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

Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#111

Post by jasonlotito »

bambax wrote: post #29
pestaa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they misbehave, that's another story to discuss. But the manner in which you publicly talk about your own family is just disgusting. I have only higher words even about my dog even with the headaches she causes sometimes.

Thanks for commenting, because I can't understand the downvotes. I still don't see where I "publicly talk about my own family" in a "disgusting" way, but if that's how my comment comes across, it sure looks bad. For all it's worth, I love my kids. Of course. And I would throw myself under a bus for any of them. Of course. And I almost have, twice (under my motorbike, which is not a bus, but weights over 400 pounds).…

> It objectifies them: in fact, it's a kind of abuse.

Really? It's abuse to praise your kids in public? Do you really feel that praising your child in public is the same as abusing them?

Regardless of whether that praise is warranted or not, you're calling it abuse?

I honestly think you are disconnected. I understand you are trying to make a point, and while I didn't necessarily agree, I could respect that opinion. But when you started to define praise in public as abuse (that whole line of thinking), I really think you lost it.

The worst part is, I could see what you were thinking. I just think it's so disconnected from reality. This explains why you think and feel the way you do. This could be a cultural thing (you are from France). Might also just be who you are. But I honestly think you are disconnected, and that can only hurt your opinion.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#112

Post by akat »

akat wrote: post #97
bambax wrote: post #8

> 49% incredible pain in the ass, 51% most sublime joy you've ever felt; that one percent makes all the difference. Between 49 and 51 I count a difference of two percents? > Turns out, we're having two babies, due in mid-February 2012. Aha. Let's talk again in a year or two, see who you'd throw under a bus. I have three of those myself. I don't really subscribe to this whole "kids are wonderful" cliché. The first kid…

> I don't really subscribe to this whole "kids are wonderful" cliché. Failed parent. Since kids can only be as wonderful as you (parent) mold and let them to be. (at least in the early years)

and why the downvotes?

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#113

Post by run4yourlives »

mcrittenden wrote: post #108
run4yourlives wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I can honestly say that as a father I cannot relate to you at all. I've got two boys, 4 and 2. As you said the first one is pretty good, but the second one is a terror. If I lose it on him and yell with all my might at his misdeeds he will just sit there and laugh - he thinks it's funny. He can be - and is - exhausting to just be around, let alone parent. But I love him to death. He's a reflection of certain sid…

> how they handle stress, their gut reactions, their deepest feelings, their expression of opinion - all very similar to the parent. Do you really think that this is true often enough to present it as a blanket rule like that? It seems like a fantastic oversimplification to me.

I'm not a doctor and don't have evidence, but my direct observations seem to suggest that it is in fact true.

Let me clarify: I'm not saying that kids are similar to their parents in the outcomes (a parent may like going on bike rides while a child doesn't, for instance), rather I find that the way they process information can be very similar: if a parent tends to react emotionally, then logically to certain cues, the child will emulate, although not to the same particular cues.

This gets stronger as the parent molds the child, in that I've found this is more likely the case in "older" children than babies.

It's been my experience that once you've identified the key drivers pushing this response, the response between adult and child is almost identical. I'm somewhat ashamed to also confirm that this works even when the parent is yourself.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#114

Post by gonzo »

bambax wrote: post #8

> 49% incredible pain in the ass, 51% most sublime joy you've ever felt; that one percent makes all the difference. Between 49 and 51 I count a difference of two percents? > Turns out, we're having two babies, due in mid-February 2012. Aha. Let's talk again in a year or two, see who you'd throw under a bus. I have three of those myself. I don't really subscribe to this whole "kids are wonderful" cliché. The first kid…

My sister in-law declared, "one is a hobby, you're not parenting until you have two!"

(I have one.)

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#115

Post by run4yourlives »

TamDenholm wrote: post #102

I'm not a parent and don't ever plan to be (not all plans go that way, so my feelings might change on the matter) but I dont really get the whole parenting/having kids thing. I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling and i honestly think i'd make an absolutely terrible father because i just dont think im wired that way. When Jeff talks about the 51% to the…

I'll say this as a father: Too many people feel like you do and have kids anyway. This is a huge mistake.

