It's great to allow your kids to take risks, and we do this with our own as much as we can (they're 1 and 3, so "within reason" is still doing some heavy lifting. I pick ticks off of them now and then and patch up their share of bruises).
But fundamentally, what I want most is to be somewhere my kids can ride bikes or walk alone to school, to friends, to the shop, etc. from the age of 7 or so. As best I can tell that pretty much means the Netherlands, parts of Denmark, or perhaps Japan (more for transit than cycling).
Children can't drive, which means unless you're lucky enough to live very close to your friends, and ideally on the same side of the street, your home is effectively your prison in the US and Canada.
And yes, I suppose you _can_ let your kid ride a bike to school alone in the US at 7, but you would be risking arrest, and death. It's often forgotten that drivers are, by far, the leading killers of children. Far more than people with guns. I was an avid cyclist in the US for the first 30 years of my life and I still have a bruised rib and too many memories of very, very close calls with death.
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 policy, to Covid, to children.
I think this type of risk deaggregation arises from the fact that in a sufficiently complicated space (climate, economy, children, etc) there are really only two heuristics:
1) Ignore all but a manageable number of variables and optimize for them
2) Recognize a larger number of necessary variable, acknowledge there is no optimal solution, and balance the trade offs between those variables. [0]
Heuristic 1 is the easiest, requires no nuance, and seems the type of thing our political and media class love to latch onto. Heuristic 2 actually requires admitting you don't get everything you want, or at least the things you want will cost you something you dont.
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.
It's a problem everywhere, from bad KPI's to public policy. We have a bias towards metrics that are easy to measure.
It's much easier to measure large effects on a single metric, than small effects distributed over a wide range of metrics. Concentrated effects that affect one individual/org/group are favored over distributed effects that affect everyone. There are so many examples of policies where this thought process has been applied.
Humans don't seem to be very good at managing risks. From an evolutionary perspective, we can only look at what others are doing and follow along. Breaking it out in terms of percentage weights doesn't give us a feel for practical steps to take.
I’ve seen risk deaggregarion at work and wonder if it stems from how easy it is to shoot an idea down with a counter example.
E.g. Should we switch from “status quo” to “change”? Good idea, but if we move to “change” then “this one bad thing will happen”.
A solution might be to use the lieutenant’s cloud, an idea I learned on a thinking course.
With this you simply ask why “bad thing” and then offer a suggestion that solves the why, not necessarily the bad thing.
This is probably easier to do at a closed organisation. In the public eye with an emotive topic like possibility of child abduction, a lot of sensitivity is needed.
“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?
I'm trying to look this up but the only hit for "Roger Scruton Risk De-aggregation" is this comment. Any recommendations on where I can read more about this? I've found other Scruton articles that talk about swing sets and stuff but not the term specifically.
Just so I'm clear, risk de-aggregation is when I worry and optimise about the risks of drink driving, and end up killing myself by [drunk walking in front of a bus]/[accepting a lift from a serial killer]/[Cancer I got in the smokey bar I was really careful not to drive home from]
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 academic and other records. When risk is too high, learning stops and risk avoidance takes over.
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.
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.
I can‘t find the link anymore, but in the prologue of (I think) a German norm for building playgrounds it said something along these lines that resonated a lot with me: „Kids have the right to hurt themselves and test their boundaries in a safe and limited way“
That‘s just so important for kids I think. US playgrounds all look sad to no end compared to the 15 meter high rope pyramids you see here in a lot of schools.
First time you see them, you tell yourself: No way I‘m going to let my kids play on that thingy.
But when you take a close look, all ways down you‘d bump into a rope, there‘s no direct free fall and there‘s usually thick rubber or sand below.
Sure it‘s going to hurt and maybe break a bone in the very worst case if you miss, but that is just super rare.
But what it adds in developing courage, resilience and risk awareness is just priceless.
Then again, having your kids break a bone won‘t bankrupt your family for life over here…
> Then again, having your kids break a bone won‘t bankrupt your family for life over here…
That's the key. I've noticed in places with universal health care, they tend to have more fun playgrounds. Because the owner knows they won't get sued for medical expenses.
That applies in general in places with universal healthcare. My friends who live in those places told me their car and home insurance are much cheaper than when they lived in the USA, because there is no risk of getting sued for medical expenses.
