Kidnapping by strangers, in particular, is vanishingly rare, and without that danger why in the world would you need to be 10 years old to play in your own front yard?
From talking to other parents, it seems like often they also have no sense of their kid's responsibility-when-unmonitored, because they've never tested it, and so aren't sure their nine-year-old wouldn't run in front of a car.
I think this reasoning is not truly acausal; if my kids weren't watching my behavior, I wouldn't expect how I treat my elders to affect my descendants' behavior towards me at all.
I disagree, because past people had their chance to influence us and I am equipped to influence my descendants. If I don't kick in for their values, or my descendants don't kick in for mine, it means the people in the past failed; they don't get extra control over me just because they hoped they would have it.
The closest thing I believe to this is that it's good to empathize with past people, and not dismiss the things they cared about as locally absurd. In my opinion, engaging with Catholicism at all is adaptive for a higher fraction of Westerners in the 1600s than now, leaving aside the fact that its epistemic claims are false.
It's also good to try to spend time with my aging relatives because I care about them, and because I want to model to my descendants how to care for me when I'm old, but again not for decision theoretic reasons that can be generalized from reasoning about future people.
I often notice "the person who really likes her iconoclast boyfriend, and defends him in public interactions about him by claiming her partner believes something more normal than he in fact believes." (pronouns for less ambiguous grammar and because I think the gender usually skews that way)
I'm not sure if I'm a Less Wrong-style rationalist, but I feel unequipped to speak to anyone else's weaknesses!
Among the things I'm bad at, here's a few things that get me camaraderie-about-being-bad-at-things from other rationalists:
Edit: of these four, I have more of a lead on the first; I think Logan's naturalism studies have a lot more to teach me. (https://www.lesswrong.com/s/evLkoqsbi79AnM5sz , https://www.loganstrohl.com/nature-study)
I'm very surprised to learn this, thank you for posting! My kid only uses Khan Academy Kids for educational tablet time; do you have other recommendations?
I can recommend Primates of Park Avenue, which is about status signalling among high-class Upper East Side moms in 2005, by a sociologist who ran in those circles.
I upvoted it because I wish I could give Eliezer a hug that actually helps make things better, and no such hug exists but the upvote button is right there.
A high/small example with someone who isn't physically petite: Stringer Bell, from The Wire, especially when he's interacting with Avon.
“Witches don’t often get angry. All that shouting business never really gets anybody anywhere.”
After another pause, Letitia said, “If that is true, then maybe I’m not cut out to be a witch. I feel very angry sometimes.”
“Oh, I feel very angry a lot of the time,” said Tiffany, “but I just put it away somewhere until I can do something useful with it. That’s the thing about witchcraft—and wizardry, come to that. We don’t do much magic at the best of times, and when we do, we generally do it on ourselves.”
-Terry Pratchett, I Shall Wear Midnight