On the Free Range Kids blog they have a category described as “worst first thinking”. Essentially, it’s the idea that when looking at a whole range of possible outcomes, the first that is considered is the worst even if it is the most unlikely.
I was put in mind of this when Mr. Waffle went to photograph traffic chaos at the local school at 9 in the morning. The residents’ association is appealing to the council for a better traffic management plan [don’t mock, someday you too will be in your 40s and a stalwart of the local residents’ association]. He was approached by a man wearing a fluorescent jacket of power wanting to know why he was taking photographs of the children. When Mr. Waffle was able to re-assure him that he was taking photos of the traffic [and, obviously enough, had photographic evidence to prove it], the man was very pleasant and obliging, explaining the measures which the school had taken to address the issues. But it did strike me that there was a certain amount of paranoia in evidence. The principal in my children’s own school though in many ways terrific also has a slight streak of paranoia about this. The school yard is visible from the windows of a nearby hotel and the children are told not to go too near the hotel side of the yard lest they be photographed by the hotel guests. This seems an extremely unlikely contingency to me.
In a sort of related issue, a colleague of mine lives in one of Dublin’s more affluent suburbs and there have been a number of burglaries in her estate. Most recently a widow who lives across the road met the burglar who was doing the house next door and he threatened her with a gun. I appreciate that this is terrifying but I am not sure that the solution, as suggested by my colleague is a good one. She is encouraging the widow not to answer the door without checking who it is first, ideally by intercom. The neighbours are also going to look at putting gates on the estate. The guards have advised that gated estates get burgled less. I suppose this may be true but I am not sure that it is so good for social cohesion to bar admittance in this way.
That’s enough about the end of society for one evening.
I agree with every point you make. In reacting a such an extreme way to unlikely dangers we make other dangers (communities divided on social and economic grounds; fearful, unresourceful, inactive children; just unnecessarily restricted lives) extremely likely. I think there are quite a lot of people who disagree with the ‘paranoid’ approach but don’t dare resist it, whereas it probably needs a lot of individual resistance to turn the tide.
Slightly off topic but related – I was at my community council training session last week & we came to local council’s new wheeze to get volunteers to clear and grit the pavements in the ice. Despite them saying straight off ‘nobody has ever been sued for clearing the snow’, the next 20 mins were entirely taken up with people saying in various ways ‘how can we protect ourselves from not getting sued’ (which didn’t leave any time to ask ‘why is it the council spends major resources clearing the roads for cars and leaves the pavements to voluntary efforts?’)
And this all from the older generation (I was the youngest in the room and I’m not that young) who are quick to tell us they’re the ‘can do’ generation…
Yes, I know what you mean. I blame the lawyers.
Oh Praxis, will you ever come to Dublin to visit and we can share our very sensible views face to face.