17 ms·

Parenting by the Numbers

72 points by johnny313 7y ago

itronitron 7y ago
interesting article but too long, I am looking forward to the movie by Wes Anderson.
ACow_Adonis 7y ago
I haven't read Oster's books yet, but I am trained in economics, worked for the national statistics body, work with data and tell people how to collect evidence and reach conclusions, and now have a 6 month old at home. what I have heard through the grapevine is that her conclusions are very similar to my own doing similar reviews: breast feeding is probably good for some minor things (gastro etc), but its hard to separate it out from education, income, and risks from other sources (ie bad drinking water) and there's probably no long term effects from not doing it if you're smart, rich and clean. A lot of the diet stuff during pregnancy sounded nuts, and the advice (and subsequent stats/research/ recommendation s) seemed culturally affected and based on extremely unlikely/ minimal outcomes. And then I'd see other parents stressing about co sleeping, but not even give the faintest thought or worry to living a life with car dependency and strapping kids into them: apparently culture changes your perception of relative risk. The other things that became apparent to me: -just how dodgy the evidence base is for a lot of claims on parenting - a lot of modern western parenting is pretty anti- woman/parent IMO. so little regard for the idea of taking care of baby by taking care of parents. - the number of people and pop resources abusing and misquoting science, sometimes to reach the opposite conclusion to the one I reached when reading the actual papers/original sources. And yet you have pundits and salespeople repeating 'study found X' ad nauseam.
- lordnacho 7y ago
  That's pretty much what I thought as well. Most of the parenting advice is unsubstantiated claims written to make women feel guilty (over what, who knows?). As if your joy of having a kid needs to be tempered by giving up sushi. (What do people do in Japan?) But generally the books don't even say where the claims are coming from, and everything is like you suspect, quite small effects if any, a priori. Even the co sleeping thing seems to be fearmongering. Unless you're drunk, you're not gonna squash your kid to death. Plus the sleep benefits of letting the kid have boob on tap are enormous.
  - hrktb 7y ago
    > giving up sushi. (What do people do in Japan?) Depending on the stage, they actualy give up sushi ... Apart from pregnancy/breast-feeding, Japan’s relation with raw fish is interesting, in that most people understand one day they’ll be unlucky and get food poisonned, but that’s just a fact of life, and nobody usually avoids raw fish just because of the risk.
  - deadwisdom 7y ago
    The co-sleeping seems to stem from all the SIDS research / literature which when you go and read seems especially questionable. The topic of SIDS was hit so hard by our hospital and pediatrician. It scares the shit out of you. And then you go read the sources, and it's... well underwhelming at best.
    - infinite8s 7y ago
      SIDS basically means they have no fucking clue why the child died, so everything gets thrown into the SIDS bucket.
      - Cogito 7y ago
        That's why they tend to talk about Sudden Unexpected Infant Death these days. My understanding is that the primary concern is the ability of the child to breathe normally. Anything which restricts that ability can be life threatening. Having their face covered (very easy to do when they sleep between two adults who pull the covers up when they're cold) or pushing their face up against a non-breathable material (windproof bassinets, pillows, soft toys) leads to a lack of air circulation which can lead to CO2 buildup. This is particularly a problem when their muscles aren't strong enough to turn their head or roll over.
  - chasd00 7y ago
    "sleep benefits of letting the kid have boob on tap are enormous" this cannot be overstated. We co-slept with my youngest and the difference between that experience and our first who was strictly bassinet/crib can't be put in words.
- quadrangle 7y ago
  I agree overall, but I think we should err on the side of rejecting whatever has corporate or other conflicts-of-interest. Thus, be skeptical of all sorts of safety products (especially since they are sold by spreading fear). But we should also be skeptical of those dismissing the significance of breast feeding because the baby formula producers are where the conflict-of-interest lies on that topic there (and that played out massively and horribly in recent history). I'm sure formula is okay overall, and there are so many factors to health and success. But it's also far too easy for formula producers (historically mainly Nestle) to happily support the narrative that breast-feeding is an irrational privilege of the elite. But I find such arguments comparable to those saying that access to natural open space like woods and parks is an elite privilege. That many people lack these privileges isn't an argument that they aren't extremely valuable. It's a grotesque injustice that any kid anywhere grows up without access to a healthy outdoor environment. Somehow we need to tease apart all these things. The hypersensitive shaming of parents (mothers especially) is so awful and wrong, as is the paranoia about perfect safety and reducing all risk. That stuff needs to die. But breastfeeding, play time, outdoor access, the trends toward positive parenting (and not corporal punishment) — those things are positive! So, it's complex.