I think we should be discouraging unjustified appeals to authority in our children, so...
”Rehearsing with my kids what they’d say if a grownup asks why they’re alone: “My parents said it’s ok for me to be here The socially optimal level of abduction/traffic accident risk is not zero”
I expect the grown-up would probably look confused, then question the child further. The well-rehearsed child would then explain the negative externalities that society has imposed upon itself by reducing these risks to near-zero, and how it is optimal for society to only reduce these risks until the marginal benefit of further risk reduction is equal to the marginal cost.
At this point, if your child has managed to make the case effectively, the grown-up would realise that the child is probably mature enough to make their own decisions whether to stay outside alone or not.
There’s nothing unjustified about appealing to your parents’ authority. Parents are legally responsible for their children: they have literal (not epistemic) authority over them, although it’s not absolute.
Technically true, but it’s a very unagentic way for a five-year old to respond to something they should have the capability to justify through argument.
My prediction is that giving such population-level arguments in response to why they are by themselves is much less likely to result in being left alone (presumably, the goal) than by saying their parents said it’s okay, so would show lower levels of instrumental rationality, rather than demonstrate more agency.
I presume the stated goal of schooling your child in this way is to set the grown-up’s mind at ease, rather than ensuring the child is left alone (which is probably the default outcome), and I expect both responses would suffice for this instrumental purpose.
I think we should be discouraging unjustified appeals to authority in our children, so...
”Rehearsing with my kids what they’d say if a grownup asks why they’re alone: “
My parents said it’s ok for me to be hereThe socially optimal level of abduction/traffic accident risk is not zero”What would you expect to happen after the kid responded with “The socially optimal level of abduction/traffic accident risk is not zero”?
I expect the grown-up would probably look confused, then question the child further. The well-rehearsed child would then explain the negative externalities that society has imposed upon itself by reducing these risks to near-zero, and how it is optimal for society to only reduce these risks until the marginal benefit of further risk reduction is equal to the marginal cost.
At this point, if your child has managed to make the case effectively, the grown-up would realise that the child is probably mature enough to make their own decisions whether to stay outside alone or not.
There’s nothing unjustified about appealing to your parents’ authority. Parents are legally responsible for their children: they have literal (not epistemic) authority over them, although it’s not absolute.
Technically true, but it’s a very unagentic way for a five-year old to respond to something they should have the capability to justify through argument.
My prediction is that giving such population-level arguments in response to why they are by themselves is much less likely to result in being left alone (presumably, the goal) than by saying their parents said it’s okay, so would show lower levels of instrumental rationality, rather than demonstrate more agency.
I presume the stated goal of schooling your child in this way is to set the grown-up’s mind at ease, rather than ensuring the child is left alone (which is probably the default outcome), and I expect both responses would suffice for this instrumental purpose.