The real/fake crying distinction is an interesting one. My guess is the distinction mainly has to do with whether the crying is automatic/uncontrolled or is instead willed, with the thought being that automatic/uncontrolled crying is more likely to be expressive of a more intense emotion or need. Kind of like how a smile is "fake" if someone is happy but this happiness wasn't strong enough to automatically register with a smile, so the happy person had to intentionally shift their facial muscles to express their happiness through their face.
Crying is "real" whenever it is uncontrolled, no matter what prompts the crying—whether it be physical pain or a thwarted desire or an emotion. Crying is "fake" when the screams or tears are an intentional choice—no matter what inspires someone to choose to express themselves by crying. It may be that the fake crier is upset about something that normally elicits automatic tears but for some reason didn't in this case, like an intense pain, so they decide to cry in order to express that they are feeling something that would normally cause them to cry.
It is interesting that "fake" crying can be dismissed or laughed away even when it can be an expression of a feeling that is bad enough to normally inspire "real" crying. My sense is we think that because the crying is not automatic, the experience it's expressing must not be as bad as an experience that inspires automatic uncontrolled crying, or that the need it is expressing is not as great as a need that inspires uncontrolled tears. I guess children are often in a battle for attention and care which is sometimes in conflict with parents' needs for their own care. Children figure out that their needs are more eagerly attended to when they cry, and that their needs which are not combined with crying are more likely to be ignored when their parents have competing concerns. So, if a child's need does not inspire automatic crying, they might choose to cry while expressing this need in order to boost the chances of having their needs addressed
"Fake" crying can be an expression of a real need or desire on the part of the child, but parents who determine the crying is fake will sometimes dismiss such crying as an attempted power grab: an exaggeration of a need that is real, but maybe is not really as pressing as other things the parents feel they need to attend to. If the crying were "real," it could be about a major problem the parents must attend to immediately no matter what else they have going on. If the crying is "fake," it's more likely to be a minor issue that the parents can ignore for now if they have something else they have to do
The real/fake crying distinction is an interesting one. My guess is the distinction mainly has to do with whether the crying is automatic/uncontrolled or is instead willed, with the thought being that automatic/uncontrolled crying is more likely to be expressive of a more intense emotion or need. Kind of like how a smile is "fake" if someone is happy but this happiness wasn't strong enough to automatically register with a smile, so the happy person had to intentionally shift their facial muscles to express their happiness through their face.
Crying is "real" whenever it is uncontrolled, no matter what prompts the crying—whether it be physical pain or a thwarted desire or an emotion. Crying is "fake" when the screams or tears are an intentional choice—no matter what inspires someone to choose to express themselves by crying. It may be that the fake crier is upset about something that normally elicits automatic tears but for some reason didn't in this case, like an intense pain, so they decide to cry in order to express that they are feeling something that would normally cause them to cry.
It is interesting that "fake" crying can be dismissed or laughed away even when it can be an expression of a feeling that is bad enough to normally inspire "real" crying. My sense is we think that because the crying is not automatic, the experience it's expressing must not be as bad as an experience that inspires automatic uncontrolled crying, or that the need it is expressing is not as great as a need that inspires uncontrolled tears. I guess children are often in a battle for attention and care which is sometimes in conflict with parents' needs for their own care. Children figure out that their needs are more eagerly attended to when they cry, and that their needs which are not combined with crying are more likely to be ignored when their parents have competing concerns. So, if a child's need does not inspire automatic crying, they might choose to cry while expressing this need in order to boost the chances of having their needs addressed
"Fake" crying can be an expression of a real need or desire on the part of the child, but parents who determine the crying is fake will sometimes dismiss such crying as an attempted power grab: an exaggeration of a need that is real, but maybe is not really as pressing as other things the parents feel they need to attend to. If the crying were "real," it could be about a major problem the parents must attend to immediately no matter what else they have going on. If the crying is "fake," it's more likely to be a minor issue that the parents can ignore for now if they have something else they have to do
(Just some speculations from a non-parent.)