Object Permanence: Your baby doesn't feel abandoned

Snapdragon750

Reading the CIO discussions, I've been growing increasingly frustrated with how many of you have been misinformed about object permanence and how it applies to you and your baby's relationship.  It seems to be making a lot of mothers feel guilty and sad for entirely no reason, so I'm going to try and clear it up.

 The fact is that babies do not develop object permanence, which means that a baby understands that an object still exists when hidden from view, until they are about 9 months old.  The go-to study on this is that when a ball is placed under a box, a 9 month old will lift up the box to look for it whereas a younger baby will forget all about the ball.  "Out of sight, out of mind."

A lot of mothers are then making the seemingly logical leap that this means when they leave the room, their baby thinks they are gone forever.  Then they make the even further leap that this means their baby will feel completely abandoned when they leave, which is why babies cry when they put them to bed.  How sad to think that your baby is crying because he thinks you have left him forever!  How heartbreaking!  Of course you must go to him. I would.  If that were the case.

But this isn't how a baby's mind works.  You are projecting how you would feel if you were in the baby's position, which is only natural.  But babies don't have the concept of "forever" and being abandoned.  They simply cry when they want something because it is their only method of communicating, not necessarily because they are sad.  

Think about it.  If you leave the baby with someone else, your baby doesn't scream and cry because he thinks you've abandoned him.  If he really thought that you were gone forever every time you left the room, do you think the fact that someone else is holding him would stop him crying?  Even if you leave him alone in his swing or on the floor having tummy time for a second to use the bathroom, he doesn't cry because you are suddenly out of sight.  He cries when you put him down to nap because he would rather play with you than nap, and because he is a remarkably fast learner and has already figured out that when you put him in his crib, playtime is over for awhile.

 I am not advocating letting a baby scream and scream for hours.  I don't think CIO is necessary in all situations, and this is not supposed to be a pro-CIO post.  But if you are anti-CIO, be that way because you can't stand hearing your baby cry, not because you misunderstand object permanence and think your baby thinks you are gone forever if you leave him alone before 9 months.  That is not true.

 P.S. Yes, a baby who is consistently neglected when he actually needs something (i.e. not fed, not held, left in dirty diapers all day) will develop severe problems later in life, but this is not the same as letting a baby cry when all he wants to do is see your face again because he loves you and wants to play with you.

Lisa Frank

To add to this: When your baby does reach that lovely object permanence milestone at 8/9 months? YOU WILL KNOW IT.

Separation anxiety (as we define it), does not start until that point. 

rae_dylanzmom

Here's a question, since you seem to know your stuff (would love to know your experience)... D plays peekaboo with me. Like all the time. He's always pulling blankets over his face and then waits until I say, "where's D?" then pulls it down quickly, laughing. This game goes on and on and on. I have no idea where he picked it up.

Anyway, I'd heard peekaboo was a way to teach babies about OP.... any thoughts about this? And what do I make of a 4 m/o playing unsolicited peekaboo? (He's been doing this for weeks now.) FWIW, he's got zero separation anxiety.

daisy889

I am anti-CIO, and its not the issue of abandonment, feeling sad for me. Its all about putting stress on your baby just so YOU can get some extra sleep and less of a hassle for naps/bedtime. Like i said once and will say again, Its just what babies do, suck it up and dont stress out your child like that for your benefit. Even if all they want is to see your face.

sbmp10

This is well said!!!

kimbo1216

daisy889:

I am anti-CIO...suck it up and dont stress out your child like that for your benefit. Even if all they want is to see your face.

I think this is far too simplistic a view.  Not everything in life is that black and white.  You have to learn to find the gray area.

We are not to the age yet of even thinking about CIO, so I'm not sure what we will do.  I'm am neither anti nor pro CIO.  I don't think I can make a decision about that until I am in the situation.  

That being said, I don't think CIO is mean.  And I don't think that parents who let their babies CIO do it solely for their benefit or sleep.  Some people believe it is best for babies because it helps them learn to self-soothe.  Most babies will not even have to CIO for more than a few days before getting the hang of it.

But like I said, I don't know what we will do.  I think it just depends on DD and lucky we get with her or not.

