separation from mom makes baby psychotic/neurotic??? - Page 3

[guerrillamama]

mamawanabe, thank you i was trying to figure out how to say that.

unagidon, what are you talking about w/ "viable alternatives to attachment parenting"? if resilience theory means understanding how some kids in horrible situations turn out ok (something that all of us are familiar w/ and some of us have experienced 1st-hand), how is that an alternative??

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by guerrillamama

mamawanabe, thank you i was trying to figure out how to say that.

Me, too! Thanks, MW!

[Benjismom]

It appears I have been unclear in some way. My comments have, with very limited exceptions, been directed at the OP and the remarks related therein. The agenda at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with chicagomom, although I do find her slippery slope argument to be fatuous. As a previous post explained/asked, I am questioning the reliance on studies of attachment disordered children to make other kinds of arguments about proper parenting. I am NOT in any way "looking for an alternative" to AP by using resilience research. I just cannot see how anyone could read my posts and honestly believe that is what I was advocating.

Sheesh.

Beth

[urklemama]

Because resiliency arguments are used by people to justify keeping unhappy kids in day care.

I've heard both parents and employers do this, and I've personally observed day care directors trot all this out to keep parents from starting to think, hmm, maybe I should be paying more attention to my child's distress. The slippery slope in this case is a real thing. Educated parents use these arguments to defend their bad choices to themselves.

I want to make abundantly clear that I am talking here about extremely privileged people who could be making other choices. This is not about people who have to work to keep food on the table or even about people who are working to pay into college funds. These are very wealthy people. And they absolutely say "I see my child's misery, but I'm aware of the resilience of children in even worse situations, so everything will be fine." Or "I know that I'm paying my employees too little to support a SAHP or even for decent daycare, but those orphanage kids come out fine, don't they? It's all a crap shoot anyway." I have heard people say almost exactly those words.

[ShadowMom]

Originally Posted by Benjismom

I brought up resilience research earlier to make a very limited point, which seems to have gotten completely lost: Science does not support the notion that there are linear relationships between particular childhood experiences and specific mental health outcomes. This should not be controversial.

I just wanted to argue this point with you a bit. I just read a book called "Ghosts from the Nursery : Tracing the Roots of Violence" by Robin Karr-Morse and Meredith S. Wiley which makes a fairly convincing argument that if a child is exposed to a RANGE of factors, then their predisposition towards violence becomes much more predictable.

For instance, if a child has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and is neglected during infancy (unattached in the scientific way that the posters in this thread have been speaking of), and also has suffered head trauma; one of those factors by themselves will not give us a certainty that the child will be a sociopath or have tendencies toward violence, but if several of these factors are COMBINED, it becomes more and more predictable that the child will have these issues.

Anyway, I'm not really disagreeing with you, but bringing up a related area of research which is very interesting. The book was fascinating.

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by urklemama

Because resiliency arguments are used by people to justify keeping unhappy kids in day care.

I've heard both parents and employers do this, and I've personally observed day care directors trot all this out to keep parents from starting to think, hmm, maybe I should be paying more attention to my child's distress. The slippery slope in this case is a real thing. Educated parents use these arguments to defend their bad choices to themselves.

I want to make abundantly clear that I am talking here about extremely privileged people who could be making other choices. This is not about people who have to work to keep food on the table or even about people who are working to pay into college funds. These are very wealthy people. And they absolutely say "I see my child's misery, but I'm aware of the resilience of children in even worse situations, so everything will be fine." Or "I know that I'm paying my employees too little to support a SAHP or even for decent daycare, but those orphanage kids come out fine, don't they? It's all a crap shoot anyway." I have heard people say almost exactly those words.

I think that people determined to be neglectful and irresponsible (and that's how I see the behavior you describe) will always be able to find a way to rationalize their behavior.

I cannot see how misuse/misapplication of research equals faulty research, which seems to be the implication in the "slippery slope" argument.

[KellyB]

I'm not sure if this it OT or not, but I'm interested in attachment research (especially ones like the Ainsley studies from the 70's) that use "normal" parents, and look at the different forms of attachment.(secure/anxious/avoidant)
I don't think it's ever been studied, but I'd like to see 30 AP mom/infant combos compared to 30 "mainstream" mom/infant pairs in a Strange Situation test to see if the AP kids were consistantly more securely attached.
Does anyone know if anything of this type has ever been done?
It's amazing to me that attachment theorists aren't more interested in AP.

