To wonder when we started aggrandising terms for simple things.

[Aworryingtrend]

Not sure aggrandising is the correct word, I'm sure someone will correct me if not.
I am referring to the relatively new practice of a simple concept being given a snappy new name, particularly in the area of child rearing.
On Bedtime live last week the presenter announced they would be using the 'rapid return' technique. So putting the childback to bed when s/he gets out then.
I read a thread on here a while ago where a DC has 'sensory issues'.Oh dear that sounds awful I thought. But no it basically means said child doesn't like getting their hands dirty. Ditto numerous threads about 'high needs' babies. I can't imagine anyone of our parents generation ever using such a term to describe a baby who cries a lot.
AIBU to wonder why we need to put an important-sounding label on the most trivial things?

It is when somebody writes a book about the thing that they want to sell. Exactly the same in principle as the fact that my bin has a special 'Bag Tuck (tm)' feature which appears to me to be a hole, but 'with hole' doesn't sell as many bins I suppose.

Pull your judgy pants down a bit or they'll get stuck in your throat.

Your have no idea what sensory issues or high neeeds may translate to for others and their children. For my dsis sensory issues meant the her ds went through weeks of licking anything metal (he liked the taste) or refusing to wear shoes in the snow (he like the sensation) so not just "doesn't like getting his hands dirty".

These things are not trival and can be life changing.

(and Rapid return is just that it may have been give a new name - don't know don't care but does it really matter?)

I do hear what you're saying, but sometimes the new name is better. 'Sensory issues' covers a lot more than not liking getting their hands dirty. OK work with children who have sensory issues, dd has some too. Referring to their complex needs as 'sensory issues' validates them far more than saying, 'Oh, dd is afraid of hand driers,' or, 'Child A can't eat hot food/have labels touch skin' (Both true, both potentially problematic.) Not having a name for it makes it sound like there isn't a problem and, anyway, people will come up with their own names for it. ('Fussy,' usually. )

It's a similar thing with high needs babies: they cry a lot, they won't be put down, they are hard work. You can describe them in all manner of ways, most of them negative, so why not give these challenging little people a name that acknowledges they are harder work than some, that suggests their fretfulness is a way of communicating their very real needs? Doing so takes away the idea that the babies are 'bad' or 'demanding' or that their parents are 'too soft' or 'making a rod for their own back'. Let's face it: names have always been there; sometimes the more recent ones are kinder, more truthful and part of showing respect for those who don't quite fit the mould.

Well, 'sensory issues' can be shorthand for the avoidance of certain textures, smells, noises and bright lights that you often get in a child or indeed adult with ASD (autism spectrum). It's not just disliking getting hands dirty, it can affect your whole life.

'Rapid return'... hmm. Nope, I'd agree with you there. Ditto most parenting Methods, as i never seemed to have one.

OK = I. Sorry.

Some people with sensory issues suffer death/serious injury/illness because they don't feel pain. Some people find everyday noises and sights agonising because they are overly sensitive to those things. It is not always as simple as it might seem to the uninformed observer.

To clarify Doris, the poster who used tge term sensory issues then described that as her child not liking to get their hands dirty. As I said in my OP I was expecting from the use of that term a much more serious condition. Similarly I think High Needs is being used by some people to describe a difficult baby but using the term gives an impression of Special Needs which is of course very different abd IMO much more serious.

"Sensory issues" sounds reasonable enough a term, but agree alot of awful new terms come from the US, e.g. something will be called a "food vendor operating utility advisor activist" instead of a waitress, for example. OK, I made that up, but you get the gist, generally ugly and cumbersome replacements. They replace generally much simpler and understandable native English words!

I agree with you in principle, a lot of management speak is utter shite.

However somebody who has not survived looking after a high need baby has no concept what it involves: DS3 and DS4 'cried a lot', DS1 was a high need baby

If you think sensory issues are "trivial things" or a "simple concept" you really need to do a bit of research before starting a thread about them.

x-post sorry Im very slow on phone! You make some really good points GeorgianMum tge validation thing does make sense.

It only gives an impression of special needs to people who don't know anything about either IMO. High needs does not equal 'difficult' (although having a high needs baby can be). Users of the term want to get away from the idea that a baby is 'being difficult' and acknowledge that some need more comfort etc than others. Being as how we are all different this is surely common sense. It has nothing to do with special needs.

But do you really not see that not wanting to get hands dirty is just one small part of a much bigger picture?

The young child who can't bear their hands to be dirty avoids touching things. Their avoidance of touching and picking things up in turn affects the development of their fine motor skills. Along the way they also suffer injuries because they refuse to put their hands out to break their fall and so end up face-first on the concrete.

