4 ms·
I think you're assuming that fighting back is the only option. Yesterday, I saw my friend's two year old throw the toys of the five year old and the five year o
by jimkleiber 4y ago
I think you're assuming that fighting back is the only option. Yesterday, I saw my friend's two year old throw the toys of the five year old and the five year old didn't immediately punch his younger brother, but instead he cried. By crying, both parents were alerted and immediately came to his aid, and frankly scolded the two year old for throwing the toys (indirect revenge?).
Maybe you could argue that by crying, the older child was getting revenge on the younger because he knew his parents would come to scold him. Or maybe the kid just wanted comfort because he lost something he cared about. It was hard for me to know whether his intention was to receive comfort and attention or to have his parents shame his brother, maybe both?
> Combine that with scarcity and a higher propensity for violence
I guess I don't see this as a given as much as it seems you do. I suppose I think people act violently out of pain, most of us just lashing out at each other because we think they hurt us first, more cooperative by nature than competitive, but maybe I'm describing your views inaccurately.
- ipaddr 4y agoThis is such a micro example but is having a 5 year old cry more desired than throwing the toy back? Needing some higher power when through age/ability the child could handle the situation themselves? Does this create a person at 25 who needs some external party to settle disputes and does this become a situation where this child learns to twist people into tools by playing on emotional responses?
- jimkleiber 4y agoPossibly, I suppose it depends on how the parents react to the cry. Bottling up the tears can also teach the 25 year old to numb themselves with alcohol or drugs, or feeling abandoned by the parents could lead to massive distrust, so I don't know if any of them necessarily lead to one outcome or another.