7 ms·

The fact that you are getting enraged is a huge part of the problem. Keep your own morality to yourself and your own family. If you don’t want to use cry it out

The fact that you are getting enraged is a huge part of the problem. Keep your own morality to yourself and your own family. If you don’t want to use cry it out, then that’s your decision. The fact you project onto others is the problem and it’s none of your business. Cry it out is effective and works wonders for families and it has no side effects, as mentioned in the article itself.

metabagel 4y ago
If you read Dr. Bruce Perry's books, you'll find that some children are able to withstand childhood trauma, while others are deeply affected by it. "Keep your own morality to yourself and your own family." That's not a real solid code of ethics to have.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
unity1001 4y ago
> The fact that you are getting enraged is a huge part of the problem. Keep your own morality to yourself and your own family. How about you people keep your destructive practice to yourself and stop advocating it, less, rationalizing it and pushing it to mainstream. And with 'you people', i mean the US, because the only place where this thing seems to be a 'thing' and is even being advocated by 'professionals' is the US. The place where individualism and consumerism hails from and the people load up on prozac to survive.
- jjulius 4y ago
  How about respecting every parents choices for their own family? How about you step away from HN for a bit and get some fresh air before responding to another comment in this thread? You're obviously very heated and it's not constructive. You are making massive judgements about people while simultaneously demonstrating how little you know about what actually happens when you let someone "cry it out".
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > How about respecting every parents choices for their own family? The immense cacophonies that the industries in the US produce, eventually permate to, and induce chaos and problems in other countries. This includes medical industries. > You're obviously very heated and it's not constructive. Im not heated. Im not Angloamerican. This is not 'heated' discussion where I live. Avoid projecting your cultural paradigm to random people on the Internet. > You are making massive judgements about people while simultaneously demonstrating how little you know about what actually happens when you let someone "cry it out". Occasionally checking up on the child while leaving the child to cry itself to sleep is not 'something different' like you propose. So, no.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      >Avoid projecting your cultural paradigm to random people on the Internet. Avoid being an absolute asshole who is impossible to have a level-headed discussion with. Your flying off the handle in this thread with judgement geared towards "random people on the internet" demonstrates that very well. It's clear that there will be no way to have a genuine, level-headed conversation with you. Enjoy your evening, or the rest of your day, wherever you are.
      - unity1001 4y ago
        Im not being an asshole to anybody. Leaving aside the worldwide practice and the contradicting reasearch which people seem to just disregard when their personal experiences and biases weigh in, just like you have your own reasons for your strong bias that made you continue discussing this topic this heatedly (in your words), I have my own reasons too. I know various apparently-successful and 'well-adjusted' adults who were neglected as an infant. Only the people who are close to them can know the problems they face and the difficulties they have to go through. Its no joke. Its not difficult to conclude from a modicum knowledge of psychology and such first-hand cases that leaving alone an infant in its crib would easily do more damage - without even going into evolution, mammal species' behavioral traits or anything else complicated. But as I said, we discussed enough. I replied out of courtesy one last time. So you too have a nice day.
- dang 4y ago
  This type of flamewar abuse is a bannable offense on HN. The last thing we need here is nationalistic hell. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194158 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194145, and please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - unity1001 4y ago
    There is nothing 'nationalist' about this. The past 40 years have seen an immense amount of trends that were manufactured for profit originating from the US. From privatization of social services to reduction of labor protections. From atomization of social life down to individuals because 'individualism was better' to having those individuals subsist on prozac to keep their resulting depression under control. From sugary food spam then to obesity being bad to now obesity being ok. In the process, a lot of such trends were exported everywhere, including sociopathic scandals like the Avandia drug scandal. (which is one of many). This is without even touching the subject of overseas wars and how they are manufactured with the same trend-making mechanic, starting from how a certain people being 'evil' and their lives not being worth 'that much to ensuing invasion, occupation and destruction being 'a mistake'. A trend is manufactured by whatever private interest, industry group or segment that catches a moneymaking or career-making opportunity. They push it as hard as they can. If they end up being able to gather popular dynamics behind them for whatsoever reason - like how some people are jumping on this bandwagon - then the trend becomes ever stronger and more easily exportable. The topic at hand follows on the heels of the mentality that exported all of those to everywhere around the world. If that is a trait of the US as a nation, then there is a problem with that and the rest of the world cannot stop calling it out because 'that would be nationalism'. By the way, nationalism in its negative sense means people elevating their own nation above others and demeaning others. Not criticising some other nation beause of their actual deeds. At no point I said that 'this particular nation is better than the US and therefore they are superior'. I literally said that the only country on the planet that this is a mainstream trend is the US, which means that the US goes against entire world. Which is obviously not 'a nation'. I want to stress again that such logic would literally prohibit any criticsm of US foreign policy and prevent anyone from saying that the US has been invading and destroying nations in the past 40 years - due to being 'nationalism' in the subverted definition of 'criticism of a particular nation' that you reduced it to.

