"Mention the words "sleep training" in any online group of parents and you've just lit the fuse. Comments are turned off faster than you can say "pacifier." Opinions quickly polarize into two heated camps: "sleep training is trauma/cosleeping solves everything" versus "sleep training is research-based, totally safe and fine." Once these two sides dig in, productive discussion stops. Here's the problem: Neither perspective is entirely correct, and the face-off leaves out a lot of exhausted parents who aren't sleeping but don't want to do cry-it-out."
"We've fallen into these entrenched positions because the information parents receive is focused on some "Generic Baby A." Advice never accounts for the wide differences between babies, parents, families, and cultures. Sleep is also not simple. It's dependent on a network of factors: feeding, development, temperament, family structure, physical context (housing), parental goals and values-the list goes on. Complex issues don't have simple solutions, and applying generic information to real-world complexity is where everything falls apart."
Sleep training debates often polarize into two extreme camps: strict pro-sleep-training and staunch anti-sleep-training advocates. Both camps claim universal effectiveness, promising that following their method will make every baby sleep through the night. Many exhausted parents do not fit either camp and are left without helpful options. Sleep outcomes depend on feeding, development, temperament, family structure, housing, parental goals, and cultural context. Generic, one-size-fits-all advice fails to account for this complexity. Complex sleep problems require nuanced, individualized approaches and acknowledgment of middle-ground alternatives rather than absolutist prescriptions. Parents who have tried multiple strategies still struggle, demonstrating that simple claims of guaranteed solutions are inaccurate.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]