Hacker News Reader

Comment by newobj | Hacker News Reader

Related: at the PARK this weekend, and heard all the following utterances in the span of ten minutes from some parents: "NO RUNNING!" "IT'S DANGEROUS HERE" "YOU'RE GONNA GET HURT" "NO RUNNING!"

Talk about instilling fear and creating risk aversion. Sometimes you just have to let a child find out for themselves what's safe and what isn't. What you can get up and dust yourself off from and what you can't.

It's hard to do (I say this as a parent of 5 year old boy), but you have to resist the urge to hover over them and caution or approve their every move.

View on HN

Having grown up with parents who acted like this I can say it makes for a miserable childhood.

I wasn't allowed to even ride my bike past one neighbors house on each side when I was a kid because my parents were convinced I would be kidnapped. I couldn't go to a friends house without my parents walking me all the way up to the door and then I had to report home every hour or two or they would call the police as if I was missing. They wouldn't even let me use sharp silverware because I might have hurt myself accidentally. And don't get me started on learning to drive....

I realized only in college how sheltered my life was when I noticed how everyone else was living their lives while I was constantly afraid I was going to die any minute. It has taken years to undo the damage and I honestly despise my parents for it (among other reasons as well).

On the other hand, many people don't have a healthy fear of automobiles, considering the lethality of the physics involved in a collision.

I bet his parents drove him everywhere and therefore he has no issues with cars.

I'd bet that much of the issue stems from the decline in birth rates among middle/upper middle class parents relative to the days of yore. When you only manage to pop out one or two kids, at great career sacrifice and monetary expense, each one seems to matter more than they did back in the day.

Also, paradoxically, the safer things get the more people worry about the dangers that remain. This is rational. Say doing this or that during pregnancy results in 1 in 10,000 women dying during child birth. If 1 in 100 women die during child birth anyway, it's not a big deal. But if improvements in medical technology gets the base rate down to 1 in 10,000, then suddenly you're talking about doubling your risk.

I would say it's got less to do with the perceived (even subconsciously) value of the children, and more the experience of the parents. For the first child, you're often hyper-conscious of threats and problems. With later children you've better assessed what's important to pay attention to and what isn't.

In case anyone didn't notice the implied point here: a far greater percentage of children are now the first child.

I can confirm this was a big issue with our children. Our first we tended to treat like porcelain... eventually we've learned through experience that kids are more resilient than you may otherwise think.

Anecdotally speaking, this is not true. My parents always joke that I was the "test subject" for their parenting experiments, and my (younger) sister is the one on whom they actually applied what they learned. Growing up, my life was pretty care-free. My sister on the other hand is definitely suffering from "helicopter parenting."

Gender probably has a lot to do with it. I'm a guy, so I don't have as much to worry about (whereas girls are perceived as more vulnerable to things like rape, etc.).

I became a parent later in life, and I do think that is a factor. In addition to how hard it is to have a kid, I personally have a much greater sense of my own mortality now then I did in the early 20s. It's hard not to let this color the way I parent.

Direct quote from a friend:

"First kid - food drops on the clean floor - burn the food sterilize the place. Second kid - food drops on the clean floor - wash it and give it back to him. Third kid - she ate the cat's dinner? It's the cat's problem, not mine."

As a parent of young kids, I can attest that many parents in my peer group are constantly reminding their kids not to be careful NOT due to a fear of risk -- but rather from wanting to avoid an injury that's going inconvenience everyone.

If your child crashes his bike and gets a bloody knee on the playground, your relaxing afternoon at the park is most likely over and now you have a crying child, bloody clothes, a damaged bike wheel, and potentially another child who is now screaming because you have to leave the park to go find bandages. If your child breaks her arm, it's even worse -- off to the hospital you go, followed by a child who can't take a bath or get dressed by herself for a month.

Do some parents take this to an extreme and deny their kids some fun? Sure. But a lot of times, it's just about trying to maintain a level of mindfulness so that everyone can continue having fun for the afternoon.

Everyone? I've only witnessed this behavior as a way to avoid inconveniencing themselves.

That argument reads to me like this: "If my kid injured himself, I would be inconvenienced - so let's take extra steps to make sure I am not inconvenienced."

And to your point, there are cases where this is valid - when the inconvenience would extend beyond just "oh my afternoon is ruined" and into "everybody's afternoon would be ruined".

