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?

#131

Post by r00fus » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 7:54 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #103

sethhochberg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, the suburbs where it is "as safe as they come" seems to be the kind of place where these overzealous neighbor stories come from most often.

IME, suburbs are home to the most paranoid. There's a reason they live there and not in an urban area.

While paranoia may be a reason to live in the suburbs, it could also be because they want their own backyard or are priced out of major metros.

Or maybe just because they've always lived there - more and more folks are living near (or with) family these days.

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

#132

Post by frostirosti » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 7:57 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #77

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…

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/lawn-order/

I think 99pi did a story on this about green lawns. They commented that a green lawn wasn't really a status symbol for yourself, but rather your neighbors. If you let your yard grow unruly, neighbors would come and tend it for you.

The idea is that owning a home and land was the american dream, this land was where you could do what you will. The ultimate self determination. However, the reality is, that your neighbors and the HOA just want to tell you how you will manicure your home. So in reality, people who proclaim self determination are enacting a socialist policy.

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

#133

Post by ghaff » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 7:57 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #79

tn13 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not convinced. I was under the impression that child-safe pool fences (legal requirement in Australia) have reduced the number of children drowning in the family pool. I was also under the impression that the various ad champagnes over the decades about not leaving children unattended in the bath have also reduced the number of kids drowning in the bath. I was also under the impression that requiring all new home…

In general, at least Western societies have incrementally mandated (through a combination of laws and social norms) all manner of safety devices/education/etc. affecting both children and adults going back decades. And at some point many of them cross from being unheard of to used here and there to commonplace to the point where not complying increasingly seems negligent and reckless.

I imagine the vast majority of people reading this don't have a problem with requiring houses to have smoke/CO detectors, for example.

Where you get into arguments is when some behavior is only somewhat common or where, as discussed here, the safety benefits seem to be more a matter of perception than statistics. And "the children" complicates things because it's not a clear case of exercising personal responsibility as is the case with adult behaviors.

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

#134

Post by fweespeech » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 7:57 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #85

rdtsc wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would think, but seeing what happened to my co-worker, I don't want to go through that.

A couple of very slightly uncomfortable conversations seems like a small price to pay for raising your kids in the manner you deem appropriate.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/11-year-old-boy-played-in-...

> One afternoon this past April, a Florida mom and dad I'll call Cindy and Fred could not get home in time to let their 11-year-old son into the house. The boy didn't have a key, so he played basketball in the yard. He was alone for 90 minutes. A neighbor called the cops, and when the parents arrived—having been delayed by traffic and rain—they were arrested for negligence.

> "My older one was the so-called 'victim,'" she said during a phone interview. But since she and her husband were charged with felony neglect, the younger boy had to be removed from the home, too.

If you are not liked by your neighbors, it seems like a very real risk.

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

#135

Post by tvaughan » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 7:59 PM UTC

I really wish people in the US would prefix these sort of statements with "In the US, we ..." The rest of the world isn't so crazy. Speaking as if what people in the US do is universal makes these sort of things seem as though they're the result of the passage of time, that some other solution just isn't possible, that the outcome was inevitable, and those people affected are somehow victims. When really it's a matter of deliberate choices some people made, in the US. Today's article on ADHD also suffers from the same myopic perspective.

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

#136

Post by ch4s3 » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 8:00 PM UTC

sotojuan wrote: post #101

sethhochberg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, the suburbs where it is "as safe as they come" seems to be the kind of place where these overzealous neighbor stories come from most often.

I live in a working class NYC neighborhood. Not dangerous, but not completely perfect (and some parts are best avoided). There are kids out alone everywhere! Go up a few blocks to Park Slope, an extremely safe and cleaned up place, and there's no kids in sight.

Really? I was just in Park Slope 20 minutes ago and saw a few kids ambling about. Yeah, not as many as you see in Crown Heights, but some. I suspect Park Slope kids are a bit more likely to be overscheduled (like suburban kids) than their peers in surrounding neighborhoods.

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

#137

Post by Someone1234 » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 8:01 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #85

rdtsc wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would think, but seeing what happened to my co-worker, I don't want to go through that.

A couple of very slightly uncomfortable conversations seems like a small price to pay for raising your kids in the manner you deem appropriate.

And if CPS agrees about the manner you deem appropriate?

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

#138

Post by betenoire » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 8:01 PM UTC

fireflash38 wrote: post #94

djsumdog wrote: post #22

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.

I saw this happen to a kid probably 20 years ago, and it still makes me laugh. Sorry :)

To the bigger point, even a supervising parent is not going to be able to prevent a lot of these "kids do dumb things" examples.

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

#139

Post by harryh » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 8:01 PM UTC

fweespeech wrote: post #134

harryh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple of very slightly uncomfortable conversations seems like a small price to pay for raising your kids in the manner you deem appropriate.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/11-year-old-boy-played-in-... > One afternoon this past April, a Florida mom and dad I'll call Cindy and Fred could not get home in time to let their 11-year-old son into the house. The boy didn't have a key, so he played basketball in the yard. He was alone for 90 minutes. A neighbor called the cops, and when the parents arrived—having been delayed by traffic and rain—they were arre…

You know how if you talk to an overprotective parent about how it's really ok to let their kids wander around outside on their own a little they're always at the ready with a link to a news story about something horrible happening? And you know how that news story is always anecdote and not data?

That's pretty much what you just did.

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

#140

Post by kazinator » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 8:01 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #118

kazinator wrote: post #26

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…

If I'm flipping a coin, would you not say that the real risk of a flip coming up heads is about 50%?

If I said that, I could drop the word "real" and still say the same thing.

"Real risk" in conversation is usually just an intensifier which means "risk significantly greater than zero percent" implying that it's high enough to be considered on its own, or ahead of other risks. That's already more or less given by the 50% figure.

In this sense there is "no real risk" that the coin will land on its edge. There is a probability attached which is too small to bother with; and possibly lower than the probability that a crow will swoop from the sky and snatch the coin before it lands.