[HN Gopher] Kids need freedom, too
___________________________________________________________________
Kids need freedom, too
Author : jseliger
Score : 211 points
Date : 2021-06-16 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.persuasion.community)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.persuasion.community)
| mothsonasloth wrote:
| I went back to my old school for a tour/"try and get Alumni to
| donate money" event.
|
| I was shocked at the changes, especially in the "Elf and Safety"
| (Health and Safety). Pupils are required to wear body and head
| padding for Rugby. Junior pupils in primary school cannot do full
| contact tackles until they are older in high school.
|
| I wasn't the most sporty at school, but I appreciated the rough
| and tumble of rugby, football and military cadets.
|
| Coupled with the digitisation and removal of old
| whiteboards/blackboards, made the place seem less-tangible and
| some sort of controlled environment..
|
| Changed times I guess...
| gpspake wrote:
| The things you've mentioned seem like they fall in to the
| category of responses to increased awareness of CTE associated
| with contact sports. There's not dropping your kid off at the
| play ground... and there's not wanting your kid to lose their
| mind in their twenties because of repeated concussions. I'm
| mostly aware of it from the high profile pop culture cases like
| Aaron Hernandez and O.J. but it seems like a serious cause for
| concern and I don't think football will look the same in the
| next decade or so as it has in the past - especially in terms
| of high school athletics.
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610856/
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_players_with_chron...
| rundevilrun wrote:
| "old man yells at cloud"
| _Microft wrote:
| Repeated concussions are suspected of increasing the risk of
| developing mental health problems one day by several times.
|
| This might be the correct term:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalop...
| quadrangle wrote:
| Well, there's some argument for stats and science here.
|
| Padding for Rugby _might_ actually make sense whereas the trend
| where kids can 't go to the park or the grocery store alone is
| counterproductive.
|
| A world where kids playing actually risky sports use safety
| equipment but also have the independence to go to the park and
| do pick-up games with friends with no adult supervision, that
| sounds like the right balance. Not every change today is bad.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| It's not settled science but there's decent evidence that the
| padding and helmets contribute to the more violent nature of
| American football (where serious and long term injuries are
| more common than in rugby).
| ghaff wrote:
| It's difficult to separate out equipment from rules and
| just general attitudes--at least at lower levels of the
| sports. (And rugby is certainly not immune from concussion
| issues.) I do remember long-ago undergraduate we had some
| major problems in a match against a team where the rugby
| players were basically castoffs from that school's top-tier
| football program. We ended up walking off the field because
| they were basically deliberately trying to hurt people.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| That is comparing professional to professional. The reason
| young children in rugby get padding is not so they can hit
| harder, but because they haven't internalized proper
| tackling form yet. So many more kids are going to get a
| knee to the face as they tackle their opponent, or
| unintentionally truck a person they're trying to tackle,
| compared to older people who know how to tackle correctly
| and safely.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| This seems likely; the boxing equivalent is well-known.
| kart23 wrote:
| The amount of concussions that happen in high/middle school is
| staggering, and has real effects. Theres a reason why 'dumb
| (contact sport) player' is such a pervasive stereotype. I, for
| one am really happy that full contact sports are being treated
| with some more caution.
| vlunkr wrote:
| I think this debate is too often a false dichotomy. There's a
| huge range of choices between never letting kids leave your sight
| until they're 18, and letting them ride a subway by themselves at
| age 9. Parents are currently leaning on the cautious side, there
| may be downsides, but I don't think it's some great tragedy.
| caturopath wrote:
| It's striking to me that the extreme end of 'freedom' here is
| letting a 9 year old ride a train alone. I must be getting old.
|
| I realize it's relevant because Skenazy wrote and talked about
| doing so, but it's also just so non-extreme.
| vlunkr wrote:
| That may be because myself and many others here live in areas
| where we never rode trains or subways at all.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Riding the subway is far safer than being driven in a car.
|
| https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/12/19/heres-how-much-
| safer-...
| vlunkr wrote:
| Well the fear of letting a child go by themselves would
| be that they would get lost, kidnapped, or robbed.
| semitones wrote:
| I agree, it doesn't seem that extreme to me. Maybe something
| like letting your 9 year old get on a bus to another state,
| without a phone, and telling them "come back when you're done
| having fun!" would be extreme.
| bell-cot wrote:
| My grandfather did this with my father - though with
| specific marching orders. Regularly, maybe starting when
| dad was 7. It was the 1920's (s/bus/train/g). So far as I
| can tell from old family stories, it was considered pretty
| normal for an extended family with farms that were hundreds
| of miles apart. When school was out, the "free" young farm
| labor could be sent to where there was work that needed
| doing.
| gilbetron wrote:
| Much as we are finding about obesity being caused by the "food
| environment", there's an unhealthy "kid environment" in many
| places these days. I have a 12 year old, and he barely would go
| run around our neighborhood growing up because there weren't any
| other kids doing it. We tried to get him to do it, but none of
| his friends would join him. Other neighborhoods achieve a
| critical mass and have tons of kids that run around playing.
|
| It bums me out a bit, but I've compensated by getting him
| involved in lots of camps and activities, which I think are more
| interesting anyway. Growing up, sure we ran around and did some
| things, but it was usually pretty boring. My son would get to
| spend summers fishing, learning different sports, kayaking,
| running through different parks, and many other activities that I
| never go to experience.
|
| It's a difficult balance, and just excruciating during the
| pandemic to figure out.
|
| And now that my son is 12 and vaccinated, it turns out most of
| his friends think playing outside is a "dumb little kids thing".
| And there are hardly any camps, and the few that exist filled up
| instantly. So I'm acting as a bit of a camp counselor this summer
| and working more in the evenings so I can bring him places with
| friends.
| semitones wrote:
| I'm sorry to hear that, it does sound like a bummer. I grew up
| in a small residential community, and running around with my
| friends through the neighborhood from the age of 8-15 was a
| huge part of my development. Really can't imagine who I would
| be today if it wasn't for those super fun times.
| endymi0n wrote:
| I can't find the link anymore, but in the prologue of (I think) a
| German norm for building playgrounds it said something along
| these lines that resonated a lot with me: ,,Kids have the right
| to hurt themselves and test their boundaries in a safe and
| limited way"
|
| That's just so important for kids I think. US playgrounds all
| look sad to no end compared to the 15 meter high rope pyramids
| you see here in a lot of schools.
|
| First time you see them, you tell yourself: No way I'm going to
| let my kids play on that thingy.
|
| But when you take a close look, all ways down you'd bump into a
| rope, there's no direct free fall and there's usually thick
| rubber or sand below.
|
| Sure it's going to hurt and maybe break a bone in the very worst
| case if you miss, but that is just super rare.
|
| But what it adds in developing courage, resilience and risk
| awareness is just priceless.
|
| Then again, having your kids break a bone won't bankrupt your
| family for life over here...
| ip26 wrote:
| Man, I thought you were talking about a 4 story rope climb at
| first.
| jedberg wrote:
| > Then again, having your kids break a bone won't bankrupt your
| family for life over here...
|
| That's the key. I've noticed in places with universal health
| care, they tend to have more fun playgrounds. Because the owner
| knows they won't get sued for medical expenses.
|
| That applies in general in places with universal healthcare. My
| friends who live in those places told me their car and home
| insurance are much cheaper than when they lived in the USA,
| because there is no risk of getting sued for medical expenses.
| vinay427 wrote:
| To be fair, in many places with universal coverage of health
| insurance, the owner doesn't know they won't get sued for
| medical expenses. The European countries that have often been
| mentioned here (Germany, Switzerland, etc.) most often use a
| system of private insurers with deductibles and co-pays that
| patients must pay, although the minimum level of coverage
| tends to be far more protective than in the US. Medical
| expenses wouldn't cost tens of thousands (USD/EUR/CHF/...)
| but would still cost hundreds or somewhere north of a
| thousand in a place like Switzerland.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| We used to have playgrounds like that. My favorite playground
| as a kid had metal slides, a merry-go-round that we used to
| have fun throwing kids off of by spinning it at high speed, and
| this gigantic metal turtle that would get so hot in the summer
| sun that it would burn you. My elementary school had monkey
| bars at varying heights... etc etc..
|
| But last time I checked that playground replaced everything
| with bulky plastic toys and one of those boring wood castle
| things with plastic slides
| [deleted]
| swalsh wrote:
| Anti-fragility is a concept I don't think enough people think
| about. This is a good clip:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OXI17ye9Gw
| atty wrote:
| Does anyone else feel like the current climate is partly a by-
| product of the lazy "think of the children!" Rhetoric that so
| many law enforcement agencies and politicians use to get their
| legislation and budgets passed? It's hard to let kids be
| unsupervised if the only thing you hear from politicians, police
| and others is that kids are in so much danger we need to pass
| otherwise ridiculous laws just to protect them.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| which, taken to an extreme, also makes me think of "pizzagate"
| and obsessive conspiracy theories about imaginary pedophilia.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > kids are in so much danger we need to pass otherwise
| ridiculous laws just to protect them
|
| Also: "kids are in so much danger, you must elect me to keep
| them safe!" or "kids are in so much danger, tune in at 6
| O'Clock to find out why!"
