baby temperament cont.
One of the things I like about the 9 elements of baby temperament, as opposed to, say, the Big Five temperament measure, is that it's very clear that most/all of the the 9 temperament metrics has both advantages and disadvantages. For example, persistence. Having a persistent temperament that keeps trying and trying and trying is not always better. If you keep persisting at something fruitless or harmful, and can't let it go, that is bad for you. Or, sensitivity. Being unbothered by stimuli can be good if the outside stimuli are distractions, but bad if the outside stimuli are cues requiring response. The only exception is mood; it's hard to see having a generally pessimistic, grumpy disposition can be good for the person, although I would guess that negatively moody people do have some benefit to society, if only to keep things from bubbling over too much.
I've been thinking about The Pipster's persistence. Pippa both is and is not persistent. She does not continue hammering away at someone if it is not working. However, she will come back to it fairly soon. Like, if she tries to get a toy to work, she will try five or six times, give up, but then come back five or ten minutes later and try again, and when she tries again, she usually tries longer before giving up. Ditto if I'm cooking or otherwise working and I leave her in the living room. She will stand at the gate (she can see me through it) and whine for a minute or so, then go play, then come back in ten to fifteen minutes and whine longer, then go play, then come back and usually the third time she won't give up until I come to her.
This is part of the reason why I don't think "cry it out" (CIO) would have worked for us. I ran into it with night weaning. She will take the "no nursing" refusal pretty well the first time, but would get more insistent as the night went on. That's part of why we had Gordon be the parent in the room with her for night weaning. With me, she would not have given up on getting the milk.
I'm still not sure how I feel about CIO's morality, but I will say that I would guess that the babies who form the core of the CIO success stories (the ones who CIO and become perfect angel sleepers within a week) are babies that are high in regularity and adaptability and low in persistence. Pippa is very very low regularity, high adaptability, and medium-high persistence.
I actually think that more intense babies/toddlers are probably actually also more likely to "succeed" at CIO (though I imagine it's absolute hell for the babies when they're going through it). The reason for that is that really intense babies go all out, and wear themselves out to the point where they literally collapse. Pippa is not really that intense, so she can keep a low-level of crying up for a long time.
Somebody--I can't remember whether it was a book or a person--told me that babies stop crying either because a need is met or because they despair of the need being met. That's my biggest issue with CIO as commonly practiced. I understand that the intention is to show the child that they can sleep without assistance. And I don't at all want to belittle the desperation that drives many parents who choose CIO to that choice. But that's why I'm still not sure that CIO is ever an ethical choice. But I'm definitely not sure that is it isn't. I think before I was more anti-CIO than I am now. Even though I still wouldn't do it, I have a better understanding of what it's like to deal with a difficult sleeper night after night, and I have more empathy for the intentions of parents who choose that method.
I think before I was irritated by a number of people who treat CIO as a one size fits all babies solutions to sleep problems, or even said outright that it's the only way to create good sleepers. Usually the same people insisting I jam a pacifier into Pippa's mouth every time she uttered a peep. (I'm less anti-pacifier now that I've gotten away from some of those people too.)
I've been thinking about The Pipster's persistence. Pippa both is and is not persistent. She does not continue hammering away at someone if it is not working. However, she will come back to it fairly soon. Like, if she tries to get a toy to work, she will try five or six times, give up, but then come back five or ten minutes later and try again, and when she tries again, she usually tries longer before giving up. Ditto if I'm cooking or otherwise working and I leave her in the living room. She will stand at the gate (she can see me through it) and whine for a minute or so, then go play, then come back in ten to fifteen minutes and whine longer, then go play, then come back and usually the third time she won't give up until I come to her.
This is part of the reason why I don't think "cry it out" (CIO) would have worked for us. I ran into it with night weaning. She will take the "no nursing" refusal pretty well the first time, but would get more insistent as the night went on. That's part of why we had Gordon be the parent in the room with her for night weaning. With me, she would not have given up on getting the milk.
I'm still not sure how I feel about CIO's morality, but I will say that I would guess that the babies who form the core of the CIO success stories (the ones who CIO and become perfect angel sleepers within a week) are babies that are high in regularity and adaptability and low in persistence. Pippa is very very low regularity, high adaptability, and medium-high persistence.
I actually think that more intense babies/toddlers are probably actually also more likely to "succeed" at CIO (though I imagine it's absolute hell for the babies when they're going through it). The reason for that is that really intense babies go all out, and wear themselves out to the point where they literally collapse. Pippa is not really that intense, so she can keep a low-level of crying up for a long time.
Somebody--I can't remember whether it was a book or a person--told me that babies stop crying either because a need is met or because they despair of the need being met. That's my biggest issue with CIO as commonly practiced. I understand that the intention is to show the child that they can sleep without assistance. And I don't at all want to belittle the desperation that drives many parents who choose CIO to that choice. But that's why I'm still not sure that CIO is ever an ethical choice. But I'm definitely not sure that is it isn't. I think before I was more anti-CIO than I am now. Even though I still wouldn't do it, I have a better understanding of what it's like to deal with a difficult sleeper night after night, and I have more empathy for the intentions of parents who choose that method.
I think before I was irritated by a number of people who treat CIO as a one size fits all babies solutions to sleep problems, or even said outright that it's the only way to create good sleepers. Usually the same people insisting I jam a pacifier into Pippa's mouth every time she uttered a peep. (I'm less anti-pacifier now that I've gotten away from some of those people too.)