[epolanski]

But you can't be heard every single time, the usual example of a parent driving, he can't just stop the car and start soothing the baby ignoring the rest of the world, logistics or obligations.

That's just not feasible nor it can't be 100% an obligation to always respond every single crying.

I think the article does a good job pointing out that after 6 months and definitely after 12 you do need to start let the baby safe soothe itself more frequently.

[agumonkey]

Sure, I can't be absolutist. But whenever I can, I do something. Respond. For the car, you might not be able to reach, but emit something that convey concern and care.

[epolanski]

What if that approach of over protecting brings up a future lazy, spoiled, weak willed adult that will conduct miserable lives because up to 36 months all their brain saw is that crying always got them attentions and everything they wanted?

You don't know whether your approach is the best one, I don't, speak with as many professionals you can.

[agumonkey]

I approach it the other way. I wouldn't succumb to every tantrum. I try to build a solid emotional bridge so that the kid can stay grounded and relaxed as much as possible.

I'd love to speak with interesting professionals. So far I've met none.

[metabagel]

Children under the age of three aren't capable of self-soothing. If they're quiet when you abandon them, it's because they've given up hope.

[epolanski]

You don't know that, you're not inside their brain nor you're a scientist studying the matter.

There is no evidence behind your claim.

[jnwatson]

You’ve successfully expressed the “parent in whatever mechanism makes me emotionally fulfilled” style. Many others take a more scientific viewpoint more oriented around child outcomes.