←back to thread

349 points zdw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
foxglacier ◴[] No.45652693[source]
I wonder why the old advice was being given if it was so wrong? If nobody understood what to do, shouldn't there have been no advice instead of something harmful?
replies(9): >>45652756 #>>45652763 #>>45652768 #>>45652807 #>>45652849 #>>45652903 #>>45653509 #>>45653756 #>>45671594 #
ycombinete ◴[] No.45652903[source]
Bad advice that has a very long return on investment is quite sticky.

For instance the "cry it out method" did massive amounts of psychological damage to more than one generation, but it seemed to work in the short term as the babies eventually learned to "self-soothe".

Even now I still see parents and grandparents suggesting it in parenting groups; and taking extreme umbrage at the idea that it might have damaged them/their children.

replies(2): >>45656641 #>>45659509 #
kelipso ◴[] No.45659509[source]
Cry it out is bad advice? A relative of mine is a psychologist phd and she does it with her baby for sleep training saying self-soothing is fine.
replies(2): >>45661409 #>>45676931 #
1. droopyEyelids ◴[] No.45661409[source]
It's too big of a topic for a HN comment but do a google or LLM search and see. One widely-accepted aspect is that a child can not "self soothe" until 5-7 years. It's not developmentally possible, and using that language is a bit of a PR move to gloss over what is actually happening.

https://www.google.com/search?q=infant+co-regulation+vs+self...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_self-regulation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-regulation_(communication)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory