Why are you crying?

[Rami Rustom]

Sometimes parents say, "why are you crying?" At first glance, it seems
the parent is trying to solve the child's problem. The question is
formed in such a way that suggests that the parent believes that the
problem is the crying. But before parents make this determination, its
important to know who considers it a problem. Is the crying a problem
for the child or the parent?

From the child's point of view, surely there is a reason that he is

crying. *That* reason is the problem. And the child may be crying in
order to seek help from his parents to solve his problem. Another
possibility is that the child is hurt (physically or mentally) and the
crying is a symptom of the problem.

From the parent's point of view, the crying shouldn't be considered a

problem (because the parent should know the child's point of view).
But sometimes parents think crying *is* a problem (for the parents).
If the crying was the actual problem, then one solution is to explain
to the child that if he doesn't stop crying, he'll get a time out.
This solution could lead to more crying, aka a tantrum. Or the child
might realize that there are better ways to solve his actual problem
than to cry more. This approach doesn't work because the child's
actual problem doesn't get solved, at least not with the parent's
help.

So the appropriate way to approach this is for the parent to ask, "how
can I help you?" If the child doesn't figure out how to describe the
problem, then parent can ask more explicitly, "what's problem that you
want me to help you solve?" And if that doesn't work then keep going
with, "I still haven't understood the problem. Can you explain to me
*why* this is a problem so that I can help you create a solution?"


Getting back to the idea of focusing on symptoms rather than
underlying problems, a similar question is "why are you upset?"
Parents might say that the question is good because its answer is a
description of the actual problem. But, the idea that he is crying
*because* he is upset, is only a guess. As I mentioned above, its also
possible that he is crying because he thinks he needs to cry to get
his parent to help him solve his problem.


There are also statements that parents use that focus on symptoms of
problems instead of actual problems, e.g. don't cry, and don't be sad.
Sometimes parents use these ideas when their children are crying and
they believe that the child is sad because of some things out of the
parent's control, e.g. child's mother recently died. These ideas are
immoral because they don't address the actual problems and instead
they address the symptoms of the problems.

In these situations, the child might be very quiet about what the
problem is. So an approach that works is to guess why he might be sad
and form it into a question: "Are you sad about your mom not being
here?" If the guess was wrong, he'll tell you "no". If it was right,
he'll tell you "yes". And he may open up a lot more and tell you more
details. If he does, then use those details to form more accurate
guesses. Even if he doesn't say any more details, you can guess again:
"Are you sad because you won't be able to play with her anymore?" And
continue the cycle. And some point he'll give you a detail that is a
mistaken idea and you could help him by showing him that its a
mistaken idea. He might say, "I don't want to lose you." So at this
point you realize that the child is worried that he'll lose his only
remaining parent because he has already lost one parent. So here the
parent can say, "Oh.. well I'm very healthy, I'm probably not going to
die until I'm very old, like older than grandpa.. and by then you'll
be old like me. Did you know that most people die when they are very
old like older than grandpa?"

In these situations, if a parent tells his child "don't cry", the
child might understand this to mean: "deal with your own psychological
problems.. don't ask me for help." That child may one day decide to
get help from psychologists or psychiatrists. And they will do what I
describe above; they call it psychotherapy. Its the Socratic Method
plus some knowledge of psychology.

-- Rami

[a b]

Post by Rami Rustom
Sometimes parents say, "why are you crying?" At first glance, it seems
the parent is trying to solve the child's problem. The question is
formed in such a way that suggests that the parent believes that the
problem is the crying. But before parents make this determination, its
important to know who considers it a problem. Is the crying a problem
for the child or the parent?
From the child's point of view, surely there is a reason that he is
crying. *That* reason is the problem. And the child may be crying in
order to seek help from his parents to solve his problem. Another
possibility is that the child is hurt (physically or mentally) and the
crying is a symptom of the problem.
From the parent's point of view, the crying shouldn't be considered a
problem (because the parent should know the child's point of view).
But sometimes parents think crying *is* a problem (for the parents).
If the crying was the actual problem, then one solution is to explain
to the child that if he doesn't stop crying, he'll get a time out.
This solution could lead to more crying, aka a tantrum. Or the child
might realize that there are better ways to solve his actual problem
than to cry more. This approach doesn't work because the child's
actual problem doesn't get solved, at least not with the parent's
help.
So the appropriate way to approach this is for the parent to ask, "how
can I help you?" If the child doesn't figure out how to describe the
problem, then parent can ask more explicitly, "what's problem that you
want me to help you solve?" And if that doesn't work then keep going
with, "I still haven't understood the problem. Can you explain to me
*why* this is a problem so that I can help you create a solution?"
Getting back to the idea of focusing on symptoms rather than
underlying problems, a similar question is "why are you upset?"
Parents might say that the question is good because its answer is a
description of the actual problem. But, the idea that he is crying
*because* he is upset, is only a guess. As I mentioned above, its also
possible that he is crying because he thinks he needs to cry to get
his parent to help him solve his problem.
There are also statements that parents use that focus on symptoms of
problems instead of actual problems, e.g. don't cry, and don't be sad.
Sometimes parents use these ideas when their children are crying and
they believe that the child is sad because of some things out of the
parent's control, e.g. child's mother recently died. These ideas are
immoral because they don't address the actual problems and instead
they address the symptoms of the problems.
In these situations, the child might be very quiet about what the
problem is. So an approach that works is to guess why he might be sad
and form it into a question: "Are you sad about your mom not being
here?" If the guess was wrong, he'll tell you "no". If it was right,
he'll tell you "yes". And he may open up a lot more and tell you more
details. If he does, then use those details to form more accurate
"Are you sad because you won't be able to play with her anymore?" And
continue the cycle. And some point he'll give you a detail that is a
mistaken idea and you could help him by showing him that its a
mistaken idea. He might say, "I don't want to lose you." So at this
point you realize that the child is worried that he'll lose his only
remaining parent because he has already lost one parent. So here the
parent can say, "Oh.. well I'm very healthy, I'm probably not going to
die until I'm very old, like older than grandpa.. and by then you'll
be old like me. Did you know that most people die when they are very
old like older than grandpa?"

I'd agree this last part would be the right kind of response, but what
are you really doing...correcting a mistaken idea, or recognizing an
emotional need (with your emotions) and providing reassurance? If the
second, then does it make what is happening between you and the child
more or less clear by using this other vocabularly?
It isn't actually clear that the child is operating on a mistaken
idea. Two parents just went down to one, and on some level the child
recognizes the eggs all just went into one basket. That's real enough.

