Any child psychologists out there? What do you think (professionally) about controlled crying?

[Neenztwinz]

I have used CC, I think it is a very quick and effective way of dealing with sleep problems, but I was wondering if there was any research done into its long-term effects. My SIL is a child psychologist and she is dead against CC, so I wonder whether it is because of research she may have seen. I don't want to ask her about it because our babies are only 7 weeks different in age and discussions such as these are just not worth the hassle IYKWIM.

No, thank you, Neenzt!
I hadn't done any research for ages so it was fun to get stuck in again.
If you had posted it on AIBU it might have ended like this. lol

That anti-cc blog I posted earlier, I used to follow it for a while but
interestingly enough the entries stopped just after that long MN debate last year.
The latest entries from this autumn are fascinating, though..
calling these people Attachment Fundamentalists is no exaggeration.

It turns out a new sleep training study has started in Oz. (check this and this)
It will feature babies from 6 months of age and, ba dum tosh, there will be cortisol
measurements taken before and after!
None of this silly reliance on subjective parents!

Are those Attachment fiends happy? Are they cock.
Google 'controlled crying petition'.
The mind boggles. Do they live in some kind of medieval bubble?
You cannot start with the conclusion, if you have a theory you need to be able to prove it!

I give you an analogy:
We ask a Saudi imam why women are not allowed to drive.
He says, it's because women driving cars would be a danger to themselves and other road users.
You say: Ok let's do an experiment. Give 20 women provisional licences, see how they manage.
Our clever Imam says: Oh no! That would be unethical as all 20 women would surely crash and
probably die!

Right, that's it from me, it has been most interesting reading and contributing.
And now I shall block MN again on our firewall! Too adictive

Try it!

Neenz, and everyone else on this thread - it has been really interesting, and pretty civilised, for MN! Thanks! FWIW, I'm with Neenz, but it's been good to hear other opinions...

That 'Try it!' was aimed at Neenz wondering how it would go if in AIBU!

Ah, I get it now Starlight. Mmm, don't think I will actually

Hi,

This has been a fascinating thread. And yes, I agree, very civilized & interesting. Thanks Neenz for starting this discussion...

I'm a psychologist, and am also a new mother (my boy is 4 months old). I am also doing a PhD on exactly the sort of issues this thread discusses, e.g. how come we think of babies as 'traumatized' or 'damaged' far more than we did in the past. So as you can imagine I've formed some opinions on this whole matter of CC... on a theoretical basis, my opinions were formed before I became a parent. Now that I'm a mother, I'm finding that motherhood has a lot to do with what we discover about ourselves & how we raise our children... and much less about what we believe on a theoretical basis. But I digress. Here are some specific points. I (like Daddy J) prefer to list them, it makes me feel more organized

1. I think that both attachment parenting and routine-based-parenting are labels we use to think about the way we bring up our children. At different times & in different cultures both these 'models' of parenting have been considered the right way to do things. If you read Christina Hardyment's book 'Dream babies', she discusses how parenting practices change completely through the years. What we now consider enlightened parenting, or 'research based' parenting might have been considered completely mad in the past. So I would take all these parenting styles with a grain of salt.

2. Someone said (not sure who) "following a child's needs, rather than their own" is best. There's been a lot of talk on this thread about 'putting children's needs first' and helping children feel secure etc. Well, I have to say what we perceive as 'children's needs' is not that straightofrward. Apart from obvious things- children being fed properly, not cold, not hot, not beaten up etc, what their needs are is really a questionmark. Some would argue that enforcing strict bedtimes or giving them their own space to sleep would make them feel 'secure' (another buzzword) because it sets boundaries, & creates secure, consistent boundaries around them. Others would argue feeling secure means always being with parents, and parents putting their own needs behind their children's needs. I believe both arguments can be made convincingly, that's why all these ideas are, I think, more an ideological / even religious sometimes belief (aka 'attachment fundamentalists' that DaddyJ mentioned) rather than a clear picture of how things are. The other thing to keep in mind is that children's needs are very closely tied up with the family they're brought up into, their temperament, their wider community etc. There is no such thing as a '"child's needs' seen separately from the context in which he/she grows. That's where I take issue with attachment parenting at its extreme forms. It really isolates the baby (and the baby-mother dyad) as separate from everything else that goes around them. Which is simply not how things are in reality.

3. The OP said at some point 'I am the parent. I set the bedtime'. Well, that's exactly right. I'm not saying it SHOULD be right (or not). I'm just saying that's how things are, parents have more power than children & make decisions for them, and it would be best & more honest for all to acknowledge that & deal with it as sensitively & as wisely as possible. Parents who practice attachment parenting are also making decisions for their children ALL THE TIME, they are also enforcing some practices onto them, and the fact that they think they are led by their children's needs doesn't mean that's actually the case. They still make decisions as parents, e.g. to co-sleep, to not let cry, to breastfeed on demand etc. This is not good or bad. It's just how things are. So I think parent's needs & beliefs are equally important when we want to have a clear picture of what's going on.

