I don't know how much of this is my-family-specific, but I wonder how much of this is kid-driven? I'd be ok with my 5yo leaving my street on his own, I'm confident he could make it down to the school playground (0.5 mi away) and back on his own. But he doesn't want to. He's not interested in going without me.
Three things that might be influencing this:
A) Since there are no other kids who can also go the the playground on their own, he might be less interested in going. I'm not sure how much this applies to my kid, specifically. He's not big on playing with other kids.
B) My kid prefers to play with me. I think this is partially that he's in daycare all week, so he gets lots time with other kids and relatively little time with me, so he doesn't want to go off on his own
C) My wife has a much lower distance tolerance than I do. Maybe he's responding to that?
I don't know how you would phrase the question, but if I were to do a follow-up, I'd try to gather data on "how far do you want to go" or maybe "how far do you think it's reasonable that you be allowed to go".
I don't want to distract from the main issue here, but I couldn't help feeling that the entire "I am tired" section applies to so many issues. Very similar to your "Hopelessness" article. It just feels like there are so many good ideas, so much truth available, yet the bad ideas and the lies spread more easily and are more sticky. I am tired too.
The whole time I was reading this, I just kept thinking of the Free Range Kids movement, which gave me the emotional support to let my children wander. They didn't get cellphones until age 14. So wander without phones.
That aside, it's an important point to note explicitly that restricting children's free movement is not helping AND is actively harming AND our culture thinks they are good for doing it.
That being said, another relevant factor is that adults in 1960s US also spent far less capital and attention on safety for themselves.
As per ChatGPT statistics (may contain hallucinations), sexual harassment in the workplace was more common, racial violence against blacks was more common, drunk driving was more common, leaded gasoline erased IQ of an entire generation, asbestos was common, construction sites had less regulation and so on.
US is richer today so they can spend their excess resources on safety.
Even in India today (where I live), I think there is clear class difference where more wealthy people spend more on safety.
These same people, who claim their smothering conduct is making kids safer, will point to those very gun violence statistics as justification to ratchet up restrictions even further. It's maddening.
I think it's become socially impossible to say that anything has gotten better.
Speaking of impossible burdens on adults, I'm horrified to see a lot of parents in Fantasy Faction (a major facebook group for SFF) who feel the need to read and vet books for their children.
A lot of "fantasy" books these days have rather explicit sex scenes. Some people are sensitive about that kind of thing.
(I also know of at least one author who has portrayed a sexual relationship between a fourteen year old and a thirty-five year old and argued that society is wrong to condemn said relationship.)
They do, but it seems like a lot of adults don't want their kids to know about sex (including that many people enjoy it) until age 15? 18? I'm not sure when.
I also wonder how much of tha t is also wanting to screen the books for racism and sexism of the kind that was blatantly obvious in the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs and much less obvious in the works written in the 1950s and 1960s, such as "A Spell For Chameleon" by Piers Anthony or "Farnham's Freehold" by Robert A. Heinlein.
I don't know how much of this is my-family-specific, but I wonder how much of this is kid-driven? I'd be ok with my 5yo leaving my street on his own, I'm confident he could make it down to the school playground (0.5 mi away) and back on his own. But he doesn't want to. He's not interested in going without me.
Three things that might be influencing this:
A) Since there are no other kids who can also go the the playground on their own, he might be less interested in going. I'm not sure how much this applies to my kid, specifically. He's not big on playing with other kids.
B) My kid prefers to play with me. I think this is partially that he's in daycare all week, so he gets lots time with other kids and relatively little time with me, so he doesn't want to go off on his own
C) My wife has a much lower distance tolerance than I do. Maybe he's responding to that?
I don't know how you would phrase the question, but if I were to do a follow-up, I'd try to gather data on "how far do you want to go" or maybe "how far do you think it's reasonable that you be allowed to go".
See also: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Hoh6umyMWSqzPGMJZ/social-behavior-curves-equilibria-and-radicalism
I don't want to distract from the main issue here, but I couldn't help feeling that the entire "I am tired" section applies to so many issues. Very similar to your "Hopelessness" article. It just feels like there are so many good ideas, so much truth available, yet the bad ideas and the lies spread more easily and are more sticky. I am tired too.
The whole time I was reading this, I just kept thinking of the Free Range Kids movement, which gave me the emotional support to let my children wander. They didn't get cellphones until age 14. So wander without phones.
That aside, it's an important point to note explicitly that restricting children's free movement is not helping AND is actively harming AND our culture thinks they are good for doing it.
I strongly agree with your core point.
That being said, another relevant factor is that adults in 1960s US also spent far less capital and attention on safety for themselves.
As per ChatGPT statistics (may contain hallucinations), sexual harassment in the workplace was more common, racial violence against blacks was more common, drunk driving was more common, leaded gasoline erased IQ of an entire generation, asbestos was common, construction sites had less regulation and so on.
US is richer today so they can spend their excess resources on safety.
Even in India today (where I live), I think there is clear class difference where more wealthy people spend more on safety.
Hard times, weak men, something something
These same people, who claim their smothering conduct is making kids safer, will point to those very gun violence statistics as justification to ratchet up restrictions even further. It's maddening.
I think it's become socially impossible to say that anything has gotten better.
Speaking of impossible burdens on adults, I'm horrified to see a lot of parents in Fantasy Faction (a major facebook group for SFF) who feel the need to read and vet books for their children.
A lot of "fantasy" books these days have rather explicit sex scenes. Some people are sensitive about that kind of thing.
(I also know of at least one author who has portrayed a sexual relationship between a fourteen year old and a thirty-five year old and argued that society is wrong to condemn said relationship.)
They do, but it seems like a lot of adults don't want their kids to know about sex (including that many people enjoy it) until age 15? 18? I'm not sure when.
I also wonder how much of tha t is also wanting to screen the books for racism and sexism of the kind that was blatantly obvious in the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs and much less obvious in the works written in the 1950s and 1960s, such as "A Spell For Chameleon" by Piers Anthony or "Farnham's Freehold" by Robert A. Heinlein.