161–170 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most marriages that are first marriages for both partners end in death. Doesn't sound like there's a lot of regret there. People want to stay married. Otherwise they wouldn't.
I didn't get married til my early 60s. So far so good! I've seen so so many busted marriages "out there" that I did NOT rush it (obv).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The website lists a breakdown of common reasons given for divorce: - Lack of commitment 73% - Argue too much 56% - Infidelity 55% - Married too young 46% - Unrealistic expectations 45% - Lack of equality in the relationship 44% - Lack of preparation for marriage 41% - Domestic Violence or Abuse 25% (Respondents often cited more that one reason, therefore the percentages add up to much more than 100 percent) All of th…
Yes and no. You can have plenty of commitment for 5 years, and then you feel like doing something else and your commitment decreases. Infidelity doesn't mean the whole relationship has been bad. My point is, there is an expectation that a happy marriage lasts your whole life, and while there is nothing wrong with a marriage like that, it is not the only happy solution. You can have a relationship end without regretti…
I am very similar, having read way over 1k books in the last ten years or so, on a perversely wide array of subjects. I’ve also done everything from tinkering with Arduinos all the way to marriage counseling. But I quickly get bored and move on to the next field.
An early disciple of CG Jung, Marie Louise von Franz, wrote that the life of our personality type looks like a never ending track of fields sown but never reaped.
But while you may never stay long enough on a field to reap its fruit, what you do reap is a very interconnected, multidisciplinary way of understanding the world, which comes to you not so much in the form of explicit knowledge but in the form of a very special “intuition”.
That isn’t to say that you are infallible. In fact, you should always be careful to question that intuition and to try to make as much of it as possible explicit, even just to yourself. But if you do that, you have a good chance of being quite successful with a Peter Thiel style of investing.
Just always keep in mind your three biggest enemies: The mimetic reflex of wanting to follow the herd and get approval from others. The seductive illusion of superiority or infallibility. And the general tendency of wanting to be right, and of fooling yourself.
Furthermore, you seem to dismiss advanced degrees as well as science, so it seems you attention is fleeting. Did you consider if maybe you have ADD?
Anyway, "intellectual pursuits" in itself is nothing to build a life on, especially if you have children. At some point, it may help to leave the "search" mode and instead try to figure out what your fundamental values are. If you know what you value, you are in a much better position to set up a life path to maximize that.
If taking care of a familiy is not pretty high on your list of meaningful activities, starting a familiy may be a bad idea.
> I'm interested in so many disciplines, but what can I do with that? > From psychology to history of science to anthropology and sociology, to economics and politics, to philosophy and religious studies and cultural studies, etc. You guys may consider my comment as begging for down-votes but why to chose so lowball content only? Among the disciplines the topicstarter has chosen there is only one which may be awarded…
If before they didn't know anything about economics, and now they have a basic understanding of how a country's economy works, I wouldn't call that standing. Same with all other topics, going from "zero knowledge" to "basic knowledge" is already more than what 99% of the people on the planet will know about any given topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel that you can assign a separate IQ-like score to many different components of human intelligence. I score badly on book comprehension relative to other components. I find it easier to concentrate for an hour or two on a video than a book. I'm probably slightly dyslexic or something. At university I made sure I never missed a lecture but hardly ever read a book. I did above averagely well. This is a disadvantage…
> I find it easier to concentrate for an hour or two on a video than a book. That is because video does not requires you to concentrate. Imagine a book which is required to be read in 1x or 1.25x or 1.5x or 2x only. Pretty impossible to read, isn't it? You know, some paragraphs may require several hours to be read. Video just doesn't support to be consumed at different speeds per paragraph.
[1] Admittedly crap 2D car sim https://github.com/abainbridge/car_sim
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might have to check this out. Im skeptical of it being a strength in today's world. So far, it seems to only be a weakness for me.
It's a weakness unless you succeed in synthesizing ideas and intuitions very fast into something unique and high quality.
Of course politics is a field with its own very special rules that may not have much to do with actual understanding of the subjects at hand. But I’m not talking POTUS or senator and maybe not even mayor. Even in smaller towns there are a couple of positions to fill. (I’m from Germany but this is true for many countries; maybe it’s true for yours. I’m presuming you’re from the US and I just noticed that I would rather not presume that, but I guess I do most of the time on HN.)