[kaitai]

There is way too much romanticization of a false past here in this larger HN discussion. Yeah, sleep patterns were different, and many people slept with their infants. Infant mortality was also higher, as was maternal mortality, and corporal punishment was common. Sleep-deprived women with piles of children were not spending loving moments staring into their babies' eyes; they were smacking the slightly older children on the back of the head to hurry up and take the chicken feed out and slop the pigs. From my own family histories, I know that babies were often ignored, because at some point having a 1/3 of your babies die means you just don't invest very much emotional energy in them anymore. Very young children were tied to furniture to keep them out of trouble. By age four, some were at work (although the average age to start work in Victorian England was about 10, and the Factory Act came into force to regulate labor conditions for 9-13 year olds). Wet nurses were common, and in parts of England and France in the 1780s for instance it was extraordinarily common to simply ship your baby out to the country so you could work or maintain your aristocratic figure (see references at https://www.geriwalton.com/breastfeeding-or-nursing-with-wet... for instance).

For my own part, we did some version of sleep training (checking every 5 min until crying stopped). This was overall extraordinarily effective. The reassurance that we're not leaving, we're coming back -- quite important. But as important: the discovery that the child in question doesn't like rocking, bouncing, white noise, or any of the other interventions that are billed as crucial. Leave that kid alone for 4-12 minutes? Asleep. Rock/bounce/white noise? Awake for hours. Why torture the child to satisfy someone else's interventionist idea of good parenting?

Every kid is different. And not every cry needs intervention. This kid cried every time a fart came. At some point you just need to learn the world won't end if you fart, and that is simply gained by experience, not mom or dad rushing to reassure and making a big deal of every fart.

[unity1001]

> There is way too much romanticization of a false past here in this larger HN discussion

Some stuff is evolutionary. Co-sleeping is seen in all mammal species. And its an important part of the group sentiment, including the social support it brings. The lack of it causes anxiety in mammal species. Even domestic cats prefer to take care of their young in groups of mothers until the kittens grow up.

> This kid cried every time a fart came. At some point you just need to learn...

...that those farts have been causing pain in his abdomen or scrotum. Its amazing how it did not occur to you and instead you let the kid to just 'go through' it.

> England and France in the 1780s for instance it was extraordinarily common to simply ship your baby out to the country so you could work or maintain your aristocratic figure

Inbreeding, negligent and sociopathic aristocrats are never good examples for anything related to the basic tenets of human civilization. Less, parenting. Sheeesh. If your parenting morning star is murderous 18th century aristocrats who starved their people to be able to live in extravaganza with their powdered wigs...

[naasking]

Invoking evolutionary biology is not the strong point you seem to think it is. Humans have plenty of characteristics and behaviours that are not present in other mammals, even characteristics that seem to be shared among all other mammals. Our shared heritage with cats didn't lead to our sophisticated language or take us to the moon.

Furthermore, if letting babies cry it out were truly as atrocious a practice as you seem to imply, the signal in the data would be so strong it would be impossible to ignore. The fact that we don't see such an indisputable signal should make you question your assumptions.

> ...that those farts have been causing pain in his abdomen or scrotum. Its amazing how it did not occur to you and instead you let the kid to just 'go through' it.

You seem to be implying that this was somehow wrong. Human newborns need to experience a range of sensations and discomfort to learn how to distinguish what counts as actual pain from mere discomfort. This still happens even into adulthood. Exercise is borderline painful when you're out of shape and then can become pleasurable as your fitness improves. Your brain is constantly adapting and recalibrating.

[unity1001]

> Invoking evolutionary biology is not the strong point you seem to think it is. Humans have plenty of characteristics and behaviours that are not present in other mammals

Yes, but co-sleeping, rearing children, co-habitation, touching, grooming, infants depending on their parents are present in all mammal species. More sophisticated and derived behaviors may not be. But these, are. And the repression of some of these in modern humans causes considerable psychological distress and anxiety.

[naasking]

> And the repression of some of these in modern humans causes considerable psychological distress and anxiety.

Literally pure conjecture, as there's no conclusive evidence of this claim, which is the whole point of this article.

Furthermore, the only change we're discussing is eliminating a specific type of co-sleeping. All of the other behaviours common to all mammals remain the same. The odds of this one change being significantly damaging are small, and considering we see no strong signal in the data we do have, I don't see this claim standing the test of time.

[shaklee3]

you made a lot of claims with no evidence. please cite where it creates anxiety.

[unity1001]

Have you not read the rest of the thread? There are a ton of comments in that direction, but hey:

https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp....

> In their recent paper published in JCPP, Bilgin and Wolke (2020a) argue that leaving an infant to ‘cry it out’, rather than responding to the child’s cries, had no adverse effects on mother–infant attachment at 18 months. This finding opposes evidence across a wide range of scientific fields. Here, we outline several concerns with the article and argue against some of the authors’ strong claims, which have already gained media attention, including a report on the NHS website. We suggest that the authors’ conclusions should be considered one piece of a larger scientific whole, where ‘cry it out’ seems, overall, to be of detriment to both attachment and development. Crucially, we are concerned that this study has issues regarding power and other analytical decisions. More generally, we fear that the authors have overstated their findings and we hope that members of the public do not alter their parenting behaviours in line with such claims without further research into this controversial topic.

[shaklee3]

ah, yes! link to a group of people who didn't like the outcome of a study, so they wrote about it with links to older studies that the more comprehensive one already addressed. of course, said people didn't bother to do their own study, but needed to get it off their chests how mad it makes them that the newer/more data-driven studies go against their instincts.

[unity1001]

> ah, yes! link to a group of people who didn't like the outcome of a study, so they wrote about it

That study criticizes the methods and samples of the study you trust in. Its something fundamental, not 'opinionated'.

> data-driven studies go against their instincts.

What part of a 40 or 200 sample set is 'data driven'. How many of those children are 40 years old. How many of them have passed through the chaos of teenage years and now experiencing their first problems in work life, social relationships or relationship with their spouse.

...

Its amazing how people immediately forget any evolutionary biology or behavioral science lessons they have taken during the course of their lives when it involves self-interest. Simple behaviors that entirety of mammal species rely on as evolutionary behaviors for survival are just 'maladaptive practices' when self-interest is involved.

...

Strong personal interest seem to cause strong bias in this topic. I understand the need for the parents who use such destructive practices to be able to get some sleep while they are raising infants in this modern society that does not leave any time for childrearing. But neither anyone like me empathizing with it nor the circumstances of modern society can negate the evolutionary behaviors and their effects. The parents who are in such a situation must find another way to address the situation than relying on what increasingly seems to be anti-humane advocacy.

[ngoilapites]

Those ignoring babies won't hear you, we are the only family in my village that respond to crying calls, and these parents get defensive on this topic, they need to believe...

[shaklee3]

at some point you have to realize that you understand infants less than the parents using this method, and certainly less than the ones doing the studies. you argument is equivalent to saying we should stick to arranged marriages only because that's how it's always been done and it clearly worked for many cultures.

[jjulius]

Thank you for this perspective.