>>If your child crashes his bike and gets a bloody knee on the playground, your relaxing afternoon at the park is most likely over and now you have a crying child, bloody clothes, a damaged bike wheel, and potentially another child who is now screaming because you have to leave the park to go find bandages.

Well, yes. This is called parenting: it is expected that, as a parent, you will have to endure a certain amount of inconvenience so that your kid can learn to ride a bike. Now, if he or she is endangering other kids while learning, then it's valid to step in. But thinking about your own convenience sounds a bit selfish.

If the only way humans could learn was through directly physical stimuli, we'd be scratching dirt and running down antelope still.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practise.

In practise, there is.

Even if, as I presume, you are trying to spell in Australian/Commonwealth English, it should be "practice" here because it's a noun. Only the verb is "practise".

Yeah, that's still a weak point in my spelling. I'm generally pretty good and most misspellings are only typos, but that one's always an issue for me. Curious.

I was going out for a walk with my daughter the other day and had the following conversation with my wife:

Her: Don't let her run on the sidewalk.

Me: What? Why?

Her: She's not wearing pants, just a dress.

Me: ...OK... what exactly is the relationship between these two things?

Her: There's nothing covering her knees, she'll hurt herself if she falls on the sidewalk.

I couldn't even fathom the connection without having it spelled out for me. I, of course, completely ignored the whole conversation afterwards.

Wait... so nowadays kids aren't supposed to scrape their knees, elbows, arms, hands, and in fact basically everything?

Because that's what we did when I was young.

I don't recall pants ever helping in that regard.

There's also the problem of fear of litigation. I'm from a part of the world that is not as lawsuit-happy as the U.S. Amongst other things, medical treatment is very cheap here and people laugh at labels like "warning: device heats up when in operation" (seen on an iron made in the USA).

> I'm from a part of the world that is not as lawsuit-happy as the U.S.

This is because the safety net is non-existent here. If something really bad is about to happen, you know you're going to fall all the way down to the bottom. The solution? Sue the hell out of everybody.

> Amongst other things, medical treatment is very cheap here

Yup. Exactly the opposite in the US. When the hospital bill requires a second mortgage, covering the costs via money awarded in a lawsuit might be the only solution.

I think the absurdity is not lost on some of the people writing the copy for these safety warnings. For example, after Liebeck v. McDonald's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaur...), companies started printing tautological statements like "WARNING: HOT COFFEE IS HOT" on the cups.

I have a co-worker who is so risk-averse, she literally pushes her 4-year-old in the stroller to each piece of playground equipment - so she doesn't have to worry about running; even walking at the playground is forbidden for her child.

Yes, I'm a parent, but. . .

Free Range Kids is a good resource for helping parents feel like good parents when they fight the urge to hover and over-protect.

http://www.freerangekids.com/

Are you saying there weren't overprotective parents before? This thread is full of a lot of confirmation bias / society is going to hell in a hand basket type of discussion. Boy, kids these days, right? I'd like to see some facts because I don't find it very credible.

Talk to some older folks.

My dad describes walking to school with other schoolchildren in Montreal in the 1950s. They'd be alone, without adults, going miles.

When playing, they were out dusk to dawn on city streets with no adult supervision.

That proves nothing other than your dad grew up in a particular way.

The question the post you were replying to posed was: is this actually a new phenomenon? Or is it simply good ole day syndrome?

I suspect it's more the latter.

Well, the whole city was the same. It wasn't just his parents. And any other adult of the same age I've asked has described similar experiences.

Now I see daycare children on leashes in Montreal. Quite often. That didn't happen in the 1950s.

This isn't something' easy to quantify, unfortunately.

Do you have any anecdotes (or stronger evidence) to show that the sort of behavior lamented by some in our day existed (or was indeed rampant as your suspicions suggest) N years ago? (where N is anywhere between 20 and 200)?

It's not just his dad. Watch Lassie or Leave it to Beaver or Andy Griffith and take notes on what was considered good wholesome parenting at the time. When I grew up in the 70s I'd say if anything the typical parent was even more hands-off. It was absolutely nothing like what is considered proper now.

they generally wouldn't show the beatings on broadcast television...

I have talked to older people. I'm sure the 1930s were really when kids were raised right and learned the value of a dollar! And in the 1910s kids contributed to society by doing agricultural work. And in the 1890s...

