Why do small children in Japan ride the subway alone?
economist.com
economist.com
[1] in the usual sense of the phrase, not the historical one recorded in some dictionaries
The worst thing that happened to me was I got my finger bit by a rabbit at the zoo.
I’m more inclined to believe that most criminals don’t entirely lose their sense of shame.
Used electronics don't sell for much these days, especially the Switch which barely hits around 300 USD new. And then you have to find a fence, and potentially deal with serial numbers being tracked (especially when it comes to violent crime against children, even lethargic police spring into action).
Both for moral reasons, but also because the penalties are tougher.
(And not just the legal penalties. I would assume you also run a higher risk of a bystander rushing in and becoming hero. And of your prison mates later ganging up on you. People _love_ children, not just their own, and many would gladly give their lives for them.)
I'm not afraid of other adults kidnapping my child. But I am afraid of other adults running her over. The Scientologists have been successful in popularizing their doctrine of "children are adults in small bodies" and so people will blame my child and possibly me if someone speeds through and kills her.
Consumer motor vehicles nowadays can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. The guy behind this extreme-performance motor isn't Ken Block. It's a sleep-deprived mother checking her phone.
I doubt the part that our 400hp supra driving sleep deprived soccer mom is tear assing through the streets knows that.
The three obvious answers are crime, perception of crime (even though crime is going down, perception of crime is going up) and perception of the subway (is it a transport method for everyone or just for poor people and low-lifes).
Going one level deeper, you arrive at the media, poorly-handled immigration and failure in law-enforcement as main sources.
> [1] in the usual sense of the phrase, not the historical one recorded in some dictionaries
Wait, are you calling the correct usage here historical despite it still being frequently used in contemporary times, and advocating that the incorrect usage should be normalized?
To an extent, but people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also.
> the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections.
No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use, just not in areas you participate in. It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'.
Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated.
> No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use
The last research I saw claimed otherwise.
> It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'
Nothing disingenuous; to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different) is not active at least in general writing (it may still be used as a term of art in philosophy, but if so I don't think that changes anything). Certainly it's a minority use.
Sure.
> Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated.
It's not a historical quirk, it's the valid and modern usage.
> The last research I saw claimed otherwise.
Then it was clearly insufficient. How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so?
Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it.
> to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage
You keep coating your replies with this, but it's not older or historical, just correct.
> (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different)
No, it is absolutely the correct usage.
By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well.
> is not active at least in general writing
Yes, it is, and often articles that use it correctly will call out incorrect usage.
> Certainly it's a minority use.
Maybe, but your usage is plain incorrect and is as bad as using irregardless.
I saw it come up in a discussion about linguistic prescriptionism and overcorrection, probably even on this site, and followed through to someone who had counted and analysed use in e.g. major newspapers.
> Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it.
And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior. So let's not stoop to psychoanalysing each other.
> By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well.
I don't think "irregardless" is more easily understood than, or conveys a useful distinction from, "regardless". Indeed the opposite, it's more confusing as it sounds like it's a double negation that should mean regardful.
If you could find that same discussion or source, it would add a lot to the discussion. Change the tide of it, in fact.
> And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior.
Personal attacks like that are very much against the HN guidelines. My statement was not a personal attack, but a reasonable hypothesis as what I described is freuently observed behavior. Saying you were corrected and took issue is rather different from claiming I have never won and am entirely incapable of learning or improving. I consider this escalation an emotional response and thus an indicator, but I agree let's stop psychoanalyzing each other.
You should realize however, it's rather absurd to include a distraction in your comment to bait discussion on this point. I know you claimed your motivation was the opposite, but that's frankly hard to believe.
But, you want to say I'm incapable of learning and improving. OK. All I ask is that you support your claim that the correct use is actually the historical use and not in widespread usage.
> Indeed the opposite
Not the opposite, both are incorrect variations of a valid word/term.
To quote from a sibling comment of yours:
> a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless.
Exactly.
I put in the footnote precisely to try to pre-empt this tedious digression.
> If you're not using the original meaning, where "beg" specifically is important as the verb, you could have said almost any variant instead, e.g., "raises the question", and not annoyed or confused anyone
I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand. And I don't believe I caused any actual confusion; no-one genuinely misunderstood my comment. The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place.
