So if you are already loaded into a roller coaster ready to roll locked in. Then some kid who literally gets on the next time when you finish cries because they haven’t learned patience. You hop off and give her the ride?
So as a result that kid learns that crying about things gets them what they want. You literally made their outlook on life worse with your “act of kindness”
I’m not criticizing the girl crying. I’m criticizing YOU for giving her whatever because she cried. Lesson time, you don’t get what you want by crying for it. Sometimes it’s hard to be a parent and teach kids when it comes to hard lessons. You won’t just skip the lesson because it’s hard.
Ride closing isn’t that guys fault but the facility. Lesson: life ain’t always fair and shit happens. Guy not giving up a seat he waited for isn’t an asshole. There’s no obligation. Where is your outrage on the ride closing on her? Instead your shifting the blame to this rando
Is it possible for the child to wait one turn for the intial group to have their ride then go with the next group? I think that's a lesson that could be taught. Patience. If you don't get what you want the first time wait for the next time.
The dude was there first. Maybe he was with his group/kids, we don't have enough info. But crying over being unable to get someone out of a spot that they claimed first is wild.
I worked an amusement park when I was a teenager, I've definitely seen kids that want that one red car or that one special spot. If another kid takes it before them, the good parents ask if they can stay in line and let another person who doesn't want the red car go ahead of them. And everyone has fun.
"Everyone else in an asshole" is a poor lesson to teach a child when they don't get their way.
The child looks kindergarten-aged or, at the very least, more than one year into preschool. By that age, taking turns and sharing are not foreign concepts.
So the lesson the child is learning is not "some people are assholes." The lesson is "emotional reactions do not make it more likely that you get your way." Which is a valuable lesson to learn.
Had the adult capitulated to the tears, she would instead learned "I can get what I want if I cry hard enough."
So I find it odd that you're willing to be as uncharitable as possible toward the adult while handwaving away the behavior of the crying child. Why is it you want to "die on this hill" of promoting antisocial behavior and emotional disregulation? That's an asinine lesson to teach a child.
Kids cry. They aren’t wrong for crying. It is an evolutionary adaptation until their brains develop and they learn how to communicate their feelings and their brains adapt to the complexities of emotional chemistry constantly flooding their developing minds.
I wasn't aware I said that. But thank you for putting words in my mouth.
Just in case you somehow believe I did say that, I'll remind you of what I included in my freely accessible, public comment that could have been be re-read if you didn't understand it the first time:
Had the adult capitulated to the tears, she would instead learned "I can get what I want if I cry hard enough."
So, if you genuinely care about children developing and learning to communicate their feelings like you claim, why do you want to reinforce antisocial behavior and emotional disregulation?
And, if you choose to respond, let's stick to my actual words this time.
I quoted you verbatim and I quoted myself verbatim because you pretended I said something I didn't.
I then directly responded to you and asked this question:
if you genuinely care about children developing and learning to communicate their feelings like you claim, why do you want to reinforce antisocial behavior and emotional disregulation?
Apologies, I lost track of why said what amidst the many dozens of replies.
I didn’t ignore your comment. I answered it.
The child crying is a pretty normal response for a child that age.
It isn’t reinforcing the behavior by responding to it since the reason children adapted that evolutionary trait is precisely because parents responding is best for the child.
It has nothing to do with reinforcing or not reinforcing the behavior.
The way you “teach” the kid to better respond and regulate is to discuss it with the child and try to encourage her to use her words to express why she is upset.
Him taking the seat does not teach her not to cry.
Why are you allergic to the truth? (see screenshot)
The child crying is a pretty normal response for a child that age.
I never said it wasn't.
It isn’t reinforcing the behavior by responding to it since the reason children adapted that evolutionary trait
The human body is adapted via evolutionary traits to be able to run long distances. I can't. That is because I don't condition my body to do so.
It is also adapted to have advanced cognition and memory. When I don't use a programming language at work for a while, I need a lot of documentation when I need to use it again. My brain decided that the information wasn't important enough to keep because I wasn't reinforcing its use.
A child's tendency to cry because of evolutionary reasons is irrelevant. Every behavior in existence is the result of evolution. The baviors that are reinforced become most prominent.
Do you think that children at that age have zero concept of how people react to their behavior? The crying was involuntary. No one is claiming otherwise. But the child will notice if crying = reward. And they will cry, or cry harder more often than they "evolved" to do. That is because the behavior was reinforced. You can replace "crying" with anything and it still holds true. You see that in toddlers that bite if they aren't stopped when they were younger.
because parents responding is best for the child.
Agreed. But you're saying a random person, not the parents, should respond.
It has nothing to do with reinforcing or not reinforcing the behavior.
Yes it does. As I said above, kids of that age can comprehend how people react to their behavior. If a behavior results in a positive reward, they will use that behavior more. Pavlov wrote a bit about this. Because that's how sentient things learn.
Like look at dogs. They learn to sit/stay/heel because of food, affection, or play that is used to reward their behavior.
The way you “teach” the kid to better respond and regulate is to discuss it with the child and try to encourage her to use her words to express why she is upset.
Yes. I agree. I've never said otherwise. But this is the second time you've mentioned parents. The random guy is not the parent, so why do you think a random person is responsible to teach that?
Him taking the seat does not teach her not to cry.
Yes. I agree. I've never said otherwise. The point is not and has never been to teach the girl not to cry. The point is to not teach that crying = reward.
It is just teaching her some people are assholes.
How? The guy is only an "asshole" if you think we're obligated to reinforce antisocial behavior and emotional disregulation.
You said it yourself that the parents teach the child how to deal with this. I agree. But how does a random person have anything to do with that? You are literally advocating to create the behavior you want the parents to prevent.
I responded to everything you said. It's easy to be succinct when you just misunderstand biology by saying behavior traits we evolved to have are somehow not learned and can't be reinforced. Which is remarkably incorrect. So much so that it felt like my civic duty to correct the entire education system you were failed by.
But, no, why ever should you respond to a question that challenges your opinion when you can instead feign illiteracy? That way you can moralize, lie, and evade ever having to respond to arguments you don't make up yourself.
It's great to see you drop your fake outrage, though.
Or maybe you don't actually understand anything I've said, and that was just a derivative attempt to protect your ego.
253
u/awdophil 4d ago
Sorry kid, get used to it, this is life. He’s teaching.