Being forgotten as the most important figure in a babies life. How to deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and coming from someone who does have a psychology masters, children MOST CERTAINLY do suffer from attachment issues when a nanny leaves. Why do you think day care can be so harmful? Because they bounce from room to room every six months the first two years. There have been SEVERAL academic research studies proving that the lose of a caregiver is a traumatic experience for infants and toddlers. It is ideal for a child to stay with the same caregiver from birth to age three.

Besides your passionate opinion, what do you have to offer by way of evidence?

Google is your friend. "Infant attatchment"

That's not the way it works - you made the claim, you bring the evidence.

Maybe that's how it works in your world.
Here's how it works in my world:

If you want to learn something, you will.
It's up to you.

If I wanted to learn something, it wouldn't take a stranger on the Internet to teach me. This is the way civilized arguments work: if you claim something is true, you must bring the evidence or be dismissed. It's a very particular world where you can send others to do your legwork for you.

Where did anyone asked you to do their legwork for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and coming from someone who does have a psychology masters, children MOST CERTAINLY do suffer from attachment issues when a nanny leaves. Why do you think day care can be so harmful? Because they bounce from room to room every six months the first two years. There have been SEVERAL academic research studies proving that the lose of a caregiver is a traumatic experience for infants and toddlers. It is ideal for a child to stay with the same caregiver from birth to age three.

Besides your passionate opinion, what do you have to offer by way of evidence?

Google is your friend. "Infant attatchment"

That's not the way it works - you made the claim, you bring the evidence.

Maybe that's how it works in your world.
Here's how it works in my world:

If you want to learn something, you will.
It's up to you.

If I wanted to learn something, it wouldn't take a stranger on the Internet to teach me. This is the way civilized arguments work: if you claim something is true, you must bring the evidence or be dismissed. It's a very particular world where you can send others to do your legwork for you.

Where did anyone asked you to do their legwork for them?

In a post suggesting we google these studies.

[Anonymous]

14:32,
YOU were the one asking ME a question. I told you how to find answers to your questions, thereby letting you do your own legwork. Then you accused me of asking me to do your legwork.

You are really quite hilarious. I doubt that was your motive here. But still cute, nevertheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:32,
YOU were the one asking ME a question. I told you how to find answers to your questions, thereby letting you do your own legwork. Then you accused me of asking me to do your legwork.

You are really quite hilarious. I doubt that was your motive here. But still cute, nevertheless.

Assuming you're the same person, I didn't ask you anything. Here's the claim you are making:

"Oh, and coming from someone who does have a psychology masters, children MOST CERTAINLY do suffer from attachment issues when a nanny leaves. Why do you think day care can be so harmful? Because they bounce from room to room every six months the first two years. There have been SEVERAL academic research studies proving that the lose of a caregiver is a traumatic experience for infants and toddlers. It is ideal for a child to stay with the same caregiver from birth to age three."

Apart from the fact that I expect a psychology graduate to know the difference between "the lose of a caregiver" and "the loss of a caregiver", here's you claiming academic studies exist. I ask you to cite them. Cite the studies about the loss of a caregiver. While you're at it, cite the study that it's ideal for a child to stay with the same caregiver until age three, or admit it's just your opinion, nothing else.

That's how it works. You claim that something exists, you bring the evidence. You don't tell people "go look for the evidence supporting my point of view" without losing credibility. You bring your own evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:32,
YOU were the one asking ME a question. I told you how to find answers to your questions, thereby letting you do your own legwork. Then you accused me of asking me to do your legwork.

You are really quite hilarious. I doubt that was your motive here. But still cute, nevertheless.

Assuming you're the same person, I didn't ask you anything. Here's the claim you are making:

"Oh, and coming from someone who does have a psychology masters, children MOST CERTAINLY do suffer from attachment issues when a nanny leaves. Why do you think day care can be so harmful? Because they bounce from room to room every six months the first two years. There have been SEVERAL academic research studies proving that the lose of a caregiver is a traumatic experience for infants and toddlers. It is ideal for a child to stay with the same caregiver from birth to age three."

Apart from the fact that I expect a psychology graduate to know the difference between "the lose of a caregiver" and "the loss of a caregiver", here's you claiming academic studies exist. I ask you to cite them. Cite the studies about the loss of a caregiver. While you're at it, cite the study that it's ideal for a child to stay with the same caregiver until age three, or admit it's just your opinion, nothing else.

That's how it works. You claim that something exists, you bring the evidence. You don't tell people "go look for the evidence supporting my point of view" without losing credibility. You bring your own evidence.

It's no use arguing with PP or trying to approach her insane, baseless, argument from any logical standpoint. She rants about this on every thread without providing one shred of documentation to back up her insane notions about "attachment disorders", and when verifiable original sources are presented countering her agreement, she has no response. Just ignore her.

[Anonymous]

No, you are up against several different people here. Don't know how many. Each one of us says what we want, not what you demand. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, you are up against several different people here. Don't know how many. Each one of us says what we want, not what you demand. Sorry.

If you truly don't know how many, you and your therapist should probably be trying to figure that one out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, you are up against several different people here. Don't know how many. Each one of us says what we want, not what you demand. Sorry.

If you truly don't know how many, you and your therapist should probably be trying to figure that one out.

Is that really the best you can do?
Please give it another try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, you are up against several different people here. Don't know how many. Each one of us says what we want, not what you demand. Sorry.

You are of course free to say whatever you want. But it's not weird for people to want to see proof of your claim if you want to be taken seriously. You are free not to provide proof of your claim, and others are free to discount what they see as unsubstantiated chatter.

[Anonymous]

Anyone can express whatever opinion they want. You don't need to agree at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone can express whatever opinion they want. You don't need to agree at all.

That's true, but when someone says "there are several academic research studies showing XYZ", that's not an opinion, that's a fact. So it's not uncommon to ask what these studies are, and when one says something like that, one should be prepared to show that these studies do indeed exist, and say what the poster say they say.

[Anonymous]

Don't you have anything else to do, 17:09?
It's really (really!) ok not to agree.
I promise! No one will bite you.

[Anonymous]

It's no use arguing with PP or trying to approach her insane, baseless, argument from any logical standpoint. She rants about this on every thread without providing one shred of documentation to back up her insane notions about "attachment disorders", and when verifiable original sources are presented countering her agreement, she has no response. Just ignore her.

+1.

Her next move is to ask a completely ignorant and irrelevant question to coax more responses she can sock puppet and support herself. Eventually, one of her irrelevant questions is oddball enough to kill the thread. Lather, rinse, repeat. She's crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's no use arguing with PP or trying to approach her insane, baseless, argument from any logical standpoint. She rants about this on every thread without providing one shred of documentation to back up her insane notions about "attachment disorders", and when verifiable original sources are presented countering her agreement, she has no response. Just ignore her.

+1.

Her next move is to ask a completely ignorant and irrelevant question to coax more responses she can sock puppet and support herself. Eventually, one of her irrelevant questions is oddball enough to kill the thread. Lather, rinse, repeat. She's crazy.

Ignore everyone you don't like, or you just can't resist?

[Anonymous]

Perfect.

On schedule and in character.

Thanks for making my point, 20:41.