7 ms·

I think most would agree that prioritizing safety over freedom for children and adolescents is sometimes justified, but I find it sad that a curfew for individu

I think most would agree that prioritizing safety over freedom for children and adolescents is sometimes justified, but I find it sad that a curfew for individuals as old as 16 (and an even stricter one for adolescents under 13) can be celebrated the way it is in this article, especially when other countries have had a comparable reduction in adolescent alcohol consumption without implementing such a curfew. It makes me appreciate all the memories I have of staying out late in my own childhood and adolescence (without drinking or doing any drugs).

xvedejas 6y ago
Crime rates have been falling across the developed world for the last 30 years. I assume that's a decent proxy for teenage risk-taking behavior too. I wonder how much of this success is coincidental to broader social trends, rather than due to any particular policy or planned effort. I think we don't really know what's cause and effect if we don't try to measure these confounding factors.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Well the have a control in similar countries which didn't partake.
  - TallGuyShort 6y ago
    A control with many, many confounding variables is the GP's point.
asgeir 6y ago
They are allowed to be outside after curfew, they just need to have adult supervision to do so.
- seppel 6y ago
  "just"
- Shared404 6y ago
  That's an awful big "just" you got there. They may as well just be told you can't be outside during curfew.
  - asgeir 6y ago
    The child protection law says that a child is entitled to care and protection. It then goes on to define that a child out past curfew is a type of neglect. According to the law the child is not at fault, the parents are for not providing adequate care. Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety?
    - skrebbel 6y ago
      Yes. EDIT: I'll clarify. You refer to safety. I grew up in a place where being outside as a teenager was perfectly safe, also at night. I want the same for my kids, and it's totally achievable. I think the whole idea that the world is somehow "unsafe" and that the parents need to constantly helicopter to guard their offspring from all the evil pedos and thieves and lunatics, is a fundamentally harmful idea. Now, I do recognize that America is pretty scary, with their gun laws ensuring that either a gang member of a cop can shoot you dead on the spot if you dare take a snickers out of your pocket while they see it, but not all places are like that. Iceland sure isn't. There's no good reason, in affluent places at least, for "the outside" to be dangerous. And if it is then that's the problem that needs to be addressed, not parents who want to allow their kids to learn their own life lessons. I think this article has plenty good ideas but I don't think legally enforced helicopter parenting is one of them.
      - asgeir 6y ago
        why? EDIT: I think that the 10pm/midnight cutoff point is less about some danger switch getting flipped at midnight and more about there being some well-defined point where CPS need to step in and ask the parents why their children are unsupervised. If it's vaguely defined it makes enforcement of the law more difficult or will cause the law to be unevenly applied (something like poor kids get neglected because CPS can't prove neglect).
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
You make a good point. Also I don't like the righteous attitude of the article. That drugs can be safely used (not abused) seems omitted. 'tis about teens though so I wouldn't want them near the stuff, but aren't drugs part of growing up? “Why not orchestrate a social movement around natural highs: around people getting high on their own brain chemistry—because it seems obvious to me that people want to change their consciousness—without the deleterious effects of drugs?” If you want an answer to why not, because drugs are not intrinsically bad and can give you more than a life without drugs IMO. Or they can destroy you, I grant. “We learned through the studies that we need to create circumstances in which kids can lead healthy lives, and they do not need to use substances, because life is fun, and they have plenty to do—and they are supported by parents who will spend time with them.” 'Because they have plenty to do' Hmm - I did spend part of my childhood on some crappy estates and there wasn't things to do, and no money to do it. And you didn't much want to go outside because it didn't feel safe. It wasn't. 'and they are supported by parents' - another presupposition that parents are good and nurturing. Not always. Perhaps in a rich and wise society you can mostly make this possible though. I like their way of trying to take the pressure off kids so as to reduce the "rat park" effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park) and I think it's great. Kids don't develop properly in a pressure cooker. Overall, they're doing the right thing. Just don't overdo it.
- frosted-flakes 6y ago
  FYI, throwaway accounts are highly discouraged on HN.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Their account is 10 months old and has more karma than yours, it's not a "throwaway" in that sense. And throwaways are fine if needed, just constantly creating new accounts is discouraged.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    If I'd been a bit more awake I'd have called it 'anon' rather than throwaway (for privacy's sake), but I take your point and the reasoning behind it. Of greater import, if you have something to say about my post, disagreement included of course, I'm happy to listen.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jariel 6y ago
Last time I drove through Detroit at night was a decade ago. I distinctly remember it being past midnight, and there was an 8 year old kid, sitting on his bike, along, going nowhere on the corner of the gas station. I also remember thinking WTF? If there is one, small seemingly innocuous thing that could 'tell you a whole lot' about a neighbourhood, it's definitely children wandering around at night. Forget curfew that kid should have been in bed.

xvedejas 6y ago

Crime rates have been falling across the developed world for the last 30 years. I assume that's a decent proxy for teenage risk-taking behavior too. I wonder how much of this success is coincidental to broader social trends, rather than due to any particular policy or planned effort. I think we don't really know what's cause and effect if we don't try to measure these confounding factors.

