Re: Why are you crying?

On Aug 19, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


> 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?

> 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.

> 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.


> 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).



> 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.


> 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/