Introduction

Introduction: My daughter, Quinn, is 4 years old. Being so young, she hasn't quite grasped what we'll call conventional logic. This is not to say she does not order the world in some logical way - I can proudly say she has developed her own unique way of making sense of her surroundings. Every now and then she is able to express that logic in such a profound way that I understand her thinking process. I've recorded these insightful utterances in a column of sorts on Facebook with the sort of regularity you'd expect from a young child and an uber busy dad. I will recall the events surrounding the statement ("context") as best I can, but most of these are over a year old as of this writing (4/26/2012). A few notes on format: Q was 3 or 4 when she said most of these. Anyone who has a child can tell you that, at that age, the world is divided into 'me' and everyone else; to illustrate this paradigm, conversations take place between 'Q' (Quinn) and PnQ (Person not Quinn - usually me). As previously mentioned I'll provide as much background info ('context') as I can recall (or make up :) ). I will also add how I think her mind came up with that particular bit of information (I shall title this portion 'CalQulation' - pretty clever huh?).

Quinnism #1

You can't be cute and wear a shirt at the same time. For example - PnQ: "You are so cute." Q: "No, I wear shirt" Comprende? Context: I can only speculate as to where we were and what we were doing when she said this. I seem to vaguely recall being outside on a mild spring day - she did something cute (as she is prone to do), we'll say she saw a bird and called it a pterodactyl and screeched at it (as she is prone to do). Somebody (me or her mom) commented on the cuteness of this comment and Q's emergent logic interpreted that as erroneous as concerns survival - if one is cute, one cannot wear a shirt, if one cannot wear a shirt, one is exposed to the elements. CalQulation: In a flimsy attempt to be scientifical, I'm going to try to relate all the Quinnisms to Piaget's theories of child development. In this case, we have a very clear case (clear to me anyway) of 'Assimilation' or “The process of taking in new information into our previously existing schema” (Psychology.about.com). What is a “schema” you ask? That is when you plan to do something, but you haven't thought of the plan yet (i.e. Lackey: “What's the plan, boss?” Boss: staring blankly - “Let me tell you, I have one hell of a scheme-uhhhh...”). Actually, it's simply the way we understand things given the context of what is to be learned and what we already know. I'll get on with it now - as much as a ham as Quinn can be, she is a bit reluctant to accept compliments. As a result, she will automatically deny any compliment. And like anyone that's ever been called “cute”, she associates part of that comment with her clothing. As I have already said, she will deny being “cute” and applying her young child logic, she has in essence interpreted that comment as “you're not wearing a shirt”. To sum up - reluctance to accept compliments = existing schema, compliment = new information; being naked = an unfortunate side effect of being complimented. Looking back at it now, it's a little convoluted, or it might be to you; but, it makes perfect sense to me and it obviously makes perfect sense to Quinn. So screw you guys, be smarter!