Why Japanese Kids Can Walk to School Alone(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Why Japanese Kids Can Walk to School Alone
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/why-japanese-kids-can-walk-to-school-alone/408475/?single_page=true
105 comments
Ah, thank you. I felt sure we'd had a big thread about it before, but couldn't find it earlier. Citylab is a project of the Atlantic, btw.
We've been seeing more of this cross-publishing lately, without links back to originals. I fear it will move the needle towards more dupes on HN (actual dupes, where we've already had a significant thread about the story in the last year or so).
We've been seeing more of this cross-publishing lately, without links back to originals. I fear it will move the needle towards more dupes on HN (actual dupes, where we've already had a significant thread about the story in the last year or so).
"Citylab is a project of the Atlantic"
Didn't know that - was surprised the author would have rights to resell his work, and in such a short timespan. That explains!
Didn't know that - was surprised the author would have rights to resell his work, and in such a short timespan. That explains!
Violent crime rates, including those against children, have continued to decline year over year in Western countries for a very long time now. It is now safer for children to be out alone at younger ages than ever before. The odd thing is that paranoia is at an all time high. Leaving a five-year-old unsupervised, even at home, is flirting with a visit from child protective services. There is less to protect children from than ever before, but parents are more protective than ever. It has reached the point that same are concerned that today's children aren't given enough freedom to experiment and fail.
This is not by choice. It is enforced by society and law. Consider what would happen if you sent a three-year-old out on an errand as is done in Japan. A child that age, alone on the street, will attract attention, primarily of the concerned and meddling kind. The child will be asked where their parents are and promptly returned to them. The parents will be chewed out for reckless child endangerment as a bare minimum.
While one can argue today's child-associated paranoia is a result of fear-mongering by the media, the real problem is that it's backed up by the law. Parents who are too trusting and permissive will soon find themselves in court. That has to change.
This is not by choice. It is enforced by society and law. Consider what would happen if you sent a three-year-old out on an errand as is done in Japan. A child that age, alone on the street, will attract attention, primarily of the concerned and meddling kind. The child will be asked where their parents are and promptly returned to them. The parents will be chewed out for reckless child endangerment as a bare minimum.
While one can argue today's child-associated paranoia is a result of fear-mongering by the media, the real problem is that it's backed up by the law. Parents who are too trusting and permissive will soon find themselves in court. That has to change.
> is flirting with a visit from child protective services.
No doubt. Co-worker let kids (probably 5-6 years old), play outside, in a cul-de-sac. While they were inside watching. Sure enough, anonymous neighbor called cops. CPS and cops got involved. Embarasing calls at work, monitoring from CPS (regular visits to "check" on them for a period of time), headaches, lost time.
Heck, the neighbor might have just not liked the color of their lawn and they knew that calling CPS and cops about kids will ensure maximum punishment for minimum risk to them ("Hey, I was just thinking about the safety of the children").
Once those in power act irrationally about anything. That will always be exploited. It was exploited many years ago in the Soviet Union. Neighbors would have spats about goats eating grass on the wrong side of the fence. Then one of them would denounce the others as "enemies of the people" and bam! family sent to Siberia in no time.
No doubt. Co-worker let kids (probably 5-6 years old), play outside, in a cul-de-sac. While they were inside watching. Sure enough, anonymous neighbor called cops. CPS and cops got involved. Embarasing calls at work, monitoring from CPS (regular visits to "check" on them for a period of time), headaches, lost time.
Heck, the neighbor might have just not liked the color of their lawn and they knew that calling CPS and cops about kids will ensure maximum punishment for minimum risk to them ("Hey, I was just thinking about the safety of the children").
Once those in power act irrationally about anything. That will always be exploited. It was exploited many years ago in the Soviet Union. Neighbors would have spats about goats eating grass on the wrong side of the fence. Then one of them would denounce the others as "enemies of the people" and bam! family sent to Siberia in no time.
I do not trust child protection services, they mean well but they overuse their power on a 'feeling' and worse, 'career advancement'.
My family was completely ripped apart and destroyed by the child protection services in the UK.
My family was completely ripped apart and destroyed by the child protection services in the UK.
> the neighbor might have just not liked the color of their lawn
Or maybe he was annoyed the the noise of kids playing outside. (I am not saying kids shouldn't play outside, just speculating on the motivation.)
Or maybe he was annoyed the the noise of kids playing outside. (I am not saying kids shouldn't play outside, just speculating on the motivation.)
When I hear stories like this I strongly feel we all should stop having children altogether.
The laws vary by jurisdiction. Many parents that I know believe it is illegal to leave a child alone if they are under 12. Maybe it is in some locations, but not where I live. In my state and town, there is no statutory definition of when a child can be left alone. However, there are explicit warning that negligent decisions can result in other charges.
And I think that is completely fair - some towns are safer than others, some children are more self sufficient than others, and every parent needs to make their own decisions. Hopefully educated and wise decisions.
And I think that is completely fair - some towns are safer than others, some children are more self sufficient than others, and every parent needs to make their own decisions. Hopefully educated and wise decisions.
We emigrated to the US when I was 6, and I started school a few days after our arrival. My parents were graduate students and we lived in a housing complex for foreign graduate students with families, but it would be more apt to call it a commune of sorts; it was extremely safe, collective, elaborately enclosed, and geographically separate both from campus and the rest of the town. I honestly can't imagine a safer place for kids. Every one of the 100+ residents had children, and there were lots of stay-at-home moms out in the backyard at pretty much all times.
The one thing that all foreigners could agree on, from dozens of nationalities around the globe, was that it was completely normal for a school-aged child to get home from school by themselves and spend the afternoon and/or early evening alone, calling on neighbours or others on hand if they needed help. Practically, many of these graduate students struggled to survive on tiny stipends, and took (sometimes not so legal) jobs to make ends meet. They also had to work harder than any American to try to have a chance of staying in America after their studies were complete.
Indiana state law and campus law enforcement did not take kindly to this. I was probably the only child of ex-Soviet extraction that was not at some point kidnapped by the university's security and turned over to an American foster family for two or three days while they sabre-rattled the parents with child neglect charges. These poor students had no money, no understanding of the US legal system, and they were helpless and scared. Many of them had to go through the "welcome to America, here's your middle finger!" experience. It was almost an established hazing ritual to be harassed by CPS/social services.
This harassment was a routine occurrence, and after a while, I learned that university security were not our friends, subconsciously souring me on police for life when I otherwise had no traumatic experiences on which to base that. They were always watching us, profiling us, trying to identify patterns such as seeing a child out after dark (which is like 4:30 PM in the winter in northern Indiana) routinely. Did they not have anything better to do? It was absolutely bewildering for almost all of the residents to learn that US state law considered it child neglect to leave a child unattended until age twelve; this would be unthinkable in most places around the globe.
The one thing that all foreigners could agree on, from dozens of nationalities around the globe, was that it was completely normal for a school-aged child to get home from school by themselves and spend the afternoon and/or early evening alone, calling on neighbours or others on hand if they needed help. Practically, many of these graduate students struggled to survive on tiny stipends, and took (sometimes not so legal) jobs to make ends meet. They also had to work harder than any American to try to have a chance of staying in America after their studies were complete.
Indiana state law and campus law enforcement did not take kindly to this. I was probably the only child of ex-Soviet extraction that was not at some point kidnapped by the university's security and turned over to an American foster family for two or three days while they sabre-rattled the parents with child neglect charges. These poor students had no money, no understanding of the US legal system, and they were helpless and scared. Many of them had to go through the "welcome to America, here's your middle finger!" experience. It was almost an established hazing ritual to be harassed by CPS/social services.
This harassment was a routine occurrence, and after a while, I learned that university security were not our friends, subconsciously souring me on police for life when I otherwise had no traumatic experiences on which to base that. They were always watching us, profiling us, trying to identify patterns such as seeing a child out after dark (which is like 4:30 PM in the winter in northern Indiana) routinely. Did they not have anything better to do? It was absolutely bewildering for almost all of the residents to learn that US state law considered it child neglect to leave a child unattended until age twelve; this would be unthinkable in most places around the globe.
I love being a parent. But I am beginning to intensely dislike other parents in my generation. I grew up with overprotective asian parents, but American millennial parents are a whole level of crazy above that.
According to free-range child advocate Lenore Skenazy, there are a little over 100 stranger abductions per year in the US. [1]. Therefore, abductions are a not a big deal.
According to Wikipedia, 100 years ago, there were about 100 lynchings per year in the US. [2] Therefore, lynching is a big deal.
I love this meme about the media. Quick question: for you, personally, when was the last time you saw a media story about an abducted child? When was the last time you saw a media story about paranoid helicopter parents, etc, repeating the ideas you see above? In my experience, the ratio is 1:10 if not 1:20.
There's a very straightforward reason why parents keep their kids indoors: the same parents, while outdoors, regularly encounter human beings that they wouldn't trust their kids around. Deinstitutionalization anyone? Free-range mental patients or free-range children: pick one. [3]
[1] http://www.freerangekids.com/over-700-children-are-abducted-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatric_institu...
According to Wikipedia, 100 years ago, there were about 100 lynchings per year in the US. [2] Therefore, lynching is a big deal.
I love this meme about the media. Quick question: for you, personally, when was the last time you saw a media story about an abducted child? When was the last time you saw a media story about paranoid helicopter parents, etc, repeating the ideas you see above? In my experience, the ratio is 1:10 if not 1:20.
There's a very straightforward reason why parents keep their kids indoors: the same parents, while outdoors, regularly encounter human beings that they wouldn't trust their kids around. Deinstitutionalization anyone? Free-range mental patients or free-range children: pick one. [3]
[1] http://www.freerangekids.com/over-700-children-are-abducted-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatric_institu...
> Deinstitutionalization anyone? Free-range mental patients
Perinatal mental illness is a significant cause of death of women - in the UK suicide is the third leading cause of perinatal death.
Many women experience mental illness during or after pregnancy. Ignorant, stigmatising views like yours about mental illness make it harder for women to seek help for their mental health problems.
And your wider point is wrong. There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children.
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/perinatal_web.pdf
Rates of perinatal mental health problems
post-partum psychosis is about 2 women per 1,000 maternities;
chronic serious MI is 2:1000;
severe depressive illness 30:1000;
mild-moderate depressive illness and anxiety state 100-150:1000;
PTSD 30:1000;
adjustment disorders and distress 150:1000
Perinatal mental illness is a significant cause of death of women - in the UK suicide is the third leading cause of perinatal death.
Many women experience mental illness during or after pregnancy. Ignorant, stigmatising views like yours about mental illness make it harder for women to seek help for their mental health problems.
And your wider point is wrong. There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children.
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/perinatal_web.pdf
Rates of perinatal mental health problems
post-partum psychosis is about 2 women per 1,000 maternities;
chronic serious MI is 2:1000;
severe depressive illness 30:1000;
mild-moderate depressive illness and anxiety state 100-150:1000;
PTSD 30:1000;
adjustment disorders and distress 150:1000
"And your wider point is wrong. There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children."
And yet I keep hearing about this need to prevent the mentally-ill from acquiring firearms. Is that just more ignorance? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your take on that.
And yet I keep hearing about this need to prevent the mentally-ill from acquiring firearms. Is that just more ignorance? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your take on that.
This is standard Risk Management stuff - the likelihood of causing damage may be low, but when you bring guns into play the magnitude of the potential damage is greatly increased. So the overall risk with guns, even with a low likelihood, is worth mitigating.
(I'm strongly against gun ownership by private citizens. I struggle with questions like these but I'll try.)
1) It's mostly ignorance. When we look at mass shooters we see histories of violence, or of drug and alcohol addiction, or sometimes mental illness. The drug and alcohol addictions and previous history of violence are better predictors of future violent behaviours.
2) Reducing access to means and methods is an important part of suicide prevention. People who complete suicide are more likely to have a mental health problem than the general population. Reducing access to guns would help those people. This does not need to be done through law. The taboo around suicide doesn't seem to stop people doing it, but does it does stop people seeking help. Ideally people would work together with their clinicians and carers to identify and ameliorate risk.
3) Some politicians seem to suggest that if you stop mentally ill people having guns you stop all mass shootings. That's clearly not true. You stop some of them. But when we talk about mental illness it's not clear what those politicians means. Do they mean serious, life long, psychotic style illness (rate about 2 people per 100)? Or the subset of that group who have command-hallucinations? Or do they mean everyone who's had a diagnosable mental illness? (Where diagnosable would be defined by DSM 5) - someone who was treated for depression two years ago? Someone with hoarding? Someone with OCD that was treated four years ago? It's odd to see people who are pro-gun using this argument, because their calling for about 1 in four people to be prevented from gun ownership. And not all mass-shooters use their own guns. Harper-Mercer (killed 9 people) used a mix of guns owned by him and his family; Lanza used guns bought by his mother.
4) Looking at mass shooters we see sometimes see failed checks: people with histories of violence are allowed to buy guns; people are prevented from buying some guns (eg rifles) but allowed to buy others (eg shotguns). Wong's background check took longer than 3 days, so he was allowed to buy a gun. He went on to kill 13 people.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-sh...
1) It's mostly ignorance. When we look at mass shooters we see histories of violence, or of drug and alcohol addiction, or sometimes mental illness. The drug and alcohol addictions and previous history of violence are better predictors of future violent behaviours.
2) Reducing access to means and methods is an important part of suicide prevention. People who complete suicide are more likely to have a mental health problem than the general population. Reducing access to guns would help those people. This does not need to be done through law. The taboo around suicide doesn't seem to stop people doing it, but does it does stop people seeking help. Ideally people would work together with their clinicians and carers to identify and ameliorate risk.
3) Some politicians seem to suggest that if you stop mentally ill people having guns you stop all mass shootings. That's clearly not true. You stop some of them. But when we talk about mental illness it's not clear what those politicians means. Do they mean serious, life long, psychotic style illness (rate about 2 people per 100)? Or the subset of that group who have command-hallucinations? Or do they mean everyone who's had a diagnosable mental illness? (Where diagnosable would be defined by DSM 5) - someone who was treated for depression two years ago? Someone with hoarding? Someone with OCD that was treated four years ago? It's odd to see people who are pro-gun using this argument, because their calling for about 1 in four people to be prevented from gun ownership. And not all mass-shooters use their own guns. Harper-Mercer (killed 9 people) used a mix of guns owned by him and his family; Lanza used guns bought by his mother.
4) Looking at mass shooters we see sometimes see failed checks: people with histories of violence are allowed to buy guns; people are prevented from buying some guns (eg rifles) but allowed to buy others (eg shotguns). Wong's background check took longer than 3 days, so he was allowed to buy a gun. He went on to kill 13 people.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-sh...
Yes it is ignorance. The mentally I'll are not violent at a greater rate than the general populace.
> There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children.
Of course not. The cause of helicopter parenting is irrational parents who perceive, obviously due to media stereotypes, that people with a mental illness cause a risk of harm to other people or to children.
I love you, Weimerica. Don't ever change.
Of course not. The cause of helicopter parenting is irrational parents who perceive, obviously due to media stereotypes, that people with a mental illness cause a risk of harm to other people or to children.
I love you, Weimerica. Don't ever change.
Please stop taking HN threads on ideological flamewar tangents. That's not what this site is for.
That said, I owe you an apology. I don't think my style in the thread above is good.
If I were moderating a site like HN, I think I'd have explicit guidelines for anyone wanting to present a perspective which is a minority view or in any way otherwise controversial.
My guidelines would recommend special care in keeping your presentation with a completely neutral tone and an absolute absence of snark.
And in particular, the poster should be explicitly informed that his or her opponents will not, cannot, and probably even should not be held to anything remotely like the same high bar. Because that's life, kid.
If I were moderating a site like HN, I think I'd have explicit guidelines for anyone wanting to present a perspective which is a minority view or in any way otherwise controversial.
My guidelines would recommend special care in keeping your presentation with a completely neutral tone and an absolute absence of snark.
And in particular, the poster should be explicitly informed that his or her opponents will not, cannot, and probably even should not be held to anything remotely like the same high bar. Because that's life, kid.
I largely agree, though perhaps not with the twist at the end.
In my opinion, someone with a contrarian view has an added responsibility: the responsibility of one who possesses more truth than others, since that is what having a minority view feels like (and maybe is). One has a duty to consider others' difficulty in hearing that truth. If you use the truth as a weapon, you trigger resistance and discredit it, which deprives others of it for longer. This harms them and sets back the cause of the truth, even while expressing it. The greater the truth, the more harm in that case.
When one knows one's view is unpopular there's a temptation to be pre-emptively defensive. One laces comments with snark, ridicules the conventional, and so on, as a way to flip the dullards the bird in advance, since you know they will reject your truth anyhow. It's like a Dostoevsky character who can't help tweaking the nose of the person he's talking to. Some even cultivate the art of packing as much snark into their language as possible, having given up on persuasion. I think it's fear of being rejected that causes it, plus a desire to show off: see what a contrarian I am.
What happens of course is that people react badly to being provoked, except for a few who identify with your side and join in the provoking. To us this feels like the dullards rejecting the truth; to them it feels like we're fanatics and assholes. Then we get a loop of anger and noise. Such discussions are all the same and learning is no longer possible.
The principle that the one who sees more (or thinks he does) has more responsibility is a way of keeping open a discussion in which people can still learn things and figure the truth out together. When one isn't up to this responsibility, maybe one should be silent until one is, not as a matter of censorship but of continence.
In my opinion, someone with a contrarian view has an added responsibility: the responsibility of one who possesses more truth than others, since that is what having a minority view feels like (and maybe is). One has a duty to consider others' difficulty in hearing that truth. If you use the truth as a weapon, you trigger resistance and discredit it, which deprives others of it for longer. This harms them and sets back the cause of the truth, even while expressing it. The greater the truth, the more harm in that case.
When one knows one's view is unpopular there's a temptation to be pre-emptively defensive. One laces comments with snark, ridicules the conventional, and so on, as a way to flip the dullards the bird in advance, since you know they will reject your truth anyhow. It's like a Dostoevsky character who can't help tweaking the nose of the person he's talking to. Some even cultivate the art of packing as much snark into their language as possible, having given up on persuasion. I think it's fear of being rejected that causes it, plus a desire to show off: see what a contrarian I am.
What happens of course is that people react badly to being provoked, except for a few who identify with your side and join in the provoking. To us this feels like the dullards rejecting the truth; to them it feels like we're fanatics and assholes. Then we get a loop of anger and noise. Such discussions are all the same and learning is no longer possible.
The principle that the one who sees more (or thinks he does) has more responsibility is a way of keeping open a discussion in which people can still learn things and figure the truth out together. When one isn't up to this responsibility, maybe one should be silent until one is, not as a matter of censorship but of continence.
From within, a monoculture is easily mistaken for an absence of ideology.
From outside, this thread looks like a set of mocking, contemptuous dismissals of anyone who doesn't agree with that ideological monoculture. Even without any dissenting thoughts, it remains a flamewar; just a flamewar with only one side. Perhaps I'm alone in finding that a little creepy.
From outside, this thread looks like a set of mocking, contemptuous dismissals of anyone who doesn't agree with that ideological monoculture. Even without any dissenting thoughts, it remains a flamewar; just a flamewar with only one side. Perhaps I'm alone in finding that a little creepy.
From outside, this thread looks like a set of mocking, contemptuous dismissals of anyone who doesn't agree with that ideological monoculture.
What's the evidence that causes you to believe that there is an "ideological monoculture"[1] here? I don't know how close to a majority it is, but I'd guess there are many people that would agree with you. I for example 'vouched' for your top comment in this thread, since I thought it was wrongly flagged. But I cringed when I saw your 'Weimerica', because that's just not a useful means of discourse, and will cause people to dismiss your earlier (worthwhile) content.
I'd guess that Dan's response to you came from the same sentiment: you started well, but then veered off into "sheeple" territory[2]. Consider: is he more likely to offer corrective advice on "tone" to people with ideas he wants to see more of, or to those whose ideas themselves are unwelcome? Rather than concluding that your ideas aren't welcome here, consider that the problem might simply be the tone.
[1] Speaking of monoculture, did you know that Dan isn't American? Happy Thanksgiving, Dan!
[2] Regardless of the aptness of the term, I find "sheeple" a reliable indicator of a failed argument.
What's the evidence that causes you to believe that there is an "ideological monoculture"[1] here? I don't know how close to a majority it is, but I'd guess there are many people that would agree with you. I for example 'vouched' for your top comment in this thread, since I thought it was wrongly flagged. But I cringed when I saw your 'Weimerica', because that's just not a useful means of discourse, and will cause people to dismiss your earlier (worthwhile) content.
I'd guess that Dan's response to you came from the same sentiment: you started well, but then veered off into "sheeple" territory[2]. Consider: is he more likely to offer corrective advice on "tone" to people with ideas he wants to see more of, or to those whose ideas themselves are unwelcome? Rather than concluding that your ideas aren't welcome here, consider that the problem might simply be the tone.
[1] Speaking of monoculture, did you know that Dan isn't American? Happy Thanksgiving, Dan!
[2] Regardless of the aptness of the term, I find "sheeple" a reliable indicator of a failed argument.
I guess I wouldn't define a silent perspective, whether majority or minority, as present in the conversation.
It is one phenomenon when everyone agrees. Probably everyone is right. When everyone who speaks agrees, and everyone who doesn't agree doesn't speak, that's quite a different pattern.
As I noted above, I agree: I think the problem is the tone. In combination with this pattern, of course.
(I should have just noted that it seems possible that the reason American parents find their children less safe in public is that they're right. Parents are worried about assaults and kidnapping. I couldn't find statistics on child assault and/or kidnapping, but the Japanese rape rate is roughly 27x (not 27%) lower than the American [1]. Given this fact, it's not immediately obvious why one should search for an additional cause of the disparity.)
