Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#21

Post by compiler-guy » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

larrik wrote: post #18

> A 2-year-old was found unattended after his parents allegedly left home to play Pokémon Go. > How much risk was there of some harm coming to the child while the parents were gone? As a parent to young children, I would say pretty damn high, actually. Kids do stupid things all the time, and if you aren't there, and they know you aren't there, there is no limit to the stupid things a 2 year old can do. It's a normal…

I don't think we can make that judgement without more data about how the house was set up, how close help was, and how far away the parents went.

For example, going outside and down the street half-a-block for five minutes while your child is watching their favorite show is quite a bit different than leaving them working in the kitchen with knives laying around.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#22

Post by djsumdog » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

larrik wrote: post #18

> A 2-year-old was found unattended after his parents allegedly left home to play Pokémon Go. > How much risk was there of some harm coming to the child while the parents were gone? As a parent to young children, I would say pretty damn high, actually. Kids do stupid things all the time, and if you aren't there, and they know you aren't there, there is no limit to the stupid things a 2 year old can do. It's a normal…

I could see that. A two year old could easily run out into traffic. A 7 or 8 year old, not so much.

I remember years ago about a women who had the police escort a kid to her house because she'd let him bicycle to school (wearing a helmet and it was < 2 miles). That is kinda crazy. When I went to elementary school (early 90s), there was a whole group of kids who walked to school. Sometimes the teacher in charge of the gate would forgot to unlock it and we'd see them all pile up while in homeroom (huge fence, took like 15 min to walk around so most kids would just wait).

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#23

Post by tillytal » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

The research actually looks kind of cool, but this headline and the whole framing of the issue sounds like it was written by an alien. Uh, why?

We judge everything on the basis of perception, not reality. That's just... how this works.

And this is far from the most worrying thing Americans have a dramatically detatched perception of danger about, right now. If you want to really address this issue, and a few others besides, I'd stop worrying about how people relate to kids or parents and start worrying about how they relate to reality.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#24

Post by Domenic_S » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:19 PM UTC

larrik wrote: post #18

> A 2-year-old was found unattended after his parents allegedly left home to play Pokémon Go. > How much risk was there of some harm coming to the child while the parents were gone? As a parent to young children, I would say pretty damn high, actually. Kids do stupid things all the time, and if you aren't there, and they know you aren't there, there is no limit to the stupid things a 2 year old can do. It's a normal…

It really, really depends on the kid. With my first, I genuinely wondered why they made childproof cabinet locks and foam corner guards for tables -- she would much rather read a book or play quietly than try to get into the drawers.

Then I had another kid. He'll turn the drawers into stairs and have climbed halfway to the counter in the time it takes you to run to the mailbox.

Point being, kids are all very different from one another, even within the same family. Something that's risky to your kid might not be risky to mine, and vice-versa. Some things are globally risky (pools, hot cars) but you might be surprised at the range of risk any particular child has.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#25

Post by StavrosK » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:19 PM UTC

ionwake wrote: post #6

jrs235 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perceived danger is that a stranger will kidnap your children if you let them walk to and from the park. The real danger is they're more likely to be kidnapped if you leave them at home with friends or relatives.

I once read that for every 2 kids kidnapped by a stranger, someone is killed by a lightning strike. This was backed up by stats.

Unless the person killed is the stranger, this senseless retribution must be stopped.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#26

Post by kazinator » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC

There is no such thing as "perceived but unreal risk". A risk is some sort of estimate that harm will occur: a likelihood. No risk is real; it is always perceived. There is only the question of how rationally founded is that estimate. Some risks can be established via measurement. If the statistics give some risk as 0.1%, but you perceive it subjectively as 30%, then there is a degree to which your perception of risk is unrealistically inflated. Neither the 0.1% nor the 30% are 'real' though; both are just a tool for guessing about the future.

We judge people when their behavior hints at a risk estimate which differs from ours. Anyone who estimates a risk lower than you do is reckless; anyone who estimates it higher is a wimp.

Sometimes, estimates of risk are just culturally enshrined B.S., not founded in anything. If you don't protect yourself from a certain risk in a certain culturally endorsed, widely practiced manner, then you're an ignorant or crazy cultural outsider. Likewise if you go too far in protecting yourself from something.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#27

Post by BoppreH » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:21 PM UTC

Interesting research. Looks like a cognitive bias related to the reverse-Halo Effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect ). The mother left for some morally bad reason, so the predicted events receive bad associations (larger risk).

Sounds easily exploitable too. Want to advertise something dangerous? Just show people doing it in morally good situations.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#28

Post by tillytal » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:21 PM UTC

Domenic_S wrote: post #24

larrik wrote: post #18

> A 2-year-old was found unattended after his parents allegedly left home to play Pokémon Go. > How much risk was there of some harm coming to the child while the parents were gone? As a parent to young children, I would say pretty damn high, actually. Kids do stupid things all the time, and if you aren't there, and they know you aren't there, there is no limit to the stupid things a 2 year old can do. It's a normal…

It really, really depends on the kid. With my first, I genuinely wondered why they made childproof cabinet locks and foam corner guards for tables -- she would much rather read a book or play quietly than try to get into the drawers. Then I had another kid. He'll turn the drawers into stairs and have climbed halfway to the counter in the time it takes you to run to the mailbox. Point being, kids are all very differen…

I used to play a game as a toddler where I would climb up on the highest chair, push myself backwards off the table with a huge crash, then set the chair back up and do it all again.

I'm pretty sure the only way to keep me safe in that house would've been to not have objects.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#29

Post by Domenic_S » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

ionwake wrote: post #6

jrs235 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perceived danger is that a stranger will kidnap your children if you let them walk to and from the park. The real danger is they're more likely to be kidnapped if you leave them at home with friends or relatives.

I once read that for every 2 kids kidnapped by a stranger, someone is killed by a lightning strike. This was backed up by stats.

Is that because the danger is so low, or because we're so paranoid?

It's the car alarm problem -- if it's deterring theft, theft stats would go down, making us wonder if we need the alarm in the first place!

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#30

Post by mindfulgeek » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #21

larrik wrote: post #18

> A 2-year-old was found unattended after his parents allegedly left home to play Pokémon Go. > How much risk was there of some harm coming to the child while the parents were gone? As a parent to young children, I would say pretty damn high, actually. Kids do stupid things all the time, and if you aren't there, and they know you aren't there, there is no limit to the stupid things a 2 year old can do. It's a normal…

I don't think we can make that judgement without more data about how the house was set up, how close help was, and how far away the parents went. For example, going outside and down the street half-a-block for five minutes while your child is watching their favorite show is quite a bit different than leaving them working in the kitchen with knives laying around.

You're right, we can't make a wise judgment without more data. People all the time are making guesses and taking action based on it though. That's the scary part.