To ask if you think some babies are more difficult than others, or is their behaviour caused by how you parent them?

[Aracha]

My 6-month-old wakes every 2-3hours all night. During the day he is clingy. He will entertain himself for 5-10mins with a toy or play in jumparoo for 20mins if I'm nearby. It's not stranger anxiety as he's happy to be held by other people and is very interactive.

He seems to cry and grizzle more than friends' babies. Their babies also sleep for 5-6hour stretches. He is always wriggling and kicking and rarely keeps still when awake.

Have I caused this behaviour?
I used to carry him in sling all the time, even indoors. I don't like leaving him to cry so I pick him up when he grizzles and feed to sleep when he wakes in night. He used to have colic and reflux but this cleared up by 4months.

Personality and luck obviously has some part to play in how 'easy' a baby is...but I disagree with lots of posts that seem to say this is the main factor.

Personally, I think how you parent a baby has just as much if not more to do with it.

Realistically, a baby that has been always held and carried around in a sling all day/rocked to sleep from newborn - yes, I think it's likely that this baby will find it more difficult to be alone/be put down (ie 'clingy' if you want to call it that...though I hate that word!) as they get older. A newborn that is always put down for a nap or spends more time not attached to a person - it's fairly logical to say that they may well be less likely to insist on being carried everywhere at 10 months as they've never been used to that.

Generally, I think there are also a lot of parents that like to use the 'naturally a bad sleeper/poor eater' as an excuse...not in every case, but in plenty.

My children's 'faults' - in lots of cases see how dh and I have 'caused' them if you like.

Examples - ds1 (age 8) is very, very competitive. Too much so, and tends to be a bad loser. When ds2 was young (ds1 was about 3, ds2 was 1), he had a bit of jealousy about the attention ds2 was getting. I made it into a game - 'Oh come on ds1, ds2 needs my help because he's just a baby - why don't you show me what a big boy you are and see how fast you can get dressed?'. It worked brilliantly at the time. With hindsight, i'm pretty sure the longterm outcome was to push him towards being too competitive and feeling like he needs to win all the time.

Both of my children are generally fantastic eaters - not fussy in the slightest. Both weaned the same way, all homemade grub bla bla. BUT - ds1 will choose a nice spagbol over a cake any day. He'll eat sweets and chocolate but knows when to stop. Ds2 however has a massive, massive sweet tooth. Doesn't know how to self regulate and would literally eat sweets or chocolate until he made himself sick if he had the chance. Ds1 (being a pfb) didn't even taste chocolate until about age 3. Never had a haribo or any sort of sweet until at least reception age. Ds2 however was eating chocolate buttons at 10 months and probably had sweets at age 2ish (because ds1 was having them by then...harder to refuse the second).

It's not hard to deduce that a sweet tooth in ds2 has likely been 'caused' by dh and me. Or that ds1's competitive nature has either been 'caused' or greatly exacerbated by my 'winning' games with him as a toddler. It would be easy for me to attribute both of these things to just their 'natural' personalities though, which i'm pretty certain isn't the case.

I agree with everyone that babies have their own temperaments: of course there are things you can do to make life go more smoothly if you have a higher-needs baby, but the idea that parents actively cause their children to be who they are is patently rubbish.
Doesn't stop some people still believing it though! The ones who have massive judgy pants to hoik. Ach well.

No, some babies are just like this. My first (now almost 3) was an effing NIGHTMARE. Up every hour to two hours for the first 8 months, ALWAYS grizzling, NEVER happy, NEVER played on his own for even 5 minutes until he was at least 2, always had to be talked to, walked around etc, hated buggy/pushchair, napped for 30 mins tops, screaming crying tantrums from a year old every minute or every hour of every day.....fuck me, but the little guy sure did make me depressed! No one understood until they actually spent time aroun dhim (as if I'd make it up!). Second born was utterly, utterly the complete opposite . Champion napper, sunny little happy ray of sunshine, slept all nght from 6 weeks, rarely cries etc. Raised the exact same way. Now newborn (yes, I have three under three), seems to be going the way of second, thank the gods!! Unless a person has a high needs baby/toddler, they will never understand.

the idea that parents actively cause their children to be who they are is patently rubbish

So you think that the way a human being turns out is not affected by it's environment and experiences? (which are largely under the control of the parents)

That is what is patently rubbish. If I birthed identical twins right now and gave one of them to you - do you think they'd both be the same in 20 years?

Or do you think the different ways we'd parented them would have an effect?

Five month old dd is a right character! She just wants everything around her and she's so demanding, she just wants everything now and I don't think she likes being a baby!

She is a wonderful sleeper and eater though

Raised the exact same way

No child is raised the 'exact same way' as it's siblings. If you only consider the fact that one child grows up being the eldest and one the youngest, that makes for a massive, massive difference in mindset, which will influence their thoughts, feelings, personalities, experiences.

One of the very, very frequent things that I hear is 'if dc2 had been my first, i'd never have had a second!' - I've said it myself (it's even been posted a couple of times on this thread). As a general rule, ds2 is much higher maintenance than ds1.

