I've written about this here before, but the social forces that incentivize parents to restrict autonomy is intense. I live in a massive California suburb, median in almost every way.
It's my perception that letting kiddo play outside, climbing trees, biking on the sidewalk in front of the house should be a low risk activity for a 2nd and 4th grader if done together. Not in the perception of neighbors. Every time I say yes to them asking to play in public, I'm taking a risk that someone will call the cops for the simple act of a child playing outside without a parent. How do I know? It's happened three times already.
There's a group of folks who see that as inherently dangerous and have no problem invoking the police to shut it down. They've also been approached by strangers asking where their parents are. They're obeying the laws, not being reckless or getting into trouble. They're minding their own business and because of that they are confronted for it.
It's these encounters that weigh on my mind when I'm deciding how to respond when they ask if they can play outside each day. Sometimes I say no, because I'm not prepared to deal with the possibility of that scenario occurring again.
I don't known if more laws and regulations are the answer here, or if it'd have undesirable secondary effects in certain situations where it really matters, but I feel like this behaviour as you describe it should itself be unlawful.
You should not be permitted to deliberately harass people you don't know doing nothing wrong in this way, it's that simple. It's a question of individual liberty in the end.
I'd hope the police would actually have a private word with them to this effect to be honest, when they do 'report' it. I assume not, but do you know if any ever have?
Are those strangers truly concerned about their safety or are they actually egoists that want to use the police to get the outdoors for themselves and other adults?
Just wait until this becomes politicized into a culture war issue where you are accused of supporting the "other side" if you let your kids play outside.
The sad fact is, there is a truly real evil going on when it comes to many rights. Parental rights are just the most recent battleground, and no one does a thing to curb it.
Also, I don't mean a cultural evil, as most people dismiss this as just being your cultural opinion. I mean the type of multi-cultural evil that strips people of their ability to respond (agency), tells them misleading lies, promotes flawed and self-defeating beliefs, causes loss in one form or another, and worse most of the time the people doing this are mentally ill but you still have to deal with the outcomes.
This is a real problem because if you conform, you are tacitly approving of those beliefs and your children will learn socially from your response to it. Unfortunately, in a world where you get CPS or the police called to charge you with child endangerment its a pretty mad world, and its happening more and more.
An interesting parallel are these philosophies that you can somehow make things safe, all ultimately fall into some form of socialist or fascist narrative where someone at the top decides what is or isn't safe because you as an individual are unimportant comapared to the group which is paramount.
These narratives are very common in totalitarian and fascist societies that use propaganda and political warfare to kill potentially disruptive thinking.
Authorities are governed by laws and politicians. If police would even take a car to a call saying “a 9 year old is playing outside alone” then those norms and laws just need to be changed. It’s as simple as that.
Never mind the craziness that a neighbor would call the police when seeing a child outside (and that’s quite crazy) - if police answer that call they are reinforcing the idea that the child playing alone outside was wrong or dangerous.
>biking on the sidewalk in front of the house should be a low risk activity for a 2nd and 4th grader if done together
This is still a conservative view compared to 30 years ago, when it was acceptable for a lone 5 year old to learn to ride a bike on a suburban sidewalk relatively unsupervised (yes, really!). You may be on the liberal end of the modern Overton window, but you've been dragged along just like the rest of us.
Moving is far from an easy solution, but there are some places that take the opposite approach. We lived in Utah for years and they actually have laws on the books to guarantee parental rights (I think they call them free range parenting or something like that?). In the more city dense areas you'll still have people who do that kind of stuff, but it's much, much less socially acceptable to interfere than in many coastal areas, and if somebody does call the police, there's a strong chance the police will tell them you're in the right and they are in the wrong. There are tons of tech opportunities for work there too so definitely worth a look if it's important to you.
We live in Idaho now and it's similar up here though I don't know about the laws. In our neighborhood kids will run around playing outside together unsupervised all day and nobody bats an eye. It's expected!
I think a major change over time has been about vehicles, and there are no relevant mentions of "car" or similar in the article. They're larger, often faster, there are more of them and sightlines are poorer. Drivers potentially on their phones too. As a parent of a 10yo, vehicles are my major concern with out-of-home autonomy.
Growing up in the 80s, we kicked a football on the street and towed each other on skateboards with bikes. I barely remember a car being parked out there; they were all in driveways. That same cul-de-sac now is choked with parked cars that are each household's second or third vehicle and left on the street because it's easier than shuffling cars in a narrow driveway. Now, you couldn't kick a ball without hitting someone's car. A car driving down that street will have terrible sightlines with seeing a kid chasing a ball out onto the street or even seeing someone short trying to cross the road from behind an SUV or 4x4.
Out camping in the bush, I'm comfortable letting my kids roam (as long as they watch out for snakes). Lots of other ways for them to get injured, but no cars. There's a difference between a "learning injury" and the bonnet of a 4x4 hitting their head/neck.
On that note, there's the video essay "These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo, which includes various statistics and some striking visual examples of the absolutely absurd grill heights of modern production vehicles.
It doesn't seem clear to me that there is actually a greater risk from cars now than our generation grew up with, considering that traffic deaths have actually steadily been going down in the US since the '70s [1]. The same way that media (social and otherwise) keeps getting better at keeping everyone anxious about kidnappers and neglectful parents all the time, it's quite conceivable that it achieves the same thing for vehicle-induced accidents. In its quest for eyeballs, it naturally provides everyone with the message that resonates best with their biases - law-and-order types readily accept anything that confirms the dangers of crime, gender roles types readily accept anything that confirms the dangers of irresponsible mothers, and urbanist technocrat types readily accept anything that confirms the dangers of selfish individual motorists.
I’d hypothesize that people drive more recklessly as a byproduct of less pedestrian activity especially children. I see many cars speed through school zones and it makes sense why, because there are never any pedestrians observed over years of my commute I’ve never seen a kid walk to school. The car pool line is longer than ever but it’s also usually off street in a parking lot area of the schools (where I am). Also as a dad of a 4 year old, I commonly witness other drivers quickly adjust their driving style when the spot my kid. It’s as if they realize kids are erratic and May jump out in the road so they become more defensive. If kids out playing was normal still, I think people would still drive closer to that as default.
The car size thing is valid. Although I remember cars in the 80s, often of the 70s, were massive steel tanks and I doubt the braking distances were all that good.
This was almost exactly what I was thinking. I worry about my kids on the walk to school and back (with a parent). I end up having to take a very restrictive and disciplinary tone and am not comfortable with it. 95% of drivers are looking where they are going and not going too fast, so if a child is the road the driver just stops with no issue and we walk round (I live in a rural location and the walk involves roads in a small village with no pavement). Trouble is it only takes one driver gong too fast and not paying attention for something awful to happen. I hate taking this tone, but it's just true - the stakes are high.
It's kind of insane to me that since the 50s, they just kept fucking doubling down on car sprawl and material wealth signalling to the point where obviously most people now live in a place where everyone needs their own stupid car and nobody can function with or without one.
I got one for my first job out of school that required me onsite at the opposite side of the sprawling stupid city I'm from, and it was a 30 min drive each way. Losing an hour a day just to driving, right from the start. It eventually broke down, and now that I've been without one for a few years, the prospect comes to mind every so often to get a used thing for getting to trailheads a little more frequently; supporting the various recreational things I do. But... it scares me. It's a trap. It's a financial trap, a lifestyle trap, and more of a burden than it could ever be a blessing. Thankfully the every day risks of getting hit by an idiot in a huge truck or something are non-optional and an ever-present aspect of life no matter how you get around.
For now, I'll just continue renting one when I need one, but it does put a barrier between me and the things I love doing, we'll see if that changes in time.
My wife and I moved to a smaller city to raise our family. It’s been years and we still have moments of, “can you believe this is the largest road in the city?”
What you say is true, our neighbourhood streets are more crowded and no longer suitable for kick the can and soccer and what have you, but I don't think it's the driving factor.*
It is a concern for safety, or at least usually couched that way, but what I hear voiced most often is fear of other humans. From older bullying kids, to hoodlums, to drugs, to predators. In short, Stranger Danger. The "don't talk to strangers" refrain I remember hearing occasionally when I was kid in the 70s didn't seem to have much effect. We just kind of shrugged. Looking around today, I see it took deep root.
((Oh yes, pun intended. It's a beautiful thing when they also perfectly express the thought.))