We used to have playgrounds like that. My favorite playground as a kid had metal slides, a merry-go-round that we used to have fun throwing kids off of by spinning it at high speed, and this gigantic metal turtle that would get so hot in the summer sun that it would burn you. My elementary school had monkey bars at varying heights... etc etc..
But last time I checked that playground replaced everything with bulky plastic toys and one of those boring wood castle things with plastic slides
Of course I had to climb it immediately. My son was only 2 at the time so he didn't make it far. He's old enough now that I really want to find another one.
I found a few similar items in other parts of Oregon, but I haven't found one in California yet.
The perfect article for this 80s kid to rant about good old times.
My dad gave me a tiny bicycle at the age of 6, and basically said "good luck". I could go anywhere I want for as long as I'm back home in time for dinner. They had no idea where I was, with whom, or what I was doing.
One day, an older kid hit me in the playground. I came home crying, assuming I'd get some support. I was told to just hit him back, preferably harder. I explained that the kid was much older and far bigger. "Get a piece of wood then".
Standard equipment for every kid everywhere were thick knee pads, as mothers grew tired of fixing bloody knees and probably more important: the jeans. On any day, we'd come home looking like pigs, and almost always with fresh wounds.
Throughout this entire period, outside of formal family moments, not a single photo, audio or video recording exists of me.
Not only was it a fantastic childhood, it has helped me become a robust character. I can handle setbacks with ease and instead of complaining, solve things myself.
By today's standards, it would be neglectful or even child abuse. It wasn't. It was paradise.
Child abuse is imprisoning your own child. Not only obsessing over their security, also micro managing their day as if production units.
As for children "performing", my deal was pretty simple and enjoyable. "Come home with good grades or there will be hell". Zero oversight, only the outcome counts.
A fair deal if you ask me. No daily nagging about doing homework, none at all. They couldn't care less. I was fully free to deliver the desired outcome in any way I see fit. Maximum freedom, whilst also instilling responsibility from the start.
To sum this up, the lack of parenting has helped me tremendously.
I recently watched E.T. by Steven Spielberg, and was shocked at how different life was in the 80s.
The mom left Elliott at home alone, sick with a fever, at the age of 9. She also left the daughter who was 3.5 alone while she went to the supermarket. Their only instructions were "don't get into trouble."
Those would both get you in a lot of trouble in 2021, but I'm not sure I understand why. It's even easier these days to contact your parents, since everyone has cell phones. My son has contacted me via Facebook Messenger through his iPad, so it's not that difficult anymore unlike the 80s. You didn't have a way to contact people except by calling, and if the parent wasn't there sitting by the phone there wasn't even answering machines!
I think people just gave more credit to kids back then and nowadays we just keep them as kids much much longer.
> American parents are having their right to raise independent kids restored, so their kids can grow into confident and capable adults, ready for the world out there. The parents win, the children win—and so does America.
I’m a beneficiary of childhood freedom, to injure myself (tools, fire, trees), to explore (walking for miles through the woods, along defunct railways, and biking the dirt roads), and to read whatever I found at the library. The downside was I didn’t have what I think of as healthy discussions with my parents, perhaps because it was awkward for them?
As a parent now I’m trying to build on their successes, adding emotional mindfulness.
For example: finger crushed in a heavy book? Yeah, that hurts, and it’ll hurt awhile yet (no asking “you okay?” because that’s too binary, and mainly to appease the parent). In the meantime, take long, slow breaths and feel the pain as it subsides and you’re ready to move on. If it doesn’t go away, let’s take another look at it.
I also let my kid fall, and I tell her it’s helpful to feel what it’s like to fall. She’s learning to climb and take steps, and when I’m spotting her for safety I’ll intervene enough to prevent injury but not the initial slip. I largely credit our Early Childhood Education teachers with my own progress here.
For those of you who give your children more freedom, how do you manage your concerns around risk? How do you decide how much freedom to give? What do those conversations look like?
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 happen, it would destroy us if it did.
We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only after we get her her first phone.
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 today than when I was a kid. Also, my parents would send me to the store to buy them beer or cigarettes - all you needed back then to either bring a handwritten note from your parent or for the salesperson to know you and know your parents - I don't drink, I don't smoke. We always underestimate the power of the forbidden fruit! Leaving kids on their own makes them more responsible and independent.
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.
My mom used to take the bus into the city when she was 8, spend the day wandering around, and come back on her own time. This was in the 70s with no smartphones. If there was an issue, she could use a pay phone. Her own mother sent her out of the house to get some free time for herself.
