Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm sorry, but that's a silly question.

Assume the following: 1. first child. 2. standard spread of non-child-related stressors (money, job, relationship, illness, family). 3. standard spread of impulse control across the population 4. sleep deprivation 5. social contact deprivation (very common with parents of first-children in the first few months). 6. colicy baby

It's basically a statistical certainty that there will be cases of shaken baby when these things collide. While the warm glowing fuzzy feelings of parenthood are lauded in the media, dealing with a baby who hasn't stopped screaming for hours and who _just won't tell you what's wrong_ is crazying for anyone, let alone those at the mental margins.



Why shake him if he'd for sure cry more and more and more??


Because gentle jiggling/rocking tends to calm babies. Mine, anyway. Sometimes, gentle jiggling doesn't work, so you do it a bit more. Nothing much, just kinda a joggle with the knees, but the increased frequency/amplitude works better sometimes. Add the factors explained above, and sometimes you end up shaking that kid for all he's worth.

I managed to avoid doing so, though. :)


To paraphrase your question: "why act angrily when that will unlikely soothe the child?".

The answer seems obvious: because one is angry. That's why I specified that having poor impulse control is a factor.


I kind of wonder, though—if there is an impulse built into humans to take out their anger on their children, killing the children in the process, should not we have evolved as a species to either have a stronger maternal instinct to prevent this behavior, tougher children, or children less prone to being annoying?


What is the difference in (time/velocity/etc) of the body with and without a parachute?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: