Crying for Comfort: Distressed Babies Need to be Held | Hacker News Reader

Crying for Comfort: Distressed Babies Need to be Held

awareparenting.com

13 pointsad9361119 comments

"Babies who are left to cry it out alone may fail to develop a basic sense of trust or an understanding of themselves as a causal agent, possibly leading to feelings of powerlessness, low self-esteem, and chronic anxiety later in life. The cry-it-out approach undermines the very basis of secure attachment, which requires prompt responsiveness and sensitive attunement during the first year after birth."

Sure it's much better to make the parents neurotic and paranoid by putting forward such simplified claims.

Jezz

You could might as well argue that following the above advice of prompt responsiveness could lead to egocentric, selfish and lazy people later in life.

You should always react obviously. But "prompt response"? that's just silly and in many cases not even possible.

Agreed. We've used the "let them cry it out with increasing times between consoling visits" for all 4 of our kids and they hardly have any of the symptoms the author claims.

This is the kind of science I love: figuring out what's right for everyone by looking at averages.

Babies have different kinds of cries and parents have different needs. I'll say for myself and my wife that letting them cry it out seemed to help them learn to sleep alone in a far shorter time than any of our peers' kids. Sure, maybe our kids are different, but when I see the kind of entitlement parenting that often goes with the "cater to every cry" method, I'm less and less astonished at the self-centered attitude of the modern teen.

I see the complete flip side. My son is happy, can fall asleep fine on his own, and enjoys playing with his cousins as well as with himself and his toys, all at 15 months, and I'd sooner gouge out my eye then let him cry it out. He's a baby, and I don't see how any parent could sit by and let a child with tears in his eyes sit alone in the dark and ignore him. I'm not one to tell people how to parent their children, so don't take any of the preceding as me passing judgement on you; rather, it's merely my view on it.

However, "parents have different needs" sounds wrong. I'm all for parents still meeting their own needs and their partners, but any parent that can't put the child's needs ahead of their own when needed is neglecting their child. I don't think that's what you mean, mind you. But, I'm sure you're aware of the parents out there who put their needs before their child's without thought or consideration, and that just strikes me as wrong.

As for why I think it bothers parents so much what other parents do when they perceive it as wrong, I think a lot of it has to do with the thinking "If that is what I was doing to my children..." and not liking what would happen.

If you're a parent who needs practical advice on this, The No-Cry Sleep Solution is great.

Also as a parent it is surprisingly easy to learn to tell genuine distress apart from other types of cries. I have no problem walking away from my daughter when she is crying to protest being put to bed earlier than she wanted to be. But I am back instantly if I hear an edge indicating real unhappiness, or if she makes a genuine request (eg for water). A created request (eg her stuffed toy is out of the crib) gets a response as well, but more slowly.

TL;DR

This whole cry-it out vs. attachment parenting thing is bullshit. A lot of people turn it in to this huge argument as if you can only do one or the other. I can say with confidence that we do both.

We practice "attachment parenting" with our daughter, as far as I understand it from what I read in Dr. Sears book (Dr. Sears sucks, but if you want to hear from the AP extreme, read it, then throw it out). She has a very strong attachment to my wife and myself and a little bit to the relatives she sees most often. She frequently checks-in with us when she is playing, supposedly a sign of attachment (but honestly, I don't even really care, she is a really happy kid who smiles and laughs a lot and is developing very well).

When she was 1-3 months old we would rock her to sleep every night, then lay her in her crib. Pretty soon this stopped working -- when we layed her in her crib she would wake up. Sleeping in our bed was not an option, it's a SIDS risk factor. Period. Sleeping in our arms all night was also not an option.

We discovered a trick. As we laid her in the crib, she would briefly cry (in a sort of half-asleep state with eyes closed) but if we rubbed her tummy (which caused her body to rythmically rock up and down) she would quickly calm down again and with the room being very dark and quiet she'd be okay and would fall asleep and sleep for hours. Eventually this stopped working as well...

The next trick we noticed was that if we placed her in the crib she would cry briefly but if we made gentle "shhhhhh" sounds, she would calm down and go to sleep and sleep for hours. Eventually this stopped working as well...

The next trick was that we noticed that if put her in the crib and watched her, she would cry for a variable amount of time, anywhere from 1 to 10 minutes, depending on how tired she was, and then fall asleep. The we got a book called the Sleepeasy Solution which was basically letting them "cry it out" with some check-ins at 5, 10, 15 minute intervals.

By this time she was about 4 months old. We basically followed the book, the scheduling of naps and nightime sleep works beautifully.

She's now 11 months old and I've come to realize that what we thought were cries before bed were not really cries for help. I finally realized this when a few nights she woke up screaming and then vomited. The day following those nights, she was sick. When she cried both those times, we responded to her immediately. Those were real cries for help and the bedtime "sounds" were just that, "sounds" rather than cries.

There were a few times when she cried hard when she learned to sit up in her crib. She would sit up and cry really hard. We'd wait to give her a chance to try to lay back down herself, then we'd go in and lay her down and she was usually ok with that.

Now that she is older and can stand up in her crib, there have been a few occasions where she has stood up and cried intensely and we waited 5-10 minutes, then we cave and then my wife went in a breastfed her to calm her.