4. Daddy J: I agree with almost everything you say! And thanks for all those fantastic links. However,I do disagree on one sentence. You say "you cannot start with the conclusion if you have a theory you need to be able to prove it". Well, I think that when it comes to something so complex & multifaceted as parenting practices, conclusions almost always come first, because we do things for emotional reasons (or because of our character, strengths, abilities etc) & not usually because of the relevant research. I don't also believe there can ever be good research on something so complex, each family is a completely individual case, and trying to override that complexity & create 'çontrolled studies' of parenting is mad in my opinion. By the way, the studies of the romanian orphans have nothing to do with normal, everyday families, very very different setting. Also, lots of Bowlby's theories & lots of attachment research has huge problems that have to do with not looking at the context, not looking at cultural specificities etc. They proclaim they're doing valid research (also, people like Biddulph or Gerhard) but really they're also pushing their own ideologies as well. Anyway that's how I see it, and would be happy to discuss more.

5. Anna8888: You say 'any form of authoritarian parenting is so dangerous'. Well this statement has lots of holes in it. Because as I said before, even attachment parenting is authoritarian in a way, since parents impose their own beliefs on their children. So would an AP parent be willing to impose a routine if they were convinced it were better for their child? Perhaps... but perhaps not (it depends on the parent). Equally, when you say something as overgeneral as 'any form of something is so dangerous' you're just presenting your own belief (almost a religious belief) but you don't explain: how authoritarian? is setting a bedtime authoritatiran? is having a routine authoritarian? or is beating up your child & punishing them authoritarian? You need to define. Also when you say 'so dangerous'you also need to define. Because some would argue that it's equally dangerous for parents to do something (e.g continue with sleep deprivation indefinitely) even when they're exhausted, demoralized, depressed. Which is usually the situations when people make the decision- often out of desperation,although not always- to try CC. You also say ""your daughter is one of the most well-adjusted children in her class. Of course... because she is secure". Well but this statement (apart from being a bit arrogant) is something each & every parent on this thread, regardless of whether they've used CC or not, could say about their children. They too believe their children are secure, don't you see that? They just have a different definition of what you say secure is.

6. Finally, my own experience so far. My boy who is 4 months old is an appalling sleeper. I have no idea why this is. Maybe genetics. Maybe our parenting (conscious or unconscious). Maybe the fact that he's so dependent on his dummy. Maybe the breastfeeding I do. Maybe the fact that we have been co-sleeping (at least part of the night) since the beginning. Or maybe it's just a developmental phase. Who knows? Certainly I don't know. My DP & I are exhausted, demoralized, & have no space for ourselves. We take it in turns to sleep because our DS doesn't go more than 2 hour stretches of sleep. We don't know what to do. BUT we've decided that we're not going to do any form of sleep training (at least for the foreseeable future) not because of any particular beliefs but because we simply can't do it, we're maybe too soft, or maybe too tired, or maybe unable to see our baby cry, or maybe it's because our baby is quite a determined little fellow & we feel he wouldn't respond well to sleep training & CC. What I'm saying is, as I said at the beginning of the thread, as parents we discover what we can & cannot do, & we don't act upon beliefs. For us that means waiting it out & trying any non-crying method we can find (nothing works so far!). For others it means doing CC & for some fantastic parents I know it's worked very very well, & I would not for the life of me presume they damaged their child or any other stupid thing like that (sorry, but I do think it's stupid). Parenting is so multifaceted, so complex, there are so many issues that it involves... that simply to believe that your child will "lose trust" or feel "insecure"just by the one thing, is completely crazy.

Anyway. Sorry this turned into an essay! Hope to continue this interesting discussion!

by the way, here's an intersting article on this whole issue of good vs. bad parenting, if anyone's interested www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA71B.htm

Maria2007 - if you read the thread properly and don't take quotations out of context, you will find the answer to most of your questions.

Anna, first of all, I haven't really put in that many questions, just some ideas of how I see things. What questions are you referring to? Secondly, I think I've read the thread properly, as I said it's really interesting to me, & I read every single thing written... Thirdly, I don't think I take any quotations out of context, what are you referring to? You've written some things I agree with over the thread, but you've also written some things I don't agree with at all. I think the phrase- and correct me if I'm wrong, but you've written this- that your child is one of the most well adjusted (or so her teacher said) because 'she is secure' is quite presumptuous & perhaps even offensive to parents who don't follow your parenting style but who still have reason to believe their children are perfectly secure.

Maria2007 - that is precisely a misquotation. I didn't say that, the teacher did. So don't criticise me for an unsubstantiated claim that, according to you, all parents believe.

