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

101–110 of 280 posts

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

#101

Post by sotojuan »

sethhochberg wrote: post #80
rdtsc wrote: post #77

Even since I was 10 or so I would often come back to school on my own. Then let myself into our apartment. Eat some lunch, do homework, play until my parents came home in the evening. I was effectively often alone for about 4 or so hours. I wouldn't let my kid do it here in US. Not because I wouldn't trust them or think it is dangerous. But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. My co-worker let hi…

Ironically, the suburbs where it is "as safe as they come" seems to be the kind of place where these overzealous neighbor stories come from most often.

I live in a working class NYC neighborhood. Not dangerous, but not completely perfect (and some parts are best avoided). There are kids out alone everywhere!

Go up a few blocks to Park Slope, an extremely safe and cleaned up place, and there's no kids in sight.

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

#102

Post by emodendroket »

derefr wrote: post #70
BoppreH wrote: post #27

Interesting research. Looks like a cognitive bias related to the reverse-Halo Effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect ). The mother left for some morally bad reason, so the predicted events receive bad associations (larger risk). Sounds easily exploitable too. Want to advertise something dangerous? Just show people doing it in morally good situations.

I started out thinking that, but after considering it some more, I'm not sure it's just a halo effect. Here's a chain of correlations: parents who leave their children alone at random (rather than in a structured and pre-planned way) are probably more impulsive. Trait-impulsivity is hereditary. Thus, leaving a (blood-related) child alone is predictive of that child taking more risks and being the kind of child who ca…

If it has some sort of deep evolutionary roots, why has it arisen in the past like half-century?

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

#103

Post by Jtsummers »

sethhochberg wrote: post #80
rdtsc wrote: post #77

Even since I was 10 or so I would often come back to school on my own. Then let myself into our apartment. Eat some lunch, do homework, play until my parents came home in the evening. I was effectively often alone for about 4 or so hours. I wouldn't let my kid do it here in US. Not because I wouldn't trust them or think it is dangerous. But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. My co-worker let hi…

Ironically, the suburbs where it is "as safe as they come" seems to be the kind of place where these overzealous neighbor stories come from most often.

IME, suburbs are home to the most paranoid. There's a reason they live there and not in an urban area.

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

#104

Post by mighty_atomic_c »

This is a strong reason why I don't want to raise children in the U.S. I grew up in a very controlled environment with very controlling, paranoid parents and I am still dealing with the many consequences of that.

To think that I would be forced to raise children to be deficient per social rules is unsettling at best, and disturbing when considering that this is happening everywhere in the US.

What could the future hold in store? How much more extreme can this get?

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

#105

Post by cheez »

derefr wrote: post #66
tormeh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids are really sturdy and will heal from basically anything. Adults don't remember the reason kids "believe themselves immortal", and think they're dumb. They're not. The play that kids do evolved to teach them motor skills - not die.

To take this to an extreme (and not even as a reducto ad absurdum ): if a child does something that has the potential to break a bone... that thing should still be basically considered "safe." Children's bones heal!

Yes! My 8 year old son recently wanted to ride down a steep hill but he was afraid. I asked him what the worst was that could happen and he said that he would fall. "OK, and if you fall, you might break a bone?" "Yes" "So? You'll be fine."

He rode down that hill until it was time to go home and even fell a couple of times (though no bones broken). Mission accomplished.

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

#106

Post by JamesBarney »

SilasX wrote: post #53
drauh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perception: there's a 75% chance my kid will be kidnapped by a pedophile. Reality: there's a 0.01% chance of the pedophile kidnap, but a 75% chance of drowning in the bathtub. Numbers are made up. Perception is not reality. Another example: Trayvon Martin was a dark-skinned young male wearing a hoodie. Perception: he is a criminal casing the houses in order to commit a future crime. Reality: he was a kid walking home…

I'm sorry, but I think this is making the same errors in the opposite direction. 1) Yes, child abduction/predation is unlikely ... because we've adopted a huge number of countermeasures that close of this vector. That doesn't (by itself) mean you can just stop doing those measures and act like the risk is still low. 2) The risk of death by bathtub is not 75%. 3) Terrorists ramp up efforts against any vector they've f…

Incredibly interesting article on how ineffective terrorism is.

https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective

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

#107

Post by ars »

I have my own theory. I think parents have gone so far in the r/K selection[1] toward the K direction that people have gone completely overboard in protecting children.

It would be very interesting to compare with cultures where having lots of kids is still the norm.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

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

#108

Post by sotojuan »

Radle wrote: post #84

Are there places in America where things are not this extreme? I am looking for a career in IT, so coming to the Valley might be something I am going to do in my career. But I would want my kids to grow up in a different, more independent way. Like I did in my home country. (If I was in America now and thinking about getting children, this article would be a 100% reason to go back to my home country, it totally gave…

Working class immigrant neighborhoods.

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

#109

Post by emodendroket »

cujo wrote: post #90
StavrosK wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I somewhat disagree with the suggestion that my judgement of morality should have no impact on my judgement of the risk to a child. The risk to the child for a specific situation does not change based on the reason why a parent put the child in a situation, the same way that the probability of getting hit by a landmine doesn't change based on whether you're walking across a minefield to cheat on your spouse or to s…

>The researchers wasn't asking "how good of a parent do you think they are" They may not have asked that question, but that seems to be the question people were answering. Isn't it somewhat obvious that we almost never answer the literal question? If I consider the situation where the parent left their 2 year old alone to go meet a lover vs going to work to put food on the table, I'll judge the former situation more…

The same result was observed (or even strengthened) even when morality and risk were separated in the questionnaire.

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

#110

Post by svantana »

Radle wrote: post #84

Are there places in America where things are not this extreme? I am looking for a career in IT, so coming to the Valley might be something I am going to do in my career. But I would want my kids to grow up in a different, more independent way. Like I did in my home country. (If I was in America now and thinking about getting children, this article would be a 100% reason to go back to my home country, it totally gave…

Well, to begin with, find a state where laws are more relaxed:

http://www.freerangekids.com/laws/

Moral judgements from people in your community can be bad enough, but it's a whole different ball game when you run the risk of getting arrested!

Post reply on HN