Citizens of Tomorrow, Be Forewarned

look: our neanderthal ancestors took care of the sick and disabled so if ur post-apocalyptic scenario is an excuse for eugenics, u are a bad person and literally have less compassion than a caveman

Yes but they also when extinct which implies whatever they were doing at the time wasn’t fit for their environment.

So, it’s been awhile since I took a human evolution course, so some of this might be a little out of date, but

1) Whether or not Neanderthals went extinct is still kind of up for debate, and seems to hinge largely on whether you think that Neanderthals are a H. Sapiens subspecies or not, which often seems like a mildly pointless argument to me since it’s largely a fight about which definition of “species” to use

2) Even if we argue that Neanderthals are our direct ancestors and never went extinct, several Neanderthal *traits* (like their noses and their forheads) *have* left the population. Care for the disabled is not one of them.

Saying “Neanderthals cared for their sick and injured and are now extinct, therefore care for the disabled is maladaptive” is like saying “Dodos are extinct therefore beaks are a terrible idea”

Statements about “less compassion than a caveman” still stand.

–Peter

I teach human evolution to college students, so in addition to that, here’s what we know. There’s some citations (and footnotes) behind the cut, if you’re interested.

So Neanderthals aren’t our direct ancestor- more like a branch of the family tree that didn’t lead to us. Close cousins- close enough to breed- but they evolved outside of Africa about 400kya, while our species evolved in Africa about 200kya*. This is important because it means that altruism can’t possibly be a Neanderthal trait that left the population during the evolution into modern humans; we didn’t evolve from them, so it’s not like we can say “well, this was maladaptive in our ancestors.” This is a behavior you see in two temporally coexisting species (or subspecies), and I do mean two, because it wasn’t just Neanderthals practicing altruism. We did it too.

We have really good evidence that early Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e., us, just old) also took care of their injured, elderly, and disabled. At Cro-Magnon in France, a few individuals clearly suffered from traumatic injury and illness during their lives. Cro-Magnon 1 had a nasty infection in his face; his bones are pitted from it. Cro-Magnon 2, a female, had a partially healed skull fracture, and several of the others had fused neck vertebrae that had fused as a result of healed trauma; this kind of injury would make it impossible to hunt and uncomfortable to move. This kind of injury can be hard to survive today, even with modern medical care; the fact that the individuals at Cro-Magnon survived long enough for the bones to remodel and heal indicate that somebody was taking care of them. At Xujiayao, in northern China, there’s evidence of healed skull fractures (which would have had a rather long recovery time and needed care); 

This evidence of altruism extends past injured adults, as well. One of the most compelling cases is at Qafzeh, which is in Israel. Here we see evidence of long-term care for a developmentally disabled child (as well as a child who had hydrocephaly and survived). Qafzeh 11, a 12-13 year old at time of death, suffered severe brain damage as a child. Endocasts (basically making a model of the inside of the skull, where the brain would be) show that the volume of the brain was much smaller than expected; likely the result of a growth delay due to traumatic brain injury. The patterns of development suggest that this injury occurred between the ages of 4 and 6. They very likely suffered from serious neurological problems; the areas of the brain that were injured are known to control psychomotricity. This means that the kid may have had a hard time controlling their eye movements, general body movement, keeping visual attention, performing specific tasks, and managing uncertainty; in addition, Broca’s area might also have been damaged, which likely would have affected the kid’s ability to speak. Long and short of it, without help, this kid wouldn’t have survived to age 12-13. 

But they did. They lived, and they were loved. When they died, they were given a funeral- we know this based on body position and funeral offerings. Mortuary behavior was common among both Neanderthals and archaic Homo sapiens, and this burial was particularly interesting. The body was placed on its back, its legs extended and the arms crossed over the chest. Deer antlers were laid on the upper part of the chest; in the archaeological context, they were in close contact with the palmar side of the hand bones, meaning it’s likely that they were placed in the hands before burial. This points to Qafzeh 11 being valued by the community- why go to the effort for somebody you don’t care about? Compassion is a very human trait, and to call it maladaptive is to ignore hundreds of thousands of years of human experience.

Keep reading

“Compassion is a very human trait, and to call it maladaptive is to ignore hundreds of thousands of years of human experience.”

Would you be alright with me borrowing your words when someone poses the above comments’ line of thought to me?

Of course! (And feel free to use anything else in my anthropology tag.)

Compassion is a very human trait, and to call it maladaptive is to ignore hundreds of thousands of years of human experience.

One thing I enjoy most about teaching is how children react to me after they’ve been angry.

I’ve been pinched, punched, kicked, choked, scratched, screamed at, been the target of flying projectiles, anything you can imagine, I’ve probably had it happen to me.

Yet when it’s all over, 90% of kids who flipped out will hug me or apologize.

Usually, I address the angry child calmly, even if my inner fight or flight is kicking in. I can’t show the child’s behavior is okay. Yelling and screaming are not how they’re going to get what they want, so it’s not how I’m going to get what I want.