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| A whole hell of a lot of people who buy into emotionally
| appealing rhetoric without thinking critically do not deserve
| to be shielded from blame. There is no shortage of them among
| us here.
| asciimov wrote:
| It's between that, the zero tolerance policies that many places
| have, and the unwalkable suburban residential nightmares we
| have built.
|
| I know for several of my minority friends, they won't let their
| kids go anywhere alone due to run-ins with law enforcement.
| slownews45 wrote:
| At least your friends will be able to let their kids go
| places once the police are defunded.
|
| I know of communities where they won't let kids go anywhere
| because the lack of law enforcement (this includes minority
| communities). So this concern about law enforcement presence
| is not universal though white allies are big on focusing on
| that area.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Sadly, most zero-tolerance policies exist because getting
| sued is simply too expensive for the schools to deal with.
| Why make a nuanced judgement when you risk getting a lawsuit
| by trying to be fair?
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Why make a nuanced judgement when you risk getting a
| lawsuit by trying to be fair?
|
| School policy has exactly 0 legal weight. It won't protect
| the school against a lawsuit. Maybe the low end of layers
| believe it, but there's a reason lawyer's compensation is
| bimodal.
|
| But by the time school administrators figure this out, they
| are typically being offered an out-of-court settlement with
| a confidentiality clause.
| LambdaComplex wrote:
| I don't think I agree with you. I can definitely see a
| parent filing a lawsuit for "You suspended my kid because
| someone punched him in the face"
|
| (No idea if it would go anywhere in court, but when has
| that ever stopped someone?)
| watwut wrote:
| Zero-tolerance policies are wasy to implement and sound
| tough. Many people like though and like hearing someone was
| punishes and "made to learn the lesson".
|
| It all feels good for many people.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Sadly, most zero-tolerance policies exist because getting
| sued is simply too expensive for the schools to deal with.
|
| No, zero-tolerance policies exist because they are low-
| effort ways of being seen as addressing issues of political
| concern (and because minimizing discretion of subordinate
| staff while avoiding creating an incentive to kick
| sensitive decisions up the chain is itself desirable to
| decision-makers); excessive restrictions, like insufficient
| ones, are sources of lawsuits, if schools were concerned
| about maximum mitigation of legal risk they would have more
| carefully tailored policies.
|
| EDIT: It's worth noting that zero-tolerance policies are
| _sold as_ necessary for mitigating legal risk, but that 's
| because that's a more palatable sales pitch than "we want
| neither to permit subordinates to exercise judgement _nor_
| to have to consider details of individual cases ourselves".
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"zero-tolerance policies are sold as necessary for
| mitigating legal risk,"
|
| I guess I fell for the marketing. In any event I detest
| zero-tolerance policies for just about everything.
| aeternum wrote:
| In some cases zero-tolerance is marketing but in others
| it's not.
|
| Take disciplinary action for example. Very few schools
| have the same rate of expulsion/suspension for students
| of all races. How do schools prove to a jury that this is
| not a result of discrimination or racism? Quite difficult
| unless they have a zero-tolerance policy.
| [deleted]
| l33t2328 wrote:
| This is an oft repeated talking point, but I've never seen
| any evidence for it.
| [deleted]
| somethoughts wrote:
| What is interesting is the article is mostly concerned about the
| instances where potentially unsupervised kids could harm
| themselves or adults could harm unsupervised kids.
|
| What isn't mentioned is the case where unsupervised kids could be
| the cause intentional or unintentional society to the community -
| causing anything from minor property damage (graffiti) to major
| property damage (arson) to bullying/violence.
|
| One parents unsupervised older kid exploring their freedoms could
| easily be one communities source of over $36M of arson damage or
| be considered a member of gang of shoplifters.
|
| [1]
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/22/teen-s...
| tootie wrote:
| I think parents may tend to be afraid of the wrong things, but
| there's plenty of things to be scared of. My oldest walks herself
| around Brooklyn daily and my number one fear by a mile is her
| getting hit by a car. Also, I think every single woman I know who
| rode the subway regularly as a teenager was accosted or flashed
| by a crazy person at least once if not routinely. Certainly they
| grew up without permanent injury, but I don't think I'm depriving
| my kid of a valuable life lesson by protecting them from that.
| dpeck wrote:
| 100% agree.
|
| Most other things I accept the risk, but cars around kids worry
| the hell out of me. Drivers don't pay attention, kids don't
| either. Even places with sidewalks, it doesn't take a lot of
| things to go wrong before taller SUVs can easily have a tire
| hop onto the curb.
| mox1 wrote:
| This. Every reasonable statistic shows drivers paying less
| attention and more in a hurry.
|
| I'd send my 5 year old to the park by himself, if crossing a
| road by himself wasn't involved.
|
| In my state multiple elderly people have been hit by cars
| while getting their mail! Like, if grandmas are dying
| somewhat often while spending 30 seconds on the side of the
| residential road, what chance does my kid have!?!?!
| hpoe wrote:
| I know this is another, back in my day story but I think it is
| relevant. Back in the early 2000's when I wasn't even 10 my
| parents sent me to spend a week or two with my grandparents who
| owned 40 acres up in the pacific northwest. The biggest
| adaptation for me was after breakfast Grandma told us to go
| outside and that we weren't allowed back in until the temperature
| had hit 100. It was a little bit uggh for the time, but we had a
| blast running around, slipping through fences, playing in the
| barn and a ditch.
|
| Good times, everyone should get shipped off to 40 acres and told
| not to come in until the temperature hits 100 at least once in
| their childhood.
| legerdemain wrote:
| The author might ridicule the notion of children being raised
| "like veal," but calling them "free-range kids" just makes me
| think I'll be paying a hefty premium for cub scout sirloin.
| crawfordcomeaux wrote:
| Holding out for the wagyu gamer kids. "Gamers, not gamey."
| caturopath wrote:
| A 14 year old article that hints at how long this trend has been
| going this direction some places
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-children...
|
| Part of me is glad I grew up on the poorer side for the US, which
| put me ten years behind a lot of social changes. My same-age
| peers in middle class households had so much less freedom, I came
| to learn.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| The poors having more freedom on a day to day level is not new.
| Orwell touched on it in 1940-something when he wrote 1984.
| jseliger wrote:
| _The Anthropology of Childhood_ :
| https://jakeseliger.com/2015/03/05/thoughts-on-the-anthropol...
| makes a good companion to this essays.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| See also "Free-range Kids" https://www.freerangekids.com/
| fungiblecog wrote:
| Back in the day local kids would meet up and roam together. Now
| even if a kid wants to go out and explore they can't find someone
| to do it with. Kids used to look out for each other and develop
| valuable skills. Trying to teach "resilience" and "teamwork" in a
| class is a nonsense. These skills used to develop naturally.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I thought this article would be about other things judging from
| the title, but these are good points.
|
| I'm not that old, and I remember "be home before dark" when I was
| in the single digits. I was going outside, by myself, since about
| the age of 5. As soon as I could ride a bike that was it.
| Basically my parents made dinner and paid the rent, the rest was
| all me in my own life.
|
| There was a phase in my childhood where I was actually in a very
| dangerous environment, and as a result my freedom was restricted.
| I can compare the two. I think it damaged me quite a bit. I
| wonder about kids who never knew the freedom to be human beings.
|
| Again as a teenager I experienced that freedom and the good
| fitness that comes with having a wide range and only feet to get
| around. And there was trouble (exposure to drugs, etc). But all
| in all the trouble didn't affect me negatively in the long term,
| I think it was less harmful than if I'd otherwise been
| restricted, and most adults don't avoid those sorts of troubles
| either way.
|
| There is a network effect reinforcing this trend. Kids don't go
| outside because there's no kids outside. Also I think that while
| the fear of abduction or a terrible accident is there, I think we
| downplay other factors in the trend now, particularly the
| increased demand for creature comforts over the last 2 decades
| (and longer, but more pronounced more recently) and the
| availability of stimulation indoors. I remember the middle of the
| summer and going outside every day not once thinking it was too
| hot to go outside, then spending the entire day out there. People
| think I'm weird now for not using the AC in my car. I remember
| waking up in the morning and there was no inkling to check a
| phone. People can be immensely stimulated laying in bed now, with
| phones and videogames and such, and there are positives that come
| with these new tools but there are negative changes as well, and
| many people are beginning to come to the conclusion that the
| negatives outweigh the positives.
