First-hand experience is the best way to learn _anything_. It doesn't guarantee learning, of course, but it sure beats reading about it, or, if you're a kid, getting advice from grown-ups you rebelliously distrust. Small children before they've reached the age of reasoning just can't learn from sage advice anyway.
> I think it's good that kids toys (mostly) no longer can cause lasting damage to children.
We're not talking about lasting damage here. We're talking about a few scrapes and bruises that will (hopefully) teach them to avoid making sillier mistakes in the future. This is what the article is lamenting kids toys don't provide anymore.
One valuable trait of most humans is that we are able to have experience and consequences transmitted to us without experiencing it first hand.
I understand that falling from high up is painful, not because I have fallen, but because I have seen other people fall, or have had people tell me. I have never broken a bone in my body, but I still understand that it is a thing that I want to avoid!
First-hand experience teaches people things, but it neither guarantees the lesson (people make the same mistake over and over all the time!) nor is necessarily the best way to learn a thing.
I think it's good that kids toys (mostly) no longer can cause lasting damage to children.
Is that really a bad thing? Minor things like that teach the kids how to handle tools and machinery, so they can operate safely the dangerous tools adults use. Like most boys, I had to learn the hard way to not put my finger in a light socket, and how to not stab myself when the screwdriver slips.
> Like riding a minibike without a helmet is stupidity.
It's what kind of risk we're talking about. When I'm supervising my 4-year-old, I definitely want to prevent him from getting life-altering brain trauma. But if he falls and breaks his arm? Certainly worth warning him about, but in the end he'll be fine, and giving him the choice to take that risk is part of his development.
I let him use the battery-powered electric drill (under close supervision), because he's shown that he's careful, and the worst that can could happen is he get some skin abrasions. He's not getting anywhere near the circular saw until he's a lot older.
Aside from all the good points made by others, it’s interesting that kids are not innately prepared to face many hazards in the modern world alone.
Children can find out that rocks hurt through trial and error throwing pebbles at their friends, and they will figure it out. They are instinctively wary of things like snakes.
But the threat posed by electrical sockets, stovetops, cars, bleach, power tools, and so forth are not forgiving to experimentation and not instinctive.
I think small accidents help kids learn. Splashing a bit of oil on yourself isn’t the end of the world for adults and I don’t think it is for my toddler either.
If a child can't use a dangerous toy responsibly, you take away the toy first. Maybe, when the child is more mature, it can have its toy back. You don't let the child keep the toy and wait for it to mature on its own, all the while allowing it to keep harming others and itself.
> Not really an answer to the question as posted — but I think the premise needs some good parenting advice: let your kids break bricks. They are pretty darn durable anyway and fabulously cheap to replace. So when they break one they will begin to learn about over-stressing materials through their own experiences
> . If a little get (well below the age of reason) reaches for the pretty red glowing burner atop the stove, you slap away his hand because the small pain of getting his hand slapped will serve to make a second attempt less likely
No, you don't; if they are well below the age of reason, they are well below the age at which they will connect the hit with the reason for it.
That's why you don't let kids that young around a stove in the first place, and if they do get loose around one, you restrain and remove them. This may involve incidental pain, but not intentional, instrumental pain.
> When we were kids we literally ran all over the place until dark with no adult supervision. Man I still remember coming home, having cuts and bruises all over me, having a pencil stuck out of my arm, bleeding, covered in poison ivy, the works. But I loved it!
Article is about a 3 year old. I don’t think any issue would arise if a 7-10 year old did the same today.
You don't know many children then - I have personally endangered mine and that of friends while I was around 10-12. The most telling example - a close friend (we were both 12) wanted me to attack him with knife to show me how to block. It was pure luck I tried to stab him at much slower speed than I was able so the whole story ended with his very deeply cut palm instead of blade in the guts.
Children are not stupid but they have some very vague concepts of what is safe.
Respectfully: wouldn't really believing that make you kind of an asshole? The number of children I would need to see hospitalized to give up a desk toy is pretty low.
I could be misreading you, but it sounds like you're stipulating that kids are getting hurt, and saying you'd be happier if we could hurt some reasonable amount of kids to get new desk toys. That is a different and more disturbing argument from the one that says that we should be able to have the desk toys and avoid the harm, too.
I don't want my daughter to learn about diving into the concrete floor of a pool, or smashing her head into a concrete play structure, by trial and error.
I agree with this 100%! I grew up free to explore the woods, build forts, climb trees, jump off rocks, swim unsupervised, ride mt. bikes down steep hills, drive dirt bikes from age 10 on, drive snowmobiles, carry a pocket knife, whittle, etc... Yes, I cut myself on occasion, even broke a couple bones, but it was completely worth it and helped me grow up to be self sufficient, self confident, and know my limits, strengths, and weaknesses.
I really do feel badly for most of the kids today, who are so hampered and restrained.
Don't let you kid fall into a bonfire, but DO let them burn themselves on the stove (after you tell them - that is hot). Inform but let them learn from their own mistakes. There's nothing wrong with a few cuts, bruises, scrapes, burns, etc...
It's not exactly what the article is talking about but: I have a 2 year old niece. Her family have an attitude of "let her learn for herself" that I've found pretty interesting. They keep a very close eye on her and try to warn her verbally and with demonstrations but don't really stop her from doing anything.
So instead of physically separating her from a hot kettle they just go "it's very hot!" and demonstrate by touching it carefully and then pulling their hand away. They let her play with matches.
She could pick up on these cues long before she could understand words. But it does look exhausting. And there have been some moments (once she was trotting around holding scissors pointing up in the air) where I've thought "no that's too risky and no amount of careful supervision can prevent injury here". She has also burned herself, but only once.
So overall I am pretty impressed, at least in principle, and if I have kids I'll definitely endeavour to try and curb my overprotective instincts.
It's also worth considering why we feel emotions. That emotional pain exists so we will remember it and avoid making similar mistakes in the future.
Children will get hurt, but they heal. You get a few scrapes and bruises while you're learning. Reasonable protections against catastrophe are important, but eliminating pain is a high bar to reach and it will come with a high cost. Not just a financial cost, either. It will cost children opportunities for excitement, joy and learning.
> I think it's good that kids toys (mostly) no longer can cause lasting damage to children.
We're not talking about lasting damage here. We're talking about a few scrapes and bruises that will (hopefully) teach them to avoid making sillier mistakes in the future. This is what the article is lamenting kids toys don't provide anymore.
reply