Well, you could conclude the world is now more dangerous for any kid let wander - even if fewer do, and even if the observed average risk to any kid is lower (given they are allowed wander a lot less).
I don't want to be on the 'overprotect kids' side of the argument, but I'm not sure the numbers argur cleanly in one direction or the other.
I also often think of selection bias whenever anyone says "I was allowed do a lot more and we were fine" in the context of child safeguarding; because it also sounds like a lot of kids were abused in the past, who don't speak up in that conversation.
I don't know. I worry I overprotect my kids, but I also am not sure how to price in small risks of massively negative events. I think that's the crux of it for parents - trying to weigh hard tradeoffs.
There's a gag in Star Trek 4 where Scotty goes back in time, and tries talk to a computer.
The gag is funny because he is from the future where you talk to computers normally. When the computer doesn't respond, someone hands him the mouse, and he tries use it as a microphone.
I watched that scene with my kids recently (9 and 6).
They didn't get the gag. They thought Scotty was completely reasonable to try and talk to the computer.
Consider getting a good pair of sound isolating earphones, or even ear defenders!
Not to neglect your child; but to reduce stress levels so you can problem solve effectively.
The cry of your baby is one of the most emotionally powerful sounds there is. You'll experience extreme stress if you can't calm them down quickly.
Probably for good evolutionary reasons, so the parent doesn't ignore their child.
But sometimes there's a problem you just can't instantly solve.
If you find yourself getting really stressed, and losing your ability to act effectively, being able to put something on your ears and reduce the volume while you, e.g. change the nappy/diaper, can reduce stress and help you be a better parent.
I only had to do this a handful of times for each of our kids, but when it was helpful, it was really helpful.
That's naive. Academia isn't some perfect system with perfect incentives.
There's plenty of incentive to dress something up as more complex and impressive and using more high powered machinary than needed, e.g. impressing reviewers, qualifying for a particular conference, convincing the funding body that your pet technique can actually be useful etc
I don't think you'd find many academics that dispute this, though hopefully they'd think a lot of people are trying to do good research.
It'd be like open source software if it was done as a hobby; a lot of academics get public funding.
I don't want to be on the 'overprotect kids' side of the argument, but I'm not sure the numbers argur cleanly in one direction or the other.
I also often think of selection bias whenever anyone says "I was allowed do a lot more and we were fine" in the context of child safeguarding; because it also sounds like a lot of kids were abused in the past, who don't speak up in that conversation.
I don't know. I worry I overprotect my kids, but I also am not sure how to price in small risks of massively negative events. I think that's the crux of it for parents - trying to weigh hard tradeoffs.