Over-protecting our kids (watch this TED presentation)

I often think of myself as Tom Hanks in the 80's classic, Big; personifying the overgrown child masquerading around in an adults body. The irony is that for the better part of my adolescence, I actually was a boy masquerading around in an adults body. I was tasked with all the expectations of an older child, but my maturity screamed "G.I. Joe, Transformers, Hide-N-Seek" or any other mindless activity that I could conjure up. I remember my parents reminding me "not to be in a hurry to grow up," and I find myself still taking heed of their advice. I subscribe to the RSS feed on the TED.com site, and subsequently find myself visiting their site to watch presentations on various subjects. Tonight, there was a presentation that caught my eye named "Gever Tulley: 5 dangerous things you should let your kids do." I couldn't wait to see what dangerous things I could now let my children do! My generation, and I suspect every generation before mine, grew up without the economic sector of 'Child Safety." I suspect that this sector has saved countless lives since its inception, but as in every scenario, what did we sacrifice to accomplish a "child proof'" society? We all have the instinct to protect our young, but even birds nuzzle their chics out the nest to learn to fly. Have we gone to far with "Child Safety," to the point that our young don't realize that their wings are for flying? I don't know about ya'll, but my parents can attest that I was one hard-headed little kid. You could warn me about hazards, complete with pamphlet and video, but I wouldn't learn my lesson until I experienced it myself, and usually made a butt of myself in the process. I did, and still do, like to find and experience things first hand. Second and third hand testimony is often riddled with inaccuracies and/or biases; I'd rather find out myself. Only in adulthood has testimony from trusted sources trumped my hard-headedness. The reason Mr. Gever Tulley's presentation struck a cord with me is because I very much agree with the reasoning behind his epiphany. I look and see parents 'outraged' at whoever or whatever because proper precautions were not taken, then lawsuits follow, lives ruined, and most tragically, nothing of value was learned through the ordeal. I walked in front of a car on Lee Road when I was 7; I was struck, injured, hospitalized, and it caused a great deal of heart-ache for all involved. No lawsuits were filed. Child services didn't investigate and take me away from my parents. The press didn't publicly humiliate my family lineage by showing countless acts of neglect; and we all came out better because of the lessons we learned. View Larger Map That is a severe example, but its still an example from my childhood that I learned from? I reflect on that accident often, as I am sure my parents and the gentleman that hit me does. I often share with the kids that I coach that we can learn more from a loss than we can from a win. Why? Because we made more mistakes in a loss. When I got hit, there was a comedy of errors that took place, not just one. All that were involved learned volumes. Obviously, we all would choose less tragic, or at least, potentially less tragic, situations to allow mistakes to be made. My point being, I would rather not protect my child in a less than perfect scenario in say, my back yard, than have them first exposed to a similar situation when I am not there to help remedy the situation . . . if it does result in an accident. If I allow my kids to 'unbridle' in a semi-controlled environment, then I feel that the risks are somewhat 'controlled,' plus they get to experiment, learn, succeed, and fail with the safety net of me or my wife. One weekend this past summer, I watched my two year old son, Lawson, climb up a five foot above ground swimming pool ladder from inside the glass doors leading to my backyard. The pool was emptied, and the ladder was in a patch of grass by itself. My first instinct was to rush outside to get him off, but then I decided to let him 'do.' I stayed inside on purpose so he would experiment under the premise that no one was watching or there to help. He actually ventured up the ladder with precaution, and well calculated movements. I was impressed when he went all the way up, then returned to the ground.

I started out, then realized that he was sizing up the ladder again to test his new found 'expertise' in ladder climbing. The second and third go were more courageous and he was more apt to make brazen moves. At the very top, he stood up, holding on to the side rails. At this point I decided that the risks were getting too much, I stepped outside calmly, and told him 'rules' for that portion of the ladder, he must 'sit' when on the very top. We reviewed the rules to make sure he understood, but then I let him continue.

