Live data from Hacker News

How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

freerangekids.com

511–520 of 534 posts

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Parent of a 6yo and a 1yo). I feel the same, I was orders of magnitude freer as a kid as my children are now. One day the nanny of my 1yo found my 6yo outside of our school (which is across the street) almost ready to cross the street on the pedestrian crossing. We wrote to the teacher, who told us she couldn't sleep that night. It's very likely that if we had reported the incident to the principal she would have be…

> I think it's worth shielding our children from danger for as long as possible, so they can focus on learning. Life will come at them, that's for sure. And then they'll have the motivation to learn how to deal with all the bad stuff. But until them they'll learn more of the good stuff if we remove the distraction of having to look out for themselves. But how will they ever learn that when all they've been brought up…

I don't know the answer yet (my being a parent is still work in progress, you know...) but I think my son will earn my trust to let him go to and from school by himself in a few years. I don't think there will a sharp demarcation line at 18 or any other age: you are under constant supervision up to here, and completely on your own from here on.

It's just that I don't think it's so important for him at this age to learn to negociate the street traffic, even if I was roaming the streets when I was his age. Can he do it? Sure. Are there dangers? You bet. Are they negligible? Maybe, some people say they are, some are freaked out. But we have a huge bias in our perception: we are all alive. We enjoyed our freedom when we were kids, but some of us died, and we, the survivors, tend to not include their experience in our assessment of the dangers.

I did play with carbide cannons as a kid, and also with matches, firecrackers, I climbed trees, and of course, I got in numerous fights with other boys. And here I am, safe and sound, living proof that it's ok to do all of those. Only the proof is flawed. One of my coworkers had a classmate die while playing with a carbide cannon. It's really not that safe to play with carbide cannons, or with fire, or to dash across the street right before a car was passing (forgot to mention I did that too).

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#512

As another in a long line that identifies with this, my partner and I are taking steps to buy a small acreage on the outskirts of a city where we can 'free-range' our kids whilst giving me access to city work. While we also want this lifestyle we think this is super important for our young'uns (5&7) and I'm more than happy to accept the additional commute to give them this. This will take my commute to about 90 min e…

Before you buy property and extend your commute to 3 hours per day, you should test if such a long commute doesn’t slowly deteriorate your life. Start today. Tell your wife you want to test the commute back home, then pick a route that takes 1.5 hours. Tomorrow take a route that takes 1.5 hours to work. Repeat for the next 3 months. Ask your employer for those 2 days per week home office. See if it works for both of…

Thanks for the insight. I currently have a 75 min commute so know what I'm getting into. It's really is something to consider.

I find the travel time is OK when you have fairly direct transport where you can do something. For me the significant majority time is on the train so I work on my side business which works nicely having that time immediately pre/post office hours. It does take much time from life so I personally wouldn't do it if I was driving and unable to get stuff done.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#513
post #77
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, in a recent brief visit to Switzerland I stayed with some friends in a small village near Zug and saw examples of this sort of attitude throughout more aspects of life than just child-raising. For example, many farmers were leaving produce out with price tags on and relying on an honour system for payment. Some did a 'pay what you want' system for their produce and just relied on people to do the right th…

"For example, many farmers were leaving produce out with price tags on and relying on an honour system for payment" FWIW this fairly common in rural Ontario and probably other parts of Canada too. I imagine it happens in parts of the US too.

This is every rural county in the US, more or less.

Seriously, it seems like 90% of the HN crowd has was born in SV. You don't even have to go very far inland, from either coast.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crikey, anyone seriously think its a genetic trait? Do you imagine the children taken into care at a young age turn into bad people just like their parents anyway? Surely everyone thinks that trustworthiness is about poverty, inequality and values?

Actually, what I recall from reading studies of adoption and criminality (it was a few years ago, though, so I don't remember the authors or exact titles to find them) the "the children taken into care at a young age turn into bad people just like their parents anyway" has a truth in it - if you analyze the heritability of antisocial behavior and criminality (and the heritability clearly exists) to see how much of it…

Quite so. Most twin studies on the subject turn up similar findings: https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/time-preferen...

