When to Worry

Here is something I get stuck on. Letgrow.org has a mission of promoting free play among youth. They rally against the stigma that children are in constant danger, citing statistics that show how rare child abduction is. I believe in this.

I also believe in the Black Swanism of Nassim Taleb. The abduction of my children, however low a probability, is a tail risk: unlikely but incredibly damaging. So am I right to panic and over-prepare for such a scenario?

I guess the answer is: it depends. One of the most interesting reads I've come across is titled "Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?" The article posits that using sunscreen to prevent skin cancer is an overreaction that blocks vitamin D, thus increasing the risk of heart disease. The author believes that this trade off is actually worse.

This is like the study showing that any safety that comes with the protection of an oversized SUV is wiped out by its likelihood of rolling over.

I guess the answer to my dilemma is that it is okay to panic in preparation of a tail risk as long as the panic does not lead to an externality that is worse than the original thing I'm worried about.

For corona virus panic, social distancing, hand washing, and sanitizing have no major externalities and make sense no matter how small the risk of contracting illness. (I'm willing to admit that long-term isolation from quarantining can have damaging psychological effects.)

However, stocking up on masks and checking into the hospital after every cough are examples of panic that harm the supply of resources for people who really need it. This is an externality that overwhelms hospitals beyond capacity and actually makes things worse.

So there is good panic and bad panic; "better safe than sorry" panic with little trade off, and panic that leads to outcomes worse than if you had just done nothing.

Getting back to my original dilemma: I don't have a good way of measuring the trade offs between abduction prevention and cultivating mentally healthy children. Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge have a lot of good research into the increase in anxiety, depression, and suicide attempts that correlate, somewhat, with helicopter parenting.

But I still don't feel confident about taking a side. Obviously if you gave me the option of my children being abducted or them having depression and suicidal ideations, I would take the latter. The damage is easy to compare between the two scenarios, but not the level of risk.

Kids being deprived social skills and the natural learning that comes from unsupervised and unstructured play seems pretty likely to increase mental health issues in their future. But lax supervision is still unlikely to lead to abduction, which is rare no matter what you do.

But it's not an apples to apples comparison. My children can only be abducted if I'm not around, so it's something I have a lot of control over. But there are so many factors that go into mental health, an area we don't totally understand to begin with. Giving my son a little more freedom might nudge him in a healthier direction but it still might not be enough to prevent his depression when so many other factors are brought in.

I started writing this blog post with the hope that I would find a rational solution but I'm still unsatisfied. All I can do is manage my panic as appropriate and be mindful that my actions aren't actually making things worse.