Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The biology of dads

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 285 posts

Re: The biology of dads

#191

Post by colechristensen »

kortilla wrote: post #180
cortesoft wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can totally relate to this. I have always been a completely non-violent person, but I remember the feeling of “I would kill to defend this tiny creature” when I became a dad. It was pretty powerful.

This is also when you realize the insidious power of the “think of the children” argument. When someone manipulates you to think of your own children, they trigger that base instinct that’s hard to fight.

Many of the problems in the world boil down to intentional and unintentional manipulation of basic instincts/ traits/ weaknesses of humans. The biggest way to fight this is simply making people aware of them.

Re: The biology of dads

#192

Post by MauranKilom »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #110
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #108

One aspect of fatherhood that surprised me is what I call the 'rescue response'. I was not able to find any formal information about this behavior, but I have to think there is something out there. I have experienced this exactly twice in my life on separate occasions: My child entered a physically and immediately dangerous situation. As soon as I saw their peril, my mind went into a kind of flow state. I didn't take…

I've had this happen too, especially in potentially dangerous situations. It's as if time slows down and you have no room to fear, just act. Then there's the hangover afterward :)

Adrenaline is a hell of a drug...

Re: The biology of dads

#193

Post by wmwmwm »

bluedays wrote: post #75
bcrosby95 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have enough kids it's kinda a sink or swim moment: you learn to tune it out or go crazy. We have twin 2 year olds and a 5 year old. There's been periods of time where there's crying (by at least one of them) for most of the day. When you're 1 on 3 at these sorts of ages it's inevitable. When 1 starts crying in the car and the other 2 start crying because the crying is too loud, there's not much you can do but…

She's three now. I can definitely relate to the orange thing.

Our 3 year old had a total meltdown yesterday because I brought him his toothbrush and toothpaste, but in the wrong hands! When you’re tired it’s so easy to take this stuff personally and then all of a sudden you remember that there’s this little person whose brain is catching up with their emotions and suddenly it’s a lot easier to be sympathetic, philosophical and fascinated, even by the tantrums!

Re: The biology of dads

#194

Post by lotsofpulp »

kkwteh wrote: post #189
lotsofpulp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what fulfilled means, but my priority is to equip them with the abilities needed to shelter, feed, and otherwise obtain necessities for themselves. Which, for many people, ends up being participating in the “meritocracy tournament” to secure cash flow. But I let them know what the rules and parameters of the game are, and possible consequences of various actions. After that, it’s up to them to figure out…

To put it another way, should I be like the infamous Tiger Mom and push my child to conform and get straight As, potentially with dire consequences, or should I develop her interests organically, hoping that they’ll find an unconventional path, fully knowing that they’ll be less likely to have a comfortable life? It’s a dilemma for me.

I think there’s a happy medium between Tiger Mom and a hippy parent that doesn’t instill survival skills.

You don’t need straight As and 3 extracurriculars to earn money, but you also can’t explore your interests all day and follow your passion to secure your family’s future.

I would try to suss out what kind of life they want. If they want to jet set and have fancy things, they need to do the things that get them high pay. If they’re okay clocking in and out and going home without stress and maximizing enjoyment in 20s, maybe do a trade or something. If they don’t care about having roommates for the rest of their life and what kind of school district their kids are in, then they can study art or do whatever they feel like.

They should also be made aware that their potential mates will be affected by their lifestyle choices as well.

Re: The biology of dads

#195

Post by gabereiser »

TooRightKite wrote: post #114
gabereiser wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I echo this. I’m an empty nester now but when I was raising kids (really early on) most of my friends were going to bars and didn’t understand the responsibility. Now they are all having kids and looking to me for answers... like there’s a manual for kids. I felt the most pride in my life watching my step-daughter get her diploma. I, a masculine man who was taught to bottle it all up and stuff upper lip, cried like a…

That's nice, but why did your step daughter max the pride-meter instead of one of your own?

This is what I'm talking about. There's no limit to the pride meter with kids. It's at 11 all the time.

Re: The biology of dads

#196

Post by colechristensen »

watwut wrote: post #105
yellowstuff wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this as paradoxical. For babies past a couple months old a lot of cries are actually manipulative, and a more empathetic person can better distinguish them. I think my wife and I started sleeping training our son at around 12 weeks old, and quickly learned to tell the difference between a "complaining" cry that meant he was unhappy but he could probably soothe himself, and a "real" cry that meant he was r…

A couple months old baby is not capable to be manipulative. That requires reasoning, predicting and emphating abilities they don't have.