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    > But it's also far too easy for formula producers (historically mainly Nestle) to happily support the narrative that breast-feeding is an irrational privilege of the elite I'm intrigued, and I think I've missed this narrative - from what I understand, aristocrats didn't much bother with breast-feeding their own children, and hired it out to wet-nurses. So common people would have been more apt to breastfeed their own children, particularly since there is at least some contraceptive effect.
    - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
      (you can tell I've looked into this too much :p) you're right about the wet-nurse history, so in some places breast feeding is taken to be culturally lower class (and many of the WHO type materials and studies imo on breast feeding are effectively predicated not on the benefits of breast feeding per se, but on the avoidance of not- breast-feeding substitute risks in a particular context). but then there was a 'formula movement' just as large scale manufacturing of formula was invented and became viable, focusing on the 'sciencism' and benefits of formula (i.e. you can measure and ensure exactly how much baby is drinking, which can't be done as easily with breast). then there was a counter- counter: a movement away from the cold/corporate providers and the science of formula to the warm/maternal side of breast feeding and a new science of breast feeding. breast feeding then became associated in those places with the upper class, typically sharing some aspects/ popularity of attachment parenting, because in those cultures a woman being able to stop work (and spend their entire day breast feeding) is a sign of class. which of these aspects one experiences depends on where one lives, and honestly there's probably even more breast feeding and nursing narratives out there...
- nugget 7y ago
  As the article itself points out, there is much debate about Oster’s claims and many physician scientists disagree with her claims. Personally, having reviewed much of the same source material - around pre-natal diets in particular - I disagree with her conclusions as well. I’m not questioning her motives but it feels to me like there’s a certain amount of pop-sci hubris in her work.
  - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
    I haven't read her work, so its hard for me to comment on the individual. I think one area where i would disagree is alcohol, but that's because I'd include desire/normalacy of regular alcohol consumption as a cultural effect from our own societies (there's really not much evidence for positive effects of alcohol in anything, period). of course, this ignores the question of the value of the parents wants and wishes though. On my own review of pre-natal diet recommendations, in my view the issue is about risk management rather than etiology of disease. for instance, my wife and I often joked that if we ate according to our countries health recommendations, we'd never eat out and only eat heavily processed foods, because it was the only place where the risk of various poisonings were near 0. But in practice, home kitchens aren't risk free, nor is or own non professional food prep or diet selection. And the mother needs to balance off sufficient variation in diet to be balanced and healthy, opportunity cost of other beneficial actions towards her and the child, etc, all of which are not accounted for, because science and medical research are not policy oriented documents. And it must be said that the relative risk of many of these things is very small from a clinical point of view.
  - empath75 7y ago
    I think there’s a difference on the local and global level here. From my point of view, if we ignore some doctor’s recommendation for pregnancy or child rearing, there’s a minuscule chance of an adverse effect. From the health experts point of view, a minuscule chance multiplied by billions of people is thousands or even millions of unnecessary birth defects or deaths. A pregnant woman can rationally and morally choose to have a drink every once in a while —- there’s almost no chance there will be a problem, while at the same time, it’s a rational and moral for doctors to recommend not drinking at all — millions of lives are at stake potentially.
- cybersnowflake 7y ago
