Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 280 posts

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

#161

Post by compiler-guy »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #112
JonnieCache wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honestly, I think a lot of this nannying comes from middle aged people who never had children, but maybe who wanted them and could not have them. So there's an element of ignorance about how autonomous children can be, and also jealousy and revenge against those who have what they wanted and can no longer have.

The article explicitly states that mothers (who have children) judge other mothers more harshly than everyone else. In fact, the ranking of most likely to overestimate risk to least likely is:

1. Mothers 2. Childless women 3. Fathers 4. Childless men

In other words, the ones who know the most about child rearing (in our culture, that is mothers), are the worst at assessing risk.

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

#163

Post by gph »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #148
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience that isn't always the case. For those circumstances where that is the case then ok.

Your experience doesn't matter here, because we're really talking about a physics problem . There is no known physical process by which parent's intent for leaving the child at home could alter the risk profile of that action. Now that the people really answered a different question that they were actually asked is another thing. Not uncommon with humans in psychological studies.

Yes, but the parent's intent is indicative of their general lifestyle and choices. The point I'm trying to make is that our moral judgements of that intent, while likely being well overinflated, does give us reason to believe that that person's child is at a higher risk when left alone in the environment the parents have given them as compared to the general statistic of perceived risk given to the average child.

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

#164

Post by Declanomous »

jkeel wrote: post #99
harryh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. Speaking of "perceived but unreal risk"....

Except I'm not sure this is an "unreal" risk. I was telling someone a story today about how I was outside with my daughter who was 10 at the time. We live in cul-de-sac and 2 houses down there is a neighborhood pool but across the street (very non-busy street). The neighborhood has some unused wood from building a fence and sent an email out saying that people could take some. My daughter said she wanted to take a wa…

That level of concern is a bit ridiculous for a 10 year old. I was riding my bike all over by myself at that point. Crossing the street with indirect supervision is something I'd trust a 6 year old with.

Now maybe I had a charmed childhood, but I'm in my mid twenties, so it's not like I'm talking about growing up in the 50's here. My parents are older though, they did grow up in the 50s, and I I know they view independence as an important individual trait. I'm sure overprotective parents are not a recent phenomenon. One of my (younger) brother's friends was accompanied to and from school by his mother well in to High School. Walk, drive, riding a bike, you name it, she was there.

My mom asked her about this once, and she was like "Oh, [Declanomous's Mother], you have [Declanomous] and [Son #2]. I just have [her son]. I don't know what I'd do if anything happened to him." My mom thought this point was kind of ridiculous, because it's not as if one child is a backup for another child. She just let my brother and I run around because she wanted us to learn to do things on our own.

Personally I think the current environment vis-a-vis child rearing reflects a larger trend towards fear in overall society. Part of this is a result of a larger focus on danger in childhood development, but I feel like a whole culture around existential fear really developed after 9/11. It seems like we started viewing the entire world as dangerous, rather than being ripe for exploration. I feel like this is really noticeable when watching media from different eras. Popular TV shows before 9/11 were Seinfeld, Friends, and Fraiser. After 9/11 shows like CSI, 24, etc. became very popular.

I could be completely wrong. I know shows like Law and Order and ER were very popular before 9/11. I recall them being less existentially terrifying though. This could just be because I was very young at the time though.

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

#165

Post by theandrewbailey »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #123
Domenic_S wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hilarious, I totally believe it. I used to think rowdy kids were just poorly-parented but seeing the crazy stuff my son does has changed my perception greatly!

I electrocuted myself three times as a child. IIRC, that last one was even unintentional!

I blame young child electrocutions for my technological giftedness. As my mom describes it, I kept popping those plastic covers off the outlets.

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

#166

Post by jessaustin »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #123
Domenic_S wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hilarious, I totally believe it. I used to think rowdy kids were just poorly-parented but seeing the crazy stuff my son does has changed my perception greatly!

I electrocuted myself three times as a child. IIRC, that last one was even unintentional!

Haha one of my only memories of kindergarten was one naptime my cot was next to a wall receptacle without a cover. My perception from this great temporal remove is that the shock was much less severe than others I've experienced since, perhaps because the fabric cot insulated me somewhat. [EDIT:] I've sometimes wondered how many other children were shocked by that particular outlet, given that there were fifty children in my class. Presumably most of us were only shocked once...

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

#167

Post by dangoor »

harryh wrote: post #81
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…

But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. Speaking of "perceived but unreal risk"....

It would be interesting to see data on stuff like number of random calls to CPS vs. number of kids kidnapped by strangers. They're probably both small risks, possibly with similar incidence.

I'm also curious if calls to CPS, etc. are more common today because suburban dwellers know their neighbors less than in the past?

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

#168

Post by lberlin »

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…

Seems like what "CPS would do" is the same logic described in the article itself, but instead of the perceived (but not statistical) risk to the children it's the perceived (but not statistical) risk to the parents of those children. I doubt (don't have real data) that reporting actually happens often at all, but it's so easy to imagine and potentially embarrassing and scary for a parent that they avoid it. So even if you don't buy into the perceived risk to your kids, you buy into the perceived risk to yourself.

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

#169

Post by gph »

dmichulke wrote: post #65
gph wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. In both cases you usually don't see whether the parents left their child intentionally or not. Whatever the real reason, harassing the parents is quite a judgement based on a statistics with sample size 1.

I never contended that we should harass the parents in question. I'm against litagating parenting. Everyone in this thread is really twisting my words to their own perceptions.

Point I'm making is directed at the study, which contends that our moral judgements should have no impact on how we assess the risk to a child. Even though I think our morals are heavily skewed and unnecessary, I bet they at least point in the correct direction of what the risk to a specific child is as compared to the average statistical risk to all children.

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

#170

Post by gwern »

SilasX wrote: post #53
drauh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

> 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.

There is no reason to think that the elasticity of crime is enormous and in ranges like 10 or 100. You can see this just by considering the tight range of crime across the US, and the considerable random variation over time, despite the huge differences in policing budgets and local factors which influence crime such as poverty. If everyone stopped caring about pedophiles, the rate of child abduction would be... very similar to what it is now, because there is not a huge population of pedophiles slavering at the fences and going 'darn! if only people would let their kids spend a few more minutes outside and take down that pesky 'neighborhood watch' sign, I would be able to kidnap hundreds of kids!'

Post reply on HN