When I was growing up, I did similar things, taking my 5 year old sister on the public bus with me to get to school when I was 10. If I had some pocket change we’d get ice creams from McDonald’s on the way home.
It depends on what neighborhood you live in, but the world is very safe today and if you’re on HN I assume you’re in a decent area.
I think parents have too much time and energy today to spend worrying about their frankly very competent kids. The smartphone thing is a good idea but I really think it’s best to push your kid out of the nest to discover the world themself, lest you end up with a grown up daughter who’s afraid of the world.
"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 distance the first few times. All the benefits of independence and self-reliance, etc., for your child - and a gradual, baby steps approach for your wife as she gets comfortable with this routine.
May I also suggest that a phone is unnecessary due to the fact that every single other person already has a phone. Further, bad actors will likely assume your daughter has a phone. It's classically selfish behavior but you can piggyback on the (telephone) safety net that everyone else has already constructed. I know from voluminous personal experience that everyone, everywhere, is happy to use their phone to help your child. Just make sure she memorizes your phone numbers :)
My eldest is also a daughter of a similar age. What my partner and I have said is "yes you're old enough to go do things, as long as you're going with friends." She's not old enough to go places alone, or to go places where she'll be supervising her younger sibs. But she's old enough to be in a setting where peers are watching out for each other and know how to find help if needed.
I know that's still a walk-back from what previous generations enjoyed, but it's not that different from what we both experienced at this age in the 90s. And in parallel to this, we've put a fair bit into teaching our kids to navigate on foot, use public transportation, and safely ride their bikes on the road— all of it an investment in pre-car/non-car teenage autonomy.
The bigger risk is getting run over by an inattentive driver, and yet most parents are worrying about pedophiles. How would a phone guard against distracted driving?
Given what we have learned regarding the catholic church, boy scouts and penn state athletics program. I'd say young boys have just as much to fear if not more.
That said I'm with you on her walking to the park.
> 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.
You might try to get longish distance walkie-talkies. They are cheap and probably go far enough. I let my (similar age) kids free range a block or two, especially if they go together and bring a walkie talkie.
It's the "John Walsh" effect. His son's kidnapping was all over the news and then later he had "America's Most Wanted" and he literally started scaring people from allowing their kids out of their sight. To this day, people still think their kid is going to be abducted if they let them go play.
I remember being 9 and riding my bike miles away to the mall and back. Kids can't do that anymore.
It’s a conversation being had by parents all the time. The mistake is to think that not letting the kids do things doesn’t have an effect.
More realistically you are often balancing a high harm, low risk (sometime tiny, eg abduction) event against a low harm, high risk one. This is inherently difficult, but easier I think when framed this way.
Even back when us kids were 'free range' there were more restrictions placed on the girls, my older sister couldn't get up to as many shenanigans as I could at the same or younger age -- cultural norms and whatnot.
Jonathan Haidt wrote a book called The Coddling of the American Mind [0]. He'd agree that adults need to give children their freedom back.
He talks about what the consequences for not doing so have been for Zoomers and it is quite worrying: escalating rates of depression and anxiety, increased rates of suicide, fewer friends, even fewer close friends, reduced social trust, more on-campus violence, increased favorability to authoritarian policies.
[0] - He starts the book with a discussion of the title. He initially resisted it because people usually use the word coddled to blame the coddlees but this book very much blames the coddlers.
I’m a big fan of this book. It’s largely about the cancel culture, over protection, and how the voice on college campuses has been changing. How we went from college being a safe place for open debate and discussion to an environment which is becoming less welcoming of differing opinions and perspectives. The authors try to identify the origins of the change and use data and statistics to back up their claims. I thought it was an interesting read and recommend it for parents and non parents alike. The last quarter of the book does talk a lot of parenting and the idea of free range kids.
I think it's far too complex to attribute these results to a particular cause. Almost all of our food packaging and cookware contain new and known bad chemicals which we do not understand the implications of. Social media has gone from nothing to everywhere which has nothing to do with caution and lack of freedom. Cars have become more essential and people are spaced further apart than before.
As well as a better understanding of what depression and anxiety are. I suspect its much more likely a child today would be able to express what they are feeling and have it reported in a statistic instead of being told they need to stop being a girl and have a spoon full of cement.
