Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact is, there is no evidence whatsoever that occasional CIO in typically developing babies causes any damage. PERIOD.
More importantly, there IS evidence that severely sleep-deprived mothers are at much higher risk of developing an already common –and dangerous — condition: postpartum depression. And PPD certainly CAN lead to long-term damage to both baby — and the entire family. CIO is a method that, when implemented thoughtfully, can often lead to improved sleep (and health and happiness) for everyone. Firebombs like those thrown in the Psychology Today article only make the burden heavier on moms. What a shame.
The author of the article you posted is best known for an article she published calling infant formula "evil", and a "starvation diet". I'm not a big fan.
Where? Citation please. Also as other users have said you appear to have totally misrepresented what "cry it out" actually means too. So perhaps you would do well to learn what people are actually talking about before you wade in telling them THEY are the ones that are wrong. Perhaps you would do well to change your posts on this thread from telling people what you think is right and wrong, to telling people what you actually think the CIO method actually entails.
You call it many things it seems. From abandonment to selfish and worse. Your willingness to so easily accuse others of what essentially amounts to not caring about their children at all is both disingenuous and clouding the issue. Whatever method people choose to deal with things like getting babies to sleep I think we can assume that the vast majority of parents are doing what they think is best for their own children. Painting them as you so willingly do - as being selfish lazy people who want to abandon their own children and find studies on the internet to justify their evil doings - is a cruel as it is false.
This issue is emotive enough without you wading in and throwing around such accusations based on nothing at all.
In fairness there is no small different between an old person dying and a baby trying to sleep. Also have you any citations linking crying to the physical deformities you spoke of?
Think it is called an old wives tale..it might have some merit.
I have never heard someone using sleep training or CIO say that the baby was manipulating them. Really? What does that even mean?
FTR, Psychology Today is like the National Enquirer of social and behavioral health. They publish all manner of tripe.
From the articles I have read they are typically based on published work (ime usually by the authors themselves), although the topics tend to be inciting. That's not really on par with NE.
From the articles I have read they are typically based on published work (ime usually by the authors themselves), although the topics tend to be inciting. That's not really on par with NE.
Ha, ok, I was being hyperbolic (is ANYthing actually on par with NE?) PT does not tend to report on studies in a particularly thorough manner, and the folks who blog and write opinion pieces for them tend not to adhere to scientifically acceptable levels of considering all evidence in an unbiased fashion, IMO. As a publication, I consider their handling of legitimate studies to be pseudo-scientific or science-light, not the primary sources themselves to be pseudoscience.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 09-14-2012 at 07:14 PM..
Reason: Awkward sentence
Well, Stan, you've managed to give me a wry sort of laugh here. I learned a lot about child rearing from an old Navajo woman. Very American. And Navajos don't believe in CIO. (Just mentioning it because I think you'll get it.)
Last edited by DewDropInn; 09-14-2012 at 07:11 PM..
Theorists and science have little to do with the real rearing of infants...Faith? Nothing wrong with faith based in love...I just never had the heart to listen to a baby cry...as you here have discussed ...that the sound of an infant crying grates the soul and it is instinctive in both parents to react to the crying....funny- One of my adult daughters was sick today...and she needed me to come over...I did not want to travel...but she started whining like a child..crying- even though all my kids are adults I still react the same way.
Same as one of my son's his mother told me that he was shedding tears over the lost of a job ....just the thought of him crying breaks my heart. Whether it be an infant or an adult kid...it seems that it is this deep parental love that irks us to the core if we sense or hear distress...It's very primitive and protective...
This instinct might even become more pronounced with the second infant, seeing the first may have conditioned the parents reactions..making the parent more vulnerable to the protective instinct.
Just don't see the point of "cry it out" - I think we may have tried it once....only because it was suggested by someone with no emotional vested interest in the child- easy if it is NOT your kid....anyway...pick the child up and pace and sooth...it's work...no one likes to work harder than the THINK they have too.
It looks like you need to ask at these studies. . . and ask iis it correlation, causation, or what?