| ip26 wrote:
| _Basically my parents made dinner and paid the rent, the rest
| was all me in my own life_
|
| This is not really the relationship I aspire to have with my
| children.
| nomel wrote:
| > Kids don't go outside because there's no kids outside.
|
| I don't think it's that simple. If you let your kids outside,
| away from your supervision, there's a very real (absolutely
| certain, where I live) risk of the police getting involved.
| bsf_ wrote:
| I can confirm this - last year I had to deal with Redwood
| City PD because my 11 year old daughter was playing after
| school on the playground (which is, amazingly, not allowed in
| CA?!). I stood my ground, but the incident involved the
| police department and meetings with the principal before it
| was resolved. California is doing a good job of driving the
| liberal right out of me.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| "California is doing a good job of driving the liberal
| right out of me."
|
| Same for me. CA seems to be full of control freaks who like
| to control others.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Maybe we need to talk about what's wrong with adults being so
| freaking creepy !
| sixothree wrote:
| Gen X here. I started riding my bike in my neighborhood as soon
| as my next door neighbor took off the training wheels. It was a
| small neighborhood with clear boundaries.
|
| But as soon as I was 10 and 11 I was leaving to visit friends.
| I was thinking back recently to one forgotten friend who lived
| about 1.5 miles away and the pathway I would have taken to his
| house. It involved crossing two 6-lane divided highways and
| another Avenue.
|
| I was safe and patient. But I would be aghast to see it in
| action today.
|
| When I was 13 and 14 we would take "tours" of the city. Even on
| foot, I would meet friends and we would start early and walk as
| far as we could. Then take the bus or call our parents. I love
| those memories. So much.
|
| I loved the city for its shape before I was an adult. And that
| freedom and those memories have filled me my entire life. And
| when I started driving I knew how to get to all of the places.
|
| Before she died my mother would always tell me "the kids don't
| play the way you guys used to". We really tore it up.
| cuddlybacon wrote:
| Jonathan Haidt wrote a book called The Coddling of the American
| Mind [0]. He'd agree that adults need to give children their
| freedom back.
|
| He talks about what the consequences for not doing so have been
| for Zoomers and it is quite worrying: escalating rates of
| depression and anxiety, increased rates of suicide, fewer
| friends, even fewer close friends, reduced social trust, more on-
| campus violence, increased favorability to authoritarian
| policies.
|
| [0] - He starts the book with a discussion of the title. He
| initially resisted it because people usually use the word coddled
| to blame the coddlees but this book very much blames the
| coddlers.
| kbelder wrote:
| I'm having this issue a bit with my wife. I want my 9-yr old
| daughter to go to the playground a couple blocks away on her own;
| my wife is reluctant.
|
| My argument is that it's statistically very safe, especially in
| our neighborhood, and that we and her older brothers all did
| similar things. Her argument is that a girl needs to be more
| cautious than a boy, and that although she knows it's unlikely
| anything bad would happen, it would destroy us if it did.
|
| We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only after
| we get her her first phone.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I would be much more concerned about some well intentioned
| rando calling the cops on you because there's a child
| unattended.
| grahamburger wrote:
| This really is a great thing about living in Utah with young
| kids (one of the states mentioned in the article with laws
| explicitly protecting parents from these randos.)
|
| In my neighborhood the street is literally full of
| neighborhood kids almost every day, ranging from 2-3 years
| old to teens, out riding bikes and playing games. There's a
| park a few blocks away that my kids (3yo-10yo) walk or bike
| to unsupervised.
|
| Obviously as a parent you still worry - for me I worry more
| about someone getting hit by a car than being abducted - but
| it's nice to know at least that child services isn't going to
| show up just because the kids are out playing.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I live in the Midwest. I am a teacher. My wife is a social
| worker. I hear this fear about being charged Or having your
| kids taken by CPS because you let them walk alone to the
| grocery store or something, but I've literally never heard of
| it happening. I even have known a couple CPS workers in the
| past. The stuff they deal with day to day is wildly more
| intense than what people are suggesting here. My instinct is
| that it's a straw man, but clue me in. How common could this
| possibly be?
| nikolay wrote:
| Parents today are overprotective (this includes me!) and don't
| realize that it actually damages their kids. I was 5-years-old
| when my parents would just drop me off to the kindergarten and
| then I was on my own pretty much the whole day after
| kindergarten finishes in the afternoon. I would go to different
| classes kilometers away, crossing roads, etc. and it was common
| practice. I don't think kids get injured less today than when I
| was a kid. Also, my parents would send me to the store to buy
| them beer or cigarettes - all you needed back then to either
| bring a handwritten note from your parent or for the
| salesperson to know you and know your parents - I don't drink,
| I don't smoke. We always underestimate the power of the
| forbidden fruit! Leaving kids on their own makes them more
| responsible and independent.
|
| I highly recommend Free-Range Kids [0]!
|
| [0]: https://www.freerangekids.com/
| akomtu wrote:
| So in essence, the overprotective parents trade their kids'
| freedom for personal (and egoistical, tbh) peace of mind.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| Which begs the question, why have kids at that point?
| They're human beings, not instinct driven pets.
| akomtu wrote:
| Because peer pressure and because it gives them a sense
| of accomplishment. And because, well, kids often happen
| by accident.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| The first two are very sad honestly and it really doesn't
| help with a child's psyche if they discover the purpose
| of their birth was for this reasons. It's almost like
| your purpose is to become a disappointment specifically
| because your parents had you as a trophy.
| nikolay wrote:
| My son just underwent Sex Ed this year - it was so
| detailed that I'm sure many adults could learn tons of
| stuff. Yet, accidents happen, but mostly because we don't
| educate kids. In the past, I remember my grandparents
| talking to my sister about these things, and teen
| pregnancies were much less than now with all the Sex Ed,
| wide availability of contraceptives, etc.
| mroset wrote:
| > teen pregnancies were much less than now with all the
| Sex Ed, wide availability of contraceptives, etc.
|
| While a common perception, that's actually almost
| entirely false. Teen pregnancies have been dropping
| pretty steadily for the last ~70 years and they're now
| almost one quarter the rate of just 30 years ago. Sex ed
| and availability of contraceptives (especially IUDs) are
| quite effective at preventing teen pregnancies.
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/02/why-is-
| the-...
| afarviral wrote:
| Why have pets? They're not JUST instinct driven beings,
| either.
| chairmanwow1 wrote:
| I think the way people view pets is pretty inhumane. It
| just seems so thoroughly selfish to purchase an animal
| bred to be provide you joy.
| [deleted]
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| I am in the same camp. There was this girl I met on
| tinder that I always noticed the irony of her rescuing a
| dog from somewhere only for her to lock it up in a cage
| for 8-12 hours a day while she is working or partying.
| It's not right at all.
| nikolay wrote:
| I have to agree - maybe outside of dogs, all other pets
| are not happy. For example, how can "fixing" cats be
| acceptable?! Just because we don't want to allow cats to
| mate and inconvenience ourselves, we "fix" them and
| everybody seems okay with it! How is this not animal
| cruelty by the book?! Cats grow obese and feel miserable.
| I've had cats, I let them go in and out, they lived
| fruitful lives and were not forced to come back, yet,
| they did. During the mating seasons, of course, they were
| gone for weeks.
| dgritsko wrote:
| In case anyone else didn't make the connection, the author of
| the linked article (Lenore Skenazy) is also the author of
| Free-Range Kids.
| nikolay wrote:
| I did notice and got embarrassed for not paying attention
| who wrote it.
| hallarempt wrote:
| I was a four-year old forty-five years ago. I was walking to
| my pre-school and back, a couple of blocks and a pretty big
| and busy street across daily.
|
| The cars weren't a problem. Getting mobbed by primary school
| kids on my way back and getting beaten up was a problem. A
| bigger problem was when I told my parents the reason I was
| getting home later and later was because of the detours I was
| taking to avoid getting beaten up, and they arranged a
| meeting with me, the beaters-up and their parents and them --
| and in the end, it was clearly my fault, I had never been
| beaten up, and these were all friendly kids, brought up all
| wholesome.
|
| The past wasn't a better place, it just was a place where you
| didn't talk about being abused, no matter what.
| [deleted]
| funcDropShadow wrote:
| > The past wasn't a better place, it just was a place where
| you didn't talk about being abused, no matter what.
|
| I guess that is true, but an interesting question is: Did
| the past prepare kids better to become responsible and
| capable adults?
| knolax wrote:
| No. Just look at the boomer generation.
| TheTrotters wrote:
| I don't think there's anything wrong with them. At least
| compared to every other generation.
| hallarempt wrote:
| No, it just made us into damaged people more likely to
| damage other people.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Given what we have learned regarding the catholic church, boy
| scouts and penn state athletics program. I'd say young boys
| have just as much to fear if not more.
