Comment by peterangular | Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterangular | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm contextually referring to those kids who have to learn "street-smarts" in the home as a survival mechanism. The same "street-smarts" you're valuing should never be something that is required of a child in their home, against their parents.

When it is a constant in your life to stay "street-smart" it is a setback because it drowns out other intelligence - this happens with abusive parents.

Although related, I am not referring to the traditional city kid's need for some "street smarts" - I'm referring to unsafe environments at home/with parenting which I specifically stated in parent comment:

> Let's acknowledge exactly what "streetwise" is... it's the ability to operate in unsafe and not ideal environments in a way that maximizes personal safety.

> "streetwise" in regards to your parents/upbringing

---

My overall point is if one has to get "street-smart" because of what is happening at home... that's heinous because children should be safe, and I 100% see it as a setback inflicted on the child.

Exactly. The complex part about it is that our survival strategies often express themselves as some of our greatest strengths too. For example, to feel safe in my home as a kid I learned to actively, constantly monitor the emotional state of the people around me. That strategy as a child makes me really good at therapy or therapy adjacent roles, because tracking someone’s emotional state is a skill I’ve been practicing for decades.

The downside is I don’t know how to turn that off. Or to put it in other terms, I don’t have the capacity to choose whether I track other people’s emotional state or not. Tracking people’s emotional state all the time is exhausting, and distracting. When I’m doing that I’m not in touch with what I want or need in that moment. Growing up for me (with the help of a good therapist) currently involves learning to put that down. And it’s terrifying.

Basically every survival strategy also gives us superpowers. But it’s ok - we get to keep those superpowers even after we’ve healed those wounds.

This is where terms like "cycles of poverty/abuse", "equality of outcome", "welfare", and the like come into play, erroneously or not. Although it may vex a not-insignificant number of people: if one accepts that the state of the parent's life largely determines the state of the life of even the most talented or determined youth, it must also be accepted that any useful intervention is going to assist the parents in concert with the child. In fact, if we accept that there is a sort of psychosocial inheritance from even our dead forebears, we must also see to the rectification of their troubles, as much as we may be able to.

I think we all know what we're talking about when we use terms like "street smarts" and "streetwise" instead of "common sense" or "vigilance" or "poise". So, then, I'm hoping that there's clarity with regards to the kinds of policies the above statements, if accepted, should lead us to support. I'm trying not to state them directly because their utterance tends to lead to a kneejerk reaction; let's see if some rhetorical remove is helpful in quelling passions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com