The worst part of parenting is dealing with other parents. Yuppie millennial parents are the worst. I thought I grew up with overprotective Asian parents but they let me wander all around the town at 7-8, stuff that's apparently get them arrested in the Dame suburbs today.
Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
51–60 of 280 posts
Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
#52I understand the overall thrust of this article, but I somewhat disagree with the suggestion that my judgement of morality should have no impact on my judgement of the risk to a child. For instance a parent that would leave a 2-year old alone to go play pokemon probably has other terrible parenting judgement/skills and most likely the environment they leave the kid in IS actually more dangerous than someone who accid…
The best thing to do here is to accept the fact that some parents will take more risk and some kids will die every year because of that. We cant do a zilch about it besides charging the parents after the incident has happened.
Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
#53What's the difference between perceived and real? Someone preceiving it thinks it's plenty real. I've never been in a traffic accident - is the need for seat belts and air bags real?
Perception: there's a 75% chance my kid will be kidnapped by a pedophile. Reality: there's a 0.01% chance of the pedophile kidnap, but a 75% chance of drowning in the bathtub. Numbers are made up. Perception is not reality. Another example: Trayvon Martin was a dark-skinned young male wearing a hoodie. Perception: he is a criminal casing the houses in order to commit a future crime. Reality: he was a kid walking home…
I'm sorry, but I think this is making the same errors in the opposite direction.
1) Yes, child abduction/predation is unlikely ... because we've adopted a huge number of countermeasures that close of this vector. That doesn't (by itself) mean you can just stop doing those measures and act like the risk is still low.
2) The risk of death by bathtub is not 75%.
3) Terrorists ramp up efforts against any vector they've found to be weak. While they currently account for a very small percentage of deaths, that doesn't mean we should have just shrugged our shoulders and done nothing, even basic measures like locked cockpit doors and ending the recommendation of passenger compliance.
4) Trayvon Martin was acting suspiciously and similarly to burglars -- peering into houses around the time there had been other burglaries and reports of similar behavior [1]. OBVIOUSLY he didn't deserve what happened (let's count how many people miss this clause!), but we don't know, as you're implying, that Martin was somehow merely walking home and not casing houses during a spate of robberies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Bac...
Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
If their kid was sleeping and they stayed in range of a baby monitor, what is the risk there? Yes, it makes sense to make the risk higher if you perceive a parent as less apt, however, we are fast to judge that aptitude without knowing much of the context.
Did you read the article about the two-year old? The context is that they left him for over an hour and a neighbor found him wandering around outside. I don't know how much context was put into the actual study, and I agree that we make a lot of moral judgements without all the facts. But it seemed like the jist of the research was that our moral judgements of the parents should have no basis in our assessment of the…
I didn't read the article about the two year old. Thank you for sharing the details! I think their research was in trying to understand why we've turned into a culture that is afraid to let their kids have freedoms that use to be common.
Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
#55What's the difference between perceived and real? Someone preceiving it thinks it's plenty real. I've never been in a traffic accident - is the need for seat belts and air bags real?
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.
Both are real risks. The aftermath of a stranger kidnapping the child is usually much worse.
The likelihood of each is quite low, though - at least in western societies.
Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
#56I understand the overall thrust of this article, but I somewhat disagree with the suggestion that my judgement of morality should have no impact on my judgement of the risk to a child. For instance a parent that would leave a 2-year old alone to go play pokemon probably has other terrible parenting judgement/skills and most likely the environment they leave the kid in IS actually more dangerous than someone who accid…
> I somewhat disagree with the suggestion that my judgement of morality should have no impact on my judgement of the risk to a child.
The risk to the child for a specific situation does not change based on the reason why a parent put the child in a situation, the same way that the probability of getting hit by a landmine doesn't change based on whether you're walking across a minefield to cheat on your spouse or to save a baby.
The researchers wasn't asking "how good of a parent do you think they are", they were asking "how risky do you think this behaviour is", and it is irrational to be changing your estimation of the risk in a situation based on the reasons for being put in that situation (but what else is new when it comes to human psychology).
Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> leave a 2-year old alone to go play pokemon probably has other terrible parenting judgement/skills and most likely the environment they leave the kid in IS actually more dangerous than someone who accidentally leaves their kid alone > Letting children play is dangerous, being negligent is safe Very 1984.
No, not at all what I'm saying. My point is that the parent who is accidentally negligent most likely is providing their child with a safer environment than the parents who intentionally leave their child alone. BTW have you even had a 2-year old? I doubt very much there was ever a point in history where 2-year olds were left with zero supervision. Sure it might be an older sibling or some other community member watc…
"I doubt very much there was ever a point in history where 2-year olds were left with zero supervision."
In Denmark today 0-2 year olds are regularly left outside in a baby stroller to nap while their parents are inside.
Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
#58> 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…
Kids are really sturdy and will heal from basically anything. Adults don't remember the reason kids "believe themselves immortal", and think they're dumb. They're not. The play that kids do evolved to teach them motor skills - not die.
Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
#59I'm surprised they made no mention of http://www.freerangekids.com/ or (owner/blogger) Lenore Skenazy, both of which typically come up in such discussions.
There is a mention of free range parenting, but not an explicit call out.
Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?
#60I understand the overall thrust of this article, but I somewhat disagree with the suggestion that my judgement of morality should have no impact on my judgement of the risk to a child. For instance a parent that would leave a 2-year old alone to go play pokemon probably has other terrible parenting judgement/skills and most likely the environment they leave the kid in IS actually more dangerous than someone who accid…
> Those kids ARE probably at higher risk in my opinion
My problem with those kind of statements is that you don't quantify the risk. Sure, "probably" at a "higher" risk. How much higher and does it really matter that is slightly higher? we do riskier activities all the time in exchange of convenience, fun, perceived necessity, etc. Sure, my kid is at a higher risk of injury by playing in the backyard (even if supervised) than by staying indoors in his room with padded walls, but at what cost? what about enjoying life a little more?
Furthermore, you're judging just on the probability (not on the reality of the circumstances for those parents) that allowing one activity you don't agree with (playing pokemon leaving child unsupervised) implies a lot of other "bad parenting" habits. Even if that were true (and I'd like to see real concrete numbers), judging people that way is a nasty habit IMO.