I think parents may tend to be afraid of the wrong things, but there's plenty of things to be scared of. My oldest walks herself around Brooklyn daily and my number one fear by a mile is her getting hit by a car. Also, I think every single woman I know who rode the subway regularly as a teenager was accosted or flashed by a crazy person at least once if not routinely. Certainly they grew up without permanent injury, but I don't think I'm depriving my kid of a valuable life lesson by protecting them from that.
Removing the freedom for kids to move around alone is a huge social inefficiency. Where kids just walk to school alone or walk to a park to play with friends alone kids are not that expensive to maintain. But with constant supervision needed then parents need to drive the kids to their destinations and either stay with them there or drop them of at some paid event where the organizer supervises the kids.
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.
Back in the day local kids would meet up and roam together. Now even if a kid wants to go out and explore they can't find someone to do it with. Kids used to look out for each other and develop valuable skills. Trying to teach "resilience" and "teamwork" in a class is a nonsense. These skills used to develop naturally.
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.
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, football and military cadets.
Coupled with the digitisation and removal of old whiteboards/blackboards, made the place seem less-tangible and some sort of controlled environment..
Much as we are finding about obesity being caused by the "food environment", there's an unhealthy "kid environment" in many places these days. I have a 12 year old, and he barely would go run around our neighborhood growing up because there weren't any other kids doing it. We tried to get him to do it, but none of his friends would join him. Other neighborhoods achieve a critical mass and have tons of kids that run around playing.
It bums me out a bit, but I've compensated by getting him involved in lots of camps and activities, which I think are more interesting anyway. Growing up, sure we ran around and did some things, but it was usually pretty boring. My son would get to spend summers fishing, learning different sports, kayaking, running through different parks, and many other activities that I never go to experience.
It's a difficult balance, and just excruciating during the pandemic to figure out.
And now that my son is 12 and vaccinated, it turns out most of his friends think playing outside is a "dumb little kids thing". And there are hardly any camps, and the few that exist filled up instantly. So I'm acting as a bit of a camp counselor this summer and working more in the evenings so I can bring him places with friends.
[+] [-] CalRobert|4 years ago|reply
But fundamentally, what I want most is to be somewhere my kids can ride bikes or walk alone to school, to friends, to the shop, etc. from the age of 7 or so. As best I can tell that pretty much means the Netherlands, parts of Denmark, or perhaps Japan (more for transit than cycling).
Children can't drive, which means unless you're lucky enough to live very close to your friends, and ideally on the same side of the street, your home is effectively your prison in the US and Canada.
And yes, I suppose you _can_ let your kid ride a bike to school alone in the US at 7, but you would be risking arrest, and death. It's often forgotten that drivers are, by far, the leading killers of children. Far more than people with guns. I was an avid cyclist in the US for the first 30 years of my life and I still have a bruised rib and too many memories of very, very close calls with death.
NotJustBikes, who moved from Canadian suburbia to the Netherlands, explores this in more depth at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98
[+] [-] jlos|4 years ago|reply
I think this type of risk deaggregation arises from the fact that in a sufficiently complicated space (climate, economy, children, etc) there are really only two heuristics:
1) Ignore all but a manageable number of variables and optimize for them
2) Recognize a larger number of necessary variable, acknowledge there is no optimal solution, and balance the trade offs between those variables. [0]
Heuristic 1 is the easiest, requires no nuance, and seems the type of thing our political and media class love to latch onto. Heuristic 2 actually requires admitting you don't get everything you want, or at least the things you want will cost you something you dont.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
[+] [-] dalbasal|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] initplus|4 years ago|reply
It's much easier to measure large effects on a single metric, than small effects distributed over a wide range of metrics. Concentrated effects that affect one individual/org/group are favored over distributed effects that affect everyone. There are so many examples of policies where this thought process has been applied.
[+] [-] starkd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quickthrower2|4 years ago|reply
E.g. Should we switch from “status quo” to “change”? Good idea, but if we move to “change” then “this one bad thing will happen”.
A solution might be to use the lieutenant’s cloud, an idea I learned on a thinking course.
With this you simply ask why “bad thing” and then offer a suggestion that solves the why, not necessarily the bad thing.
This is probably easier to do at a closed organisation. In the public eye with an emotive topic like possibility of child abduction, a lot of sensitivity is needed.
[+] [-] ssivark|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naravara|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LatteLazy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indymike|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atty|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] betwixthewires|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] endymi0n|4 years ago|reply
That‘s just so important for kids I think. US playgrounds all look sad to no end compared to the 15 meter high rope pyramids you see here in a lot of schools.