Is that just chance? The second time a baby pops out, are they destined to be much more difficult? OR is it more likely that their 'difficultness' could be caused or exacerbated by the fact that the parents are more stressed/busy as they can't devote all of their time to subsequent dc in the way they could their first? I know which one I think is more likely.

My two boys were very different. DS1 could be described a dream baby. DS2 never slept for more than 20 mins at a time, he had severe Reflux to the point of vomiting blood, he must of been in so much pain as he is such a happy toddler/child.

Cheers mincraftymum, I can see that the awful first 3-4 years of DS life was all my own fault as a shit parent and I'm destined for DS2 to be even shitter.

Perhaps you can tell me how I should do things to ensure angelic children (where a bit of competition & a sweet tooth is all I need worry about).

Oh yes, the reflux. That will have been my fault too, right?

Oh please, go and take your misplaced indignation elsewhere

If you truly believe that you, as the parent, has no impact on your childs eventual character/personality/good bits/bad bits, you want your head testing.

As for the reflux...who knows? Perhaps it's inbuilt and purely chance. Perhaps, in some susceptible infants, processed/heavier formula feed causes it. Perhaps, in some susceptible infants, their mothers breastmilk causes it because something in their mums diet disagrees with them.

Who knows. If you're not open to any possibility other than every possible nuance of your childs personality, character and health being down to luck alone, I think you're very closed minded.

Haha SprogletsMum, sounds like my DC3. Everyone said number 3 just fits right in, but he absolutely bulldozed his way in. After an average DC1 and a totally chilled and super easy DC2, it was a shock! He's 3 now and is getting better but he's definitely still the strong minded one of the bunch. Obviously how we react to that has an impact but I'm sure their temperament is the major factor.

Actually, maybe you should take your clearly superior parenting elsewhere. You are the only person to contribute to this thread in such a narrow-minded and judgmental way.

Although, seriously, if you can give me a run-down of how to do this one "right" I'd rather get over myself and save years of trauma.

don't you think the parents who used slings a lot did so because they had clingy babies in the first place?

Yes! DD was an unputdownable velcro nightmare as a baby. It drove me nuts when people with easier-going babies implied that I'd brought it on myself by carrying her in a sling. No, that's why she's in a slinG.

(She is super independent as a toddler, fortunately for my sanity.)

Actually, maybe you should take your clearly superior parenting elsewhere

My parenting isn't 'superior' nor have I said it is. You're being ridiculous.

There's no documented right or wrong way to do it. We'll all probably fuck up our kids somehow in our own special way.

However much you (for some reason) want it to be true, there's far more to your eventual personality than chance and luck and genes alone.

Would you be the same person if you'd (hypothetically) grown up in a remote area of Countryside rather than Central London? Or if you'd grown up with nine siblings instead of one? Or if your mum had taken you to music lessons rather than French lessons? Or if your dad had worked only 10 hours a week instead of 60?

I doubt it. Parents (or whoever the main caregiver is) have a huge and undeniable impact on their childs behaviour, personality and the grown up they will eventually be. There are plenty of studies that show that if you doubt it.

Babies are people, they're all different. We patented ours exactly the same and they are quite different in nature.

Bit of both I reckon. They all have their temperament from birth, but then how you react to that can amplify or damp down certain traits.
My ds is almost 6 months and sounds very like yours. From birth he could hold his head up and has always been very alert and wanting to look at things. He is a terrible sleeper. He's henerally a happy but very high maintenance baby
So that's his basic temperament and it informs my parenting. I know I need to be really on top of saying 'no', gently distracting him from grabbing stiff he shouldn't. As he gets older I'll need to set effective boundaries - that will be my influence and will dictate whether he is a lively, exhausting toddler who says please and thank you or an out of control nightmare.
its the same with sleep. His basic temperament is 'crap sleeper' so I know I need to work hard on naps, bedtime routines etc. It'll not turn him into a placid Angel baby but it will mould his responses.

Your son sounds very like mine. If it's any consolation I've had every single nurse and doc say some variation of "wow he's a handful but you can tell he's a bright little guy. Poor sleepers/into everything babies are often v intelligent."

Don't beat yourself up about it. He sounds like a bright, sparky little guy. All any of us can do is react to the child we get and try to mould them as best we can

But we're not talking about the personalities of adults. We're discussing the behaviour & personalities of newborns and tiny babies. When very few external factors have had a chance to have an effect, and in all probability any variations in care/attentiveness is led in response to the child's behaviour in the first place.

But we're not talking about the personalities of adults. We're discussing the behaviour & personalities of newborns and tiny babies. When very few external factors have had a chance to have an effect

I really don't understand your rationale. It's all backwards.

The younger a child is, the less external factors to shape/mould them are available. You, the parent/s are a baby/toddlers whole world. You're the only influencing factor on them for quite a while.

You seriously think that has no effect? That when they're tiny, how you feed them, hold them, put them to sleep, care for them doesn't matter...that they'll turn out the same regardless?

