Live data from Hacker News

Kids need freedom, too

persuasion.community

121–130 of 391 posts

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am seeing this, too. Oftentimes, ostensibly in the interest of protecting children from harm, we try to control their behavior with increasingly disproportionate ultimatums, to the point where the authority's response is vastly more harmful than the situation itself. It seems that nowadays we have an extremely interventionist culture, and it leaves us ill-equipped to recognize situations where the best thing to do…

> My take is myopia can be effectively treated with an inexpensive and non-invasive device Like what? >while LASIK comes with significant risk of causing different kinds of visual impairments that cannot be treated The numbers behind LASIK (and PRK) are pretty solid such that one can make an objective claim that it is a low risk endeavor unless you have some specific conditions. Here is one study: https://www.ncbi.nl…

> Like what?

I believe the OP is talking about glasses/spectacles. Although contact lenses would probably also fit that description.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

The future is technology. You're holding them back, socially and technology skills wise, if you wait until they're 13 to give them a cell phone.

I was fixing computers and was generally the house technology expert well before I was 13. To get to that point required unrestricted access to tech and the internet. If I was locked down until 13, I would not be as successful as I am today in tech, if I was in tech at all.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#123

I've got five kids. The more I loosen up and let the kids take risks and learn for mistakes the better. The challenge is when the adults inject a ridiculous level of risk to something that should be a learning experience. For example, allowing police to arrest and charge a child for bad behavior at school (i.e. won't obey the teacher, outbursts - not for actually criminally violent behavior). Another is lifetime acad…

> For example, allowing police to arrest and charge a child for bad behavior at school (i.e. won't obey the teacher, outbursts - not for actually criminally violent behavior).

Are there any examples of this happening? I do not recall reading about any incident where police responded to a school where the cause was not due to physical violence.

If I was managing a school (or any other establishment), I would instruct staff that no one is to touch anyone outside of administering medical aid, for obvious liability reasons. In such cases, I can see it being necessary to call police if a child has to be physically moved or restrained.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Zero-tolerance policies are wasy to implement and sound tough. Many people like though and like hearing someone was punishes and "made to learn the lesson".

It all feels good for many people.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#125
I thought this article would be about other things judging from the title, but these are good points.

I'm not that old, and I remember "be home before dark" when I was in the single digits. I was going outside, by myself, since about the age of 5. As soon as I could ride a bike that was it. Basically my parents made dinner and paid the rent, the rest was all me in my own life.

There was a phase in my childhood where I was actually in a very dangerous environment, and as a result my freedom was restricted. I can compare the two. I think it damaged me quite a bit. I wonder about kids who never knew the freedom to be human beings.

Again as a teenager I experienced that freedom and the good fitness that comes with having a wide range and only feet to get around. And there was trouble (exposure to drugs, etc). But all in all the trouble didn't affect me negatively in the long term, I think it was less harmful than if I'd otherwise been restricted, and most adults don't avoid those sorts of troubles either way.

There is a network effect reinforcing this trend. Kids don't go outside because there's no kids outside. Also I think that while the fear of abduction or a terrible accident is there, I think we downplay other factors in the trend now, particularly the increased demand for creature comforts over the last 2 decades (and longer, but more pronounced more recently) and the availability of stimulation indoors. I remember the middle of the summer and going outside every day not once thinking it was too hot to go outside, then spending the entire day out there. People think I'm weird now for not using the AC in my car. I remember waking up in the morning and there was no inkling to check a phone. People can be immensely stimulated laying in bed now, with phones and videogames and such, and there are positives that come with these new tools but there are negative changes as well, and many people are beginning to come to the conclusion that the negatives outweigh the positives.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It completely depends on the severity of your myopia. If it's mild, yeah, it's pretty safe. If it's moderate or severe, then things start looking a lot more dicey. The overall numbers give a biased perspective. With the way the risk/benefit ratio varies, people with milder cases are a lot more likely to get it. This is in addition to there being more of them in the first place. The inexpensive and non-invasive device…

Of course, but an unstated assumption for claiming any procedure is safe that you qualify as a safe candidate for it.

I think, more to the point, this advice is typically being offered by people who aren't even thinking in those terms in the first place. They're just operating from a tacit bias toward interventionism.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Sadly, most zero-tolerance policies exist because getting sued is simply too expensive for the schools to deal with. No, zero-tolerance policies exist because they are low-effort ways of being seen as addressing issues of political concern (and because minimizing discretion of subordinate staff while avoiding creating an incentive to kick sensitive decisions up the chain is itself desirable to decision-makers); exc…

[deleted]

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am seeing this, too. Oftentimes, ostensibly in the interest of protecting children from harm, we try to control their behavior with increasingly disproportionate ultimatums, to the point where the authority's response is vastly more harmful than the situation itself. It seems that nowadays we have an extremely interventionist culture, and it leaves us ill-equipped to recognize situations where the best thing to do…

> My take is myopia can be effectively treated with an inexpensive and non-invasive device Like what? >while LASIK comes with significant risk of causing different kinds of visual impairments that cannot be treated The numbers behind LASIK (and PRK) are pretty solid such that one can make an objective claim that it is a low risk endeavor unless you have some specific conditions. Here is one study: https://www.ncbi.nl…

Glasses or contact lenses

Low risk -> that paper's definition of "safety" is whether people had good eyesight. It doesn't take into account halos or dry eyes, as far as I can tell.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#129
The omitted part, of course, is the stunning increase in children being fed a steady diet of indoor technology, social media, computer games, and other generally passive, low-action activities.

And of course, it would be interesting to ask what role that diet has played in the lives of both children and parents attitudes about 'independence'.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about a dumbphone?
Post reply on HN