[Rami Rustom]

Post by a b

Post by Rami Rustom
Sometimes parents say, "why are you crying?" At first glance, it seems
the parent is trying to solve the child's problem. The question is
formed in such a way that suggests that the parent believes that the
problem is the crying. But before parents make this determination, its
important to know who considers it a problem. Is the crying a problem
for the child or the parent?
From the child's point of view, surely there is a reason that he is
crying. *That* reason is the problem. And the child may be crying in
order to seek help from his parents to solve his problem. Another
possibility is that the child is hurt (physically or mentally) and the
crying is a symptom of the problem.
From the parent's point of view, the crying shouldn't be considered a
problem (because the parent should know the child's point of view).
But sometimes parents think crying *is* a problem (for the parents).
If the crying was the actual problem, then one solution is to explain
to the child that if he doesn't stop crying, he'll get a time out.
This solution could lead to more crying, aka a tantrum. Or the child
might realize that there are better ways to solve his actual problem
than to cry more. This approach doesn't work because the child's
actual problem doesn't get solved, at least not with the parent's
help.
So the appropriate way to approach this is for the parent to ask, "how
can I help you?" If the child doesn't figure out how to describe the
problem, then parent can ask more explicitly, "what's problem that you
want me to help you solve?" And if that doesn't work then keep going
with, "I still haven't understood the problem. Can you explain to me
*why* this is a problem so that I can help you create a solution?"
Getting back to the idea of focusing on symptoms rather than
underlying problems, a similar question is "why are you upset?"
Parents might say that the question is good because its answer is a
description of the actual problem. But, the idea that he is crying
*because* he is upset, is only a guess. As I mentioned above, its also
possible that he is crying because he thinks he needs to cry to get
his parent to help him solve his problem.
There are also statements that parents use that focus on symptoms of
problems instead of actual problems, e.g. don't cry, and don't be sad.
Sometimes parents use these ideas when their children are crying and
they believe that the child is sad because of some things out of the
parent's control, e.g. child's mother recently died. These ideas are
immoral because they don't address the actual problems and instead
they address the symptoms of the problems.
In these situations, the child might be very quiet about what the
problem is. So an approach that works is to guess why he might be sad
and form it into a question: "Are you sad about your mom not being
here?" If the guess was wrong, he'll tell you "no". If it was right,
he'll tell you "yes". And he may open up a lot more and tell you more
details. If he does, then use those details to form more accurate
"Are you sad because you won't be able to play with her anymore?" And
continue the cycle. And some point he'll give you a detail that is a
mistaken idea and you could help him by showing him that its a
mistaken idea. He might say, "I don't want to lose you." So at this
point you realize that the child is worried that he'll lose his only
remaining parent because he has already lost one parent. So here the
parent can say, "Oh.. well I'm very healthy, I'm probably not going to
die until I'm very old, like older than grandpa.. and by then you'll
be old like me. Did you know that most people die when they are very
old like older than grandpa?"

I'd agree this last part would be the right kind of response, but what
are you really doing...correcting a mistaken idea, or recognizing an
emotional need (with your emotions) and providing reassurance? If the
second, then does it make what is happening between you and the child
more or less clear by using this other vocabularly?
It isn't actually clear that the child is operating on a mistaken
idea. Two parents just went down to one, and on some level the child
recognizes the eggs all just went into one basket. That's real enough.

I don't think that my idea and your idea are equivalent.

For one thing, if you said your idea to someone, it won't help them
figure out how to do my idea. Your idea is vague. You're idea explain
that parents should recognize that the child has an emotional need,
and the way that the parent should do that is to *use* his emotions,
aka be empathetic, and then to reassure the child of whatever.

The problem is that the child had a wrong idea. He thinks the parent
will die. But the reality is that there is a very small probability
that the 2nd parent will die. So the child is worrying about something
that he shouldn't be worrying about. And the way to persuade him that
he shouldn't be worrying about it is to explain the critical idea that
there is little chance that he will die before old age.

But your idea of *reassuring* presupposes that the child already had
the right idea, and that the parent is reassuring him of that right
idea. But that is not what happened in my hypothetical.


Now getting back to your empathy idea, I think telling a parent that
they should *be empathetic* is too vague to be useful. People that
already know what it means, don't need that explanation. And people
that don't already know what that means, won't understand what *be
empathic* means.

The conventional understanding of *being empathetic* means that
someone is actively thinking about someone elses' emotions. About how
their own actions affect another persons' emotions, so that they can
change their actions with the aim of creating or preventing emotions
in someone else. I think this is a bad approach. It presupposes that
the other person's emotions are caused by my actions, which is false.
And its problematic. It confuses who is responsible for what. Before I
explain why its problematic, I'll first explain the conventional
understanding of the cause of emotions. The logic goes like this:

Event -> Emotion (where "->" means "causes")

So in the case of my hypothetical above, the child is responsible for
his emotions, and the parent is responsible for the event. By event I
mean the discussion that the parent had with the child. He decided to
have this discussion because he noticed a symptom (crying) which
suggests that there might be a problem causing the symptom. What is
that problem? Its a thought that the child is currently thinking. An
idea he has. And the parent knows that it might be a mistaken one. So
rewriting the equation above with parentheticals indicating who is
responsible:

Event(parent) -> Emotion(child)

Using that logic, a parent might think that hugging and reassuring
about superficial things will affect the child's emotions, but it
doesn't, at least not long term. Hugging and saying "its ok" only goes
so far. Its an attempt to cause the child to forget about his problem.
This is only a temporarily solution (a patch up job). The problem will
resurface.

To refute that logic, consider this hypothetical. A guy just bought a
new car, and there was a shopping cart that hit his car and made a
dent. The person that did it was on crutches and had a hard time
dealing with the cart. There are two possibilities: (1) the guy gets
mad cause his brand new car now has its first dent, or (2) he doesn't
get mad because he knew this day was coming. Now look at the equation
above. The person responsible for the event is the guy on crutches.
And the guy responsible for his emotions is the car owner. The
question is, did the event cause the emotion? That is impossible. Why?
Because it doesn't account for the 2nd possibility that the guy
doesn't get mad, so the logic is false. So what caused the car owner's
angry emotion in the 1st hypothetical and his non-emotion in the 2nd
hypothetical? Its his interpretation of the event. So a more accurate
equation is:

Event(guy in crutches) -> Interpretation(car owner) -> Emotion(car owner)


So getting back to empathy, I'll use this equation to explain my
original hypothetical. In the case of the 1st parent dying, the event
is the death. The interpretation is the child's idea that the first
parent's death means that the second parent could die anytime too. And
that interpretation results in negative emotions, and then the child
cries.

At this point, the parent only knows about the crying, and the
possibility that the crying is related to the death of the other
parent. And lets say he knows this event/interpretation/emotion
equation. So he realizes that the interpretation might contain a
mistaken idea. Or it might not; maybe the child is sad *that* he will
never see the 1st parent again. But at this point the parent doesn't
know that, so he presses on. In my hypothetical at the beginning of
this post, the parent learned that the child has a mistaken idea that
his remaining parent will die soon. So he tries to persuade his child
that his idea is mistaken, by providing a criticism of it. So then the
child decides, using his own judgement, that his idea was mistaken,
thus changing his interpretation.

So before the discussion, the child was crying. The equation looks like this:

Event(1st parent died) -> Interpretation(2nd parent might die soon) ->
Emotion(sadness)

And after the discussion, the child was happy. The equation looks like this:

Event(discussion) -> Interpretation(1st parent death was a fluke and
doesn't mean that 2nd parent will die soon) -> Emotion(happy)


Its important to note here that this equation can be more complex for
people with certain memes. Some memes are about *being emotional* in
reaction to certain events. And these memes are habits, emotional
habits. And these people that have these memes are being irresponsible
because they aren't changing them. In most cases they are
irresponsible because they believe that their emotional reactions, aka
emotional habits, aka personality traits, are unchangeable, but this
is false.

