One of the things I find fascinating about raising children is the differences in children that come from the same gene pools (their mom’s and mine). My own mother is overprotective of my children, having had some harrowing experiences in her own childhood, so she was shocked to learn that I was sending the two kids out to the local corner store, two blocks away, when Sayuri was 8 and Toshi was 6. A big part of it was that I know these kids, and I trust them, not so much to “be careful” but to be who they are. Sayuri is adventurous, wild, and very aware of her surroundings. Toshi’s more introverted, and has always been very cautious and detail-oriented. I knew that Sayuri’s confidence and awareness would get them across the streets and to their desitnation safely, and that Toshi’s caution would prevent them from doing anything too adventurous. I still don’t let them go out “solo”, but they’ve been ranging around the neighborhood together for a couple of years now, lately going down to the big parking lot to learn to ride their ripsticks where there’s a slope in this incredibly flat city. I’m still afraid to let Sayuri, now almost 11, go out by herself, because she’s just too damned beautiful and I’m afraid someone will steal her. I’ve seen the Megan’s Law web site for our city, and there’s bad people out there… but for now, the buddy system works for me.

Gever, a great piece; I think it gets to the heart of the real cultural relativity of ‘Risk’.

I also like your framing of Risk vs. Benefit assessment, and think it very much echoes the framework playworkers in Adventure Playgrounds (at least in the UK) are encouraged to adopt. I wrote a little about it here: “What Really is Dangerous?”

Mr. Tulley, I enjoy reading your blog and perspective. I purchased your book because it sounded fun, and your thoughts on http://www.TED.com and your TinkeringSchool website resonate with me. Since the book came right before the New Year I made it my New Year’s resolution to document doing the activities with my family on my my blog. Thanks, we are enjoying learning and growing together.

“Dangerism” is a great concept and I’d love to think and hear more about it: Why is driving kids not considered dangerous (even though the #1 cause of death for kids is as passengers in car accidents), while walking to school is considered asking for trouble. I’d love to hear more examples of how we have “dangerized” formerly normal childhood activities. Go, Gever! — Lenore Skenazy, Free-Range Kids

I constantly get into disagreements about danger. I truly feel that we create stupid children when we eliminate every single dangerous activity. Children need to explore and learn their limits. Sometimes saying OW that hurt is the best way to learn. The little bumps and bruises they get while young is nothing compared to the major injuries they will avoid later. For example, when my 3 year old jumps off of the couch he learns how to roll with a fall. Later when he is 14 or 15 he will be less likely to jump off of the garage roof because he has experimented and knows his limits – he hopefully will know that a 12 foot drop is unrealistic. Now it is my job as a parent to ensure he knows to look for a clear area to land (from the couch of course).

Knives and powertools are only risky if used in a stupid way so lets expose our kids to danger in smart ways. Teach them to know and understand it but not to be afraid of it. As parents we sometimes need to just relax. As educators we should relax too, if we could just get rid of those damn insurance specialists. We are hamstrung by the fear of a lawsuit or a reprisal by the insurance industry. The minute we let the insurance industry run everything we are finished – and so are our kids/students.

As much as I hate to be negative, as long as we’re all asking “Why?” — we might consider who profits from teaching parents to be paranoid and fearful. Those parents then go on to teach their children to accept irrational and painful oppression…by inflicting it upon them and allowing other adults to do the same. What entities might profit from that?

If we’re going to ask “Why?”, it’d be nice if we invested some serious thought into the answer.