

My baby, the finite state machine (2006) - gokhan
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jmstall/archive/2006/09/13/baby-state-machine.aspx

======
ChuckMcM
One of the most amazing things about kids are that they are state machines,
unfortunately you don't get to see all the states :-).

It amused me (I know, easily amused) that for a while I could end a pointless
argument with my daughter by using a non sequitor. You know "But why can't I
play for another 15 minutes!?", "There are zeppelins in the sky." "... huh?
really? Where?"

Then it amused my wife, after my daughter had identified this edge in her
particular state machine, when we had battling non sequitor arguments, "Oh
yeah? Zebras are monochromatic!" "So? Water ice subliminates below 5% relative
humidity!"

At 19 months (the original article stated this as an age) the evolution of how
kids interact and choose to interact changes almost daily. With my kids there
was a peak around 3 years of age before things normalized out. Always
interesting raising kids.

~~~
pjscott
_> One of the most amazing things about kids are that they are state machines,
unfortunately you don't get to see all the states :-)._

Sounds like a job for Hidden Markov Models. They model a system in which you
can see a state-dependent output (e.g. "I want to play for 15 more minutes!")
and there are clever algorithms for guessing, based on a sequence of observed
outputs, what the hell just happened internally. Very handy stuff:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model>

~~~
tel
But good luck decoding one of those suckers if you violate Markov assumptions!
And this is the trouble with dating...

------
zwischenzug
Every child is different. Some people need that statement tattooed on their
foreheads in mirror writing. It's why parenting is so freakin hard and no-
one's figured out the rules yet.

------
sixothree
Somehow humans are supposed to be the only machines in the universe where the
output is not a function of the current state and inputs.

~~~
rflrob
Not the only machines by a long shot. While it's certainly conceivable to
think of memory and thought as one gigantic state machine, it's impractical to
model it that way. What makes FSMs neat is that they are incredibly useful, in
spite of having no memory and a relatively limited set of states.

------
iambot
brilliant little post, i enjoyed it; dispite some comments here seeming to
lack a sense of humour

------
drstrangevibes
er, i dont think anyone who approaches parenthood as an operator of a finite
state machine deserves to be a parent. just saying....

~~~
gaius
Neither should anyone lacking a sense of humour...

------
alnayyir
Cargo cult, you can't conscionably reproduce this chain of events in a way
that lets you say this is how it actually works.

Still neat though.

~~~
rflrob
Sure you can test it. While any parent will try to minimize the number of new
injuries their child receives, it's hard to imagine that the number will ever
reach 0. So the next time the child hurts herself, just try the crib state
transition again.

------
originalgeek
What a terrible example of parenting. When your baby is crying as the result
of an injury, you should stay with them and comfort them until their pain has
subsided and they stop crying.

~~~
delinka
I would wager you are not a parent. I could be wrong, but...

That's not my point. I've raised two. The youngest is 11. There are problems
with your suggested approach- it teaches the child that all it takes is a cry
and _poof_ mom gives in (we call parents that are suckered in by the crying
"well-trained" by their children); it doesn't solve the problem. In this case
The Problem is "OMG THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE AND IT HURT AND NOW I'M
FREAKED OUT" - at this point it's not about the pain, it's about being freaked
out. Mom appears to have tried treating and comforting and it just didn't
work. Mom figuring out that a state reset was necessary is brilliant. It's not
like she put the kid in the crib and walked away for an hour (which, btw, is
perfectly acceptable when the child Just Won't Quit.)

This is parenting genius. It's really not much different than the approach my
friend took: kid gets hurt (bump, bruise, scrape, cut, etc), cries ... so dad
gives a hug, does his Magical Wave over the injury, blathers some
incomprehensible Magic Words and _poof_ kid stops crying. Psychology, plain
and simple.

~~~
originalgeek
I am a parent, and apparently, you can't read. I quite narrowed my statement
to cover situations where THE CHILD IS INJURED. Not when the child is throwing
a tantrum, or trying to negotiate. WHEN INJURED. CAN YOU READ IT IN CAPS?

~~~
83457
If the child was actually injured would they stop crying just out of habit?
IMO one of the main reasons for performing some sort of redirection, kissing
the boo-boo, etc is to find out if they are actually injured. In my experience
my son may still indicate that his boo boo hurts a bit but he remains calm and
verbalizes that fact. I've seen some parents freak out and dwell on the
incident and go on and on while the child is sobbing. I think it is better to
not make a big out of it, get the child calm by taking their mind off the
incident, then attend to the injury if needed. What is worse... A child crying
their head off for minutes while you hold them or bringing them to a state of
calm in the matter of seconds?

