> ...we asked parents what they thought would happen if two 10-year-olds played in a local park without adults around. Sixty percent thought the children would likely get injured. Half thought they would likely get abducted.
During summer vacation when I was 10 (early 90s) I'd leave the house in the morning and head down to the local park to play basketball or roam the neighborhood with the other kids. We'd ride our bikes to wherever we wanted, and aside from stopping back to eat lunch and dinner, I'd be out until the streetlights went on. I don't recall any major injuries, aside from getting scraped or bumped up from time to time.
I guess I'm about your age, and I remember doing much of the same. Lots of time on my bike with friends, playing hockey or football in the street, "manhunt" at night around the neighborhood (we were too cool to call it hide-and-seek at that age). But I also remember playing video games indoors, and my mother reminding us about how her mother kicked her out of the house when she was young, and how they were outside until the streetlights came on.
Today, I hear a lot of complaining about kids being inside all the time as opposed to prior generations. However, this is anecdotal and maybe my neighborhood is unique, I always see kids out on bikes with basketballs, fishing rods, etc. We are slowly letting our kid on their bike around the neighborhood with friends, and my big fear is getting hit by a car, especially while in a group and everyone pays less attention.
Me too. One thing I noticed in the 2000s was kids being more and more restricted and then they started getting drivers licenses later, living with their parents after college, etc. It felt as if parents thought that when their kid turned 18, that they would magically mature and become independent. Of course this is a process, and you can start it at 7 or you can start it at 18…
On a happy note, we were out eating at a cafeteria type restaurant, but we were sitting outside sort of picnicing about a 3 minute walk away. My son wanted another slice of pizza, but I didn’t really want to go inside and get it for him, so I decided to give him some money and let him get it himself. He came back with the slice of pizza on a plate, on a tray, with the right change and absolutely beaming and he talked about it for days.
The US is seeming more bonkers day after day. These sorts of stories just don't make sense to me. We have issues in Ireland with children and teenagers going around engaging in anti-social behaviour but there is a balance to be found between these two extremes.
It's unfortunately very American. Build the entire environment for cars, with very little if any thought for pedestrians, and then put the parents in prison for letting their kids walk a few blocks home, while the driver of the enormous SUV that kills a child has no charges brought against them. We've entirely lost the plot here.
No, I read the article before I posted. The driver was not charged. There are plenty of articles that mention it, but here is from one of the top links on Google:
"The driver was not charged in the case, but both of Legend’s parents, Sameule and Jessica Jenkins, were charged with felony involuntary manslaughter and child neglect."
1) The US was rebuilt after WW2 to be highly car-centric, with disastrous results for pedestrian safety. It is actually more dangerous for children to move in public because of this automobile centricity in >95% of US spaces, which drives cultural shifts
2) US media is highly sensationalist; Fox News is popular and generally serves to make viewers frightened of the world
3) The US has 340M people to Ireland’s 5.6M people, so from a base rate, we’d expect ~60x more lurid headlines to come out of the US
I encounter similar sentiments constantly across the internet. One thing we as humans have a lot of trouble with is understanding the scope of experience that isn't commented on in public forums. When we consider comments on the internet to be a representative sample of reality, we get a very warped view of what might happen to us when we step out the door. This paranoia and anxiety is evident in the proliferation of surveillance technologies, etc., and is completely contrary to the obvious decline in crime rates pretty much everywhere.
At 7 years old my parents would leave for work before I had to go to school, so I had to eat breakfast, dress myself and go to school, locking the door behind me - the walk was across few busy streets which I was told how to cross. Then I would come back before they were home so likewise, I had to let myself in and just wait for them to come back.
I think nowadays if I did that with my son I would have child services called on me.
I can't tell if you are advocating for that to still be common. Regardless, I just want to point out the survivor bias in anyone saying this should still be done based on stories like this one. The children in similar circumstances who were killed aren't here to talk about it. (Not trying to be rude)
Survivor bias is not as powerful an effect as the HN contrarians who always bring it up seem to think. Here's an example of why: Each kid reports not only their own experience, but also those of the people they know. Kids with active social lives grow up knowing 20~100 other kids. The death of a friend is a memorable event. There's no world in which kids were dying a lot from playing outside but we just never hear their perspectives, because in that world, every surviving kid would be talking about their three or four childhood friends who all died from lethal accidents on the playground or crossing the street.
Those things did happen and still do, but they were rare and impactful occurrences that had lasting influence on the lives of the people in the victims' social circles. If anything, each one will have been overrepresented in the self-reported stories of random commenters.
