111–120 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
To take this to an extreme (and not even as a reducto ad absurdum ): if a child does something that has the potential to break a bone... that thing should still be basically considered "safe." Children's bones heal!
Even since I was 10 or so I would often come back to school on my own. Then let myself into our apartment. Eat some lunch, do homework, play until my parents came home in the evening. I was effectively often alone for about 4 or so hours. I wouldn't let my kid do it here in US. Not because I wouldn't trust them or think it is dangerous. But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. My co-worker let hi…
One hears of this kind of thing happening in the US all the time (obviously it is a big place.) I always wonder what proportion of it is due to genuine misplaced concern for the children, and how much of it is strife of the "they don't like the color of your house" variety. One thinks of Homeowner Associations and the way they place fines and pseudo-legal orders on people, a concept which is utterly anathema to the e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A two year old could easily run out into traffic. A 7 or 8 year old, not so much. You overestimate 7 & 8 year olds. I know I definitely did. Ran into the side of a moving car.
I used to walk to school all by myself when I was 7 - I had to lock the door behind me, cross two roads to get to school, come back, let myself in, and have a fruit or a sandwich while I waited for my parents to come back. That was in 1998. Everyone walked to school - maybe one kid got dropped off by his parents but he was from a "rich" family and no one liked him because of it.
At one point my parents got worried that maybe it was to much, and got me a child minder. I proceeded to boycott her by dropping my school bag, leaving to play outside and not coming back until my parents would be there to pick me up - after a couple of weeks of that they decided it was pointless and let me be at home by myself again instead.
What'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?
First of all, you are mixing dimensions. If I perceive a kidnapping as an actual occurrence, I will call the police and/or intervene. The situation may be real, or it could e.g. be a stag party. Risk is different - it's about what isn't even perceived to have happened in a given situation. If I walk in the street, there is a risk a piano may have fallen out of an airplane and be falling towards me. If I perceive that…
Doing dangerous things is risky though. A child is NOT guaranteed to get hurt everytime but if you allow them to explore the work and engage in risky behavior they will get hurt eventually. It is my goal as a parent to let them do dangerous things from an early age even when it scares me.
At one that means letting them walk without a walker anad without being there to catch them all the time. At two-four it means letting them climb the stairs on their own and letting them swing and go down the slide without hand holding. At 5+ it means letting them build a fire, swim in the creek, shoot a bow and arrow and climb trees. By giving them freedom (and responsibility - but that's another topic) early they learn what their limits are and, I hope, learn to judge for themselves what is safe for them. This may be different for each of my kids and is almost certainly different than what I believe is safe and or appropriate. Of course I am there to veto really misinformed decisions (we are going to build a diving board into this 2 feet pool in the brook!) and to provide direction and guidance.
Putting this into practice has resulted in one broken arm, three staples and numerous small home-treatable cuts and bruises. I don't always like where this philosophy puts me as a father. I many times say yes and then quietly follow from a distance out of my own fear for their safety.
But because I know what a struggle it is to decide how to raise my children, even if the ultimate decision is that I am not raising them so much as watching them develop and prodding them occasionally, I try very hard not to judge parents who have made different decisions and different trade-offs.
The article doesn't go into much detail about why people judge parents so harshly but mostly focuses on changing social norms. I understand though. I have to actively remind myself NOT to judge parents who make different decisions than I do and I'm only aware of that because I have made decisions that are different than most of my peers and acquaintances.
Even since I was 10 or so I would often come back to school on my own. Then let myself into our apartment. Eat some lunch, do homework, play until my parents came home in the evening. I was effectively often alone for about 4 or so hours. I wouldn't let my kid do it here in US. Not because I wouldn't trust them or think it is dangerous. But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. My co-worker let hi…
Pardon potential classist/racial undertones of this, but seems that it could be the beginning of H.G. Wells Eloi and Morlocks. Where the Eloi are fragile and afraid and the Morlocks have freedom of movement.
Suburban children get so protected that they actually become a danger to their own progression.
> 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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> A two year old could easily run out into traffic. A 7 or 8 year old, not so much. You overestimate 7 & 8 year olds. I know I definitely did. Ran into the side of a moving car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
Incredibly interesting article on how ineffective terrorism is. https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective