There are no "really good" parents

[Disillusioned]

I agree with what you are saying. You can find stuff that is pro sleep training and anti sleep training. You can find the same thing about spanking too though. It seems to me that you can replace spanking in this article and make the same arguments. That if you only do it a little children will be more compliant and you and the child will be better off without causing long term psychological damage. That is the hypocrisy in all of this.
Now if we look back at the huffpo article that stef and his advocates posted on their fb walls and i think even on the boards http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-belkin/spanking-is-wrong_b_1659964.html, and we extrapolate the arguments and apply them to sleep training and we take into account the bomb in the brain series then stefan is being a total hypocrite.

I agree about the hypocrisy and just found an article from 2001 saying that a study showed spanking alone was not harmful. It's pretty frustrating that there's so much contradictory information out there. It's interesting and disorienting that Stef doesn't see the similarities between the effects of spanking and CIO and the arguments parents use to justify them both.

[HansKarlsson]

Just to play a little devil's advocate, my husband found an article about a recent study that shows CIO is not necessarily harmful if done a certain way. http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/10/its-o-k-to-let-babies-cry-it-out-at-bedtime/

I went to look over the research pointed in that article and read some more articles about it online. They (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org) don't even compare CIO with non-CIO, they compare two sleeptraining methods. 'Controlled comforting' (aka 'controlled crying') with 'camping out'. The first one is a soft CIO, it meas you let your baby cry in increments, while the second means you sit near your child as he learns to fall asleep and slowly, over time, move the chair farther and farther away. This doesn't mean the baby doesn't cry. Also this is a method that usually doesn't work! This is why many believe that not even the comparison of these two sleeptraining methods is correct, as some parents left their babies cry a lot with 'camping out'. One more thing... a third of the parents decided to drop from the study... wonder why?

So most of the articles and tv news that were made as a follow-up to this research are full of shit, as the researchers are clear, they compare two sleeptraining methods with no conclusive results, nothing else. Just as most parents like to hear that spanking children has no long lasting effects (god bless for all the countless studies that 'prove' this), they also like to hear that letting your baby cry doesn't mean you're a dick. This is what media provided. I'm telling you, the parents are more productive this way. If you don't believe me, ask Molyneux. (An idea to explore later: I don't see how free market would not support spanking and CIO, as they definitely increase the productivity of the parents. And this is what the free market is all about, maximum productivity.)

There are many sleeptraining 'solutions' that actually involve CIO. What most of the parents do is the Weissbluth approach, open-ended crying. This is what Molyneux did. There are more out there, like:
Ferber: Advocates crying to sleep with parent soothing on a time schedule. Put your baby in the crib. Come back to pat and say soothing words at 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, etc. Increase the times every night. Hopefully your baby will stop crying and go to sleep. Lots of scientific discussion about sleep.
Weissbluth: Advocates crying to sleep without parent soothing. Open-ended time - no limit. You are "leaving him alone to forget the expectation to be picked up." Has a section on children over 7 years old.
Mindell: Advocates crying to sleep with parent soothing, on a schedule similar to Ferber but with more frequent checks on the baby.

The best thing is to get to know a child in the first few months of his life, and go to meet her the following days after the parents applied CIO on her. You will get that at least short term, that's a different child. At least this is what I've got from my social interactions, anecdotal experiences of course.

[HansKarlsson]

I totally understand where you're coming from, and of course it was a terrible decision to have to make, but unfortunately she was sleeping very badly, compared to almost every other baby I've ever known at least, and we certainly tried sleeping with her sp she could breast-feed at night, but we were not functioning very well as parents after 7 months of very little sleep, so we made the best decision we could under very difficult circumstances, and I certainly regret the circumstances, but I don't regret the decision.

Well, as I've repeatedly explained, it was 7 months of severe sleep deprivation, not just being "tired."  We weren't going to be any good to our daughter that perpetually exhausted -or sick, since long-term sleep deprivation harms the immune system of course.

Initially I felt (somewhat) bad for the guy's well being after reading this. I went through a similar experience for longer than that, and I found it tough to have to feed the baby during the night for 4-5 times, while my wife was trying to get some sleep. Yes, I guess I show some empathy.

However...  ... what I read stuck with me, as I didn't have the same symptoms. After a while I came to believe that Stefan was so sick and wasn't functioning well after 7 months of sleep deprivation... that probably stopped him from working on saving the world. Having my own doubts about him, I went to double check that this is true, by seeing how his YouTube activity compared during those 7 months to the 7 months before and after. I was expecting to see a drop in videos created during those 7 months not only due to sickness and sleep deprivation, but also because he took on a new role, being a full time dad of newborn Isabella Molyneux. Long story short, I found that during those 7 months of hell his activity as a philosopher increased considerably, just to reach a plateau later in the year:

7 months window      - #Stefan's YouTube videos - Isabella Molyneux' stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 2007- Mar 2008  -                68                   - Isabella Molyneux's conception
Apr 2008 - Nov 2008 -                64                   - Isabella Molyneux in the womb 
Dec 2008 - Jul 2009 -               80                   - Isabella Molyneux causing sleep deprivation
Aug 2009 - Mar 2010 -               107                  - Isabella Molyneux after getting the CIO treatment
Apr 2010 - Nov 2010 -               102                   - Isabella Molyneux at one year and a half

I don't see how one just gets ~25% more productive when getting a second job, getting sick and no rest at all.
One may want to go ahead and check Stefan's podcast count or the forum activity for the same period, I found it easier to check the videos count. I don't see why the percentage increase wouldn't be the same.

[Arthur]

Parents who never demand a certain standard of behavior or accomplishment are weak and cowardly.  Good parents do their duty.  We want our children to learn to thrive in a tough world.  Or if they don’t thrive, at a minimum, we DON’T want them to grow up to be Complete Assholes. 

Children who never learn to deal with disappointment and fear never grow up.  Without a doubt the most difficult aspect of parenting is demanding that your children comply with ...dare I say it.... universally preferable behaviors. That they develop the discipline to put off short term gratification.  That they learn to stay in bed, take their bath, go easy on the candy, behave in general and especially in public.  Any parent who buys into Moly's parenting constructs is truly and completely engaged in child abuse of the highest order. 

[Elucidated]

Parents who never demand a certain standard of behavior or accomplishment are weak and cowardly.  Good parents do their duty.  We want our children to learn to thrive in a tough world.  Or if they don’t thrive, at a minimum, we DON’T want them to grow up to be Complete Assholes. 

Children who never learn to deal with disappointment and fear never grow up.  Without a doubt the most difficult aspect of parenting is demanding that your children comply with ...dare I say it.... universally preferable behaviors. That they develop the discipline to put off short term gratification.  That they learn to stay in bed, take their bath, go easy on the candy, behave in general and especially in public.  Any parent who buys into Moly's parenting constructs is truly and completely engaged in child abuse of the highest order.

Can we just call it circumstatially or generally preferable behaviour? Then it actually works

I wouldn't say that Moly's style of parenting is abuse of the highest order, although I do believe the cry it out thing is cruel. I also think he's pretty average to below average as a parent, nothing special at all. However, by his own standards, he is highly abusive. Did he not say 'parents who leave their child crying do it for sadistic pleasure and humiliation'

Well done on those stats HansKarlsson, makes interesting reading and kicks the critical thinking in.

[Kaz]

Parents who never demand a certain standard of behavior or accomplishment are weak and cowardly.  Good parents do their duty.  We want our children to learn to thrive in a tough world.  Or if they don’t thrive, at a minimum, we DON’T want them to grow up to be Complete Assholes. 

Not only are such parents weak and cowardly, they are also lazy.  They need to understand the difference between being merciful and lenient.  The former a strength, the latter a weakness.  Being lenient comes about because the person responsible for dealing with an issue cannot be bothered with, or is afraid of the responsibility that goes with his or her position.  Even worse, it may be because they were never corrected themselves and they identify with the bratty behaviour.

Children who never learn to deal with disappointment and fear never grow up.  Without a doubt the most difficult aspect of parenting is demanding that your children comply with ...dare I say it.... universally preferable behaviors. That they develop the discipline to put off short term gratification.  That they learn to stay in bed, take their bath, go easy on the candy, behave in general and especially in public.  Any parent who buys into Moly's parenting constructs is truly and completely engaged in child abuse of the highest order.

At the very least, it is a form of neglect, which is defined as abuse. 

I totally agree with you about children never growing up and I think things have swung too far to the opposite extreme from the old "Children should be seen and not heard" days.  There are too many immature adult assholes walking around these days, resulting in the erosion of manners and standards.  I also think this is responsible for the dumbing down of society, as well as the crapola that gets called art and music, to name a few things.

There may be growing evidence that some things are "hardwired" in a growing person.  That is, there may only be a certain "window of time" where that ability can be effectively learnt and if anything goes wrong with it, it may never be effectively re-learnt.  Think of children that have grown up with wolves.

[Hajnal]

So would you say that in the old days there were fewer, erm, assholes?

I can't say I'm sure that any amount of authoritarian-ness is beneficial, and I value autonomy...

There is also the whole question of how much influence, exactly, do the parents have over their children, compared to all the other variables in life?

[Kaz]

So would you say that in the old days there were fewer, erm, assholes?

I can't say I'm sure that any amount of authoritarian-ness is beneficial, and I value autonomy...

Bringing up and disciplining children is not the equivalent of authoritarian abuse, but these ideas are often conflated.

I wasn't saying that victorian era parenting is better, just that we have gone the opposite extreme.  Neither extreme teach autonomy.  Like it or not, parents do have authority (they authored their own children, didn't they?) and with that power, goes responsibility.  Children are not miniture adults, they are developing. 

