The problems here seem pretty alien to my experiences as a US parent so far? Anecdotes aren't data, but still there must be insane region-to-region variability here in what parents are pressured to do, possibly down to neighborhood by neighborhood. On snow days and weekends I have been (very gently, and correctly) reprimanded for hovering over my three-year-old instead of hanging out with the adults and letting him wander mostly in sight with the rest of the neighborhood pack of 3-4-6-12 year olds. My best guess is that this comes from living in a wealthy suburb, and in particular in a block of 5 houses in a row all with kids under 14.
The actionable advice is probably, when house buying, highly prioritize evidence of shoddily made treehouses.
The Revolution of Rising Requirements has many elements. The most onerous are the supervisory requirements on children. They have become, as Kelsey Piper recently documented, completely, utterly insane, to the point where:
Whereas I think that if you don’t allow your 10-year-old to play alone in a park, that is a much better (although still quite bad) potential reason for a CPS investigation.
This is not an idle threat, per the common statistic that around 35% of American families get investigated by CPS. Even if you are confident that will ultimately turn out fine, and given the vagaries and insanities one can never fully be sure, the process is already the punishment.
As Kelsey Piper says, we don’t want a lot of 14-year-olds being breadwinners for their families. But this is so bad in the other direction it might be even worse than that, even discounting the kids that this causes to never be born at all.
Kids need to be kids. We don’t let them. It’s a big problem, both greatly raising the dollar, time and lifestyle costs of having kids and also destroying their childhoods.
This post is about various ways of seeing exactly how bad things have gotten.
We Don’t Let Kids Be Kids
Some dire statistics from the Harris poll.
Have not walked in a different aisle in a store or never talked to a stranger or even a neighbor is positively bonkers, as is ‘have not walked somewhere without an adult.’
Let Your Children Play
Why are kids on their phones and tablets all the time? How could we stop this?
Easy, you let them have unstructured playtime, that’s it, that’s how you do it.
All you have to do is let them. They want unstructured free play time without adults. They know this is The Way. It’s free, it’s easy, it’s deeply safe, it’s good for them, they enjoy it, we’re just completely bonkers and have decided this is not allowed, somehow.
The Algorithm of Fear
This problem mostly isn’t dastardly addictive algorithms. Mostly it is that we won’t let our children play in any other way, so what do you expect? You’re not offering any alternatives. You can offer non-algorithmic electronic alternatives, and they’re better than the algorithms, but either way this is us imposing this on them, not them being addicted.
What do kids want? The ability to move around. Free play, in person, with other kids.
As I keep saying, essentially everyone sane realizes this.
The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is Fear Itself
But everyone is terrified, not without reason, that if you try this strangers will call the police on your children. So out of fear that some stranger might abduct your children, which is ~0% to ever happen and less likely than ever for any given activity, strangers will… abduct your children via calling the government to do it.
They will do this on the thinnest of hair triggers. ‘Grocery aisle’ above was not a metaphor, we mean literally not allowed to go down a grocery aisle.
I think we have a new crazy requirement record.
Here’s another case:
This ‘people will tell you acting like a normal person is criminal’ pattern is deep and wide, and it only takes one person to call the police. It could get worse:
No Means No
A twelve year old is paranoid that if they go into the donut shop they’ll get questioned about why they’re alone.
A thirteen year old is not allowed to be alone in a public park.
A seventeen year old is not allowed to go to Target.
An 8th grader is forced into indentured servitude (they call it) ‘volunteer hours for career path class’) but no one will agree to let him serve them.
Child Abduction Is Either Custody Disputes Or Government Intervention
What are the odds on child abduction by a stranger who isn’t with the government and isn’t involved in a custody dispute?
There are 72 million kids in America and about 100 non-governmental kidnappings by strangers a year.
Let that number sink in. That’s it. We ruin our lives over that.
If you left your child unattended, the original claim is that they would get kidnapped once every 750,000 years. Andrew Critch claims the math is off and it would ‘only’ take ~37,500 years, which seems likely to be closer to accurate, but is still really a lot.
Almost all missing children ran away or were taken by people you know, or by authorities, or simply temporarily got lost.
However, the main concern was never strangers kidnapping the child directly, it was strangers observing the child and then calling authorities to do the kidnapping:
Who should you be worried will report on you, in general? Random strangers will definitely do it if you appear to leave children unsupervised. Even if the law explicitly says the kids are allowed to be unsupervised, crazy people will report them anyway.
Otherwise it’s mostly professionals, and risk goes way down after the first year, although it remains high.
For practical purposes, it is correct to act as if ~100% of the risk from strangers is that they call upon the authorities to punish you, and ~0% of it is them harming the child.
Stranger Danger Danger
The craziest part about ‘stranger danger’ not existing is the lack of joy about this fact, and the craziest part about ‘you have to have eyes on your toddler at literal all times or else’ is that people thought that made the slightest bit of physical sense.
Yet here we are.
It was great news to me. I very much like the fact that no one is trying to kidnap my children. Or at least, no one except CPS, which may try to do this if I take ‘no one is trying to kidnap my kids’ too seriously and give them sensible levels of freedom.
The Before Times
It is hard to overstate how harmful it is that we therefore cannot let kids roam free until long past the age it makes sense to allow this. It impoverishes childhood, is terrible for the kids long term and it imposes immense costs on parents.
I don’t know that we would have been able to have more children if the de facto laws around all this were less insane, but there’s a pretty good chance of it.
Could It Be… Murder?
There was a story going around where parents let two children, 10 and 7, walk to a grocery store ten minutes away, one was struck by a car and killed, and the district attorney charged the parents – not the driver, the parents – with involuntary manslaughter and set bail at $1.5 million, despite previously only imposing $50k in bail for a parent who kept a loaded gun in the house that a kid got a hold of, that then went off and shot another kid.
In this particular case, there were various reasons that this was a lot less outrageous than it sounds. The road they were jaywalking was four lanes, two ways at 50 miles an hour. There had been numerous incidents at the house with drugs and domestic abuse prior to this.
Presumably the DA was dropping the hammer on things in general.
I get all that. This is still completely bonkers insane.
The Long Road Home
One thing that happens when you call the cops on parents who let kids walk home is you get this:
Either Bored Or Happy
Also consider letting kids be bored? As in, having a calm and quiet house where kids have opportunity to do creative things or read books and so on, but you don’t give them easy entertainment outs like screens, and don’t consider it your problem if they say they’re bored. Advanced level is also letting them experience being potentially bored outside on their own, if you can pull that off.
All Eyes on Me
You can’t let kids be kids primarily for fear others will see them being kids, and this also applies to other interactions others might witness. This is a relatively harmless situation, and yet, man, very awkward.
Ideally, if people are well calibrated and enforcing good norms, this dynamic is actively helpful. Other adults and the desire to avoid minor social awkwardness or worse acts to nudge you towards better choices. In an atomized world where people’s instincts are often some combination of crazy and superficial, and where remarkably often they feel this obligates or allows them to escalate to the authorities, this ends up not going so well.
Screens From The Past
Bryan Caplan points out that if you think modern smartphones how we use them are especially terrible for children, you can always in his words ‘do the time warp again’ and travel back into the past, providing your kids with older screen babysitter technology, however much older you think solves your problem. You can spin up a VCR if you want.
He’s right. It’s crazy to give up the power of the screen entirely, the cost of doing that is crazy stupid high. It’s especially stupid high given you’ve lost the old ability to let your children play outside. Inside? The old world can still exist, if you want it to.
The VCR trick presumably works for a two year old, since they don’t know any better. Bryan downplays the difficulty of the kids finding out about phones and tablets and streaming television and so on, since in addition to other families and kids they’re going to see you using them.
You can still set whatever restrictions you want. And I do.
However modern experiences very quickly spoil older experiences, and avoiding contact becomes very difficult. No, you can’t really expect kids to watch a bunch of old VCR tapes with old cartoons on them, and my attempts to get my kids to watch most of the ‘shows of my youth’ that I remembered fondly did not work at all. You often can’t go home again.
In other ways? You can go home again. I’ve had great success giving my kids a Mini-NES and mini-SNES, and having them largely play older video games, and I think that was a big win. You need to take a page from the Amish, and choose what to accept versus reject.
Also, um, Bryan, you do know what the song ‘do the time warp again’ was about?
Medicalization
Our approach to childhood is to imprison kids most of their waking hours, both at school and then at home, direct most of their activities or else in ways that look and are largely stupid and pointless, force them to interact with a peer group that includes various forms of bullying with no form of exit or choice, and so on, giving them little free time or opportunity to play outside or anything like that.
Then, if they are not happy, they are basically told to suck it up, unless they can be labeled as ‘depressed.’
And then we go around periodically asking them ‘are you depressed?’
If they say yes, of course, you don’t change any of the above. You drug the kid.
Under current conditions, I too predict that this policy is disastrous and will do large net harm. Our mental health screening system has too many false positives even if you first need to have a reasonable suspicion before checking.
Television
Is this an argument that phones are fine?
I think very clearly no, for three reasons.
Suspiciously Large Effect Size
A study out of China claims that ‘a one standard deviation increase in app usage reduces GPAs by 36.2% of a within-cohort-major standard deviation, and lowers wages by 2.3%’ and that extending China’s three-hour-per-week video game limit to college students would increase their initial wages by 0.9%.
That is an insane effect size.
The part about the extension is almost certainly wrong, because college performance is largely signaling and a positional good, so you can’t predict what a universal boost in performance would do to initial wages, probably very little even if it raised real human capital levels, also the ban seems hard to enforce.
They use a natural experiment identifier from the timing of a blockbuster release to try and isolate changes in app use, which is intriguing. My presumption is that they did something wrong somewhere to get an effect this large, but we’ve seen a lot of studies with absurdly low impacts from phone distractions and wasted time, so we should also note when the number comes out too large.
If you check everyone, given the likely way they’ll react to false positives? Oh no.