-- Rami

[a b]

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by a b

Post by Rami Rustom
Sometimes parents say, "why are you crying?" At first glance, it seems
the parent is trying to solve the child's problem. The question is
formed in such a way that suggests that the parent believes that the
problem is the crying. But before parents make this determination, its
important to know who considers it a problem. Is the crying a problem
for the child or the parent?
From the child's point of view, surely there is a reason that he is
crying. *That* reason is the problem. And the child may be crying in
order to seek help from his parents to solve his problem. Another
possibility is that the child is hurt (physically or mentally) and the
crying is a symptom of the problem.
From the parent's point of view, the crying shouldn't be considered a
problem (because the parent should know the child's point of view).
But sometimes parents think crying *is* a problem (for the parents).
If the crying was the actual problem, then one solution is to explain
to the child that if he doesn't stop crying, he'll get a time out.
This solution could lead to more crying, aka a tantrum. Or the child
might realize that there are better ways to solve his actual problem
than to cry more. This approach doesn't work because the child's
actual problem doesn't get solved, at least not with the parent's
help.
So the appropriate way to approach this is for the parent to ask, "how
can I help you?" If the child doesn't figure out how to describe the
problem, then parent can ask more explicitly, "what's problem that you
want me to help you solve?" And if that doesn't work then keep going
with, "I still haven't understood the problem. Can you explain to me
*why* this is a problem so that I can help you create a solution?"
Getting back to the idea of focusing on symptoms rather than
underlying problems, a similar question is "why are you upset?"
Parents might say that the question is good because its answer is a
description of the actual problem. But, the idea that he is crying
*because* he is upset, is only a guess. As I mentioned above, its also
possible that he is crying because he thinks he needs to cry to get
his parent to help him solve his problem.
There are also statements that parents use that focus on symptoms of
problems instead of actual problems, e.g. don't cry, and don't be sad.
Sometimes parents use these ideas when their children are crying and
they believe that the child is sad because of some things out of the
parent's control, e.g. child's mother recently died. These ideas are
immoral because they don't address the actual problems and instead
they address the symptoms of the problems.
In these situations, the child might be very quiet about what the
problem is. So an approach that works is to guess why he might be sad
and form it into a question: "Are you sad about your mom not being
here?" If the guess was wrong, he'll tell you "no". If it was right,
he'll tell you "yes". And he may open up a lot more and tell you more
details. If he does, then use those details to form more accurate
"Are you sad because you won't be able to play with her anymore?" And
continue the cycle. And some point he'll give you a detail that is a
mistaken idea and you could help him by showing him that its a
mistaken idea. He might say, "I don't want to lose you." So at this
point you realize that the child is worried that he'll lose his only
remaining parent because he has already lost one parent. So here the
parent can say, "Oh.. well I'm very healthy, I'm probably not going to
die until I'm very old, like older than grandpa.. and by then you'll
be old like me. Did you know that most people die when they are very
old like older than grandpa?"

I'd agree this last part would be the right kind of response, but what
are you really doing...correcting a mistaken idea, or recognizing an
emotional need (with your emotions) and providing reassurance? If the
second, then does it make what is happening between you and the child
more or less clear by using this other vocabularly?
It isn't actually clear that the child is operating on a mistaken
idea. Two parents just went down to one, and on some level the child
recognizes the eggs all just went into one basket. That's real enough.

I don't think that my idea and your idea are equivalent.
For one thing, if you said your idea to someone, it won't help them
figure out how to do my idea. Your idea is vague. You're idea explain
that parents should recognize that the child has an emotional need,
and the way that the parent should do that is to *use* his emotions,
aka be empathetic, and then to reassure the child of whatever.
The problem is that the child had a wrong idea. He thinks the parent
will die. But the reality is that there is a very small probability
that the 2nd parent will die. So the child is worrying about something
that he shouldn't be worrying about. And the way to persuade him that
he shouldn't be worrying about it is to explain the critical idea that
there is little chance that he will die before old age.
But your idea of *reassuring* presupposes that the child already had
the right idea, and that the parent is reassuring him of that right
idea. But that is not what happened in my hypothetical.
Now getting back to your empathy idea, I think telling a parent that
they should *be empathetic* is too vague to be useful. People that
already know what it means, don't need that explanation. And people
that don't already know what that means, won't understand what *be
empathic* means.
The conventional understanding of *being empathetic* means that
someone is actively thinking about someone elses' emotions. About how
their own actions affect another persons' emotions, so that they can
change their actions with the aim of creating or preventing emotions
in someone else. I think this is a bad approach. It presupposes that
the other person's emotions are caused by my actions, which is false.
And its problematic. It confuses who is responsible for what. Before I
explain why its problematic, I'll first explain the conventional
Event -> Emotion (where "->" means "causes")
So in the case of my hypothetical above, the child is responsible for
his emotions, and the parent is responsible for the event. By event I
mean the discussion that the parent had with the child. He decided to
have this discussion because he noticed a symptom (crying) which
suggests that there might be a problem causing the symptom. What is
that problem? Its a thought that the child is currently thinking. An
idea he has. And the parent knows that it might be a mistaken one. So
rewriting the equation above with parentheticals indicating who is
Event(parent) -> Emotion(child)
Using that logic, a parent might think that hugging and reassuring
about superficial things will affect the child's emotions, but it
doesn't, at least not long term. Hugging and saying "its ok" only goes
so far. Its an attempt to cause the child to forget about his problem.
This is only a temporarily solution (a patch up job). The problem will
resurface.
To refute that logic, consider this hypothetical. A guy just bought a
new car, and there was a shopping cart that hit his car and made a
dent. The person that did it was on crutches and had a hard time
dealing with the cart. There are two possibilities: (1) the guy gets
mad cause his brand new car now has its first dent, or (2) he doesn't
get mad because he knew this day was coming. Now look at the equation
above. The person responsible for the event is the guy on crutches.
And the guy responsible for his emotions is the car owner. The
question is, did the event cause the emotion? That is impossible. Why?
Because it doesn't account for the 2nd possibility that the guy
doesn't get mad, so the logic is false. So what caused the car owner's
angry emotion in the 1st hypothetical and his non-emotion in the 2nd
hypothetical? Its his interpretation of the event. So a more accurate
Event(guy in crutches) -> Interpretation(car owner) -> Emotion(car owner)
So getting back to empathy, I'll use this equation to explain my
original hypothetical. In the case of the 1st parent dying, the event
is the death. The interpretation is the child's idea that the first
parent's death means that the second parent could die anytime too. And
that interpretation results in negative emotions, and then the child
cries.
At this point, the parent only knows about the crying, and the
possibility that the crying is related to the death of the other
parent. And lets say he knows this event/interpretation/emotion
equation. So he realizes that the interpretation might contain a
mistaken idea. Or it might not; maybe the child is sad *that* he will
never see the 1st parent again. But at this point the parent doesn't
know that, so he presses on. In my hypothetical at the beginning of
this post, the parent learned that the child has a mistaken idea that
his remaining parent will die soon. So he tries to persuade his child
that his idea is mistaken, by providing a criticism of it. So then the
child decides, using his own judgement, that his idea was mistaken,
thus changing his interpretation.
Event(1st parent died) -> Interpretation(2nd parent might die soon) ->
Emotion(sadness)
Event(discussion) -> Interpretation(1st parent death was a fluke and
doesn't mean that 2nd parent will die soon) -> Emotion(happy)
Its important to note here that this equation can be more complex for
people with certain memes. Some memes are about *being emotional* in
reaction to certain events. And these memes are habits, emotional
habits. And these people that have these memes are being irresponsible
because they aren't changing them. In most cases they are
irresponsible because they believe that their emotional reactions, aka
emotional habits, aka personality traits, are unchangeable, but this
is false.
-- Rami

rami - do you think kids with one living parent become orphans more
frequently than kids with two living parents? If they do, that would
certainly bear out common intuition that they would...which is likely
the root child's perception. Which is not wrong. What is also not
wrong, is that the actual chances of losing the separate parent are
small. As you say in your sentence (most people live...)

[smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/]

Post by a b

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by a b

Post by Rami Rustom
Sometimes parents say, "why are you crying?" At first glance, it seems
the parent is trying to solve the child's problem. The question is
formed in such a way that suggests that the parent believes that the
problem is the crying. But before parents make this determination, its
important to know who considers it a problem. Is the crying a problem
for the child or the parent?
From the child's point of view, surely there is a reason that he is
crying. *That* reason is the problem. And the child may be crying in
order to seek help from his parents to solve his problem. Another
possibility is that the child is hurt (physically or mentally) and the
crying is a symptom of the problem.
From the parent's point of view, the crying shouldn't be considered a
problem (because the parent should know the child's point of view).
But sometimes parents think crying *is* a problem (for the parents).
If the crying was the actual problem, then one solution is to explain
to the child that if he doesn't stop crying, he'll get a time out.
This solution could lead to more crying, aka a tantrum. Or the child
might realize that there are better ways to solve his actual problem
than to cry more. This approach doesn't work because the child's
actual problem doesn't get solved, at least not with the parent's
help.
So the appropriate way to approach this is for the parent to ask, "how
can I help you?" If the child doesn't figure out how to describe the
problem, then parent can ask more explicitly, "what's problem that you
want me to help you solve?" And if that doesn't work then keep going
with, "I still haven't understood the problem. Can you explain to me
*why* this is a problem so that I can help you create a solution?"
Getting back to the idea of focusing on symptoms rather than
underlying problems, a similar question is "why are you upset?"
Parents might say that the question is good because its answer is a
description of the actual problem. But, the idea that he is crying
*because* he is upset, is only a guess. As I mentioned above, its also
possible that he is crying because he thinks he needs to cry to get
his parent to help him solve his problem.
There are also statements that parents use that focus on symptoms of
problems instead of actual problems, e.g. don't cry, and don't be sad.
Sometimes parents use these ideas when their children are crying and
they believe that the child is sad because of some things out of the
parent's control, e.g. child's mother recently died. These ideas are
immoral because they don't address the actual problems and instead
they address the symptoms of the problems.
In these situations, the child might be very quiet about what the
problem is. So an approach that works is to guess why he might be sad
and form it into a question: "Are you sad about your mom not being
here?" If the guess was wrong, he'll tell you "no". If it was right,
he'll tell you "yes". And he may open up a lot more and tell you more
details. If he does, then use those details to form more accurate
"Are you sad because you won't be able to play with her anymore?" And
continue the cycle. And some point he'll give you a detail that is a
mistaken idea and you could help him by showing him that its a
mistaken idea. He might say, "I don't want to lose you." So at this
point you realize that the child is worried that he'll lose his only
remaining parent because he has already lost one parent. So here the
parent can say, "Oh.. well I'm very healthy, I'm probably not going to
die until I'm very old, like older than grandpa.. and by then you'll
be old like me. Did you know that most people die when they are very
old like older than grandpa?"

I'd agree this last part would be the right kind of response, but what
are you really doing...correcting a mistaken idea, or recognizing an
emotional need (with your emotions) and providing reassurance? If the
second, then does it make what is happening between you and the child
more or less clear by using this other vocabularly?
It isn't actually clear that the child is operating on a mistaken
idea. Two parents just went down to one, and on some level the child
recognizes the eggs all just went into one basket. That's real enough.

I don't think that my idea and your idea are equivalent.
For one thing, if you said your idea to someone, it won't help them
figure out how to do my idea. Your idea is vague. You're idea explain
that parents should recognize that the child has an emotional need,
and the way that the parent should do that is to *use* his emotions,
aka be empathetic, and then to reassure the child of whatever.
The problem is that the child had a wrong idea. He thinks the parent
will die. But the reality is that there is a very small probability
that the 2nd parent will die. So the child is worrying about something
that he shouldn't be worrying about. And the way to persuade him that
he shouldn't be worrying about it is to explain the critical idea that
there is little chance that he will die before old age.
But your idea of *reassuring* presupposes that the child already had
the right idea, and that the parent is reassuring him of that right
idea. But that is not what happened in my hypothetical.
Now getting back to your empathy idea, I think telling a parent that
they should *be empathetic* is too vague to be useful. People that
already know what it means, don't need that explanation. And people
that don't already know what that means, won't understand what *be
empathic* means.
The conventional understanding of *being empathetic* means that
someone is actively thinking about someone elses' emotions. About how
their own actions affect another persons' emotions, so that they can
change their actions with the aim of creating or preventing emotions
in someone else. I think this is a bad approach. It presupposes that
the other person's emotions are caused by my actions, which is false.
And its problematic. It confuses who is responsible for what. Before I
explain why its problematic, I'll first explain the conventional
Event -> Emotion (where "->" means "causes")
So in the case of my hypothetical above, the child is responsible for
his emotions, and the parent is responsible for the event. By event I
mean the discussion that the parent had with the child. He decided to
have this discussion because he noticed a symptom (crying) which
suggests that there might be a problem causing the symptom. What is
that problem? Its a thought that the child is currently thinking. An
idea he has. And the parent knows that it might be a mistaken one. So
rewriting the equation above with parentheticals indicating who is
Event(parent) -> Emotion(child)
Using that logic, a parent might think that hugging and reassuring
about superficial things will affect the child's emotions, but it
doesn't, at least not long term. Hugging and saying "its ok" only goes
so far. Its an attempt to cause the child to forget about his problem.
This is only a temporarily solution (a patch up job). The problem will
resurface.
To refute that logic, consider this hypothetical. A guy just bought a
new car, and there was a shopping cart that hit his car and made a
dent. The person that did it was on crutches and had a hard time
dealing with the cart. There are two possibilities: (1) the guy gets
mad cause his brand new car now has its first dent, or (2) he doesn't
get mad because he knew this day was coming. Now look at the equation
above. The person responsible for the event is the guy on crutches.
And the guy responsible for his emotions is the car owner. The
question is, did the event cause the emotion? That is impossible. Why?
Because it doesn't account for the 2nd possibility that the guy
doesn't get mad, so the logic is false. So what caused the car owner's
angry emotion in the 1st hypothetical and his non-emotion in the 2nd
hypothetical? Its his interpretation of the event. So a more accurate
Event(guy in crutches) -> Interpretation(car owner) -> Emotion(car owner)
So getting back to empathy, I'll use this equation to explain my
original hypothetical. In the case of the 1st parent dying, the event
is the death. The interpretation is the child's idea that the first
parent's death means that the second parent could die anytime too. And
that interpretation results in negative emotions, and then the child
cries.
At this point, the parent only knows about the crying, and the
possibility that the crying is related to the death of the other
parent. And lets say he knows this event/interpretation/emotion
equation. So he realizes that the interpretation might contain a
mistaken idea. Or it might not; maybe the child is sad *that* he will
never see the 1st parent again. But at this point the parent doesn't
know that, so he presses on. In my hypothetical at the beginning of
this post, the parent learned that the child has a mistaken idea that
his remaining parent will die soon. So he tries to persuade his child
that his idea is mistaken, by providing a criticism of it. So then the
child decides, using his own judgement, that his idea was mistaken,
thus changing his interpretation.
Event(1st parent died) -> Interpretation(2nd parent might die soon) ->
Emotion(sadness)
Event(discussion) -> Interpretation(1st parent death was a fluke and
doesn't mean that 2nd parent will die soon) -> Emotion(happy)
Its important to note here that this equation can be more complex for
people with certain memes. Some memes are about *being emotional* in
reaction to certain events. And these memes are habits, emotional
habits. And these people that have these memes are being irresponsible
because they aren't changing them. In most cases they are
irresponsible because they believe that their emotional reactions, aka
emotional habits, aka personality traits, are unchangeable, but this
is false.
-- Rami

rami - do you think kids with one living parent become orphans more
frequently than kids with two living parents? If they do, that would
certainly bear out common intuition that they would...which is likely
the root child's perception. Which is not wrong. What is also not
wrong, is that the actual chances of losing the separate parent are
small. As you say in your sentence (most people live...)

Also, emotions often are not describable in terms of higher level
issues at all, especially in small children. Rami's approach would only
work if such a description exists.

Basically, emotions are caused by lower level processing in the brain
than rational thought. You can try to figure out what this lower level
process is computing, but sometimes it's not a meaningful computation
of anything in terms of relevant issues at all.

Saibal

[Rami Rustom]

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/

Post by a b

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by a b

Post by Rami Rustom
Sometimes parents say, "why are you crying?" At first glance, it seems
the parent is trying to solve the child's problem. The question is
formed in such a way that suggests that the parent believes that the
problem is the crying. But before parents make this determination, its
important to know who considers it a problem. Is the crying a problem
for the child or the parent?
From the child's point of view, surely there is a reason that he is
crying. *That* reason is the problem. And the child may be crying in
order to seek help from his parents to solve his problem. Another
possibility is that the child is hurt (physically or mentally) and the
crying is a symptom of the problem.
From the parent's point of view, the crying shouldn't be considered a
problem (because the parent should know the child's point of view).
But sometimes parents think crying *is* a problem (for the parents).
If the crying was the actual problem, then one solution is to explain
to the child that if he doesn't stop crying, he'll get a time out.
This solution could lead to more crying, aka a tantrum. Or the child
might realize that there are better ways to solve his actual problem
than to cry more. This approach doesn't work because the child's
actual problem doesn't get solved, at least not with the parent's
help.
So the appropriate way to approach this is for the parent to ask, "how
can I help you?" If the child doesn't figure out how to describe the
problem, then parent can ask more explicitly, "what's problem that you
want me to help you solve?" And if that doesn't work then keep going
with, "I still haven't understood the problem. Can you explain to me
*why* this is a problem so that I can help you create a solution?"
Getting back to the idea of focusing on symptoms rather than
underlying problems, a similar question is "why are you upset?"
Parents might say that the question is good because its answer is a
description of the actual problem. But, the idea that he is crying
*because* he is upset, is only a guess. As I mentioned above, its also
possible that he is crying because he thinks he needs to cry to get
his parent to help him solve his problem.
There are also statements that parents use that focus on symptoms of
problems instead of actual problems, e.g. don't cry, and don't be sad.
Sometimes parents use these ideas when their children are crying and
they believe that the child is sad because of some things out of the
parent's control, e.g. child's mother recently died. These ideas are
immoral because they don't address the actual problems and instead
they address the symptoms of the problems.
In these situations, the child might be very quiet about what the
problem is. So an approach that works is to guess why he might be sad
and form it into a question: "Are you sad about your mom not being
here?" If the guess was wrong, he'll tell you "no". If it was right,
he'll tell you "yes". And he may open up a lot more and tell you more
details. If he does, then use those details to form more accurate
"Are you sad because you won't be able to play with her anymore?" And
continue the cycle. And some point he'll give you a detail that is a
mistaken idea and you could help him by showing him that its a
mistaken idea. He might say, "I don't want to lose you." So at this
point you realize that the child is worried that he'll lose his only
remaining parent because he has already lost one parent. So here the
parent can say, "Oh.. well I'm very healthy, I'm probably not going to
die until I'm very old, like older than grandpa.. and by then you'll
be old like me. Did you know that most people die when they are very
old like older than grandpa?"

I'd agree this last part would be the right kind of response, but what
are you really doing...correcting a mistaken idea, or recognizing an
emotional need (with your emotions) and providing reassurance? If the
second, then does it make what is happening between you and the child
more or less clear by using this other vocabularly?
It isn't actually clear that the child is operating on a mistaken
idea. Two parents just went down to one, and on some level the child
recognizes the eggs all just went into one basket. That's real enough.

I don't think that my idea and your idea are equivalent.
For one thing, if you said your idea to someone, it won't help them
figure out how to do my idea. Your idea is vague. You're idea explain
that parents should recognize that the child has an emotional need,
and the way that the parent should do that is to *use* his emotions,
aka be empathetic, and then to reassure the child of whatever.
The problem is that the child had a wrong idea. He thinks the parent
will die. But the reality is that there is a very small probability
that the 2nd parent will die. So the child is worrying about something
that he shouldn't be worrying about. And the way to persuade him that
he shouldn't be worrying about it is to explain the critical idea that
there is little chance that he will die before old age.
But your idea of *reassuring* presupposes that the child already had
the right idea, and that the parent is reassuring him of that right
idea. But that is not what happened in my hypothetical.
Now getting back to your empathy idea, I think telling a parent that
they should *be empathetic* is too vague to be useful. People that
already know what it means, don't need that explanation. And people
that don't already know what that means, won't understand what *be
empathic* means.
The conventional understanding of *being empathetic* means that
someone is actively thinking about someone elses' emotions. About how
their own actions affect another persons' emotions, so that they can
change their actions with the aim of creating or preventing emotions
in someone else. I think this is a bad approach. It presupposes that
the other person's emotions are caused by my actions, which is false.
And its problematic. It confuses who is responsible for what. Before I
explain why its problematic, I'll first explain the conventional
Event -> Emotion (where "->" means "causes")
So in the case of my hypothetical above, the child is responsible for
his emotions, and the parent is responsible for the event. By event I
mean the discussion that the parent had with the child. He decided to
have this discussion because he noticed a symptom (crying) which
suggests that there might be a problem causing the symptom. What is
that problem? Its a thought that the child is currently thinking. An
idea he has. And the parent knows that it might be a mistaken one. So
rewriting the equation above with parentheticals indicating who is
Event(parent) -> Emotion(child)
Using that logic, a parent might think that hugging and reassuring
about superficial things will affect the child's emotions, but it
doesn't, at least not long term. Hugging and saying "its ok" only goes
so far. Its an attempt to cause the child to forget about his problem.
This is only a temporarily solution (a patch up job). The problem will
resurface.
To refute that logic, consider this hypothetical. A guy just bought a
new car, and there was a shopping cart that hit his car and made a
dent. The person that did it was on crutches and had a hard time
dealing with the cart. There are two possibilities: (1) the guy gets
mad cause his brand new car now has its first dent, or (2) he doesn't
get mad because he knew this day was coming. Now look at the equation
above. The person responsible for the event is the guy on crutches.
And the guy responsible for his emotions is the car owner. The
question is, did the event cause the emotion? That is impossible. Why?
Because it doesn't account for the 2nd possibility that the guy
doesn't get mad, so the logic is false. So what caused the car owner's
angry emotion in the 1st hypothetical and his non-emotion in the 2nd
hypothetical? Its his interpretation of the event. So a more accurate
Event(guy in crutches) -> Interpretation(car owner) -> Emotion(car owner)
So getting back to empathy, I'll use this equation to explain my
original hypothetical. In the case of the 1st parent dying, the event
is the death. The interpretation is the child's idea that the first
parent's death means that the second parent could die anytime too. And
that interpretation results in negative emotions, and then the child
cries.
At this point, the parent only knows about the crying, and the
possibility that the crying is related to the death of the other
parent. And lets say he knows this event/interpretation/emotion
equation. So he realizes that the interpretation might contain a
mistaken idea. Or it might not; maybe the child is sad *that* he will
never see the 1st parent again. But at this point the parent doesn't
know that, so he presses on. In my hypothetical at the beginning of
this post, the parent learned that the child has a mistaken idea that
his remaining parent will die soon. So he tries to persuade his child
that his idea is mistaken, by providing a criticism of it. So then the
child decides, using his own judgement, that his idea was mistaken,
thus changing his interpretation.
Event(1st parent died) -> Interpretation(2nd parent might die soon) ->
Emotion(sadness)
Event(discussion) -> Interpretation(1st parent death was a fluke and
doesn't mean that 2nd parent will die soon) -> Emotion(happy)
Its important to note here that this equation can be more complex for
people with certain memes. Some memes are about *being emotional* in
reaction to certain events. And these memes are habits, emotional
habits. And these people that have these memes are being irresponsible
because they aren't changing them. In most cases they are
irresponsible because they believe that their emotional reactions, aka
emotional habits, aka personality traits, are unchangeable, but this
is false.
-- Rami

rami - do you think kids with one living parent become orphans more
frequently than kids with two living parents? If they do, that would
certainly bear out common intuition that they would...which is likely
the root child's perception. Which is not wrong. What is also not
wrong, is that the actual chances of losing the separate parent are
small. As you say in your sentence (most people live...)

Also, emotions often are not describable in terms of higher level
issues at all,

Why not? Do you mean describable today? Or not possible to be described?

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
especially in small children.

Why *especially* in small children?

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
Rami's approach would only
work if such a description exists.

Right. So why do you think such a description can't be created?

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
Basically, emotions are caused by lower level processing in the brain
than rational thought.

What do you mean by lower level? Do you mean stuff that isn't ideas?

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
You can try to figure out what this lower level
process is computing, but sometimes it's not a meaningful computation
of anything in terms of relevant issues at all.

Why do you think that?

-- Rami

[smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/]

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/

Post by a b

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by a b

Post by Rami Rustom
Sometimes parents say, "why are you crying?" At first glance, it seems
the parent is trying to solve the child's problem. The question is
formed in such a way that suggests that the parent believes that the
problem is the crying. But before parents make this determination, its
important to know who considers it a problem. Is the crying a problem
for the child or the parent?
From the child's point of view, surely there is a reason that he is
crying. *That* reason is the problem. And the child may be crying in
order to seek help from his parents to solve his problem. Another
possibility is that the child is hurt (physically or mentally) and the
crying is a symptom of the problem.
From the parent's point of view, the crying shouldn't be considered a
problem (because the parent should know the child's point of view).
But sometimes parents think crying *is* a problem (for the parents).
If the crying was the actual problem, then one solution is to explain
to the child that if he doesn't stop crying, he'll get a time out.
This solution could lead to more crying, aka a tantrum. Or the child
might realize that there are better ways to solve his actual problem
than to cry more. This approach doesn't work because the child's
actual problem doesn't get solved, at least not with the parent's
help.
So the appropriate way to approach this is for the parent to ask, "how
can I help you?" If the child doesn't figure out how to describe the
problem, then parent can ask more explicitly, "what's problem that you
want me to help you solve?" And if that doesn't work then keep going
with, "I still haven't understood the problem. Can you explain to me
*why* this is a problem so that I can help you create a solution?"
Getting back to the idea of focusing on symptoms rather than
underlying problems, a similar question is "why are you upset?"
Parents might say that the question is good because its answer is a
description of the actual problem. But, the idea that he is crying
*because* he is upset, is only a guess. As I mentioned above, its also
possible that he is crying because he thinks he needs to cry to get
his parent to help him solve his problem.
There are also statements that parents use that focus on symptoms of
problems instead of actual problems, e.g. don't cry, and don't be sad.
Sometimes parents use these ideas when their children are crying and
they believe that the child is sad because of some things out of the
parent's control, e.g. child's mother recently died. These ideas are
immoral because they don't address the actual problems and instead
they address the symptoms of the problems.
In these situations, the child might be very quiet about what the
problem is. So an approach that works is to guess why he might be sad
and form it into a question: "Are you sad about your mom not being
here?" If the guess was wrong, he'll tell you "no". If it was right,
he'll tell you "yes". And he may open up a lot more and tell you more
details. If he does, then use those details to form more accurate
"Are you sad because you won't be able to play with her anymore?" And
continue the cycle. And some point he'll give you a detail that is a
mistaken idea and you could help him by showing him that its a
mistaken idea. He might say, "I don't want to lose you." So at this
point you realize that the child is worried that he'll lose his only
remaining parent because he has already lost one parent. So here the
parent can say, "Oh.. well I'm very healthy, I'm probably not going to
die until I'm very old, like older than grandpa.. and by then you'll
be old like me. Did you know that most people die when they are very
old like older than grandpa?"

I'd agree this last part would be the right kind of response, but what
are you really doing...correcting a mistaken idea, or recognizing an
emotional need (with your emotions) and providing reassurance? If the
second, then does it make what is happening between you and the child
more or less clear by using this other vocabularly?
It isn't actually clear that the child is operating on a mistaken
idea. Two parents just went down to one, and on some level the child
recognizes the eggs all just went into one basket. That's real enough.

I don't think that my idea and your idea are equivalent.
For one thing, if you said your idea to someone, it won't help them
figure out how to do my idea. Your idea is vague. You're idea explain
that parents should recognize that the child has an emotional need,
and the way that the parent should do that is to *use* his emotions,
aka be empathetic, and then to reassure the child of whatever.
The problem is that the child had a wrong idea. He thinks the parent
will die. But the reality is that there is a very small probability
that the 2nd parent will die. So the child is worrying about something
that he shouldn't be worrying about. And the way to persuade him that
he shouldn't be worrying about it is to explain the critical idea that
there is little chance that he will die before old age.
But your idea of *reassuring* presupposes that the child already had
the right idea, and that the parent is reassuring him of that right
idea. But that is not what happened in my hypothetical.
Now getting back to your empathy idea, I think telling a parent that
they should *be empathetic* is too vague to be useful. People that
already know what it means, don't need that explanation. And people
that don't already know what that means, won't understand what *be
empathic* means.
The conventional understanding of *being empathetic* means that
someone is actively thinking about someone elses' emotions. About how
their own actions affect another persons' emotions, so that they can
change their actions with the aim of creating or preventing emotions
in someone else. I think this is a bad approach. It presupposes that
the other person's emotions are caused by my actions, which is false.
And its problematic. It confuses who is responsible for what. Before I
explain why its problematic, I'll first explain the conventional
Event -> Emotion (where "->" means "causes")
So in the case of my hypothetical above, the child is responsible for
his emotions, and the parent is responsible for the event. By event I
mean the discussion that the parent had with the child. He decided to
have this discussion because he noticed a symptom (crying) which
suggests that there might be a problem causing the symptom. What is
that problem? Its a thought that the child is currently thinking. An
idea he has. And the parent knows that it might be a mistaken one. So
rewriting the equation above with parentheticals indicating who is
Event(parent) -> Emotion(child)
Using that logic, a parent might think that hugging and reassuring
about superficial things will affect the child's emotions, but it
doesn't, at least not long term. Hugging and saying "its ok" only goes
so far. Its an attempt to cause the child to forget about his problem.
This is only a temporarily solution (a patch up job). The problem will
resurface.
To refute that logic, consider this hypothetical. A guy just bought a
new car, and there was a shopping cart that hit his car and made a
dent. The person that did it was on crutches and had a hard time
dealing with the cart. There are two possibilities: (1) the guy gets
mad cause his brand new car now has its first dent, or (2) he doesn't
get mad because he knew this day was coming. Now look at the equation
above. The person responsible for the event is the guy on crutches.
And the guy responsible for his emotions is the car owner. The
question is, did the event cause the emotion? That is impossible. Why?
Because it doesn't account for the 2nd possibility that the guy
doesn't get mad, so the logic is false. So what caused the car owner's
angry emotion in the 1st hypothetical and his non-emotion in the 2nd
hypothetical? Its his interpretation of the event. So a more accurate
Event(guy in crutches) -> Interpretation(car owner) -> Emotion(car owner)
So getting back to empathy, I'll use this equation to explain my
original hypothetical. In the case of the 1st parent dying, the event
is the death. The interpretation is the child's idea that the first
parent's death means that the second parent could die anytime too. And
that interpretation results in negative emotions, and then the child
cries.
At this point, the parent only knows about the crying, and the
possibility that the crying is related to the death of the other
parent. And lets say he knows this event/interpretation/emotion
equation. So he realizes that the interpretation might contain a
mistaken idea. Or it might not; maybe the child is sad *that* he will
never see the 1st parent again. But at this point the parent doesn't
know that, so he presses on. In my hypothetical at the beginning of
this post, the parent learned that the child has a mistaken idea that
his remaining parent will die soon. So he tries to persuade his child
that his idea is mistaken, by providing a criticism of it. So then the
child decides, using his own judgement, that his idea was mistaken,
thus changing his interpretation.
Event(1st parent died) -> Interpretation(2nd parent might die soon) ->
Emotion(sadness)
Event(discussion) -> Interpretation(1st parent death was a fluke and
doesn't mean that 2nd parent will die soon) -> Emotion(happy)
Its important to note here that this equation can be more complex for
people with certain memes. Some memes are about *being emotional* in
reaction to certain events. And these memes are habits, emotional
habits. And these people that have these memes are being irresponsible
because they aren't changing them. In most cases they are
irresponsible because they believe that their emotional reactions, aka
emotional habits, aka personality traits, are unchangeable, but this
is false.
-- Rami

rami - do you think kids with one living parent become orphans more
frequently than kids with two living parents? If they do, that would
certainly bear out common intuition that they would...which is likely
the root child's perception. Which is not wrong. What is also not
wrong, is that the actual chances of losing the separate parent are
small. As you say in your sentence (most people live...)

Also, emotions often are not describable in terms of higher level
issues at all,

Why not? Do you mean describable today? Or not possible to be described?

Animals that can't understand higher levels concepts that we use when
we talk to each other, can experience emotions. So, emotions must then
be fundamentally related to lower level information in the brain.

Now, in case of humans, higher level processed information can feed
back into the brain parts that are related to emotions, so often do fel
emotions that can be described in terms of issues we are worrying about.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
especially in small children.

Why *especially* in small children?

Because children yet have to learn many of the higher order concepts we
use, but they have been shown to use lower level processing. E.g. the
following experiment was done with babies. The babies wached how a
number X of objects entered a certain, initially empty, area. Then Y
obhects left that area and moved into an area that was not visible to
the babies. Then that other area was visible initially and the babies
could have seen that there was nothing there. Then, after these Y
objects were moved there it was again made visible. In some cases the
nuber of objects there was Y but in some other cases it was different
from Y.

By tracking the eye movement of the babies, one can see how much
attention they are paying to the show. In the cases that the number of
objects was different from Y in the other area, the babies looked a lot
longer there. That despite the fact that the babies most likely did not
count the objects. The brain detetects the difference and is programmed
to be surprised if things do not add up. But the babies are not
consciously doing arithmetic and getting surprised when the sums don't
add up.

If I do a computation and things don't add up, I may get surprised too,
so then it is clear that there is a higher level issue that makes me
feel surprised. It would be the very cause of me getting surprised. In
the case of the babies, it was a lower level process that implements a
computation, the result of which can make them surprised. And the
computation can be described in terms of higher level concepts too.

However, in general, what the brain does may not be describable in
terms of higher level concepts in a meaningful way. A small child that
starts crying when the lights go out in his sleeping room may e.g. do
so because his brain is pre-programmed to recognize certain dangerous
animals. In low light conditions, his brain is detecting a lot of false
positives for snakes, lions etc. and that feeds directly into the part
that makes him afraid. However, the child may never have seen a wild
animal in his life, so while we can explain what is happening, the
child cannot.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
Rami's approach would only
work if such a description exists.

Right. So why do you think such a description can't be created?

It can be but it may not be useful, like in the example of the wild
animals I gave above.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
Basically, emotions are caused by lower level processing in the brain
than rational thought.

What do you mean by lower level? Do you mean stuff that isn't ideas?

Yes, at least not ideas that the person who feels the emotion has like
the small child who is afraid in the dark because the brain detects
wild animals, without the child having a conscious concept of that.
Certain shapes may provoke more fear just because they look more like a
snake, yet the cild hasn't ever seen a snake in his life. The child
then cannot possibly know why that shape looks more threatening than
some other shape.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
You can try to figure out what this lower level
process is computing, but sometimes it's not a meaningful computation
of anything in terms of relevant issues at all.

Why do you think that?

The child needs to go to sleep, explaining the evolutionary development
of the brain isn't a practical thing to do.

Post by Rami Rustom
-- Rami
------------------------------------

Saibal

[Rami Rustom]

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
Also, emotions often are not describable in terms of higher level
issues at all,

Why not? Do you mean describable today? Or not possible to be described?

Animals that can't understand higher levels concepts that we use when
we talk to each other, can experience emotions. So, emotions must then
be fundamentally related to lower level information in the brain.

That doesn't mean they are indescribable.

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
Now, in case of humans, higher level processed information can feed
back into the brain parts that are related to emotions, so often do fel
emotions that can be described in terms of issues we are worrying about.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
especially in small children.

Why *especially* in small children?

Because children yet have to learn many of the higher order concepts we
use, but they have been shown to use lower level processing. E.g. the
following experiment was done with babies. The babies wached how a
number X of objects entered a certain, initially empty, area. Then Y
obhects left that area and moved into an area that was not visible to
the babies. Then that other area was visible initially and the babies
could have seen that there was nothing there. Then, after these Y
objects were moved there it was again made visible. In some cases the
nuber of objects there was Y but in some other cases it was different
from Y.
By tracking the eye movement of the babies, one can see how much
attention they are paying to the show. In the cases that the number of
objects was different from Y in the other area, the babies looked a lot
longer there. That despite the fact that the babies most likely did not
count the objects. The brain detetects the difference and is programmed
to be surprised if things do not add up. But the babies are not
consciously doing arithmetic and getting surprised when the sums don't
add up.

Yes. I think *interest* is an emotion. But why do you think this is
indescribable?

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
If I do a computation and things don't add up, I may get surprised too,
so then it is clear that there is a higher level issue that makes me
feel surprised.

I'll describe it. You have a (human) problem. There is something
you've observed that is not consistent with what you already know.
There is a disconnect. And that disconnect causes the *interest*
emotion.

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
It would be the very cause of me getting surprised. In
the case of the babies, it was a lower level process that implements a
computation, the result of which can make them surprised. And the
computation can be described in terms of higher level concepts too.
However, in general, what the brain does may not be describable in
terms of higher level concepts in a meaningful way. A small child that
starts crying when the lights go out in his sleeping room may e.g. do
so because his brain is pre-programmed to recognize certain dangerous
animals. In low light conditions, his brain is detecting a lot of false
positives for snakes, lions etc.

No. Our DNA doesn't have enough information to program our minds to
know what a snake or lion looks like and that they are harmful to us.
These are things we learn.

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
and that feeds directly into the part
that makes him afraid. However, the child may never have seen a wild
animal in his life, so while we can explain what is happening, the
child cannot.

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
Rami's approach would only
work if such a description exists.

Right. So why do you think such a description can't be created?

It can be but it may not be useful, like in the example of the wild
animals I gave above.

You created an example of something that isn't possible.

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/

Post by Rami Rustom

Post by smitra-RSh1/+X/PmFmR6Xm/
Basically, emotions are caused by lower level processing in the brain
than rational thought.

What do you mean by lower level? Do you mean stuff that isn't ideas?

Yes, at least not ideas that the person who feels the emotion has like
the small child who is afraid in the dark because the brain detects
wild animals, without the child having a conscious concept of that.
Certain shapes may provoke more fear just because they look more like a
snake, yet the cild hasn't ever seen a snake in his life.

Is that a theory that has been tested?

-- Rami

[Rami Rustom]

Post by a b
rami - do you think kids with one living parent become orphans more
frequently than kids with two living parents?

Sure. But both events are very low probability.

Post by a b
If they do, that would
certainly bear out common intuition that they would...which is likely
the root child's perception.

Most (maybe all children today?) haven't studied statistics to they
don't understand probability. So they might not think of that. But
some good philosophical thinking can get to the same result, so maybe
kids could figure it out without learning statistics.

-- Rami

[Elliot Temple]

Post by Rami Rustom
Sometimes parents say, "why are you crying?" At first glance, it seems
the parent is trying to solve the child's problem. The question is
formed in such a way that suggests that the parent believes that the
problem is the crying. But before parents make this determination, its
important to know who considers it a problem. Is the crying a problem
for the child or the parent?
From the child's point of view, surely there is a reason that he is
crying. *That* reason is the problem. And the child may be crying in
order to seek help from his parents to solve his problem. Another
possibility is that the child is hurt (physically or mentally) and the
crying is a symptom of the problem.

Because the word symptom is a medical term which means, "a physical or mental feature that is regarded as indicating a condition of disease, particularly such a feature that is apparent to the patient", I do not think it should be used in this way.

Post by Rami Rustom
From the parent's point of view, the crying shouldn't be considered a
problem (because the parent should know the child's point of view).
But sometimes parents think crying *is* a problem (for the parents).
If the crying was the actual problem, then one solution is to explain
to the child that if he doesn't stop crying, he'll get a time out.

Seriously? Can you explain how threatening (and betraying, and treating immorally) your child someone is supposed to help them *stop* crying?

Post by Rami Rustom
This solution could lead to more crying, aka a tantrum.

A tantrum does not mean more crying.

I don't understand how you are unfamiliar with such common concepts like this. And why you don't use a dictionary. I wonder if the issue is actually unfamiliarity or is some sort of not thinking about their meaning.

Post by Rami Rustom
Or the child
might realize that there are better ways to solve his actual problem
than to cry more. This approach doesn't work because the child's
actual problem doesn't get solved, at least not with the parent's
help.
So the appropriate way to approach this is for the parent to ask, "how
can I help you?"

Yes, I think that's a better question than "Why are you crying?"

Another reason it's better is because the person might not want to talk about why they are crying, but might like some type of help that doesn't involve saying why they are crying, such as to have a conversation about some other fun topic.

Post by Rami Rustom
If the child doesn't figure out how to describe the
problem, then parent can ask more explicitly, "what's problem that you
want me to help you solve?"

That's assuming the child does want the parent to help solve some specific problem at this time. That may well be false.

It's OK make an initial non-pushy statement with a mild assumption along those lines. But not OK to *repeat* that sort of assumption and thereby get more pushy with the crying child.

Especially if child is crying, and is having trouble explaining himself, then that is a terrible question to ask which pushes for something the child isn't doing while not offering any sort of help or advice.

If child is having trouble communicating, or choosing not to communicate much, and is crying, and seems open to talking, then an example of a better approach would be: Parent does most of the talking, child does little. Parent takes the role of confident person who knows many things and starts saying various ones that might be useful. Child can then just say "oh" or "talk more about that" or "yes" or whatever to help guide parent when something is useful. And when it's not useful, say "never mind that" or "no" or don't reply to also help guide parent.

If child is failing to deal with some problem, then child doing most of the talking does not make sense. Child apparently doesn't know enough. So parent should be trying to provide some of his knowledge (and confidence, optimism, and other things that may be relevant).

Post by Rami Rustom
And if that doesn't work then keep going
with, "I still haven't understood the problem. Can you explain to me
*why* this is a problem so that I can help you create a solution?"

No.

Post by Rami Rustom
Getting back to the idea of focusing on symptoms rather than
underlying problems, a similar question is "why are you upset?"
Parents might say that the question is good because its answer is a
description of the actual problem. But, the idea that he is crying
*because* he is upset, is only a guess. As I mentioned above, its also
possible that he is crying because he thinks he needs to cry to get
his parent to help him solve his problem.
There are also statements that parents use that focus on symptoms of
problems instead of actual problems, e.g. don't cry, and don't be sad.
Sometimes parents use these ideas when their children are crying and
they believe that the child is sad because of some things out of the
parent's control, e.g. child's mother recently died. These ideas are
immoral because they don't address the actual problems and instead
they address the symptoms of the problems.
In these situations, the child might be very quiet about what the
problem is. So an approach that works is to guess why he might be sad
and form it into a question: "Are you sad about your mom not being
here?"

I think you have the misconception that the problem must be clearly identified before working on solving it. Actually, problem solving and learning can start *anywhere*, and progress creatively in any way that improves anything. It doesn't go in some rigid order.

It reminds me of the misconception that you have to define your terms before you can have a discussion.

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/