I didn't stand over him, I sat and engaged the dogs while I watched out the corner of my eyes. He would check to see if I was watching when he wanted to experiment, and I would act unaware to encourage him to experiment more. At one point while sitting atop the ladder, he began to rock from side to side. I allowed it knowing that 'Humpty Dumpty' was about to have a great fall. I restrained myself, and as his eyes enlarged to the size of saucers on one of his'rockings,' he decided that he was making a bad decision, and just in time.

I would have let him take the spill that day, but he was able to learn without a spill. From that point forward, I saw him take a more conservative approach when climbing that ladder. He understood there were limits, and if he pushed them, there would be consequences. My father-in-law, who I admire tremendously, came over later in the summer and witnessed my son's adventurous nature. His instincts immediately went into action, but I asked him to wait, and explained briefly of my son's experimenting. He graciously appeased me, against every bone in his body, but we both were able to watch as my son meticulously and cautiously made his way up the ladder. I can't help but think that my 'paw-in-law' was surprised at my son's ability to climb the ladder safely, just as I was. It was clear that Lawson was confident in his ability to climb the ladder by this time, and it was clear that he was being careful on purpose. He learned. Through letting him experiment, and defining problematic areas through his efforts, and setting 'rules' for the problematic portion of the ladder, a safer and more efficient ability to climb ladders was learned. My comparison is if I simply told him NOT to climb the ladder at all because it was dangerous.

We all played before the world was "Child Proofed," and I am merely acknowledging that in spite of all the dangers, we some how made it to today. I am choosing to allow my kids to experiment and possibly make 'calculated' mistakes while under my supervision so that they hopefully will make less mistakes when I am not there to supervise.

Trey's Going Mental

We live in a culture of charades. People ask how we are, and we tell them we are 'fine,' even though our personal finances may be failing, our spouse may be unhappy in our marriage for some reason, or our professional lives may be in a perpetual state of stagnation. With one or dozens of similar scenarios playing out in an individuals life, our society encourages us to continue to smile and say everything is okay.


In our private lives, if society saw the instances of our raw emotion, people would definitely be concerned. If anyone other than our spouse or children saw the severity of emotions we are capable of, society would judge us as being 'cold,' and in other instances, 'weak.' We protect our emotional insecurities in some odd trust system with our closest relationships, by mutually harboring those 'ugly' outbreaks that embarrass us. Our fear at its primal level is that people won't like us because we are capable of 'meanness,' and we are afraid of people imposing their will on us because we show 'weakness.' The reality is neither, but we continue the societal charade by continually becoming less of what we really are, and more of what a non-specific society says is appropriate.

Emotions are human kinds greatest asset, and our Achilles heal. All our personal memories are directly linked to either emotions we created in others, or in emotions that others created in us. Our life's highest high and lowest low are all reflections of the emotion that were involved. Emotion is often the intangible item that we attempt to remove in business, but when product, service, and moneys are finally exchanged, the word 'feeling' is more than likely involved as a motivator for the transaction that has taken place.


I attempt to remove the charade mask in my everyday life when dealing with people, and I attempt to do the same in my posts. I can remember being inquisitive with people new to me on a number of occasions, and the person I am attempting to learn about begins to guard their answers and finally asks about my motives, "what are you doing, writing a book", "what do you really want to know," or sometimes the person may simply mock me by asking me questions. I am also told by my friends after time has allowed for a better understanding, "I thought you were a real ass-hole when I first met you, then I realized that that was just Trey being Trey."


The reason for me stating what might be the obvious, is due to concerns I received from some of you. I loved hearing from all of you that wrote or called, but I sensed that I 'spooked' some of you. Again, I am grateful for the calls and emails, but I do not wish to cause undo stress for my family and friends worrying about whether I am about to go mental or something. As most of you know, you don't have to 'read between the lines,' because I already put it in there. Simply said, know that my posts are hopefully accurate depictions of my life, and I will do my earnest to fill 'between the lines' so you don't have to fret 'reading' between them.