Ah the old labeling debate.

Issues become defined with the right label. However then you have a child who becomes defined by their issues.

Personally I do think there's over labeling mostly for financial reasons as far as I can see. If it can be diagnosed by somebody for a fee, it can be treated or contained or whatever and a few books written.

When we did this at Uni and everyone had a "problem" either physically (wearing glasses, skin issues etc) or mental issues (anxiety, depression,etc) . So having something "wrong" is essentially normal.

You are confusing 'Sensory Issues' and 'High Needs' with simple practices such as returning a child to bed?

They are not good examples to represent your point as science/study as proven that these are two very complex areas that require understanding and support.

I work with children who have very profound special needs and sensory issues and it covers a whole spectrum of things - not feeling pain/EVERYTHING causing pain/hyper or hypo stimulation. it affwcts differebt senses - one child is very hypersensitive to smell, while another is very hypo sensitive to tiuch etc l. I had one child in my class who came into school with a safety pin sticking in his foot and couldn't feel a thing and another child who had to wear rubber gloves for anything messy.

also, I have a very high needs baby - for the first 8 weeks he would not be put down/he screamed for 15 hours a day non stop/would not be comforted etc and was very easily overwhelmed by things. I honestly think the only way I coped was from my experience with the kids I work with.

I don't remember there being any "high needs baby" threads when I joined MN, but it would have been a big help if there had been.

Typical threads about poor sleepers only mentioned babies who woke up a few times a night, or who only slept for a few hours at a time. There was nothing out there about babies like my two eldest children who either slept for only 20 minutes at a time (with crying and screaming in between) or who just didn't fall asleep at all until the early hours of the morning.

The problem with using the old get-out clause of "But I wasn't talking about children with Special Needs" is that often the parents have no idea at that time that there are SNs. My children with SN weren't diagnosed until they were pre-school age, and even that is considered early.

I kind of get where you are coming from with your original post , there has been a definate increase of interesting terminology in all areas of our life , since we were children . My workplace is choka full of toolkits , but not a single spanner which would come in useful when people accidently lock them selfs in the bathroom!
I also think sometimes people hijack terminology when perhaps they shouldn't as with your example of the mother with a child who didnt like getting their hands dirty , a releatively common phenomenum , but used the term sensory issues .

I love the term high needs baby , does that mean there are low needs babies out there who don't need feeding , bathing, playing with, cuddling , loving etc . Surely every baby is high needs because it is wholly reliant on you for everything ?

I agree with your basic point but your examples aren't well chosen. 'Sensory issues' is a term of art-the fact that one mother misused it doesn't make it an instance of the kind of thing you're complaining about. Ditto high needs baby.

Some terms are very useful and needed definitions for things only widely recognised recently. Then because of the trend you describe, where people seem to need to inflate the seriousness of everything, they tend to get hijacked by people applying them to frankly trivial situations.

The best institution for ridiculous po-faced terms (and their acronyms) seems to be the US army. E.g. 'IED' or 'improvised explosive device'. Known to you and me as a bomb. 'MRE'-Meals Ready to Eat, aka ration pack. A friend in the US Navy once told me he was staying late at the base to do some 'crypto-destruction'. 'What on earth is that?' I asked him. Shredding, apparently.

Like Edith said, unfortunately your chosen examples are not well chosen.

'Construction solutions provider', instead of builder, does my bloody head in though.

Eldritch even and one too many chosens in there.

goes back to bed

My daughter has a lesson at school once a week entitled:

'Engaging Minds'

Is that so their pupils can have a 'Positive Learning Outcome'?

I've thought about this some more and I do agree that some terms get hijacked by all and sundry. My DS1 hated/still hates (aged 10 years) getting his hands wet/sticky, so technically has a 'sensory issue' but has no other special needs so now has the maturity to compensate or tolerate something he dislikes. A child/baby with SN or an undiagnosed SN may be far more severely affected - 'tis a spectrum, like so many things of the human experience.
And yes, there has been an inflation of using such terms: what can be useful when trying to establish a diagnosis is just reverse showing off when talking about a preference.

frumpet, I can assure you a high needs baby is in a different league from normal needs baby and personally I found thinking of DS1 as 'high needs' rather than 'a nightmare' made it easier to keep going through another day or even hour of his incessant needs or rather undecipherable needs.
DS2 was a breeze (in spite of his prematurity at 31 weeks), DSs3 and 4 were 'normal'; DS1 was either sceaming or about to scream for the first year of his life.