I don't understand what you are asking. "What am I going to do?" Like I said, I'm not particularly concerned for my son, and won't do much of anything. He is significantly advanced academically, and has tons of supports written into his IEP to help with emotional, behavioral and executive function weaknesses.

I always start by having my kid articulate and actually write down what their goals are in the situation. (At this stage they sometimes need help realizing how important a certain goal might be that isn't even on their radar.) Then I ask them to write down a bullet list of red flags that they feel with be early indicators that they are not headed toward their goals. (Again, I gently guide as much as they will let me, using phrases like, "Once X happened to me, so now I know to watch out for Y.") Lastly, I strongly encourage them to brain storm possible responses if the red flags do occur. I point out that when things are going off the rail, they will want to act quickly, so it will be helpful if they already have planned at least one step to take. Then I sit back (on pins and needles) and watchfully wait (impatiently) , ready to jump in and help problem solve (if they let me) if those red flags crop up.

My kids always call me Mom...except when the youngest three want something, then they will sometimes pull out a Mommy. It feels weird because they never really went through a stage of naturally calling me Mommy. They went straight from Mama to Mom. But they must think that Mommy is best for sucking up. Whenever my kids are around, I refer to my parents as Nana and Papa, my kids' names for them. Both as a form of address: "Nana, would you like to come with us to the park?" and as a reference: "I don't think Papa has ever been to Mexico." But if my kids aren't around, then I revert back to Mom and Dad.

And I would even say my view goes a bit beyond 2) to the idea that perhaps it can even be beneficial to the child. As soon as my kids were sitting confidently I started teaching them "Hand right here" especially when I was opening the oven. I would sit them next to a wall/cabinet/fridge, put one of their hands flat on the front of the surface, gently push on it like I was gluing it to the wall, and say, "Hand right here. Now wait." Then I would make a game of it while I did my quick task in the oven: "Waaaait. Waaaait. Good job keeping your hand right there...keep waiting!!" And then when I closed the oven we would applaud their feat of self-regulation. We know waiting is hard...and my babies could have pulled their hand off the wall at any moment, but once they learned the expectation, they often kept their hand there through an act of perseverance. Did they persevere because they wanted to please me? Probably to some extent; humans are social creatures, and cooperating within our tribe is evolutionarily advantageous. Or maybe they enjoyed playing the game with me, or they were looking for mental stimulation, or they felt pride in "helping". In any case, I think giving a ~6 month old the opportunity to master that skill is no less healthy than letting them master self feeding or pulling off their socks.

Wait, what?? You specifically said that deliberately or repeatedly trying to change a baby's behavior was training. What I described was deliberately and repeatedly preventing my baby from grabbing my glasses in an effort to teach/train him/her not to touch them. I would argue that is the definition of training. I never even tell baby why glasses are off limits (how could a 2 month old understand broken lenses or eye insurance costs), I just steadfastly enforce the limit until they change their behavior.

I had done a TON of reading before having kids and when they were young. The Baby Whisperer - eat, wake, sleep cycle. Charlotte Mason - habit training. TWTM - establishing rest time. I had taken many early childhood education classes - helping baby get on a fairly consistent routine, using cues to let them know what was happening next. By 9 months my oldest was receiving speech therapy from our state's early intervention, so I saw those workers interacting with him weekly - calm, but firm redirection, withholding reinforcers until he attempted a skill - and who encouraged teaching independent play time every day. I got direction from our pediatrician who noted suspicions of autism in DS's chart at his 6 month appointment - it is okay to gently enforce boundaries, and the clearer, more concrete, and more consistent the better. I have always given my parenting a tremendous amount of thought. I view it as my most important job, and try very hard to speak and act intentionally, never sending mixed messages or carelessly working against my parenting goals. I'm an engineer who likes to find solutions, parenting four very special needs kids who from day 1 had far more struggles than NT kids.

I can’t buy into a view of human development that makes babies out as so emotionally fragile that they can’t handle their mother, who is lovingly nourishing them from her breast, enforcing a no biting or I’m going to unlatch you for a few minutes rule. I do not see babies as perfect heavenly creatures who always know what is best (for everyone) and therefore should never be influenced in any way. Right from day one, if baby had nursed for a couple hours, I was perfectly comfortable handing him off to DH while I took 20 minutes for myself, even if baby strongly opposed the plan. Welcome to the world kiddo where you are really special and important and loved, but where even you have to live within boundaries.

