I see so many people mentioning letting infant children "cry it out" to make them go to sleep on their own. I am not qualified to talk about this subject, but something inside me just finds that method horrifying.
I've read about a lot of mental issues having roots in early-childhood abandonment - apparently, when kids are left alone to cry, their body releases hormones which stop the crying, but doesn't stop the anxiety. In a nutshell, the baby still feels like crying, but it just doesn't.
There are probably studies (and I will appreciate all info given in the replies, be it studies or personal experience), but something about me just can't accept "cry it out" as a healthy method of raising infants. Infants should be in proximity of their mother until they are old enough to detach on their own - that's how it works for the whole animal kingdom, no?
Your comment shocked me, it shocked me so much to make this my first HN comment (maybe not the very first but it shocked me so much I am going against my „don’t get involved in discussions on the internet rule“)
I would like to give you a little background about my situation first. My first born is 2.7years old now. For the first 12 month of his life he cried. I don’t want to say he is a moody baby but he cried. For 5-7 hours a day every single day he cried. And one of us was with him for every single second of that. There was no evidence of any physical reason for his crying.
Me being a „nerd“ was devastated as their was no way to just follow a certain formula to make him stop crying. And we tried everything.
The only thing that finally made him stop crying after 12 months was … growing up.
We have been told to let him cry by countless of people, even experts. I was lucky enough that my wife did some research herself and convinced me that pushing through tough times and staying at his side, or to say it differently „hurt“ ourselves, is in the end far less harmful then possibly hurting our baby by letting him „cry it out“.
Seeing so many comments here advising and lecturing on letting them cry it out hurts when for me it feels like the lazy way out of a problem that will fix itself if there is no physical reasons for the baby crying.
And since people ask for studies and evidence I found a great comment on a study that tried to proof the opposite. It’s linking a lot of studies that show how bad the crying it out method can be: https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp....
Thank you for the input, and for the link to the commentary. It certainly raises some interesting questions.
I'm glad there are people out there that still care more about the well-being of their children than their own convenience. "Crying it out" does feel like a lazy way out from my perspective. The fact that so many parents are willing to do it, and yet become defensive in discussions like this... "Oh, you've never been a parent, you don't know what it's like"... Well, nobody forced them to have children. I don't know what they expected when they decided to have a kid. It's a massive undertake, and requires almost complete dedication. Yet it's so easy to just have a change of heart, feel trapped, blame the child for being a child. I can empathize, but I can't approve. If you have a child, its well being is more important than yours.
there is a lot of culture behind this. friends i visited left their baby in a room crying while they were entertaining guests as if it was the most normal thing in the world. they were otherwise very loving and caring towards their children, so to me this seemed rather out of place. but it looked like that was just how they did it and i guess everyone else from their culture too.
i also think that many parents are being led to believe that letting the kid cry it out is for the well-being of the child. so some will do it even if it goes against their own feelings.
Having a 6 year old refuse to sleep without a parent in bed because of "attachment parenting" tends to make one wonder if there's not some merit to having gone through some pain in the early stages.
Thankfully, there's someone selling every possible take on parenting advice to meet every intuition seeking affirmation. (I skip that part and just go straight to my own intuition. I think we need diversity.)
> Having a 6 year old refuse to sleep without a parent in bed because of "attachment parenting" tends to make one wonder if there's not some merit to having gone through some pain in the early stages.
The work here is not to let the child cry in it's early days, but to put it in it's bed, come when it cries, calm it down, go back to bed, come again when it cries etc. Repeat until child sleeps.
For the French speakers, the book by Brigitte Langevin Le Sommeil du nourrisson is highly recommended. It’s one of the best things that happened to mine and several friend’s couples at around the six months mark.
It’s a simple technique that helps the parents go through the one or two difficult nights where the child learns how to manage to sleep alone. It uses a stopwatch. First leave the child to cry for 15 seconds before going to comfort them. Always stay by the bed, giving only your presence. If the crying continues when you lay the baby in bed, add 15 seconds so wait for 30 seconds, etc. until reaching a plateau of five minutes. I don’t know anyone who reached the plateau, nor had to do it for more than three days.
My daughter falls asleep almost immediately and is much happier now that she’s properly rested. And as parents we’re happier too!
Having a 6 year old refuse to sleep without a parent in bed because of "attachment parenting" tends to make one wonder if there's not some merit to having gone through some pain in the early stages
based on my experience i'd very much doubt that this sleep problem comes because of attachment parenting. there must have been some other experience that causes the child to have trouble sleeping alone.
the point of attachment parenting is exactly to help the children be more confident, so they need less attachment later. if that doesn't work then there must have been some other influence. elsewhere you mention a highly anxious mother. i don't know, i thought it would have to be something worse like divorce or death of a family member. but it's not surprising that the kids pick up the anxiousness of their mother.
but that doesn't mean attachment parenting is the wrong approach. it only means that it makes it more challenging, and while you could try letting kids cry it out, i believe that would only lead to a worse outcome. because while it works to let the kids sleep by themselves, it influences the relationship between the parents and the children.
I'd still do "attachment parenting" over crying it out, but that's me. Just saying that every choice may have a downside that comes with the territory. Yes, I think anxiety and unwillingness to acknowledge it has played a huge part.
that anxiety is not your fault, nor is it your wife's fault. and unwillingness to acknowledge it may even be an inability to do so. a lot of people go through some kind of trauma during their childhood, and who knows what your wife went through to come out with that anxiety. it can take people decades to understand what their childhood did to their life, and for some therapy is needed to help unraveling things. as long as you both do your best, your children will understand when they grow up.
Yes, she went through 7 miscarriages and a history of mental illness in her family so I don't begrudge her holding her children while she can. It's not cost-free, though. Life has been educational :)
> Having a 6 year old refuse to sleep without a parent in bed because of "attachment parenting" tends to make one wonder if there's not some merit to having gone through some pain in the early stages.
How often does that happen in reality? Are there any studies? What is your personal experience? Honest question, as I really don't know.
> Thankfully, there's someone selling every possible take on parenting advice to meet every intuition seeking affirmation.
There's no need for such a dismissing attitude. I clearly stated I am not an authority on the subject and I'm welcoming all and any information in the replies. I'm just discussing here, and without actual knowledge, intuition is my starting point.
Yes, my comment is my own personal experience, and my conclusion based on that experience. What sounded dismissive to you was a slightly cynical take on the parenting advice industry, and contains my advice to stick to your own intuition.
Understandable, I was editing that part to soften it a bit before I even saw your reply.
6 year old is currently in that state. Again, even daring to admit something like that invites commentary from other parents how we did it wrong. Maybe so, but his mother is also a highly anxious person who could not handle letting a child be upset without comforting him. I also have a 12 year old who sleeps fine on her own now but was similar to about the same age.
So again, I don't see a way to be a parent other than intuition coupled with openmindedness, and that undoubtedly our own limitations or neuroses will end up affecting our children somehow (to the extent we don't or can't work on ourselves). It's somewhat of a tragic or at least deeply humbling experience.
In parenting almost everything is highly arguable, because parenting is hard and we don't have much idea of what is the optimal path to it. But this is one of the few things where I'll stick my neck out and say I'm pretty confident anyone advocating to "cry it out" is just plain wrong.
Nature gives us a tiny creature, who (during the first stages of childhood) operates entirely or almost entirely on pure instinct, and it surprisingly gives it the ability to cry at a volume that puts Whitney Houston to shame, and makes you feel like a fire alarm has gone off. Why are they able to cry like that when they are still so small? To me, it's common sense that it's so that we feel compelled to answer their call and do something to stop the crying ASAP. That's the natural thing to do, the thing our species seems to be designed to do. Any other reaction would require very solid evidence to convince me it's a good idea. And no, "with this method the baby sleeps alone without crying in two weeks" is not valid evidence, because that's an argument based on convenience for parents in contemporary society, not on what's best for the baby.
We did "cry it out" at 8-9 months. You don't literally abandon them. We'd start by leaving for a minute, then 2 minutes, then 3 minutes, and so on. It took about 10-12 minutes the first night before they settled, shorter the next, still shorter the next, and by day 4 it they were fine.