I wait until they’re done expressing their anger, whether it be directed at me or an inanimate object. I keep repeating the phrases “Are you done yet?” and “Feel better yet?” and wait until they’re calm enough to respond.

That’s when it’s time for discipline. 

Usually, discipline for me just means I sit down and talk them through what happened. It’s telling them “yes, you’re allowed to be angry, but hurting people is never a good reason unless you or someone else is being hurt.”  Then I explain that if this happens again, the same thing is going to happen. They’re not going to get what they want. They’re going to get a chill out until their anger subsides. 

Then I ask “What can we do differently next time?” If the child doesn’t have an answer, I’ll give them suggestions like “kick a ball” or “run as fast as you can” or “scribble on paper until they feel better” or “sit by yourself until the anger goes away” and usually it’s met with the child suggesting their own ideas. 

I’ve actually had kids put themselves on chill out chairs because they’re about to flip out. There’s a personal pride that comes from that. Seeing a 4 or 5-year-old recognize destructive behavior and take steps to fix it themselves is an intelligence level most adults fail to have.

At no time do I tell them their anger is wrong. I tell them their behavior is wrong. Being angry is a part of our humanity, but hurting others because we’re angry is dangerous territory. 

I never make them say sorry, either. I don’t want them to if they don’t mean it. Some kids are taught saying sorry makes the problem go away, and I don’t agree with that. I’d rather they show me they’re sorry, such as doing better next time or stopping the behavior altogether.

Some people might argue I’m being too soft, but when you have a child tell you they don’t see you as an adult because you don’t yell at them, it’s a comforting but sad notion that you’re doing the right thing.

-Cat

Literally just got out of my annual conflict training for work (I work with developmentally disabled adults at a day program) and this is almost a perfect illustration of what they teach. One of the main things they teach you is that you can’t try to start addressing what someone is “doing wrong” until you have passed the “crisis” stage and have de-escalated. It won’t work.

Fuck I’ve got the study sheet in my bag I can just lay the whole thing out. Hold on…ok. Long post ahead.

They visualize conflict like a mountain.

At the bottom is the Baseline. When someone is acting at their version of normal it’s the baseline. When the person you’re working with is at baseline you should Engage them by supporting them in what they are doing and take note of it. Knowing what someone is like and what they do when they are calm and happy is your first tool in conflict management.

Next is the Stimulus Trigger. The person is behaving outside of their baseline. You should Listen to them and see if you can remove the stimulus. (eg they are blocking their ears and making distressed noises, see if you can quiet the area or suggest they move to a quieter room)

If that doesn’t work there is Escalation. The person is reacting more to the stimulus…you should Engage them by offering options from the baseline. They usually suggest you offer three things they like to do when they are calm. OP gave a great example of this with “kicking a ball” etc

If options do not work to de-escalate Escalation may reach a higher phase where the person may engage in small self-harming behaviors (the example in our packet has the man picking at his skin and yelling). Here you continue to Engage while setting expectations to cue a replacement behavior. This doesn’t mean “in the future you should do this” instead it means something like putting goals on the options you offered. Eg you suggested several things and they chose “running” but continue to escalate. Here you’d say something like “ok I have my watch ready (show watch) run three laps, I’m going to time you!” This distracts them and gives them a goal AND encourages them to engage in the baseline behavior.

At the peak of the mountain is the Crisis. Here you focus on Protecting the person…and they advise you to use the least amount of interaction necessary to ensure safety. That means not touching unless you HAVE to to keep you or them safe and disengaging from touching as soon as possible. Usually all you need to do is be nearby and calm until they are out of crisis.

Now we’ve created the mountain and are working our way down. First is De-Escalation. The person is out of crisis and is starting to calm down. You should Engage them by structuring the cool off period. The example they give in my worksheet is pretty good: “I will stay here and listen to you: what do you want to talk about?” Basically let them know you’re there while they calm down. In a classroom setting this might be something like “if you’re feeling better why don’t you have a seat next to me until you feel calm? I’ll be right here if you need me.”

Next is Stabilization. HERE is where you talk about what happened, not before. The advise here is to actively Listen. Take part in a calm activity or something and ask them if something happened before the stimulus trigger. Listen to what they tell you and keep it in mind for the future. This is not a punishment moment, it’s a “ok so this started because of this, can we avoid that in the future?”

Finally you’re at the base of the mountain again in the Post-Crisis Drain. Here you Listen to the person so you can observe them and offer support. Make sure there are no further negative effects from the earlier crisis.

TL;DR OP basically uses the MANDT system which is based in, like, treating people like people and not problems. You’re not soft OP, you’re using tried and true methods backed up by psychologists to cause the least harm possible to your kids while preventing future instances. Good job.

I had no idea this was actually a system that supports what I do. I’m just incredibly patient.

This is the most validating response I’ve ever gotten <3