because parents think that the lack of social bonding is a form of misbehaving or lashing out instead of a neurological issue.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I just can't wait until scientists prove that it is stupid how society tries to make women feel guilty for leaving their infants with other caretakers (as if women haven't ALWAYS done that whenever it made sense in terms of survival, or because they had the luxury to do so, anyway).
 

tht

akstavrh
PS I think Aspberger's is too complex to be a function of restrictive home environments, but I wouldn't be surprised if diagnosis happens later because children are too isolated in their own homes, and their families themselves are less likely to see a problem than outside authority figures or adults--either because of denial, the truth being too hard, or because parents think that the lack of social bonding is a form of misbehaving or lashing out instead of a neurological issue.

completely agree with this, my post was ambiguous so i edited it slightly

the condition described as of now is essentially neurological, which i don't refute at all, just suggesting that other etiological factors are undoubtedly reflected in many cases, whether in terms of enhanching a latent tendency, or indicating some other condition that may in time be considered separately, something closer to herr asperger's original formulation 'autistic psychopathy' maybe!

and one of the reasons the mother/child thing is increasingly sacrosant is because it is less common, and the current childcare arrangements of the polite classes look increasingly victorian, with all the guilt that indifference entails
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
the etiology of autism is really starting to fascinate me-- if you know of any good reading on the subject do tell!

also, re Victorianism and motherhood: i think you're exactly right. it's been frightening to me lately just how regressive our culture seems. the way our society is changing so rapidly w/r/t biology no longer determining "family" ties seems to be turning people back on to outdated victorian ideals and morality. just far enough into it so they can indulge in guilt when they stray but make no plans to live up to the ideals. i'm trying to figure out which conditions encourage this. political ones? it doesn't seem as if you need to appeal to victorian ideals as a means of social control when you have the mass media...

maybe it helps keep things kinky and erotic to keep female sexuality all bound up and repressed in the face of the rapid proliferation of grotesquely graphic sexual (almost to the point of caricature and parody) imagery?
 

tht

akstavrh
thought i should return to this thread cos it links in to some of the stuff discussed on the sov thread (for which we can thank a certain contributor's shit-fuck issues)

when i spoke of victorian in relation to childcare it was simply referring to the decrease in time spent with infants and children by parents dumping them on servants, and for the victorian upper middle class this was entirely a cultural thing

the equivalent classes now are doing the same for financial reasons, and few among them would say outright that mothers should not work full time if they can earn a large salary and get nearer their lifestyle apotheosis (and there is such a lot for these people to consume that even a single lawyer/doctor/etc salary may not suffice) - the guilt is largely platitudinous because it is withstood by so many whose consumption needs win out, and the laura bush archetype is dying outside of the upper class and the congenitally reactionary

this is a large shift in the space of one or two generations and fairly unambiguously a good one overall i think, however unsound the reasons, thanks to the increasing autonomy given to those who would otherwise be housewives (maybe this isn't as shit a fate as it usually looks, but it almost always affirms the madonna/whore irreason) and it facilitates further shifts like the elective single mother and fuck knows whatever else in years to come (nugenix corp, aryan baby solutions since 2024)

some would cite the swelling of the nanny class supplanting all of this, but these are largely immigrants (in this country often temporary ones) or those who would otherwise be in some other serice sector serfdom; this is liberal guilt writ large and maybe the fear of the sublimated class antagonism played out against their fat little progeny while they work (especially if the carers looks after their own kids at the same time)

maybe it helps keep things kinky and erotic to keep female sexuality all bound up and repressed in the face of the rapid proliferation of grotesquely graphic sexual (almost to the point of caricature and parody) imagery?

this is far more complex because how little is there left to desublimate in hetero terms? and such a recent thing that the structures don't exist to displace the infite boredom of hyperreal pornography and the inutile sub-meta-porn that constitutes 90% of the entertainment industry just playing catchup

the reactions to all of this are exagerratedly performative, so if you show a kid some interracial a2m scat they will probably go EUUUGGHH or LIKE, WHATEVER depending on whether they wish to re-enact it themselves, and if they ever do then they'll probably have to hide how disappointingly boring it was
 
Last edited:
Top