Interesting Psychology Article on CIO

[Ozzieshunni]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201112/dangers-crying-it-out

Thought this was interesting and wanted to share.

 

[Lightworker]

Good stuff!!

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I figured I would post that here as opposed to Baby Club. It would be a good read for all moms though.

 

[smelly07]

i think not holding, kissing, cuddling, ignoring a baby/child is the most unnatural thing ever x

great article x

 

[mummy3]

Brilliant article

 

[JASMAK]

110% agree. Not responding to a baby seems so unnatural. I actually have to leave a store when I hear a baby crying and the mother is not responding...I feel physically ill. I could never ever ever leave my child to cry.

 

[kirmal12]

Great article, I agree totally.

 

[pandacub]

Thanks for posting
with so many people around me telling me to let my LO CIO, that Jacob will be a clingy child, and trying to reprimand me for co-
sleeping, its nice to read something like that.

Good thinking posting here and not baby club btw, that forum is a mine field latey

 

[Gen79]

Less saturation here though. When I posted this article in babyclub it was honestly meant to inform, in addition to my willingness to have the debate. I may have been in a slightly silly mood which affected the delivery, but that doesn't change the intent.

And look, posted here in News & Debates there's no debate. Is there no one on the other side willing to discuss it? Is that because they are less confident of their decision, because they don't venture to this part of the forum, or just because they are afraid of being ganged up on? I would hope we wouldn't gang up on anyone.

I liked this article, it answered many questions we see on babyclub everyday, like: "Should I pick up the baby every time he cries?" My mom says I'll spoil him. But even I just have Babyclub bookmarked and don't always come here.

And one more thing. It really annoys me when people say "why does anyone care how I parent?" Yes its your decision how you parent your child and I'd never take that away from a non-abusing parent of course, but I care because I believe a child left to cry for any length of time is in distress. I imagine how I would feel left alone lost in the woods or something (a context where I'd feel vulnerable) and it breaks my heart to know that all over the western world, babies feel like this. Just because some children are abused doesn't make me feel less for these babies either. So yeah, I care. Sorry.

 

[ahcigar1]

I agree with this article quite a bit. I think it is very unnatural and goes against everything we are made to do. Whenever I hear my LO cry or even begin to fuss I want to run to her immediately and try to make it better. Right now I am having to fight all that because my husband needs to be able to learn how to take care of her and soothe her for when I go back to work next week and he will be the main care taker during the day. There have only been 2 times that I have had to put her into her crib and step away for 5 min to regroup myself only because I was getting so stressed and frustrated. Trying everything I knew and still resulting in her screaming for long period, she had been fed, changed, burped, nothing physically wrong with her, just was upset. Then when I went back to pick her up and try again she calmed down. I think because I had relieved my stress that she was ultimately picking up on. So at times I think yes you do need to let your LO cry, but only in the extreme cases. There are many times that I just have snuggle time with my LO, and I would carry her around all day if I could. And to go against this is not in our nature. Us as women and mothers are programed to nurture that is one of the things that make us so great.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I totally agree. There are times I put Alex down to just to regroup.

 

[redpoppy]

I just wanted to pop in to say, I did CC and I read a load of links and studies done which showed babies did not end up any more emotionally or developmentally damaged than their peers when they got older. The thing is by posting this in News and Debates I just thought "what!?!? AGAIN!?!?" you can probably scroll back through my older posts and find the threads I'm talking about and read what I had to say and the solid arguments I made with references provided.

The reason I think a lot of mums who have done CC won't pip in is 1. It was a long time ago and we've had at least 8 debates on the topic or 2. They don't care as they are not in the camp that want to "save humanity form the evil and damage that is being done". They've done it. They know their child is not damaged because despite what some psychology articles claim (mostly opinions formed with very haphazard references) mothers who do are not heartless or lack the instincts to know their children well and be tuned in to their child's needs. My daughter was 8 months when I did CC. It was due to good reason. I know my daughter better than anyone. She has communicated with me since she was 3 months old. I know her nature and her needs. I know her and love her and care for her. I would KNOW if she was damaged or indeed if she was BETTER after CCing because she was getting more sleep, was less grumpy and fractious throughout the day. I didn't want to do CC and it was not fun! But after my experience I would consider it with a second child.

I think mothers who don't do CC and cope well are great. But to demonise and scaremonger is in my opinion silly. You yourself can google and find evidence opposite of that which you firmly believe. Its quite easy. But you probably don't want to believe the studies where carried out properly or that they even exist. I lie with my baby girl every night to put her to sleep and go to her every time she cries at night. But she's not waking 10 to 12 times a night to be physically and vigourously rocked to sleep anywhere between 5 and 20 minutes night after night after night after night after night ... etc.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

Ok, I'm not scaremongering. This is CIO, not CC. BIG difference there.