[urklemama]

Where is anyone saying that the research is faulty? The research isn't the point here. The point is how people think about the research. It seemed to me that people were finding it ridiculous that anyone could in fact think this way, and I am offering my experience that yes, in fact, people do.

[ShadowMom]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I'm not sure if this it OT or not, but I'm interested in attachment research (especially ones like the Ainsley studies from the 70's) that use "normal" parents, and look at the different forms of attachment.(secure/anxious/avoidant)
I don't think it's ever been studied, but I'd like to see 30 AP mom/infant combos compared to 30 "mainstream" mom/infant pairs in a Strange Situation test to see if the AP kids were consistantly more securely attached.
Does anyone know if anything of this type has ever been done?
It's amazing to me that attachment theorists aren't more interested in AP.

I believe there has been some study on different forms of attachment among normal parents, but I can't recall who did the research, I apologize.

I think it would be very difficult to compare "AP" parents to "non-AP" parents. First of all, there is no one accepted definition of "AP"; everyone probably agrees on the intent but the execution is vastly different. So, you would have to choose certain variables (such as slinging for 3 or more hours a day; breastfeeding; co-sleeping, etc.) and measure people who did all of those things against people who didnt' do them at all, which would be very difficult I think. Also, if you did a study with multiple variables like that, it would be next to impossible to separate out the results - is it the slinging that gives a good attachment? Is it the breastfeeding? What about parents who breastfeed and don't co-sleep?

There are so many ways to parent in regard to, for instance, nighttime parenting, it's hard enough to do a study on that, much less something that involves a whole bunch of different variables.

I think the closest you could come would be to do a population study, looking at the babies from a culture that most resembles AP (maybe Japan?) and comparing their babies to American babies. But, there you would only be able to look at outcomes by population, you couldn't do individual case studies because there would be too many variables.

[mamawanabe]

Originally Posted by urklemama

Where is anyone saying that the research is faulty? The research isn't the point here. The point is how people think about the research. It seemed to me that people were finding it ridiculous that anyone could in fact think this way, and I am offering my experience that yes, in fact, people do.

Nobody uses resiliance research to argue that, because some kids can overcome severe child abuse than we don't need to worry about child abuse.

Your examples were people saying - "look if some severely neglected/abused kids can be ok, than a child unhappy about being in daycare certainly can be OK."

Well, that is just weird, really weird.

1) These studies are based on the idea that many severly neglected kids never recover (thus lets study the ones who do to understand how/why), which means that people making this argument believe that some/many kids unhappy about being in daycare won't be ok. No loving parent would accept this agrument , so I really can't imagine that this argument being put forth in ernest by either the daycare provider or the parent.

2) Parents who put thier kids in daycare and daycare providers in no way consider daycare child abuse/neglect, so why they would even trun to these studies about abused and neglected children boggles my mind.

You know some really weird (and not representative people), I think . . .

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by urklemama

Where is anyone saying that the research is faulty? The research isn't the point here. The point is how people think about the research. It seemed to me that people were finding it ridiculous that anyone could in fact think this way, and I am offering my experience that yes, in fact, people do.

Sorry if my post was unclear. I didn't mean that I thought people were saying the research is flawed so much as they think it is bad and dangerous. At least that’s what I take from posts like this:

Originally Posted by unagidon

Regarding the use of science in the service of an agenda, I am surprised at how close the arguments about resiliency mirror the arguments about the value of infant formula put out by the formula companies. There are some who like to throw out the term “science” as some demonstration of “objectivity”. But resiliency theory is about things that are the lesser of two evils, like (for lack of a better term) “formula theory”. One has to ask, whose agenda is served when we are looking for viable alternatives to attachment parenting? Could it be corporate capitalism?

This seems to me to be saying that research on resiliency is, in and of itself, an attempt to undermine the principles of attachment parenting -- which it decidedly is not. Some people may use it that way (just as some might use it to indict the choices of parents who WOH).

There is a difference between criticizing people who misuse the results of scientific research, and criticizing the science or the line of inquiry itself. I see the two being conflated here.

[mamawanabe]

Originally Posted by kaydeesac

This seems to me to be saying that research on resiliency is, in and of itself, an attempt to undermine the principles of attachment parenting -- which it decidedly is not. Some people may use it that way (just as some might use it to indict the choices of parents who WOH).
.

wonderfully put

[KellyB]

There are so many ways to parent in regard to, for instance, nighttime parenting, it's hard enough to do a study on that, much less something that involves a whole bunch of different variables.

I was already thinking of that. I was thinking the "AP" families could be ones that did, say, 75% of the "AP stuff".
Variables that led to the different varieties of attachment would be phase 2, 3, 4, and 5...
LOL....I've been reading child development books lately. Mary Ainsworth and a team of colleagues were the ones that did the studies that followed the attachment of kids from "normal" homes in the 70's...
I'm just dismayed that nothing of the sort has been done since then, to my knowledge.
I mean, attachment theorists are alive and well...and abundant.
But what are they doing?
So it started with a study on severly neglected, institutionalized infants...found out that was bad...then there were the monkey experiments that showed that even orphaned baby monkeys bond to a warm, soft cloth "fake" mother that doesn't provide milk, over a hard metal one with a bottle... then there were the Ainsworth studies that showed even "normal" families can produce kids with attachment issues...
Wouldn't the next step be figuriing out the specific behaviors that promote secure attachment?
Is AP overkill? Do babywize babies commonly suffer from attachment disorders?
Modern parents conscerned with attachment are kind left hanging to theorize on their own...and it's creating a bit of confusion, as this thread demonstrates, along with the controversy over the "best" parenting method.

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Wouldn't the next step be figuriing out the specific behaviors that promote secure attachment?

That is an interesting question. My suspicion is that it would be difficult to come up with a "must-do" list of specific behaviors that must be done in order to achieve attachment. There are so many variables in people's temperaments, for one (some babies do not like to be held, or resist the sling, or don't co-sleep well, for example). And genetic factors and environmental factors that go beyond caregiver behaviors (everything from poverty to pollution to who knows what else in a household or community) might also influence brain chemistry and, therefore, the ability to attach. I do think, though, that it is a worthwhile line of inquiry: to as precisely and accurately as possible discern what it is that children need to be securely attached and to have healthy interpersonal relationships.

[KellyB]

My suspicion is that it would be difficult to come up with a "must-do" list of specific behaviors that must be done in order to achieve attachment. There are so many variables in people's temperaments, for one (some babies do not like to be held, or resist the sling, or don't co-sleep well, for example).

True...
But maybe a "must not do" list would appear.
Like must not hit babies, scream at babies, CIO, feed-train, etc...things generally condoned in many books on parenting, but might quite possibly interfere with attachment...I'm surprised attachment theorist aren't testing this, yk?
Then we could end the debate once and for all.

[ShadowMom]

Originally Posted by kellyb

True...
But maybe a "must not do" list would appear.
Like must not hit babies, scream at babies, CIO, feed-train, etc...things generally condoned in many books on parenting, but might quite possibly interfere with attachment...I'm surprised attachment theorist aren't testing this, yk?
Then we could end the debate once and for all.

I'd be interested in a CIO study.... they could compare various factors in children whose moms used CIO for at least a certain amount of time, and then use moms who have never used CIO at all, and measure things like the attachment level, baby's reactions to strange environments, things like that.

[KellyB]

O
M
G!!!!
I can't believe this.
http://www.babycenter.com/expert/bab...ep&bus=content

Question: Am I doing psychological damage to my baby by letting him cry it out?

Answer: In a word, no. Letting your child cry at bedtime will do no more harm than letting him cry during the day. Surprisingly, the average young baby cries for about three hours every day.

Recent research has shown that babies and toddlers are more securely attached and happier after sleep training.

Now I understand the Parents/babycenter vs. Mothering/MDC controversy.
I went on a googlemission to find out if attachment studies had been done on CIO.
What is up with this?
I'm sure I saw a study a while back that said the exact opposite!

[loomweaver]

I don't think my DD has cried for 3 hours in her ENTIRE 7.5 month life. It hurts my heart to think that there are children who do and are left to.
Recommended reading :The Continuum Concept by Jean Liedloff
Thanks for all of your sharing

[KellyB]

Ok...this is the only published medical study I could find on CIO implications on the psychological health of babies...
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...enNeedTou.html
It doesn't mention attachment, but I can't imagine it wouldn't have attachment implications....it says CIO babies suffer from post traumatic stress...
How the hell did that babycenter doc conclude CIO made babies MORE ATTACHED?

[ShadowMom]

Interesting article. Make a note of who authored it and read her biography, and you'll see why it says what it says. This is the same lady who wrote the book that says it's ok for babies to vomit on themselves when CIO'ing.

I imagine she's referring to the recent study about how mothers who did some "controlled crying" were less depressed?

We should write babycenter and make them give us the source on that study.

I would, but it's 9:30 and DS has woken up 3 times already. Someone, please, kill me...