Deception doesn’t require consciousness or reasoning. I feel like there are many different personal definitions for manipulation here and people are just disagreeing indirectly on that.

Re: The biology of dads

#197

Post by rayiner »

ksdale wrote: post #170
rayiner wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s kind of a weird ret-conning of “of the masculine ideal.” When NASA picked astronauts to be the public face of the technological race against communism, they picked men with families: https://nasa.fandom.com/wiki/Mercury_Seven > From the 18, the first seven NASA astronauts were chosen,[8] each a "superb physical specimen" with an IQ above 130, and the ability to function well both as part of a team and solo.[6] G…

This is great. In my comment, I almost mentioned that because of how much earlier people historically had children (than most Americans and Europeans do now), most of the people we think of as "masculine ideals" throughout history would have been (were) fathers. The number of times I read about a famous historical figure on Wikipedia, and they mention almost as an afterthought that they had 6 kids... But I didn't wan…

I’m not sure who “Maximus” is—if the author is talking about the movie Gladiator, the whole premise of that story is that Maximus is a loving family man who kills the illegitimate Emperor who had his wife and son killed. Achilles had a son who fought in the war against Troy. Hector, who Achilles fought and killed, also had a family, and that’s a key part of his portrayal by Homer. He’s the loyal soldier who fights to protect Troy without any impure motive of seeking glory or power. The whole Odyssey is about Odysseus returning home to his wife and son.

Re: The biology of dads

#198

Post by vincentmarle »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #188
vincentmarle wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why almost half of US children are not raised under the same roof with their biological father. Do you have any source on this? That's an interesting but shocking fact

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2020/comm/chil... I didn't expect to see similar proportions of children both living only with mother and only with father. In fact, 12 to 17 years of age is 44% only with father versus 36.6% only with mother. Not only do more teens live with their father only, but only 20% live with both parents?

> only 20% live with both parents

That's not the correct conclusion, the percentages add up to 100% for both the single mother and single father parent cohort, but it doesn't say anything about kids who are living with both parents.

Re: The biology of dads

#199

Post by lallysingh »

kortilla wrote: post #178
lallysingh wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it's not like we're born with DNA testers. There's no reason why our instincts actually know the difference between our biological kids and others we've been with, played the same role with, and raised the same way.

Yes, but it depends on the age of the child when the relationship starts. My half sister was 13-ish about when my father married my mother (so my half sister’s step-mother). There was always an obvious difference in the way she bonded with my mom vs her biological mom. It’s still family, but more like an aunt at best. Despite never saying it, it’s pretty obvious my mother obviously views us differently as well having…

Of course. That makes perfect sense.

Re: The biology of dads

#200

Post by surge »

swat535 wrote: post #150
ksdale wrote: post #58

"They seemed like ideal infant-caregivers: calm, gentle, patient and sensitive. They didn’t seem like men you would go to battle with. In fact, they were the very antithesis of the warriors and athletes – think Maximus, Achilles or Michael Jordan – often associated with a masculine ideal." I became a father quite a bit before most of my friends, and so was the butt of some jokes about masculinity for the way I parent…

Your testosterone levels are reduced as a man when you become a father [1], I wouldn't be surprised if that affects men's behaviour. Our evolution is complex, I find it fascinating that you can often dig up research with regards to this topic. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182719/

I think he's overstating how much effect T has on this.

I'm on HRT due to past medical issues that drastically reduced my T levels. I remember what it was like to have my T really low, Now that I'm on T, and probably about normal or higher than average for my age, I can't say its changed drastically my attitude towards my children, how gentle I am towards them and much less increased my willingness or proclivity to leave my family or my wife and seek another partner. If anything its made me more protective and I've had more a sense of duty towards my family, to protect them and be the first line of defense against whatever threats minor and major exist. The worst of it has been a shortness of temper but I keep it in check, its basically like being 20 again and being older and wiser, I can channel it into positive action.

I wonder if he studied fathers who are physically active and do things like weight lifting or MMA, that naturally elevate T levels would agree that the line drawn between animals with higher T and humans are being overly correlated.

Post reply on HN