just because attachment parenting uses historical or "primitive" cultures as example to support it while there exists counter examples from other historic or "p

just because attachment parenting uses historical or "primitive" cultures as example to support it while there exists counter examples from other historic or "primitive" cultures, doesn't mean that the practice itself is a bad idea. the article is not directly making that claim, but i feel it does imply it. but does that really matter? what we really need to look at is how different parenting styles affect children growing up. there isn't enough research on that because the effects are subtle and hard to see. it took me a few decades to understand how my childhood affected me, and how i spend most of my life searching for the love that my parents could not give me. i have had the opportunity as a young man to observe different parenting styles with friends, like lovingly involved dads but also the crying out method of putting a baby to sleep, which to me intuitively just felt cruel. there is a lot of insecurity by young parents, so we tend to look to others for help. our own parents of course and our community. but in this modern times we also have access to examples from other cultures as well as history, and i find it only natural that we use those examples to support our beliefs. just because counterexamples exist, doesn't mean those examples are wrong. the counter argument is rather, if attachment parenting were wrong, then we should not find any historic examples of it at all. of course the same is true for the opposite, which is why the truth is that we simply do not know enough yet about what is really the best way to raise children. more research is necessary. personally i feel that going with your own intuition is a safe approach.