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

Kids need freedom, too

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 391 posts

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#31

Post by asciimov »

Nullabillity wrote: post #24
asciimov wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only after we get her her first phone. Might I suggest looking into one of those cell phone watches for kids. They allow you to lock down who they can send and receive calls/messages from and have gps and geofencing so you can keep an eye on them. It basically allows you to give them the advantages of a phone, without having to give them a phone.

The irony in making this suggestion in this thread...

It's a good compromise for mom. Let kids run free, and give mom the reassurance they can call someone if they need help.

I don't like giving cell phones to kids younger than 12 or 13 because childhood should be free of a lot of the technology we use today.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#32

Post by dgritsko »

nikolay wrote: post #9
kbelder wrote: post #2

I'm having this issue a bit with my wife. I want my 9-yr old daughter to go to the playground a couple blocks away on her own; my wife is reluctant. My argument is that it's statistically very safe, especially in our neighborhood, and that we and her older brothers all did similar things. Her argument is that a girl needs to be more cautious than a boy, and that although she knows it's unlikely anything bad would hap…

Parents today are overprotective (this includes me!) and don't realize that it actually damages their kids. I was 5-years-old when my parents would just drop me off to the kindergarten and then I was on my own pretty much the whole day after kindergarten finishes in the afternoon. I would go to different classes kilometers away, crossing roads, etc. and it was common practice. I don't think kids get injured less toda…

In case anyone else didn't make the connection, the author of the linked article (Lenore Skenazy) is also the author of Free-Range Kids.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#33

Post by gpspake »

mothsonasloth wrote: post #7

I went back to my old school for a tour/"try and get Alumni to donate money" event. I was shocked at the changes, especially in the "Elf and Safety" (Health and Safety). Pupils are required to wear body and head padding for Rugby. Junior pupils in primary school cannot do full contact tackles until they are older in high school. I wasn't the most sporty at school, but I appreciated the rough and tumble of rugby, foot…

The things you've mentioned seem like they fall in to the category of responses to increased awareness of CTE associated with contact sports. There's not dropping your kid off at the play ground... and there's not wanting your kid to lose their mind in their twenties because of repeated concussions. I'm mostly aware of it from the high profile pop culture cases like Aaron Hernandez and O.J. but it seems like a serious cause for concern and I don't think football will look the same in the next decade or so as it has in the past - especially in terms of high school athletics. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610856/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_players_with_chron...

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#34

Post by handrous »

kbelder wrote: post #2

I'm having this issue a bit with my wife. I want my 9-yr old daughter to go to the playground a couple blocks away on her own; my wife is reluctant. My argument is that it's statistically very safe, especially in our neighborhood, and that we and her older brothers all did similar things. Her argument is that a girl needs to be more cautious than a boy, and that although she knows it's unlikely anything bad would hap…

We let our very-capable son and his less-capable-but-bright and more-experienced older sister freely wander the neighborhood on bicycles when they were 5.5 and 7, respectively. Worked out fine so far.

Varies by neighborhood, though. Our current one's busy-body and kids-only-play-with-parental-escort enough that we had a couple neighbors stop by to warn us that they'd seen our kids several streets over, thinking they'd gotten away from us. Not quite busy-body enough that anyone called the cops (I suspect we were right on the edge of that happening, and maybe just got lucky). Our last neighborhood had wonderful mixed-age "gangs" of kids wandering around playing all the time, and it would have been entirely safe there. That was a much younger neighborhood (in terms of both the ages of the houses and the average age of residents) than this one (not sure whether that's related), and, I suspect, there were some class issues at play (the other had a very high-prole character to it, in Fussellian terms, while this one's 100%, gratingly, middle-class as hell)

As for chances of assault, your main worry by a country mile should be cars, not predators. All forms of attacks on kids by strangers are incredibly rare. Leaving your kid in the company of a specific adult or set of adults is far riskier than letting them walk to the park (yet people do that all the time). Shit, statistically siblings or cousins are far "scarier" and worthy of concern, in that regard, than the risk of regular walks to a park 2 blocks away.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#35

Post by nikolay »

dgritsko wrote: post #32
nikolay wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents today are overprotective (this includes me!) and don't realize that it actually damages their kids. I was 5-years-old when my parents would just drop me off to the kindergarten and then I was on my own pretty much the whole day after kindergarten finishes in the afternoon. I would go to different classes kilometers away, crossing roads, etc. and it was common practice. I don't think kids get injured less toda…

In case anyone else didn't make the connection, the author of the linked article (Lenore Skenazy) is also the author of Free-Range Kids.

I did notice and got embarrassed for not paying attention who wrote it.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#36

Post by ssivark »

jlos wrote: post #6

I think the problem "de-risking" childhood is only an instance of the bigger problem of what Roger Scruton calls "Risk De-aggregation". Risk Deaggregation is taking a single point of risk (and its associated metric), and optimizing to reduce that risk as if it exists in isolation from other risks. I.e. Risk occurs in aggregate, not as individual threats. Risk deaggregation happens everywhere from Climate Change polic…

“Risk de-aggregation” sounds like it edifies an implicit perspective that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. Is there a specific reference you might recommend looking at, for Roger Scruton’s take?

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#37

Post by BitwiseFool »

asciimov wrote: post #23
atty wrote: post #13

Does anyone else feel like the current climate is partly a by-product of the lazy “think of the children!” Rhetoric that so many law enforcement agencies and politicians use to get their legislation and budgets passed? It’s hard to let kids be unsupervised if the only thing you hear from politicians, police and others is that kids are in so much danger we need to pass otherwise ridiculous laws just to protect them.

It's between that, the zero tolerance policies that many places have, and the unwalkable suburban residential nightmares we have built. I know for several of my minority friends, they won't let their kids go anywhere alone due to run-ins with law enforcement.

Sadly, most zero-tolerance policies exist because getting sued is simply too expensive for the schools to deal with. Why make a nuanced judgement when you risk getting a lawsuit by trying to be fair?

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#38

Post by bitcurious »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #20
version_five wrote: post #3

Large businesses have the biggest lobbying groups so their agendas get the most attention, though editorial campaigns, laws, etc. There are a few groups concerned with personal freedom, and so personal freedom is not forgotten, but is deprioritized over what business wants. Children have almost no advocates I would argue. The only people lobbying "on their behalf" are trying to gain power in some way, using fear, etc…

Why don't large businesses want children walking to the park by themselves? What's the large business interest here?

I don’t know if any business has actively engaged in that sort of lobbying, but if I had to imagine a business interest it would be from schools, daycare, tutoring centers, sports programs, etc. If kids can’t be alone, they have to be with someone.

A case where we do have evidence of lobbying is remote schooling, where the education and well-being of children was sacrificed for the well-being of union affiliated teachers.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#39

Post by minikites »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #25

Social trust has been falling for decades, and the blame lies at the feet of nearly all our major institutions: both political parties as well as the permanent bureocracy, corporations, churches, the media and so on. If we want a healthy society, of which independent children are a part, we should work to restore social trust. "We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

>all our major institutions: both political parties as well as the permanent bureocracy, corporations, churches, the media and so on

These things have been dysfunctional for decades. What's different now compared to when things were "good"?

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#40

Post by caturopath »

A 14 year old article that hints at how long this trend has been going this direction some places https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-children...

Part of me is glad I grew up on the poorer side for the US, which put me ten years behind a lot of social changes. My same-age peers in middle class households had so much less freedom, I came to learn.

Post reply on HN