 

[JASMAK]

I just wanted to pop in to say, I did CC and I read a load of links and studies done which showed babies did not end up any more emotionally or developmentally damaged than their peers when they got older. The thing is by posting this in News and Debates I just thought "what!?!? AGAIN!?!?" you can probably scroll back through my older posts and find the threads I'm talking about and read what I had to say and the solid arguments I made with references provided.

The reason I think a lot of mums who have done CC won't pip in is 1. It was a long time ago and we've had at least 8 debates on the topic or 2. They don't care as they are not in the camp that want to "save humanity form the evil and damage that is being done". They've done it. They know their child is not damaged because despite what some psychology articles claim (mostly opinions formed with very haphazard references) mothers who do are not heartless or lack the instincts to know their children well and be tuned in to their child's needs. My daughter was 8 months when I did CC. It was due to good reason. I know my daughter better than anyone. She has communicated with me since she was 3 months old. I know her nature and her needs. I know her and love her and care for her. I would KNOW if she was damaged or indeed if she was BETTER after CCing because she was getting more sleep, was less grumpy and fractious throughout the day. I didn't want to do CC and it was not fun! But after my experience I would consider it with a second child.

I think mothers who don't do CC and cope well are great. But to demonise and scaremonger is in my opinion silly. You yourself can google and find evidence opposite of that which you firmly believe. Its quite easy. But you probably don't want to believe the studies where carried out properly or that they even exist. I lie with my baby girl every night to put her to sleep and go to her every time she cries at night. But she's not waking 10 to 12 times a night to be physically and vigourously rocked to sleep anywhere between 5 and 20 minutes night after night after night after night after night ... etc.

You do what's best for your family, and we do what is best for ours. I agree with this research, and I have let my baby CC (my middle child) and it was the WORST thing I have ever done, I regret it...I always will regret it. Even though I love her, care for her, and would do anything for her....how is there a way to measure the damage I have done from doing that? There is no way. I will have to presume that she would be a happier baby if I hadn't...and I am glad I gave it up after a couple days because it was a horrible feeling leaving my baby to cry. I know if I was crying for help, or someone to see me...I would feel 'damaged' if no one came. I can't imagine it would be different for a baby...except that they understand less...and would have no way of knowing why they are being ignored. I think if you must leave your baby so to be safe...if you feel you are going to harm your baby, then of course!!! Yes...do so! By all means. But, I personally would never ever do it for any other reason...and I would never let my 8 year old or 6 year old cry and not go to them. It's absurd to me, even at their age. I don't think that's 'scaremongering', it's facts...it's a study done in a scientific manner...

 

[Lightworker]

It is not scaremongering. That word is abused on this forum.

 

[redpoppy]

There's not study. Its an article. Which States "facts" by basing them on things which cannot all be added up to make facts. A study which actually measured the damage to children who were sleep trained as they got older and cmpared their development to their peers would be a study. And its been done.

 

[nosocks]

This thread wasn't entitled 'the arguments for and against CC'... It wad to share an article people may find interesting so in my opinion I think if you don't agree with it you shouldn't post here...let it just be left for the people who have found it interesting to appreciate it.
As was said- there have been 'lively' discussions on the topic many times before- do we need another one?

 

[redpoppy]

Thank God! I'll stay away.

However 1. That should have been mentioned in the first post something like "I don't want thi to be a debate despite it being the debates forum and just wanted to share an article with other mums" AND 2. the whole "Is there no one on the other side willing to discuss it? Is that because they are less confident of their decision, because they don't venture to this part of the forum, or just because they are afraid of being ganged up on? " was far too much bait for me to handle without getting hooked in.

I withdraw from the discussion and wish you all the best.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I did say that. I said it was an interesting article that I wanted to share Read the first post

 

[Gen79]

Thank God! I'll stay away.

However 1. That should have been mentioned in the first post something like "I don't want thi to be a debate despite it being the debates forum and just wanted to share an article with other mums" AND 2. the whole "Is there no one on the other side willing to discuss it? Is that because they are less confident of their decision, because they don't venture to this part of the forum, or just because they are afraid of being ganged up on? " was far too much bait for me to handle without getting hooked in.

I withdraw from the discussion and wish you all the best.

I was going to reply that it wasn't bait but I guess it was. I'm glad it hooked you though, I've never read a more reasoned argument for it.

I know a lot of people say its been done a million times before and we don't have to do it again but this forum's membership is constantly in flux so I think important things like this DO need to be discussed over and over again. I understand why you'd be unable to get involved each and every time though.

That's all I've got for now. Busy day ahead, no time...