|
| That said I'm with you on her walking to the park.
| goldenchrome wrote:
| My mom used to take the bus into the city when she was 8, spend
| the day wandering around, and come back on her own time. This
| was in the 70s with no smartphones. If there was an issue, she
| could use a pay phone. Her own mother sent her out of the house
| to get some free time for herself.
|
| When I was growing up, I did similar things, taking my 5 year
| old sister on the public bus with me to get to school when I
| was 10. If I had some pocket change we'd get ice creams from
| McDonald's on the way home.
|
| It depends on what neighborhood you live in, but the world is
| very safe today and if you're on HN I assume you're in a decent
| area.
|
| I think parents have too much time and energy today to spend
| worrying about their frankly very competent kids. The
| smartphone thing is a good idea but I really think it's best to
| push your kid out of the nest to discover the world themself,
| lest you end up with a grown up daughter who's afraid of the
| world.
| jbay808 wrote:
| Sounds like your grandmother would be getting letters from a
| social worker if she were a parent today.
|
| https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/07/06/vancouver-bus-dad-
| ki...
| goldenchrome wrote:
| I'd rather fight the battle than cripple my own child so
| they can fit into a pathetic society.
| gambiting wrote:
| In the 90s I walked to school(two busy streets and one market
| Square with stalls away) on my own at the age of 7, I was
| expected to leave the house and lock the door behind me on my
| own(my parents both left to work by that time), make it back
| at the end of school and let myself in and wait at home for
| their return.
|
| Nowadays just leaving a 7 year old at home alone would be a
| crime.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| It's the "John Walsh" effect. His son's kidnapping was all over
| the news and then later he had "America's Most Wanted" and he
| literally started scaring people from allowing their kids out
| of their sight. To this day, people still think their kid is
| going to be abducted if they let them go play.
|
| I remember being 9 and riding my bike miles away to the mall
| and back. Kids can't do that anymore.
| handrous wrote:
| We let our very-capable son and his less-capable-but-bright and
| more-experienced older sister freely wander the neighborhood on
| bicycles when they were 5.5 and 7, respectively. Worked out
| fine so far.
|
| Varies by neighborhood, though. Our current one's busy-body and
| kids-only-play-with-parental-escort enough that we had a couple
| neighbors stop by to warn us that they'd seen our kids several
| streets over, thinking they'd gotten away from us. Not quite
| busy-body enough that anyone called the cops (I suspect we were
| _right_ on the edge of that happening, and maybe just got
| lucky). Our last neighborhood had wonderful mixed-age "gangs"
| of kids wandering around playing all the time, and it would
| have been entirely safe there. That was a much younger
| neighborhood (in terms of both the ages of the houses and the
| average age of residents) than this one (not sure whether
| that's related), and, I suspect, there were some class issues
| at play (the other had a very high-prole character to it, in
| Fussellian terms, while this one's 100%, gratingly, middle-
| class as hell)
|
| As for chances of assault, your main worry by a country mile
| should be cars, not predators. All forms of attacks on kids _by
| strangers_ are incredibly rare. Leaving your kid in the company
| of a specific adult or set of adults is far riskier than
| letting them walk to the park (yet people do that all the
| time). Shit, statistically _siblings or cousins_ are far
| "scarier" and worthy of concern, in that regard, than the risk
| of regular walks to a park 2 blocks away.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > a couple neighbors stop by to warn us that they'd seen our
| kids several streets over, thinking they'd gotten away from
| us
|
| Like dogs?!
| handrous wrote:
| Ha, yes, actually it was almost exactly like that. With a
| concerned look, "I think I saw your boy over on [street]
| and thought I'd better let you know". Was he playing in the
| road? Getting in the way of traffic? Stomping on flowers?
| Otherwise behaving like a jack-ass? Nope, just there. OK,
| uh, thanks for telling us.
|
| Well intentioned and mostly just amusing. At least no-one
| called the authorities when they realized we weren't
| planning to confine our kids to the yard or accompany them
| on every idle play-outing all damn Summer.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > your main worry by a country mile should be cars, not
| predators
|
| 100%, and cars are a reasonable worry that we should do
| something about. There are well known traffic calming
| measures that we know slow down traffic substantially (speed
| being one of the greatest causes of pedestrian fatalities)
| and even in my very walkable city we're largely not using
| them.
| clairity wrote:
| speed doesn't cause fatalities, or even cause collisions,
| it increases severity in the case of a collision.
| collisions cause (pedestrian) fatalities, and distracted
| driving is the leading cause of collisions.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| Even back when us kids were 'free range' there were more
| restrictions placed on the girls, my older sister couldn't get
| up to as many shenanigans as I could at the same or younger age
| -- cultural norms and whatnot.
| ska wrote:
| It's a conversation being had by parents all the time. The
| mistake is to think that not letting the kids do things doesn't
| have an effect.
|
| More realistically you are often balancing a high harm, low
| risk (sometime tiny, eg abduction) event against a low harm,
| high risk one. This is inherently difficult, but easier I think
| when framed this way.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Stories like this make me so sad. We've turned ourselves into
| wusses in just 20 years...
| rhema wrote:
| You might try to get longish distance walkie-talkies. They are
| cheap and probably go far enough. I let my (similar age) kids
| free range a block or two, especially if they go together and
| bring a walkie talkie.
| asciimov wrote:
| > We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only
| after we get her her first phone.
|
| Might I suggest looking into one of those cell phone watches
| for kids. They allow you to lock down who they can send and
| receive calls/messages from and have gps and geofencing so you
| can keep an eye on them. It basically allows you to give them
| the advantages of a phone, without having to give them a phone.
| akomtu wrote:
| I'm puzzled by this attitude. It's as if a kid is a monkey of
| some sort that can randomly call someone. If a kid is smart
| enough to use a phone, he or she can understand your
| concerns.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| The irony in making this suggestion in this thread...
| asciimov wrote:
| It's a good compromise for mom. Let kids run free, and give
| mom the reassurance they can call someone if they need
| help.
|
| I don't like giving cell phones to kids younger than 12 or
| 13 because childhood should be free of a lot of the
| technology we use today.
| yupper32 wrote:
| > I don't like giving cell phones to kids younger than 12
| or 13 because childhood should be free of a lot of the
| technology we use today.
|
| The future is technology. You're holding them back,
| socially and technology skills wise, if you wait until
| they're 13 to give them a cell phone.
|
| I was fixing computers and was generally the house
| technology expert well before I was 13. To get to that
| point required unrestricted access to tech and the
| internet. If I was locked down until 13, I would not be
| as successful as I am today in tech, if I was in tech at
| all.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Hard disagree. Children with phones don't socialize face
| to face with other children. That's pretty much the most
| important skill taught in elementary school and you're
| taking it away from them. You can still let your child
| use computers at home, but they should have to interact
| face to face in order to socialize. Yes, the future is
| technology, but not being able to interact with people
| without anxiety is not a path to happiness, and that's
| what you get when you give children phones.
| yupper32 wrote:
| > Children with phones don't socialize face to face with
| other children.
|
| Where in the world did you pull this out from?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Interacting with children who have smartphones. Both as a
| child myself and now. Obviously it's not a universal
| truth, but I've seen it more than 10 children who suffer
| from this which is enough to convince me that it's a
| risk.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| Fully agreed. I spent my entire childhood with
| essentially zero electronics (we lived overseas), and
| didn't get into computers until we were back stateside,
| and I was a young teen.
|
| As an adult, I'm proud of my technical accomplishments.
| But having essentially no social anxiety, _because I
| learned how to communicate face to face throughout my
| childhood_ , has been the biggest boon of all. Not
| joking.
| Sleepytime wrote:
| The computer that you used required skills to use and
| maintain, and stayed at home. It is vastly different than
| a dumb (yes) internet appliance kept in a pocket all day
| long subjecting children to dark patterns and dopamine
| hits for hours a day.
| nicoburns wrote:
| What about a dumbphone?
