Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Good sleep, good learning, good life

supermemo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 127 posts

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#61

Post by jamesaguilar »

antirez wrote: post #54
jamesaguilar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For "a shitload" of years infant mortality rate was >15% too. How things used to be is not a good indicator of optimal approaches. A scientifically-minded person should not prefer random internet commentators to doctors' when the sole argument proferred by the former is that things used to be a certain way, therefore it's ok.

Probably not because of co-sleeping, many researches think that co-sleeping shows a correlation without actual causality.

That's not how it works. That research shows only correlation does not mean research shows ~causality. Correlation does not imply causation, but it definitely suggests it absent other explanations.

It would be hard to study causality in this instance because of medical ethics. You cannot assign a treatment that you believe to be more likely to cause an infant to die, so RCTs are impossible in this domain.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/164... -- co-sleeping babies are 21.7 times more likely to die from SIDS than non-co-sleeping babies, according to this study. That definitely doesn't prove causality. But the correlation is certainly waggling its eyebrows suggestively in causality's direction.

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#62

Post by prostoalex »

antirez wrote: post #37

I and my wife co-sleep with my daughter that is now almost 4 months old, this worked very well for us, basically she sleeps the whole night, interrupting us just when she needs some milk. However because she is breastfed it is pretty natural because of co-sleeping so my wife just let she start getting the milk and fall asleep again after a few second. Surely it does not work for everybody but when it works it means t…

This practice might backfire when your daughter is old enough for sleep training (two months from now or so). Most babies at that age can sleep through the night without feeding, but wake up due to sleep patterns and become very fussy as now they use food as a method to soothe themselves http://www.babycenter.com/0_baby-sleep-training-the-basics_1...

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#63

Post by jamesaguilar »

Domenic_S wrote: post #60
jamesaguilar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For "a shitload" of years infant mortality rate was >15% too. How things used to be is not a good indicator of optimal approaches. A scientifically-minded person should not prefer random internet commentators to doctors' when the sole argument proferred by the former is that things used to be a certain way, therefore it's ok.

A scientifically-minded person realizes that doctors people too, with their own biases, agendas, and misinformation. A scientifically-minded person would seek out research to determine the best course of action.

Of course, I would never deny that people should do their own research. Based on my googling, they would probably find that there's a lot of research to back up the doctors' advice, and plenty of anecdotes to back up co-sleeping advocates.

Certainly the default position should be that medical professionals know what they are talking about for folks who are not inclined to do the actual research.

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#64

Post by antirez »

prostoalex wrote: post #62
antirez wrote: post #37

I and my wife co-sleep with my daughter that is now almost 4 months old, this worked very well for us, basically she sleeps the whole night, interrupting us just when she needs some milk. However because she is breastfed it is pretty natural because of co-sleeping so my wife just let she start getting the milk and fall asleep again after a few second. Surely it does not work for everybody but when it works it means t…

This practice might backfire when your daughter is old enough for sleep training (two months from now or so). Most babies at that age can sleep through the night without feeding, but wake up due to sleep patterns and become very fussy as now they use food as a method to soothe themselves http://www.babycenter.com/0_baby-sleep-training-the-basics_1...

Thanks for the advice, we indeed are planning to have her bed very near to our bed and start to move her in the other bed gradually as she starts to be 6 months old or alike.

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#65

Post by ambler0 »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #50
antirez wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is normal, family, doctors, and friends are dangerous: * Hey, you no longer have enough milk! Try giving some more integration with artificial milk. * You'll end killing her because of co-sleeping! * Co-sleeping will increase chances of SIDS! * Let her cry, otherwise you'll always carry her in your arms! * And so forth. My advice is: don't listen to them, they tell you this with good intentions, but the reality…

For "a shitload" of years infant mortality rate was >15% too. How things used to be is not a good indicator of optimal approaches. A scientifically-minded person should not prefer random internet commentators to doctors' when the sole argument proferred by the former is that things used to be a certain way, therefore it's ok.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think you're reading the parent's post very charitably. They aren't saying, "things used to be a certain way, therefore it's OK." The way I read it, they're suggesting that, if the behavior really killed that many infants, it would be weeded out by the biocultural evolutionary process.

