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

91–100 of 391 posts

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#91

Post by dalbasal »

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…

A related way of thinking of these might be legible Vs illegible.

Legible risks are mostly "heuristic 1." They can be measured, quantified, discussed in discrete terms. You can be yelled at over legible things, like ignoring stranger danger on a subway. It's harder to yell about nuance.

Illegible things are less discrete. The consequences, some hard to describe, many unknown, of growing up without freedom and self reliance. There are dangers here too, but they're more nebulous.

It's hard to justify, externally, a trade-off between illegible gains like building a personality and legible dangers like kidnapping. Hard, but not impossible.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#92

Post by jonny_eh »

vlunkr wrote: post #81
caturopath wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's striking to me that the extreme end of 'freedom' here is letting a 9 year old ride a train alone. I must be getting old. I realize it's relevant because Skenazy wrote and talked about doing so, but it's also just so non-extreme.

That may be because myself and many others here live in areas where we never rode trains or subways at all.

Riding the subway is far safer than being driven in a car.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/12/19/heres-how-much-safer-...

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#93

Post by ryandrake »

minikites wrote: post #82
ryandrake wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also just general breakdown of people knowing each other in the community. When I grew up, I was a "latchkey kid" with a single parent, yet I was allowed to freely roam the neighborhood on bicycle. The idea was (or at least the perception was): If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or murdered and 2. the neighbor would know my dad and either watch over me…

>If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or murdered Crime is much lower now than the past.

That's why I said "perception". People believe kids are going to get kidnapped or murdered, even though the crime statistics don't bear this out, therefore they don't think knocking on a random door is OK anymore.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#94

Post by tux1968 »

rsync wrote: post #52
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…

"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." ... "We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only after we get her her first phone." I hesitate to enter into child rearing discussions but ... May I suggest a slightly different approach: satisfy your wife by following, secretly, your child at a distanc…

> May I suggest a slightly different approach: satisfy your wife by following, secretly, your child

Suspect they already trust their child enough to not need to follow her at all. She's capable. The concern is unforeseen events outside the child's control such as irresponsible drivers, bullies, or worse. None of which is any less likely to happen after you stop following the child.

They're not likely to ever happen, and the child's independence is probably worth the risk, but there's no way to ever completely eliminate those risks or put your mind completely at ease about it.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#95

Post by handrous »

jonny_eh wrote: post #87
handrous wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> a couple neighbors stop by to warn us that they'd seen our kids several streets over, thinking they'd gotten away from us Like dogs?!

Ha, yes, actually it was almost exactly like that. With a concerned look, "I think I saw your boy over on [street] and thought I'd better let you know". Was he playing in the road? Getting in the way of traffic? Stomping on flowers? Otherwise behaving like a jack-ass? Nope, just there. OK, uh, thanks for telling us.

Well intentioned and mostly just amusing. At least no-one called the authorities when they realized we weren't planning to confine our kids to the yard or accompany them on every idle play-outing all damn Summer.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#96

Post by unanswered »

rsync wrote: post #52
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…

"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." ... "We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only after we get her her first phone." I hesitate to enter into child rearing discussions but ... May I suggest a slightly different approach: satisfy your wife by following, secretly, your child at a distanc…

I have to disagree with both points here.

Following the child after apparently granting freedom would be a massive breach of trust: bad enough on its own, but potentially very scarring if discovered. Don't add that risk!

As for the phone, you're right if you only think of the phone as somehow protecting against stranger danger. But as someone who lives alone with health problems I think of the phone entirely differently: it's a lifeline to all kinds of potential help, from a medical emergency to being locked out of my car or apartment building. And of course not only in that direction; it works the other way too where having my phone means I can be a point of contact for help for others. This is obviously a somewhat new aspect of our society in the past 20 years, and I'm certainly not saying we couldn't get along without it; but I am asking, "why would you want to go back to a time before these universal lifelines?".

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#97

Post by oh_sigh »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #50
quadrangle wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's some argument for stats and science here. Padding for Rugby might actually make sense whereas the trend where kids can't go to the park or the grocery store alone is counterproductive. A world where kids playing actually risky sports use safety equipment but also have the independence to go to the park and do pick-up games with friends with no adult supervision, that sounds like the right balance. Not e…

It's not settled science but there's decent evidence that the padding and helmets contribute to the more violent nature of American football (where serious and long term injuries are more common than in rugby).

That is comparing professional to professional. The reason young children in rugby get padding is not so they can hit harder, but because they haven't internalized proper tackling form yet. So many more kids are going to get a knee to the face as they tackle their opponent, or unintentionally truck a person they're trying to tackle, compared to older people who know how to tackle correctly and safely.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#100

Post by hpoe »

I know this is another, back in my day story but I think it is relevant. Back in the early 2000's when I wasn't even 10 my parents sent me to spend a week or two with my grandparents who owned 40 acres up in the pacific northwest. The biggest adaptation for me was after breakfast Grandma told us to go outside and that we weren't allowed back in until the temperature had hit 100. It was a little bit uggh for the time, but we had a blast running around, slipping through fences, playing in the barn and a ditch.

Good times, everyone should get shipped off to 40 acres and told not to come in until the temperature hits 100 at least once in their childhood.

Post reply on HN