  What do you mean 'anti-woman'? Do they say that we should get rid of woman and have an all male society or to strangle girl babies? Just curious since the phrase 'anti-woman' and 'misogynistic' seems to be loosely thrown around these days as a synonym for 'something more or less loosely related to the subject of women that I don't like'.
  - projektfu 7y ago
    I read it as meaning that women are expected by a “western” culture to sacrifice their happiness or sanity and the GP disagrees, saying that parental happiness is associated with infant happiness.
    - bubblewrap 7y ago
      If their happiness depends on drinking alcohol and eating raw cheese, that is. Not all cheese is raw milk based, so you don't even have to give up cheese completely.
  - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
    I mean they implicitly/explicitly give an image of child rearing that is neither factual, nor often physically possible: I joked that if we actually did everything that was recommended, we'd have no income, have no activities, and still fill all 36 hours in a day. I call it anti-woman because the implicit philosophy underlying the advice is to view the woman as a failure, because she must inevitably break some of the rules and parenting is framed in a 'how far are you from a mythical optimal', even though this optimal is rarely empirically measured, stated or demonstrated, and often assumes an implicit (read diminutive and insulting) view of womanhood/motherhood roughly analogous to domestic housekeeper willing to sacrifice everything. lastly, it downplays the validity of the woman's own desires, and the utility of her experiences, skills, hobbies, feelings, desires into a cult of 'physical and emotional devotion to the child'. The number of women at our parent group and that we've met on our short journey undergoing sleep deprivation and psychological issues, calling out for help, was eye opening to me, especially because from my own perspective from the data point of view was simply 'empirically that's barely an issue, if its causing your family that much distress, just change and do this instead', whereas there is an undercurrent in parenting that says a mother's role is to suffer...
- ced 7y ago
  based on extremely unlikely/ minimal outcomes. I often get the same feeling, but there's _so few numbers_ in these articles. Where do you get them / how do you come to that conclusion?
- ohthehugemanate 7y ago
  A thousand times yes! There's a great study using the NLSY data, where they first demonstrate 10 of the 11 oft-cited advantages to breastfeeding... And then do a sibling study with the same data and watch the effects disappear. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4077166/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4077166/ What bothers me most reading the source studies though, is that even if you take them as a 100% true - and this is a very rosy interprétation indeed - the effects they identify are tiny compared to the well documented effects of an emotionally stable home environment with a positive parental relationship. There may be a 95/5 chance of boosting the kid's IQ by 2 points, but that's nothing next to the boost they get with parents who can sleep 8 hours on alternating nights. It seems like most of these recommendations miss the forest for the trees. There is an irony that some of the biggest breastfeeding supporters are so-called "attachment parents", taking a pop-sci view of early attachment theory... When real, grown-up attachment theory is clear that a healthy parental relationship is exactly the most important thing to show the child in the first year. That's where they learn healthy "attachment", hence the name of the whole theory! Further, it really just smells like the patriarchy calling. The la leche League was founded to support traditional family roles - meaning mothers stay home. All of it is set up to force the mother into the primary caregiver role, which comes with a huge attendant career/income penalty. So I say: Fuck the patriarchy. Show your kids a healthy, emotionally stable environment. Choose between bottle and breast based on your practical family life needs. Unfortunately not sure how to help counter the enormous pressure put out by groups like LLL in hospitals, pop press, etc. They cause a lot of unnecessary suffering and guilt. Maybe https://fedisbest.org/ https://fedisbest.org/ ?
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    > the effects they identify are tiny compared to the well documented effects of an emotionally stable home environment with a positive parental relationship. To be fair the same selection bias that confounded the breast milk study probably confounded this study as well.
marktangotango 7y ago