If you actually look into the research instead of offloading your opinions to the experts, you'll see that the SIDS research is not well done. As I recall, the work on which this AAP decision was based included sleeping in a couch and sleeping while intoxicated - not exactly best practices. SIDS is basically just a catch-all term for "we don't know what killed the baby".

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#66

Post by antirez »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #61
antirez wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not because of co-sleeping, many researches think that co-sleeping shows a correlation without actual causality.

That's not how it works. That research shows only correlation does not mean research shows ~causality. Correlation does not imply causation, but it definitely suggests it absent other explanations. It would be hard to study causality in this instance because of medical ethics. You cannot assign a treatment that you believe to be more likely to cause an infant to die, so RCTs are impossible in this domain. http://www.…

From the study you cite: "Much of the elevated risk appeared to be attributable to drug and alcohol use among the parents".

There are parents that co-sleep because they are disorganized, drunk, and so forth, not even able to put the children in their bed. That's the reason why probably there is no causality.

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#67

Post by jamesaguilar »

ambler0 wrote: post #65
jamesaguilar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For "a shitload" of years infant mortality rate was >15% too. How things used to be is not a good indicator of optimal approaches. A scientifically-minded person should not prefer random internet commentators to doctors' when the sole argument proferred by the former is that things used to be a certain way, therefore it's ok.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think you're reading the parent's post very charitably. They aren't saying, "things used to be a certain way, therefore it's OK." The way I read it, they're suggesting that, if the behavior really killed that many infants, it would be weeded out by the biocultural evolutionary process. If you actually look into the research instead of offloading your opinions to the experts, yo…

> if the behavior really killed that many infants, it would be weeded out by the biocultural evolutionary process.

That would also be a terrible argument. To name just one example, shaken baby syndrome still exists.

> If you actually look into the research instead of offloading your opinions to the experts

I've briefly looked into the research, and it seems to mesh pretty well with what the experts are saying. Now you are saying that it "isn't well done". That may be true. But I'm not seeing anything that shows co-sleeping to be equally safe with a crib in the same room. So I have a few possibilities: all the experts are wrong and all the studies that are being done on the issue are defective. Or, SIDS is probably somewhat related to co-sleeping. Unless there is some more evidence that I'm not seeing, I'm going to have to assign the latter a higher probability of being true.

Also, let's face it, part of the reason people offload opinions to experts is that experts are trained in analyzing and processing data in their domain to a greater degree than non-experts. There needs to be some pretty compelling evidence to override their views.

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#68

Post by jamesaguilar »

antirez wrote: post #66
jamesaguilar wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works. That research shows only correlation does not mean research shows ~causality. Correlation does not imply causation, but it definitely suggests it absent other explanations. It would be hard to study causality in this instance because of medical ethics. You cannot assign a treatment that you believe to be more likely to cause an infant to die, so RCTs are impossible in this domain. http://www.…

From the study you cite: "Much of the elevated risk appeared to be attributable to drug and alcohol use among the parents". There are parents that co-sleep because they are disorganized, drunk, and so forth, not even able to put the children in their bed. That's the reason why probably there is no causality.

Wait, so a large portion of the risk comes from drugs and alcohol, therefore you are going to ignore whatever risks come directly from co-sleeping? Am I misunderstanding your argument?

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#69

Post by TheLarch »

"One cannot eat one's cake and have it too"

This reverse version of the common idiom (to have one's cake and eat it too) is what got the Unabomber caught. Ted Kacynzski had a habit of saying it that way, and his brother saw it in his manifesto.

Re: Good sleep, good learning, good life

#70

Post by conroe64 »

tadfisher wrote: post #51
sergiotapia wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto. When I had my first son my wife and all nearly killed each other due to lack of sleep, we would take shifts so there were a pair of eyes on him always. At least until he was around 7 months old. SIDS is real, and is not worth it. The same thing happened when my daughter was born. Heh, well, with my baby girl I never slept. I kept an eye on her like a HAWK.

I feel like there should be an easy and failsafe technical solution to this.

Negative reinforcement through shock therapy is both easy and failsafe (it will not physically harm the child).
Post reply on HN