J. D. Stembal Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 Or you could not administer vaccines to infant children via syringe and they won't be upset in the first place. 2
dsayers Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 I'm curious as to why he waited until the very end to address the fact that a crying baby might actually be communicating a problem. Up until that point, he approaches it as if it's an issue of the parents' comfort, with no consideration of the baby's experience. Even once he pointed out that the baby could be communicating a problem, he didn't qualify his technique as a way of ruling out crying for the sake of contact. I also wonder if the induced waggle was exaggerated for the sake of being overt for the video's sake. It almost seems as if that could be potentially dangerous to the spinal cord. I'm no doctor though, so perhaps I'm being overly cautious. On the other hand, is there such a thing as being overly cautious with the spinal cord of the most delicate state a human exists in?
brucethecollie Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 I had similar thoughts on this video. I remember my kids being perfectly happy with their chest against mine or my husband's or with their head on our shoulder where they could hear our soft words. But this maneuver wouldn't ever occur to me (my hands are so small I'd be likely to drop a baby this way) and certainly not before checking the diaper, clothes, hunger level of the child, etc. It would have been nice if an explanation had been offered. What is it about this that works better than a cradle hold? Would be nice to know. 2
dsayers Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 (my hands are so small I'd be likely to drop a baby this way) Oh yeah. That was the other thought I had watching it. He had comparatively enormous hands. I watched him executing the maneuver and envisioned a 5 foot woman with dainty hands fumbling the baby just trying to pull it off. Which also raises the question for me: How aware is the baby at that stage? Would such a meticulous maneuver be received as being restrained? Or am I projecting a more aware interpretation onto a mind that lacks that capability? It's hard to say because I've learned how competent the human brain is even at that stage in life. 1
Matthew Ed Moran Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Or am I projecting a more aware interpretation onto a mind that lacks that capability? It's hard to say because I've learned how competent the human brain is even at that stage in life. That's an interesting consideration. It looks like that to me. I think in general, it is careless to execute this technique if there is not an awareness of why the baby stops crying in response to it. I think any maneuver that is performed simply to make a baby silent is a bit sociopathic, since the baby is crying out of genuine empathetic need. It really annoys me that this disclaimer comes at the end of the video, and that it is presented as if it is ever ok to silence a baby simply because you do not want the baby to cry. Is that fair of me, or am I missing something? I'm sure you're familiar with Alison Gopnik and her research and arguments about how babies are actually more aware (I want to say of their needs and environment) than adult humans are, because their frontal cortex is not yet developed. This makes sense to me empirically, because it is very rare for adults to admit or acknowledge their feelings, in general. Then again, since his hands are so big, it could replicate the baby being on the chest of the mother or father, like someone said, right? 2
brucethecollie Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 In my experience and observation, newborns are much more resilient physically than we give them credit for. Particularly in the US, I think. We handle them so gingerly. Whereas they are used to (from the womb) and prefer lots of movement, in particular from the parents' point of view and in skin to skin contact, as brucethecollie mentions. Ever handle a cat? You could toss it across the room to another person with no concern of injury. I tend to believe that fragility is mostly conditioned into a person by dainty and delicate handling. If not for that, we'd all be amazing Tarzan children bounding from limb to limb. Just my theory. That's so interesting. I handled my newborns very carefully all the time and I knew it was because I didn't know how newborns needed to be handled or could be handled and so I erred on the side of caution by being extremely gentle. People used to raise children alongside each other and we probably learned more from each other that way. I was one of so many isolated paranoid new parents hiding out at home. Even now I still wouldn't know how to do different-I think I wouldn't be able to do it safely without a complete passage of wisdom regarding the details of how to and how not to handle an infant.
