I haven't read about this specific concept before, but this looks like a rather classic reactionary argument which calls for a return to some idealized "natural state" that never existed in the first place. If anything, for the most time in human history, adversity for children was much more severe than nowadays, so babies should be evolutionarily adapted to handle it and still manage to develop more or less normally. I admit there are more nuances to this topic, but this would be my basic argument against it.
The most plausible model IMO is that some stress (e.g short separations) in some periods is actually more adaptive than no stress at all or too much stress. But this all depends on lots of factors, see pic related for a psychology classic - the nifty "boxes-and-arrows" model. The paper it's from - https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.09.003
- is actually good, but I cringe every time I see these because they so neatly hide the complete and utter mess that's hiding behind e.g. the "Neurobiological Programming" box>>12231
Thanks for the encouragement, I'll be make sure to be but a mere servant to my academic overlords, but every now and then I do feel tempted to write why it is all bullshit. In any case after doing this thesis I don't even feel like doing a Master's degree anymore, at least not in psychology for sure>>12233
Thanks, I'll keep this in mind for when I do something with a bit more maths, I realized that I don't really need LaTeX for this thesis since it's mostly text and a few tables (which were also a huge pain in the ass in LaTeX despite using http://www.tablesgenerator.com