Live data from Hacker News

The unusual ways Western parents raise children

bbc.com

591–600 of 684 posts

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, "sleep training" is just a more palatable euphemism for "cry it out". My view is that however you slice it, you are conditioning the baby that no one will respond to its distress. I'm glad you feel it worked out well for you. I honestly hope it doesn't cause problems, because it's very widespread. Based on our reading of the available evidence, we weren't willing to take the risk. Our lives certainl…

Everything is trade-offs. Less consistent sleep (for both the baby and the parents) is also clearly problematic.

In my experience, babies will get enough sleep one way or another, with or without "sleep training", though it may not be on a consistent or convenient schedule.

Parents can easily get enough sleep as well. It's called "sleeping when the baby sleeps". Infants sleep like 15 hours per day, so it isn't hard. You just can't conform to any kind of a schedule--that's the tradeoff, not getting enough sleep.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, wait, what is the advice to avoid drowning, other than not leaving them alone? Is there some subtle hazard I’m unaware of?

Not leaving them alone is enough, but to make people actually follow the rule, it is useful to tell them that kids are easily able to drown even in unbelievably small amounts of water, and also in situations where drowning seems almost impossible .

Also, when kids (and especially babies) are drowning, it's usually not obvious. In adults when carbon dioxide levels increase past a threshold a lot of physically obvious manifestations begin, such as thrashing, driven by the autonomic system. And before then there'll often be coughing and other signs of distress, autonomic or otherwise. In small children this doesn't happen. Countless parents have literally watched their child drown before their very own eyes. A coworker almost lost a kid this way--the instant the kid accidentally inhaled water while playing in a hot tub, they immediately went lights out. Fortunately their other, older child was also playing in the hot tub and attentive. The parents had both briefly gone inside, proving the warning that it only takes seconds for tragedy to unfold.

I'm synthesizing here, but AFAICT a catatonic-like state is typical of small children in severe distress. (Anybody remember the Moth Radio Hour story about the man whose kid immediately went catatonic when they were surprised by burglars? IIRC, he was told this response was common of young children.) So if a baby suddenly inhales a large amount of water, they may immediately go from normal to non-responsive (possibly retaining muscle tone?), even though they're not yet physiologically drowning, and even though with lesser amounts of water they would normally cough and cry. This [lack of] behavior may be related, if indirectly, to the phenomenon of SIDS. An infant's physiology hasn't developed the various mechanisms to jump start respiration when something goes awry. (One unproven hypothesis behind SIDS is that an infant's breathing is partly moderated and even induced by their caretaker's breathing, such that if they can't hear, feel, or otherwise sense--some theories implicate carbon dioxide levels--another's breathing their own rhythm may be disrupted, or if disrupted less likely to resume. Thus co-sleeping may be better for infants, reducing SIDS risk, ceteris paribus--i.e. absent counter-indications, such as a parent who smokes or drinks.)

So with babies not only do you have to watch them to make sure they aren't presently, visibly drowning, you have to make sure (to some reasonable, mentally healthy degree) they couldn't possibly be drowning--i.e. they didn't or couldn't have inhaled water; that they're active, attentive, etc.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I inferred that you thought that gdubs was not doing their best. You used the phrase "strongly disagree". I'm not sure which part you strongly disagree with. Nor can I tell why you think gdubs is not doing their best. For what it's worth, I definitely agree with gdubs point of view. I'm less clear on what you're saying though. When you say "unwilling to make personal sacrifices", does that mean unwilling to ever make…

I didn't mean to shame the OP, though I can see how it might have come across that way. What I take issue with is the implication of relativism. That as long as you love your kids, it's fine if you just do whatever is convenient or easy or comes naturally to you, and there are no better or worse ways to parent. I think that's a copout and that our kids deserve better. I understand why people do sleep training. We wer…

> But I think that most parents know deep down that it's wrong, and that they are doing it for themselves, not the baby.

I'm definitely not in that group. I have no such deep knowledge of it being wrong. I really believe it's actually better for some kids. Like mine for instance. It's not a compromise for me.

I believe OP is saying not to worry about what other people are telling you about how to parent. I didn't infer any relativism from the post.

What I'm reading from you is that sleep training is bad for kids. And that its practitioners just aren't trying hard enough. But I really believe that for some (like my family) it's actually better.

So by the same token, just because you're suffering more doesn't mean you're doing a better job.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#594
post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my experience, "sleep training" is just a more palatable euphemism for "cry it out". My view is that however you slice it, you are conditioning the baby that no one will respond to its distress. You claim to be doing a lot of "research" in other posts but also drawing on your "experience" -- "sleep training" is not "cry it out", and in fact modern sleep training is explicitly about telling your child that you AR…

A 'euphemism', according to Merriam-Webster, is "the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant." "Sleep training", in all its forms, means ignoring your crying infant for significant periods of time until they get used to the idea that no one is coming and stop crying. Whether it's done in one night or dragged out over a longer period of time, the r…

I know what a euphemism is, I am telling you that the two are not equivalent -- "sleep training" in the form of, e.g., Karp, is not the same as "cry it out", does not involve what you say, and this is not a euphemism.

That said, given that you merely restated what you previously claimed without addressing anything I said except for the word "euphemism" -- and to be clear, I address the "ignoring" part in my post, which you ignore -- I really don't understand what you think you are contributing to this conversation.

Your opinion on sleep training is clear. Many people agree with you. And...what? Therefore, sleep training is bad and people who try it should be ashamed? Frankly that just doesn't follow.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean to shame the OP, though I can see how it might have come across that way. What I take issue with is the implication of relativism. That as long as you love your kids, it's fine if you just do whatever is convenient or easy or comes naturally to you, and there are no better or worse ways to parent. I think that's a copout and that our kids deserve better. I understand why people do sleep training. We wer…

> But I think that most parents know deep down that it's wrong, and that they are doing it for themselves, not the baby. I'm definitely not in that group. I have no such deep knowledge of it being wrong. I really believe it's actually better for some kids. Like mine for instance. It's not a compromise for me. I believe OP is saying not to worry about what other people are telling you about how to parent. I didn't inf…

I certainly have more respect for someone who does sleep training because they think it's best for the child, rather than for themselves. Of course, everyone will say that's why they're doing it, but you seem sincere.

I still think you have to be misinformed or deliberately ignorant of the evidence that's out there to hold this position though. I also think the reason people don't dig deeper is that they, perhaps unconsciously, would rather not discover something that is uncomfortable and inconvenient for them.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#596
post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 'euphemism', according to Merriam-Webster, is "the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant." "Sleep training", in all its forms, means ignoring your crying infant for significant periods of time until they get used to the idea that no one is coming and stop crying. Whether it's done in one night or dragged out over a longer period of time, the r…

I know what a euphemism is, I am telling you that the two are not equivalent -- "sleep training" in the form of, e.g., Karp, is not the same as "cry it out", does not involve what you say, and this is not a euphemism. That said, given that you merely restated what you previously claimed without addressing anything I said except for the word "euphemism" -- and to be clear, I address the "ignoring" part in my post, whi…

> I am telling you that the two are not equivalent

Well, that's where I disagree. I think they are functionally equivalent.

> I address the "ignoring" part in my post

You address it by claiming that sleep training doesn't mean ignoring a crying baby. If there are sleep training methods that don't involve this, I doubt they would work with most kids. Realistically, if you are committed to sleep training, you're going to have to ignore some crying unless you have a really mellow baby.

> sleep training is bad and people who try it should be ashamed

Well, yeah. I get why people do it, but I think it's very likely to be damaging to our kids and our society. So I'd rather that people stop doing it. I know that plenty of folks have already drunk the kool-aid and are unlikely to be convinced (doing so would likely mean confronting some uncomfortable feelings). But there are sure to be brand new parents or soon-to-be parents reading this thread, and I'm hoping to convince some of them that there's a better way.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, wait, what is the advice to avoid drowning, other than not leaving them alone? Is there some subtle hazard I’m unaware of?

If you don't know just how little water it takes to drown in, then the risk isn't obvious. A newborn that can't easily move and roll over can drown face down in an inch of water if they manage to get into that position, which even gentle sliding around in a baby tub can facilitate.

Have some advice from this experienced dad with 12 kids: the baby tub is a poor way to clean a baby. The water instantly gets disgusting from poo or whatever it is you are trying to remove, and then that gets all over the baby. Plus the baby tub costs money and takes up space. It's more clutter to trip over in the dark.

Babies can be washed in sinks, with the drain open and the water running. (don't let them kick the water temperature control though) Babies can be washed in a normal shower, held in the arms of a parent.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#598
post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the hunter-gatherer parenting practices that get pushed on certain parenting blogs are pseudo-scientific and shouldn't be adopted. And some of claims that a baby crying is dumping enough cortisol into their bodies it will permanently damage their brains is NOT supported by science. What does have a strong scientific basis: the importance of sleep hygiene. Children don't need perfection or goofy hunter-gathere…

It's not exactly rocket science to figure out that people crying are unhappy about something and need comforting. Later, babies learn to fake crying, but when they're really small it is a really good idea to check on them.

Some babies learn to fake choking. They know what gets attention fast.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't know just how little water it takes to drown in, then the risk isn't obvious. A newborn that can't easily move and roll over can drown face down in an inch of water if they manage to get into that position, which even gentle sliding around in a baby tub can facilitate.

Have some advice from this experienced dad with 12 kids: the baby tub is a poor way to clean a baby. The water instantly gets disgusting from poo or whatever it is you are trying to remove, and then that gets all over the baby. Plus the baby tub costs money and takes up space. It's more clutter to trip over in the dark. Babies can be washed in sinks, with the drain open and the water running. (don't let them kick the…

We did the sink when they were really little, then switched to the big tubs that sit on top of the sink because the kids loved it, the warm water, splashing, or just vegging out as we poured warm water through their hair. But yeah, plenty of times it was a double bath: The 1st one, and then the second one where we got them clean after draining pee water.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#600
post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what a euphemism is, I am telling you that the two are not equivalent -- "sleep training" in the form of, e.g., Karp, is not the same as "cry it out", does not involve what you say, and this is not a euphemism. That said, given that you merely restated what you previously claimed without addressing anything I said except for the word "euphemism" -- and to be clear, I address the "ignoring" part in my post, whi…

> I am telling you that the two are not equivalent Well, that's where I disagree. I think they are functionally equivalent. > I address the "ignoring" part in my post You address it by claiming that sleep training doesn't mean ignoring a crying baby. If there are sleep training methods that don't involve this, I doubt they would work with most kids. Realistically, if you are committed to sleep training, you're going…

> You address it by claiming that sleep training doesn't mean ignoring a crying baby, which is clearly false and not worth responding to.

Crying is pretty much the only consistent part of infancy, and if "crying for hours until they fall asleep" and "crying for 10 minutes at a time with parental reassurance" are both equivalent in the "ignoring a crying baby" category, then I'm not sure how one would ever handle a tantrum or meltdown.

When a toddler wants a cookie and is crying for it, what to do? The only way to stop the crying is a cookie, but clearly giving the toddler all the cookies is not what's best for them.

A child might cry and not get what they want, but still be having the better long-term outcome.

> But there are sure to be brand new parents or soon-to-be parents reading this thread, and I'm hoping to convince some of them that there's a better way.

Yes, I absolutely hope there are new or soon-to-be parents reading this, but in my experience offering shame without offering an alternative, compassion, or evidence supporting the belief doesn't cause behavioral change, but does cause stress.

May I suggest that you lead with compassion, sources for research, and alternatives, if what you desire is behavioral change? In my experience, parent shaming often comes from people who believe that they have a duty to convince others of their personal beliefs but don't offer evidence to support its broad application beyond "common sense" (not you, others in this thread) or unsourced claims to "research" -- and who try to convince others instead by implying that parents who do anything differently have bad motives, or don't care about their kids, or haven't done enough research, are uninformed, or have some other character flaw that is the reason they're doing it "wrong".

To parents reading this thread: please recognize that there may be shockingly many people in your lives -- including some total strangers! -- who will try to shame you into parenting a particular way, and, as hard as it is to do this because you're already exhausted and doubting yourself, PLEASE ignore these people. Their crusade sheds more light on their personalities than on your parenting. Listen instead to the people you trust, who are willing to listen to you and engage in dialog, and who have your own interest at heart.

Post reply on HN