To the Editor:
Re “Baby’s First Data,” by Emily Oster (Sunday Review, April 21):
Kudos to Dr. Oster for concluding that parenting is not a science! Indeed, it is more akin to an art, requiring time, effort and creativity rather than “a diligent work ethic.” And as is true of being an artist, there is no 100 percent right way to be a parent. Just witness the plethora of how-to books and their variety of suggestions!
No two families are the same, and children have different personalities and needs even within the same household, so one parenting method or approach cannot fit them all.
There is no question but that parenting is a most difficult long-term occupation. While all parents make their share of “mistakes,” if they love their children and keep lines of communication open through thick and thin, the result will usually be well-adjusted children and positive parent-child relationships for years to come.
It is my belief that children often have more of an impact on changing their parents than parents may have on molding their children.
Toni H. LiebmanNew YorkThe writer is an early childhood consultant.
To the Editor:
In spite of Emily Oster’s argument, the scientific data has definitively established breast-feeding as the optimal choice for infant feeding. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization recommend exclusive breast-feeding for the first six months of life.
More disturbing is not her question about the health benefits, but rather her memory of trying to nurse her screaming daughter in a 100-degree closet at her brother’s wedding rather than feeding her among the guests. This image speaks to a broader problem of breast-feeding in our society — that breast-feeding women often don’t feel supported or don’t feel that nursing in public is acceptable.
The United States does not provide mandatory paid maternity leave, as other countries do, and states have actually needed to pass laws in order to protect a woman’s right to breast-feed in public and at work. Breast-feeding needs to be supported, accepted and promoted as the normal way to feed a baby.
Nancy TroutHartfordThe writer is a pediatrician at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center.
To the Editor:
The most astonishing — and, 50 years into modern feminism, depressing — aspect of this article is that fathers are absent from the discussion, save for one short sentence.
So maybe breast-feeding is good for baby, maybe good for mother. But bottle feeding allows a father — or grandparent, friend, day care provider, housemate or any of the others who can care for infants — to share the intimacy and labor, while affording Mom a full night’s rest and more flexibility to work. Isn’t Dad a “data point” to consider in making parenting decisions?
To the Editor:
As a pediatrician offering advice to families for 36 years, I read “Baby’s First Data” with an intrigued professional eye. Of course some of what I do is steeped in science, e.g., urging families to immunize or treating a strep throat with an antibiotic. But so much of my advice for new parents must rely more on common sense and philosophy, rather than hard data.
Although I do believe that nursing is best (for cost, abundance, convenience, bonding and immunity), the most essential component is a happy mom who is comfortable and confident with the feeding process. In my experience, if I can help a mom become more relaxed, less guilty and more willing to let the small stuff roll off her back, she will be much less likely to have one of those colicky babies described in the article.
I am also a huge proponent of sleep training. It broadly falls into the realm of rearing issues in which parents must take charge, drawing a line in the sand and establishing rules in the home, rather than allowing the infant or toddler to do so.
In a world today where new parents are overloaded with “data” from websites, social media platforms, news outlets, and of course friends and family, sometimes the best parenting measures are the ones that just seem to feel right, and are much more likely than not to lead to the best developmental and emotional outcomes for everyone.
David PollackSwarthmore, Pa.
To the Editor:
How refreshing to read Emily Oster’s piece encouraging parents to make child-rearing decisions based on solid information in the context of their own personal circumstances. It can be difficult to weed out actual facts among dubious conclusions extrapolated from questionable studies (“Helicopter parenting works!” Actually, it doesn’t), or the latest parenting trend (free-range parenting! snowplow parenting!), and even cynical naysayers who propose that how we parent doesn’t matter (it does matter).
Likewise, it is challenging to feel confident in the face of so much conflicting advice. What parents can use more of, as the writer points out, is evidence-informed parenting education, which, rather than telling parents how to parent or giving parents “advice” that may work for one child but not for another, supports and empowers parents to make fine choices for their own family — in a sense, to be the experts about their own children — by providing accurate information.
There are many good ways to parent; we just need to give parents the tools to decide what is best for themselves.
Meg AkabasNew YorkThe writer, a certified parenting educator, is chairwoman of the National Parenting Education Network Council.
To the Editor:
In Emily Oster’s argument that parents should rely on data, she focuses on outcomes like I.Q. and health for mother and child. Our contemporary parenting culture is too skewed toward outcomes. Yes, there are big decisions that may have significant implications, but the essence of parenthood is your responsibility for all sorts of decisions, not only big ones like breast-feeding or schools, but also random daily moments on the fly for which you cannot Google a response or check the index of a parenting book. These everyday interactions can be stressful, too, if the parents I see in my office are any indication.
Dr. Oster’s wisest sentence was this: “That lady on the internet comment board wants to tell you what to do, but she doesn’t live in your house, and she cannot know what is right for your family.” More important than any one decision is the fact that every interaction is part of an ongoing relationship with another human being. Dr. Oster’s data may not help you, but your experience with your own child will.