I was at Home Depot buying some stuff with my kids and the 5 year old was hanging of the handle of the cart like a monkey. It was one the low to the floor carts for heavy stuff and the handle was a bit lower than a normal shopping cart. One of the idle cashiers, an older woman, came over said he shouldn’t do that because he might fall and bump his head. I said “that’s how he’ll learn”. She gave me a frown and walked away. He didn’t fall or bump his head, that lesson was saved for another day. Edit; she expressed her concern, she did not cite any company policy or appeal to authority. The handle was low enough such that I wasn’t concerned about a concussion. I wasn’t rude or snarky in this exchange although some seem to read it as such. Wow judgmental reader! I think this was mentioned in the fine article!
- yeukhon 7y ago
  And are you proud? (Stop flagging)
- curiousgeorgio 7y ago
  And from Home Depot's point of view, the employee thankfully helped the company avoid a potential lawsuit. I'm sure the 5-year-old will have plenty of other chances to bump his head in similar situations, and assuming he's human, he has the amazing capacity to generalize from lessons learned in other distinct ways. Nothing was lost in your encounter. EDIT: Love the (numerous) downvotes coming here on all responses to your comment, but in the spirit of promoting healthy discussion, a reasoned argument would be better.
  - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
    I'll upvote you just because that was a trend that I explicitly called out to my wife: "it seems half of the official guidelines seem written around the goal of avoiding blame being shifted outside of the family-unit/potential to be sued rather than any empirical basis, measurement, or cost/benefit trade-off.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  For every person giving a minimum-wage employee trying to help an unnecessarily snarky response, like you chose to do, there is someone else who'll sue them. So they can't win. The best thing you could have contributed would have been to be polite to the employee.
burlesona 7y ago
The recent Freakonomics Podcast episode on Oster and her work was a little more in-depth than this article. I really enjoyed it. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/parenting/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/parenting/
uvexdme 7y ago
There is irony in discussing this article in the comments.
lamename 7y ago
I would expect that if there was a valid debate to be had she would also have peer reviewed papers published on the topic. Skimming https://www.brown.edu/research/projects/oster/ https://www.brown.edu/research/projects/oster/ I haven't found any related It seems like her general cause is a good one: to ease parents to relax a bit on what some perceive as apparently harsh recommendations on health and parenting. But it also seems like she misses the point on what public health bodies are for (minimizing risk on large scale) versus clear advice to individuals. Take alcohol for example, if the actual evidence is flimsy on whether 1 drink is bad or not, it's an easy choice if I'm speaking to millions of people: play it safe. That's not the same as claiming that low alcohol consumption is bad, and it's certainly not an attempt to shame.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  One of my pregnant friends talked to their doctor about having a glass of wine once a week. Her doctor said that was fine but when she ordered one at the restaurant it was terrible. The waiter was visibly uncomfortable serving it, other people in the restaurant stared. The intent might not have been to shame but the effect has been that lots of women feel way shittier about themselves than they need to. And the science might say something like 3 glasses of wine are terrible but we can't really statistically tell the difference between 0 and 1 glasses of wine. But what has filtered down to the masses is "if you have a glass of wine while pregnant you're a terrible mother."
  - animal531 7y ago
    Sure, but that's because it's easier to say have no glasses of wine, than to try and explain to every person that having some is still within tolerance (and then also why one is decent, but two maybe not).
bubblewrap 7y ago
"Oster now finds herself brainstorming punishments that a four-year-old will find “devastating.”" (on 1-2-3 Magic) So she found it "just works". But how does she define "it works"? The child becoming obedient? That's not exactly what many parents want, but it would be the classic approach to child rearing (teaching kids obedience)... Her book may be a good thing, for people who find it difficult to dig their way through all the information online. Personally I am wary of that type of public science book of outsiders of the field digging through hundreds of articles. At the end of the day, they might still fall prey to confirmation bias or only consider research that supports their thesis. Any why is it so important to drink alcohol during pregnancy? There really weren't that many rules - no alcohol, no raw cheeses or meats, no honey. It's not an impossible toll on mothers, although my wife still has high respect from me for being extremely consistent about all those rules during pregnancy.

72 points by johnny313 7y ago

interesting article but too long, I am looking forward to the movie by Wes Anderson.

I haven't read Oster's books yet, but I am trained in economics, worked for the national statistics body, work with data and tell people how to collect evidence and reach conclusions, and now have a 6 month old at home. what I have heard through the grapevine is that her conclusions are very similar to my own doing similar reviews: breast feeding is probably good for some minor things (gastro etc), but its hard to separate it out from education, income, and risks from other sources (ie bad drinking water) and there's probably no long term effects from not doing it if you're smart, rich and clean. A lot of the diet stuff during pregnancy sounded nuts, and the advice (and subsequent stats/research/ recommendation s) seemed culturally affected and based on extremely unlikely/ minimal outcomes. And then I'd see other parents stressing about co sleeping, but not even give the faintest thought or worry to living a life with car dependency and strapping kids into them: apparently culture changes your perception of relative risk. The other things that became apparent to me: -just how dodgy the evidence base is for a lot of claims on parenting - a lot of modern western parenting is pretty anti- woman/parent IMO. so little regard for the idea of taking care of baby by taking care of parents. - the number of people and pop resources abusing and misquoting science, sometimes to reach the opposite conclusion to the one I reached when reading the actual papers/original sources. And yet you have pundits and salespeople repeating 'study found X' ad nauseam.