People just won't get it unless they have kids, I don't see any way to explain it otherwise. Even then, some people will have some unicorn baby that is magical to raise. Teaching your child to self sooth is such an important skill.
I understand that parenting is hard. However, I can't help but be sceptical about the "self-soothing" theory - how do you know that infants aren't simply feeling helpless and stop crying because they feel that nobody is coming?
This is an open question, I'm not taking any side because I don't know. But any answer should be supported by some kind of rational argument, not the argument of convenience, i.e. my child stopped crying, therefore they're okay, because I feel better when they are not crying.
This is why people opt for gradual extinction, it allows you to comfort them and establish that parents are still around. By a certain age they have the capacity to fall asleep on their own, but are still accustomed to falling asleep before being put to bed (ime this was because we would feed-to-sleep, probably the mistake that led to having to sleep-train later, and it's possible that it could all have been avoided if we started the evening feed slightly earlier with the lights on by the time they reach 5-6mo). The goal is to provide comfort while allowing them to learn to fall asleep autonomously, or else you're looking at waking up in multiple times a night to hold them indefinitely, and that is unsustainable for working parents, nor is it particularly restful for the baby.
I'd expect that going from one extreme to the other (i.e. extinction) can lead to long panic crying and is unnecessarily harsh. By contrast if you rock your baby until they are comfortable and drowsy (but awake), then set them down, they'll be annoyed at the adjustment at first and protest but won't freak out. Then you can decide on whichever interval you want to check in (5-10 min), usually touching but not picking up. By the first night our kid fell asleep in 15 min, then 5 min the next. Then in no time he's sleeping through his nights.
Everyone gets better sleep and it was fairly painless. It doesn't have to depend on an infant feeling helpless - at bedtime they have high sleep pressure, they want to sleep. We told ourselves we'd abort the process if it things went awry. In the daytime they're as happy as ever.
FYI "cry it out" is a form of sleep training to be done on a ~5-6 month old infant.
Any baby younger than that you basically should always attend to their needs and never let them cry without trying to soothe them [there can be a grey area from 3-5 months but still the general idea is the same].
Even a 5-6 month old must feel pretty unloved. Just put yourself in their position: can't walk, can't talk, can't get out of bed, feels tired, feels all alone, cries for help and comfort but is ultimately ignored.
That's the most worst message you can send out to a person of any age.
I often hear people say: but they learn, they manipulate you as if a baby’s personality was naturally hostile and their main reason in life was betraying their parents. :)
Sure. I'm not saying mothers should keep their children under a glass bell until adulthood. When (slightly older) children start abusing their crying for attention, they should absolutely not be (completely) indulged.
But we're talking about infants here. I seriously doubt that infants are crying because they want to be entertained (as implied by "crying gets me attention") - I think that they cry because they are f-cking scared. Yes, they want attention - the same way that a person stuck in a dark alleyway with a gang of thugs wants the attention of a police officer.
I am going to guess you don't have children. I may be wrong, but I would be shocked that a parent would hold these beliefs. When you have an infant it is plain to see how infants use behaviors from the past that get them the results they want. That is what infants do. They are exploring the causal graph.
Not to say they never cry because they are scared, or hungry or a myriad of other things. The manner and duration of crying are things a parent can pick up on and your goal is to give the child what they need, not just what they want.
It is an arms race!
I am going to guess you never took a minute to check the development a human brain undergoes.
It takes month until the human brain can form basic memories. Until then only things that they can actually see, exist.
Understanding that consequences exist take another couple of month. Using them to their advantage consciously is a mental stunt infants can for sure not do.
Seeing it as a correlation in these things is highly likely your human brain trying to rationalize the often irrational behavior of infants.
PS. I don’t want to imply your kids where not able to do such things. It would be a rare behavior though.
PPS. Father of at least one
Yes I think people that don't have children don't understand how smart and manipulative infants can be in certain areas from a very very young age (3-4 months old), while at the same time being horribly stupid and incompetent in others.
But getting attention from their parents is one of the areas they are very advanced!
