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

251–260 of 285 posts

Re: The biology of dads

#251

Post by Agentlien »

pbronez wrote: post #226
jonathanlydall wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you acknowledged maybe not just a father thing. I’ve had two major life in peril crisis with my wife. First was about 3.5 years ago and started with her sister calling to say they just had a serious car accident which ultimately resulted in my wife being in intensive care for over a week. The other was in June this year when my wife and I discovered our baby was arriving 10 weeks early. Gratefully, in both cas…

Oh yeah it’s a very weird feeling when you finally get home from the hospital. It takes a moment, then you realize that nobody else is there to help. The baby is there, hugely needy, completely dependent, and it’s just up to you guys to handle it. Gulp.

The way I felt it, and the way my father described his feelings in the same situation was "can I really just take this home with me? No one's going to question or stop me?"

Re: The biology of dads

#252

Post by lallysingh »

borroka wrote: post #207
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.

That has been found to be empirically not true. As always, there is a distribution (see Homicide by Daly and Wilson, for example). Now, if we know by instinct, smell, or just because we know...

An interesting study might be parents who later learn that their kids aren't actually theirs. Did they treat their kids differently than real biological children? All kinds of ethical issues, etc., but the data would be awesome.

Re: The biology of dads

#253

Post by tuatoru »

mqrs wrote: post #248
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…

> Those who have kids know. Those who don’t just will never understand. Oh come on, I was agreeing with your comment until this totally unnecessary condescension. Part of being a mature person (which you imply to claim you are) is the knowledge that whatever you know isn’t necessarily special to your experience, and that other people may arrive at it through a different set of experiences. In this case, being proud o…

For myself, having kids taught me things about myself that I'd have been happier never knowing.

Not a better person, just happier.

On balance the knowledge is worth it to me.

Re: The biology of dads

#254

Post by andrewem »

boringg wrote: post #240
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except they are parasites. for women, biologically, the foetus considers the mother's body as the host body and siphons off resources. and thats ok. because the parasite is 50% of host DNA. all babies are born premature because we evolved quickly and the human female's pelvic bones didnt grow as wide and as quickly as the baby's head to come through the birth canal. even after birth, the human baby needs the mother/f…

I have to say that this is an interesting perspective to take. Seems highly functional. Not sure if I agree or disagree, I do find it interesting.

If that interests you, see the philosophical debates about the nature and existence of consciousness, e.g. https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-d... and the follow-up https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/04/03/magic-illusions-and...

I thought of this connection because of the philosopher Daniel Dennett's writing about the Sphex wasp.

Re: The biology of dads

#255

Post by mqrs »

lallysingh wrote: post #252
borroka wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has been found to be empirically not true. As always, there is a distribution (see Homicide by Daly and Wilson, for example). Now, if we know by instinct, smell, or just because we know...

An interesting study might be parents who later learn that their kids aren't actually theirs. Did they treat their kids differently than real biological children? All kinds of ethical issues, etc., but the data would be awesome.

Even if you could resolve the ethical issues, the only thing that a study would prove is that “people tend not to care for children that aren’t theirs”, and not “biological relation is necessary for a parent to be able to care for an adopted child”.

Re: The biology of dads

#256

Post by andrewem »

Balgair wrote: post #229
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…

> think Maximus, Achilles or Michael Jordan Maximus is a bit of a strange choice there. Marcus Aurelius of Meditations fame, is the titular grandfather figure in the film (right at the start). Meditations has a lot in it about child rearing and Marcus was something of a devoted father to his many children (for Roman men in those days). All that said, his son, Commodus, the first emperor to have the title passed down…

This from the Wikipedia article on Commodus does indeed seem very bad: "Citizens of Rome missing their feet through accident or illness were taken to the arena, where they were tethered together for Commodus to club to death while pretending they were giants."

Re: The biology of dads

#257

Post by kortilla »

zarkov99 wrote: post #227
kortilla wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Difficult” does not belong with the other two and I’m not sure we need to admire people who have to risk their lives so much as pity them. It’s unfortunate we have so many roles in society that still require that.

You would be surprised as to how many of these people would pity and politely dismiss most of richer and softer types of human that inhabit tech.

Nothing to do with rich or “softer”. There are jobs that are dangerous that pay quite well and require little physical prowess.

Re: The biology of dads

#258

Post by sizzle »

tuatoru wrote: post #253
mqrs wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those who have kids know. Those who don’t just will never understand. Oh come on, I was agreeing with your comment until this totally unnecessary condescension. Part of being a mature person (which you imply to claim you are) is the knowledge that whatever you know isn’t necessarily special to your experience, and that other people may arrive at it through a different set of experiences. In this case, being proud o…

For myself, having kids taught me things about myself that I'd have been happier never knowing. Not a better person, just happier. On balance the knowledge is worth it to me.

That you'd be happier never knowing? I'm curious what some insights are you learned from your journey.

Re: The biology of dads

#259

Post by oh_sigh »

mattlondon wrote: post #147
kody wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I are working from home and raising our 6 month old daughter, and the -only- distraction that brings me to a grinding halt is my daughter's crying. Even with noise-cancelling headphones, if I hear any crying at all I feel an incredible emotional reaction that totally prevents me from focusing on work until she's calm and happy again. I'm also glad to read that there's a natural (hormonal?) explanation for…

Same here with a 9 month old. I can tune out the general noise, but there are certain cries that 100% short-circuit my brain and dissolve any semblance of focus or ability to concentrate. Some days, by the time baby is asleep my nerves are just utterly shot by trying to concentrate around the crying.

You should get some ear plugs.

Re: The biology of dads

#260

Post by bgroat »

elteto wrote: post #164
lqet wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "go to battle" I remember that in the first days after my kid was born, the thought that I would defend that child to the bitter end against any attacker suddenly seemed completely natural, even trivial. It was quite strange and included a sudden extreme awareness of (and aggressive feelings against) animals which came to close. This included dogs. The feelings were overwhelmingly archaic. I talked to my wife about…

One day it just hit me: "I could totally give my life for this child". It came out of nowhere and it was a chilling and somewhat unnerving feeling. I never felt that for anyone. But the conviction is there, almost like a peaceful resignation: if there is no other solution and that is the only possible alternative then so be it. Crazy.

It's funny, this was one of the reasons I always found Harry Potter so overrated.

So Harry has super special invincibility from The Killing Curse because Lily sacrifices herself for him. This is described as "Ancient, Long Forgotten Magic"

Wouldn't literally any parent do this?

Why aren't they're dozens of boys/girls who lived?

Post reply on HN