You said: "The or-else is the communication of parental disapproval via the mechanism of 'no more song'. I mean, that's the whole point of doing it, right? I can totally see that some people feel the or-else is worth it. My personal feeling is that it was never worth it with an infant." and: "I do think we can accidentally, and with the best of intentions, be coercive with regard to our infant's emotional life." Those two statement together certainly seem to add up to any parental disapproval, even turning your attention away from the baby for a moment, even disapproving unintentionally, are coercive and emotionally damaging to a baby.

I never said I made a big deal out of it, but I also did not pretend that I loved that choice. I was responding to the idea that it was not emotionally healthy to ever show a baby even slight parental disapproval. That seems ridiculous to me.

So, is it your opinion that if a three month old grabs an adult's glasses, and the adult reacts: "Ooop. Glasses aren't for touching." and hands him another toy. Repeated calmly and lovingly as often as required. That that is developmentally inappropriate and manipulating the baby maliciously? Because, if so, we will never see eye to eye on that. Realistically, my very young babies learned that "rule" very quickly. They were not psychologically harmed because while I was home all day bonding with them, I did redirected them from my glasses instead of walking around blindly and now they will forever experience that as a scar on their souls knowing that their mother doesn't love them as much as her ability to see. My babies quickly adopted small behavior changes like that as just how things are done in our family. Babies through the ages have adapted to being strapped into cradle boards tied onto horses, left with grandparents while parents worked in the fields, left alone all day tethered like in the movie Babies, learning infant potty training in cultures without diapers, and the list goes on and on. In our culture, babies have to ride in car seats. And in my family culture, babies are taught not to touch glasses.

So when they throw that food on the floor when they know they "shouldn't", do you give it right back to them so they can do it again? I think it is disingenuous (and counter productive) if I pretend that I am perfectly happy with them throwing their food. Yes, it is age-appropriate, but that doesn't mean I have to play the pick it up so they can throw it again game...we can play that game with a ball or beanbag or something else that isn't wasteful and messy. I use the word rebellious to mean doing something they know we would prefer they not. And while I am never going to hit a baby, I am also not going to be equally encouraging when they throw their lunch as when they throw a ball. I see no reason to mislead babies - they want to figure out what makes the people in their family tick, and I see no reason to shield them from the fact that people like some things more than others.

But is it punishment? "Ooop. Glasses aren't for touching." and hand him another toy. Repeated calmly and lovingly as often as required. Let's remember that my kiddo #2 was/is so violent and destructive that we had psychiatrist "prescribed" safety plans in place from the time he was 4. Not exactly the kind of kid I could safely take my eyes off of for even one instant.

Yes, I am seeing it is much bigger, and that there are people who think it is actually impossible to teach a baby anything without damaging them through abuse and coercion...even if all you are using is gentle informative statements and momentary reduced enthusiasm. I proudly teach my babies things. I teach them how to open their mouth big to latch properly...partly for their benefit, but largely for my comfort. I teach them to push their arms and legs through their sleeves and pant legs...mostly to make my job dressing them easier. I teach them not to grab glasses or hair. I teach them to stay on their backs and play with toys during diaper changes. I teach them not to dump food or water cups off their highchair trays...and then I teach them to wipe their highchair tray with a wet rag. I teach them not to stand in the bathtub. I teach them not to touch the garbage can. And I teach them to play on a blanket next to me without my undivided attention when they need to be safely in one place while I attend to something other than them in this wide, wide world.

I can't see without my glasses. I've worn them since I was 5 years old, and I can't safely parent a baby without my glasses on. So, yes, I could stand in one spot holding the baby without my glasses so that they can't touch them. I couldn't safely move, or see the toddler across the room, or pick up my water cup...but, yeah, my baby wouldn't have to learn a limit, so there is that. 🤔

But why do babies need to pull hair? If as soon as baby tries to grab your hair, you gently move their hand and say, "No thank you, that hurts." and then give them something else to play with, then they can just learn to not pull hair. And then every person in their life doesn't have to keep their hair up because baby just knows not to pull hair. I wear glasses. I could not afford to have my babies yanking my glasses off my face constantly and dropping them. It really was not that hard or coercive to teach them that glasses are not for touching. According to your model, it would have been better parenting to switch to contacts so that the environment didn't offer that temptation...and I honestly don't know if it would have mattered that contacts make my eyes red and infected. It seems your world view doesn't give a shit about my eye health if it can safe my baby from the slightest boundary or disapproval.