So it would be my suggestion that everyone try to be a little more objective and less judgmental about these kinds of things.  So long as you do what works for you and your family, you are doing just fine.

Snapdragon750

rachelinouray:Here's a question, since you seem to know your stuff (would love to know your experience)... D plays peekaboo with me. Like all the time. He's always pulling blankets over his face and then waits until I say, "where's D?" then pulls it down quickly, laughing. This game goes on and on and on. I have no idea where he picked it up.Anyway, I'd heard peekaboo was a way to teach babies about OP.... any thoughts about this? And what do I make of a 4 m/o playing unsolicited peekaboo? (He's been doing this for weeks now.) FWIW, he's got zero separation anxiety. I'm not an expert.  I have a degree in child and adolescent development from Cal State Fullerton, an elementary teaching credential, and two years experience teaching early childhood, but only one 3 month old baby.  So I'm not a child psychologist or psychiatrist and can't really tell you exactly what's going on with your baby, but my best guess is that he likes your reaction when he plays the game, so he does it! Babies at that age are learning cause and effect.  He probably isn't amusing himself based on your appearance and disappearance but rather he likes hearing you say "where's D?" and your reaction when he pulls the blanket down, and he's figured out that this is what happens when he puts a blanket on his face.
But like I said, I'm not an expert so take what I say with a grain of salt! 

 

daisy889:

I am anti-CIO, and its not the issue of abandonment, feeling sad for me. Its all about putting stress on your baby just so YOU can get some extra sleep and less of a hassle for naps/bedtime. Like i said once and will say again, Its just what babies do, suck it up and dont stress out your child like that for your benefit. Even if all they want is to see your face.

Your problem is that you are assuming that people who use CIO are doing it for their own benefit.  People use CIO because they are trying to help their babies (not themselves) get the sleep they need, and they would argue that your running to them every time they cry is actually depriving them of sleep.  Both sides are doing what they think is best for their babies.  Want does not always equal need.

daisy889

I am not judging, I just have a strong opinion about it and what i feel is right. Why must they self soothe so young? Sorry i didnt relieze it was the childs responsibility to put themselfs to sleep.

daisy889

Yeah i guess so, i feel strongly and i guess others would too.. but still not my cup of tea

rae_dylanzmom

Thanks! This is my only child, and I am amazed daily by his development. Peekaboo is a really fun game and I see the cause and effect thing taking place in other ways. I drop toys, mom picks them up... that's one of our fun games and I can almost see the wheels turning in his head. I am convinced he'll be doing it on purpose before I know it!

As for CIO, I don't follow any specific sleep training rules. I do want D to have the skills to soothe himself, but without causing more stress than necessary (for both of us). I feel fortunate that we don't have these problems (*fingers crossed*). I don't think anyone is bad for using a method that works for them. (It does, however, break my heart hearing about someone who does it because they were pressured. I have a girlfriend who was tortured by it for days before deciding it just didn't work for them.)

Snapdragon750

daisy889:

I am not judging, I just have a strong opinion about it and what i feel is right. Why must they self soothe so young? Sorry i didnt relieze it was the childs responsibility to put themselfs to sleep.

I'm not replying to argue, I want to answer you because that seems like an honest question.  The reasoning behind babies needing to learn to soothe themselves to sleep so young is because this is around the time they start becoming social.  This means that after about 8 weeks picking them up is sometimes more likely to stimulate them (keeping them awake) than soothe them (putting them to sleep).  Some babies need to learn to self-soothe because there is no other choice--parental "soothing" is harming rather than helping.

And yes you ARE judging.  You're saying that people who use CIO are selfish parents.  Everyone here would die for their children and is trying to do the best they can for them, just like you.  

butterfly62682

Well said.

mcginnie86

First off, OP, I am NOT trying to flame you. I just mostly disagree with you, so let's have a friendly discussion. Here's my big discrepancy: 

 

Snapdragon750:

A lot of mothers are then making the seemingly logical leap that this means when they leave the room, their baby thinks they are gone forever.  Then they make the even further leap that this means their baby will feel completely abandoned when they leave, which is why babies cry when they put them to bed.  How sad to think that your baby is crying because he thinks you have left him forever!  How heartbreaking!  Of course you must go to him. I would.  If that were the case.

But this isn't how a baby's mind works.  You are projecting how you would feel if you were in the baby's position, which is only natural.  But babies don't have the concept of "forever" and being abandoned.  They simply cry when they want something because it is their only method of communicating, not necessarily because they are sad.  

Think about it.  If you leave the baby with someone else, your baby doesn't scream and cry because he thinks you've abandoned him.  If he really thought that you were gone forever every time you left the room, do you think the fact that someone else is holding him would stop him crying?  Even if you leave him alone in his swing or on the floor having tummy time for a second to use the bathroom, he doesn't cry because you are suddenly out of sight.  He cries when you put him down to nap because he would rather play with you than nap, and because he is a remarkably fast learner and has already figured out that when you put him in his crib, playtime is over for awhile.

 

Truth. Infants don't understand the concept of forever. However, they very much understand the concept of now, being uncomfortable, and having unmet needs. Babies don't cry to manipulate. They cry because they have a need. For babies, wants ARE needs. Even if they're fed, changed, warm and set down for bed, if they cry, they have a need. Even if that need is just that they're tired, and the only thing they understand about that feeling is that it's uncomfortable, and they need some extra soothing, it is still a need. If you're not in the room, they think that you no longer exist. Now, here's my main discrepancy, OP. There is a BIG difference between leaving your baby with someone else to soothe them, and leaving your baby alone to soothe themselves. Babies don't have love. Their loyalty is totally conditional and dependent on their needs being met. That's their love language: meeting needs. So, if someone else is taking care of them, sure, you no longer exist, but their needs are still being met, so it's not that bad. Now, imagine being all alone in a dark room, experiencing some sort of discomfort, not understanding it, not knowing how to fix it, and thinking that there is NO ONE to help you. That sh** is scary. Babies in that situation who "cry it out" don't self soothe. They exhaust themselves to sleep. That being said, there's a huge difference between encouraging your baby to go to sleep on their own by periodically checking on them, smiling, talking to them, etc. without picking them up, and just straight up leaving them in the room alone to cry it out. Big difference. And that's my two cents.

P.S. Since someone is checking credentials, I also have my degree in Early Childhood Development.  

kacelle

Snapdragon750:

He cries when you put him down to nap because he would rather play with you than nap, and because he is a remarkably fast learner and has already figured out that when you put him in his crib, playtime is over for awhile.

I've completed all of the child and adolescent development courses for my bachelor's degree (just need to complete an internship), and my child development professors strongly disagreed with the portion quoted above.  It's true that a lack of object permanence doesn't suggest that babies believe you'll be gone forever--it means that babies don't even really know you exist when you're not there.  But infants haven't figured out that "playtime is over for awhile" and learned to manipulate the situation by crying.  That's also projecting adult responses onto a baby.

Snapdragon750

mcginnie86:

Truth. Infants don't understand the concept of forever. However, they very much understand the concept of now, being uncomfortable, and having unmet needs. Babies don't cry to manipulate. They cry because they have a need. For babies, wants ARE needs. Even if they're fed, changed, warm and set down for bed, if they cry, they have a need. Even if that need is just that they're tired, and the only thing they understand about that feeling is that it's uncomfortable, and they need some extra soothing, it is still a need. If you're not in the room, they think that you no longer exist. Now, here's my main discrepancy, OP. There is a BIG difference between leaving your baby with someone else to soothe them, and leaving your baby alone to soothe themselves. Babies don't have love. Their loyalty is totally conditional and dependent on their needs being met. That's their love language: meeting needs. So, if someone else is taking care of them, sure, you no longer exist, but their needs are still being met, so it's not that bad. Now, imagine being all alone in a dark room, experiencing some sort of discomfort, not understanding it, not knowing how to fix it, and thinking that there is NO ONE to help you. That sh** is scary. Babies in that situation who "cry it out" don't self soothe. They exhaust themselves to sleep. That being said, there's a huge difference between encouraging your baby to go to sleep on their own by periodically checking on them, smiling, talking to them, etc. without picking them up, and just straight up leaving them in the room alone to cry it out. Big difference. And that's my two cents.

 Well said.  Babies do not cry to manipulate, they cry when they want something.  I should clarify that want equaling need depends on age.  A 3 month old baby isn't necessarily scared and sad if she cries when you put her down, but you're right, sometimes she is.  I think every parent can tell the difference between their 3 month old baby's sad/scared cry and his vaguely upset cry.  I personally let my baby cry her vaguely annoyed cry for a few minutes, but I always go in if she really gets hysterical (not that I'm saying that's the right thing to do, that's just what I do). The kind of CIO that people get upset about (letting a hysterical baby tire himself out) is only necessary, in my opinion, in cases where a baby is so stimulated by parents coming in to soothe him and is so overtired that nothing else is working.  In that case the baby literally needs sleep more than anything else, and letting him CIO isn't going to damage him forever.  It is just really sad.

But that is debating CIO in general, which has fair arguments either way.  I didn't mean to come in here and say that it's the way to go.  I just wanted to take object permanence out of the equation, because it has nothing to do with CIO, and I saw lots of people saying that if you use CIO before 9 months your baby thinks you are gone forever and feels abandoned, which is nonsense.

vanfox

I don't really feel like I should judge what people do with their babies within reason, but to be honest, this reads like a lot of excuses for justifying something that parents might be feeling guilty over without justification. It's not as though we can read babies' minds and there's as much evidence arguing against CIO-type sleep training (cortisol levels in the brain causing permanent damage, etc) as there is advocating for it (self-soothing leading to more consistent sleep patterns earlier). Do what you need to do, but if you're busy justifying CIO over and over and looking for acceptance on places like TB so you can go through it, maybe it's not really what your family needs.

And since we're playing flash the degree, I have a MA in Psych, though I haven't used it in a while.

Snapdragon750

kacelle:

I've completed all of the child and adolescent development courses for my bachelor's degree (just need to complete an internship), and my child development professors strongly disagreed with the portion quoted above.  It's true that a lack of object permanence doesn't suggest that babies believe you'll be gone forever--it means that babies don't even really know you exist when you're not there.  But infants haven't figured out that "playtime is over for awhile" and learned to manipulate the situation by crying.  That's also projecting adult responses onto a baby.

Sorry, I think I worded things awkwardly.  I didn't mean to insinuate that babies are capable of manipulating anyone; don't confuse understanding cause and effect with manipulation.  My baby will be totally happy in my arms sometimes until I enter the dark bedroom, which she has figured out leads to naptime, which makes her upset because she would rather be with me than alone in a dark bedroom.  She is not manipulating me because she doesn't know how I will react to her crying.  She is just expressing her displeasure.  But just because she doesn't want to go to bed doesn't mean she doesn't need to. 

Lisa Frank

I also think that anyone that is staunchly opposed to sleep training will likely eat their words around oh...the 9-12 month mark when they are STILL absolutely delirious from lack of sleep.

Ask around to the 2nd time moms. I know plenty that started sleep training right at 4 months the 2nd time around, because they GOT SMART.  It sucks listening to your baby cry, sure. But a baby crying is a baby communicating. That's all.  Sometimes they need to be led in the proper direction. 

Does it suck? Yes, but it lasts a week in most average cases. Sleep is an essential part of development, and without it, our kids don't learn as well, don't develop as well etc.

So, don't be so staunch that you might find yourself eating words later  

pam1005

Lisa Frank:

I also think that anyone that is staunchly opposed to sleep training will likely eat their words around oh...the 9-12 month mark when they are STILL absolutely delirious from lack of sleep.

Ask around to the 2nd time moms. I know plenty that started sleep training right at 4 months the 2nd time around, because they GOT SMART.  It sucks listening to your baby cry, sure. But a baby crying is a baby communicating. That's all.  Sometimes they need to be led in the proper direction. 

Does it suck? Yes, but it lasts a week in most average cases. Sleep is an essential part of development, and without it, our kids don't learn as well, don't develop as well etc.

So, don't be so staunch that you might find yourself eating words later  

ITA!... I've learned it is hard to say "I will never" as a parent, for you have no idea what things will end up being like when it comes to you child. 