That story was much more common than ever hearing about anyone in school that got run over crossing a street.
Pearl clutching story incoming.
My elementary school was located on an "island", so you always had to cross a street to get to it walking. We also had a "Safety Patrol" program. 5th graders (10-11 y/o), and soon to be 5th graders, could take a street Safety/rules test and scoring a 100 got you in the program as a "trainee". The trainees would go through a before school program to learn all the things to do to cross a street, plus other walking road rules (when/how etc). We also did things like putting the flag up on the main flag pole and taking it down/folding it each day and some other duties (mostly by sergeants, who were also subs for corner crossing). We had to be at school about 2 hours before it started and ~2 hours after ended.
Once we got through training we were assigned to one of the schools 4 street corners where there was 2-3 other 5th grade safety patrolers (maybe a 4th/5th grade trainee) and a 5th grader lieutenant who was the main one responsible for proper safety on that one corner. As in, our job was to help other kids walking to school cross the street properly, they were to wait until we walked out across the street and escorted them across. Which they did or were reported and got in trouble. There are no adults anywhere at this point except for the occasional drive by check from the adult in charge of the program. The main supervisor was a 5th grader Safety Patrol Captain that made the rounds between the 4 corners making sure all was well.
I ended the year as a lieutenant. There was not a single child run over by a car; seeing a parent that walked their kid to the corner where we picked them up to escort across was a rare sight.
In the 80’s I’d take the train to another (nearby) city to hang out with my friends, no cell phones, or many for pay phones for that matter, this was at age 11-12. No issue, my parents weren’t worried. I did have an accident once on my bike while in another city and someone picked me up off the street, took me to the hospital and called my parents. Was no big deal.
I had a similar experience and sadly the culture seemed to shift during the 90s so that children were stripped of most of their autonomy. Having not experienced it themselves, many struggle to even imagine the possibilities or benefits.
I will also mention I experienced periods of absolutely crushing boredom at times during the summer when I did not have friends or parents around and had nothing to do but watch daytime television. But I learned from the boredom. It is sad to me that so many today are instead being fed from the drip of constant personalized entertainment that makes it harder to get to the place of complete boredom that ultimately can spark creativity instead of succumbing to learned helplessness.
That list is totally not cherry picked to serve a very specific agenda (/s). Actual safety for regular citizens is affected by events that are occurring today (instead of decades ago), as the result of actions by individuals (rather than state-sanctioned violence). As such, the grandparent is 100% correct: letting violent people into your country will raise the overal level of violence that people encounter.
Violent crime by all measures are at generational lows. It's just the truth.
I was being hyperbolic because OP was being ridiculous too. To say "your country opened the doors to rapists and violent murderers" is a very specific right wing scare mongering talking point that is easily debunked by any semi-serious human that can read an x,y plot of the data.
Also, events that are occurring today indeed are interdependent with events of the past [1] -- the crimes of genocide and slavery affect all humans that descend from it [2], and those humans interact with all of us in the here and now. And we are all of course affected by events that are occurring today. Both are true.
It's not that hard to see when you open your mind and look a little deeply. Or in the words of a great sage, "free your mind and your ass will follow". [3]
Are there any human tribes around that haven't at one point or another experienced a negative event at the hands of others?
What should we all be given, and more importantly by whom, just to make up for the endless parade of historic injustices? Does dwelling on them for all eternity make for a good future?
Acknowledging is not the same as dwelling. We must acknowledge because it is reality and it is our duty to look reality in it's face. And because it is a reality that others in this present day experience the effects of, it affects all of us.
By acknowledging and understanding the suffering of others, we touch the suffering within ourselves, and vice versa. As my meditation teacher [1] often says in closing, "just as the right hand helps the left without thinking "I'm helping other", when we sincerely take care of others, we take care of ourselves. When we sincerely take care of ourselves, we take care of others".
It's your reality. _You_ choose to dwell on racial issues. _You_ dedicate your life to "correcting" people, and break in on discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with race, just so you can slap them in the face with a "WHITE MAN BAD!". That is a delusion, and the rest of us have absolutely no "duty" to go along with it.
Buddhism, above anything else, teaches to let go, to _not_ get stuck in the temporary sorrows of the earthly plane. If anything, you should have learned that it doesn't matter, and to not make it the core of your identity.
You blame the White man for genocide, but conveniently leave out that much of that 'genocide' was caused by disease, long before anyone even knew what caused it. You also conveniently ignore that the native Americans happily waged war on each other whenever they had the chance.
You blame the White man for slavery, but conveniently leave out that absolutely everyone practiced slavery, and that it was the White man who abolished it. You also conveniently leave out that more slaves are kept in just India _today_ than were taken by all European nations throughout history.
You blame the White man for lynching, but conveniently leave out that 'necklacing' is practiced today, in South Africa, on White people. Your viewpoint is extremely one-sided, and always to the detriment of a single race.
I can go on, but I think you can see my point: you assign blame to a single race, and are blind to the reality that nobody here are angels. You scapegoat one group based on their skin color, while willfully ignoring that pretty much everybody did the worst they could, whenever they had the opportunity.
If you'll inspect the names of the posters, you will quickly realize that it was not _my_ claim. I'm also not quite certain how a list of centuries-old atrocities serves as an 'evidence-based counter' to the claim that illegal immigrants in modern America have a high crime rate. If that was indeed fabricated, it could be trivially disproved by posting a link to a current-day statistical database.
Instead he tried his best to make this about race. At best that is whataboutism, and at worst he's just a racist f*ck.
Literally nothing ? because statistically speaking they virtually all survived. And of the ones that did not survive the extreme vast majority didn't die because they were "playing outside"
I completely agree. That said when I was a kid there was always a kid in class with a cast or a sling for their collar bone, and these days you hardly ever see it.
And just what percentage of kids who played outside in the late '80s/early '90s do you think were seriously injured or abducted?
Because whatever you think it is, that's probably much too high. Because it almost never happened. There were a very few highly-publicized cases of children disappearing (eg, JonBenet Ramsey, or in my area Sarah Ann Wood), but a) those were always incredibly rare, and b) such occurrences have been getting steadily rarer for many decades.
> What would not be survivor bias is you telling us what happened to the kids around you.
Oh they all died because adults weren't around.
No but seriously, everyone was fine. Kids died drunk driving in high school, but not playing soccer at the local park.
Edit: I misremembered. The kid I'm thinking of who died drunk driving got into that accident our sophomore year of college. So he would have been around 19 or 20 at the time.
Guessing you were not a 10-ish year old kid in the early 90s. I had the same experience as the OP and it was very common. I've talked to numerous parents my age who have lamented that we can't let our kids have the same childhood we enjoyed.
> But most of the children in our survey said that they aren’t allowed to be out in public at all without an adult. Fewer than half of the 8- and 9-year-olds have gone down a grocery-store aisle alone; more than a quarter aren’t allowed to play unsupervised even in their own front yard.
This is probably a uniquely US problem because after we moved to Europe, we noticed that we see kids without their parents nearby all the time. But, this does not automatically imply that children here spend less time on their phones, we often talk with other parents about it and almost everyone thinks that their kids have too much screen time.
> Since the 1980s, parents have grown more and more afraid that unsupervised time will expose their kids to physical or emotional harm. In another recent Harris Poll, we asked parents what they thought would happen if two 10-year-olds played in a local park without adults around. Sixty percent thought the children would likely get injured. Half thought they would likely get abducted.
> These intuitions don’t even begin to resemble reality. According to Warwick Cairns, the author of How to Live Dangerously, kidnapping in the United States is so rare that a child would have to be outside unsupervised for, on average, 750,000 years before being snatched by a stranger.
I wonder how we ended up in a situation where people think Stranger Danger is this bad. Is it just from TV and the internet inflating the danger to drive views/clicks?
In many areas crime has been trending down but people seem to think things are more dangerous than ever, in general. It baffles me.
I've heard a few things on this. One is that there were a few high profile but very bad cases in the 80s, kids getting kidnapped and trafficked with law enforcement not really willing to even look into it. The odds are infinitesimal, but the cost of the negative outcome is very, very high. Second is kids getting run over by cars. Comparatively that happens all the time. Third is a general breakdown of social connection with people in your neighborhood.
When I was a kid in the 90s, I knew multiple kids who were severely injured by cars. For whatever reason, this did not seem to have any impact on my mother's parenting and no new limits were placed on my freedom as a result. For the record though, one of the kids I knew who was hit was leaving the property of their school with plenty of adult supervision around at the time of the collision (and received a large settlement from the school).
Adam Walsh was 7yo and abducted from a Sears. His parents left him to play Atari while they shopped.
They made a movie about it in 1983. Politicians introduced new laws around it.
His father John Walsh went on to host Americas Most Wanted on TV for 24 seasons. Prime time TV whipped up a culture of fear for that entire generation.
Kids growing up with that culture are parents now. Not surprised to see these results.
Children are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by family members and trusted friends than strangers. We don't like to think about that though, so we redirect our fears to stranger danger.
> But is it possible that part of the reason crime is down is because of Stranger Danger?
Yes. This is a really soft question. Sure, part of the reason that crime is down could possibly be due to stranger danger.
On the flip side, over-parenting has negative consequences on kids who have no freedom. I believe the same poll had said that most kids had never walked down a grocery store aisle by themselves and weren't allowed to play outside in front of their house w/o a parent.
I reckon there's also a feedback loop where places have fewer kids running around for these reasons so you don't want to be among the first to release your kids there especially as a new parent.
Compared to moving in to a place that already has kids running around doing things.
There are 300 kid abductions per year in the US, more or less the same amount of people who got struck by lightning or the same about of kids who drown in swimming pool. I don't see any hysteria around two of these topics though
Is that 300 kid abductions by strangers? Because just based on the amber alerts that I get where the police suspect a parent that number can not possibly be correct if not.
My son recently had to get rabies shots. Well, that was the recommendation because there was a bat in the sleeping quarters of his camp. The probability that the bat had rabies is vanishingly small. Just like the probability that the bat bit him with no marks.
But, you read about rabies (no cure, horrible death), and even if it is a 1-10 million chance and you can do something about it — well, he got the shot (over my protest!).
I think this is similar — child abducted and god knows what happens to them? And it’s your fault as a parent for not supervising? Even a 1-in-10 million chance seems like too much.
It’s not rational, but I think that’s the psychology. It is countered by mentioning the side effects of the vaccine —in this case, identifying the potential harms of over-supervision.
I get a similar response when talking with other parents about allowing phones in school. We know that there are 130k+ schools in the US, and that a school shooting is statistically very, very small, however they still want to have a way for their children to contact them (or for them to contact their kids) if this happens. The mothers, in particular, all agree on this in my circle.
> The probability that the bat had rabies is vanishingly small.
Not really, it's something like 5%. Usually if the bat can be captured and tested for rabies you can wait to get the vaccine, but if the bat couldn't be caught, it makes sense to vaccinate just in case.
I don't understand why you would want to take a chance on rabies. What are the side effects of the vaccine that are so harmful?
I don't get it either, especially because I don't know any parents who act like this. All the kids in my neighborhood just roam around, including mine.
I wonder if this is another coastal/inland, liberal/conservative rift where the conservatives are for some reason afraid of everything.
Our experience of Seattle, conservative hotbed that it is, is that everything is as described in the article. We've been discussing moving somewhere else for this exact reason. Doesn't matter if we would let our kid out if there's no one to play with.
Live in the Carolinas. All of the neighborhood kids play together outside every afternoon. The teenagers are all too busy to loiter around because they're so involved in sports.
Maybe it's yet another Berkeley bubble. Kids' independence is pretty much taken for granted here. Nobody would bat an eye at a 10-year-old wandering around in the grocery store. There's a playground at the marina that is built by and continually remodeled by children (there is some overall supervision there of course).
Reporting from the conservative stronghold of the inner DC suburbs, kids are generally not allowed to wander unsupervised until they are in high school.
In my experience, kids have very little unscheduled/unsupervised time in more liberal areas, but I think that has little to nothing to do with political leanings and much more to do with parental expectations and availability of disposable income and leisure time.
Maybe you should try viewing things outside of a political lens, especially one where the other side is unexplainably but unquestionably wrong by default, and see how things look.
Well, I haven't observed that. Research this century has tended to suggest that conservatism is associated with physiological hyper-fixation on negative stimuli. E.g. Carraro L, Castelli L, Macchiella C. The automatic conservative: ideology-based attentional asymmetries in the processing of valenced information. PLoS One. 2011
It might be a correlation to city size. Big cities in the US skew overwhelmingly liberal/left, and big cities are the place where trust between strangers, neighbors etc. tends to be very low.
People probably feel safer to let their kids go outside if the local drug-and-homeless community is small or nonexistent.
Yep. It's the liberals who are taking over school boards to restrict book access because their precious little snowflakes might learn something outside the strict bounds of what they are allowed to know and understand. Could you imagine the absolute travesty it would be if little Billy knew that gay people existed and were actually just people?! Preposterous!
I think it might be less about left/right and more about suburban and car culture vs. urban or rural. People living in the suburbs tend to drive everywhere anyway and perceive things outside of the car as dangerous.
The whole stranger danger thing in my view as an adult feels like a downward spiral. It's not like this in many countries.
In the UK it's kind of like - kids don't wander about alone because they might run into baddies, and now adults are afraid to interact with kids because they might be seen as a baddy, and this kind of loops around until no-one is interacting.
Basically, it's like any adult man is seen as a potential child predator, when in reality it's some tiny tiny fraction and in an ideal world we would be able to assume that they get sectioned / locked up quickly so we don't have to worry about it.
Meanwhile I can travel around many parts of Asia, for example, and parents and children alike have no issue interacting with strangers.
I was at a gathering of distant relatives I had never met before. I struck up a conversation with the 15-year old daughter of a cousin whose aunt came running on up with a stern look on her face that made me feel like she thought I was a child molester.
That this was a family gathering I was invited to for honoring my close relative who passed away just made me very sad.
Unfortunately it's not a tiny, tiny fraction. I thought this too once then looked up the stats.
It's horrifying when you find out. It's 1 in 20 children get sexually abused in the UK at the moment for example, and we have loads of checks and safe guards.
And waiting until they get sectioned/locked up, that means someone else has to suffer potentially life-long trauma.
In the UK, about 5% of children have been sexually abused. Nobody wants to risk that happening to their children and it's mostly perpetrated by people known to the children, so trust is understandably at an all time low.
Right, but parents don't trust anyone in the community, so stranger danger teaches kids to avoid any adults outside the immediate family and it's not unwarranted. For every Madeline McCann, there are literally millions of children abused.
now adults are afraid to interact with kids because they might be seen as a baddy
This only applies to men though, as if all men are predators by default. There are cases where a single adult man was refused entry into a park, mom calling the cops on a single adult man in a park who was minding his own business etc. As you pointed out, this doesn't seem like an issue in Asia, at least not yet.
No wonder men do not want to become teachers. Why risk your freedom, reputation?
I'd blame the media (especially right wing media) whose entire business model is fear mongering about everything/everyone
Anyone know when this all changed? At the age of 5 I used to walk to school alone without me or my parents worrying. That would have been about 1958/9.
It became a thing with advertisements and the evening news prompting parents "Do you know where your children are?" from the late 60s to the 90s. It became the mission of television news and similar to make parents afraid because fear gets attention so horror stories about abducted and abused children were everywhere which resulted in the current situation in America.
My theory is that it has something to do with infant mortality and family size. Kids are seen as more precious now, so they are protected from every possible danger.
This is probably quite negative for the kids though.
Depends on the country, I was in eastern europe over winter and there were kids sledging by themselves between buildings, on the local hill, &c. some weren't much older than 5. That was in the second largest city of the country, not some small village where people know everyone.
I started walking to school at age 7 in the mid 80s. Granted it was only three blocks and there was a crossing guard for the busy street. At my kids school there’s a crossing guard too, but you hardly ever see a kid crossing without their parent. Maybe a 6th grader.
Worth considering how car-centric America is. An 8-year-old is unlikely to have access to a grocery store to which they can independently travel. Once they're at the store with a parent, they'll just travel the aisles together. It's not as though many young children have the funds to make purchasing decisions, anyway.
Note that they're talking about an aisle alone, not about going to the grocery store alone. My kids were older than 8 the first time they walked to the grocery store by themselves, but I'm confident that I told them "you go grab the peanut butter you like" while I was grabbing something in a different aisle when they were around kindergarten age.
Can't speak for others, but my 3yr old has definitely gone done an aisle alone. Much to my dismay, but alas, it did happen. These are the things that happen when you don't put your kid in carts and strollers all the time.
It also has the added benefit that he interacts with a lot of strangers while we're about 10ft away. It's good for him to learn that people are usually good.
“What kids told us about how to get off cigarettes”
While I agree there’s a problem with how helicopter-y society is with kids these days, I think it’s ridiculous to expect kids to resist a device that is designed to be addictive. Teams of tens of thousands of the most highly skilled people in the world are laser focused on squeezing every second of attention out of _adults_ let alone kids. We need regulation, full stop. I don’t know what that looks like, but if you’ve ever seen a toddler scrolling TikTok like a zombie you should know what’s at stake.
"always available and will cater to a child’s every whim. But AI will never fulfill children’s deepest desires."
I'm pretty sure it will be able satisfy almost every desire. But I think there's quite a confusion about desire, even deep desire, and deep needs and what's ultimately good for us.