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| I don't think the intention behind "free range kids" is
| that they get unrestricted access to technology and
| everything the internet can serve up to them.
| tester89 wrote:
| I was against Apple Watch for kids, but honestly if I were in
| this situation, it seems like a decent compromise.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Maybe even just an Air Tag?
| mikepurvis wrote:
| My eldest is also a daughter of a similar age. What my partner
| and I have said is "yes you're old enough to go do things, as
| long as you're going with friends." She's not old enough to go
| places alone, or to go places where she'll be supervising her
| younger sibs. But she's old enough to be in a setting where
| peers are watching out for each other and know how to find help
| if needed.
|
| I know that's still a walk-back from what previous generations
| enjoyed, but it's not that different from what we both
| experienced at this age in the 90s. And in parallel to this,
| we've put a fair bit into teaching our kids to navigate on
| foot, use public transportation, and safely ride their bikes on
| the road-- all of it an investment in pre-car/non-car teenage
| autonomy.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| The bigger risk is getting run over by an inattentive driver,
| and yet most parents are worrying about pedophiles. How would a
| phone guard against distracted driving?
| aantix wrote:
| Get her a Gizmo pal watch.
|
| You can call her. The watch auto-answers, so she can't ignore
| it. She can call 5 pre-programmed numbers.
|
| And you can see her location in an app.
| rsync wrote:
| "I'm having this issue a bit with my wife. I want my 9-yr old
| daughter to go to the playground a couple blocks away on her
| own; my wife is reluctant."
|
| ...
|
| "We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only
| after we get her her first phone."
|
| I hesitate to enter into child rearing discussions but ...
|
| May I suggest a slightly different approach: satisfy your wife
| by following, secretly, your child at a distance the first few
| times. All the benefits of independence and self-reliance,
| etc., for your child - and a gradual, baby steps approach for
| your wife as she gets comfortable with this routine.
|
| May I also suggest that a phone is unnecessary due to the fact
| that _every single other person_ already has a phone. Further,
| bad actors will likely assume your daughter has a phone. It 's
| classically selfish behavior but you can piggyback on the
| (telephone) safety net that everyone else has already
| constructed. I know from voluminous personal experience that
| everyone, everywhere, is happy to use their phone to help your
| child. Just make sure she memorizes your phone numbers :)
| unanswered wrote:
| I have to disagree with both points here.
|
| Following the child after apparently granting freedom would
| be a massive breach of trust: bad enough on its own, but
| potentially very scarring if discovered. Don't add that risk!
|
| As for the phone, you're right if you only think of the phone
| as somehow protecting against stranger danger. But as someone
| who lives alone with health problems I think of the phone
| entirely differently: it's a lifeline to all kinds of
| potential help, from a medical emergency to being locked out
| of my car or apartment building. And of course not only in
| that direction; it works the other way too where having my
| phone means I can be a point of contact for help for others.
| This is obviously a somewhat new aspect of our society in the
| past 20 years, and I'm certainly not saying we couldn't get
| along without it; but I _am_ asking, "why would you _want_
| to go back to a time before these universal lifelines? ".
| tux1968 wrote:
| > May I suggest a slightly different approach: satisfy your
| wife by following, secretly, your child
|
| Suspect they already trust their child enough to not need to
| follow her at all. She's capable. The concern is unforeseen
| events outside the child's control such as irresponsible
| drivers, bullies, or worse. None of which is any less likely
| to happen after you stop following the child.
|
| They're not likely to ever happen, and the child's
| independence is probably worth the risk, but there's no way
| to ever completely eliminate those risks or put your mind
| completely at ease about it.
| rsync wrote:
| I agree with your analysis - but this suggestion is for his
| wife, not the child. It's a way to become comfortable - in
| a slow and controlled manner - with expanding the range of
| the child, etc.
| viro wrote:
| she had me till "leaving her 10-and 2-year-old kids home" 2 year
| old is far to young to be watch by a 10 yr old.
| stakkur wrote:
| The omitted part, of course, is the stunning increase in children
| being fed a steady diet of indoor technology, social media,
| computer games, and other generally passive, low-action
| activities.
|
| And of course, it would be interesting to ask what role that diet
| has played in the lives of both children _and_ parents attitudes
| about 'independence'.
| joelbondurant wrote:
| Young tax cattle need to know their place under the violent yoke
| of the state.
| version_five wrote:
| Large businesses have the biggest lobbying groups so their
| agendas get the most attention, though editorial campaigns, laws,
| etc.
|
| There are a few groups concerned with personal freedom, and so
| personal freedom is not forgotten, but is deprioritized over what
| business wants.
|
| Children have almost no advocates I would argue. The only people
| lobbying "on their behalf" are trying to gain power in some way,
| using fear, etc (similar tactics are used to restrict business
| and personal feedom).
|
| So it's no surprise kids get the short end of the stick.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Why don't large businesses want children walking to the park by
| themselves? What's the large business interest here?
| bitcurious wrote:
| I don't know if any business has actively engaged in that
| sort of lobbying, but if I had to imagine a business interest
| it would be from schools, daycare, tutoring centers, sports
| programs, etc. If kids can't be alone, they have to be with
| someone.
|
| A case where we do have evidence of lobbying is remote
| schooling, where the education and well-being of children was
| sacrificed for the well-being of union affiliated teachers.
| quadrangle wrote:
| I think the argument in this case is simply that there isn't
| a business interest in getting kids to go to the park
| themselves, so it just doesn't get the attention that
| business-interest issues do.
|
| But we could also describe how kids being independent and
| walking to the park bypasses all the market activity they
| could be doing otherwise: social media, video games, other
| commercial activities, etc. But that's not the primary
| argument.
| closeparen wrote:
| A number of malls and small retail stores have policies
| banning or severely limiting unaccompanied minors. The idea
| is minors are disproportionately likely to cause
| disturbances. Even if that risk is very small, it's not
| really worth accepting any amount of risk there, because
| minors don't really spend money either.
| quadrangle wrote:
| Indeed. But note that there's a ton of personal-freedom
| rhetoric in our world. However, it exists primarily entirely in
| the form of propaganda that serves the interests of bigger
| lobbying groups. Personal freedom in that sense matters when
| it's the freedom to be a consumer in the market buying the
| products that the business wants to sell. The personal freedoms
| that have nothing to do with the market or which enable people
| to function outside of the market, those are indeed
| deprioritized.
| CalRobert wrote:
| It's great to allow your kids to take risks, and we do this with
| our own as much as we can (they're 1 and 3, so "within reason" is
| still doing some heavy lifting. I pick ticks off of them now and
| then and patch up their share of bruises).
|
| But fundamentally, what I want most is to be somewhere my kids
| can ride bikes or walk alone to school, to friends, to the shop,
| etc. from the age of 7 or so. As best I can tell that pretty much
| means the Netherlands, parts of Denmark, or perhaps Japan (more
| for transit than cycling).
|
| Children can't drive, which means unless you're lucky enough to
| live very close to your friends, and ideally on the same side of
| the street, your home is effectively your prison in the US and
| Canada.
|
| And yes, I suppose you _can_ let your kid ride a bike to school
| alone in the US at 7, but you would be risking arrest, and death.
| It's often forgotten that drivers are, by far, the leading
| killers of children. Far more than people with guns. I was an
| avid cyclist in the US for the first 30 years of my life and I
| still have a bruised rib and too many memories of very, very
| close calls with death.
|
| NotJustBikes, who moved from Canadian suburbia to the
| Netherlands, explores this in more depth at
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98
| bsder wrote:
| > As best I can tell that pretty much means the Netherlands,
| parts of Denmark, or perhaps Japan (more for transit than
| cycling).
|
| Or old pre-car cities in the US.
|
| The point of those is that they have dense interconnection that
| predates cars. In addition, building roads cost too much in
| terms of eminent domain, so they don't have very many high-
| speed roads interfering.
| lanewinfield wrote:
| I grew up in Milwaukee, WI and had this exact experience from
| an early age through 15 when I got my driver's license. A lot
| of biking between friends' houses and school.
|
| Not to say that bike lanes and bike protection couldn't be
| better, because it absolutely could be.
| burlesona wrote:
| I agree wholeheartedly. My life dream is to build a car-free
| city in the US so I can live there. When I was young and even
| more naive I hoped I could do this before having kids, so they
| could grow up with that freedom. Now I'm hoping maybe I can do
| this by the time I have grandchildren. We'll see.
|
| It would require a lot of capital in the form of patient equity
| to pull off.
| loonster wrote:
| It exists. Mackinac Island, Michigan.
| mulmen wrote:
| You could just move to a walkable neighborhood in an existing
| city.
| Symbiote wrote:
| I don't know North America well enough, but the linked
| video says such walkable neighbourhoods have very high
| prices. That's great if you can afford it, but it's also
| good to campaign for it to be available for those who
| can't.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| But if you built a similar city it would likely have high
| prices too. Why not try to get more housing built in the
| places that are already nice instead?
| oblio wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand this, why would walkable places
| be expensive? Walkable places are generally high density
| which means that buildings are bigger and homes are
| smaller so prices should be lower.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| For the same reason walkable places that currently exist
| are expensive. People want to live there.
| grahamplace wrote:
| The team at Culdesac is working on something like this in
| Tempe, Arizona, with capital from the likes of Alexis
| Ohanian[1]
|
| see:
|
| - https://culdesac.com/
|
| - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/31/business/culdesac-
| tempe-p...
|
| [1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexisohanian_culdesac-re-
| ima...