It is not fair to expect children to be able to control themselves until they have reached a certain level of development. The authoritarian extreme often punishes children without taking this into account and uses excessive force.  This is cruel and limits development. 

The lenient extreme fails to act/realise that children sometimes do not know any better and need guidance.  They may even be potentially putting themselves and other people in danger.  Sometimes their acting up is their way of "asking for some control."  To neglect this is also cruel and limits development. 

There is also the whole question of how much influence, exactly, do the parents have over their children, compared to all the other variables in life?

I think this is a good question.

[HansKarlsson]

I read the following here. Please let me know if you have any idea if this is true or made-up.

What we need here to clear up this confusion is some more 2nd-hand hearsay, and WHAT I HEARD was that Stef was giving his girl some chocolate and the mom came up angrily shouting "Don't give her chocolate!  She has to go poo for chocolate!"  Apparently they're using a reward system to encourage potty training.

As a parent, I give other parents a lot of leeway about their parenting. Lord knows, there's more than one way to do it. But poo for chocolate.... that's just weird, dude.

No, the weird part is the exclusivity, leading to a bizarre pavlovian training that Halloween is the shittiest of holidays.
Seriously, if you only get to eat chocolate when you take a dump, you're going to have some messed up behaviors as an adult. Weird aversions or affinities, noam sain?

[Argent]

I read the following here. Please let me know if you have any idea if this is true or made-up.

What we need here to clear up this confusion is some more 2nd-hand hearsay, and WHAT I HEARD was that Stef was giving his girl some chocolate and the mom came up angrily shouting "Don't give her chocolate!  She has to go poo for chocolate!"  Apparently they're using a reward system to encourage potty training.

As a parent, I give other parents a lot of leeway about their parenting. Lord knows, there's more than one way to do it. But poo for chocolate.... that's just weird, dude.

No, the weird part is the exclusivity, leading to a bizarre pavlovian training that Halloween is the shittiest of holidays.
Seriously, if you only get to eat chocolate when you take a dump, you're going to have some messed up behaviors as an adult. Weird aversions or affinities, noam sain?

That's the worst kind of gossip: gossip with no indication of the source of the information--no way to follow-up. Was it recorded on a podcast? Then we can check that podcast for the evidence. Was it overheard by someone in a public place, or did Stefan tell someone about it? Then we can ask that person what happened. As it is, we have no leads towards determining the truth of the matter.

There's another possible version of events that doesn't sound nearly as bad as the one above. And that is that they had a special stash of chocolates to be used only for potty-training. Maybe chocolate in general was fine, and Christina was just objecting to Stefan giving out the special potty-training chocolates. Or maybe chocolate in general wasn't fine, but only because of how young Isabella was. (I personally would refrain from using sweets are rewards, just because I wish I didn't have that mental association. But what do I know--I'm not a nutritionist or psychologist.)

In any case, if something like this did happen, I'm on Christina's side. As I understand it, there's nothing more frustrating as a parent than having your spouse undermine the rules you're trying to enforce. And there's nothing more confusing for a child, either. If you don't agree with a rule, discuss it with your spouse before you even introduce it to the child. If you collectively decide to take a rule away, discuss that with the child so they're aware of the change and that both parents are on (off) board. But whatever you do, present a united front.

Pure speculation--I could totally see Stefan deciding to violate Christina's rules in order to win favour from his daughter. "Mommy doesn't want you to have these unless you use the potty, but we won't tell her." Train her to run from mean mommy, into the arms of doting daddy. Hopefully not, for Isabella's sake, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[Kaz]

In any case, if something like this did happen, I'm on Christina's side. As I understand it, there's nothing more frustrating as a parent than having your spouse undermine the rules you're trying to enforce. And there's nothing more confusing for a child, either. If you don't agree with a rule, discuss it with your spouse before you even introduce it to the child. If you collectively decide to take a rule away, discuss that with the child so they're aware of the change and that both parents are on (off) board. But whatever you do, present a united front.

Totally agree.  Undermining any adults in charge of children, not just the parents is not only confusing, it can be destructive to the children.  Yet many adults do this in public, often they are the adults that spend the least amount of time with kids and are the most clueless.  Nothing is more frustrating to someone who has expended so much time and energy winning the trust of a child, only to have a bypassing adult carelessly undermine all your hard work.  They do it to attack you, but it is the child who suffers.

Pure speculation--I could totally see Stefan deciding to violate Christina's rules in order to win favour from his daughter. "Mommy doesn't want you to have these unless you use the potty, but we won't tell her." Train her to run from mean mommy, into the arms of doting daddy. Hopefully not, for Isabella's sake, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Well that's what he does with FDR to win the favour of his supporters, so I don't see why he should behave any differently here.