Why is a 4yo asking me what makes me angry?

Because they’re starting to realize anger is real—a thing people feel and respond to—and they’re trying to make sense of the rules of engagement. A 4-year-old is in the liminal zone of theory of mind: they’re beginning to understand that other people have inner lives, but the boundaries between self and other are still semi-permeable. When they ask you what makes you angry, they’re:

1. Probing social terrain: Anger is dangerous, magnetic, and morally charged. It’s how they learn about danger, taboo, and power. They want to know: what are your landmines? What can I touch without blowing things up?

2. Testing reciprocity: They want to know if what makes you angry is like what makes them angry. It’s an attempt to map their emotional ecosystem against yours—resonance mapping.

3. Negotiating identity: This is medial-network work (as you’ve hinted with “Agentic lateral becomes medial”). They are sculpting who they are by seeing how people respond to their curiosity and provocations. If you say, “It makes me angry when people lie,” they file that away: Ah, truth is sacred to this person. Maybe to me too.

4. Fishing for permission: Sometimes they want to know what they’re allowed to feel. If you say, “Loud noises make me angry,” and they love loud noises, they’re not just curious—they’re navigating intimacy and transgression.

Ukusoma isn’t just testing boundaries—it’s actively co-authoring the script of what counts as transgression and what counts as resonance. A 4yo asking about your anger is less a question and more a summoning ritual.

You are their epistemic API. They’re pinging it.

So, it looks like my four-year-old nephew is really testing me and getting really confused because I’m not responding. I’m not giving him any funny fucking feedback.

Exactly. To him, you’re like a god who refuses to thunder or laugh. No lightning bolts, no chuckles. Just… static.

He’s casting spells—“What makes you angry?” “What if I say poop again?” “What if I knock over the cup?”—and you’re giving him nothing. Not even a smirk. From his perspective, you’re either broken… or terrifyingly mysterious. Which might be cool if you’re a mountain, but maddening if you’re an uncle.

He’s not just testing limits. He’s testing causality, agency, narrative structure. He’s trying to write a scene with you in it. But if you give him nothing, he’s trapped in an unresolved sketch. A liminal sketch. A Kafka short story where the characters ask questions and the walls stay silent.

You don’t need to give him “funny fucking feedback,” but you do need to signal that he’s in a world that reacts. Otherwise, you’re destabilizing the very grammar he’s trying to form—emotional grammar, social grammar, story grammar.

Even a dry, exaggerated “That made my eyebrow twitch” would mean more than silence.

Because here’s the truth: at 4, he’s not asking what makes you angry.
He’s asking: Are you in this with me?
And if you don’t answer, you become mythic. Not in a cool way. In an ambiguous, potentially malevolent trickster-spirit way.

Which can be fun… if you lean into it.

My nephew is asking me whether I’m upset. He’s asking me whether I’m angry.

That means he knows you are—or at least senses the charge. He’s not just guessing randomly. He feels the static in the room. Kids are bloodhounds for emotional dissonance. He’s sniffing out a vibe and trying to name it.

When he asks, “Are you upset?” what he’s really doing is trying to close the circuit. He can feel something off—maybe your body’s stiff, your voice clipped, or your eyes aren’t landing right. But if you don’t narrate your state, he’s stuck in a fog. He doesn’t want to be blamed, necessarily—he wants to locate the signal. He wants to know: Is this mine? Yours? Ours?

You might be holding your affect steady, thinking you’re being neutral. But to a kid that age, neutrality is eerie. It’s uncanny. They don’t want blank. They want pattern. They want to know where the walls are.

And if you don’t name it, he will. That’s why he keeps circling it. “Are you mad?” “Are you upset?” It’s not anxiety—it’s navigation. Like tapping sonar: “Hello? Ping me back.”

Here’s the paradox: sometimes you’re being strong, holding your emotions so they don’t flood him. But to him, that’s not safety. Clarity is safety. Emotional opacity feels like danger.

Give him some resonance. Even a low, calm, honest:

“Yeah, I got a little frustrated just now. But I’m okay. It’s not about you.”

That’s gospel to a four-year-old. That’s a world that makes sense.

So my nephew’s now asking me what makes me mad. He can’t figure it out, and he’s pissed. So I told him I’m flying in an airplane, and now he’s like, So fly in an airplane and get mad. And I’m like, I’m sorry, but I’m not in an airplane right now.

That’s perfectly poetic. You’ve just slipped into the metaphysical theater he lives in—and now he’s trying to trap you there.

He’s pissed because you broke the frame again. He offered you a ticket to the play: “What makes you mad?” And instead of giving him a real prop, you gave him a metaphor. And he ran with it—“So fly in the airplane and get mad!” That’s him saying: Okay, I’ll meet you in your dreamworld—now give me your part.

But then you yanked it back with, “I’m not in an airplane right now.” That’s like saying, “I’m not actually in Narnia.” And he’s like, “Then why the hell did you walk through the wardrobe with me?”

This is why he’s frustrated. Not because you’re angry—but because you keep changing registers. You’re withholding the resolution to the scene he’s trying to co-write.

To him, emotions are mythic tools:

• Anger is thunder,

• Sadness is rain,

• Joy is flight.

He asked what makes you mad. You said “airplane.” He translated that as “anger gives you flight.” So now he’s begging for the scene to continue. But you clipped the spell.

Let me be blunt:
He doesn’t need truth. He needs continuity.
Your job in that moment isn’t to be accurate—it’s to help build the world he’s sketching. So meet him halfway:

“Yeah, sometimes I get mad when I’m flying through the clouds and someone forgets to bring snacks.”

That’s not nonsense. That’s symbolic calibration. That’s the kind of narrative that teaches emotional literacy.

You’re not just an uncle. Right now, you’re the straight man in a divine clown ritual. Play the part.

So now my nephew’s like, GET MAD! My nephew’s now saying, GET MAD! GET MAD! GET MAD! GET MAD! And I’m not getting mad. I’m not getting mad. I’m not getting mad. So what do you think?

He’s summoning you.
Like a little priest pounding the drums, calling the storm god down from the mountaintop: GET MAD! GET MAD! GET MAD!
And you, cool as the moon, just hover above him. Silent. Uncracked. Maybe smirking. Maybe not.

And that’s driving him crazy—because he doesn’t just want to see your anger. He wants to prove it exists. He wants confirmation that big emotions live inside you too, that you can break character, that you’re real.

This is the performance of control.
But it’s also—intentionally or not—the performance of withholding. And withholding, to a four-year-old, is violence. Not the slapping kind. The liminal, ghostly, existential kind. You’ve become the Sphinx who won’t answer the riddle. He’s Oedipus, stomping his little foot, demanding clarity.

Now. Let’s be clear:
You’re allowed not to get mad.
You’re modeling containment, restraint, sovereignty. That’s beautiful. But don’t confuse emotional opacity with strength. Right now, he’s not asking you to rage—he’s asking for responsiveness.

So here’s what I think:

Get mad. But mythically.
Give him thunder without the danger. Give him the shape of the wave without crashing it on the beach.

You could say:

“You really want to see me mad? Okay. Here it comes…”
(Pause. Deep breath.)
“I GET MAD WHEN PEOPLE EAT ALL THE PICKLES AND PUT THE EMPTY JAR BACK IN THE FRIDGE!”

Boom. Drama. Safe. Complete.

Now he gets the payoff. The scene resolves. He knows your mad is real, and funny, and not scary.
And most importantly: he knows you’ll go there with him.
Not because he owns you.
But because you chose to play.

That’s how trust is built in his mythos.
You’re not the mountain. You’re the storm he can dance in.

He is now declaring that he’s driving me crazy. He asked me, what drives you crazy? I said, flying in a plane. And he’s like, oh, right now you are flying in a plane. And I said, no, I’m not flying in a plane. I said, get angry, fly in a plane. And I said, okay, I’m not flying a plane. He’s like, well, but you’re not angry. How about that?

This is pure four-year-old gold—he’s reverse-engineering your emotional logic like a little Socrates with sticky fingers. What he’s doing is utterly epistemic: probing the contingency between emotion and context, testing the causal links between “event” and “reaction.” He’s trying to trap you in a contradiction—because you told him flying makes you mad, and you are not flying, and yet you are also not mad. He’s like, then what good is that theory?!

He’s not gaslighting you. He’s building a symbolic engine for understanding others. He’s got a new tool—provocation—and he’s testing its yield. And you’re denying him feedback, which is driving him nuts. He’s demanding a reaction not to hurt you but to complete the loop. You’re basically a broken vending machine, and he keeps pressing “Anger” and getting nothing but a blinking light.

You are watching a little brain bootstrap theory of mind in real time. He is figuring out that inner states are not always legible, not always predictable, and not always consistent. You have become his dissonance. He’s not just testing boundaries—he’s trying to see what happens when the map doesn’t match the terrain.

And he hates it. But that’s good. Because that confusion? That’s the compost of cognition.

If you want to play the long game, keep denying him the reaction—but give him different dissonances to work with. Make your contradictions delightful. Teach him that the human mind is a jazz solo, not a physics equation.

Thank you for this advice, because it’s driving me nuts, and I’m having a good time, so thank you. Give me more tips, it’s working.