Next time, just don't try to advocate for your personal view of language, and use a less contended term, as the parent said 'raises the question' would be fine.
> I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand.
Nope. Raises the question is far clearer and less ambiguous.
> The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place.
Or people who care about misinformation being spread.
"Raises the question" is less familiar and marginally more difficult to understand for people who are actually good-faith trying.
If you disagree, I would ask you to provide a source to support your assertion.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Out of curiosity, how do you refer to the logical fallacy of begging the question?
Like that. But mostly I don't.
Since 1972, Americans' trust in each other has fallen by half[1]. Pew Research has been showing how trust in all forms has been plummeting for a long time[2]. Of course trust in Government nose-dived in the 60's and 70's. In 1976, the movie Network! satirized "The News" as a force of corrupt capitalist enterprise meant to sensationalize rather than inform.
But none of this is new. In the 1890s, William Randolph Hearst waged a "media war" of propaganda at an unprecedented scale, intended to both dominate an industry, and turn popular opinion. He coined the phrase "if it bleeds, it leads" [3]. And well before then, newspapers have been used locally and nationally to push agendas, frighten, lie, exaggerate, and taunt the public into a submissive frenzy.
Today we have media juggernauts that wield a massive pulpit with brazenly political spin. They can lie, intimidate, insinuate, and generally bombard an already terrified public into believing just about anything. And the political fringe weaponizes it into not just political action, but also inspiring real violence and oppression at all levels of society. We allow it because it's good politics, it's good business, and, well, that whole freedom of speech thing.
But politics is a small part of the story. The media controls the narrative, and society is nothing but the accumulation of stories. Everything we consume is delivered to us through the media in one form or another, and all that accumulated payment funds the machine.
Society in America is big business. Most countries can't hold a candle to the control our media wields over our populace. Its tendrils seek out every eyeball and ear, pumping us full of fear and elation, followed by the next commercial break. Our culture is a media product. We wouldn't know what to do without it.
So, why do we fear our kids on the train, where other places don't? We're way better at packaging fear, and we're damn good consumers.
[1] https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/ [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-di... [3] https://pepperdine-graphic.com/opinion-if-it-bleeds-it-leads...
> “Our job is to prepare them to enter society” by teaching them to collaborate, take initiative and treat everyone equally. He calls it hito-zukuri, the art of making people.
> The education ministry’s slogan is chi-toku-tai: a blend of chi (academic ability), toku (moral integrity), and tai (physical health). This means lots of sports and arts. It also means that teachers praise effort, rather than achievement. Studies suggest this is an excellent idea: it makes children more resilient, notes Jennifer Lansford of Duke University.
I actually think there is something to this. I struggled a lot in school with depression and behavioral problems - and drugs when I got a bit older - and it wasn't until I finally went off to college and gained some autonomy and was really challenged for the first time that I snapped out of it. With my kids I feel like I can already see that internal drive that I didn't develop until I was 18.
Not all perfect, of course. But in general I like what I see.
In US kids used to also do just that, about half a century ago now. And walk to school in many places until the 80s and 90s.
It has a decent medical system to preempt or treat psychiatric symptoms.
And it has federal level construction laws to allow housing to be built anywhere. So look up "cheapest housing in tokyo" where you can rent a tiny place for $100/month.
Japan has smartly designed and compassionate infrastructure. It's not just "culture"
Yes, absolutely!
> to preempt or treat psychiatric symptoms.
Uh, no. They just medicate people to death or keep them off the streets if they can’t.
I suppose this may be better than the US, but that’s a pretty low standard.
Sounds good.
>I suppose this may be better than the US, but that’s a pretty low standard
What else they would do? Miraculously cure them?
You can even tax drugs quite a lot, and still keep the blackmarket small.
Taxation in California has proven to be a huge incentive to black market growers who can grow and sell tax free. The legal seller has the weight of taxation.
Your suggestions are basically a recipe for greater disaster.
What's different for those other drugs? Or should we (re-) criminalise alcohol and tobacco, too?
