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

261–270 of 280 posts

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

#261

Post by stcredzero »

mc32 wrote: post #246
stcredzero wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that, then their support system is entirely formed from people who don't know how to work the system. To help out with income disparities, we need to get those communities plugged into the parts of society that know how to work the system and advance.

What poor people need is education --more specifically an altogether re-education of their children away from how their parents think in order to break the cycle of thinking the way poor people think. I don't think that's palatable to most people --it kind of harkens to reeducation camps, etc. It means diverging their thought process from their parents' way of thinking. This applies to Appalachia, Detroit, Volgograd…

Networking, contacts, and community are also mechanisms through which people can learn. This is why isolating poor people together can reinforce the cycle of poverty.

it kind of harkens to reeducation camps, etc. It means diverging their thought process from their parents' way of thinking. This applies to Appalachia, Detroit, Volgograd or Lagos.

It's clearly not just the parents. It's the community in which people find themselves living in. Look at the examples of people who manage to raise their class standing. They usually do it by making contacts outside of their community.

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

#262

Post by laughinghan »

harryh wrote: post #252
JamesBarney wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number of kids abducted by strangers per year 115. Number of kids investigated by the CPS 3.2 million. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf

Your second data point is not a relevant comparison. The number you need is the number of people incorrectly taken from their parents by CPS.

Of course it's relevant. I am certain that I am far from alone in expecting CPS to incorrectly take children more than 115/3.2 million = 0.0036% of the time, which means that even without knowing the exact percentage of the time that CPS is mistaken, I was convinced by those numbers that a random kid has a higher chance of being mistakenly taken by CPS than abducted by a stranger.

Are you telling me that even though you, like me, don't know the exact percentage of the time that CPS is mistaken, you expect it to be less that 0.0036%?

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

#263

Post by harryh »

laughinghan wrote: post #262
harryh wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second data point is not a relevant comparison. The number you need is the number of people incorrectly taken from their parents by CPS.

Of course it's relevant. I am certain that I am far from alone in expecting CPS to incorrectly take children more than 115/3.2 million = 0.0036% of the time, which means that even without knowing the exact percentage of the time that CPS is mistaken, I was convinced by those numbers that a random kid has a higher chance of being mistakenly taken by CPS than abducted by a stranger. Are you telling me that even though…

Yes, I do think it's less than 0.0036%.

First we see from the data that CPS declared 2.5 million of those 3.2 as "non-victims" so we can eliminate type 1 errors from almost 80% of the population right there.

Of the remaining 700k it's not inconceivable at all that in a big percentage of cases there were actually significant parental problems. Frankly I bet that type 2 errors are much more common that type 1 for this population.

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

#264

Post by harryh »

Declanomous wrote: post #258
tropo wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One child is kind of a backup for another. If you can be honest with yourself, this becomes very clear once you have several kids of each gender. Paranoia has risen because so few people have full-sized families these days. Losing one kid has become a tragedy.

On an evolutionary scale that's true, but on an interpersonal level it's less true. It's not like a person is more valuable because they are an only child.

As child mortality decreases people tend to have fewer children. This data point contradicts your assertion.

It makes people uncomfortable to think about people in economic terms(1) but that doesn't mean those uncomfortable people are right.

1. We see this in many areas of society from health care funding to liability laws.

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

#265

Post by SilasX »

JamesBarney wrote: post #259
SilasX wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then the kill ratio wasn't 150:1 on 9/11? What (among points I made) is that replying to?

"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." Your argument seemed to me to imply that terrorism is small fraction of deaths because we as a…

That doesn't contradict me; it's consistent with my claim, in that (some of) the post-9/11 countermeasures sufficed to raise the difficulty threshold. I'm trying to make the point that there's a difference between random and intelligent/adaptive causes of death. Thieves attack security holes once they're made known, while bathtubs don't somehow become "more drowny" after the first person drowns in one.

