One of the most amazing things about kids are that they are state machines, unfortunately you don't get to see all the states :-).
It amused me (I know, easily amused) that for a while I could end a pointless argument with my daughter by using a non sequitor. You know "But why can't I play for another 15 minutes!?", "There are zeppelins in the sky." "... huh? really? Where?"
Then it amused my wife, after my daughter had identified this edge in her particular state machine, when we had battling non sequitor arguments, "Oh yeah? Zebras are monochromatic!" "So? Water ice subliminates below 5% relative humidity!"
At 19 months (the original article stated this as an age) the evolution of how kids interact and choose to interact changes almost daily. With my kids there was a peak around 3 years of age before things normalized out. Always interesting raising kids.
> One of the most amazing things about kids are that they are state machines, unfortunately you don't get to see all the states :-).
Sounds like a job for Hidden Markov Models. They model a system in which you can see a state-dependent output (e.g. "I want to play for 15 more minutes!") and there are clever algorithms for guessing, based on a sequence of observed outputs, what the hell just happened internally. Very handy stuff:
Every child is different. Some people need that statement tattooed on their foreheads in mirror writing. It's why parenting is so freakin hard and no-one's figured out the rules yet.
Not the only machines by a long shot. While it's certainly conceivable to think of memory and thought as one gigantic state machine, it's impractical to model it that way. What makes FSMs neat is that they are incredibly useful, in spite of having no memory and a relatively limited set of states.
Sure you can test it. While any parent will try to minimize the number of new injuries their child receives, it's hard to imagine that the number will ever reach 0. So the next time the child hurts herself, just try the crib state transition again.
What a terrible example of parenting. When your baby is crying as the result of an injury, you should stay with them and comfort them until their pain has subsided and they stop crying.
I would wager you are not a parent. I could be wrong, but...
That's not my point. I've raised two. The youngest is 11. There are problems with your suggested approach- it teaches the child that all it takes is a cry and poof mom gives in (we call parents that are suckered in by the crying "well-trained" by their children); it doesn't solve the problem. In this case The Problem is "OMG THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE AND IT HURT AND NOW I'M FREAKED OUT" - at this point it's not about the pain, it's about being freaked out. Mom appears to have tried treating and comforting and it just didn't work. Mom figuring out that a state reset was necessary is brilliant. It's not like she put the kid in the crib and walked away for an hour (which, btw, is perfectly acceptable when the child Just Won't Quit.)
This is parenting genius. It's really not much different than the approach my friend took: kid gets hurt (bump, bruise, scrape, cut, etc), cries ... so dad gives a hug, does his Magical Wave over the injury, blathers some incomprehensible Magic Words and poof kid stops crying. Psychology, plain and simple.
I am a parent, and apparently, you can't read. I quite narrowed my statement to cover situations where THE CHILD IS INJURED. Not when the child is throwing a tantrum, or trying to negotiate. WHEN INJURED. CAN YOU READ IT IN CAPS?
If the child was actually injured would they stop crying just out of habit? IMO one of the main reasons for performing some sort of redirection, kissing the boo-boo, etc is to find out if they are actually injured. In my experience my son may still indicate that his boo boo hurts a bit but he remains calm and verbalizes that fact. I've seen some parents freak out and dwell on the incident and go on and on while the child is sobbing. I think it is better to not make a big out of it, get the child calm by taking their mind off the incident, then attend to the injury if needed. What is worse... A child crying their head off for minutes while you hold them or bringing them to a state of calm in the matter of seconds?
My parents had a rule "no blood no bandaid." Which, in practice, was more metaphorical than anything. Basically it meant suck it up and walk it off. Good lesson.
'Injured' is not well defined. I know a 4 y/o who, when he falls and hurts something (and that happens often enough), simply gets up, cleans it (if necessary) and goes on. He may cry/shout for a moment, like you would go 'Ouch, !!$%#&$&^', but that's the end of it. That makes another that cries and stays down until mommy comes to get him look as if he was raised pretty badly. Those are the extremes and you seem to be placing each other on opposite ends of it.
It amused me (I know, easily amused) that for a while I could end a pointless argument with my daughter by using a non sequitor. You know "But why can't I play for another 15 minutes!?", "There are zeppelins in the sky." "... huh? really? Where?"
Then it amused my wife, after my daughter had identified this edge in her particular state machine, when we had battling non sequitor arguments, "Oh yeah? Zebras are monochromatic!" "So? Water ice subliminates below 5% relative humidity!"
At 19 months (the original article stated this as an age) the evolution of how kids interact and choose to interact changes almost daily. With my kids there was a peak around 3 years of age before things normalized out. Always interesting raising kids.