| mulmen wrote:
| I don't think this is an absolute. I grew up in a neighborhood
| that provided what you describe in Idaho. Both my brothers are
| raising their kids in an environment like you describe. I live
| in one in Seattle now. It's not cheap in a city but it's not
| unheard of in the US.
| mips_avatar wrote:
| I don't think Seattle does a great job of this either. The
| eastside is a suburban sprawl, and most of the parents I know
| in Seattle are too afraid of the homeless to let their kids
| go to parks/stores nearby alone.
| retrohomearcade wrote:
| Lots of kids ride their bikes to my daughters elementary
| school, where we live in the United States. Safe small towns
| with functional sidewalks, for kids to ride bikes on as
| necessary, still happily exist in some places in our nation.
| mips_avatar wrote:
| Where you live can the kids get to anything other than single
| family housing? Because there are definitely suburbs in the
| US with low enough traffic to be safe, but they don't allow
| important freedoms like biking to schools/libraries/shops
| [deleted]
| ed_balls wrote:
| I grow up in a small town in Poland. I was walking on my own to
| preschool since I was 5 (it was about 400m from the house).
|
| If I had kids I'd let them free roam the city.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >Children can't drive, which means unless you're lucky enough
| to live very close to your friends, and ideally on the same
| side of the street, your home is effectively your prison in the
| US and Canada.
|
| There are huge swaths of the country that are not the "built up
| in the 50s and 60s but now populated and trafficked enough to
| be dangerous" suburban hellscape that you are implying.
| ska wrote:
| This is true. On the other hand, there are huge swaths that
| _are_.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| America is _famous_ for its small towns. People forget this.
| _jal wrote:
| > I suppose you _can_ let your kid ride a bike to school alone
| in the US at 7
|
| I think you're forgetting just how big and diverse the US is.
| lordnacho wrote:
| In Switzerland you'll see very young kids taking themselves to
| school too. In fact I think the schools discourage you from
| doing them off. Loads of kids can be seen around town going to
| and from school, totally normal.
| rmah wrote:
| In NYC, over a million kids of all ages walk, skateboard, bike,
| kick-scooter, or take the bus and subway to school every day.
| Little kids as young as 10 take the subway alone to/from
| school. Well, really they travel in packs, but still. Even in
| the dangerous Big Apple, the number of serious accidents or
| criminal incidents while going to/from school is just a handful
| a year.
|
| When I was young and growing up in the burbs, many kids walked
| or rode bikes to school. The roads were much more dangerous
| back then. Crime was much MUCH worse. No one batted an eye. I
| don't really understand some people's extreme risk aversion
| today.
| ngngngng wrote:
| As I'm reading this and relating it to myself, I feel myself
| doing the thing we're acknowledging in this article and
| trying to move away from. My oldest is 2, so I still have a
| few more years before I need to think about this. But I keep
| thinking that it's different here, because I live in a rural
| area with high speed limits and no sidewalks. But at the same
| time, that also means fewer cars, and virtually no drunk
| drivers in this area of rural Utah. So what am I so worried
| about?
| mips_avatar wrote:
| I think cycling is one of those things where it's important to
| do it in spite of Canamerica being such a bad place for it,
| every person cycling normalizes it and pushes indirectly for
| positive change. Of course it's also important to directly push
| for change in city government.
| mulmen wrote:
| I agree. Cycling needs good stewardship.
|
| The biggest problem with cycling adoption is "cyclists". My
| hyperlocal blog has a guy that makes me want to throw my
| bicycle in the bay just so I'm not associated with him. And I
| _love_ riding my bike.
|
| Cycling needs a "you meet the nicest people on a Honda"
| moment.
|
| E-bikes are a great opportunity for Americans to rediscover
| motorcycles but unfortunately cities are willing to allow
| motorized vehicles traveling at 20mph on mixed
| walking/cycling paths.
| mips_avatar wrote:
| I think each near collision with a car radicalizes cyclists
| a bit. While cycling you build up experiences where cars
| prioritize speed over your safety. Most "annoying cyclists"
| I've met I feel like are arguing for the right things but
| they have a lot of bitterness.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| There are plenty of stupid cyclists who don't prioritize
| their own safety. One of my pet peeves is to have bikes
| on the road in the dark without lights. Most of these
| people are adults and they should know that a car driver
| can't see them.
| xxpor wrote:
| It was crazy to me in NL that motor scooters (Vespas) could
| use the bike paths.
| muntzy wrote:
| last year this was reatricted, now only scooters with a
| speed limiter installed are allowed
| mc32 wrote:
| It's the same in Parts of Asia: bikes and scooters can go
| in the dedicated non-car lane. Sometimes you'll see a
| hand or bike pulled cart as well. Still safer than
| comingling with cars.
| indymike wrote:
| I've got five kids. The more I loosen up and let the kids take
| risks and learn for mistakes the better. The challenge is when
| the adults inject a ridiculous level of risk to something that
| should be a learning experience. For example, allowing police to
| arrest and charge a child for bad behavior at school (i.e. won't
| obey the teacher, outbursts - not for actually criminally violent
| behavior). Another is lifetime academic and other records. When
| risk is too high, learning stops and risk avoidance takes over.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > For example, allowing police to arrest and charge a child for
| bad behavior at school (i.e. won't obey the teacher, outbursts
| - not for actually criminally violent behavior). Another is
| lifetime academic and other records.
|
| Just send them to a private school where matters are handled
| privately.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| 1) Private schools can be expensive, and a few have
| participation requirements for parents that folks working
| non-traditional hours can't adhere to.
|
| 2) Every private school I lived around growing up was
| religious, and I'd rather children not have religion forced
| on them.
| indymike wrote:
| I have. Not everyone has the money or lives in a voucher
| state.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > For example, allowing police to arrest and charge a child for
| bad behavior at school (i.e. won't obey the teacher, outbursts
| - not for actually criminally violent behavior).
|
| Are there any examples of this happening? I do not recall
| reading about any incident where police responded to a school
| where the cause was not due to physical violence.
|
| If I was managing a school (or any other establishment), I
| would instruct staff that no one is to touch anyone outside of
| administering medical aid, for obvious liability reasons. In
| such cases, I can see it being necessary to call police if a
| child has to be physically moved or restrained.
| indymike wrote:
| Using shady url from yesterday's HN topic:
|
| Students arrested for social media posts:
| http://www.5z8.info/openme.exe_bknq
|
| Student arrested for burping:
| http://www.5z8.info/peepshow_jxbr
|
| Student referred to judge and jailed for not doing homework:
| http://www.5z8.info/foodporn_axiz
|
| School cops arrest more kids of color, too:
| http://www.5z8.info/aohell.exe_zane
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Thanks, those are sad and ridiculous.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Are there any examples of this happening?_
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/orlando-6-year-old-
| arr...
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-police-5-year-old-
| boy-...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEDTPxpjDhk
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The top two might be good examples, but the YouTube link
| says the kid was punching a teacher, which is a good
| example of what I meant by punting that to someone with
| better legal resources than me (if I am a worker at the
| school).
| mumblemumble wrote:
| I am seeing this, too. Oftentimes, ostensibly in the interest
| of protecting children from harm, we try to control their
| behavior with increasingly disproportionate ultimatums, to the
| point where the authority's response is vastly more harmful
| than the situation itself.
|
| It seems that nowadays we have an extremely interventionist
| culture, and it leaves us ill-equipped to recognize situations
| where the best thing to do is nothing at all.
|
| It's not just around child-rearing. I have chronic pain from a
| decades-old sports injury, and well-meaning people frequently
| advise me to get surgery to fix it. There's a tacit assumption
| that, by choosing to live with it, I'm simply being complacent.
| (There's also, for that matter, a tacit assumption that an
| appropriate procedure exists in the first place.) If I point
| out that the surgery for my sort of thing tends to have much
| worse long-term outcomes than choosing not to pick at it, then
| I'm generally told that I just haven't found the right surgeon.
| Similar for my nearsightedness - I have one family member who
| thinks I'm crazy for not getting LASIK surgery. My take is
| myopia can be effectively treated with an inexpensive and non-
| invasive device, while LASIK comes with significant risk of
| causing different kinds of visual impairments that cannot be
| treated, so the risk/reward balance just isn't right for me.
| But that's not how they see it. What they see is that I'm just
| being weak-willed, because I'm opting not to do something when
| there's something that could be done.
|
| But it upsets me more when it's child-rearing, because then
| it's adults choosing to screw up the life of another person who
| doesn't have any say in the matter. Ostensibly for their own
| good, but, more accurately, I think, because the adult feels
| like this is how they need to perform their role.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > My take is myopia can be effectively treated with an
| inexpensive and non-invasive device
|
| Like what?
