> So you agree it's not just the US doing it No, I don't. A lot of things that were manufactured in the US were exported into countries that were under its inf

> So you agree it's not just the US doing it No, I don't. A lot of things that were manufactured in the US were exported into countries that were under its influence. Rich, Anglophile segments in a country adopting a behavior from the US because it suits their preferences does not make it a national paradigm. > Cite your source. There are various comments from others in this thread which explain that problem in detail. In contrast, your perspective of 'nothing happening' resides on a single study made with 43 children. (edit - posting the counterpoint here just in case - it was a google search away) https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp.13390 https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp.... > In their recent paper published in JCPP, Bilgin and Wolke (2020a) argue that leaving an infant to ‘cry it out’, rather than responding to the child’s cries, had no adverse effects on mother–infant attachment at 18 months. This finding opposes evidence across a wide range of scientific fields. Here, we outline several concerns with the article and argue against some of the authors’ strong claims, which have already gained media attention, including a report on the NHS website. We suggest that the authors’ conclusions should be considered one piece of a larger scientific whole, where ‘cry it out’ seems, overall, to be of detriment to both attachment and development. Crucially, we are concerned that this study has issues regarding power and other analytical decisions. More generally, we fear that the authors have overstated their findings and we hope that members of the public do not alter their parenting behaviours in line with such claims without further research into this controversial topic.