It seems to me that you can get the benefits of Co-Sleeping by just having the bassinet right next to the bed, without the inherent danger.
And unless we reviewed each of the countries, you just don't know what is significant and what is not.
I for one am reading, from the most current and updated research, as noted by first candle - room share is better than both co-sleeping and bed sharing.
I mean this is from places like First Cancle, SIDS Center, etc. I mean sure you might find some odd Dr. Sears article, but it seems like those in the field have made their decision.
and - its off topic, doing CIO at 6 months has nothing to do with SIDS.
It may be off topic but if you are going to say that co-sleeping, a common alternative to CIO is "deadly" then I'm going to refute that information with links to the latest research (James McKenna, Sleep lab at Notre Dame, a well cited article by Dr Sears with very relevant and current references and a study that the organizations that you favor cherry picked their data from) which you seemed to miss in favor of opinions of a few select organizations.
I mentioned CIO for infants over the age of 6 months because it's not recommended before that age. At all. Not because of SIDS necessarily but because it could be harmful for infants so young.
I hope that people understand that the article that you posted in your OP does not condone all forms of cry it out. According to the article, the study (which I can't seem to find) has found that very gentle and gradual approaches to sleep training are not harmful. That does not include any and all "CIO' approach that someone wants to come up with on a whim.
I know what you're talking about.
We read the books, etc (we are always reading the books and my wife is on this baby birth month forum). At 4 months, we thought about doing it. We tried it one night and it was terrible...listening to him cry for no reason. Going in at intervals to check and reassure. The guilt was terrible. The whole just...felt wrong. You know what I mean?
People keep telling us to do things to the kid that just feel wrong. And the reason is always to make OUR lives better. That is so not what my culture/ancestry would have done (where baby is with someone at all times and not just left alone).
So we tossed that plan. The american way isn't the only way. And there is a reason that 'colic' is an almost entirely western phenomenon.
He was very amenable to us holding his hand until he fell asleep. Now you can literally put him in his crib, kiss him, and hand him his bink. He will lie down by himself and go to sleep. No muss. No fuss. My friends with similar aged children are in awe of the fact that he goes to bed at 6:30 and sleeps all the way to 5. Wakes himself up sometimes...but puts himself back to sleep.
All without having to abandon or betray him.
This kid will insist on his own milestones without us forcing them upon him.
Didn't want to sleep with us at around 3/4 months - wasn't comfortable for him.
He ditched the boob milk at 9 months. Didn't want it anymore.
Doesn't want to be held that much anymore - man is on the move now!
He doesn't need us to force milestones upon him.
I think that your "method" would be called the "camp it out" method referenced in the article.
Ha, ok, I was being hyperbolic (is ANYthing actually on par with NE?) PT does not tend to report on studies in a particularly thorough manner, and the folks who blog and write opinion pieces for them tend not to adhere to scientifically acceptable levels of considering all evidence in an unbiased fashion, IMO. As a publication, I consider their handling of legitimate studies to be pseudo-scientific or science-light, not the primary sources themselves to be pseudoscience.
Of the articles I've investigated, I've always been able to follow the basis to a journal. And coincidentally the articles are written by the PhD who initially published the work in whatever journal. Kanazawa is a good example. He writes up provocative, almost crazy pieces, but you can easily find and follow his publications in the literature. Citing would be best, and that would make things easier, but if I can source it on my own that's usually enough for me. Granted, this only accounts for what I have read. I don't know if this is the case across the board. That's not to say published psych work is inherently valid because it's published. I understand that it is psych after all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? What does that even mean?
PT does not tend to report on studies in a particularly thorough manner, and the folks who blog and write opinion pieces for them tend not to adhere to scientifically acceptable levels of considering all evidence in an unbiased fashion, IMO. As a publication, I consider their handling of legitimate studies to be pseudo-scientific or science-light, not the primary sources themselves to be pseudoscience.
And Navajos don't believe in CIO. (Just mentioning it because I think you'll get it.)