Did r/ScienceBasedParenting just shut down?

[jl090812]

@christfollower1993 There’s an offshoot group that allows co-sleeping discussion, but it has minimal activity.

https://www.reddit.com/r/sciencebasedparentALL/s/KCQl5Ox2bU

 

[emyd]

@christfollower1993 I can’t see it either that makes me so sad

 

[jamech]

@christfollower1993 I was just going to ask a question there! Ugg

 

[kristajunee]

@christfollower1993 I’m glad to know lots of other mod granolas are also into science based. I hope a new sub gets started and it’s shared. Sad all the info from other is lost.

 

[larry9madison]

@christfollower1993 I left after seeing how people picked and chose when to be "science based". Even made a couple posts and got the same kind of answers I would get from beyondthebump like no ..I am here for the science

 

[zastari]

@christfollower1993 If it is I’m guessing it has something to do with the moderator who went scorched earth on every single person who mentioned cosleeping. She banned and continues to ban a lot of engaging and active members and it kinda killed the enjoyment I had. I don’t know for certain though, I really hope it can have a good comeback. I haven’t really felt comfortable suggesting anyone from here go there because of how that mod has been treating people.

 

[strange1]

@zastari She banned me for a similar issue last year - she banned anyone who disagreed with the claim that 100% of kids under 3 were worse off due to daycare. There was one study that suggested that, but that's not how science works.

 

[yazzy]

@strange1 Thats what turned my off from the sub. It was supposed be science based, but then on the daycare topic the same Medium article kept getting copy-pasted like it was gold.

 

[runaway887]

@yazzy That Medium article seems to be deleted as well?

 

[kevineto123]

@runaway887 I have the link if you're interested?

 

[runaway887]

@kevineto123 I’m not but thanks! I’m in science myself, I’m comfortable reading primary literature, and based upon that I’m completely confident in my choice for my kids to go to daycare. If we are talking about the same article (about daycare and immune systems) the fact that the link was broken today made me idly wonder if the mod wrote it, although that seems like a remote possibility.

 

[kevineto123]

@runaway887 I am a researcher so I totally get it. It was an interesting read-they all are imo. I still don’t know how any of it really tells the story because one cannot make a valid comparison - it would involve the child in question going through 3 years of life in daycare, then going back to being an infant and experiencing those same exact years in home care.
At least that’s my take.

My philosophy about childrearing is this: Read everything you can get your hands on. Decide if the information is valid, mull it over, and then do what works for your family.

 

[runaway887]

@kevineto123 Yeah, I think what many people struggle to appreciate is that while population-level human research is well worth doing, any single study has to be taken as one gleam of light, not the whole picture. Especially in a field that has so many confounding factors and so much individual variation to encompass. Even if you could do that ideal study with one baby living two lives, for most of this stuff what you'd likely find is that all else being equally, the kiddo ends up being just fine regardless, with different pros and cons to each approach. There's obviously some stuff that isn't like that (vaccinating or not, lead exposure, etc.) and those tend to be the things, most of the time, that we do have the strongest and most universal recommendations for.

So what bothered me is that the supposed science-based subreddit had become the opposite of this--cherry-picking studies and using them to reinforce a particular view, and trying to take away choice in situations where having choice is actually reasonable.

 

[kevineto123]

@runaway887 That is unfortunate. It would seem that putting some rigor into these decisions might be helpful, but I'm not sure if it is? My background is human growth and development and I'm a licensed educator. What I learned teaching hundreds of children is that no two of them are alike and that trying to box any one of them into a 'norm' was a bit silly. What would be perceived as a less-than stellar intellect was weighted so much more heavily than, say, someone with outstanding innate communication skills. Which one of those traits would make for a better life? Hard to define.
We can say without question that humans need interaction. Romania is ground zero for those studies. Beyond that--it would seem that, within reason, whatever suits the family situation is what should happen.
People need to stop being so judgy all across the board. That's that.

 

[dboruff11]

@runaway887 The specific article was more about impacts on behavior and long-term well being rather than immune systems. Regardless, it wasn't primary literature and I really disliked how it was shared as gospel in that sub

 

[strange1]

@runaway887 Different article for sure. The author participated on reddit and I'm fairly sure it wasn't the mod on a different account. I think her username was sciencecritical

 

[buchalady]

@runaway887 Please tell me I don't ever have to see it shared again That article legit gave me anxiety attacks during my postpartum period.

 

[dboruff11]

@buchalady SAAAAAME. Man I hate that article.

 

[kevineto123]

@strange1 Wow. And here I thought it was such a great sub. I was unaware of all of this and now I'm very sad. It seemed like everyone was respectful of opinions on the threads I was reading. I even made a copy of one of them to send to my daughter! What was the mod's name?

 

[strange1]

@kevineto123 Yeah it was really a surprise to me too as there are so many good threads there. Cealdi.