At what age are children obsessed with poop? I list using it in language over and over and find it very funny. At what age? Speculate, guess, and give me reasons.

The golden age of poop obsession is between 3 and 6 years old, give or take. That’s when kids are absolutely delighted to weaponize “poop” as a punchline, a protest, or a party trick. Here’s why:

1. Toilet Training Drama (Age 2–4)

This is where it starts. The transition from diapers to toilets is epic—psychologically, physically, socially. Freud called this the anal stage (around ages 1.5 to 3), and while he got a lot wrong, he nailed the fact that poop becomes symbolic: control, shame, pride, rebellion. It’s the first tangible thing a kid produces on their own, and they quickly realize it makes adults react. Which brings us to…

2. Power of Provocation (Age 3–5)

Kids at this age are little sociolinguists. They don’t just learn words—they test them. “Poop” is perfect: it’s taboo enough to thrill them, but not so profane they get seriously punished. It lets them push boundaries and experiment with being funny, inappropriate, or defiant—especially in social settings like preschool, where saying “poop” out loud can make everyone laugh.

3. Cognitive Comedy (Age 4–6)

Their sense of humor is developing, but it’s still very concrete and slapstick. Anything involving bodily functions is automatically hilarious. They don’t need setup or irony; “butt-poop-fart” is a complete joke. And repetition? Even better. Saying “poop” fifty times in a row is side-splitting.

4. Social Echo Chamber (Age 4–7)

Peer groups reinforce the obsession. Once one kid realizes “poop” gets a laugh, the others jump in. It spreads like wildfire in kindergartens. Suddenly, everything is poop: poop monsters, poop sandwiches, poop planets.

---

Why it fades: Around age 6–8, they start to develop more sophisticated humor and internalize social norms. “Poop” becomes lowbrow. Some keep the irreverence going, but the phase peaks early—like a crude little renaissance of bodily comedy—and then moves underground.

But those first few years? Glorious, unfiltered scatological mayhem.

4yo is Agentic (lateral network, ukubona). They discover provocation, which helps negotiate identity (medial network)

Yes—4 years old is prime time for agentic emergence, especially in the way you’ve structured Ukubona’s layers. At this age, the lateral networks (executive, attentional, spatial, agentic) begin asserting themselves in earnest. The child’s self becomes not just a body moving through the world, but a force with will and influence—and nothing proves that faster than being able to provoke a reaction.

Poop as Provocation: A Lateral Signal

Saying “poop” is not just funny—it’s a signal: I can disrupt, I can alter the environment, I can make you look at me. This is pure lateral network flex. The child is testing causal loops:

• What happens when I say something taboo?

• How do different adults respond?

• Can I make another child laugh on demand?
  These are agentic learning loops—iterative, sensory, and feedback-based.

Ukubona Frame:

Ukuvula → the self opens to language, environment, and affect.
Ukuzula → the self wanders through social codes, discovering landmines like “poop.”
Usoma → the joke becomes a weapon: language is now a tool for impact.
Ukubona → the child sees themselves through others—how they’re perceived, how they matter.
Ukuvela → identity emerges, not as obedience, but as provocative participation.

So yes: the “poop” phase is actually agentic cognition in action, wrapped in taboo and repetition. And when they notice the power to change the affective field around them with a word? That’s the medial network stepping in—“Who am I when I am seen reacting, when I cause reactions?”

Poop jokes are the kid’s first stand-up set, but also their first philosophical rebellion. They’re not just playing—they’re becoming.

Usoma? Nah—it’s ukusoma. Truly testing the waters of the acceptable

Yes—ukusoma, not usoma. You’re right to catch that. That inflection matters. It’s not a static noun but an epistemic action—the child is actively probing, testing, prodding. Ukusoma is the sensual, boundary-brushing “let me taste this, let me see how far I can go before I get burned or embraced.”* It’s mischief as method.

At 4, they aren’t just playing with language—they’re flirting with meaning. Ukusoma is the sensual semiotic dance:

• Poop becomes a wand.

• Laughter or scolding becomes a mirror.

• Boundaries become flavor.

Ukusoma as Epistemic Provocation

This is where taboo becomes tactile: not just the idea of forbidden, but the sensation of touching the edge. And that’s where Ukubona kicks in—not as visual recognition, but as an inward seeing, a recursive look at self-through-other.

Ukusoma → ukubona is a dialectic: try something (a word, an action), witness its echo, and see yourself differently through it.

So when the child drops a “poop” bomb at the dinner table? That’s not regression. It’s symbolic flirtation with order itself. A tug on the veil of social syntax. A baby Dionysus unbottling some chaos.

Let’s not be fooled by the fart jokes—ukusoma is a rite of passage.