Parenting in the age of Paranoia: A Small Manifesto | Hacker News Reader

Parenting in the age of Paranoia: A Small Manifesto

quinnnorton.com

89 pointsbensummers30 comments

My parents were pretty overprotective. In my teens i managed to secure some freedoms for myself by convincing my parents of my capability to not make stupid decisions. They were still quite protective though. Im pretty sure my social awkwardness wasn't caused by my parents paranoia, but I've noticed that I've gotten progressively less awkward as the opportunities to make stupid decisions grow. Its a miracle what smoking/drinking/getting high with peers could do to your social skills.

I'm still trying to undo the damage my parents' overprotectiveness has done. I certainly appreciate their efforts to keep me safe from whatever harm they imagined was out there, but it didn't do any favours for my social skills to be sure.

I still feel bad that I learned most of my high school lessons in college - and some I'm still learning now that I've entered "real life". I feel woefully behind sometimes.

Removing danger from the home is the very best thing that a parent can do. All children are impressionable, and being exposed to evil early will effect the rest of their life. So, as long as you have that handled (as good as it can be handled), then your child will be mostly okay.

Of course, we'd need a very good definition of evil.

Also, Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone:http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/why-i-let-my-9...

Little confused - remove 'danger' or remove 'evil'? Surely they are different things.

Totally agree with this piece. I remember a childhood like that (though it didn't go as far as swimming in the ocean alone) and it's sad so many kids don't get that now and are instead cooped up indoors playing games consoles and watching TV.

That said, the world has definitely changed. While I'd agree that the world is actually safer now than ever before, I think people and the sense of community necessary to raise children is significantly worse than when I was a kid - at least here in the UK. People ignore children in a way they never did before - see http://is.gd/51r7d - from fears of parental retribution or accusations of paedophilia, which has been a bit of an alarmist topic in the British media for the last 5-10 years here - http://is.gd/51rdy.

While I'd love to let my daughter have as free and as rich a childhood as I had (richer, even), I'm not convinced British society as a whole provides a healthy environment for her to have that freedom when adults are scared of conversing with unknown children or even helping them in vulnerable or potentially dangerous situations. Can't say I entirely blame this attitude though, as I've ignored quite a few kids for much the same reasons.. though I'd like to believe I'd step in and do something if they were in danger..

I pretty much agree with him. I've been telling my kid since they were old enough to understand me that the world is a complicated place, and to be careful, but to also live in possibility, not in fear.

A watched child never boi... grows!

Well, a watched child won't boil either.

s/won't/is less likely/

You cannot control the child all the time. At some point you won't be looking and he/she might just as well get hurt. I've hurt, cut, etc. myself while adults were looking at me - we hurt ourselves as adults by accident too. You can't prevent everything "bad" because you're watching.

Well, yeah. I was just making a joke about how applying the verb "boil" to a human doesn't make sense.

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com (and associated books/links) has a similar theme for those who are interested in this.

And in general - I agree. (Although it's easy to say that when you don't have kids)

I know topics like this generate some discussion here, and I feel slightly bad flagging it, but for those who can flag, please consider how this is related (or not) to hacker news.

It's about hacking childhood. It's interesting to think about what taboos society is creating. That's enough to get on this site.

Also, the author is a hacker who once had a magnet implanted into her hand for augmented sensory perception: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/news/2006/06/71087

She says that the world is safer now for kids than it was when she grew up, but I wonder about that. Precisely because there are so few kids roaming the streets, the ones that still do may be more at risk because e.g. drivers don't expect them.

For a marvellous account of children being raised without any parental guidance, read Bill Bryson's "The Life And Times Of The Thunderbolt Kid." Highly recommended.

"children being raised without any parental guidance"

fallacy of the excluded middle much?

"I won’t be telling her there are bad people out there- "

hmm... We may have to agree to disagree.

That was the biggest problem I had with this piece. Yes, in fact, there are genuinely evil people in the world. It is certainly possible to be overprotective of a child but this guy seems a little too far to the other extreme.