|
| >while LASIK comes with significant risk of causing different
| kinds of visual impairments that cannot be treated
|
| The numbers behind LASIK (and PRK) are pretty solid such that
| one can make an objective claim that it is a low risk
| endeavor unless you have some specific conditions.
|
| Here is one study:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727822/
| mumblemumble wrote:
| It completely depends on the severity of your myopia. If
| it's mild, yeah, it's pretty safe. If it's moderate or
| severe, then things start looking a lot more dicey.
|
| The overall numbers give a biased perspective. With the way
| the risk/benefit ratio varies, people with milder cases are
| a lot more likely to get it. This is in addition to there
| being more of them in the first place.
|
| The inexpensive and non-invasive device is corrective
| eyewear.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Of course, but an unstated assumption for claiming any
| procedure is safe that you qualify as a safe candidate
| for it.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| I think, more to the point, this advice is typically
| being offered by people who aren't even thinking in those
| terms in the first place. They're just operating from a
| tacit bias toward interventionism.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Well people who are not ophthalmologists who have not
| diagnosed your eyes should not be commenting on whether
| or not you are a good candidate for refractive eye
| surgery.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > Like what?
|
| I believe the OP is talking about glasses/spectacles.
| Although contact lenses would probably also fit that
| description.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| Glasses or contact lenses
|
| Low risk -> that paper's definition of "safety" is whether
| people had good eyesight. It doesn't take into account
| halos or dry eyes, as far as I can tell.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Low risk -> that paper's definition of "safety" is
| whether people had good eyesight. It doesn't take into
| account halos or dry eyes, as far as I can tell.
|
| Yes, it was a quick search on my phone. I just remember
| doing a ton of research for it before I got mine done
| years ago. I know 6 others who got it done too around
| when I did, and everyone claims it was well worth it.
|
| I just figured it has been around so long and performed
| so much, that there would be a lot of people claiming
| issues and it would show up by now.
| [deleted]
| ghaff wrote:
| My feeling has always been... I've been wearing soft
| contacts for decades--and now multifocals. I do wear
| reading glasses for, well, reading and other close work
| when I have the contacts in. (Probably more than I really
| need to.) So maybe LASIK is super-safe at this point but,
| honestly, there's very little about my current situation
| that inconveniences me in any appreciable way.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I would not get refractive eye surgery if I was old
| enough to have reading glasses (since nothing fixes that
| yet), but if all you have is run of the mill myopia, a
| couple thousand dollars to spare, and you are 25 to 30,
| LASIK or PRK is one of the best quality of life
| improvements you can make.
|
| The clarity with which you can see everything is stunning
| at first, and the lack of inconvenience is incredible. If
| you're interested in dating, it is probably one of the
| best investments you can make to improve your experience.
|
| You would get at least 10, maybe even 15 years of not
| having to deal with glasses.
| ghaff wrote:
| That's fair. My contacts were always for distance vision.
| But as I've gotten older, I need readers--only if I'm
| wearing contacts--for reading. Multi-focals improve but
| don't eliminate the need. So very manageable.
| korethr wrote:
| > I am seeing this, too. Oftentimes, ostensibly in the
| interest of protecting children from harm, we try to control
| their behavior with increasingly disproportionate ultimatums,
| to the point where the authority's response is vastly more
| harmful than the situation itself.
|
| And IMO, perversely, this incentivizes behavior problems.
| Kids sooner or later (and often sooner in the case of smarter
| kids) catch onto when adults are making disproportionate
| ultimatums, or when the reasoning behind a ruling is
| disconnected from objective reality. What does this teach a
| kid? Adults are liars, don't know what they're talking about,
| are undeserving of respect, are not to be obeyed if the
| consequences of such are bearable, are to be subverted
| whenever possible, etc.
|
| I mean, there's going to be a degree of disrespect and
| disobedience when a kid enters adolescence and they start to
| try to assert their independence as they approach adulthood.
| But learning the above attitude as a child is going to make
| adolescent behavior so much worse.
| [deleted]
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| Social trust has been falling for decades, and the blame lies at
| the feet of nearly all our major institutions: both political
| parties as well as the permanent bureocracy, corporations,
| churches, the media and so on. If we want a healthy society, of
| which independent children are a part, we should work to restore
| social trust.
|
| "We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
| minikites wrote:
| >all our major institutions: both political parties as well as
| the permanent bureocracy, corporations, churches, the media and
| so on
|
| These things have been dysfunctional for decades. What's
| different now compared to when things were "good"?
| rajin444 wrote:
| Society converging more and more into a "global" culture.
| Maybe we're just in a transitional phase, or maybe trust
| doesn't scale. Probably both.
| tw04 wrote:
| The major difference is the vast, vast majority of households
| were single income. "Working mother" was a non-existent
| thing. Men went to work, mothers stayed home. So if you let
| your kids roam the neighborhood in the summer _SOMEONE 'S_
| mom was there to keep an eye out.
|
| I would say, in general, it also lead to more socializing in
| neighborhoods because while I would never claim that a stay-
| at-home mom isn't doing a full-time job, there was far more
| time for them to hang out during the (potential) afternoon
| lull. Or when kids were at school during the school-year.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >"Working mother" was a non-existent thing.
|
| It very much was but not at the relative income level most
| of HN is at or was raised in so people forget about it.
| tw04 wrote:
| We must be talking about two very different decades. In
| the 1950s, which is generally the time people think to
| when talking about the "good old days" the number of
| women in the workforce was 27%. It had very little to do
| with income level. Both of my parents grew up dirt poor,
| both of them had mothers who stayed home. As the children
| were old enough to all be attending school, one of my
| grandma's got a job at the elementary school some of her
| children were enrolled in a few blocks from the house.
| watwut wrote:
| It was 34%. Which is quite literally one in three women.
|
| Labor participation of men was much higher, but it is
| absurd to claim that 34% represents nearly non existent
| phenomenom.
| daenz wrote:
| I think the popular opinion nowadays is to have either
| parents equally likely to stay home and raise the kids,
| with a negative bias against that being the female's
| responsibility, where historically there's been a strong
| positive bias for that.
|
| People should do whatever works for them and their
| partners, but I think the underlying point is that raising
| children requires more than just a single parent.
| caturopath wrote:
| Eyes on the street used to be provided not only by stay-at-
| home parents, but by other folks going about their lives:
| people walking through, shopkeepers, etc. Over time, modern
| suburbanism became more and more locked in: extreme
| separation of uses, strikingly non-through streets, non-
| street-interacting access to apartments, houses, and shops,
| lower density, etc. This isn't the only story, but it's
| certainly a part of it.
| hahajk wrote:
| So would you say the times when "things were good" was
| before modern suburbanism, or in other words the 1940s
| and earlier?
| caturopath wrote:
| No, I would say we're living in the best times we've ever
| seen, and I would not want to roll back history.
|
| I do think that modern sprawl suburbanism has some
| harmful elements and that other styles of urbanism and of
| suburbanism that don't look like we've built the last 50
| years in North America have benefits.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Also just general breakdown of people knowing each other
| in the community. When I grew up, I was a "latchkey kid"
| with a single parent, yet I was allowed to freely roam
| the neighborhood on bicycle. The idea was (or at least
| the perception was): If I ran into a problem, I could
| knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get
| kidnapped or murdered and 2. the neighbor would know my
| dad and either watch over me or call him. Today, nobody
| knows the people who live in their neighborhood. Some
| people don't even know their next door neighbor. Nobody
| answers their door anymore either, so if you're a kid
| your only island of familiarity is at home.
| [deleted]
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Our neighborhood is really good at this. As far as
| walkability and weather goes I hate it, but we know
| around 20-30 of or neighbors on a first name basis. And
| pre-pandemic we would have somewhat regular block parties
| where we would grill food and setup activities for kids.
|
| We would like to move for other reasons, but what keeps
| us here is because you just never know what kind of
| neighbors you're going to get.
| minikites wrote:
| >If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random
| neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or
| murdered
|
| Crime is much lower now than the past.
| ryandrake wrote:
| That's why I said "perception". People _believe_ kids are
| going to get kidnapped or murdered, even though the crime
| statistics don 't bear this out, therefore they don't
| think knocking on a random door is OK anymore.
| minikites wrote:
| So why does the truth not change people's perceptions?
| foobarian wrote:
| Maybe lack of churchgoing is contributing to this. Weekly
| meetups of the whole community under one roof really does
| wonders for social cohesion.
|
| Of course then you have the church abuse stories...
| standardUser wrote:
| I don't think many people who were not white, christian and
| straight felt a ton of social trust in the era you are
| harkening back to.
| lghh wrote:
| Agreed. So is the solution to reduce white social trust as
| well or to empower non-white social trust?