lordnacho 7y ago
That's pretty much what I thought as well. Most of the parenting advice is unsubstantiated claims written to make women feel guilty (over what, who knows?). As if your joy of having a kid needs to be tempered by giving up sushi. (What do people do in Japan?) But generally the books don't even say where the claims are coming from, and everything is like you suspect, quite small effects if any, a priori. Even the co sleeping thing seems to be fearmongering. Unless you're drunk, you're not gonna squash your kid to death. Plus the sleep benefits of letting the kid have boob on tap are enormous.
- hrktb 7y ago
  > giving up sushi. (What do people do in Japan?) Depending on the stage, they actualy give up sushi ... Apart from pregnancy/breast-feeding, Japan’s relation with raw fish is interesting, in that most people understand one day they’ll be unlucky and get food poisonned, but that’s just a fact of life, and nobody usually avoids raw fish just because of the risk.
- deadwisdom 7y ago
  The co-sleeping seems to stem from all the SIDS research / literature which when you go and read seems especially questionable. The topic of SIDS was hit so hard by our hospital and pediatrician. It scares the shit out of you. And then you go read the sources, and it's... well underwhelming at best.
  - infinite8s 7y ago
    SIDS basically means they have no fucking clue why the child died, so everything gets thrown into the SIDS bucket.
    - Cogito 7y ago
      That's why they tend to talk about Sudden Unexpected Infant Death these days. My understanding is that the primary concern is the ability of the child to breathe normally. Anything which restricts that ability can be life threatening. Having their face covered (very easy to do when they sleep between two adults who pull the covers up when they're cold) or pushing their face up against a non-breathable material (windproof bassinets, pillows, soft toys) leads to a lack of air circulation which can lead to CO2 buildup. This is particularly a problem when their muscles aren't strong enough to turn their head or roll over.
- chasd00 7y ago
  "sleep benefits of letting the kid have boob on tap are enormous" this cannot be overstated. We co-slept with my youngest and the difference between that experience and our first who was strictly bassinet/crib can't be put in words.
quadrangle 7y ago
I agree overall, but I think we should err on the side of rejecting whatever has corporate or other conflicts-of-interest. Thus, be skeptical of all sorts of safety products (especially since they are sold by spreading fear). But we should also be skeptical of those dismissing the significance of breast feeding because the baby formula producers are where the conflict-of-interest lies on that topic there (and that played out massively and horribly in recent history). I'm sure formula is okay overall, and there are so many factors to health and success. But it's also far too easy for formula producers (historically mainly Nestle) to happily support the narrative that breast-feeding is an irrational privilege of the elite. But I find such arguments comparable to those saying that access to natural open space like woods and parks is an elite privilege. That many people lack these privileges isn't an argument that they aren't extremely valuable. It's a grotesque injustice that any kid anywhere grows up without access to a healthy outdoor environment. Somehow we need to tease apart all these things. The hypersensitive shaming of parents (mothers especially) is so awful and wrong, as is the paranoia about perfect safety and reducing all risk. That stuff needs to die. But breastfeeding, play time, outdoor access, the trends toward positive parenting (and not corporal punishment) — those things are positive! So, it's complex.
- thrower123 7y ago
  > But it's also far too easy for formula producers (historically mainly Nestle) to happily support the narrative that breast-feeding is an irrational privilege of the elite I'm intrigued, and I think I've missed this narrative - from what I understand, aristocrats didn't much bother with breast-feeding their own children, and hired it out to wet-nurses. So common people would have been more apt to breastfeed their own children, particularly since there is at least some contraceptive effect.
  - ACow_Adonis 7y ago
    (you can tell I've looked into this too much :p) you're right about the wet-nurse history, so in some places breast feeding is taken to be culturally lower class (and many of the WHO type materials and studies imo on breast feeding are effectively predicated not on the benefits of breast feeding per se, but on the avoidance of not- breast-feeding substitute risks in a particular context). but then there was a 'formula movement' just as large scale manufacturing of formula was invented and became viable, focusing on the 'sciencism' and benefits of formula (i.e. you can measure and ensure exactly how much baby is drinking, which can't be done as easily with breast). then there was a counter- counter: a movement away from the cold/corporate providers and the science of formula to the warm/maternal side of breast feeding and a new science of breast feeding. breast feeding then became associated in those places with the upper class, typically sharing some aspects/ popularity of attachment parenting, because in those cultures a woman being able to stop work (and spend their entire day breast feeding) is a sign of class. which of these aspects one experiences depends on where one lives, and honestly there's probably even more breast feeding and nursing narratives out there...
nugget 7y ago
As the article itself points out, there is much debate about Oster’s claims and many physician scientists disagree with her claims. Personally, having reviewed much of the same source material - around pre-natal diets in particular - I disagree with her conclusions as well. I’m not questioning her motives but it feels to me like there’s a certain amount of pop-sci hubris in her work.
