New Study Says Maybe Helicopter Parenting Is Making Kids Depressed

While i survived fine, it was in spite of the childhood, not because of it. I still don’t want to bike in a city unless they have well defined and protected bike lanes; too many close calls, not so close calls that ended up in disaster, bike theft, etc.

After moving to Europe and seeing how mobile kids are without cars even, i wish i had that growing up, as just seems so much nicer to be able to meet friends and do things without needing a car or having to survive biking in traffic.

I’m glad i had internet very early to make hanging out with friends easier and keeping up with what’s going on way easier. instead of having to do a bunch of phone calls or go visit and make plans, we could just do IRC or AIM or Skype chats and it’s much like it is nowadays for planning and joining/declining meetups. I do wonder what my teens years would have looked like if we had the same public transport options as most EU cities do.

If it is, then comparing EU versus US should show a clear difference, as US cities are much, much more car-centric than most (any?) EU city.

Personally, I don't see “children’s independent mobility” as a problem (I live in Denmark). At least, not an issue that is any different from when I was a child. The only major difference I see is that kids aren't allowed the same mobility by helicopter parents (everything is too dangerous these days, even though in reality it is better).

When I was a teen there was no pre-made concept of "third places". We made our own. Most of the time, this meant being outside doing something active. We didn't want to be inside. We didn't want to watch TV or even binge-play video games.

We created our own ways of keeping us busy, entertained, socially connected, etc.

Let's not forget, scarcity breeds creativity and innovation.

Car-centric planning is definitely a contributing factor, but I can think of others such as crime (or fear of crime), legislation (if it's a crime to let kids under X years unsupervised in public). Suburban sprawl has mang negative effects but it can sometimes produce walkable areas and quiet residential roads that it's safe to play on too. You might need a car to get to any capital-p Places, but you can kick a football around the local cul-de-sac just fine.

You can also have places where there's safe and reliable public trnasport, and still have heated debates in the local parent-teacher association about when it's safe to let your kid ride on their own.

We just gave up and moved to the Netherlands. It's worth a look. I love it here.

It’s only the perception of risk that changed.

It's not always efficient, but teens have time (saving a few minutes by using a car would make me waste a ton of time).

Personally I have a car, but I bike most of the time to go downtown because it's 15-20 mins away and there are those new bike paths that are clean in winter too (and much faster/fun than driving).

Walkable options I've experienced: Uk towns in the country with a large walkable area and plenty of shops (and I've heard about some spanish cities although I have not seen them) or London with frequent transport.

Even though my city was definitely car centric I could roam freely as a kid wherever I wanted by bike.

Since I was ~16 immigration from Africa, the middle east and balkans became a massive problem and every week there was someone getting knifed in the park in front of the train station.

I didn't lose my right to roam freely, but that's because I was already big enough.

I moved country (still eu unfortunately) and immigration is becoming a problem here as well. It's like when I was 16 all over again. In comparison, in my own home country my grandma stopped going out in the city centre because it's so dangerous.

It goes without saying I am not going to let my kids roam freely here.

Maybe if we move somewhere else safer, eg Dubai.

Could you unpack this? I grew up in a small town, moved to a very walker/public transit friendly city for 10 years, and now live in a close suburb. I didn’t really see any extra third spaces geared towards teens in the city. In fact, I rarely saw kids out on the street or congregating anywhere. In the suburb I am in now, they are everywhere, biking to each others houses and hanging out in the town center.

My son is five (youngest by 33 years); we don't let him do any such thing.

I think this probably leaning into a bias more than anything. If this were true we'd see data going back starting from the 20s that begins to correlate to this.

What's more likely is that each generation has become successively less likely to let their kids walk to school on their own, ride bikes through town, go adventuring, etc. Combine that with that there's often limitations on spaces kids can use. I remember a lot of parking lots wouldn't let kids loiter, malls didn't want us hanging around unless we were buying, and even being in the woods by a certain time was considered suspicious.

Thats not much if an issue in Europe. Here the problem is the risk of violence and crime. Particularity in western europe, walking alone at night is risky even as an adult. For kids it would be equally risky during the day.

Ottawa seems great with bike paths everywhere connecting parks and neighborhoods.

I have a comfortable amount of money, and I have been certified to fly some small airplanes, including one turbojet model, yet helicopters still elude me - it's just so much harder. Much respect to you sir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B-zWxDJOZU

If I were in the market for a helicopter pilot, I would be very keen to know what the breakdown is!

New Zealand isn’t the ideal environment for them, we have 250. 18 deaths in 14 crashes.

https://www.taic.org.nz/watchlist/robinson-helicopters-mast-...

Yes, less deaths are obviously a positive. However, could this be because of helicopter'ing adults? From kids not being allowed to be kids and put themselves in adverse places and face tough decisions?

Mom won't let Johnny drive, she drives instead.

Dad won't let Jane go out with friends on a camping trip.

Those will save lives, yes? Adversity by definition means risk. Is it possible that eventally these kids will grow up and in say 20 years become adult suicides or maybe don't go that far but are joy-less dysfunctional (?) adults? And eventually they pass that "DNA" along to their kids?

Helicopter parenting has longer term implications that we have yet to face. We can't have adversity without risk.

"Hey kids. You're inheriting a cluster fuck. There's hate, and war, and gloom & doom around every corner. But look, we give you...The Kardashians!!! And never forget, here's a never ending list of things you need to worry about...Don't go outside, it's dangerous. Eat this shite fake food and they worry about your heakth...and so on..."

But it's social media to blame??? That disconnect would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Growing up in the 1960s we all expected to die in the imminent nuclear holocaust. That was a relatively good thing because if we didn't most people were expected to perish from mass starvation by the year 2000 due to the global population bomb.

But yeah, kids today have it hard because their future looks bleak.

Accordingly, I think “social media causes depression” and “social media doesn’t cause depression” could be equally bogus takes.

For 90s and early 2000 teenagers, the parents were born post WW2, and had their formative teen or twenties years in the very liberal late 60s and early 70s. They experienced the shift from black pedagogy and strict morals to anti-authoritarian and liberal norms. They grew up in an opening and progressing society. I could imagine they passed on a certain optimism and openness to their children.

Contrast with the later generation, whose parents grew up in the Reagan and Thatcher times (keyword "no future"). I imagine those parents would be more pessimistic and protective on average.

I was born in 1984 and certainly my parents had that optimistic outlook ("ones kids are going to have it at least 50% better as their parents" was a widespread idea at that time). And I had a lot of freedom growing up that kids in the 2000s didn't have. Growing up in the somewhat optimistic 90s, I hope that my generation is going to be a "good" parent generation again...

To me the worst part is that their behavior hasn't really changed as I became an adult, and in fact the have gotten worse. I'm not affected anymore due to stronger and more mature boundaries, but my siblings still are. And damn if it those boundaries are not isolating as hell.

Another very isolating factor is societal response to having a less than ideal relationship with ones parents. Some people really change their opinion on you after knowing you're not close with your folks.

Case in point, I know someone who grew up with a helicopter parent who kept said person and their siblings effectively sheltered from adulthood well into their 20s. Despite all experiencing more or less the same childhood with a parent imposing the same values, each of the siblings ended up having very different personalities and attitudes towards life. They get along fairly well, but each is very different from one another, and none of them identify with the aformentioned parent. Although this person is more safety-paranoid than is average, which seems to be one of the few things to have been moulded by the parent. How positive!

There are many possible reasons for helicopter parenting, but I think one widespread cultural cause is the post Great Depression idea that failures in adulthood are borderline unrecoverable. When I was a young person not so long ago, a message we got from our authority figures was that, if we fail for whatever reason, it will have disastrous consequences; fail a classes or don't go to college and you'll be unsuccessful while your peers who did exactly what they were told will be showered with riches, safety, and happiness. This erroneous attitude is meant to keep young people in line and, though it doesn't always work, many young people internalize it, and their own parenting skills are influenced as a result.

Simultaneously, American society in the last century and half, and especially in the last two decades, has done far more to de-adultize young people than any society prior to it. So-called "adolescents" and even later teens, whom would have been considered adults until recent history, face a substantial amount of oppression from every level of society that more than ever are failing to launch at 18 or even after college. The more this happens, the less confidence that older adults have in the competence of young people, creating a cycle of more and more shielding.

Young people in America today are barely trusted with anything, which is ironic given that, in many parts of the world, they would be trusted with tasks like herding large animals and operating heavy machinery. Outside of a rural farm life, many young people are essentially treated as mentally challenged; they can't open a bank account without a parent having control over it, have their privacy routinely violated by their parents (not every parent does this, but it's extremely common), don't have control over their private property, can only work "safe" jobs for a limited number of hours, can't move away from their parents without begging a judge for emancipation, can't consent to their own medical treatment, can't vote, are subject to curfew laws, must go to public school, and so forth.

Garbage in, garbage out, anyone?

The view that children and even young people in their late teens need so much protection is a cycle that feeds itself, and there's scant evidence that such levels of protection are necessary. At worst, alienating young people from the adult world can be damaging and cause delays in becoming fully functional as an autonomous individual.