Different generation, different rules

Back in 1928, anyone could have *won* the debate over whether or not to
pick up a crying child by quoting from a just published book written by
the leading baby care expert of the day. The Chicago Ph.D. advised
against it.

Carrying a ton of emotional baggage from his childhood, the now largely
ignored authority in infants and children also saw homosexual dangers
in everything from popular youth organizations to pajama parties. The
crackerjack even saw dangerous sexuality in mother love.

By 2082, the theories and phobias now popular among the childcare
junkies will be equally as dated and out of favor as those of 77 years
ago are today. As a result, based on tomorrow's sage advice on infant
and childcare, today's *winners* will probably *lose* any debate on the
question of whether to pick up a crying infant at the end of the
century. Then, who knows; by then, the absolute lunacy may have come
full circle again!

And your solution?

0:-

Opinions wrote:
Back in 1928, anyone could have *won* the debate over whether or not to
pick up a crying child by quoting from a just published book written by
the leading baby care expert of the day. The Chicago Ph.D. advised
against it.

Back in 1928, the book you are referring to was not based on emperical
data. The scientific study of early childhood was in its infancy. The
importance of this era was the emerging understanding and committment
that early childhood was a field worthy of scientific study.

Carrying a ton of emotional baggage from his childhood, the now largely
ignored authority in infants and children also saw homosexual dangers
in everything from popular youth organizations to pajama parties. The
crackerjack even saw dangerous sexuality in mother love.

On a lighter note, it appears that in 2005, homosexual phobias are
making a comeback!

By 2082, the theories and phobias now popular among the childcare
junkies will be equally as dated and out of favor as those of 77 years
ago are today.

What you fail to recognize is the difference between "theories and
phobias" and empirical data. As I stated above, the book published in
1928 was not based on emperical data. It was a reflection of the early
stages of recognizing the field of early childhood as a field of
scientific study.

As a result, based on tomorrow's sage advice on infant
and childcare, today's *winners* will probably *lose* any debate on the
question of whether to pick up a crying infant at the end of the
century. Then, who knows; by then, the absolute lunacy may have come
full circle again!

Scientific study is an evolving process. I always tell my students that
lifelong learning is vital. Through scientific study, we continue to
learn. However, there is a huge difference between "theories and
phobias" and the results from well-designed studies with sound
scientific methodology.

Research tests theory. If research doesn't support a theory, the theory
remains unsupported. We continue to have a growing body of research
in the field of early childhood that has tested theories, supported
theories, and debunked others.

LaVonne

Where did I say that the 1928 book was based on empiricism, research,
science, etc.? The book was simply a widely-quoted authority in its
day.

Changing the year, I could have said the same thing about a certain
present-day preacher's book on the benefits of switching children and
post would have been equally true. With that substitution, you would
not have objected to the post.