Part of this simply has to do with nosy busy-bodies ready to pounce on the phone to call Child Protective Services (or equivalent) whenever they see a child out and about on their own. I'm not afraid to send my kids to the park (few blocks down the street) alone, ride their bikes alone or instruct them to go outside after breakfast on the weekend on not come back before lunch, or hell even dinner (not that it matters for socializing--I see hardly any kids their age, pre-teens, outside, even though there are plenty around). I am afraid of what my neighbors would do.
The other part is that, unless one lives in the country, it has become much harder to find neighborhoods where kids can safely roam free. I lived in both a small rural town and a larger, more urban (but not "big city") city as a child, and was able to run around the neighborhood in both places without issue, back in the 80s. I've visited the larger city I spent the second half of my childhood in as a child recently: there simply isn't any space for kids to roam anymore there. Some might say my generation's parents were too extreme in the freedom they gave us. Perhaps, but the pendulum has swung too wide in the other direction, in my opinion.
This writing kind of confirms what I’ve experienced as a 1st-gen Korean American growing up in New England (so n=1).
I knew my parents meant well when they made sure I studied and did well at extra curricular activities (going to math Olympiad at MIT during summers, playing classical instruments, etc) and that type of “helicopter parenting” yielded good performance… when I had to do something that was highly structured.
But it also meant I did not do well (or was always uncomfortable) when I had to do something that’s not highly structured (basically adulting) and I felt like I had to figure out who I really was at 30 which is not necessarily a good thing.
I’m still thankful that I had parents who cared and tried best they knew how so I don’t really hold it against them, though.
We gave high school kids some time for self-directed activities, like go see teachers for help, make up work, get a snack, hang out with friends if you have your work done.
We had kids standing around looking confused. They didn't know what to do. They asked for directions on what to do. We said to look at their grades and decide what to do. When they finally pulled up the gradebook on their laptops, they would point at it and say "what do you want me to do?"
Something. We want you to decide, on your own, to do something. Anything. Just make a choice.
Most kids did figure it out, though not always making the wise choices (but that's part of the reason we're giving them the freedome). But there was a minority who couldn't grasp the idea that they were personally able and responsible to decide what to do.
Is it possible they didn't believe you? Eg, they thought you had something particular in mind, and they wanted you to drop the pretence and make the expectations clear?
I've had limited teaching experience, all at a college level, but I would try to engage students with questions & get them to predict things they hadn't been taught yet. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it seemed like they wanted me to cut the crap and just tell them the answer, because they felt like I was setting them up to fail by asking them a question they didn't know (because it was new material).
I don't think it's necessarily a lack of critical thinking skills on their part as much as an unwillingness to engage with that style of teaching, which is fair. So I'm wondering if similarly it's an unwillingness to engage in independence in a context without the requisite trust, where they might be suspicious that you'll penalize them for picking "wrong" (regardless of whether that's the reality).
That is of good intent but i can think of two reason why this didnt work for some:
- Kids will know what to do if they like the material. When we condition them to "chase a carrot for no reason", they look confused because they may have few reasons for doing the work
- kind of the same as above : starting very early, we remove independence from kids. They must do what adults say, without questioning. There's nothing special about high school that will introduce self direction to them, it must come gradually
That’s very interesting. Considering they didn’t understand, then they figured it out, it sounds like it was very productive. I think we underestimate the impact of simply raising expectations.
Almost need to give them a flowchart or a list or more strongly link the sessions to an outcome (improving at something, working towards a line of work, etc). It would be great if 6-12 year olds were stronger at this also.
So X'ers what happened to us? If you are a "kid today" your parents are either X'ers or Millenials. As X'ers we've made it a point of pride that we played till the street lights came on, we walked to school, we walked where ever we wanted. We had jobs and started adulting at a much younger age, living at home with mommy at 25 wasn't cool it made you a joke. So what happened? Why did we raise these kids and never let them out of our site? Why did we drive them to school? Why did we invite fully employed adults to live in their childs room instead of letting them grow up? Who thought this was a good idea? I think we fucked up a whole generation of kids.
Please don't say safety because things are much much safer now than they were in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
No autonomy except when it comes to devices and the internet. Far too many parents are either ignorant of or too lazy to set up parental controls on new phones, tablets, and computers before handing them to kids. The TikTok ban debate would have never been needed if there were basic parental awareness. They instead resort to manual snooping and device taking after the damage is done. They’re helicopter parenting the wrong areas of life.
I'm in the Philippines. I was down the sari-sari store yesterday (the Filipino version of a bodega, but not walk-in...more like a storefront with a little door where you push your money through and the owner pushes items out in return). Little kids run around unsupervised here all the time, and nobody bats an eye. Anyway while I was there laid out on a bamboo bench drinking a beer, there must have been five or six kids under four years old who came down there alone with change to buy something for their parents. So different from the helicopter parenting I'm used to seeing back home.
I am reading all this and wondering how I - and my whole generation of peers - survived. I was walking to school (~15 mins on foot) alone (well, sometimes with my class mates) since I was 7. Playing outside without parental supervision (well, when not reading books, on which to be honest I spent a lot of time, being a geek) since about the same age. Going to relatives on public transport (~20 min) since about the same age. Going to high school on public transport (~1hr one way) since about 13. In fact, most of the day I didn't see my parents and they didn't see me - they were at work and I have been at school, or at the relative's or at home mostly tending to myself, doing chores, or homework, or reading books. Literally everybody my age was the same. I don't remember anybody having stay-at-home parents or somebody supervising non-toddler child the whole day. This probably sounds as insane to some Americans as the American idea that school age kids need constant adult supervision sounds to me. But from what I read in the literature it used to be this way in the US too. Just somehow people got super-paranoid one day...
In Japan kids as young as elementary regularly walk by themselves to school, stores, ride the train, go hang out with friends, etc. Doubt it would ever work in the US because everywhere is just plain dangerous, among other reasons.
I actually know the author (my daughter went to pre-school with two of hers) and she is a perfectly grounded and no-nonsense parent.
Cities are way safer today than in the 80s when I myself was growing up and as a 11 year old it was perfectly normal for me to commute by train and Tube from Reading, UK to Kensington, London for school with my 7 year old brother in tow. I aim to instill the same confidence in my daughter, albeit a year later.
I personally think the no autonomy of kids is increasing the obesity epidemic. I know as a kid I rarely wanted to do anything proposed by my parents. So whenever I went outside to explore the world with a friend, it was either my idea or my friends' idea. The norm seems to blame smart phones or tablets as the culprit but my intuition will always lean towards lack of autonomy as the main cause.
A few years ago I let my 3 year old ride his bike with his older sister and brother (5 and 7 years old).
I walked with them, but allow them to get ahead of me, up to about 500m - 1km (~0.6mi). My instructions were always "wait at the next road so we can cross together."
Once, when they were out of sight for a while, I rounded the corner to find them surrounded by a concerned couple who proceeded to tell me off for allowing the youngest one out of my sight. I disagreed with them and continued to allow my youngest to ride many hundreds of times since. I got dirty looks from them a few times on subsequent walks.
People need to let their kids out more, but common, a 3 year old at an intersection? That's not what this thread is about. Even in your story you were trying to supervise them and weren't far behind.
I regularly see kids aged 8-13 playing outside on our block. I always look to make sure they are OK, not hurting anyone or anything, and I’m reminded of my childhood of roaming the suburbs of Minneapolis.
I have a 5 and 2 year old and will definitely let them play unattended when they are older. We are just at the “you can play in the next room unattended while I cook dinner” stage. Yet, I can totally see the pressure from others with them seeing it as neglectful.
Cars and deep water. Those are my two biggest fears. And they scare me to no end because they are very real threats. To a lesser extent: trains.
I wonder if there may be a simpler underlying reason, such as having few kids.
When a parent only has one, it's both easier to control them from a time & energy perspective, and also more understandable biologically from a risk perspective, than if they had say five.
I'm a fan of this non-profit organization Let Grow https://letgrow.org/ co-founded by Jonathan Haidt. In part, they've fought legislation that would make it a prosecutable offense to leave a child unsupervised in a public park.
The rise of the mobile phone device has become a curse as much as a blessing. Previously there was no way for parents to be apprised of their children's activities at every moment. Now, not only is it a simple matter for neurotically overbearing parents to check on their children constantly, but it's also simple for total strangers to "karen" your lack of parental attention. If a busybody passed by a bunch of kids playing without supervision in 1990, they would have to wait until they got home or to their destination, remember the location of the children, call up the police, and by that time the kids might not even be there. Even if they are, the busybody's sitting at home by the landline and doesn't get the visceral satisfaction of seeing the prepubescent gangbangers brought to justice. Where's the fun in that? Now, as a meddler, it's a simple matter of spying the unlicensed skateboard wielding urchins from a safe distance and reporting them to the cops in real time while you triumphantly wait there for the squad car to arrive and haul those little miscreants off to cps and hopefully get their parents' rights terminated for good measure.
Some links in the article indirectly refer to SDT (Self-Determination Theory), but I think it deserves more attention here. It's the very mature and well-studied theory on human motivation, and three main predictors for intrinsic motivation are: autonomy, competence and relatedness. Autonomy - the opposite of being controlled - is the major predictor and the one used build the spectrum of motivations: from intrinsic to four types of extrinsic and to amotivation.
Motivation is basically what makes us do stuff. Unsurprisingly, these three psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) are also linked and are good predictors of the wellbeing, fullfilment, vitality and, for the lack of the better word, happiness in life. I see this as "motivation to live" essentially.
Studying SDT opened my eyes to the modern views on parenting, sports coaching and some other fields. It just all started to make sense, and I would say that SDT is one of those theories that can change your worldview.
I'm trying to teach my kid autonomy, but he doesn't want it.
When I was 12, I traveled around the country by train on my own for 4 days. Dutch railways had a special ticket for that: Tienertoer: 4 days of free train travel within a 10 day period, only for teenagers, and you got a booklet with all sorts of discounts for museums and other stuff to visit. At 12, I figured I was a teenager and therefore old enough to do this.
My son, almost 14 now, is not remotely interested in anything like this. Though he does claim to be old enough to stay home on his own for a weekend while we are away. But I don't trust him to actually come out from behind his (my, actually) PC if we do this.
[+] [-] kelseyfrog|3 years ago|reply
It's my perception that letting kiddo play outside, climbing trees, biking on the sidewalk in front of the house should be a low risk activity for a 2nd and 4th grader if done together. Not in the perception of neighbors. Every time I say yes to them asking to play in public, I'm taking a risk that someone will call the cops for the simple act of a child playing outside without a parent. How do I know? It's happened three times already.
There's a group of folks who see that as inherently dangerous and have no problem invoking the police to shut it down. They've also been approached by strangers asking where their parents are. They're obeying the laws, not being reckless or getting into trouble. They're minding their own business and because of that they are confronted for it.
It's these encounters that weigh on my mind when I'm deciding how to respond when they ask if they can play outside each day. Sometimes I say no, because I'm not prepared to deal with the possibility of that scenario occurring again.
[+] [-] davnicwil|3 years ago|reply
You should not be permitted to deliberately harass people you don't know doing nothing wrong in this way, it's that simple. It's a question of individual liberty in the end.
I'd hope the police would actually have a private word with them to this effect to be honest, when they do 'report' it. I assume not, but do you know if any ever have?
[+] [-] brightball|3 years ago|reply
You’d probably be arrested if you let your kids have that type of freedom today.
[+] [-] im3w1l|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] musicale|3 years ago|reply
"Dispatcher: Please state the nature of your emergency.
Caller: A 4th and 2nd grader appear to be playing some sort of game across the street in their own front yard.
Dispatcher: Are they armed?
Caller: Yes, with a wiffle bat and ball/projectile. A water pistol and/or balloons may have been sighted earlier.
Dispatcher: Thanks, we'll send in the SWAT team again."
[+] [-] colordrops|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgb23|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leemailll|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _siis|3 years ago|reply
Also, I don't mean a cultural evil, as most people dismiss this as just being your cultural opinion. I mean the type of multi-cultural evil that strips people of their ability to respond (agency), tells them misleading lies, promotes flawed and self-defeating beliefs, causes loss in one form or another, and worse most of the time the people doing this are mentally ill but you still have to deal with the outcomes.
This is a real problem because if you conform, you are tacitly approving of those beliefs and your children will learn socially from your response to it. Unfortunately, in a world where you get CPS or the police called to charge you with child endangerment its a pretty mad world, and its happening more and more.
An interesting parallel are these philosophies that you can somehow make things safe, all ultimately fall into some form of socialist or fascist narrative where someone at the top decides what is or isn't safe because you as an individual are unimportant comapared to the group which is paramount.
These narratives are very common in totalitarian and fascist societies that use propaganda and political warfare to kill potentially disruptive thinking.
[+] [-] matt-attack|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alkonaut|3 years ago|reply
Never mind the craziness that a neighbor would call the police when seeing a child outside (and that’s quite crazy) - if police answer that call they are reinforcing the idea that the child playing alone outside was wrong or dangerous.
[+] [-] dTal|3 years ago|reply
This is still a conservative view compared to 30 years ago, when it was acceptable for a lone 5 year old to learn to ride a bike on a suburban sidewalk relatively unsupervised (yes, really!). You may be on the liberal end of the modern Overton window, but you've been dragged along just like the rest of us.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] forgotmypw17|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richwater|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freedomben|3 years ago|reply
We live in Idaho now and it's similar up here though I don't know about the laws. In our neighborhood kids will run around playing outside together unsupervised all day and nobody bats an eye. It's expected!
[+] [-] tayo42|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] prawn|3 years ago|reply
Growing up in the 80s, we kicked a football on the street and towed each other on skateboards with bikes. I barely remember a car being parked out there; they were all in driveways. That same cul-de-sac now is choked with parked cars that are each household's second or third vehicle and left on the street because it's easier than shuffling cars in a narrow driveway. Now, you couldn't kick a ball without hitting someone's car. A car driving down that street will have terrible sightlines with seeing a kid chasing a ball out onto the street or even seeing someone short trying to cross the road from behind an SUV or 4x4.
Out camping in the bush, I'm comfortable letting my kids roam (as long as they watch out for snakes). Lots of other ways for them to get injured, but no cars. There's a difference between a "learning injury" and the bonnet of a 4x4 hitting their head/neck.
[+] [-] crooked-v|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 4bpp|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
[+] [-] conductr|3 years ago|reply
The car size thing is valid. Although I remember cars in the 80s, often of the 70s, were massive steel tanks and I doubt the braking distances were all that good.
[+] [-] jefc1111|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brailsafe|3 years ago|reply
I got one for my first job out of school that required me onsite at the opposite side of the sprawling stupid city I'm from, and it was a 30 min drive each way. Losing an hour a day just to driving, right from the start. It eventually broke down, and now that I've been without one for a few years, the prospect comes to mind every so often to get a used thing for getting to trailheads a little more frequently; supporting the various recreational things I do. But... it scares me. It's a trap. It's a financial trap, a lifestyle trap, and more of a burden than it could ever be a blessing. Thankfully the every day risks of getting hit by an idiot in a huge truck or something are non-optional and an ever-present aspect of life no matter how you get around.
For now, I'll just continue renting one when I need one, but it does put a barrier between me and the things I love doing, we'll see if that changes in time.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|3 years ago|reply
Definitely hear you about cars.
[+] [-] maphew|3 years ago|reply
It is a concern for safety, or at least usually couched that way, but what I hear voiced most often is fear of other humans. From older bullying kids, to hoodlums, to drugs, to predators. In short, Stranger Danger. The "don't talk to strangers" refrain I remember hearing occasionally when I was kid in the 70s didn't seem to have much effect. We just kind of shrugged. Looking around today, I see it took deep root.
((Oh yes, pun intended. It's a beautiful thing when they also perfectly express the thought.))
[+] [-] sidlls|3 years ago|reply
The other part is that, unless one lives in the country, it has become much harder to find neighborhoods where kids can safely roam free. I lived in both a small rural town and a larger, more urban (but not "big city") city as a child, and was able to run around the neighborhood in both places without issue, back in the 80s. I've visited the larger city I spent the second half of my childhood in as a child recently: there simply isn't any space for kids to roam anymore there. Some might say my generation's parents were too extreme in the freedom they gave us. Perhaps, but the pendulum has swung too wide in the other direction, in my opinion.
[+] [-] pknomad|3 years ago|reply
I knew my parents meant well when they made sure I studied and did well at extra curricular activities (going to math Olympiad at MIT during summers, playing classical instruments, etc) and that type of “helicopter parenting” yielded good performance… when I had to do something that was highly structured.
But it also meant I did not do well (or was always uncomfortable) when I had to do something that’s not highly structured (basically adulting) and I felt like I had to figure out who I really was at 30 which is not necessarily a good thing.
I’m still thankful that I had parents who cared and tried best they knew how so I don’t really hold it against them, though.
[+] [-] scionthefly|3 years ago|reply
We had kids standing around looking confused. They didn't know what to do. They asked for directions on what to do. We said to look at their grades and decide what to do. When they finally pulled up the gradebook on their laptops, they would point at it and say "what do you want me to do?"
Something. We want you to decide, on your own, to do something. Anything. Just make a choice.
Most kids did figure it out, though not always making the wise choices (but that's part of the reason we're giving them the freedome). But there was a minority who couldn't grasp the idea that they were personally able and responsible to decide what to do.
[+] [-] maxbond|3 years ago|reply
I've had limited teaching experience, all at a college level, but I would try to engage students with questions & get them to predict things they hadn't been taught yet. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it seemed like they wanted me to cut the crap and just tell them the answer, because they felt like I was setting them up to fail by asking them a question they didn't know (because it was new material).
I don't think it's necessarily a lack of critical thinking skills on their part as much as an unwillingness to engage with that style of teaching, which is fair. So I'm wondering if similarly it's an unwillingness to engage in independence in a context without the requisite trust, where they might be suspicious that you'll penalize them for picking "wrong" (regardless of whether that's the reality).
[+] [-] dev_hugepages|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonethewiser|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] germinalphrase|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tennisflyi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] screwturner68|3 years ago|reply
Please don't say safety because things are much much safer now than they were in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
[+] [-] drak0n1c|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wyclif|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Beaver117|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fmajid|3 years ago|reply
Cities are way safer today than in the 80s when I myself was growing up and as a 11 year old it was perfectly normal for me to commute by train and Tube from Reading, UK to Kensington, London for school with my 7 year old brother in tow. I aim to instill the same confidence in my daughter, albeit a year later.
[+] [-] iosystem|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] interpol_p|3 years ago|reply
A few years ago I let my 3 year old ride his bike with his older sister and brother (5 and 7 years old).
I walked with them, but allow them to get ahead of me, up to about 500m - 1km (~0.6mi). My instructions were always "wait at the next road so we can cross together."
Once, when they were out of sight for a while, I rounded the corner to find them surrounded by a concerned couple who proceeded to tell me off for allowing the youngest one out of my sight. I disagreed with them and continued to allow my youngest to ride many hundreds of times since. I got dirty looks from them a few times on subsequent walks.
[+] [-] DigiDigiorno|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] semireg|3 years ago|reply
I have a 5 and 2 year old and will definitely let them play unattended when they are older. We are just at the “you can play in the next room unattended while I cook dinner” stage. Yet, I can totally see the pressure from others with them seeing it as neglectful.
Cars and deep water. Those are my two biggest fears. And they scare me to no end because they are very real threats. To a lesser extent: trains.
[+] [-] jalapenos|3 years ago|reply
When a parent only has one, it's both easier to control them from a time & energy perspective, and also more understandable biologically from a risk perspective, than if they had say five.
[+] [-] pyuser583|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xwowsersx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zuminator|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] divan|3 years ago|reply
Motivation is basically what makes us do stuff. Unsurprisingly, these three psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) are also linked and are good predictors of the wellbeing, fullfilment, vitality and, for the lack of the better word, happiness in life. I see this as "motivation to live" essentially.
Studying SDT opened my eyes to the modern views on parenting, sports coaching and some other fields. It just all started to make sense, and I would say that SDT is one of those theories that can change your worldview.
[+] [-] mcv|3 years ago|reply
When I was 12, I traveled around the country by train on my own for 4 days. Dutch railways had a special ticket for that: Tienertoer: 4 days of free train travel within a 10 day period, only for teenagers, and you got a booklet with all sorts of discounts for museums and other stuff to visit. At 12, I figured I was a teenager and therefore old enough to do this.
My son, almost 14 now, is not remotely interested in anything like this. Though he does claim to be old enough to stay home on his own for a weekend while we are away. But I don't trust him to actually come out from behind his (my, actually) PC if we do this.