My unresearched, personal view only, but I’d suggest that there’s a divergence between subsets of people and a more psychological root. Some are kept too safe so never venture out, others rebel against safety in search of the rush, knowing the risk. Then there’s a paradoxical crossover in the middle of those of people who cannot judge risk adequately so end up taking the extreme risk route on occasion without realising.
Take hiking as an example - our most experienced cadets will be judging the ground ahead to assess whether they can get through it. Those without experience will either not cross terrain they could because they’re averse, or cross terrain they shouldn’t because they don’t know better (the crossover group). Others will actively seek out unsuitable routes for the challenge and risk (though some will do so adequately prepared and experienced for the increased challenge, the focus is those making the decision without that).
It’s not just about risk aversion or risk seeking, but risk assesment, hazard perception, and skill building.
How many of us could hop across a rock formation or through a rocky stream, picking (mostly) the right rocks to safely step on and quickly judging the route? How many of us have done so and then turned around to see a companion bricking themselves from nerves and with no idea where to step? If anyone here falls into the companion category, how many times were you shown - never or barely any?
We can take it right back to toddler time and real basic risks - my mum didn’t just say “don’t touch, hot” and I knew what that meant and didn’t touch it. Without causing harm she demonstrated what hot felt like so I had the context to respond appropriately. Through observation, I learned how she checked if something was cool enough to pick up (tap, touch, grab, hold, pick up).
… Likewise, it’s very difficult without experience (usually also having been shown) to calculate the right route and rocks to cross the stream. Many would simply choose not to try without assistance (overestimating risk), and others will injure themselves rushing a bad judgement (underestimating risk). “This is a good rock, this is a bad rock, this is how to judge before putting your full weight down”.
Long way to say that not subjecting children and young people to controlled or directed risk* both deprives them of future experience and causes them to create potentially harmful situations for themselves either accidentally or deliberately. Important to note that it’s not too late for adults either to try new things that gradually get riskier, or be taken right out of comfort by someone elseexperienced enough.
THEN there’s the element of escalation, reducing controls and/or direction to test judgement and skills (progression of a gymnast - foam pit, floor, higher bar or more complex move. Builds both the required skill and also the judgement to not only perform the movement, but also recognise when it’s going wrong and when and how to bail safely instead of trying to complete a failing move and landing on their head…in theory)
*“Controlled” meaning there are mitigations in place that reduce the severity of the hazard (fall but it hurts less), “directed” meaning following instructions and guidance reduces the likelihood (it will still hurt the same, but the following guidance stops you falling - you can’t control the stream, but can show and tell someone how to avoid falling into it).