metabagel 4y ago

If you read Dr. Bruce Perry's books, you'll find that some children are able to withstand childhood trauma, while others are deeply affected by it. "Keep your own morality to yourself and your own family." That's not a real solid code of ethics to have.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

unity1001 4y ago

> The fact that you are getting enraged is a huge part of the problem. Keep your own morality to yourself and your own family. How about you people keep your destructive practice to yourself and stop advocating it, less, rationalizing it and pushing it to mainstream. And with 'you people', i mean the US, because the only place where this thing seems to be a 'thing' and is even being advocated by 'professionals' is the US. The place where individualism and consumerism hails from and the people load up on prozac to survive.

jjulius 4y ago
How about respecting every parents choices for their own family? How about you step away from HN for a bit and get some fresh air before responding to another comment in this thread? You're obviously very heated and it's not constructive. You are making massive judgements about people while simultaneously demonstrating how little you know about what actually happens when you let someone "cry it out".
- unity1001 4y ago
  > How about respecting every parents choices for their own family? The immense cacophonies that the industries in the US produce, eventually permate to, and induce chaos and problems in other countries. This includes medical industries. > You're obviously very heated and it's not constructive. Im not heated. Im not Angloamerican. This is not 'heated' discussion where I live. Avoid projecting your cultural paradigm to random people on the Internet. > You are making massive judgements about people while simultaneously demonstrating how little you know about what actually happens when you let someone "cry it out". Occasionally checking up on the child while leaving the child to cry itself to sleep is not 'something different' like you propose. So, no.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >Avoid projecting your cultural paradigm to random people on the Internet. Avoid being an absolute asshole who is impossible to have a level-headed discussion with. Your flying off the handle in this thread with judgement geared towards "random people on the internet" demonstrates that very well. It's clear that there will be no way to have a genuine, level-headed conversation with you. Enjoy your evening, or the rest of your day, wherever you are.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Im not being an asshole to anybody. Leaving aside the worldwide practice and the contradicting reasearch which people seem to just disregard when their personal experiences and biases weigh in, just like you have your own reasons for your strong bias that made you continue discussing this topic this heatedly (in your words), I have my own reasons too. I know various apparently-successful and 'well-adjusted' adults who were neglected as an infant. Only the people who are close to them can know the problems they face and the difficulties they have to go through. Its no joke. Its not difficult to conclude from a modicum knowledge of psychology and such first-hand cases that leaving alone an infant in its crib would easily do more damage - without even going into evolution, mammal species' behavioral traits or anything else complicated. But as I said, we discussed enough. I replied out of courtesy one last time. So you too have a nice day.
dang 4y ago
This type of flamewar abuse is a bannable offense on HN. The last thing we need here is nationalistic hell. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194158 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194145, and please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- unity1001 4y ago
  There is nothing 'nationalist' about this. The past 40 years have seen an immense amount of trends that were manufactured for profit originating from the US. From privatization of social services to reduction of labor protections. From atomization of social life down to individuals because 'individualism was better' to having those individuals subsist on prozac to keep their resulting depression under control. From sugary food spam then to obesity being bad to now obesity being ok. In the process, a lot of such trends were exported everywhere, including sociopathic scandals like the Avandia drug scandal. (which is one of many). This is without even touching the subject of overseas wars and how they are manufactured with the same trend-making mechanic, starting from how a certain people being 'evil' and their lives not being worth 'that much to ensuing invasion, occupation and destruction being 'a mistake'. A trend is manufactured by whatever private interest, industry group or segment that catches a moneymaking or career-making opportunity. They push it as hard as they can. If they end up being able to gather popular dynamics behind them for whatsoever reason - like how some people are jumping on this bandwagon - then the trend becomes ever stronger and more easily exportable. The topic at hand follows on the heels of the mentality that exported all of those to everywhere around the world. If that is a trait of the US as a nation, then there is a problem with that and the rest of the world cannot stop calling it out because 'that would be nationalism'. By the way, nationalism in its negative sense means people elevating their own nation above others and demeaning others. Not criticising some other nation beause of their actual deeds. At no point I said that 'this particular nation is better than the US and therefore they are superior'. I literally said that the only country on the planet that this is a mainstream trend is the US, which means that the US goes against entire world. Which is obviously not 'a nation'. I want to stress again that such logic would literally prohibit any criticsm of US foreign policy and prevent anyone from saying that the US has been invading and destroying nations in the past 40 years - due to being 'nationalism' in the subverted definition of 'criticism of a particular nation' that you reduced it to.