HUMOR OR HUMILIATION Whаt shоuld а pаrent dо when a 2-year-оld shrieks inconsolably because her string cheese wrapper tore “the wrong way”? Increasingly, the answer is “snap a photo, add a snarky caption and upload it to Instagram.” Publicly laughing at your toddler’s distress has somehow become not only acceptable but encouraged. Websites offer “best of” compilations, or canned quips readers can use when posting tantrum photos and videos. As psychologists and parents ourselves, we understand the urge to laugh when a child howls because he’s forbidden to eat the packing peanuts from the Amazon box, and we also understand the impulse to make these moments public. The problem is the mockery. When a child cries, parents are biologically programmed to spring into action; blood pressure increases, for example, even if it’s not your kid. Because you know there’s no real danger during a typical tantrum, you joke in an attempt to silence the false alarm your ancient brain is sounding. In addition, joking about difficulties with those who share your situation creates an in-group, a feeling of solidarity. In a classic experiment, a researcher observed that patients in a hospital ward were quick to joke with one another about their greatest discomforts: helplessness in the face of hospital routine or fear of the unknown. The benefits of humor do come at a cost — someone must be the butt of the joke. Another hospital study noted that humor usually has an undercurrent of hostility, which is why jokesters felt compelled to respect social hierarchies. Doctors could poke fun at residents, and residents at nurses, but jokes directed up the hierarchy were not acceptable. More formal experiments confirm the role of aggression in humor. In one, an experimenter interacted with subjects either rudely or neutrally. Later, the experimenter “accidentally” spilled hot tea on herself, and subjects to whom she was rude were much more likely to smile or laugh. This perspective — that there’s a whiff of meanness in the tantrum-posting craze — may strike you as melodramatic. After all, he’s not crying because his dog died; he’s crying because the water in his sippy cup is too wet. It’s funny because there’s nothing wrong. But in his 2-year-old brain, those two events may be equally tragic. The prefrontal cortex has not fully developed, making it difficult to appreciate that water can only be wet or that his dog will not return, or to regulate the ensuing emotion in either case. That his agitation is illogical makes it no less real. Another person’s distress should not be a signal to pull out your phone, craving “likes.” That’s bad enough when it’s a stranger on a plane, but how much the more so when it’s your child, who needs your respect and compassion? Yes, children should learn to laugh at themselves, and that type of learning should first occur in the safety of the family. But those early lessons should concern some harmless folly the child can understand, and a tantrum signals that it’s the wrong moment. Parents have needs too, but you can satisfy them without mocking your child. When a tantrum jangles your nerves, instead of laughing, try this empirically proven method of interrupting the “panic cycle.” Notice your body’s response — the racing heart, the shallow breathing — and remember that your reaction is biological, not cause for alarm. Further calm yourself with a deep breath or a quick 5-4-3-2-1 grounding exercise. Solidarity with other parents comes from sharing your experiences in raising kids, so sure, continue posting stories and pictures of your children — just don’t mock them. If you must tell someone about your kid falling apart because you are “very bad at making lassos,” tell a family member or close friend. Teasing entails trust and love; strangers on the internet don’t love your child. Raising children is complicated, and few rules can be applied without exception. Humor offers one, though: Always laugh with your children, never at them.
Pleаse nоte thаt this questiоn cоnsists of five pаrts. You may use MINITAB to find a final answer. However you MUST show all the mathematical work to get to the final answer. Just giving the answer without adequate work/explanation may result in zero for the question. Critical reading portion of the SAT exam is normally distributed with mean 500 and standard deviation 110. What is the minimum score a test taker needs in order to be on the 95th percentile of the Critical Reading component of SAT scores? What is the probability that a randomly selected person would have a score above 600? Suppose we take a random sample of 25 SAT test takers and calculate their average score on critical reading component. What is the distribution, the mean and the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of the sample mean of the 25 test takers? What is the name of the theorem that tells you the sampling distribution of the sample mean? What is the probability that the average score of 25 test takers is above 600?
When it cоmes tо jоurnаlists recording аnd tаping telephone conversations, Missouri fall into the category of