Bollocks.

lol MinecraftyMum, I probably don't need to say I think your post is not accurate (any more than you think mine is). If you want to deal in absolutes, yes I think if you abuse a child you affect his or her future. Yes I think if you overfeed a child you affect his or her future. Neglect, hothousing, being over anxious, forcing anyone to confront unnecessary difficulty affects their development. (As opposed to helping them through periods of difficulty, illness, grief, which can be very positive.)

Speaking more generally ('you' meaning anyone really)

I do not think that if you have a child who cries to be picked up, and you pick that child up, you are causing the child to behave in that way. Which is what the thread's about, after all.

Similarly, I don't think that if you have a child who has tantrums, your behaviour caused the personality that gets overstimulated and needs to let it out. I definitely don't think that if you have a calm child, it is because of your superior parenting.

I don't think that if you have a child who dislikes vegetables, you caused it by...well I'm not sure how people think this can be logically caused. I do know people who've said their children eat salad because they have been given salad. This is pretty low-level thinking.

But go for your life, you obviously know it all!

What guff re: 'causing' sweet tooths and second children being needier

my daughter did not try anything sweet until she was two, she would eat her body weight in chocolate happily. My son tried ice cream as an 8 month old. He couldn't give a toss. He is also sunny natured, easy-going and generally happy to go with the flow...and is my second child

It's almost as if they are people or something, and not bonsai trees you can train in one direction or another

It's both. If you think the way children are parented doesn't have any impact on their personalities, go and look at what can happen to children who've been subject to neglect and abuse. But equally, babies have their own temperaments too. And there's genetics.

I can see that eg it might be possible to make a baby reluctant to be put down if you always sling them, as a previous poster mentioned. However, that doesn't mean that if you have a baby who's reluctant to go down, it's a)caused by the slinging or b)something you can fix by not slinging them. So basically I'm saying you might be able to make a baby who would be chilled and calm not chilled and calm, see my neglect point above, but I reckon it's a lot harder to turn a baby who isn't chilled and calm into one simply by the way you treat them.

But go for your life, you obviously know it all!

Seriously, why the defence?

It's a scary concept that as a parent you'll have a massive impact on the eventual persons personality, character, health...everything.

It doesn't make it less true though.

No, picking up a crying child isn't what caused them to cry, obviously. But choosing to either pick up your 4 month old immediately at every cry, or choosing to wait for one minute, or five or ten instead...they're all likely to have different results, in the long term, and in the eventual behaviour of the child.

Controlled crying is a perfect example. Loved by some, hated by many. Is it a fantastic sleep training method or the epitome of cruelty and neglect?

Whatever your opinion, whether it is actually 'good' or 'bad' for the baby, there are many examples of it working. It has worked, it does work, for lots. One parent trains their baby to sleep. The parent next door who disagrees with cc doesn't.

The behaviours of two children are already vastly different, due to the different parenting they've had - as a direct influence of their individual parents actions.

I don't really see how such basic and obvious facts are anything to get your knickers in a knot over.

Crappymummy, I didn't say all second children are needier. It's not a fact, nor have I said it is.

I said (words to the effect) that it's an often-trotted out line. All anecdotal but a common theme that comes up regularly among parents with more than one child. I could list twenty people I know whose first child was an angel and their second a terror, according to them. Not EVERYONE, I feel the need to stress. But enough that it's recognisable as a frequent anecdote.

I see that there are three possibilities:

1. Complete chance - nurture has nothing to do with it, it's all luck and genes and nothing more (unlikely IMO)
2. A second child being higher maintenance/needier/more difficult is nurture-caused, because the second child's experiences have been different. Due to different parenting/busier parents/whatever.
3. The second child is actually no more difficult that the first and it's just a perception of the parent. Because, as a parent, dealing with a two year olds tantrum is much more stressful when you also have to watch a four year old than when the tantrummer was an only child and got your whole attention.

Controlled crying is an interesting example, but you forget the cohort of children whose parents tried CC, tried for months, and there was no measurable effect.
And the ones who did very little and their babies just slept anyway. I know quite a few of both sorts and only one couple where it worked (but lots who wouldn't do it).

My second child was my easy baby. I think she must have had a copy of GF in the womb or something because she operated on a schedule from the day she was born. My first and third were much more demanding. I've never heard of the 'difficult second child' though, although I know a lot of people with easy third children wish I had one.

I think birth order makes a difference but there's not a lot we as parents can do about it, and how it affects kids will depend a lot on personality. I have 2 DC very close in age. The younger one is much more anxious about school and I think that's a combination of having more anxiety generally but also having a very bright older sibling who finds everything easy. I have friend who has an anxious first child and over achieving second child and how that plays out in their home is very different because the balance of birth order and confidence is different.

I do think easy going couples are more likely to have easy going children because generally apples tend not to fall far from the tree. I'm a bit of a chatterbox, is it any surprise that dinnertimes with my kids are crazy with everyone talking over each other trying to tell the story of their day? I grew up in a household that was the same and my brother's kids are also lively chatterboxes.