I do have a kid and I'm pretty sure children aren't manipulative at all at 3-4 months old. They just operate on immediate needs and instinct. Manipulative behavior starts at around 1 year old, beliefs of small infants being manipulative are typically just projection (you feel angry because your baby wakes you up every 2 hours, so you think it's manipulating you, and that makes you feel better about being so angry).
Of course they are good at getting attention, but that's because they need attention. That's why nature gave them the ability to cry surprisingly loud from the moment they're born.
Perhaps the 4 month old is not "manipulative" per se, but it also cannot be argued that the kid is doing much of a cost-benefit analysis as to whether it's worth waking Mom and Dad up for this (whim/legitimate need).
Thank you for pointing this out. I hope your honest and direct response opens the eyes of some of the people in this discussion to rethink whether their 4 months old is manipulative or is simply scared of being alone…
Sorry to say. But this is not true in most cases!
Manipulative thinking requires a sense of fully empathy which kids do not develop until they are 3 years old or even older!
If a 3 months old is „manipulating“ you it was pure coincidence!
The right response is to ALWAYS react to crying by calming the child, and if the crying was not warranted or necessary, explain that to the child AFTER you have calmed it down.
Children are smart enough to understand sentences like "This is really not something to get upset about", AFTER they have calmed down, and explained in a loving matter.
Infants can use crying as a method for getting attention (even if nothing is "wrong") around 3-4 months.
They aren't necessity trying to manipulate you but they are constantly experimenting and if certain behaviors get them what they want they will continue to do them.
> they are constantly experimenting and if certain behaviors get them what they want
I am fairly doubtful that infants can want things that they don't need. If infants cry, it's because they feel pain - I don't see any other explanation, and projecting adult traits (such as wanting things they don't need) onto infants doesn't really make sense to me. Of course they "want" their parent's attention. They're infants, they probably feel pain when their parents are not around.
Of course, there is a period around ~2 years old when babies start experimenting with crossing the lines to see what they can and cannot get away with. But at age, they aren't infants anymore.
Not only that, but at a certain age they can learn to get the things (comfort, sleep, etc) they want in ways other than crying. Past a certain age, always responding to crying right away is stunting that ability.
The most popular method for doing this (Ferber) gradually ramps the crying period from 3 minutes to 20 minutes. Anything longer than that and the kid probably actually needs something.
I see. I suppose just experiencing that parent is "out there" and will come periodically to check on them might make the infants feel calmer. It definitely seems better than just leaving the child to cry the whole night.
Extinction actually has a specific meaning in behaviourism, it refers to extinguishing an unwanted behaviour (signalling at night) rather than wanting to extinguish the baby - it's a term used in behaviourism and can be applied to any unwanted behaviour, not just crying at night.
The connotations of using that term are rather unfortunate but there's a reason why that name is used.
Well, he's an anecdote for you - with my kids it was fine. You let them cry and poke your head in every 10 minutes or so to make sure they know they're not alone, but that the parent is right outside. Eventually they get the point. And your reward is a stable sleep cycle - for us usually this bought us a few months at a clip until it went to hell again.
Absolutely agree, My psychologist was horrified when I mentioned cry it out to him when we were talking about the pending birth of my son, basically saying that babies don’t have the ability to soothe themselves, and it’s something they have to learn from parents. His reaction and explanation has stuck with me, and I’m glad we never went down that path.
Because it is absolutely horrifying and heartless. Only an absolute horrible parent would do something like that and ones who would like to raise kids who grow up feeling unloved.
These scientists can't model emotions. So they better stay in lane of testing equipments and drugs
I've read about a lot of mental issues having roots in early-childhood abandonment - apparently, when kids are left alone to cry, their body releases hormones which stop the crying, but doesn't stop the anxiety. In a nutshell, the baby still feels like crying, but it just doesn't.
There are probably studies (and I will appreciate all info given in the replies, be it studies or personal experience), but something about me just can't accept "cry it out" as a healthy method of raising infants. Infants should be in proximity of their mother until they are old enough to detach on their own - that's how it works for the whole animal kingdom, no?