2ktBride

Thank you, thank you, thank you!  Very well stated. 

daisy889

vanfox:

I don't really feel like I should judge what people do with their babies within reason, but to be honest, this reads like a lot of excuses for justifying something that parents might be feeling guilty over without justification. It's not as though we can read babies' minds and there's as much evidence arguing against CIO-type sleep training (cortisol levels in the brain causing permanent damage, etc) as there is advocating for it (self-soothing leading to more consistent sleep patterns earlier). Do what you need to do, but if you're busy justifying CIO over and over and looking for acceptance on places like TB so you can go through it, maybe it's not really what your family needs.

 

Also there are other ways to sleep train your child, instead of letting them scream their heads off. CIO is the laziest way - imo

Snapdragon750

daisy889:

Also there are other ways to sleep train your child, instead of letting them scream their heads off. CIO is the laziest way - imo

CIO, in many cases, doesn't mean letting them "scream their heads off."  If you are imagining everyone advocating it sitting on the couch watching TV, totally uncaring while their babies scream for an hour in the next room, no wonder you are upset about it!  I would be too!!

mcginnie86

Lisa Frank:

I also think that anyone that is staunchly opposed to sleep training will likely eat their words around oh...the 9-12 month mark when they are STILL absolutely delirious from lack of sleep.

Ask around to the 2nd time moms. I know plenty that started sleep training right at 4 months the 2nd time around, because they GOT SMART.  It sucks listening to your baby cry, sure. But a baby crying is a baby communicating. That's all.  Sometimes they need to be led in the proper direction. 

Does it suck? Yes, but it lasts a week in most average cases. Sleep is an essential part of development, and without it, our kids don't learn as well, don't develop as well etc.

So, don't be so staunch that you might find yourself eating words later  

I've been about as non-CIO, baby-led, attachment type as it gets (I try to never let my baby cry for more than a minute), and I've actually noticed him starting to self-soothe this week and put himself back to sleep. Every baby is different, and you can't say that NOT letting your baby CIO never works any more than you can say CIO never works. 

iris427

daisy889:

I am anti-CIO, and its not the issue of abandonment, feeling sad for me. Its all about putting stress on your baby just so YOU can get some extra sleep and less of a hassle for naps/bedtime. Like i said once and will say again, Its just what babies do, suck it up and dont stress out your child like that for your benefit. Even if all they want is to see your face.

Or how about I do it because I'm a better parent to my children when I'm better rested?  I am happier, I enjoy playing with them more.  I believe my children are less stressed, and are healthier, when they have a happy, rested mother who is also less stressed.  

Or how about the evidence showing that sleep deprivation is linked to postpartum depression?  And the evidence linking depressed mothers to poor child development?

You are looking at this in a ridiculously simplistic way. 

kcisthebombdotcom

Lisa Frank:

I also think that anyone that is staunchly opposed to sleep training will likely eat their words around oh...the 9-12 month mark when they are STILL absolutely delirious from lack of sleep.

Ask around to the 2nd time moms. I know plenty that started sleep training right at 4 months the 2nd time around, because they GOT SMART.  It sucks listening to your baby cry, sure. But a baby crying is a baby communicating. That's all.  Sometimes they need to be led in the proper direction. 

Does it suck? Yes, but it lasts a week in most average cases. Sleep is an essential part of development, and without it, our kids don't learn as well, don't develop as well etc.

So, don't be so staunch that you might find yourself eating words later  

Um, I wouldnt say "most" people eat their words and "have" to do sleep training. The truth of the matter is that most babies will learn to sleep on their own, no training involved, by 9-12 months. Plus, a baby left to CIO at 12 months is a whole lot different than a baby left to CIO at 4 months. There's a huge difference developmentally between those ages.

Don't get me wrong-I'm not anti-CIO. I think it has a place. If your kid is 9 months old and still sleeping so poorly that it's causing them to be unhappy, you're doing a disservice to NOT let them CIO if other sleep methods do not help. I do think some babies do need to be taught to sleep. I think that makes up a small percentage of babies though. Every baby develops differently and they learn in their own time; some earlier than others.

If you're letting your 4 month old CIO because you're tired of getting up with them at night because you have another kid to tend to during the day, that's a different matter altogether. Young babies left to CIO is cruel IMO.

iris427

How is everyone defining CIO here?  We are doing sleep training with our 4 month old and have never let him cry for more than 10 minutes during the whole process.  He cries more than that in his carseat, seriously.  Is it also cruel to put him in his carseat?