Adelia MooreNew YorkThe writer is a psychologist and author of the forthcoming “Being the Grownup: Love, Limits, and the Natural Authority of Parenthood.”
To the Editor:
Emily Oster argues for data-driven decision making about breast-feeding, sleep training and working moms. She concedes that these subjects are rarely amenable to randomized trials, but nevertheless casts doubt on much of what pediatricians recommend.
Perhaps a sensible course is to do what seems reasonable since lack of evidence doesn’t disprove probable causality. Saying “a lot of claimed benefits of breast-feeding are about mothers, and many are bogus,” for example, overlooks the fact that most studies don’t differentiate between any and exclusive breast-feeding, thus greatly diluting the associated beneficial results.
Furthermore, any discussion of early childhood nurturance should address secure attachment, since that is a major beneficial outcome. Exclusive breast-feeding, co-sleeping and being at home during those first months all promote attachment. Most parents, pediatricians, psychologists and psychiatrists understand this.
Ignoring this good sense until or unless well-designed studies prove to the contrary is a disservice to our children’s and our own futures.
Nicholas CunninghamSpringfield Center, N.Y.The writer is emeritus professor of clinical pediatrics and public health at Columbia University.B:
快3开奖结果查询江苏奖结果查询【胡】【安】【马】【塔】【在】【发】【角】【球】【前】，【朝】【着】【莫】【德】【里】【奇】【做】【了】【个】【奇】【怪】【的】【手】【势】。 【莫】【德】【里】【奇】【看】【到】【以】【后】，【默】【默】【点】【了】【点】【头】。 【胡】【安】【马】【塔】【迈】【着】【小】【碎】【步】，【开】【始】【助】【跑】。 “【嘭】！” 【胡】【安】【马】【塔】【一】【个】【大】【脚】，【足】【球】【在】【空】【中】【划】【过】【一】【道】【诡】【异】【的】【抛】【物】【线】，【直】【落】【一】【个】【无】【人】【的】【角】【落】。 【看】【到】【足】【球】【落】【了】【下】【来】，【巴】【黎】FC***【的】【球】【员】【们】，【如】【潮】【水】【一】【般】【纷】【纷】【涌】【向】【了】【足】
【四】【人】【再】【次】【向】【着】【断】【魂】【林】【出】【发】，【期】【间】【柜】【台】【小】【哥】【跟】【他】【们】【说】【了】【一】【番】【刚】【刚】【遇】【到】【的】【那】【家】【是】【什】【么】【情】【况】。 【原】【本】【那】【个】【女】【孩】【也】【不】【傻】，【今】【年】【刚】【刚】【高】【考】【完】，【还】【考】【到】【了】【重】【点】【大】【学】。【可】【惜】【暑】【假】【回】【来】【的】【时】【候】，【在】【山】【里】【遇】【到】【了】【山】【鬼】，【惊】【吓】【过】【度】【成】【了】【傻】【子】。【她】【父】【母】【都】【在】【外】【面】【打】【工】，【就】【只】【有】【一】【个】【老】【人】【在】【家】【里】【照】【顾】。 “【你】【们】【这】【真】【的】【有】【山】【鬼】？”【姜】【无】【为】【皱】【紧】【眉】
“【你】【师】【侄】？”【孙】【伏】【伽】【望】【着】【李】【宽】，【笑】【道】：“【殿】【下】【莫】【开】【老】【臣】【玩】【笑】，【你】【何】【时】【有】【这】【个】【一】【个】【师】【侄】【了】，【而】【且】【还】【是】【在】【角】【落】。” 【身】【为】【李】【宽】【的】【老】【朋】【友】，【孙】【伏】【伽】【不】【敢】【说】【自】【己】【认】【识】【李】【宽】【身】【边】【的】【所】【有】【人】，【但】【很】【多】【亲】【近】【的】【人】【还】【是】【认】【识】【的】，【更】【别】【说】【是】【李】【宽】【的】【师】【侄】【了】。 【尽】【管】【过】【去】【了】【好】【些】【年】，【总】【归】【有】【一】【点】【当】【年】【的】【影】【子】，【而】【角】【落】【那】【人】，【孙】【伏】【伽】【丝】【毫】【看】【不】
【这】【次】【会】【议】【刘】【慧】【仍】【旧】【只】【带】【了】【一】【个】【人】【来】，【繁】·【简】【这】【边】【是】【陈】【简】【之】【和】【叶】【朝】【繁】【还】【有】【宋】【祁】【出】【席】，【而】TJ【是】【段】【世】【和】【与】【安】【娜】。 【安】【娜】【是】【个】【彻】【头】【彻】【尾】【的】【英】【国】【人】，【不】【仅】【人】【美】【中】【文】【还】【说】【得】【很】【好】，【另】【性】【格】【热】【情】【开】【朗】。 【叶】【朝】【繁】【在】TJ【时】【见】【过】【她】，【聊】【得】【比】【较】【投】【缘】。 “【繁】，【我】【听】【说】【你】【去】【考】【试】【了】？”【安】【娜】【看】【到】【叶】【朝】【繁】【就】【热】【情】【的】【拉】【住】【她】，【惊】【奇】【讲】：“
“【明】【国】【摄】【政】【王】？” 【幕】【府】【第】【三】【代】【将】【军】【德】【川】【家】【光】【完】【全】【懵】【了】，【要】【知】【道】，【李】【信】【是】【摄】【政】【王】，【在】【他】【的】【理】【解】【中】，【地】【位】【同】【等】【于】【他】【这】【个】【征】【夷】【大】【将】【军】，【掌】【握】【国】【之】【重】【器】，【哪】【能】【轻】【易】【乱】【跑】？ 【但】【更】【令】【他】【担】【心】【的】【是】，【李】【信】【是】【什】【么】【人】？ 【德】【川】【家】【光】【虽】【然】【搞】【闭】【关】【锁】【国】，【却】【不】【代】【表】【对】【身】【边】【的】【庞】【大】【邻】【居】【不】【关】【心】，【李】【信】【平】【灭】【国】【内】**，【监】【禁】【崇】【祯】，【大】【败】【西】快3开奖结果查询江苏奖结果查询【时】【光】【流】【逝】【飞】【快】，【很】【多】【东】【西】【我】【们】【都】【渐】【渐】【的】【记】【不】【住】，【但】【总】【有】【些】【只】【属】【于】【自】【己】【的】【专】【属】【记】【忆】【是】【无】【法】【忘】【却】【的】，【例】【如】【那】【时】【候】【天】【天】【肝】，【组】【队】【结】【伴】【也】【要】【刷】【下】【的】【游】【戏】【里】【的】【大】BOSS，【他】【们】【有】【的】【占】【据】【这】【整】【个】【屏】【幕】【的】【一】【半】，【有】【的】【要】【打】【上】【一】【整】【晚】，【但】【因】【为】【他】【们】【是】【一】【种】【信】【仰】，【我】【们】【只】【想】【征】【服】【它】。【今】【天】【就】【来】【盘】【点】【一】【些】【那】【些】【值】【得】【被】【记】【住】【的】BOSS【们】。
【余】【吉】【青】：“……” 【这】【位】【是】【个】【小】【祖】【宗】，【他】【惹】【不】【起】，【溜】【了】【溜】【了】。 【没】【了】【经】【纪】【人】【的】【督】【促】，【乔】【舒】【蔓】【的】【小】【日】【子】【过】【得】【十】【分】【的】【舒】【畅】，【就】【连】【体】【重】【都】【上】【浮】【了】【两】【三】【公】【斤】，【看】【着】【自】【家】【艺】【人】【的】【堕】【落】，【余】【吉】【青】【看】【在】【眼】【里】，【急】【在】【心】【头】。 【再】【次】【逮】【住】【乔】【舒】【蔓】【吃】【薯】【片】，【喝】【可】【乐】【的】【时】【候】，【余】【吉】【青】【觉】【得】【不】【能】【不】【说】【了】，【在】【乔】【舒】【蔓】【身】【边】【晃】【悠】【了】【一】【圈】，【发】【现】【她】【直】
【不】【知】【怎】【的】，【帝】【居】【闪】【过】【一】【帧】【类】【似】【的】【影】【像】，【速】【度】【之】【快】，【来】【不】【及】【抓】【住】【它】【的】【尾】【巴】【便】【让】【它】【一】【闪】【即】【逝】。 “【帝】【氏】【的】【鸿】【图】【霸】【业】【已】【有】【百】【余】【多】【年】，【每】【一】【任】【帝】【家】【人】，【一】【向】【任】【人】【唯】【贤】，【痛】【恶】【结】【党】【营】【私】【你】【们】【真】【以】【为】【我】【不】【知】【道】【你】【们】【在】【背】【后】【搞】【的】【小】【动】【作】【吗】？” 【霸】【气】【侧】【漏】【的】【一】【番】【话】，【从】【一】【个】【面】【无】【表】【情】【的】【晚】【辈】【口】【中】【说】【出】【来】，【髣】【髴】【被】【针】【刺】【中】
【俗】【话】【说】【得】【好】：【人】【比】【人】【得】【死】，【货】【比】【货】【可】【扔】。 【贵】【宾】【室】【的】【高】【端】【赌】【局】【也】【和】【普】【通】【赌】【局】【不】【一】【样】，【这】【里】【不】【赌】【骰】【子】，【不】【赌】【大】【小】，【也】【不】【赌】【牌】。 【但】【这】【里】【赌】【一】【切】【可】【以】【赌】【的】！ 【就】【比】【如】…… “【先】【开】【局】【开】【胃】【菜】【吧】，【我】【们】【赌】【下】【一】【个】【来】【兑】【换】【筹】【码】【的】【人】【兑】【换】【多】【少】【筹】【码】，【我】【们】【每】【人】【说】【一】【个】【数】，【最】【接】【近】【的】【人】【获】【胜】。”【纲】【手】【提】【议】【道】。 【与】【此】【同】【时】，