I would absolutely not prefer to be living in the 1950s than in the 2010s. Society has improved in many ways in the U.S., particularly if you are not a white male, even if perhaps children aren't allowed to wander as freely in large cities. Perhaps Canada is different.

That's a straw man. No one said we should return to 1950. The point was that, on the specific issue of attitudes towards risk, we should be more like we were in 1950.

Like being afraid of Nuclear Armageddon?

But I get your point, the whole helicopter and intensive parenting should go. Though I do think it's caused somewhat by the excessive need to make children excel in a successively difficult and competitive society.

I did the same thing in Toronto in the '80's, except for the walk to school bit, I was bussed then. I walked to the bus stop, across roads and whatnot.

You don't have to talk to people that old, the mass retardation of parents is a relatively new thing.

I did that and I'm born in the mid 80s (not the US). Today I don't ever see kids going anywhere by themselves.

There have been a number of studies -- middle class children in Western countries now never go more than a couple of meters from their front door on their own.

Growing up in the late 60's in New England, my parents kicked us out of the house in the morning during summers and no one thought twice about us unless we didn't show up for dinner.

Children in American live under house arrest, they are used to having people with guns in their schools. They have no freedom to play, think or do much of anything which isn't scheduled. The whole concept of a "play date" is so twisted and sick as to be beyond comprehension. And all of this is because of some weird belief that children are in more danger today than any time in history. It's not true, the rates of child abuse, kidnapping, and everything else that parents are scared of haven't changed much from when I was a kid.

I would never ever raise a child in the States....

Where would you raise a child? It's no different in Canada.

I don't understand your last sentence. For most of what you list, nobody is forcing American parents to do this, they just choose to. Nothing stops you from letting your own children do things on their own.

There are lots of social pressures to conform. It's also a lot harder to let your child spontaneously play with others if all the other parents require playdates before your kid can see their kids.

>Play date or playdate is an expression primarily used in the US for an arranged appointment for children to get together for a few hours to play.

This is from wikipedia. Pardon my language, but what the actual fuck. An arranged appointment for playing? I really feel sad for kids now in America.

Anecdote: at least one woman was arrested because her kids were playing outside:

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/texas-...

There are numerous laws that enforce the no risk world on parents. These are things I did as a kid that are now illegal:

Rode in the back of a pick up truck Rode a bike without a helmet Sat in the front seat of a car before I was 8 years old. Swam in a pool that didn't have a fence around it Set off fireworks in the street in front of our house on July 4th Walked to and home from school alone (not illegal, but against the policy of our public school, and if we ignored it, I suspect we'd get a visit from child protective services).

Almost none of those are good ideas. Walking alone is an exception; it's very easy for one momentary lapse to cause death or permanent damage in any of the others.

One of mother's best friends died riding in the back of a pickup truck; car accidents are common, but all that happened in her case was that the road had a pothole, she fell, and happened to hit her head too hard and in the wrong spot.

My girlfriend in college fell on her bike while she was going down a hill and passed over some gravel. Her helmet was destroyed. All she needed was stiches, but if she hadn't been wearing a helmet, she probably would have gotten a concussion.

These are just anecdotes, but the point is that taking a small cost (riding safely in cars; wearing helmets on bikes) is far worth it, because the cost is small, and the benefit in the unlikely case is huge.

It's not illegal where I live to not wear seatbelts in the backseat of a car, but I do anyway. I also use condoms when I have sex, and I wash my hands after going to the bathroom.

There's a big difference between systematically overestimating small risks, and blithely allowing black swans to shit all over your life. I hope you never allow your child to do most of those things, and I hope you never do most of them yourself. The world isn't as scary as the TSA wants us to think, but it can still ruin your life in a heartbeat.

Almost none of those are good ideas.

You're right; riding in the back of a pickup truck is not a good idea. It's either a great idea and lots of fun for short distances on low-traffic roads at low speeds, or the only way to get work done because getting into and out of the cab takes too long.

it's very easy for one momentary lapse to cause death or permanent damage in any of the others.

As it is when swimming, hiking, driving, swallowing food, shaving, etc. Everything that's worth doing carries risk.

Just so I'm clear, I'm sorry to hear that. But that doesn't mean that nobody should ever do anything fun, ever, just that they should be mindful of the risks and take appropriate, measured, noninvasive precautions.