"The best fitting model for 41 key studies (58 independent samples from 14 month old infants to adults; N=27,147) included equal proportions of variance due to genetic (0.50) and non-shared environmental (0.50) influences, with genetic effects being both additive (0.38) and non-additive (0.12). Shared environmental effects were unimportant in explaining individual differences in impulsivity."

So impulsivity (which is obviously closely related to your propensity to betray the trust of your fellow-man for a short-term gain) appears to be a combination of genetics and random luck (non-shared environment).

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IMO if a society treats people like responsible adults they'll rise up to the task. That's one hypothesis. Another is that trustworthiness is a genetic trait.

Crikey, anyone seriously think its a genetic trait? Do you imagine the children taken into care at a young age turn into bad people just like their parents anyway? Surely everyone thinks that trustworthiness is about poverty, inequality and values?

Everyone thinks that way, but it turns out the science says otherwise.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#516
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For example, many farmers were leaving produce out with price tags on and relying on an honour system for payment" FWIW this fairly common in rural Ontario and probably other parts of Canada too. I imagine it happens in parts of the US too.

This is every rural county in the US, more or less. Seriously, it seems like 90% of the HN crowd has was born in SV. You don't even have to go very far inland, from either coast.

I think your perception of HN membership is way off. I'd frankly be surprised if 50% of HN members live in the SF/SV area. Not sure how either of us can be proven correct, however, at least not without mod assistance. Perhaps user IPs?

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IMO if a society treats people like responsible adults they'll rise up to the task. That's one hypothesis. Another is that trustworthiness is a genetic trait.

I am more inclined to believe it is a CULTURAL trait.

You and the folks who down-voted the parent comment agree on that point. That doesn't make it true.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#518
post #366
post #329

Very interesting, irrational fears and obsession for safety affect so many things nowadays. Every-time I go snowboarding I'm stunned at how in just 20 years, we pretty much went from zero to something like 90%+ skiers wearing helmets.

That's funny. I didn't know that had happened. I can't think of any serious skiing accidents that have happened in/near my social circle, nor on the news, where a helmet would have been determinative to the outcome. In what percentage of serious skiing accidents would a helmet help. Or is it merely one of those "precautionary principle" things: why take a chance?

> In what percentage of serious skiing accidents would a helmet help. Or is it merely one of those "precautionary principle" things: why take a chance?

I'm not quiet sure about the percentage, but I'm certain wearing a helmet does lessen the chances a bit. The problem really is that the majority of ski injuries are not exactly what we imagine - it's pretty natural to imagine smashing our skulls on a rock or on some ice, it's very graphic too, I'm not saying they don't exist, but I can tell you that spine/cervical injuries are way more common. In addition to avalanches of course where the helmet isn't particularly useful, another frequent (and graphic!) one is beeing traversed by a tree branch :P

Just to be clear, I'm not saying helmets are useless tho, but I note that may give a false sense of security.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#519
post #496

Every several months something like this is posted on HN, and I log in to post a couple of things: 1. During the baby boom, there was a lot of intermittent surveillance. Fewer mothers worked, and every ten or fifteen minutes one might give a look out the back window to see what was going on. This was not intrusive, but it kept down the mischief level on the one hand and the anxiety level on the other. 2. People on HN…

"During the baby boom, there was a lot of intermittent surveillance. Fewer mothers worked, and every ten or fifteen minutes one might give a look out the back window to see what was going on."

@cafard sort of applies to suburban areas. In semi-rural hilly country on bikes and foot, there is no houses for miles. My folks and others wouldn't have been able to see me or my friends, though we'd tell them where we'd been.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, I wanted to add that remark as well, especially because the topic is about kids. But I didn't. And of course bicycles are far less dangerous than any car. So there is no reason to complain or criticise this great achievement.

Yes, it wasn't meant so much as a criticism as a caveat.

It is a bullshit caveat. Bikes are orders of magnitude less dangerous than cars for children.
Post reply on HN