Talk:Attachment parenting

The eyedrop thing
Isn't that a really big deal to prevent some forms of blindness? Great start, by the way! 02:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what surprized me when ms. bialic (sp - i really need to look her up) was talking on NPR about not doing the circumcision (makes sense), the eyedrops (huh?) and the anti vac (You're kidding!). I mean this is a woman who in theory managed to get through harder stuff than I've ever read, to understand how the brain works, and she ends up with "I shouldn't vac, or have eyedrops put in my kid's eyes cause it's not necessary..".  ooohhhkaaayyy...--[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot   06:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait until psychological research has been done
Evidence should be collected before RationalWiki should reach any conclusions. That's my take. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, and maybe I didn't make it clear in the article, but it's almost impossible to do any kind of reasonable research cause Dr. Sears sorta rigs the game.  since his idea is that an adult who is healthy is living up to his or her potential, it's a very untestable number.  It's not based on "will get good grades" or based on "will have a lower risk of clinical depression", it's "will be happier and better off in whatever life guides them to" or some such.  So how do you test that?  That's why i'm very skeptical and looking everywhere for "woo", cause it's the same kind of vague, ambuious gains that we see promised in a host of "cures" or ways of raising a child.  --[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot   06:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, this kind of parenting is commonplace in many cultures. One way to look at existing data is to compare results. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WFG suggested clearly how difficult it is to test the "results" of these claims. Also, one would expect the claimant to produce hard evidence of results.  05:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

caps
Should we? Or not? Attachment Parenting or attachment parenting? Before I waste time editing either way. 05:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wondering that myself. Do note, though "Nurturing Touch" is a "thing" on the official API page.  without an article. just fyi.--[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot   06:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would go with the common-noun capitalization; that is the one I have seen the most. 06:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, their own site (http://www.attachmentparenting.org/) caps it, but wikipedia does not.--[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  06:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Screw WP, I'd go with their version and footnote/[sic] it all. TM and R and C it, as well.  05:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Caricature
There is plenty of bad child-rearing advice around, and skepticism on the subject is certainly warranted. It is important to look at the evidence. But to some extent, this article presents a straw man version of attachment parenting and attacks that.

The main problem is that the article will state an attachment parenting principle, and then assert that "many parents" misinterpret the principle or take it to an extreme:

"Many parents take this general guideline to the extreme with 'natural birth,' including water births, home births, and midwife births; eating only natural foods while pregnant; forgoing most medical practices done on newborns from unnecessary (and even dangerous) practices like circumcision to the everyday 'eye drop cleaning method' to critical things like vaccinations."

"Practitioners of this point often take it to somewhat creepy lengths; as the May 12, 2012 (Mother's Day) edition of Time pointed out, many mothers breastfeed their children until age 5 or 6 — years, not months."

"There is a significant overlap between the attachment-parenting and neo-hippie communities, with attachment-parents frequently living more 'off the grid' than usual, homeschooling their children, and following 'Natural Living' lifestyles, including anti-vaccination, and other 'modern society is bad, let's head back to nature and traditional societies' woo."

The article does not document these claims, and appears to attribute to attachment parenting principles that advocates like Dr. Sears and Attachment Parenting International do not promote. For example, Dr. Sears has written a book on vaccines (in which he promotes an alternative vaccine schedule, but) in which he does not recommend against vaccination.

Also, the article suggests that attachment parenting is an inflexible dogma that requires certain behavior. (The article acknowledges, but dismisses ,the "strive for balance" principle.) That is not what proponents like Attachment Parenting International teach:

"Attachment Parenting is not a one-size-fits-all recipe for raising children, therefore API recommends parents use their own judgment and intuition to create a parenting style that fosters attachment and works for their family. Some practices listed in The Eight Principles are inherently more attachment-promoting than others. The most ideal practices are listed first. Many API support groups start each meeting by saying 'Take what works for your family and leave the rest.' This sentiment also applies to The Eight Principles. http://www.attachmentparenting.org/principles/intro.php"

(By the way, the eight principles do not come from Dr. Sears' book.)

Attachment parenting theory is certainly attractive to the woo community, but attachment parenting should judged on its own merits. SKnight 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the best way to deal with that is to edit it. I found most of this on the API's main sight, and they are the ones that claim it comes from his book.  I fully admit to not reading his books.  If you know more, fix it.[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot   16:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)