Parenting Science

Based on my own recent experience: 1) no amount of books or articles will prep you for what to come 2) find a good pediatrician, listen to them 3) use your common sense, avoid comparing your baby behaviour with others As for recommendations, the one that I found useful is https://parentingscience.com/ that usually has links to studies / science papers in their articles

https://www.parentingscience.com/ "Founded by an evolutionary anthropologist, this parenting resource is for critical thinkers -- people who want to understand child development from the perspectives of psychology, anthropology, evolution, and cognitive neuroscience. I’ve got opinions. But who cares? You might be a scientist, physician, or teacher. Maybe you're an educated, skeptical layperson who loves science. Whatever the case, you don't need a sermon. You need evidence. You can draw your own conclusions. So here it is: No folk theories. No preachy advice. No authoritarian pronouncements or pseudoscientific political dogma. Instead, you’ll find my analysis of the research, fully-referenced so you know where to go if you want to dig deeper yourself."

Hi, Please ask if any part of my post is ambiguous (I'm not a native english speaker). - Not leaving the baby alone especially when she cries, is simply one of the most important things. The first year is the time of developing the confidence. I recommend this: https://www.parentingscience.com/strange-situation.html - Later, at age of 1..2 years: limits, rules will be more important. Without limits the child would not feel safe, and often tends to put control in her own hands, which is not her responsibility at that age. Also see: "fear of losing control". IMHO its especially hard if you've done right all the 1st year. :) - Playing with her is a lot more important than giving toys. - Tantrum is not a problem, even if it lasts for 30-40 minutes. It is an emotional expression, saying something like "Help, I lost the attachment to you!" A good limit for example: She must not hurt anybody, but expressing emotions is allowed. - Screen, phone, tablet, Youtube, etc. is forbidden until 5 years, later time-limited (if inevitable). I know that a lot of people are opposed. Yes, being a parent is challenging.

The most damaging, repugnant and horrific lesson that school teaches you is to accept school as essential and vital for the education of a populace. You appear to have absorbed this lesson very well. If you believe that the political biases, rote memorization, rigorous examination, strict discipline, regimentation and social control that comes with public schooling is superior to the intellectual freedom of homeschooling and alternative education, you are deluded. In fact, a structured homeschooling curriculum outweighs public schooling: http://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html People will be biased, but for open-minded families, it's an excellent bet. Then you underestimate just how apt children are at learning and absorbing information if given their own pace and room to heighten their interests. It's better to be well versed in a few fields and know minutiae about others, rather than merely know minutiae about many fields. Please read the works of John Holt, John Taylor Gatto and Ivan Illich for further information.

England has some suicide and deliberate self harm research done by "University of Oxford". (Uh, that's not "Oxford University" or any of the colleges.) You could noodle through their website? (http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/) You might remember the reports a few years ago about cortisol levels in children at nurseries, compared to children at home? People said that cortisol was a stress hormone, and thus it's bad to be in the brains of children, and thus putting children in nursery is bad because it causes cortisol to be released. But other interpretations are that children need to learn to regulate their emotions, and that lack of cortisol means over-protection and lack of a chance to learn how to regulate emotion. Sorry about the lousy links, it's the best I can do at the moment. (http://www.parentingscience.com/daycare-centers.html) (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18633-mom-and-dad-stop-stifling-…

Humans are wired to detect unfairness. I bet numerous other animals are too. https://parentingscience.com/babies-expect-fairness/

Adolescents are only "children" in the modern social sense. Young children don't have that shift, and sunlight is important for them: https://parentingscience.com/kids-need-daylight/

https://parentingscience.com/kids-need-daylight/ Especially children need significant time spent in bright daylight in order to develop normally. It's not beyond our technology, but nobody actually does it.

I think success of unschooling is highly dubious. https://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html

Here are some articles from 2009 that mention Alfie Kohn, who wrote "Punished by Rewards." https://www.leanblog.org/2009/01/leanblog-podcast-57-alfie-kohn-punish… http://www.blog.montessoriforeveryone.com/are-kids-punished-by-rewards… This article also looks like a likely candidate for the OP: https://www.parentingscience.com/praise-and-intelligence.html

Lots of problems with that infographic. Four sources listed, two of which are homeschooling-advocacy organizations, with no indication which numbers are drawn from which source. How were the samples selected? Are they apples to apples, or mandatory all-inclusive numbers for the public schools vs. voluntary respondents to a survey for home school? [1] is a better source for demographic information, painting a quite different picture, while [2] highlights some of the ways that advocacy groups have been caught distorting the achievement numbers in their favor. [1] https://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/homeschooling-101/homeschool-… [2] https://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html

https://www.parentingscience.com/potty-training-age.html >Infant potty training: 0-12 months >It sounds bizarre to many Westerners. But for parents in places like India, China, and East Africa (deVries and deVries 1977; Boucke 2002), the traditional potty training age is early infancy. In these societies, parents learn to recognize their babies’ body signals and to use these signals to anticipate when their babies eliminate. >When the infant is ready to go, the parent holds him over a sink, bowl, toilet, or the open ground. As the infant voids, the parent makes a characteristic sound or gesture. The baby learns to associate this parental sign with voiding, and, eventually, the parental sign becomes an invitation to void. When the baby feels the urge to go, he learns to hold back for a brief time until his parent gives him the “all clear."

> There does need to be a balance btwn hypercompetiton, and "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. Yes. Praise can be more damaging than criticism in many cases.[1][2] Certain types of praise in the form of encouragement can be very good things. Certain types of constructive criticism can be empowering. > a little pain and suffering makes you stronger What is "stronger"? More emotionally resilient? In my opinion, suffering just results in risk aversion. There is not a lot of positive that emerges from it. Note that I'm not referring to establishing boundaries, which may be what you're referring to with your daughter. [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smart-moves/201411/the-problem-pr… [2] http://www.parentingscience.com/effects-of-praise.html

The short answer is "Research shows that yes, it probably helps". It gets the child's attention better being a part of it. :P [0] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15327078in0701_5/abstract [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016363839280003D You can find more citations at the bottom of this page: http://www.parentingscience.com/baby-talk.html

Relatedly, praise hard work, not intelligence. http://www.parentingscience.com/praise-and-intelligence.html https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/…

Average IQ is [1]98 and decreasing. Don't think it would be statistically possible for everyone to have 110 as IQ in workplaces. [2] For your other claims about low IQ. It is "correlated" with lower lifespan (bit different than what you claimed but causes are similar) since you didn't cite. You can find studies explaining high IQ with differences in environment or income and others point to genes. Some studies claim the choice of [3]toys your kids play with correlates to their IQ and success in life while others ask you to find a good genetic match. Depending on which camps you are in, IQ could be highly related to the poor condition of the society. * -15 points for not getting a healthy diet and regular health check ups in your childhood. * -15 points for lack of proper education, social and family structure in your childhood. * -17 points for mental health problems, unemployment, poverty and limited freedom after you become an adult. Those issues overlap with each other regardless of IQ. Although, you can argue Intelligent parents can change these outcomes and if you believe IQ is heritable, then it makes perfect sense. You can use that to explain your bias. Historically, evidence has been carefully crafted to promote products, services, aristocracy and many other things. I believe a lot happens now too with a different vector (China manipulating their averages) so I think IQ is not a good metric for looking down on people and explaining other circumstantial…