This guy is not a guy.

So she isn't. I think of Quinn as a male name and did not read her "about" page.

I think the fact that you're pointing out that she is too far to the other extreme, just points out how far paranoic parenting has been socially accepted. I think her stance is very correct, and also I am very grateful that I was able to grow up in a third-world country, which allowed me great freedom. I would never want to raise a child in a place where parents do not let their kids walk to school for example.

The rest of the sentence puts it in context and is a position I can respect: "I won’t be telling her there are bad people out there- I will tell her even good people can get sick from things like drugs, depression, or anger, and do bad things. "

Yes, the sentence provides some context that we can agree with, but as another commenter points out, there really are some bad people out there who want nothing more than to hurt people. That's not necessarily a reason to shelter your children, but denying that bad people exist seems to go against the heart of the manifesto.

If a child needs help in public then it makes sense not to be frightened to approach an adult (a mother for preference).

One of the many interesting tidbits in The Gift of Fear (an interesting book, simultaneously a sensational true-crime bestseller and the words of a domain expert):

When you need help, approach someone in a crowd and ask. Don't wait for someone to approach you. The odds that the person you choose to approach is dangerous are pretty low. Whereas the odds are higher that a person who chooses you -- notices a confused person in a crowd, walks right up to them, and offers to help -- is potentially dangerous. That's the stalker strategy.

Corollary: Expect people to be very nervous when you walk up to them in public and ask if they need help. They are going to assume, with justification, that you are more likely to be stalking them than the average passerby.

Agreed, and I think the author is clear that he is teaching his child to understand context to be able to discern things. I just think the line that "everyone is good, they're just caught up in the wrong things" isn't the right way to look at the world.

The claim isn't that all people are good, it's more nuanced than that. Essentially he's saying that some people are dangerous in some situations, and he wants her to learn which situations are dangerous at a young age. I think that's a reasonable point of view.

Everybody has to learn it eventually because the world doesn't get less dangerous as you grow older.

Teaching a kid that people (and by implication the kid him/herself) are inherently good/bad (or in any way "fixed") is a really bad idea for a number of reasons. He's trying to keep her mindset growth-oriented.

"There are no neurotics or geniuses or failures or fools. There are only neurotic moments, flashes of brilliance, failed opportunities, and stupid mistakes." -David K. Reynolds

A much better idea is to teach children to read other people's emotional state in the moment; to develop their intuition and teach them to trust it. It's that intuitive ability that will allow the child to escape arbitrary danger and to thrive in general.

As I am learning a new language - this is the type of distinction seems most heavily used in English. The world isn't dualistic.

There aren't good and bad people that wear different jerseys.

There will be some hardcore thug who looks like the scariest dude that will protect your child in an emergency.

There will be some teacher/innocent looking person that wrongs your child in some way.

I didn't tell my kids there are bad people in the world who want to do unspeakable things to them. I felt that would rob them of their innocence. Instead, I had a strict rule in my home that all affection had to be by mutual consent and 'no' means 'no'. It was their decision and they didn't need to justify it. If they didn't want a 'goodnight' kiss or hug on a particular night, no big deal. If anyone refused to take 'no' for an answer, they were to come get me. I had to back up this promise only once. My kids extrapolated for themselves that this meant they were entitled to enforce the rules with physical force if necessary when mom was unavailable (ie when they were in public school). I didn't hear such stories until many years later. They never thought it was anything that needed to be mentioned.

In short: If a kid has good boundaries and is empowered to act on their judgment without having to articulate why (which is often difficult even for adults and can be impossible for a kid), the odds are relatively small they will be victimized in some significant way. Even a toddler can decide if they want a goodnight kiss and can signal that by enthusiastically turning towards you and throwing their arms wide open or by turning their face away if the answer is 'no'. Respecting that instinct and cultivating it is tantamount to an invisible shield which will keep out most predators. And it's not just protection against potential sexual predation. It generalizes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com