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

181–190 of 280 posts

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

#181

Post by mcherm »

harryh wrote: post #139
fweespeech wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sort of.

There are two claims someone might make. "X is common, and it poses a meaningful risk", or "X exists, and it poses a non-zero risk". Anecdotes do not help much with the first claim, but they do help with the second.

So perhaps we can agree that child abductions CAN happen, and that CPS overreach DOES occur. Then we can review the real risks of both.

I've seen data on the real risk of child abductions. I have never seen data on the real risks of CPS overreach. (And it would be difficult to define "overreach".) Does anyone know of any such data?

(Because also, in the complete absence of actual data, anecdotes are better than nothing.)

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

#182

Post by efa »

Wish people (especially scientist) would just stick to the facts. In the McDonald's case people were not "angry at this woman for not being a full-time mom". They were angry that the child was left alone. No one has a problem with a mom working and a care giver watching a child. And of course we have to throw in a dig at evil McDonalds for not having childcare services.

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

#183

Post by paulrpotts »

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's not an unreal risk. CPS really does have the power to take your children away. A CPS investigation is not a pleasant thing to go through.

Imagine having to sit through a serious conversation in which every aspect of your home life is inspected. For example, a (former) family friend reported that in our 100-year-old house, there were some ants in our kitchen. Not thousands of ants, but a handful. Imagine having to defend this as if it was a serious threat to your children's safety by someone who could legally remove them.

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

#184

Post by harryh »

mcherm wrote: post #181
harryh wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sort of. There are two claims someone might make. "X is common, and it poses a meaningful risk", or "X exists, and it poses a non-zero risk". Anecdotes do not help much with the first claim, but they do help with the second. So perhaps we can agree that child abductions CAN happen, and that CPS overreach DOES occur. Then we can review the real risks of both. I've seen data on the real risk of child abductions. I have…

And in the absence of meaningful data BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY! said the overprotective parent that wouldn't let their 12 year old kid bike 5 blocks to school.

Seriously, once you see the parallels between how parents afraid of criminals and parents afraid of CPS talk about the risks you can't un-see them.

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

#185

Post by ams6110 »

nostromo wrote: post #20

The same is true for terrorism of course. Terrorism catches our attention because it's morally outrageous, not because it's statistically dangerous to people in Western countries. But if you talk with "regular people", you'll notice that media coverage gives people an unwarranted fear of outlier events: terrorism, mass shootings, plane crashes, etc. In reality, almost everyone in the US should fear the real killers:…

I think it's almost 100% news media sensationalism.

News media today is not about investigative reporting, or real news. It's about selling ads and getting eyeballs. So they report rare events as if they happen every day and you need to keep watching so you know what to do about it.

The news media today is toxic. You could do little more to improve your outlook on life and the future than simply not watching it. At all. I haven't watched a news program on any major network or any cable news in several years, and I don't miss it at all.

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

#186

Post by Bjartr »

helthanatos wrote: post #152

People seem to confuse rates and percentages with figures. There may be less on average, but more in reality. Not having so many kids on the streets may also cause the crimes to be less. Children wear less clothes than they used to and there seems to be more pedophiles, if those little kids were left alone, more may be taken advantage of. The risk is real. Children don't know how to react when confronted with maybe a…

>There may be less on average, but more in reality.

Mind explaining this? I'm having trouble grokking it.

>Not having so many kids on the streets may also cause the crimes to be less.

The article accounted for this.

>Children wear less clothes than they used to and there seems to be more pedophiles, if those little kids were left alone, more may be taken advantage of.

What? Do you have any more information on any of these claims? It's coming across as pure conjecture on your part.

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

#187

Post by CodeMage »

ghaff wrote: post #147
CodeMage wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nannying is just one aspect of a more pervasive underlying cultural problem: a lot of people here seem to feel entitled to impose their opinions and judgment on others. Not just share them, but actually impose them.

I'm not sure this is anything particularly new. There have always been busybodies. What probably is newer is that the local government is, for better or worse, quicker to inject themselves into domestic situations than they may have been in the past. The challenge is that, if someone sees behavior that isn't the norm in their experience, and that they personally consider (rightly or wrongly) to be insanely dangerous,…

I agree, there are busybodies everywhere and they have always existed. What's new to me, who have lived in two very different countries before coming here to the US, is how often and how easily those busybodies recur to authorities.

Unlike other places I've lived in, here there is a real fear that someone will dislike the way you raise your children and report you, creating much more serious problems for you than they might do elsewhere, at least not with the same ease.

I think it has a lot to do with what @stinkytaco said in his reply. It's a breakdown in communication and the same thing happens in other aspects of our lives, not just the child-rearing. I believe that this is what happens when there's so much emphasis on personal, individual freedom at the expense of larger communities those individuals form part of, all the way to the largest community -- the society itself.

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

#188

Post by harmegido »

efa wrote: post #182

Wish people (especially scientist) would just stick to the facts. In the McDonald's case people were not "angry at this woman for not being a full-time mom". They were angry that the child was left alone. No one has a problem with a mom working and a care giver watching a child. And of course we have to throw in a dig at evil McDonalds for not having childcare services.

But why would they be angry at her for leaving the kid alone? What danger is the kid in? What do they care what she does with her kid if the kid is in no danger?

(Not to mention, how could she afford the child care?)

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

#189

Post by pkulak »

I agree with this, but I still have a hell of a time letting my kids outside unsupervised, not because of abduction or crime fears, but because of cars. At least in the States, people don't give a crap about anything while they are driving. Excessive speeding is the norm on all city streets, marked crosswalks are a mild suggestion, and unmarked crosswalks do not exist. If 50% of the land outside of my house were literal minefields I'm not sure it would be less dangerous. I don't think anyone was abducted in my city last year, but 10 pedestrians died. A teenager was just mowed down in a crosswalk over the weekend. That scares the shit out of me.

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

#190

Post by jack-r-abbit »

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!

Nearly caught my bed on fire by not understanding that a battery-powered motor isn't going to spin faster if I plug it into the wall. It even dimmed the house lights enough for my dad to come into my room to check if I noticed it too. I pretended nothing had happened. No one ever noticed the singed hole in my sheets.
Post reply on HN