The Middle Child Is Going Extinct • Hacker News Board

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#91

Post by EGreg » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 5:50 AM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #51

cncrnd wrote: post #16

What a shame, back in the day people used to have odd numbers of children.

Amusingly, both my mom and her sister had 3 children because their parents had 2. They were annoyed because one of them was "daddy's child" and one was "mommy's child" and they figured that having 3 each would prevent that. Numerology matters. They both did end up having 3 kids, and I can report that I think the problem they thought they were preventing didn't happen. Win!

Can you describe the dynamics that did occur? Were the kids happier overall when there were 3 of them than 2? I know it’s tough to reduce everything to that one factor but still curious.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#92

Post by sxv » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:07 AM UTC

dqpb wrote: post #76

Technically, isn't it the youngest child going extinct and the middle child left to take on the role of the youngest?

can't tell if trolling or ingenious..

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#93

Post by drfuchs » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:14 AM UTC

Illniyar wrote: post #88

You go raise three children. I can barely handle two.

“When you get to three kids, parents have to switch from one-on-one to zone defense.”

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#94

Post by watwut » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:14 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #39

wool_gather wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not very clear what the connection is between your two paragraphs. In fact, they seem contradictory; why does natural selection lead to fewer smart people having children?

It is just a consequence of the human environment changing. Birth control and the modern education system disproportionally effect the number of children smart people have. The end result is the smarter you are the less children you will have all other factors being equal. Another major factor contributing is children are very expensive and smart children are much more expensive to raise than the average child.

Smart children are not more expensive then average child. Competitive, ambitious parents and parents who want their children to be smart have additional expenses.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#95

Post by paulcole » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:34 AM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #78

Population shrinkage is not healthy for a society.

It might be the human race’s best longterm chance to survive the damage we’ve done to the environment.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#96

Post by danieltillett » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:41 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #94

danieltillett wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is just a consequence of the human environment changing. Birth control and the modern education system disproportionally effect the number of children smart people have. The end result is the smarter you are the less children you will have all other factors being equal. Another major factor contributing is children are very expensive and smart children are much more expensive to raise than the average child.

Smart children are not more expensive then average child. Competitive, ambitious parents and parents who want their children to be smart have additional expenses.

Yes they are (on average anyway). Their parents sacrifice greater income to have them and even their education is more expensive in that living in areas with good schools cost more.

Of course you are right that provided identical environments smart and average children cost the same, but since smart parents tend to earn more, smart children cost more.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#97

Post by sarnu » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:49 AM UTC

Illniyar wrote: post #88

You go raise three children. I can barely handle two.

The dynamic totally changes with three kids. I have three kids, and when one of them is not at home (doesn't matter which one) the atmosphere changes completely, hard to describe how. What I want to say: Having three is different from having two, but not necessarily harder. They have more things to handle between themselves. I could not bear to raise a single child. That must be really hard.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#98

Post by curun1r » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:54 AM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #78

Population shrinkage is not healthy for a society.

Breeding under the replacement rate does not imply population shrinkage. It's a better strategy for a rich nation state to have lower birth rates and poach the best and brightest from other countries. That increases the wealth of native-born citizens as well as improving the lives of those who immigrate whereas overbreeding disperses accumulated inherited wealth.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#99

Post by watwut » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 7:12 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #96

watwut wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart children are not more expensive then average child. Competitive, ambitious parents and parents who want their children to be smart have additional expenses.

Yes they are (on average anyway). Their parents sacrifice greater income to have them and even their education is more expensive in that living in areas with good schools cost more. Of course you are right that provided identical environments smart and average children cost the same, but since smart parents tend to earn more, smart children cost more.

Parents who choose good schools choose them regardless of whether kids are smart. High income parents don't want the children in bad schools even if kids are not smart (whether it means stupid or just normal).

Non-smart child of smart parent costs even more - on tutors and such to raise the kid.

That is not smart children costs more. That is ambitious/smart parents spend more on children. The cost of smart child here is merely function of correlation with parent.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#100

Post by Fnoord » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 7:26 AM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #65

craftyguy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, both of my parents came from families with even numbers of children, and it was a lot. BTW, 1 is also odd, so I'm not sure if you're just trying to say "used to have 3 children" or literally an odd number (1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 23, etc)

I think it was supposed to be a joke about how there is only a middle child if there is an odd number of children.

That's a matter of perception.

The way I see it, every child who is not either the youngest or the oldest is the/a middle child.

With 3, that's #2. With 4, that's #2 and #3. With 5, that's #2 and #3 and #4.

Though usually the context is that parents have 3 children because that's the most common version of having more than 2 children.

When I look at people who I know and their families, I can report that the middle child always appear to be self-centered, egocentric. As if they lacked love in their youth they're continuously trying to make up for the rest of their life. Oh, and they have twisted ways of justifying that behaviour.