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  I haven't read her work, so its hard for me to comment on the individual. I think one area where i would disagree is alcohol, but that's because I'd include desire/normalacy of regular alcohol consumption as a cultural effect from our own societies (there's really not much evidence for positive effects of alcohol in anything, period). of course, this ignores the question of the value of the parents wants and wishes though. On my own review of pre-natal diet recommendations, in my view the issue is about risk management rather than etiology of disease. for instance, my wife and I often joked that if we ate according to our countries health recommendations, we'd never eat out and only eat heavily processed foods, because it was the only place where the risk of various poisonings were near 0. But in practice, home kitchens aren't risk free, nor is or own non professional food prep or diet selection. And the mother needs to balance off sufficient variation in diet to be balanced and healthy, opportunity cost of other beneficial actions towards her and the child, etc, all of which are not accounted for, because science and medical research are not policy oriented documents. And it must be said that the relative risk of many of these things is very small from a clinical point of view.
- empath75 7y ago
  I think there’s a difference on the local and global level here. From my point of view, if we ignore some doctor’s recommendation for pregnancy or child rearing, there’s a minuscule chance of an adverse effect. From the health experts point of view, a minuscule chance multiplied by billions of people is thousands or even millions of unnecessary birth defects or deaths. A pregnant woman can rationally and morally choose to have a drink every once in a while —- there’s almost no chance there will be a problem, while at the same time, it’s a rational and moral for doctors to recommend not drinking at all — millions of lives are at stake potentially.
cybersnowflake 7y ago
What do you mean 'anti-woman'? Do they say that we should get rid of woman and have an all male society or to strangle girl babies? Just curious since the phrase 'anti-woman' and 'misogynistic' seems to be loosely thrown around these days as a synonym for 'something more or less loosely related to the subject of women that I don't like'.
- projektfu 7y ago
  I read it as meaning that women are expected by a “western” culture to sacrifice their happiness or sanity and the GP disagrees, saying that parental happiness is associated with infant happiness.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    If their happiness depends on drinking alcohol and eating raw cheese, that is. Not all cheese is raw milk based, so you don't even have to give up cheese completely.
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  I mean they implicitly/explicitly give an image of child rearing that is neither factual, nor often physically possible: I joked that if we actually did everything that was recommended, we'd have no income, have no activities, and still fill all 36 hours in a day. I call it anti-woman because the implicit philosophy underlying the advice is to view the woman as a failure, because she must inevitably break some of the rules and parenting is framed in a 'how far are you from a mythical optimal', even though this optimal is rarely empirically measured, stated or demonstrated, and often assumes an implicit (read diminutive and insulting) view of womanhood/motherhood roughly analogous to domestic housekeeper willing to sacrifice everything. lastly, it downplays the validity of the woman's own desires, and the utility of her experiences, skills, hobbies, feelings, desires into a cult of 'physical and emotional devotion to the child'. The number of women at our parent group and that we've met on our short journey undergoing sleep deprivation and psychological issues, calling out for help, was eye opening to me, especially because from my own perspective from the data point of view was simply 'empirically that's barely an issue, if its causing your family that much distress, just change and do this instead', whereas there is an undercurrent in parenting that says a mother's role is to suffer...
ced 7y ago
based on extremely unlikely/ minimal outcomes. I often get the same feeling, but there's _so few numbers_ in these articles. Where do you get them / how do you come to that conclusion?
ohthehugemanate 7y ago
A thousand times yes! There's a great study using the NLSY data, where they first demonstrate 10 of the 11 oft-cited advantages to breastfeeding... And then do a sibling study with the same data and watch the effects disappear. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4077166/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4077166/ What bothers me most reading the source studies though, is that even if you take them as a 100% true - and this is a very rosy interprétation indeed - the effects they identify are tiny compared to the well documented effects of an emotionally stable home environment with a positive parental relationship. There may be a 95/5 chance of boosting the kid's IQ by 2 points, but that's nothing next to the boost they get with parents who can sleep 8 hours on alternating nights. It seems like most of these recommendations miss the forest for the trees. There is an irony that some of the biggest breastfeeding supporters are so-called "attachment parents", taking a pop-sci view of early attachment theory... When real, grown-up attachment theory is clear that a healthy parental relationship is exactly the most important thing to show the child in the first year. That's where they learn healthy "attachment", hence the name of the whole theory! Further, it really just smells like the patriarchy calling. The la leche League was founded to support traditional family roles - meaning mothers stay home. All of it is set up to force the mother into the primary caregiver role, which comes with a huge attendant career/income penalty. So I say: Fuck the patriarchy. Show your kids a healthy, emotionally stable environment. Choose between bottle and breast based on your practical family life needs. Unfortunately not sure how to help counter the enormous pressure put out by groups like LLL in hospitals, pop press, etc. They cause a lot of unnecessary suffering and guilt. Maybe https://fedisbest.org/ https://fedisbest.org/ ?
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  > the effects they identify are tiny compared to the well documented effects of an emotionally stable home environment with a positive parental relationship. To be fair the same selection bias that confounded the breast milk study probably confounded this study as well.