The argument I'm criticizing -- that you should change nothing merely because terrorism is a low fraction of deaths -- is actually rejected by the frequently-cited Bruce Schneier in the essay you linked. He advocated -- as I do -- that we change something in response to 9/11, specifically the cockpit doors and the hijacking compliance policy.

Next time, it might help if you put the argument your own words; when you only link to a massive document, I don't know which point you're criticizing and it shifts an enormous burden over to me without making it easier to identify the point of contention. Also, the headline is "terrorism is not effective", which is hard to reconcile with the several mass-kill attacks, and which doesn't appear to be related to the point you were using from it (that countermeasures are irrelevant in light of lack of motivation).

So I ask again, what are you criticizing? I agree that terrorist attacks are a small fraction of deaths, and most don't succeed. I am claiming it does not follow that nothing should be changed after an attack. If you have an argument against that, please explain why, as that would justify reversing the cockpit-door and passenger-noncompliance policies.

If you agree with those post-9/11 policy changes, you were agreeing with me the whole time.

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

#266

Post by JamesBarney »

SilasX wrote: post #265
JamesBarney wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." Your argument seemed to me to imply that terrorism is small fraction of deaths because we as a…

That doesn't contradict me; it's consistent with my claim, in that (some of) the post-9/11 countermeasures sufficed to raise the difficulty threshold. I'm trying to make the point that there's a difference between random and intelligent/adaptive causes of death. Thieves attack security holes once they're made known, while bathtubs don't somehow become "more drowny" after the first person drowns in one. The argument I…

"Next time, it might help if you put the argument your own words"

I was just linking to what I thought was an interesting and related document that argues that terrorists are not kill maximizing agents.

We probably both agree that because of certain policy changes like a cockpit door there are a few less deaths. We probably also agree had we done nothing, terrorism deaths would not be anywhere near the magnitude of other things that kill us like bodies of water, cars, cancer, and heart disease.

I'm not arguing that all countermeasures have no effect. My intuition says how terrorists decide to go about terrorism has a larger effect on number of people killed than post 9/11 policy changes, but who knows.

Also I don't know who said we should change nothing in response to 9/11 but it definitely wasn't me.

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

#267

Post by SilasX »

JamesBarney wrote: post #266
SilasX wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't contradict me; it's consistent with my claim, in that (some of) the post-9/11 countermeasures sufficed to raise the difficulty threshold. I'm trying to make the point that there's a difference between random and intelligent/adaptive causes of death. Thieves attack security holes once they're made known, while bathtubs don't somehow become "more drowny" after the first person drowns in one. The argument I…

"Next time, it might help if you put the argument your own words" I was just linking to what I thought was an interesting and related document that argues that terrorists are not kill maximizing agents. We probably both agree that because of certain policy changes like a cockpit door there are a few less deaths. We probably also agree had we done nothing, terrorism deaths would not be anywhere near the magnitude of o…

This was my original comment:

>>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.

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

#268

Post by DougN7 »

DougN7 wrote: post #2

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?

Heh, I am a terrible communicator. What I meant is that to the individual, perception and reality are the same. The facts and stats don't back up perception, but a person will think their perception is correct, otherwise they would perceive differently. Which is why we judge parents - our perception is "it's dangerous out there", even though the data doesn't bare it out.

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

#269

Post by compiler-guy »

MandieD wrote: post #250
compiler-guy wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, it was: 1) Mothers 2) Fathers 3) Childless women 4) Childless men (Childless woman here, defending our honor)

Thanks for the correction. Too late to edit my post.

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

#270

Post by mentat »

dragonwriter wrote: post #213
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…

> One hears of this kind of thing happening in the US all the time I suspect that -- like the reports of crimes against children that spur them -- the frequency of such excessive, busybody complaints is far less than it appears from the frequency with which one hears about them.

Right, but who's going to risk their child being taken away by the state.
Post reply on HN