Hacker News Reader

Comment by foofie | Hacker News Reader

The options on the table is a) be petrified of the water, or b) risk falling into ice cold water, and option a) is the one that actually keeps your children alive.

I wonder if storytelling is effective due to an evolutionary pressure that leads kids who don't learn from storytelling to succumb to the dangers warned against by children's stories. I mean, there's a recurring theme in children's stories which is the character who didn't listened is also the character who falls victim and serves as a cautionary tale.

View on HN

Why couldn't you just literally (in a controlled setting) introduce them directly to the danger by mediating and showing them thru direct experience? Take your kid to work and let them see what they're up against

I see you've never had a young child. What you're talking about is something that doesn't work with children under 3. And tbose children are very mobile, boundary test and don't really understand death.

My 1 year butt checked a fireplace and got a 3rd degree burn. She understood what hot was. That heat could hurt her. Still burnt her butt when I wasn't looking and the worst part was the urgent care told me it was a common occurrence. I believe them because they guess exactly how it had happened.

My 2 year old nearly drowned. It was only a fence that stopped her from jumping into a pool when I wasn't looking. I found her right outside it after desperately wondering where she had gone. She'd been in a pool plenty of times and even knew she could sink. Didn't matter.

I can have frank discussions with my nearly 5 year old, but that was really recent. Even when she was just 4 just explaning and exposure wasn't alaays effective. It's easier to just lie for their safety.

And hell it must work because I still remember the stories my dad told me about the monster called Undertow that would carry you out to sea. I of course know it's a real thing, but I think it's telling I think of the story before the factual information and I heard the story over 25 years ago.

Yes, you watch children that young closely. You do not tell them there are monsters in the water/fireplace/etc and hope for the best.

> I see you've never had a young child.

Thank you for pointing out a series of facts that are only obvious to those who have direct or indirect contact with children.

It boggles the mind how some naive people believe you can have nuanced conversations enumerating risks and tradeoffs with kids who are just starting to count to 10, and refuse things like changing a diaper. Some kids don't even grasp the connection between diaper rashes and not changing diapers when they are soiled, even when experiencing that multiple times.

On the contrary, I was forced to raise two that were constantly indulged and lied to (and despite my protestations was required to cave constantly) to humor them and it made them a nightmare to deal with while also severely hampering their development.

Then it became a constant danger about them finding out the truth which we would be brutally punished if that happened because the child would throw a fit due to the abrupt change in their perception/reality and that the tried+true old control mechanism would be lost creating two stupid unnecessary new problems.

Lying lets others control you and prevents you from freely making the most sensible or appropriate decision. It gives a child control over you and handicaps your abillity to transact with them in a way that is productive and authentic.

I'm not gonna say your parent was awful for trying to protect you, I'm simply saying its trades convenience and expediency at the cost of truly dealing with issues and conflicts (assuming you have dealt with the other aspects like child-proofing as best is possible).

> On the contrary, I was forced to raise two that were constantly indulged and lied to (and despite my protestations was required to cave constantly) to humor them and it made them a nightmare to deal with while also severely hampering their development.

I fail to see how your personal anecdote refutes the facts pointed out by the OP. The only way you could possibly refute OP's point would be by proving that you can hold nuanced discussions between abstract and hypothetical risks and their tradeoffs with children who barely have any ability to express themselves.

Kids and adolescents have limited capacity to reason about hypotheticals and cause and effect. That capacity doesn’t develop until later. What they do have is an innate fear of dangerous creatures. These stories simply meet kids where their faculties are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com