I can't say that we really practice one technique or another. One thing I can't stand is these people who are dead-set against any "crying-it-out." When our daughter was 1-3 months old she used to cry 2-3 hours a day, mostly in the evenings as we tried to rock her to sleep (and countless other techniques, driving the car, vacuum, white noise, singing), eventually succeeding. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Putting her in her crib and letting her cry (if you can even call it that) for 5 minutes got rid of the 2-3 hours of crying and not only that, she slept longer and was less tired during the day. After that we felt extremely guilty for essentially making her cry for 2-3 hours every day while we tried to rock her to sleep. It felt inhumane.

I don't buy the argument that prehistoric humans and those in 3rd world countries sleep with their babies and wear their babies in slings all day. Maybe under 4 months, but not after that. There comes a point where a baby is going to sleep worse if it's near anything that moves or makes noise, and better if it's in a dark quiet crib with nothing to bother him/her.

"I can say with confidence that we do both."

After reading your post, you don't do the "cry-it out" method. You just aren't ignorant to think that every sound a baby makes is a cry for help. You respond to your babies needs, which is not the "cry-it out" method.

The problem is, people on either side of the debate assume the extreme. The people who practice the "cry it out" method assume the other side jumps at every sound, which as you discovered, isn't really crying. The anti-cry it out people assume that letting the baby cry it out means letting them cry, scream, tear up, and cry cry cry all night long.

Well said.

It's all about semantics I guess. If I describe what we do to someone who sleeps with their baby every night, they will say we are doing "cry-it-out." Also, when people ask us why our baby sleeps so well, we usually say "we sleep trained her...did a little crying out." It's not exactly accurate but saying anything else would take longer to explain. Laziness on our part. And frankly, I didn't really know that those night time cries were not really cries in the way that I thought they were. It wasn't until she screamed a few nights and then puked and got sick that I realized what a real "cry" was for that age.

So you're right, we don't really do "cry-it-out." But if cry-it-out means putting your baby in a crib awake and letting them make some "noise" and fall asleep on their own, then yes, we do cry-it-out. But boy does it work well.

Dr. Spock was basically wrong on pretty much everything he ever wrote. He admits this or dramatically changed his position on everything from how babies should sleep to circumcision.

Anything that has his name attached to it should be ignored in favour of common sense, like the fact that when your baby cries - you know the only thing the kid can do for a while - he/she is attempting to communicate with the parent, and shouldn't be ignored.

No argument from me that Spock's work was pretty much worthless, but I don't think articles like this or common sense are that much better. The two problems with common sense are that it isn't very common, and it's often wrong. Some of the best advancements in science are those that challenge our common sense assumptions. While this article does link to some harder research, most of the arguments drawn from the research are weak at best, and consist of much of the same psuedo-science type reasoning Spock engaged in.

Agreed. This field is has a little hard evidence and a lot of circumstantial study.

One of the best things I've read on early child development though has to be NurtureShock. The longest chapter is the reference in the back.

After two years of parenting (and after hearing/reading many different opinions) I've come to more or less the same conclusion.

The interesting thing, for me at least, is that the same basic approach works for marriage. Assuming all your child's or spouse's needs are being met, sometimes there's nothing to 'fix' - you just need to be present and listen. And for some reason, as a guy, I find that's one of the hardest things to do.

I enjoyed this article, since it confirms the impression I have of my son. Nonetheless, I don't claim to have good evidence for that mental model, and this article doesn't present any.

When the stakes are high and the reality is complex or hard to access (or sometimes beyond all comprehension), a topic is ripe for superstition. The supernatural. How best to run a nation. Managing the global climate.

And I realized recently . . . you know what meets those criteria perfectly? Parenting.

I am really shocked that this sort of thing is considered "new." Have we sunk this far as human beings, that we need to have this explained to us?!

Do you have kids? I honestly ask, because having a child pretty much meant everyone who ever had a child suddenly started giving me advice, and none of it was the same. I have my sister-in-law telling me my 15 month old doesn't need vegetables every day.

And no, I didn't need this explained to me. My son is an incredibly happy toddler.

No, but I was a child once and having a neglectful parent -- either real or perceived -- is something that is remembered forever. I hope you do better,

If/when you do have kids, you'll be surprised at the numerous opinions and techniques parents share with you. I know the concept of "crying themselves to sleep" doesn't sit well with me. He's a baby! Seriously, just thinking about him crying without me being able to do anything turns my stomach.

That's a sign I need to go look in on the little guy. Just hope I don't wake him. He needs his sleep. =)

Hurray for http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/

I'm a devoted mom and my first child has genuinely life-threatening health problems. Because he was constantly ill as a baby, I had little real choice but to wait on him hand and foot. By the time he was 2 years old, he seemed to think he was my lord and master and would imperiously order me to turn left or right when I was out driving and things like that. Over the years, we had a few confrontations (starting as early as age two) to undo some of his assumptions that the world revolved around him and so forth.

I don't have any regrets because his need for attention and care due to his health issues was genuine, but you can certainly go too far in either direction. My second child was much healthier, much more secure, and much more introverted. He would have hated me if I had doted on him the way I doted on his brother. So each child is different as well.

Can you really take this seriously? I mean, blue text on top of a blue-green background?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com