Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hand Licking Incident

raisingfutureadults.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 358 posts

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#191

Post by tome »

g5095 wrote: post #185

Wen I was in Kindergarten, my teacher called in my parents to tell them that I had learning difficulties. My mother asked why the teacher felt that way, her answer: 'He won't sit on the mat with the other children for story time'. My mother asked the teacher, 'Have you asked him why he won't sit on the mat? he usually loves stories at home.' She called me over in front of my teacher. 'Why won't you sit on the mat wit…

When I was about 5 I was in a gym class and the teacher told us all to "sit on our backsides". I and half the class didn't know the word "backside". I think I ended up assuming my "backside" was the side of my back and lying on the floor on my side. Some of my classmates ended up in similar positions, much to the bafflement of the teacher!

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#192

Post by adwn »

beaconstudios wrote: post #65

I tend to think that almost every time someone is doing something you don't understand or don't like, you're better off understanding the reason for the behaviour than trying to quash it. Even if you desperately want it to stop, they're clearly doing the thing as a means to address something so if you want to stop them using the current solution you should have a better solution to hand or the problem will once again…

Easier said than done in practice, particularly when dealing with smaller children, who either can't articulate the problem, or don't grasp the causal connections. Even more so when the unwanted behavior isn't just "weird", but also self-harming (and very abnormal behavior is often socially self-harming).

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#193

Post by Jolter »

dfgert wrote: post #57
cryptonector wrote: post #47

It's so easy for parents (and teachers) to misdiagnose strange child behaviors. TFA is a wonderful example. Parents need to watch for things like blood sugar problems, autism (e.g., failure to make eye contact), skin problems, mild food allergies (why does the kid not like _fill in the blank_, maybe it's because it tastes "spicy" to them), and much else. Young children will not figure these things out by themselves.…

I don't understand when will medicine recognize the cause of all health complications instead of trying to individually path each and every problem. People can then start correct precautionary measures. All health issues that we see on rise today were virtually absent in pre-industrial era and are directly result of our newly adopted habits and environment. We are paying so much of cost to live in a "modern" world.

Are you saying dry skin on a child is caused by a modern lifestyle? That sounds a bit far fetched, to say the least.

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#194

Post by majortennis »

imtemplain wrote: post #121

"It was his body. He could lick his hands if he wanted to." Bloody hell, the state of western women is constantly getting worse. Quit being so delusional and just put some hot sauce on the goddamn kid's hands while asleep and he will stop licking his hands. Works like a charm and is known for centuries as this problem is nothing new. Inb4 tech libs call this child abuse, lmao doesn't work on a slav, try somewhere els…

it mentions she tried this

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#195

Post by jstanley »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #186
jstanley wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there would be a very big increase. Most people just don't want to steal, assault, murder, etc. because of their own morality, not because of the law.

That only means there wouldn't be a massive increase in the number of perpetrators. I expect that the set of people who aren't morally against it would be willing to do it more often if the risks went down.

> > > I think that instead we would see a massive increase.

> > I don't think there would be a very big increase.

> That only means there wouldn't be a massive increase [...]

Agreed.

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#196

Post by Jolter »

markdown wrote: post #146
projectileboy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, I think that assumption very well might not be true. But I also suspect it would be very hard to find out real numbers for that.

Spanking is culturally accepted in most of the developing world. Statistically speaking, the western nations where spanking has gone out of fashion don't add up to much.

I doubt you have data to back that claim up. We should not be too quick to assume things about "the developing world" (whatever we think that means, and I'm sure we won't even agree on that) unless we have solid real information.

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#197

Post by adwn »

jstanley wrote: post #160
tigershark wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you think that if from today all the crimes were depenalised there would be no whatsoever increase in thefts, assaults, murders and all the other crimes? I think that instead we would see a massive increase.

I don't think there would be a very big increase. Most people just don't want to steal, assault, murder, etc. because of their own morality, not because of the law.

> Most people just don't want to steal, assault, murder, etc. because of their own morality, not because of the law.

I strongly disagree. Many (but not all!) people would be more likely to steal – given an opportunity – if they were absolutely sure they wouldn't face any negative consequences. Similarly, a lot more people would punch someone in the face if they insulted them or cut in line, when they would be absolutely sure that the other person wouldn't punch back.

That doesn't mean that most people are inherently evil, just that they're non-perfect, flawed human beings. Social pressure and the justice system keeps them in line, not their morality.

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#198

Post by ptx »

bitexploder wrote: post #78
Nomentatus wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, your job is to help the child grow and learn. Whether it looks - to other parents, teachers, etc. - like you are a good parent is very much beside the point, and usually a conflicting goal you need to detach yourself from. In fact, paying attention to that is narcissism. See Preacher's kid syndrome. Similarly, whether their behavior is impeccable today isn't the point, whether they're learning skills for tomor…

We are big on Montessori at my house. The philosophy there is basically what you said: kids are adults in the making and parents are just their guides. Ego leads people to think they own their kids and such, but we are just stewards of our kids for small but key part of their life. Many parents struggle with this idea that kids are their own agents and you are just there to help them grow. It seems obvious, but when…

This is interesting because it helps explain the American interest in Montessori. But in other parts of the world these ideas are the mainstream consensus view rather than a fringe ideology. Quoting the United Nations website[1]:

"The Convention [on the Rights of the Child] provides a universal set of standards to be adhered to by all countries. It reflects a new vision of the child. Children are neither the property of their parents nor are they helpless objects of charity. They are human beings and are the subject of their own rights. The Convention offers a vision of the child as an individual and a member of a family and a community, with rights and responsibilities appropriate to his or her age and stage of development. Recognizing children's rights in this way firmly sets a focus on the whole child. Previously seen as negotiable, the child's needs have become legally binding rights. No longer the passive recipient of benefits, the child has become the subject or holder of rights."

[1] https://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30225.html

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#199

Post by syllogism »

RobertoG wrote: post #159
rukuu001 wrote: post #141

I love this story. Little kid logic is so foreign to me now it makes me a little sad. Another example - we have our nephew stay over sometimes. One night, he did not, absolutely NOT want to go into the room he sleeps in. We couldn't work it out. He slept there a bunch of other times, no problem. Tried picking him up to carry him in, but no, he screamed like crazy. After a long, long time, he settled enough to tell us…

>>"Little kid logic is so foreign to me now it makes me a little sad." Well, you have to admit that your nephew logic was flawless. As him, you wouldn't go into your room if you though there is a one meter frog waiting for you. His priors were weird, but that's to be expected with little experience of the world.

Also these adults ignoring the issue and sending him to the room anyway? Plainly in league with frog and not to be trusted.

Re: The Hand Licking Incident

#200

Post by syllogism »

benj111 wrote: post #148
rukuu001 wrote: post #141

I love this story. Little kid logic is so foreign to me now it makes me a little sad. Another example - we have our nephew stay over sometimes. One night, he did not, absolutely NOT want to go into the room he sleeps in. We couldn't work it out. He slept there a bunch of other times, no problem. Tried picking him up to carry him in, but no, he screamed like crazy. After a long, long time, he settled enough to tell us…

>Little kid logic My favourite is when you ask a crying child where they hurt them selves, and they point to the table they just walked into. Edit: Or have a paddy because they can't join the banana they've just cut in half, back together again.

The first one's just ambiguity isn't it? "Where did you hurt yourself? New York"
Post reply on HN