First time you see them, you tell yourself: No way I‘m going to let my kids play on that thingy.
But when you take a close look, all ways down you‘d bump into a rope, there‘s no direct free fall and there‘s usually thick rubber or sand below.
Sure it‘s going to hurt and maybe break a bone in the very worst case if you miss, but that is just super rare.
But what it adds in developing courage, resilience and risk awareness is just priceless.
Then again, having your kids break a bone won‘t bankrupt your family for life over here…
[+] [-] jedberg|4 years ago|reply
That's the key. I've noticed in places with universal health care, they tend to have more fun playgrounds. Because the owner knows they won't get sued for medical expenses.
That applies in general in places with universal healthcare. My friends who live in those places told me their car and home insurance are much cheaper than when they lived in the USA, because there is no risk of getting sued for medical expenses.
[+] [-] tomc1985|4 years ago|reply
But last time I checked that playground replaced everything with bulky plastic toys and one of those boring wood castle things with plastic slides
[+] [-] stickfigure|4 years ago|reply
https://photos.app.goo.gl/e15h4rK2NPQvUzH37
Of course I had to climb it immediately. My son was only 2 at the time so he didn't make it far. He's old enough now that I really want to find another one.
I found a few similar items in other parts of Oregon, but I haven't found one in California yet.
[+] [-] ip26|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fleddr|4 years ago|reply
My dad gave me a tiny bicycle at the age of 6, and basically said "good luck". I could go anywhere I want for as long as I'm back home in time for dinner. They had no idea where I was, with whom, or what I was doing.
One day, an older kid hit me in the playground. I came home crying, assuming I'd get some support. I was told to just hit him back, preferably harder. I explained that the kid was much older and far bigger. "Get a piece of wood then".
Standard equipment for every kid everywhere were thick knee pads, as mothers grew tired of fixing bloody knees and probably more important: the jeans. On any day, we'd come home looking like pigs, and almost always with fresh wounds.
Throughout this entire period, outside of formal family moments, not a single photo, audio or video recording exists of me.
Not only was it a fantastic childhood, it has helped me become a robust character. I can handle setbacks with ease and instead of complaining, solve things myself.
By today's standards, it would be neglectful or even child abuse. It wasn't. It was paradise.
Child abuse is imprisoning your own child. Not only obsessing over their security, also micro managing their day as if production units.
As for children "performing", my deal was pretty simple and enjoyable. "Come home with good grades or there will be hell". Zero oversight, only the outcome counts.
A fair deal if you ask me. No daily nagging about doing homework, none at all. They couldn't care less. I was fully free to deliver the desired outcome in any way I see fit. Maximum freedom, whilst also instilling responsibility from the start.
To sum this up, the lack of parenting has helped me tremendously.
[+] [-] ping_pong|4 years ago|reply
The mom left Elliott at home alone, sick with a fever, at the age of 9. She also left the daughter who was 3.5 alone while she went to the supermarket. Their only instructions were "don't get into trouble."
Those would both get you in a lot of trouble in 2021, but I'm not sure I understand why. It's even easier these days to contact your parents, since everyone has cell phones. My son has contacted me via Facebook Messenger through his iPad, so it's not that difficult anymore unlike the 80s. You didn't have a way to contact people except by calling, and if the parent wasn't there sitting by the phone there wasn't even answering machines!
I think people just gave more credit to kids back then and nowadays we just keep them as kids much much longer.
[+] [-] bhawker|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meristohm|4 years ago|reply
I’m a beneficiary of childhood freedom, to injure myself (tools, fire, trees), to explore (walking for miles through the woods, along defunct railways, and biking the dirt roads), and to read whatever I found at the library. The downside was I didn’t have what I think of as healthy discussions with my parents, perhaps because it was awkward for them? As a parent now I’m trying to build on their successes, adding emotional mindfulness.
For example: finger crushed in a heavy book? Yeah, that hurts, and it’ll hurt awhile yet (no asking “you okay?” because that’s too binary, and mainly to appease the parent). In the meantime, take long, slow breaths and feel the pain as it subsides and you’re ready to move on. If it doesn’t go away, let’s take another look at it. I also let my kid fall, and I tell her it’s helpful to feel what it’s like to fall. She’s learning to climb and take steps, and when I’m spotting her for safety I’ll intervene enough to prevent injury but not the initial slip. I largely credit our Early Childhood Education teachers with my own progress here.
