4 ms·

> "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity. This is extremist thinking an

> "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity. This is extremist thinking and frankly quite useless without considering the actual level of risk involved.

rglullis 5y ago
Of course it is extremist thinking! We are talking about the survival of your own children, not some utility maximization function. Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with one bullet in a gigantic chamber (N slots) where you get to win a small prize every time the gun doesn't fire. Is there any sense in asking if there is a N large enough to make you consider playing this game consistently for 2-3 years, when the gun is pointed at your kids? Mind you, I am not defending helicopter parenting and I do believe that we should err on the side of autonomy vs safety. But I can think of other ways to exercise this autonomy (e.g, drop the kid at the door of a local supermarket and say "here is 10€, can you please go get X, Y and Z while I am outside looking for something else?") without worrying about is the worst possible thing that could happen.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > Of course it is extremist thinking! We are talking about the survival of your own children, not some utility maximization function. Extremist thinking does not improve the likelihood of your children's survival. > Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with one bullet in a gigantic chamber (N slots) where you get to win a small prize every time the gun doesn't fire. Is there any sense in asking if there is a N large enough to make you consider playing this game consistently for 2-3 years, when the gun is pointed at your kids? You do this all the time when you take your kids for a drive, on a plane, outside, when you feed them, etc. Hell in your supermarket example, someone inside the store could just kill them there after you dropped them off.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    Like I said, this is not a maximization function. It is a filter. The idea is to avoid things where the upside (even if highly likely) is small but the downside is (even if highly unlikely) catastrophic. > You do this all the time when you take your kids for a drive, on a plane, outside, when you feed them, etc. Kids need to go outside, occasionally get on a car or plane and they certainly need to be fed. These are all things were the upside is significant, so of course they need to be done and we do it without wondering about the downsides. Going on the streets of Berlin by themselves at age 5 is an unnecessary, avoidable risk with very little benefit. It doesn't need to be done, so we don't. It's simple as that.
    - namose 5y ago
      The whole point of the article is that the benefits are actually enormous. I think we also need to consider other, less obvious bullets here, namely suicide, or even just a less happy and fulfilling life. Kids have been getting less happy year over year in America and while there are likely many reasons, I strongly believe the inability to be independent is one. I won’t claim to know the best age to let kids wander a city street (and it likely depends on the neighborhood), but when you let them out on their own, you also potentially prevent suicide, something that’s far more likely to kill a kid than a stranger. https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/04/american-teens-sadness-depression-anxiety/629524/ https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/04/amer...
      - rglullis 5y ago
        I am not disagreeing with the article, and I definitely agree with you that the american combo of (a) suburbia, (b) car-oriented urban planning and (c) heterogeneous/low inner-trust communities makes for a horrible existence for kids and teenagers. My point though is that there are ways to develop kids' sense of autonomy without putting them in unnecessary risk, and also that while the benefit of letting them walk by themselves depends on many repetitions of the event (i.e, doing it once a year is not really that helpful), it takes only one single dangerous/malicious person to cause irreversible damage. And yes, of course this depends on the neighborhood. I wouldn't object the kids roaming around if we lived in a smaller city or a generally nicer area of Berlin, but I could not in good conscience say that any parent should feel totally fine in letting 5 year-olds by themselves in any area full of homeless people and mentally unstable people, and justify it with "most homeless people are just people in terrible situations".

rglullis 5y ago

Of course it is extremist thinking! We are talking about the survival of your own children, not some utility maximization function. Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with one bullet in a gigantic chamber (N slots) where you get to win a small prize every time the gun doesn't fire. Is there any sense in asking if there is a N large enough to make you consider playing this game consistently for 2-3 years, when the gun is pointed at your kids? Mind you, I am not defending helicopter parenting and I do believe that we should err on the side of autonomy vs safety. But I can think of other ways to exercise this autonomy (e.g, drop the kid at the door of a local supermarket and say "here is 10€, can you please go get X, Y and Z while I am outside looking for something else?") without worrying about is the worst possible thing that could happen.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
> Of course it is extremist thinking! We are talking about the survival of your own children, not some utility maximization function. Extremist thinking does not improve the likelihood of your children's survival. > Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with one bullet in a gigantic chamber (N slots) where you get to win a small prize every time the gun doesn't fire. Is there any sense in asking if there is a N large enough to make you consider playing this game consistently for 2-3 years, when the gun is pointed at your kids? You do this all the time when you take your kids for a drive, on a plane, outside, when you feed them, etc. Hell in your supermarket example, someone inside the store could just kill them there after you dropped them off.
- rglullis 5y ago
  Like I said, this is not a maximization function. It is a filter. The idea is to avoid things where the upside (even if highly likely) is small but the downside is (even if highly unlikely) catastrophic. > You do this all the time when you take your kids for a drive, on a plane, outside, when you feed them, etc. Kids need to go outside, occasionally get on a car or plane and they certainly need to be fed. These are all things were the upside is significant, so of course they need to be done and we do it without wondering about the downsides. Going on the streets of Berlin by themselves at age 5 is an unnecessary, avoidable risk with very little benefit. It doesn't need to be done, so we don't. It's simple as that.
  - namose 5y ago
    The whole point of the article is that the benefits are actually enormous. I think we also need to consider other, less obvious bullets here, namely suicide, or even just a less happy and fulfilling life. Kids have been getting less happy year over year in America and while there are likely many reasons, I strongly believe the inability to be independent is one. I won’t claim to know the best age to let kids wander a city street (and it likely depends on the neighborhood), but when you let them out on their own, you also potentially prevent suicide, something that’s far more likely to kill a kid than a stranger. https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/04/american-teens-sadness-depression-anxiety/629524/ https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/04/amer...
    - rglullis 5y ago
      I am not disagreeing with the article, and I definitely agree with you that the american combo of (a) suburbia, (b) car-oriented urban planning and (c) heterogeneous/low inner-trust communities makes for a horrible existence for kids and teenagers. My point though is that there are ways to develop kids' sense of autonomy without putting them in unnecessary risk, and also that while the benefit of letting them walk by themselves depends on many repetitions of the event (i.e, doing it once a year is not really that helpful), it takes only one single dangerous/malicious person to cause irreversible damage. And yes, of course this depends on the neighborhood. I wouldn't object the kids roaming around if we lived in a smaller city or a generally nicer area of Berlin, but I could not in good conscience say that any parent should feel totally fine in letting 5 year-olds by themselves in any area full of homeless people and mentally unstable people, and justify it with "most homeless people are just people in terrible situations".