Ericson2314 6y ago
Well the have a control in similar countries which didn't partake.
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  A control with many, many confounding variables is the GP's point.

asgeir 6y ago

They are allowed to be outside after curfew, they just need to have adult supervision to do so.

seppel 6y ago
"just"
Shared404 6y ago
That's an awful big "just" you got there. They may as well just be told you can't be outside during curfew.
- asgeir 6y ago
  The child protection law says that a child is entitled to care and protection. It then goes on to define that a child out past curfew is a type of neglect. According to the law the child is not at fault, the parents are for not providing adequate care. Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety?
  - skrebbel 6y ago
    Yes. EDIT: I'll clarify. You refer to safety. I grew up in a place where being outside as a teenager was perfectly safe, also at night. I want the same for my kids, and it's totally achievable. I think the whole idea that the world is somehow "unsafe" and that the parents need to constantly helicopter to guard their offspring from all the evil pedos and thieves and lunatics, is a fundamentally harmful idea. Now, I do recognize that America is pretty scary, with their gun laws ensuring that either a gang member of a cop can shoot you dead on the spot if you dare take a snickers out of your pocket while they see it, but not all places are like that. Iceland sure isn't. There's no good reason, in affluent places at least, for "the outside" to be dangerous. And if it is then that's the problem that needs to be addressed, not parents who want to allow their kids to learn their own life lessons. I think this article has plenty good ideas but I don't think legally enforced helicopter parenting is one of them.
    - asgeir 6y ago
      why? EDIT: I think that the 10pm/midnight cutoff point is less about some danger switch getting flipped at midnight and more about there being some well-defined point where CPS need to step in and ask the parents why their children are unsupervised. If it's vaguely defined it makes enforcement of the law more difficult or will cause the law to be unevenly applied (something like poor kids get neglected because CPS can't prove neglect).

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

You make a good point. Also I don't like the righteous attitude of the article. That drugs can be safely used (not abused) seems omitted. 'tis about teens though so I wouldn't want them near the stuff, but aren't drugs part of growing up? “Why not orchestrate a social movement around natural highs: around people getting high on their own brain chemistry—because it seems obvious to me that people want to change their consciousness—without the deleterious effects of drugs?” If you want an answer to why not, because drugs are not intrinsically bad and can give you more than a life without drugs IMO. Or they can destroy you, I grant. “We learned through the studies that we need to create circumstances in which kids can lead healthy lives, and they do not need to use substances, because life is fun, and they have plenty to do—and they are supported by parents who will spend time with them.” 'Because they have plenty to do' Hmm - I did spend part of my childhood on some crappy estates and there wasn't things to do, and no money to do it. And you didn't much want to go outside because it didn't feel safe. It wasn't. 'and they are supported by parents' - another presupposition that parents are good and nurturing. Not always. Perhaps in a rich and wise society you can mostly make this possible though. I like their way of trying to take the pressure off kids so as to reduce the "rat park" effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park) and I think it's great. Kids don't develop properly in a pressure cooker. Overall, they're doing the right thing. Just don't overdo it.

frosted-flakes 6y ago
FYI, throwaway accounts are highly discouraged on HN.
- detaro 6y ago
  Their account is 10 months old and has more karma than yours, it's not a "throwaway" in that sense. And throwaways are fine if needed, just constantly creating new accounts is discouraged.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  If I'd been a bit more awake I'd have called it 'anon' rather than throwaway (for privacy's sake), but I take your point and the reasoning behind it. Of greater import, if you have something to say about my post, disagreement included of course, I'm happy to listen.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jariel 6y ago

Last time I drove through Detroit at night was a decade ago. I distinctly remember it being past midnight, and there was an 8 year old kid, sitting on his bike, along, going nowhere on the corner of the gas station. I also remember thinking WTF? If there is one, small seemingly innocuous thing that could 'tell you a whole lot' about a neighbourhood, it's definitely children wandering around at night. Forget curfew that kid should have been in bed.