[flagged]
I'm not disagreeing with you about how to handle babies but what you did here was abusive and we need it not to happen again. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194145 also.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34177180.
I don't see anything 'nationalistic' about calling out trends that are manufactured solely in the US. If calling out the US warmongering of last 40 years is not 'nationalistic', this neither is.
And you're demonstrating a sheer amount of ignorance with your rush to judgement here. The children are not neglected and are checked in on and comforted by the parents during sleep training.
There are great behavioral and cultural differences in between the south of France and the North.
> And you're demonstrating a sheer amount of ignorance with your rush to judgement here.
Im not. Co-sleeping, close proximity, touching are evolutionary traits of all mammals including humans. The majority of the mammal infants also cry to their parents and their parents attend them. If the cries are not answered, the infant shuts up to avoid signaling the predators in the absence of the parents. The parents not responding to the infant's signal is not a good thing in any mammal species. Even more so for humans.
> The children are not neglected and are checked in on and comforted by the parents during sleep training.
That's not what the child will instinctively interpret. As far as he is concerned, he is either abandoned and his life is at risk, or the parents are prioritizing their other children for survival.
So you agree it's not just the US doing it, despite your lambasting only that country multiple times.
>That's not what the child will instinctively interpret. As far as he is concerned, he is either abandoned and his life is at risk, or the parents are prioritizing their other children for survival.
Cite your source.
No, I don't. A lot of things that were manufactured in the US were exported into countries that were under its influence. Rich, Anglophile segments in a country adopting a behavior from the US because it suits their preferences does not make it a national paradigm.
> Cite your source.
There are various comments from others in this thread which explain that problem in detail. In contrast, your perspective of 'nothing happening' resides on a single study made with 43 children.
(edit - posting the counterpoint here just in case - it was a google search away)
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.
Again, demonstrating your ignorance. Sleep training is based on "Le Pause". It's imported.
>There are various comments from others in this thread which explain that problem in detail.
And there have been countless comments in this thread, all citing evidence that there is no difference in a child who co-slept or was sleep-trained beyond the age of 6. There simply is not.
>In contrast, your perspective of 'nothing happening' resides on a single study made with 43 children.
I have never cited that study, but thank you for putting words into my mouth.