dsayers Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 That's an interesting consideration. It looks like that to me. I think in general, it is careless to execute this technique if there is not an awareness of why the baby stops crying in response to it. I think any maneuver that is performed simply to make a baby silent is a bit sociopathic, since the baby is crying out of genuine empathetic need. It really annoys me that this disclaimer comes at the end of the video, and that it is presented as if it is ever ok to silence a baby simply because you do not want the baby to cry. Is that fair of me, or am I missing something? I'm sure you're familiar with Alison Gopnik and her research and arguments about how babies are actually more aware (I want to say of their needs and environment) than adult humans are, because their frontal cortex is not yet developed. This makes sense to me empirically, because it is very rare for adults to admit or acknowledge their feelings, in general. Then again, since his hands are so big, it could replicate the baby being on the chest of the mother or father, like someone said, right? I'm sorry I didn't see this post sooner. Hell yeah I'm aware of Gopnik's work! I plug it every time it's relevant. There's a common misconception out there that humans are naturally aggressive and her work shows this to not be the case. Then, as you pointed out, her other big contribution is revealing the extent to which the baby hasn't developed any filters yet and is literally on sensory overload. That's actually what I was referring to when I mentioned the baby's mind potentially being more aware than we might think. I think it's totally fair for you to be apprehensive of somebody wanting to quiet the baby just for the sake of quieting the baby. I'd play devil's advocate and consider that sometimes the baby could be crying because of a desire for contact. However, this is not only not the only way to make contact, but I would think that making contact in a way that puts your face to face with them would be far more valuable to establishing a bond. If that's the case, then best case scenario, his maneuver might have clinical value, but might not be the best advice to give parents. Facial modeling is a great way to help nurture a baby's empathy and responding to it crying when it simply needs attention and contact, this will also model empathy for them at a time when they might not be aware of the specifics, but they are definitely recording whether their environment is nurturing or dangerous. 1
Troubador Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 I did something roughly similar with my little one, particularly when he had trapped wind. Only I did it sat down, one handed so the other hand was free to rub and massage his back. He always seemed to like it there. Although I'm 6ft tall with big hands so yeah not sure that would work for smaller, slighter folk. When he cried a cuddle smuggled into my neck whilst I walked around singing always chilled him out. That was my main strategy. Bear in mind babies cry for a reason, figure out the reason ameliorate the cause, be that hunger, filled nappy etc. The only real bugger is when they cry because they are tired, they can actually work themselves up into a paddy and thus be completely unable to sleep, even though this what they need. I'd also be a little skeptical of a one size fits all strategy as I've seen different things work for different infants. Mine worked with walking/singing. Others a push around in a pram in the fresh air. In short I think if you pay attention to tune into your baby it mostly sorts itself out. There are also situational caveats like if mine was congested upright in a pushchair helps keep the nasal passages clearer and better quality naps. Sometimes there is an issue presenting a barrier to good sleep, my niece had a tongue tie and then a constipation problem which meant often quite a grumpy and fractious baby. So keep in contact with medical health professionals and stay on top of things, but I think it's true babies can be massively different and some are simply easier than others. 1
Mister Mister Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 In my experience and observation, newborns are much more resilient physically than we give them credit for. Particularly in the US, I think. We handle them so gingerly. Whereas they are used to (from the womb) and prefer lots of movement, in particular from the parents' point of view and in skin to skin contact, as brucethecollie mentions. Ever handle a cat? You could toss it across the room to another person with no concern of injury. I tend to believe that fragility is mostly conditioned into a person by dainty and delicate handling. If not for that, we'd all be amazing Tarzan children bounding from limb to limb. Just my theory. As demonstrated by crazy person Gavin Mcinnes here. 1
AccuTron Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 Ever handle a cat? You could toss it across the room to another person with no concern of injury. I tend to believe that fragility is mostly conditioned into a person by dainty and delicate handling. If not for that, we'd all be amazing Tarzan children bounding from limb to limb. Just my theory. A human infant is unique in having a very large head relative to body mass. Put a St. Bernard head on that cat, and see how many neck vertebrae survive the toss. However, once into toddler size, and stronger neck muscles, I see your point.
AccuTron Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 You realize I'm not actually advocating throwing infants around, right? lol In this world, anything is possible! (I'm afraid to search "baby tossing.") I suppose I visualized an overhand baby fastball into a pile of pillows (the crowd goes wild!). You could've meant short underhand tosses into a fresh laundry tub? (I sort of like that idea.)
Mister Mister Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 You realize I'm not actually advocating throwing infants around, right? lol This is the problem with the feminization of our culture, babies just don't get tossed around enough.
A4E Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 Does it simulate being confined within a womb? I am sure babies can get scared or feel abandoned if something (warm) is not confining them. In the wild, it would be a real threat to its life. I don't think every baby will feel safe even if holding or playing with their hands or other situations where they are given freedom to move around, because from their perspective they have no clue what environment/situation they are in. ...If it could be proven that the baby did not have some other need that is.
Recommended Posts