| Kluny wrote:
| I think it might be. When those who benefit from the
| current paradigm are forced to experience the pain that
| everyone else has been dealing with, they get motivated
| change things and they have the power to make it happen.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| In practice, this doesn't happen. Instead they vote for
| people like trump.
| react_burger38 wrote:
| Well actually... Thomas Sowell (who is black) talks about how
| he felt safe going around on his own in Harlem in the 40s and
| 50s, and never heard a gunshot. So there actually was a fair
| amount of social trust / actual safety in black communities
| even then. With the obvious caveat of course that interracial
| violence was still a risk. But at least within black
| communities then, yes there was more social trust.
| watwut wrote:
| I dont think it is reasonable to take history of one place
| as told by literally one person and extrapolate from it
| whole nation.
| [deleted]
| rcpt wrote:
| Trucks are a lot bigger now and traffic is worse.
|
| I'd love to let my 6 year old wander the neighborhood freely but
| there's a good chance he wouldn't see 7 simply because he's
| shorter than the grill of most SUVs (let alone the lifted bro
| dozers that are so popular now)
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Traffic and lack of walkability is definitely an issue (and not
| only for kids, btw). I am wondering if the idea that children
| must always be within arm's reach of an adult, has in a way
| contributed to building cities in a way such that there is no
| (safe) walkability in many places?
| meristohm wrote:
| > American parents are having their right to raise independent
| kids restored, so their kids can grow into confident and capable
| adults, ready for the world out there. The parents win, the
| children win--and so does America.
|
| I'm a beneficiary of childhood freedom, to injure myself (tools,
| fire, trees), to explore (walking for miles through the woods,
| along defunct railways, and biking the dirt roads), and to read
| whatever I found at the library. The downside was I didn't have
| what I think of as healthy discussions with my parents, perhaps
| because it was awkward for them? As a parent now I'm trying to
| build on their successes, adding emotional mindfulness.
|
| For example: finger crushed in a heavy book? Yeah, that hurts,
| and it'll hurt awhile yet (no asking "you okay?" because that's
| too binary, and mainly to appease the parent). In the meantime,
| take long, slow breaths and feel the pain as it subsides and
| you're ready to move on. If it doesn't go away, let's take
| another look at it. I also let my kid fall, and I tell her it's
| helpful to feel what it's like to fall. She's learning to climb
| and take steps, and when I'm spotting her for safety I'll
| intervene enough to prevent injury but not the initial slip. I
| largely credit our Early Childhood Education teachers with my own
| progress here.
|
| For those of you who give your children more freedom, how do you
| manage your concerns around risk? How do you decide how much
| freedom to give? What do those conversations look like?
| fleddr wrote:
| The perfect article for this 80s kid to rant about good old
| times.
|
| My dad gave me a tiny bicycle at the age of 6, and basically said
| "good luck". I could go anywhere I want for as long as I'm back
| home in time for dinner. They had no idea where I was, with whom,
| or what I was doing.
|
| One day, an older kid hit me in the playground. I came home
| crying, assuming I'd get some support. I was told to just hit him
| back, preferably harder. I explained that the kid was much older
| and far bigger. "Get a piece of wood then".
|
| Standard equipment for every kid everywhere were thick knee pads,
| as mothers grew tired of fixing bloody knees and probably more
| important: the jeans. On any day, we'd come home looking like
| pigs, and almost always with fresh wounds.
|
| Throughout this entire period, outside of formal family moments,
| not a single photo, audio or video recording exists of me.
|
| Not only was it a fantastic childhood, it has helped me become a
| robust character. I can handle setbacks with ease and instead of
| complaining, solve things myself.
|
| By today's standards, it would be neglectful or even child abuse.
| It wasn't. It was paradise.
|
| Child abuse is imprisoning your own child. Not only obsessing
| over their security, also micro managing their day as if
| production units.
|
| As for children "performing", my deal was pretty simple and
| enjoyable. "Come home with good grades or there will be hell".
| Zero oversight, only the outcome counts.
|
| A fair deal if you ask me. No daily nagging about doing homework,
| none at all. They couldn't care less. I was fully free to deliver
| the desired outcome in any way I see fit. Maximum freedom, whilst
| also instilling responsibility from the start.
|
| To sum this up, the lack of parenting has helped me tremendously.
| username90 wrote:
| Removing the freedom for kids to move around alone is a huge
| social inefficiency. Where kids just walk to school alone or walk
| to a park to play with friends alone kids are not that expensive
| to maintain. But with constant supervision needed then parents
| need to drive the kids to their destinations and either stay with
| them there or drop them of at some paid event where the organizer
| supervises the kids.
| jlos wrote:
| I think the problem "de-risking" childhood is only an instance of
| the bigger problem of what Roger Scruton calls "Risk De-
| aggregation". Risk Deaggregation is taking a single point of risk
| (and its associated metric), and optimizing to reduce that risk
| as if it exists in isolation from other risks. I.e. Risk occurs
| in aggregate, not as individual threats. Risk deaggregation
| happens everywhere from Climate Change policy, to Covid, to
| children.
|
| I think this type of risk deaggregation arises from the fact that
| in a sufficiently complicated space (climate, economy, children,
| etc) there are really only two heuristics:
|
| 1) Ignore all but a manageable number of variables and optimize
| for them
|
| 2) Recognize a larger number of necessary variable, acknowledge
| there is no optimal solution, and balance the trade offs between
| those variables. [0]
|
| Heuristic 1 is the easiest, requires no nuance, and seems the
| type of thing our political and media class love to latch onto.
| Heuristic 2 actually requires admitting you don't get everything
| you want, or at least the things you want will cost you something
| you dont.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
| ssivark wrote:
| "Risk de-aggregation" sounds like it edifies an implicit
| perspective that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Is there a
| specific reference you might recommend looking at, for Roger
| Scruton's take?
| jlos wrote:
| It's in his book "How to think seriously about the planet: a
| case for environmental conservatism"
|
| The book itself is worth the read on its own. He has a very
| specific meaning of conservatism that doesn't map well to
| political landscapes. The book doesn't dispute climate
| change, and seems to basically accept it, but creates a
| framework for dealing with it from a grassroots bottom up
| perspective rather than an international top down
| perspective.
| starkd wrote:
| Humans don't seem to be very good at managing risks. From an
| evolutionary perspective, we can only look at what others are
| doing and follow along. Breaking it out in terms of percentage
| weights doesn't give us a feel for practical steps to take.
| naravara wrote:
| I'm trying to look this up but the only hit for "Roger Scruton
| Risk De-aggregation" is this comment. Any recommendations on
| where I can read more about this? I've found other Scruton
| articles that talk about swing sets and stuff but not the term
| specifically.
| jlos wrote:
| It's in his book "How to think seriously about the planet: a
| case for environmental conservatism"
|
| Dont have the page, but the book is good enough that it's
| worth reading
| initplus wrote:
| It's a problem everywhere, from bad KPI's to public policy. We
| have a bias towards metrics that are easy to measure.
|
| It's much easier to measure large effects on a single metric,
| than small effects distributed over a wide range of metrics.
| Concentrated effects that affect one individual/org/group are
| favored over distributed effects that affect everyone. There
| are so many examples of policies where this thought process has
| been applied.
| dalbasal wrote:
| A related way of thinking of these might be legible Vs
| illegible.
|
| Legible risks are mostly "heuristic 1." They can be measured,
| quantified, discussed in discrete terms. You can be yelled at
| over legible things, like ignoring stranger danger on a subway.
| It's harder to yell about nuance.
|
| Illegible things are less discrete. The consequences, some hard
| to describe, many unknown, of growing up without freedom and
| self reliance. There are dangers here too, but they're more
| nebulous.
|
| It's hard to justify, externally, a trade-off between illegible
| gains like building a personality and legible dangers like
| kidnapping. Hard, but not impossible.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > Illegible things are less discreet.
|
| Illegible things are less _discrete_ , but probably more
| "discreet", on average.
| dalbasal wrote:
| corrected
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I've seen risk deaggregarion at work and wonder if it stems
| from how easy it is to shoot an idea down with a counter
| example.
|
| E.g. Should we switch from "status quo" to "change"? Good idea,
| but if we move to "change" then "this one bad thing will
| happen".
|
| A solution might be to use the lieutenant's cloud, an idea I
| learned on a thinking course.
|
| With this you simply ask why "bad thing" and then offer a
| suggestion that solves the why, not necessarily the bad thing.
|
| This is probably easier to do at a closed organisation. In the
| public eye with an emotive topic like possibility of child
| abduction, a lot of sensitivity is needed.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Just so I'm clear, risk de-aggregation is when I worry and
| optimise about the risks of drink driving, and end up killing
| myself by [drunk walking in front of a bus]/[accepting a lift
| from a serial killer]/[Cancer I got in the smokey bar I was
| really careful not to drive home from]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-16 23:00 UTC)