And FWIW this is a kid who cries when he's tired a lot of the time whether I'm holding him or whether he's in his crib.  He just needs to let off steam sometimes, apparently.  I guess he's going to be majorly brain damaged from all that cortisol.

kathrnn

(i.e. not fed, not held, left in dirty diapers all day) will develop severe problems later in life (but interestingly this is only true if the neglect occurred after, not before, 3 months of age),

 ^ I would have to disagree with this. A child neglected under the age of 3 months will still have lasting effects, they are just not as severe as a child who is neglected beyond the first 3 months. This is obvious if you look at studies done with children from orphanages (such as those found in Russia, for example).

I have helped mediate hundreds of closed, international adoption cases and this is something we always make sure to warn parents of. :-)

 

Now, I will agree that some moms are way too quick to wave the "anti-CIO" flag. A lot of moms see CIO and think the extreme scenario of a heartbroken infant wailing all night long in a dark, lonely room. Most of the time this isn't the case, but all fresh moms have a complex. It's not that big of a deal. I will not be practicing CIO, in any form, with my daughter, but don't think women who do are horrible moms.

kimbo1216

iris427:

How is everyone defining CIO here?

Great point!  I think CIO doesn't necessarily mean let your kid cry no matter what until they are blue in the face or finally cry themselves to sleep.  Most methods I've read say to start a few minutes at a time gradually increasing it each day until they get it.  I don't think it's mean.  I don't think it's the only way.  There is a reason there are so many books out there with the "answer to it all." lol

Again, I don't know what we will do.  My mom is a big supporter of CIO, but I have not decided how I feel.  I think it will depends on my daughter and how well she begins to transition.   Hopefully, it won't be a problem and we'll just get lucky. lol.  I doubt that considering she still isn't even sttn yet.  My daughter seems to have her own timeline for things.

Snapdragon750

kathrnn:

^ I would have to disagree with this. A child neglected under the age of 3 months will still have lasting effects, they are just not as severe as a child who is neglected beyond the first 3 months. This is obvious if you look at studies done with children from orphanages (such as those found in Russia, for example).

I have helped mediate hundreds of closed, international adoption cases and this is something we always make sure to warn parents of. :-)

EDIT: My mistake!  I'd only heard the study referenced in a book, but I misunderstood.  Reading the actual study, it was actually comparing children from orphanages to Romanian children who WOULD have been sent to the orphanage had they not been adopted by 4 months.  You're right.

Lisa Frank

Iris, I was talking about you up there, ya' know

And seriously, I love the assumption that CIO means I abandon my baby to cry for hours on end. Misinformed. That's all I have to say to the naysayers...and I'll talk to you in a few months when you are completely at your wits end and buying Ferber's book  Never.say.never.

Lisa Frank

I guess I wasn't done

One more thing I hate...

The assumption that teaching your baby how to sleep somehow implies you can't be an attached parent, who CD's, and breastfeeds and yada yada yada. 

Get a grip, people. Learn the sleep needs of your baby. It will save you all in the long run. Trust me. 

darmca

Snapdragon750:

. . .

Your problem is that you are assuming that people who use CIO are doing it for their own benefit.  People use CIO because they are trying to help their babies (not themselves) get the sleep they need, and they would argue that your running to them every time they cry is actually depriving them of sleep.  Both sides are doing what they think is best for their babies.  Want does not always equal need.

But if I can nurse my son to sleep and put him in his crib with no tears every night and he sleeps 9-10 hours, why would I try to put him down partially awake and let him CIO? That just seems mean to me.

Lisa Frank

AmyG*:

I do not believe in Ferberizing OR CIO in either sense.  Why make a baby cry to force them to go to sleep on their own?  Parenting our children 24/7/365, parenting our children to sleep is part of the parenting job we sign on for when we decide to bring another life into this world.

I do not believe than most babies need to be taught to go to sleep or to sleep enough.  They may need help creating appropriate sleep routines and associations to help them feel secure and comfortable enough to sleep well.  they don't need us to put them into a specific schedule or sleep training boot camp.   

  

Sleep is a developmental requirement.  Solid, uninteruppted sleep.  Some might argue that by TEACHING your child how to sleep (and not rocking/nursing/swaying/etc) to sleep ON THEIR OWN, that you are actually doing the right thing as a parent since sleep is so very important to their overall development.

