3 ms·
So this actually gets to 2 different readings of the point of the article. One reading, the one that maybe I'm reading into it, is that parents now are viewing
by kasey_junk 10y ago
So this actually gets to 2 different readings of the point of the article.
One reading, the one that maybe I'm reading into it, is that parents now are viewing the world as more dangerous than it is, and are ignoring the dangers that existed in the past to get to this viewpoint. This viewpoint is then informing their view about what is appropriate for their children. That is, I took the anecdote to mean, parents are misjudging the risks currently and were viewing the past to be less risky than it was.
The other viewpoint, which I think you are presenting is, parents now don't have any different assessment of the risks, they just have less appetite for risk. Given that interpretation, I'll buy the lesson of the anecdote is just have more appetite for risk.
- pvg 10y agoOh! Are you not familiar with the 'free range kids' people? They've been in the news a few times over the last few years. Their thing is that this is a better way to parent and they're being unreasonably prevented from doing so by social norms and often laws. Without that context the article probably looks a lot weirder than it is.