marktangotango 7y ago

I was at Home Depot buying some stuff with my kids and the 5 year old was hanging of the handle of the cart like a monkey. It was one the low to the floor carts for heavy stuff and the handle was a bit lower than a normal shopping cart. One of the idle cashiers, an older woman, came over said he shouldn’t do that because he might fall and bump his head. I said “that’s how he’ll learn”. She gave me a frown and walked away. He didn’t fall or bump his head, that lesson was saved for another day. Edit; she expressed her concern, she did not cite any company policy or appeal to authority. The handle was low enough such that I wasn’t concerned about a concussion. I wasn’t rude or snarky in this exchange although some seem to read it as such. Wow judgmental reader! I think this was mentioned in the fine article!

yeukhon 7y ago
And are you proud? (Stop flagging)
curiousgeorgio 7y ago
And from Home Depot's point of view, the employee thankfully helped the company avoid a potential lawsuit. I'm sure the 5-year-old will have plenty of other chances to bump his head in similar situations, and assuming he's human, he has the amazing capacity to generalize from lessons learned in other distinct ways. Nothing was lost in your encounter. EDIT: Love the (numerous) downvotes coming here on all responses to your comment, but in the spirit of promoting healthy discussion, a reasoned argument would be better.
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  I'll upvote you just because that was a trend that I explicitly called out to my wife: "it seems half of the official guidelines seem written around the goal of avoiding blame being shifted outside of the family-unit/potential to be sued rather than any empirical basis, measurement, or cost/benefit trade-off.
chrisseaton 7y ago
For every person giving a minimum-wage employee trying to help an unnecessarily snarky response, like you chose to do, there is someone else who'll sue them. So they can't win. The best thing you could have contributed would have been to be polite to the employee.

burlesona 7y ago

The recent Freakonomics Podcast episode on Oster and her work was a little more in-depth than this article. I really enjoyed it. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/parenting/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/parenting/

uvexdme 7y ago

There is irony in discussing this article in the comments.

lamename 7y ago

I would expect that if there was a valid debate to be had she would also have peer reviewed papers published on the topic. Skimming https://www.brown.edu/research/projects/oster/ https://www.brown.edu/research/projects/oster/ I haven't found any related It seems like her general cause is a good one: to ease parents to relax a bit on what some perceive as apparently harsh recommendations on health and parenting. But it also seems like she misses the point on what public health bodies are for (minimizing risk on large scale) versus clear advice to individuals. Take alcohol for example, if the actual evidence is flimsy on whether 1 drink is bad or not, it's an easy choice if I'm speaking to millions of people: play it safe. That's not the same as claiming that low alcohol consumption is bad, and it's certainly not an attempt to shame.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
JamesBarney 7y ago
One of my pregnant friends talked to their doctor about having a glass of wine once a week. Her doctor said that was fine but when she ordered one at the restaurant it was terrible. The waiter was visibly uncomfortable serving it, other people in the restaurant stared. The intent might not have been to shame but the effect has been that lots of women feel way shittier about themselves than they need to. And the science might say something like 3 glasses of wine are terrible but we can't really statistically tell the difference between 0 and 1 glasses of wine. But what has filtered down to the masses is "if you have a glass of wine while pregnant you're a terrible mother."
- animal531 7y ago
  Sure, but that's because it's easier to say have no glasses of wine, than to try and explain to every person that having some is still within tolerance (and then also why one is decent, but two maybe not).

bubblewrap 7y ago

"Oster now finds herself brainstorming punishments that a four-year-old will find “devastating.”" (on 1-2-3 Magic) So she found it "just works". But how does she define "it works"? The child becoming obedient? That's not exactly what many parents want, but it would be the classic approach to child rearing (teaching kids obedience)... Her book may be a good thing, for people who find it difficult to dig their way through all the information online. Personally I am wary of that type of public science book of outsiders of the field digging through hundreds of articles. At the end of the day, they might still fall prey to confirmation bias or only consider research that supports their thesis. Any why is it so important to drink alcohol during pregnancy? There really weren't that many rules - no alcohol, no raw cheeses or meats, no honey. It's not an impossible toll on mothers, although my wife still has high respect from me for being extremely consistent about all those rules during pregnancy.