It is not "done" on MN to arrive late on a thread and throw around a few vague questions and criticisms about a thread you haven't read properly

Sorry: 'it is not 'done'on MN to arrive late on a thread & throw around a few vague questions & criticisms about a thread you haven't read properly'

Ok. First, do others agree that arriving late on a thread doesn't give me the right to express my opinions?
Second. Again, Anna, what questions are you referring to? As for my thoughts (not criticisms, but thought) why exactly are they vague? If something I said was vague, I'd be happy to clarify. What is it you found vague?
Third, as I said before, I've read the thread properly, I feel.
Fourth, I DID write that the teacher was the one who said your child was so well adjusted. That is precisely true, and I never said YOU were the one who thought that. And if that was implied, I apologize. So yes, the teacher did say that. But then you wrote 'Well of course. Because she is secure...' Which is what I took issue with. If you say 'well of course, because she is secure' you're implying that you agree with the teacher's assessment, that your child is more well adjusted than others. Or not?

Last thing: I don't much appreciate it, as I don't think others do on this thread, when someone tells them what is 'done'or not 'done', or how to post ideas on MN. I thought MN was an open forum for parents to exchange opinions & debate things about parenting. Or are there some hidden rules I'm not aware of?

Hmmmm, I found what Maria wrote very interesting, whether it is the done thing or not.

Maria, what you wrote was very interesting.

Anna is prob tired as she has such a hectic social life.

I also found your post interesting Maria, I also agree with your comment re: 'done thing'.

BUT I do sometimes think there are unwritten rules about to MN governed by the whole MN-posting-animal, but that it is healthy and even desirable to challenge them. However I think this is another thread entirely and that it would be a shame to spoil what has been a fairly harmonious thread bickering about something completely off-topic!

well it's interesting that everyone has been saying how civilized and interesting the thread is. But if we're talking about what's 'done'and not done (either in MN or real life) saying 'yawn'to someone who is challenging you is certainly not done.

Starlight: agreed, of course on every internet forum there are unwritten rules. I haven't been a member that long (I'm a very new mother, my boy is 4 months )... I did wait quite long to jump in because I was fascinated by what everyone was writing, & wanted to read everything before posting. Plus, I just saw the link a bit later than it started. Is that a problem, I wonder? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know.

Great post Maria. Well written from both points of view.

Anna, I am afraid that you come across as quite rude.

I find it totally bizarre that people feel that someone should not come on here and express their views just because they didn't comment from the outset. How odd.

Mria, there is no done thing or not on mn. You are free to express your ideas. Please don't be put off.

I have had a quick read of your thoughts and I agree with a lot of it, especially: "Parenting is so multifaceted, so complex, there are so many issues that it involves... that simply to believe that your child will "lose trust" or feel "insecure"just by the one thing, is completely crazy."

I do some AP things, like co-sleeping. I also do some non-AP things, like using nurseries from a young age and imposing some limits sleep-wise - I managed to convince my toddler ds (with some crying on his part) to not nurse between 11 pm and 5 am and settle for cuddles. It is what works for us.

I think babies and toddlers are an age group where the most advice is heaped and most misconceptions can arise. Simply because they cannot speak to express their actual views. They are the perfect template for parents to impose what is essentially their own agenda (yes, even if it claims to be child-led AP) on their child and then claim the credit that it makes the child 'secure'. I do think modern parents give themselves more credit or take the flak for bad parenting than other generations.

As another wag said further down: 'children grow up despite their parents not because of them'. I mean in the context of parents of a mnetter calibre who tend to navel gaze a tad too much.

blueshoes My DH also wonders what is the obsession with toddler years. I suppose it is the idea that you could maybe be setting patterns for life. Both CCs and APs believe this to some extent, although I think CCs tend to focus on the behavioural whilst APs on the emotional??

However, whether we like it or not, one way or another our children do need to grow up in the society they are born into, and to survive they will have to follow certain cultural and societal norms (even if it is at odds with needing to eat/sleep in a certain way or expressing themselves openly) and so therefore be taught/shown them.

My DH also wonders why we are so keen to push our little ones at the beginning of their lives to reach maturity asap but try to hold them back at the end of their childhood when they want to be independent, stay out late and have sex!

Maria Post what you like when you like, - not that you need my permission. Please don't feel put off.

Congratulations on he birth of your son too. Expect you're at that hellish 16week stage!?

Starlight: Yes, I'm at that hellish phase (17 weeks actually). He won't sleep more than 2 hour stretches .... we're exhausted. But can't let him cry.... so there you go.

Oh and starlight, thanks so much for the congrats

Have not posted so far but I'm interested - Starlight, do you really think AP and CC are opposites? (not meant to be aggressive by the way) I suppose they may be in "The Books" but in RL I see most of us borrowing a bit from whatever philosophy works at any given time.

Perhaps that is also why I have trouble with the idea that something lke CC is ultimately damaging to a baby - the bigger picture is what makes the difference surely. - That whole'multi-faceted' bit.