How Modern Parenting Got It All Wrong - Dr Paul Turke
Here are the top 10 key takeaways from Dr. Paul Turke's evolutionary perspective on why modern parenting often conflicts with our biological design, highlighting how ancestral child-rearing practices better aligned with human development.
1. Kinship networks and allo-parenting
Ancestrally, children were raised in extended kinship networks with multiple caregivers contributing to child-rearing. This stands in stark contrast to modern family structures where often a single parent, typically a mother, might be alone with multiple children. This mismatch creates significant stress for both children and parents.
The traditional model involved grandparents, siblings, and other community members sharing childcare responsibilities. Children benefited from multiple attachment figures and diverse learning opportunities, while parents received critical support. This distributed approach prevented the overwhelming burden that many modern parents experience when raising children in isolation.
2. Mixed-age play groups
Children traditionally played in mixed-age groups, which had significant developmental benefits. In these groups, a three-year-old might learn from a seven-year-old while simultaneously helping a two-year-old. This structure facilitated natural learning hierarchies and mentorship.
Mixed-age interaction provided children with models for both imitation and teaching. Older children learned responsibility while younger ones accelerated their development through observation and guidance. Today's age-segregated classrooms and play environments deprive children of these beneficial interactions, potentially impacting their social development and hierarchical understanding.
3. Impact of broken homes on development
Children from broken homes or with step-parents face increased developmental challenges compared to those raised in stable, biological family units. The human brain is highly malleable during early development, and disruptions to the caregiving environment can miss crucial developmental cues.
Research by evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margot Wilson found that step-parents statistically show higher rates of abuse or neglect toward non-biological children. This doesn't condemn step-parenting but highlights the greater emotional challenges involved. The evolutionary explanation suggests that the natural affinity parents feel for their genetic offspring helps ameliorate the difficulties of child-rearing - a motivation that might be diminished with non-biological children.
4. Evolutionary role of grandparents
Grandparents play a crucial evolutionary role in human development. Human longevity beyond reproductive years evolved largely because grandparents, especially grandmothers, contributed to the survival of their grandchildren. This pattern of indirect reproduction through caregiving significantly increased family success.
The relationship benefits both generations. Grandparents report greater life satisfaction and fulfillment when involved in their grandchildren's lives. Many modern grandparents separated from their families may experience what Dr. Turke describes as an "epidemic of unhappy grandparents" in the US and elsewhere - people who might enjoy luxuries like beach vacations but miss the deeper satisfaction that comes from being useful to younger generations.
5. Benefits of breastfeeding
Breastfeeding provides numerous evolutionary advantages that formula cannot replicate. It helps establish a proper microbiome, protects against illnesses (especially diarrheal diseases that historically killed many babies), and may contribute to cognitive development, with some studies suggesting 4-5 extra IQ points for breastfed infants.
The benefits extend to mothers as well, including reduced risk of breast cancer and potentially lower rates of early dementia. Dr. Turke notes that breastfeeding difficulties are rare in traditional societies where the practice is universally observed, but modern women often struggle due to lack of proper guidance, support, and cultural knowledge about successful breastfeeding techniques.
6. Concerns about medicalized childbirth
Modern obstetrics has become increasingly medicalized, with procedures like C-sections and inductions being performed more frequently than necessary. While these interventions can be lifesaving when properly indicated, they're often used for convenience rather than medical necessity.
C-sections can interfere with breastfeeding initiation because they disrupt the natural timing between birth and nursing. They also impact the mother's recovery, making her less able to engage in early caregiving activities. Dr. Turke advocates for more judicious use of these procedures and greater respect for the natural communication system between mother and baby regarding birth timing.
7. Physical contact and carrying infants
Ancestrally, babies were rarely put down and instead were carried constantly by caregivers. This continuous physical contact had significant developmental benefits and prevented conditions like plagiocephaly (head flattening), which affects approximately one in six American children today.
The constant variation in position, orientation, and sensory input that comes from being carried may have important implications for neurological development. Dr. Turke speculates that modern sensory integration disorders and some features of autism spectrum conditions might be related to reduced physical handling and limited sensory experiences in early infancy compared to our evolutionary past.
8. Co-sleeping as normal human behavior
Co-sleeping was the universal norm throughout human evolutionary history. The practice is still common in many cultures, with Japan serving as an example where co-sleeping is standard and SIDS rates are half those in the United States. The risks associated with co-sleeping typically stem from unsafe practices rather than the behavior itself.
Dr. Turke disagrees with the American Academy of Pediatrics' blanket stance against co-sleeping. He acknowledges their concern for safety across diverse populations but argues that proper education about safe co-sleeping practices would be more beneficial than prohibition. The evolutionary perspective suggests that mother-infant sleep proximity is the biological norm and offers benefits for both parties when done safely.
9. Evolutionary perspective on childhood anxiety and ADHD
Some degree of anxiety is evolutionarily adaptive - complete absence of anxiety would be dangerous. Modern environments create novel anxiety-producing situations for children, particularly teenagers navigating complex social landscapes without the support of extended kinship networks. The challenge isn't eliminating anxiety but teaching appropriate coping mechanisms.
ADHD-like behaviors might represent alternative learning styles that were well-accommodated in traditional societies. Children with active, hands-on learning preferences could thrive in environments offering diverse roles and activities. Modern education systems funnel all children through the same standardized process, overvaluing quiet, passive learning styles while pathologizing more active approaches that might have been advantageous in ancestral settings.
10. Evolutionary mismatch in diet and immunity
Humans adapt to dietary changes more quickly during youth than in old age. Research with fruit flies showed that after 40 generations, flies adapted well to new diets while young, but even after 100 generations, they hadn't adapted to the same diet in old age. This explains why children can tolerate modern processed foods better than adults and elderly people.
Similar principles apply to immunity and disease. Young immune systems evolve more quickly to adapt to new pathogens associated with crowded living conditions. However, this advantage is partially offset by older people's accumulated immune memory. The evolutionary perspective suggests that age-specific dietary and medical recommendations might be more effective than universal guidelines that ignore these biological differences.