For those of you who give your children more freedom, how do you manage your concerns around risk? How do you decide how much freedom to give? What do those conversations look like?
[+] [-] kbelder|4 years ago|reply
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 happen, it would destroy us if it did.
We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only after we get her her first phone.
[+] [-] nikolay|4 years ago|reply
I highly recommend Free-Range Kids [0]!
[0]: https://www.freerangekids.com/
[+] [-] handrous|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] goldenchrome|4 years ago|reply
When I was growing up, I did similar things, taking my 5 year old sister on the public bus with me to get to school when I was 10. If I had some pocket change we’d get ice creams from McDonald’s on the way home.
It depends on what neighborhood you live in, but the world is very safe today and if you’re on HN I assume you’re in a decent area.
I think parents have too much time and energy today to spend worrying about their frankly very competent kids. The smartphone thing is a good idea but I really think it’s best to push your kid out of the nest to discover the world themself, lest you end up with a grown up daughter who’s afraid of the world.
[+] [-] rsync|4 years ago|reply
...
"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 distance the first few times. All the benefits of independence and self-reliance, etc., for your child - and a gradual, baby steps approach for your wife as she gets comfortable with this routine.
May I also suggest that a phone is unnecessary due to the fact that every single other person already has a phone. Further, bad actors will likely assume your daughter has a phone. It's classically selfish behavior but you can piggyback on the (telephone) safety net that everyone else has already constructed. I know from voluminous personal experience that everyone, everywhere, is happy to use their phone to help your child. Just make sure she memorizes your phone numbers :)
[+] [-] mikepurvis|4 years ago|reply
I know that's still a walk-back from what previous generations enjoyed, but it's not that different from what we both experienced at this age in the 90s. And in parallel to this, we've put a fair bit into teaching our kids to navigate on foot, use public transportation, and safely ride their bikes on the road— all of it an investment in pre-car/non-car teenage autonomy.
[+] [-] spywaregorilla|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HarryHirsch|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willcipriano|4 years ago|reply
That said I'm with you on her walking to the park.
[+] [-] asciimov|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rhema|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comeonseriously|4 years ago|reply
I remember being 9 and riding my bike miles away to the mall and back. Kids can't do that anymore.
[+] [-] ska|4 years ago|reply
More realistically you are often balancing a high harm, low risk (sometime tiny, eg abduction) event against a low harm, high risk one. This is inherently difficult, but easier I think when framed this way.
[+] [-] UncleEntity|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomc1985|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aantix|4 years ago|reply
You can call her. The watch auto-answers, so she can't ignore it. She can call 5 pre-programmed numbers.
And you can see her location in an app.
[+] [-] tester89|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cuddlybacon|4 years ago|reply
He talks about what the consequences for not doing so have been for Zoomers and it is quite worrying: escalating rates of depression and anxiety, increased rates of suicide, fewer friends, even fewer close friends, reduced social trust, more on-campus violence, increased favorability to authoritarian policies.
[0] - He starts the book with a discussion of the title. He initially resisted it because people usually use the word coddled to blame the coddlees but this book very much blames the coddlers.
[+] [-] agotterer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilverRed|4 years ago|reply
As well as a better understanding of what depression and anxiety are. I suspect its much more likely a child today would be able to express what they are feeling and have it reported in a statistic instead of being told they need to stop being a girl and have a spoon full of cement.
[+] [-] tootie|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] username90|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jseliger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hpoe|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fungiblecog|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caturopath|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mothsonasloth|4 years ago|reply
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, football and military cadets.
Coupled with the digitisation and removal of old whiteboards/blackboards, made the place seem less-tangible and some sort of controlled environment..
Changed times I guess...
[+] [-] gilbetron|4 years ago|reply
It bums me out a bit, but I've compensated by getting him involved in lots of camps and activities, which I think are more interesting anyway. Growing up, sure we ran around and did some things, but it was usually pretty boring. My son would get to spend summers fishing, learning different sports, kayaking, running through different parks, and many other activities that I never go to experience.
It's a difficult balance, and just excruciating during the pandemic to figure out.
And now that my son is 12 and vaccinated, it turns out most of his friends think playing outside is a "dumb little kids thing". And there are hardly any camps, and the few that exist filled up instantly. So I'm acting as a bit of a camp counselor this summer and working more in the evenings so I can bring him places with friends.
[+] [-] swalsh|4 years ago|reply