I believe the anti-CIO'ers are mostly misinformed about the developmental role that sleep plays, and they misunderstand the methods.  I've read a million sleep books, I've watched friends go through hell because they were so staunchly opposed to doing something that as a parent, some children need to LEARN.  We are their only guide. 

So, to each their own, but I'm sick and tired of the judgements made towards mothers that are, IMO, doing the best thing for their child's overall well-being and development.

Not to mention the point that a well-rested mother is in every sense a BETTER mother to her children.  But, you know, go ahead and be the martyr mother. Just don't judge the rest of us for the sleep we're getting  

iris427

darmca:

Snapdragon750:

. . .

Your problem is that you are assuming that people who use CIO are doing it for their own benefit.  People use CIO because they are trying to help their babies (not themselves) get the sleep they need, and they would argue that your running to them every time they cry is actually depriving them of sleep.  Both sides are doing what they think is best for their babies.  Want does not always equal need.

But if I can nurse my son to sleep and put him in his crib with no tears every night and he sleeps 9-10 hours, why would I try to put him down partially awake and let him CIO? That just seems mean to me.

If that works for you, great.  Not everyone has a baby who will nurse to sleep, then go down in a crib easily, then sleep 9 hours.

Unless you are planning to nurse your kid to sleep for years, at some point you will have to change this routine.  And your kid may do just fine with the change, but they may not.  So they might cry.   What happens then?

iris427

AmyG*:

I do not believe than most babies need to be taught to go to sleep or to sleep enough.  They may need help creating appropriate sleep routines and associations to help them feel secure and comfortable enough to sleep well.  they don't need us to put them into a specific schedule or sleep training boot camp.   

  

This IS teaching babies to go to sleep. 

And what happens when a parent tries to do this and the tired baby doesn't like it?  The baby cries.  And after a few days, they get used to the new routine and new sleep associations and don't cry anymore.  they now feel secure and comfortable enough to sleep well.

Sounds like you might be more of a proponent of CIO than you realize.

PartiallySunny

Snapdragon750:

daisy889:

I am anti-CIO, and its not the issue of abandonment, feeling sad for me. Its all about putting stress on your baby just so YOU can get some extra sleep and less of a hassle for naps/bedtime. Like i said once and will say again, Its just what babies do, suck it up and dont stress out your child like that for your benefit. Even if all they want is to see your face.

Your problem is that you are assuming that people who use CIO are doing it for their own benefit.  People use CIO because they are trying to help their babies (not themselves) get the sleep they need, and they would argue that your running to them every time they cry is actually depriving them of sleep.  Both sides are doing what they think is best for their babies.  Want does not always equal need.

I didn't try sleep training until everyone was sleeping like sh!t. And I didn't try CIO until all of the other sleep training methods were exhausted.

iris427

AmyG*:

iris427:

AmyG*:

I do not believe than most babies need to be taught to go to sleep or to sleep enough.  They may need help creating appropriate sleep routines and associations to help them feel secure and comfortable enough to sleep well.  they don't need us to put them into a specific schedule or sleep training boot camp.   

  

This IS teaching babies to go to sleep. 

And what happens when a parent tries to do this and the tired baby doesn't like it?  The baby cries.  And after a few days, they get used to the new routine and new sleep associations and don't cry anymore.  they now feel secure and comfortable enough to sleep well.

Sounds like you might be more of a proponent of CIO than you realize.

Ah but you are wrong in your thinking if you believe parenting your baby to sleep means crying.  It doesn't have to.  of course there may be some fussing on some days, but out and out crying should always be addressed by parents as soon as reasonably possible in our babies and our children. 

 

 That is a fundamental difference in attachment parenting ideals and those who buy into the CIO = the only way to get a baby to sleep thru the night. 

 

Crying releases stress hormones which are not conducive to the necessary and deep sleep that all children need.   Babies however are different than older children and adults in their needs for sleep. 

 

Newborns may need 16-20 hours of sleep, but they certainly don't need it all at once.  Even at 4-6-8-12+ months of age, babies wake more frequently and sleep less deeply within their own sleep cycles, and wake more frequently in their sleep as compared to older children and adults.  What they do and how they sleep is noral for their developmental stage.  In the prime SIDS ages, frequent waking is suggested as a protective measure to remind baby to breathe. 

 

You can't teach a baby to have long deep sleep, they have to grow into the ability to sleep deeper and longer. 

 

Creating sleep routines doesn't involve CIO, and doesn't involve teaching babies to sleep.  Certainly they involve a bit of scheduling, but with little ones your schedule can't be set to the moment, because human sleep cycles don't run on actual to the minute timing.  As an adult you know that sometimes you just aren't sleepy when it's time to go to bed

A routine for a baby may include nursing or botte, then taking a bath, brushing teeth(rubbing gums clean), pj's, rocking, singing bedtime songs, reading bedtime books and nightime prayers with dim lights and low noise level creates nightime routines and associations to encourage sleep.  These routines don't come with crying as a usual thing.  But they are important to encourage sleep--and they do absolutely nothing to TEACH sleep.  

 

All of us put on our pj's, have a snack maybe, a glass of water on the nightstand, put out the cat and lock the doors and read a bit or watch letterman before bed are all sleep associations and routines that encourage sleep for us for whatever reason--mostly because of repetition.

We need to ensure we are doing this with our babies from a young age--creating sleep associations and bedtime routines but often we get in a hurry and we just kind of nurse, pj's, rock, put in bed and expect baby to sleep, but many babies need much longer than that to make the transition from awake to sleeping stage--a longer transition period.

 

 The actual laying down and going to sleep part has to be decided by the baby.  we can encourage it, but ultimately can't make or teach a baby to go to sleep.  or to stay asleep.  We can ignore them and hope they go to sleep or go back to sleep--and some of us feel that ignoring your baby (even to get more sleep for yourself) is unacceptable.

 

You have to realize also that when first born, babies do not realize that they are separate from their mother, that the two of you are two different people.  It takes years for baby's brain to develop to the point they really understand that mom is this other being, separate from themselves.  So in some ages and stages, it is perfectly understandable if baby cries out inconsoleably when alone as if someone has cut off their arm (you cut off their mom).

 

if a baby has no concept of object permanence = if they are alone, they do not remember you exist. They only know they have noone to meet their needs [for companionship, comforting, taking away the darkness, etc]  With no concept of the passage of time = they are alone and don't know how long that will last. 

To me, those two things create a scary situation for a baby to be in.

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, a baby left alone for an indeterminate amount of time, has an instinct to cry out for help from another human so the wild animals and starvation won't kill them.  That is normal human baby behavior and parents of young babies are working against instinct.  It's another reason I believe if you are going to use CIO, it should be only as a last resort, with a baby that is over 9 months old at least with the brain development to understand the concept of time and the permanence of objects.

 

Oh FFS.

People, if you don't want to do CIO, don't.  If you do, go ahead and enjoy your sleep.  Your child will not be damaged.  You are not a negligent parent.  Seriously.   

tokenhoser

This post just makes me hate both sides. You all sound like pretentious know-it-all moms of *two* whole children that obviously know better than little naive first time me.

Temp38995750004016

I get really tired of people judging pro-sleep trainers.  I rarely see (on these boards) anyone being so negative towards people who don't want to sleep train, or who do AP.  I personally think some of the AP practices may be a bit "damaging" to children (as much as CIO is), but I don't ever say that.  Because it's your kid.  I don't care what you do.  But it gets really old to see the same arguments against sleep training over & over.

Every kid will learn to sleep at some point, and on average they're all the same amount of screwed-up from their parents' choices   Since it's all going to turn out equal in the end, I prefer to get some rest myself.  And get some TV time in while my LO wails herself to sleep.

g00dg0llymsm0lly

pook:

Since it's all going to turn out equal in the end, I prefer to get some rest myself.  And get some TV time in while my LO wails herself to sleep.

Ummm...ok. 

Lisa Frank

g00dg0llymsm0lly:

pook:

Since it's all going to turn out equal in the end, I prefer to get some rest myself.  And get some TV time in while my LO wails herself to sleep.

Ummm...ok. 

Oh god. Sarcasm. 

And I can't even respond to AmyG's rant. Wow. Okie dokie.