Wherever our moderator is from, his perspective is an American perspective. This is an objective factual statement, like the fact that English is an Indo-European language. Probably in the same geographic region 100 years ago, there was a living pre-American intellectual tradition. But it hasn't existed since 1945 at the latest.
(The most concentrated remaining geographic locus of pre-American ideology is -- by no coincidence -- the subject of this article. Nippon Kaigi anyone? But I don't believe Dan is Japanese. And even Japan isn't exactly what it once was.)
[1] http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/Unite... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Kaigi
It is one phenomenon when everyone agrees. Probably everyone is right. When everyone who speaks agrees, and everyone who doesn't agree doesn't speak, that's quite a different pattern.
As I noted above, I agree: I think the problem is the tone. In combination with this pattern, of course.
(I should have just noted that it seems possible that the reason American parents find their children less safe in public is that they're right. Parents are worried about assaults and kidnapping. I couldn't find statistics on child assault and/or kidnapping, but the Japanese rape rate is roughly 27x (not 27%) lower than the American [1]. Given this fact, it's not immediately obvious why one should search for an additional cause of the disparity.)
Wherever our moderator is from, his perspective is an American perspective. This is an objective factual statement, like the fact that English is an Indo-European language. Probably in the same geographic region 100 years ago, there was a living pre-American intellectual tradition. But it hasn't existed since 1945 at the latest.
(The most concentrated remaining geographic locus of pre-American ideology is -- by no coincidence -- the subject of this article. Nippon Kaigi anyone? But I don't believe Dan is Japanese. And even Japan isn't exactly what it once was.)
[1] http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/Unite... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Kaigi
> since I thought it was wrongly flagged
You don't think the incoherence of the following posts proves the flaggers correct?
(Edit: are you saying happy thanks giving to me (not a mod) or dang (a mod)? Either way: Happy Thanksgiving!)
You don't think the incoherence of the following posts proves the flaggers correct?
(Edit: are you saying happy thanks giving to me (not a mod) or dang (a mod)? Either way: Happy Thanksgiving!)
> You don't think the incoherence of the following posts
> proves the flaggers correct?
I lack certainty, but I think the post I vouched for is still a useful addition to the conversation. Generally, I try to flag (and recently, unflag) individual posts rather than expected user behavior.
That said, I probably wouldn't have tried to recover it if I'd read the Weimerica comment first. The later posts have some oblique insights. I can why one might downvote them (I didn't), but (unless I missed something) they don't seem flagworthy.
> are you saying happy thanks giving to me (not a mod) or dang (a mod)?
I was saying Happy Thanksgiving to the moderator Dan Gackle, since Monday is the Thanksgiving holiday in Canada. I hoped this was clear since he's the author of the grandparent comment, but I suppose other Dan's can share the goodwill!
I lack certainty, but I think the post I vouched for is still a useful addition to the conversation. Generally, I try to flag (and recently, unflag) individual posts rather than expected user behavior.
That said, I probably wouldn't have tried to recover it if I'd read the Weimerica comment first. The later posts have some oblique insights. I can why one might downvote them (I didn't), but (unless I missed something) they don't seem flagworthy.
> are you saying happy thanks giving to me (not a mod) or dang (a mod)?
I was saying Happy Thanksgiving to the moderator Dan Gackle, since Monday is the Thanksgiving holiday in Canada. I hoped this was clear since he's the author of the grandparent comment, but I suppose other Dan's can share the goodwill!
Well, they're not exactly locking up people with mental problems and throwing away the key in Japan, either. They take the trains like anyone else, and yes that includes people talking loudly to themselves or occasionally shouting for no reason.
> Leaving a five-year-old unsupervised, even at home, is flirting with a visit from child protective services
Most accidents happen in the home. Most people do a poor job of making their home safe for infants. (EG look at the number of people in the UK who buy socket covers but who don't bolt their TVs to the wall)
Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "leave a 5 year old unsupervised" - does this mean "parent in the home but in different room"? Or "parent pops out to the local shop for half an hour"?
Because five year old children are far too young to be left unsupervised for anything over short lengths of time, and if a parent is regularly doing that they probably need a chat from child protection social services.
Most accidents happen in the home. Most people do a poor job of making their home safe for infants. (EG look at the number of people in the UK who buy socket covers but who don't bolt their TVs to the wall)
Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "leave a 5 year old unsupervised" - does this mean "parent in the home but in different room"? Or "parent pops out to the local shop for half an hour"?
Because five year old children are far too young to be left unsupervised for anything over short lengths of time, and if a parent is regularly doing that they probably need a chat from child protection social services.
A 5 year old child is old enough to go to a grocery store, buy stuff, and walk back home. I’ve done it, all my neighbors did it, and everyone I know has done it.
Kids being at home for an hour or 2 at that age is no issue either.
It’s not something special – everyone does it.
Kids being at home for an hour or 2 at that age is no issue either.
It’s not something special – everyone does it.
> A 5 year old child is old enough to go to a grocery store, buy stuff, and walk back home. I’ve done it, all my neighbors did it, and everyone I know has done it.
Depends on where the family lives, how far the grocery store is and on the kid maturity.
Please , don't make general statements like that. Some 5 y.o. are mature enough to do that, some aren't. I wouldn't let my kid go to the grocery store alone if I lived in a crime ridden ghetto with shootings everyday and prostitution+Joes on the corner of my house, and neither would you.
Depends on where the family lives, how far the grocery store is and on the kid maturity.
Please , don't make general statements like that. Some 5 y.o. are mature enough to do that, some aren't. I wouldn't let my kid go to the grocery store alone if I lived in a crime ridden ghetto with shootings everyday and prostitution+Joes on the corner of my house, and neither would you.
Well, if I could find a single district in my state where prostitution would be in residential areas, or where daily shootings happen, sure, I wouldn’t let kids out there either.
But that does not happen. We kids walked a kilometer or two to the library, stores, bakery, etc. Always. As far as I can remember. With like 10 we started taking the bus halfway across the city to sports clubs or stuff.
But that does not happen. We kids walked a kilometer or two to the library, stores, bakery, etc. Always. As far as I can remember. With like 10 we started taking the bus halfway across the city to sports clubs or stuff.
> It’s not something special – everyone does it.
That's my problem with your message ,because it is not true ,and it is not something that should be encouraged before it is made sure the environment in which the kid will evolve alone IS safe.
In fact, in my country, doing that can be used against parents in child neglect cases.
So no everyone does not do that and everyone should not do that.
That's my problem with your message ,because it is not true ,and it is not something that should be encouraged before it is made sure the environment in which the kid will evolve alone IS safe.
In fact, in my country, doing that can be used against parents in child neglect cases.
So no everyone does not do that and everyone should not do that.
In many civilized countries it is done.
Also, how do you suppose a child is going to go to school? Parents will be both at work already, how’s the kid going to go to primary school if not alone?
Also, how do you suppose a child is going to go to school? Parents will be both at work already, how’s the kid going to go to primary school if not alone?
The current cultural trend in the United States is essentially that its citizens are helpless and need the government to do everything for them and to protect them from themselves. ;-)
If two parents left for work and let their 6-year-old walk to school, they'd be risking serious legal trouble and/or the possible confiscation of their child by the government.
If two parents left for work and let their 6-year-old walk to school, they'd be risking serious legal trouble and/or the possible confiscation of their child by the government.
It’s effectively an impossibility to do it differently – kids have to walk to school, and have to take bike or public transit at age 10 to secondary school – often biking 20km in one direction, or using the bus halfway across the city.
Parents can’t afford to waste time (or money) taking their kids to school when those can go to school perfectly safe anyway.
So it makes sense that children age 10 would be able to use the bus and go into the city and buy stuff themselves.
Parents can’t afford to waste time (or money) taking their kids to school when those can go to school perfectly safe anyway.
So it makes sense that children age 10 would be able to use the bus and go into the city and buy stuff themselves.
I generally agree with you. When I was growing up we weren't this (over?)-protective. Culturally, it was a completely different world from today. :)
Anyway, in the United States, most school districts operate their own bus systems and, in most areas, these buses pick up and drop off the children very near to their house, if not right in front of their house.
Still, many children are driven directly to/from school each day by a parent. Most people that I know who do this have work schedules that are flexible enough to accommodate this.
Anyway, in the United States, most school districts operate their own bus systems and, in most areas, these buses pick up and drop off the children very near to their house, if not right in front of their house.
Still, many children are driven directly to/from school each day by a parent. Most people that I know who do this have work schedules that are flexible enough to accommodate this.
Your hyperbolic snark misses the fact that children are in fact helpless to defend themselves against abusive and neglectful parents, and thus the state needs to fill that role.
We agree that the state sometimes oversteps the role (one or two cases of children who walked to school being aggressively pursued by child protection social workers per year) but it's frustrating that you ignore the hundreds of deaths (4 per day) caused by abusive or neglectful parents, and the many thousands of deaths caused by carelessness.
In 2008 about 1,700 children died as a result of abuse or neglect.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/ca...
We agree that the state sometimes oversteps the role (one or two cases of children who walked to school being aggressively pursued by child protection social workers per year) but it's frustrating that you ignore the hundreds of deaths (4 per day) caused by abusive or neglectful parents, and the many thousands of deaths caused by carelessness.
In 2008 about 1,700 children died as a result of abuse or neglect.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/ca...
My apologies. I believe my intent was misinterpreted. I was not, in the slightest, commenting on the need for social services; I was commenting on the general cultural attitude that children need to be constantly coddled and, tangentially, that it is the state's job, not the parents', to ensure that the children arrive safely to school (e.g., via school buses).
Ah, okay. The German quota of child abuse per capita is over 3 times lower than the US quota, so it makes sense that you are more focused on that.
Still, children walking to school is not neglect. Children of age 10 walking and taking bus halfway across town is not neglect either.
Still, children walking to school is not neglect. Children of age 10 walking and taking bus halfway across town is not neglect either.
[deleted]
In the poorer parts of big cities it's not uncommon to see prostitutes on the same blocks as you'd find residential housing.
There are some major through-roads in my city where it's common to see prostitutes, and of course there are apartments and houses just off the main roads.
There are some major through-roads in my city where it's common to see prostitutes, and of course there are apartments and houses just off the main roads.
> A 5 year old child is old enough to go to a grocery store, buy stuff, and walk back home. I’ve done it, all my neighbors did it, and everyone I know has done it.
Where?
Where?
I live in Germany, but in the previous thread to this article we came to the conclusion that it’s the same in Finland, Germany, Japan, etc.
I was one of those kids. Grew up in a Southeast asian country. Shop snacks and stuff from grocery stories up to 5 blocks away from my house (blocks are about the same size as the ones in SF downtown). Beyond 5 blocks, my parents would not approve until I get to like 7 yrs.
Survivor bias.
Everyone I know – literally everyone – did this. Walk to the library, walk to the bakery, walk to school, etc. Often around a kilometer each direction.
From 5 on, as with 6 we had to walk to school for 1.4 kilometer, and back, so there was no alternative.
And with 10, when many kids go to secondary school, we have to use public transit to get to school anyway, so many kids started at that age to take bus/metro/etc to go to other places, too.
From 5 on, as with 6 we had to walk to school for 1.4 kilometer, and back, so there was no alternative.
And with 10, when many kids go to secondary school, we have to use public transit to get to school anyway, so many kids started at that age to take bus/metro/etc to go to other places, too.
I think DanBC is being sarcastic in suggesting that the only reason you think this is normal is that all the kids who died at 5 years old while going to the grocery store, are no longer around to provide a counterexample because they're dead.
But, maybe not. Poe's law rears its head once again.
But, maybe not. Poe's law rears its head once again.
Did "child protection social services" bear this child? Did they feed this child? Did then nourish with this child? Did they play with this child? Did they buy this child clothes?
Why should then we ever hear any kind of chatter from them?
Why should then we ever hear any kind of chatter from them?
Japanese? Kids all over the world walk to school alone. In places ranging from Spain to Singapore, including developing countries like Indonesia.
I was around 9 or 10 when I started riding public transport. Tons of kids my age on the bus too.
I was around 9 or 10 when I started riding public transport. Tons of kids my age on the bus too.
Right, this articles makes it appear as if Japan was the outlier but the truth is that the US is. I grew up in a mid-size town in Germany and all children went to school on their own starting from age 6. We spent the whole day playing outside roaming the city and surrounding forests and our parents did not care at all. It was completely normal. A year ago I moved to California and my wife and I were shocked to see how paranoid American parents are. We live in a perfectly calm and peaceful residential neighborhood but never see children play on the streets or in the park around the corner. Some people do not even allow their children to play in the garden because of germs and "dangerous" animals and whatnot.
> this articles makes it appear as if Japan was the outlier but the truth is that the US is
This is a typical U.S. center mentality. US is an outlier in many aspects in day-to-day life. And when American travels abroad they deem many difference they encountered as exotic things unique to that place. I heard an American tourist comment when an Italian restaurant heated the milk before serving her child - "what an interesting Italian tradition", well, people all over the world avoid giving their children milk of fridge temperature.
This is a typical U.S. center mentality. US is an outlier in many aspects in day-to-day life. And when American travels abroad they deem many difference they encountered as exotic things unique to that place. I heard an American tourist comment when an Italian restaurant heated the milk before serving her child - "what an interesting Italian tradition", well, people all over the world avoid giving their children milk of fridge temperature.
Heating milk for a baby on a stove in a pot of water is an ancient American trope in media, so perhaps you just ran into an individual idiot and made the mistake of extrapolating from a single case.
> this articles makes it appear as if Japan was the outlier but the truth is that the US is.
I think what makes Japan the outlier is their shockingly low violent crime rate, crime rate against children (abductions, etc) and one of the lowest drug use in first world countries.
I remember during the 80s, one of the big things being pushed for by politicians was a low crime rate and low drug use (same time D.A.R.E came into the world). Looks like Japan discovered that utopia. Japan certainly has it's cultural problems (which country doesn't?) but I'd love to have their problems instead of our own. It would be nice to be worrying about working 12 hour days instead of worrying about being shot on my way to work every day (last year, a bullet ricocheted of the concrete near me kicking up a piece or a rock which hit me in my leg, requiring stitches).
I think what makes Japan the outlier is their shockingly low violent crime rate, crime rate against children (abductions, etc) and one of the lowest drug use in first world countries.
I remember during the 80s, one of the big things being pushed for by politicians was a low crime rate and low drug use (same time D.A.R.E came into the world). Looks like Japan discovered that utopia. Japan certainly has it's cultural problems (which country doesn't?) but I'd love to have their problems instead of our own. It would be nice to be worrying about working 12 hour days instead of worrying about being shot on my way to work every day (last year, a bullet ricocheted of the concrete near me kicking up a piece or a rock which hit me in my leg, requiring stitches).
So you'd rather give up your free time (and freedom at work) rather than risk the incredibly unlikely possibility of being shot by a random stranger?
You're looking at this from a selfish, individualistic point of view.
I'm looking at society in general - I'm looking at the bigger picture. Japan completely eliminated shooting deaths via guns thanks to their ban on guns (source:http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-l...). They also have the lowest crime rate in the world. Orders of magnitude less than America's. In a way, it really is a utopia compared to what we're living in.
Would I trade some free time and a little freedom at work (both of which, are being addressed by Japanese companies and are "fixable" so they may only be a temporary problem) in order to save thousands of lives every single year, reduce the crime rate an order of magnitude, and make our country objectively safer and nicer? And also raise our quality of life (Japan is ranked higher on the "where-to-be-born" index) Why yes, yes I most certainly would.
I'm looking at society in general - I'm looking at the bigger picture. Japan completely eliminated shooting deaths via guns thanks to their ban on guns (source:http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-l...). They also have the lowest crime rate in the world. Orders of magnitude less than America's. In a way, it really is a utopia compared to what we're living in.
Would I trade some free time and a little freedom at work (both of which, are being addressed by Japanese companies and are "fixable" so they may only be a temporary problem) in order to save thousands of lives every single year, reduce the crime rate an order of magnitude, and make our country objectively safer and nicer? And also raise our quality of life (Japan is ranked higher on the "where-to-be-born" index) Why yes, yes I most certainly would.
And now look at Germany – we got the same results at Japan, but even improved life in every aspect for the average citizen compared to the US.
Even your list is missing the US and suggests that kids don't walk to school alone in the US. Distance was the only thing preventing me from walking to school alone as a kid, and I did bike home many days 4th-6th grades. The kids who lived close walked or biked almost every day from an even younger age, though the youngest would be accompanied.
>Even your list is missing the US and suggests that kids don't walk to school alone in the US.
Not 100% familiar with schools in the US, but in old movies you could see kids walking to school in all suburban settings -- up until the mid-nineties or so. That or school buses.
After that, in most movies there's a parent taking his kid(s) to school now (typically in a SUV), or the school bus.
Not 100% familiar with schools in the US, but in old movies you could see kids walking to school in all suburban settings -- up until the mid-nineties or so. That or school buses.
After that, in most movies there's a parent taking his kid(s) to school now (typically in a SUV), or the school bus.
Agreed. Netherlands here, definitely went to school, sports and friends by myself before age 10, not sure how you exactly. Can recall getting lost once for hours when I cycled back from a friend who lived about 30 minutes away from my home after declining their parents' offer to drive me home, but after an hour or two I found my way back. If I had to go somewhere that was far away from home that I'd never been before I'd usually be accompanied, but to cycle the same route to school or football practice every day with my parents beyond age 8 or so? No way.
This. This dumb article has just invented hot water. Seriously dont journalists do a bit of research before pushing posts?
I really wonder if the actual vs imagined crime rate against children has changed since I was a kid in the 60's. I rarely got driven to schools unless I took a bus. Often we walked or rode a bicycle. Perhaps it's related to more media coverage of crimes causing more fear and back in those days we had little understanding so we weren't worried.
I was mugged once walking on Halloween when I was 6-8 or so by a group of teenagers who took my candy and pushed me to the ground. They then continued to walk down the street (toward my house) and I ran home crying, told my dad, he confronted the teens, identified their parents (not sure how) and called them. In the end I got something of the candy back and I don't know what happened to the teens. I don't think I ever liked Halloween much after that experience.
I was mugged once walking on Halloween when I was 6-8 or so by a group of teenagers who took my candy and pushed me to the ground. They then continued to walk down the street (toward my house) and I ran home crying, told my dad, he confronted the teens, identified their parents (not sure how) and called them. In the end I got something of the candy back and I don't know what happened to the teens. I don't think I ever liked Halloween much after that experience.
> I really wonder if the actual vs imagined crime rate against children has changed since I was a kid in the 60's.
I'm not sure if the data exists for that period, but violent crimes against children in the US are declining sharply. Assault is down 33% between 2003 and 2011, rape down 43%. Matches up with the broader collapse in violent crime in the US.
Now you asked about the 60s, and for murder as a whole (other violent crime follows the same trend), the 30s and 80s were peaks, and the 60s and right now are valleys; if we assume violence against children tracks violence as a whole, it's probable that the the crime rate against children right now is roughly the same now as it was in the 60s (ie, tied for the lowest level since the great depression).
Conversely, I think it's pretty clear that the imagined crime rate (for everything, including children) is basically at an all time high. Polls routinely show that overwhelming majorities of people believe crime is getting worse, even as we settle in for another decade of collapsing crime rates.
So in short, while I'm not aware of any research that answers your question exactly, the answer is very clearly "yes".
I'm not sure if the data exists for that period, but violent crimes against children in the US are declining sharply. Assault is down 33% between 2003 and 2011, rape down 43%. Matches up with the broader collapse in violent crime in the US.
Now you asked about the 60s, and for murder as a whole (other violent crime follows the same trend), the 30s and 80s were peaks, and the 60s and right now are valleys; if we assume violence against children tracks violence as a whole, it's probable that the the crime rate against children right now is roughly the same now as it was in the 60s (ie, tied for the lowest level since the great depression).
Conversely, I think it's pretty clear that the imagined crime rate (for everything, including children) is basically at an all time high. Polls routinely show that overwhelming majorities of people believe crime is getting worse, even as we settle in for another decade of collapsing crime rates.
So in short, while I'm not aware of any research that answers your question exactly, the answer is very clearly "yes".
Go over to this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10365463 and see how many people are calling walking with cash dangerous and foolish. It is mostly imagined given the CDC stats. I was a kid in the 70's and both of us were in much more danger than a kid today.
Media has 24 hours to cover things today as opposed to an hour or two back in the day. We hear about everything today and ratings are made by scaring the crap out of us. Welcome to the shutin world for children.
Media has 24 hours to cover things today as opposed to an hour or two back in the day. We hear about everything today and ratings are made by scaring the crap out of us. Welcome to the shutin world for children.
I was definitely nervous when I sold my last car and was rolling around with $20k in my pocket. My brain knows the odds are very low, but my instinct knows the expected loss is very high.
Those kind of risk are hard to evaluate.
Those kind of risk are hard to evaluate.
It seems if you were selling a used car for $20k that you might have the forethought to request a cashier's check from a reputable bank. Easier in many ways than living with the terrible toll of worrying about walking around with 20k in your pocket...
In general checks cannot be trusted, no matter the bank it claims to be from.
Well coldcode & sliverstorm, I guess you don't have to visit the other thread to see what I was talking about. Its almost as if crime had gone up instead of way down since the 60's and 70's, or everyone is really confident everyone else can avail themselves of all the financial instruments a bank offers.
I’m now 19, I grew up in Germany, and I was never mugged or anything – there were some people who jumped in front of my bike to annoy me, but never actual muggings. Nothing of my stuff has ever been stolen.
And as kids, even just 5, we walked to the bakery and bought bread rolls for the family breakfast.
And as kids, even just 5, we walked to the bakery and bought bread rolls for the family breakfast.
+1 Its the same in Finland. Now my kids walk to school every day.
Obviously. Often kids start to have to walk to primary school here with 6, so they start to walk alone to library, bakery, etc with 5.
And when they start to have to use public transit to get to secondary school with 10 every day, it makes sense that they start by going shopping or similar places with 8/9 by bus/metro/etc.
And when they start to have to use public transit to get to secondary school with 10 every day, it makes sense that they start by going shopping or similar places with 8/9 by bus/metro/etc.
What's the furthest you reckon they walk?
I was driven to school, though I walked 250m to a neighbours house half the time for the lift. Walking to school would have taken over half an hour at a good, adult pace.
(The fear was probably traffic more than strangers.)
I was driven to school, though I walked 250m to a neighbours house half the time for the lift. Walking to school would have taken over half an hour at a good, adult pace.
(The fear was probably traffic more than strangers.)
My elementary school was 1.4km away, the nearest bakery was like 800m, the grocery store was next to the bakery, the library was next to the school.
From 10 on I had to go to a secondary school which was 4.5km away, so I usually used the bike, but walked sometimes. At that age I also started using the bus to get to the other side of the city, or to take the bike and go to a cinema 12km away with friends, etc.
We obviously had almost no traffic here – except for busses and bikes. And construction vehicles.
From 10 on I had to go to a secondary school which was 4.5km away, so I usually used the bike, but walked sometimes. At that age I also started using the bus to get to the other side of the city, or to take the bike and go to a cinema 12km away with friends, etc.
We obviously had almost no traffic here – except for busses and bikes. And construction vehicles.
[deleted]
Ah, getting mugged for your candy on Halloween - an annual tradition in my neighborhood.
"But small-scaled urban spaces and a culture of walking and transit use also foster safety and, perhaps just as important, the perception of safety."
I thought of this while I was watching the video. Japanese suburban fabric is much more compact, fine grain, mixed-use and more spatially coherent than North American equivelents. These contribute to the'eyes on a street'[1] condition in which neighborhood stores and residences look out onto public streets and reinforce communal saftey. The cul-de-sacs and degenerate grids of North American suburbs not only make walking incredibly inefficient[2], but also increase the isolation and community-orientation of the streets.
[1] Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities [2] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/10/bad-habits-of-north-a...
I thought of this while I was watching the video. Japanese suburban fabric is much more compact, fine grain, mixed-use and more spatially coherent than North American equivelents. These contribute to the'eyes on a street'[1] condition in which neighborhood stores and residences look out onto public streets and reinforce communal saftey. The cul-de-sacs and degenerate grids of North American suburbs not only make walking incredibly inefficient[2], but also increase the isolation and community-orientation of the streets.
[1] Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities [2] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/10/bad-habits-of-north-a...
A strong, homogenous culture solves public trust problems (which are special cases of the prisoner's dillema problem.)
Multiculturalism destroys social trust. America is the most culturally diverse western nation, ergo it has the lowest public trust. As America continues to diversify, and in as much as Europe does so, we can expect social trust to continue to decline.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam
Multiculturalism destroys social trust. America is the most culturally diverse western nation, ergo it has the lowest public trust. As America continues to diversify, and in as much as Europe does so, we can expect social trust to continue to decline.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam
Not true. Many more things in the anglo-saxon culture (GB, US, Canada, Australia) are trust-based - your signature is usually good as gold, unlike continental Europe which requires tons of affidavits, ceremonial seals, additional paperwork, etc.
All of the above anglo-saxon countries are multicultural. Continental Europe has been mostly homogeneous (until recently, but still).
All of the above anglo-saxon countries are multicultural. Continental Europe has been mostly homogeneous (until recently, but still).
> continental Europe which requires tons of affidavits, ceremonial seals, additional paperwork, etc.
Like what and like where, specifically? (Dutch here, can't really confirm or come up with examples that'd match that).
> All of the above anglo-saxon countries are multicultural. Continental Europe has been mostly homogeneous
The generalisations are too broad, putting say France in the same category as Poland makes no sense. Canada/US/Australia are of course in a diversity category of their own as de facto lands of immigrants (although that overstates diversity, I think. Dutch and British heritage in Canada is a pretty meaningless difference nowadays as a proxy of heterogeneity of society), but I feel GB's diversity is pretty similar to various European countries. It's hard to make exact comparisons due to different data points. It seems outside of the anglo-saxon world, most governments (urged by sociologists) have let go of defining demographics in terms of 'race' (whatever that means) or skin color, but rather based on ethnicity or heritage. So in GB you get things like white and black and asian (with the latter data often split into India/Pakistani) and in the Netherlands or France you'll get things like 'parents both French born, one parent foreign born, parents both foreign born', with all kinds of splits for nationality. It's hard to compare but I feel GB's multiculturalism is pretty similar to say France or the Netherlands just to take an example.
Like what and like where, specifically? (Dutch here, can't really confirm or come up with examples that'd match that).
> All of the above anglo-saxon countries are multicultural. Continental Europe has been mostly homogeneous
The generalisations are too broad, putting say France in the same category as Poland makes no sense. Canada/US/Australia are of course in a diversity category of their own as de facto lands of immigrants (although that overstates diversity, I think. Dutch and British heritage in Canada is a pretty meaningless difference nowadays as a proxy of heterogeneity of society), but I feel GB's diversity is pretty similar to various European countries. It's hard to make exact comparisons due to different data points. It seems outside of the anglo-saxon world, most governments (urged by sociologists) have let go of defining demographics in terms of 'race' (whatever that means) or skin color, but rather based on ethnicity or heritage. So in GB you get things like white and black and asian (with the latter data often split into India/Pakistani) and in the Netherlands or France you'll get things like 'parents both French born, one parent foreign born, parents both foreign born', with all kinds of splits for nationality. It's hard to compare but I feel GB's multiculturalism is pretty similar to say France or the Netherlands just to take an example.
Nothing to say on the culture issue, but what are your experiences of continental Europe?
This sounds more of a question how the bureaucracy works and its traditions.
Doctors putting fancy papers with ceremonial seals on their walls sounds like a US popular TV thing, for example. Do they really do that?
This sounds more of a question how the bureaucracy works and its traditions.
Doctors putting fancy papers with ceremonial seals on their walls sounds like a US popular TV thing, for example. Do they really do that?
The paranoia is commonly considered as a result of wider media coverage. Every single national and, often, international media covers most child abductions. This widening of coverage gives the, incorrect, impression that child abductions are on the rise. Statistics suggest they are falling rapidly in modern times. .. Citations are left as an exercise for the reader. Personally, I feel the lack of diligence on parents by parents in teaching children safety around roads is probably the last bastion of letting the little critters roam free. (Wait for the lights in all cases when with your children. Never walk behind cars, if in any way possible, stopped or moving.
i grew up in pasadena, ca in the 50s
when i was 5 i walked many blocks to kindergarten
in the first grade i took the public bus halfway across town and then walked a few blocks
someone offered me candy and a ride one time, i declined
has something changed?
in the first grade i took the public bus halfway across town and then walked a few blocks
someone offered me candy and a ride one time, i declined
has something changed?
I think the only thing that's changed nobody offers people candy and a ride anymore. I was taking public transportation all over, including to school, by myself growing up in Chicago, and never ran into a single issue other than the fact that the CTA sucks.
Young children walking to school is common here in Australia. It is not considered the slightest bit newsworthy.
I live opposite a primary school. Everyday I see children who must be 6 or 7 years old walk to it.
I guess that it is all to do with the level of criminality in the general community. The USA does have a homicide rate and a violent crime rate that is significantly higher than than of many other rich nations.
I live opposite a primary school. Everyday I see children who must be 6 or 7 years old walk to it.
I guess that it is all to do with the level of criminality in the general community. The USA does have a homicide rate and a violent crime rate that is significantly higher than than of many other rich nations.
I walked to kindergarten alone at age 5, in the US. In the 1970s, when there was much more crime than there is today.
I mostly blame cable news for helicopter parenting. The data shows that there is much less violent crime than there was 40 years ago, but when something bad does happen and cable news jumps all over the story, it creates a false impression of the world being a very dangerous place.
I mostly blame cable news for helicopter parenting. The data shows that there is much less violent crime than there was 40 years ago, but when something bad does happen and cable news jumps all over the story, it creates a false impression of the world being a very dangerous place.
I used to go out alone as a kid in Mexico City, but only within walking distance of my home. I was 12 the first time I rode public transportation on my own. Nothing ever happened to me, but within my social class it was seen as dangerous and unusual that my parents would let me ride the metro and peseros alone (I used to go to the most expensive private school in Mexico City).
One thing the article failed to mention directly is the shared monoculture. Their culture is such that some aspects of it are observed by most people there.
As they mention, young children are involved early on with community work. They also have instilled compliance from an early age --ever notice all the voice commands everywhere? In school, at the subway, at the combini, at the depato, at the escalator. It's pervasive and it results in a society homogenous in many aspects. Of course, there are dissidents and outcasts and otaku and non-conformists, but most observe core attitudes.
I think this contributes to the way they can have a degree of dependability on others. That's not to say there aren't deviants and people who take advantage of the norms. But to borrow from their vocabulary, they are unique, in some ways, and I don't think it's transplantable.
As they mention, young children are involved early on with community work. They also have instilled compliance from an early age --ever notice all the voice commands everywhere? In school, at the subway, at the combini, at the depato, at the escalator. It's pervasive and it results in a society homogenous in many aspects. Of course, there are dissidents and outcasts and otaku and non-conformists, but most observe core attitudes.
I think this contributes to the way they can have a degree of dependability on others. That's not to say there aren't deviants and people who take advantage of the norms. But to borrow from their vocabulary, they are unique, in some ways, and I don't think it's transplantable.
I am from China, I go to school alone since 6. Most other kids do that since 7. That was some decades ago.
Now I live in U.S. it has become unthinkable to me, mostly because the lack of gun control and the number of gun owners who are so ready to fire their weapons in public.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10320944
I think its cultural thing, nothing more. All kids in Iraq and neighboring countries sent their kids to school alone. Public schools didn't have any transportation, so you pretty much had to walk to school regardless of where you lived. I was lucky that my school was only a mile away.
Kids who had their parents walk them to school were made fun of, which is why I think its a cultural thing.
Kids who had their parents walk them to school were made fun of, which is why I think its a cultural thing.
This was posted and discussed at length on October 2nd here..https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10320944
[deleted]
Isn't that pretty normal? I walked to school alone my whole life. Walk to the bus stop, take the bus to school, walk to the school. Pretty usual.
In Manhattan I see bunch of kids in the subway going to their school on their own. They make the subway compartment so noisy I usually avoid it :)
you can drop your wallet a hundred times and people in Korea and Japan will return it to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWW4xzlrOWQ
I've heard reactions from Canadians who go to Korea or Japan and they are puzzled that nobody would steal, even if wallet was bulging with cash and the guy was passed out on the streets, he doesn't have to worry.
To me this is the success of a homogenous neo-confucius brings order in society. Self reflection and honor prevents a cesspool of cultures ready to rip each others throats from forming.
I ponder if Western societies can continue to function if they just keep letting anyone of any background and culture in especially when they choose not to integrate and shout 'racism' when they have to do something that requires the slightest bit of thinking and respect.
Sometimes I look at my city, shootings, the violence, gangs, mental illnesses and ponder what life would've been like in Korea or Japan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWW4xzlrOWQ
I've heard reactions from Canadians who go to Korea or Japan and they are puzzled that nobody would steal, even if wallet was bulging with cash and the guy was passed out on the streets, he doesn't have to worry.
To me this is the success of a homogenous neo-confucius brings order in society. Self reflection and honor prevents a cesspool of cultures ready to rip each others throats from forming.
I ponder if Western societies can continue to function if they just keep letting anyone of any background and culture in especially when they choose not to integrate and shout 'racism' when they have to do something that requires the slightest bit of thinking and respect.
Sometimes I look at my city, shootings, the violence, gangs, mental illnesses and ponder what life would've been like in Korea or Japan.
I’ll tell you a story that happened in a... well, not very good district of a German 300k people city. A district with 44% migrants, and 42% unemployed, and some of the highest crime rates of Germany.
I was 18, it was the day after I finished my final high school exams, I had partied with a few girls, most went home, 2 of us – me and a friend – were trying to find a place to drink something. We ended up at some gas station, as all other stores were closed, and tried to buy alcohol.
Some people were standing there, too, waiting in a queue, some of them migrants, some obviously homeless, some kinda nice dressed.
A friend of mine tried to pay with her EC card, and was too drunk to use it or enter her PIN – so she asked if someone of the other crowd would be able to help her (I, myself, was also quite drunk). So she gave this guy her wallet, told him to "take out the yellow EC card, PIN is 2814"[1], and indeed, he did this.
They – also wanting to buy alcohol – asked us if we wanted to follow them to a nearby party. We did, and ended up having a fun night playing singstar with them.
It’s not ethnicity, or social class, or homogenity that leads or prevents crime.
We’ve done similar things not once, but several times. And you know what? Never was anything stolen.
Once I forgot a jacket, and couldn’t remember where anymore – next morning someone had posted the jacket onto a facebook group of the city with 60k users and I was able to get it back.
I was 18, it was the day after I finished my final high school exams, I had partied with a few girls, most went home, 2 of us – me and a friend – were trying to find a place to drink something. We ended up at some gas station, as all other stores were closed, and tried to buy alcohol.
Some people were standing there, too, waiting in a queue, some of them migrants, some obviously homeless, some kinda nice dressed.
A friend of mine tried to pay with her EC card, and was too drunk to use it or enter her PIN – so she asked if someone of the other crowd would be able to help her (I, myself, was also quite drunk). So she gave this guy her wallet, told him to "take out the yellow EC card, PIN is 2814"[1], and indeed, he did this.
They – also wanting to buy alcohol – asked us if we wanted to follow them to a nearby party. We did, and ended up having a fun night playing singstar with them.
--------------------------------
It’s not ethnicity, or social class, or homogenity that leads or prevents crime.
We’ve done similar things not once, but several times. And you know what? Never was anything stolen.
Once I forgot a jacket, and couldn’t remember where anymore – next morning someone had posted the jacket onto a facebook group of the city with 60k users and I was able to get it back.
--------------------------------
that has no relevance here. Germany vs North America for gods sakes.
Was same in USSR for me (starting from the 1st grade, age 7) :)
ditto. Both parents were working like the majority of the parents back then in the USSR, and there were no chance for them to get us to and from school. And outside of school, we were roaming streets and forest/seashore around the city completely on our own.
I submitted this exact story a week or so ago - from a different website. Opening is word for word, different image.
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/09/why-are-little-kids-i... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10320944
I can't imagine The Atlantic steals stories; obviously, this must have been re-sold. Just interesting to see it.