So does that mean you would not deliberately try to get a baby to stop pulling your hair? You would rather allow them to continue unknowingly hurting you rather than risking scarring them by letting them know their action was causing you pain?

So you have never experienced a 6-9 month old baby look right at you, get a gleam in their eye, and dump their plate off their high chair tray just to see how much it riles you? You have never had a baby specifically look to see if you are watching before they make a grab for the remote control? Of course babies can manipulate. Learning how the world works, how people react, and how to make things happen is their primary survival goal the first year.

You didn't answer my question. Is it "conditioning" a baby to show them that it hurts when they pull your hair or bite when nursing? I would say yes, that any disapproval of their action is conditioning. But I also don't see how it could be emotionally healthy for either mom or baby to let them pull and bite and hurt you without letting them know.

Of course it is okay if they dislike it. But can't it be okay for them not to dislike it? One of my young toddlers didn't like pulling shirts over his head, so I suggested trying button shirts and he liked those a lot more. But it almost sounds like you are saying I selfishly "trained" him to wear button shirts because I didn't want to deal with his authentic, age-appropriate dislike of pull on shirts. No, I just showed him another way of getting the necessary job done and let him choose. I show my babies a faster way of getting their diaper changed. But I never take away their choice to do it the slow, rebellious way. Yes, I'm sure they know which way I prefer...but I maintain that even moms are allowed preferences.

See, I think it was far less stress for the baby. A baby who willing lays still for a diaper change because they understand the consistent routine, can play with toys, listen to music, interact with mom. And it is over quickly. A baby who spends the whole diaper change trying to roll away, will just be frustrated and upset every single time that they can't have their way. Because even if they are safely being changed on the floor, at some point you have to keep them there long enough to change the diaper.

What is the magic age? Are we allowed to let our 6 month old know that pulling our hair hurts? Or is that "parental disapproval" of the behavior so we should suck it up and love every single thing they do no matter what? Or what about when they bite when nursing? Conventional wisdom is to unlatch them for a few minutes. But that could seem like rejection...so would you advocate letting them bite so they don't think we disapprove? Strap them in the car seat to take the 3 year old to school? Some babies might experience that as rejection. Put them down so you can make yourself a quick lunch? Never worth the possibility they might think you are disciplining them. Where does it end? And when do anyone else's wants/needs/feelings enter into the picture even a little bit?

Obey or else...I will stop singing for a moment and we won't be done with the diaper change as quickly. Except, how long the diaper change takes is largely up to them, not me. So it taking longer isn't even under my control. And my singing is just meant to allow them to perceive whether their behavior is delaying the process of not. If I had had a baby who continued to roll away for the entire time they were in diapers, then I would have continued to patiently wait each time until they settled down and I could finish the job. It would have been far less pleasant for both of us, but its not like I would have started spanking or duct taping them down to force my will on them. I was offering them knowledge and agency. Here is how long this annoying task will take. Here are some behaviors that will make it faster if you so choose.

Our psychiatrists also felt it was mostly useless. We did do the testing on Elliot as a very last resort, but what the testing shows has had no logical relationship to the actual efficacy that we have seen with various meds.

I don't understand. Are you saying that using special ed techniques on a ND 12 week old would be okay in your mind, but using them on a NT 12 week old would not? I honestly don't follow what your NT/ND argument is about. I obviously did not know for sure that my 12 week olds were ND...though there were some very strong clues. But I would have taught them behaviors to make our day to day functioning run more smoothly whether they were NT or ND. I don't understand any possible downside to teaching babies how to anticipate frequent events. We had bedtime routines, nursing routines, diaper changing routines and going in the car routines. None of those were to prepare me for the event - I knew what was happening next - it was all to help them learn what time it was, what needed to happen, and how long it would last.

NT as in neurotypical? None of my kids are neurotypical, not even close.