I'll tell you what I'm still curious about - we didn't let him sleep on his stomach for fear of SIDS. I think all those extra startles were bad for him in the long run. I wonder about the science and politics behind that whole 'back to sleep' movement.
I am sure DD#1s unsettled sleep as a baby had a long term impact on her too. Though she was so unsettled that there wasn't much putting down at all, front or back. DD#3 would ONLY be put down on her tummy or not at all from about 2w to 3mths, she still wouldn't go down often but she did go down, we put her on a breathing monitor and went with that, until she suddenly decided to only sleep on her back.... She is SO like #1 in so many ways, or rather she was, but the better handling of her sleep, forcing her to crawl and a few other things seem to be turning her into quite different a toddler. Maybe she was always going to be more different than she seemed as a newborn, but maybe we did manage to reduce rather than exacerbate some of their shared tendencies.
And I do also feel that parents being better teachers impact on the outcome, particularly if they are introducing and making fun subject areas that other parents don't ever touch on. I personally feel that much children are getting "smarter" each time and it could all be genetics but I can clearly see things that I have done differently that will have helped shape their learning and thinking. On the other hand they have not had the access to zoos, museums, etc that #1 had as I simply haven't had the same amount of time... swings and roundabouts.
But now back to
Colin's Mum's awesome post. I am so not a mathematician, statistician or scientist. I should have prefaced my own post with that! Your post was fascinating. I am not sure I understood it 100% to be honest but I do think I get the general idea well enough (
Lori speaking of sleep deprivation I am much more so than usual and I can feel the impact on my sluggish brain).
I get what you are saying but I am thinking (and I confess that I have not read the various studies) that the studies in question would be controlling for things like maternal IQ, family income, perhaps other social factors (and possibly lead poisoning?). But I am guessing they were not controlling for the things that the various other studies were studying.
I guess I feel that there are things you can do that impact negatively, or without which ones full genetic potential might not be reached. But I think the book sounds like snakeoil (to use somebody else's words)