I agree that decriminalisation is a strange halfway measure. And I can also believe that not all policy in practice is great, even if the bears the label of 'legalisation' or 'decriminalisation'.
I know there are a lot of problems with meth, but how do they compare with other countries? (Per capita, say?)
Japan was entirely controlled by the US after WW2 and had no control over its own affairs for several years. That's one big change. Plus culture changes a lot in a full century.
Where do you think the "smartly" and "compassionate" part of the designs comes from, is approved, funded, and appreciated - if not "culture"?
The zoning is the key to the fact that there’s plenty of construction but they also have a declining population, so that helps.
Except for the justice system.
Yeah, to become _safer_. Todays big cities are considerably safer than they were when you or I were allowed to roam free.
I grew up in New Orleans and I was shot at more than once. I was mugged as a kid. I had my bike stolen more than once. New Orleans was (and still is, for the most part) full of homeless people, including aggressive gutter punks.
You're letting your nostalgia cloud your view of how dangerous America used to be, especially in comparison to now.
The craziness and restrictiveness of their expectations of others is directly proportional to their overall high standard of living. If they are complaining about kids on subways, its because everything else in their lives is already awesome.
I think it's on Netflix in most countries.
In it kids, usually 3-6 years old, are sent alone on errands like buying groceries or picking up stuff. They're followed by camera crew with hidden cameras who only interfere if the kids are _actually_ in danger (never happened in the episodes I saw).
The parents are a bit worried usually, but not scared to death like an American parent would be if they had to send a 5yo to the closest store - which most likely is not accessible without a car anyway...
There’s attendants at every station, so if they get off at the wrong place they can always find someone to help.
The child (most of them anyhow) will have a transport card with them registered to the parents address/phone number, so even if they lose their mind staff will be able to contact the parents.
Why don’t small kids in other western countries ride the subway alone?
There was recently a story in the US about how a parent was arrested for letting their 11-year-old son walk down the street to a store by themselves.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-moms-arrest-puts-free-rang...
We lived on a mountain, the first time I walked to the top I was 6. My fellow hikers were 6 and 7.
To describe it as a different time is massive understatement. My own kids were teenagers before they walked to the corner store without an adult.
There is a perception that suburb living is more dangerous now. But I think perhaps the real issue us that as parents we were much more involved with the kids, which in turn made them less self-reliant. I would not gave dreamed of letting my young kids loose on the bus system, and I suspect they didn't have the upbringing to handle it.
My parents trusted us enough to "figure out our way home". And we did. (Notably well before phones obviously.) I'm not sure I was confident enough that my own kids would do likewise .
> Im not sure I was confident enough that my own kids would do likewise.
> But I think perhaps the real issue us that as parents we were much more involved with the kids, which in turn made them less self-reliant.
Sorry for taking your quotes a bit out of order. But I'm trying to put together an idea of how to raise my own kids, which are still under 5. I am absolutely trying to be a part of their life, but at the same time try and encourage self reliance in certain ways. Despite having a car to drive them everywhere, I try and make a lot of trips on public transit/walking/biking. I point out how to know what bus we're on. I point out how the train platforms work. I try and show them how to interact with the world. Do you think if you would have done things differently it would have led to the same outcome?
Not critiquing your own parenting style or whatever. Just trying to see if this is just something I should end up expecting or if it's something I might be able to do something differently.
Personally I'd love it if they managed to get to the library and home on their own at 13 by public transit. And to a certain extent I don't think that's a big expectation; it's a single bus transfer from a stop right outside our front door.
That's a ridiculously low expectation. My older daughter took the bus alone to school by herself when she was 7 (and was immensely proud) and took her little sister with her by age 9. We live in a country with much worse public transport now, but she is walking back to and from the swimming pool (Abt 2km though the city).
I believe giving them independence and trusting them early is the key to success. It's actually much easier now then back when we grew up, she just got a kids smart watch (her request) so she can call if there is something wrong, we never had anything like that (if we were lucky there was a public payphone)
This is far different from a city bus where I wouldn't expect the same from a regular driver, the children aren't going to be taking nearly as regular ridership of the route, and the people on the bus are likely to not be other children trying to get to school and home.