>As it is when swimming, hiking, driving, swallowing food, shaving, etc. Everything that's worth doing carries risk.

I don't think I could die if anyone made a momentary lapse of judgment on hacker news; and yet here we both are.

I'm here too, but be aware that sedentarity is one of the greatest real threats to people nowadays (threadmill desks are still not widespread).

The point isn't whether they are good ideas, but to illustrate that perception of risk really has changed. So much so that the anti-risk mentality has been codified. No kids wore helmets 30 years, now they have to by law. I'm just surprised that people would argue with the premise that people are more risk averse now.

With that said, while almost always ride with a bike helmet, when I was in NYC this summer, I joyously rode the Citibikes around without a helmet. I would have been a less happy, less human person if I took your advice and didn't ride around NYC just because I didn't have a helmet.

>I'm just surprised that people would argue with the premise that people are more risk averse now.

I'm very clearly not arguing with that, but there's a difference between the TSA existing and wearing bike helmets.

I'm glad you didn't die while riding without a helmet, but I don't think there's any core part of the human experience that depends on eschewing small, cheap safety practices for massive risks.

I'm raising 5 of them in the States right now. I freely ignore most of these social mores. In our neighborhood my kids are among the most popular playmates. They actually went out and found friends so most of the children in the area know them. We don't trap them in the house and in fact frequently force them to leave so they aren't glued to the computer or Netflix.

We've had broken bones, cuts, scrapes and other injuries but they all know how to do limited first aid and are pretty cool in a crisis. I'm not worried about them at all.

My experiences are entirely anecdotal but it's an example showing that you don't have to feel trapped by those social mores.

sounds like negligent parents waiting for a CPS visit to happen to enforce those social mores :) Fortunately, you seems to live among similarly "negligent neighbors".

Once, we picked up an obviously lost dog on a mountain road and dropped it at the first fire station after the phone on its collar resulted in a voicemail. It was during our 1st year in the US and the thing "what if the dog was stolen and we stopped by police while the dog is in our car" didn't even cross our mind. Now after 13 years here, i'm wondering what i'd do if it was say a child (and there is no collar with the phone to leave voicemail) ...

We got visited once. Turns out the CPS for the most part isn't really interested in Parents who love their kids enough to let them experience a little pain. They were there less than 30 minutes.

i knew that! :) you're just lucky to have negligent CPS as well :) Sounds like you're living in Negligent State of America ... err ... scrap that, as it is from another opera

You seriously had CPS called on you? By neighbors?

They don't tell you who reported you so I don't know who. As I said though it was basically a non-issue. They have to respond to reports but we were in no way considered a danger to our children. Others experiences may vary of course so don't generalize from mine.

Here's someone who was willing to accept some risk in order to help her son learn on his own:

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/why-i-let-my-9-year-old-ride-su...

I get dirty looks from other parents (and grandparents especially) when my daughter and son (5 and 4 resp.) are climbing and jumping off of things at the park. They've become quite talented at jumping from fairly high heights (relatively).

As a parent-to-be, this is the one thing that scares me most. You can't learn risk assessment while living in a bubble. Which means I'm going to have to watch my kids run into problems I know I could prevent because what they learn from the experience is more valuable than preventing the situation.

That is a terrifyingly difficult decision, given the potential consequences.

If you start very early, you'll give them the wherewithall to mitigate and avoid the worst situations.

Sounds familiar. The most scaring part is that one moment you rant and laogh at parents telling their children to carefull. And then you turn around, see you kid something you don't like and guess what you do? Exactly the same thing.

Only speaking for myself, but more often then not I just don't have the patience to NOT say it. But I try most of the time at least.

I think there's a huge difference between "be careful" and "don't do that". The former is just reminding the child to be mindful of their actions, which is a good thing. The latter is saying to avoid anything that could get you hurt even a little bit, which is very much not.

I'm a fan of this TED Talk: 5 Dangerous Things to Let Your Kids Do He explains some ways to help kids learn to be safe around dangerous things. http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_...

Conversely I once genuinely heard this streaked by someone to the kids they were herding around a supermarket: "if you two want to run around and make noise, go do it in the car park". Perhaps she was too far the other way...

I joke constantly with my wife "Don't! You're going to break your arm!"

hilarious - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XBb-YYszLI

Reply on news.ycombinator.com