But then again it really showcases a difference in mindset from riding transit and kids self sufficiency in the US versus overseas. Many people think I'm crazy for riding public transit with kids today and think I'm a complete nut for hoping they'll figure it out by thirteen. Meanwhile others can't imagine waiting to thirteen to trust them on transit.
I don't think your expectation is big. When I was 13 we visited London for the first time. (A different continent to where I was raised.) We stayed there for 3 weeks, and by week 2 my brother (14) and myself were riding the subway without our parents. (It really isn't that hard to figure out.)
But equally by 13 we'd had a lot of experience with public transport at home - busses home from school, or into the city, and so on.
I don't think age has terribly much to do with it. Exposing kids to the process, making sure they have the tools to deal with the unexpected. A small amount of emergency getting home money - these days a phone obviously - and I'd likely toss in a tracking device of some kind (in addition to the phone.)
I think you are on the right track. Get them familiar with the options, and then slowly get them more involved. They can buy the tickets - identify when to get off. Perhaps "miss" the stop a couple times to show what happens if you do, and so on.
In some countries letting the driver know where you plan to get off is good if you're young. Don't rely on it, but in lots of places drivers are happy to keep an eye out. (And you don't have to be young. I caught a bus in Norway once with no idea of when I was getting off, I just told the driver and he stopped at the right place, and let me know it was my stop - I was probably 35 at the time.)
For children, it's not about age, it's about experience. Once they've got the pattern down, the age really doesn't matter at all.
(Ironically, looking back, I don't think my folks ever rode the bus with us. It was more like - "there's the bus stop, here's money for the fare, get off at the right stop - how hard can it be?" :)
I've definitely experienced this a few times even as an adult obviously out of place. I've usually found bus drivers happy to help people who aren't being a problem, I imagine it can be a bit refreshing and rewarding for the bus operator at times as long as you're not being a bother or a drag on their schedule. The bus drivers in Montreal were very nice despite barely speaking English and I only have Duolingo level knowledge of French. :D Je ne parle pas bien français! J'essaye.
Thanks for the insights and sharing. I really appreciate insight into how others raised their kids and what worked and what didn't. One last question, what country/region were you in raising your children with public transit? US? Major metro or more mid-pop?
Now its an expectation that parents are monitoring their kids 24/7 and driving them around to a range of activities all day.
Let's hear it for strong public prosecutors
Let me guess, you're a conservative who thinks being "tough on crime" is the answer to crime, and being tougher will make us safer.
My dude, Japan isn't particularly tough on crime. It's certainly softer on crime than the US in most ways. In other ways it's tougher on crime that Americans (and especially conservatives) wouldn't accept. For example, they've taken a hard stance on financial crimes, to combat the yakuza. If you're associated with the yakuza they'll cut you off from the finance system. This includes entire businesses. You don't even have to be convicted. A lot of the murder rate in the US is driven by drugs, and that drug money is flowing to legitimate businesses and political contributions.
The reason for the lack of crime in Japan is obviously up for debate, but it's obviously partially social, and also heavily financial. There's less extreme poverty, there's (very cheap) universal healthcare, healthcare for children is free till they're 18, child care is subsidized (and now free for all in Tokyo), transportation is extremely cheap, rent is affordable, food is relative inexpensive, etc.
Poverty levels are way more associated with crime levels than toughness on crime.
This idea that the US isn't tough on crime is mind boggling. The US is tougher than many authoritarian regimes. We have the 5th highest per-capita prisoner population, and the highest total prisoner population in the world. At some point we have to realize that putting more people into prison doesn't solve our problems.
Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not advocating for lighter prison sentences for violent crime, but a small minority of the prison population is violent offenders, and really, a small minority of overall crime is violent and as a whole the rate for violent crime has been on decline since the 70s, with the current rates at a historical low.
Being tough on crime is mostly a political tool, where police departments and prosecutors juke stats and over-prosecute crimes. Again, the vast majority occur through plea agreements, so people don't really get to defend themselves, and they settle because they otherwise face stiffer sentences and can't afford legal representation. This game is for people like you, who vote enthusiastically for people who pretend to solve problems.