If you can never picture yourself with children of your own, or more importantly, don't want to, then don't have them.

You're not "incomplete". Having children changes you, but it is not a measure of completeness. This statement comes from any major learning period, which I think is what having a child essentially is. However, it's meaningless to say that "learning to play piano completed me", outside of your own context. Not everyone wants to play piano, and some of us don't even like music.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#116

Post by antidaily »

TamDenholm wrote: post #102

I'm not a parent and don't ever plan to be (not all plans go that way, so my feelings might change on the matter) but I dont really get the whole parenting/having kids thing. I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling and i honestly think i'd make an absolutely terrible father because i just dont think im wired that way. When Jeff talks about the 51% to the…

99% of people would tell you they don't find other peoples' children cute or darling, especially when crying in a restaurant. The whole point of the article is to explain that when it's your child, it's completely different. It's nature in action. Suddenly, you're a fucking silverback ready to rip the head off a jaguar for your baby.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#117

Post by run4yourlives »

akat wrote: post #112
akat wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really subscribe to this whole "kids are wonderful" cliché. Failed parent. Since kids can only be as wonderful as you (parent) mold and let them to be. (at least in the early years)

and why the downvotes?

You can't make such a strong and almost offensive statement without at least elaborating a little.

As it stands you're adding nothing to this conversation.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#118

Post by gigawatt »

TamDenholm wrote: post #102

I'm not a parent and don't ever plan to be (not all plans go that way, so my feelings might change on the matter) but I dont really get the whole parenting/having kids thing. I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling and i honestly think i'd make an absolutely terrible father because i just dont think im wired that way. When Jeff talks about the 51% to the…

I felt _exactly_ the same way as you before we had our son 15 months ago. In fact, I felt _exactly_ the same way as you until he was about 6 months old. I'm not exaggerating — it's painful for me to say, but I cursed myself every day for not being able to bring myself to tell my wife that I didn't think I wanted kids. He was just a helpless baby, but I was convinced I'd never feel any kind of strong connection other than a sense of duty to him.

However, around six months, when he started to be able to actually do things for himself, like hold his own bottle, I started to feel a shift. Now he's 15 months old and I completely understand what everyone means when they say "you'll never love anything more." Being with him is the most heart-breakingly beautiful part of my life and I wouldn't have it any other way.

All that said, I firmly believe that kids aren't the only, or even best, path to fulfillment for everyone. In fact, I still don't really get the same sense of accomplishment from raising him that I do from my work. And I'm sure if we didn't have him, I would be able to do some other amazingly beautiful thing that helped other people or just made me happy.

This is all to say, don't write anything off, even if it feels like a mistake for far longer than you think it should. Sometimes doing something just because someone you love wants it so much more than you can turn out better than you expect. On the other hand, finding someone who wants the same things as you can turn out just as good. Be open, that's all I'm trying to say.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#119

Post by ajross »

antidaily wrote: post #116
TamDenholm wrote: post #102

I'm not a parent and don't ever plan to be (not all plans go that way, so my feelings might change on the matter) but I dont really get the whole parenting/having kids thing. I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling and i honestly think i'd make an absolutely terrible father because i just dont think im wired that way. When Jeff talks about the 51% to the…

99% of people would tell you they don't find other peoples' children cute or darling, especially when crying in a restaurant. The whole point of the article is to explain that when it's your child, it's completely different. It's nature in action. Suddenly, you're a fucking silverback ready to rip the head off a jaguar for your baby.

Ecological pedantry: no apes in the americas, nor jaguars in Africa.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#120

Post by run4yourlives »

mikeash wrote: post #106
watmough wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I completely agree. If you have anything other than complete unconditional love for a child under about 10, then it seems possible there's something very very wrong. Its almost like he's talking about someone else's kids that he's baby sitting. Small children are a blank canvas. Good and bad. Mine is sitting down quietly paging through a book whilst I tap this in on the iPad. Moments ago, she was blundering abou…

This really bugs me. Why can't we have a normal range of emotions here? Yes, we are predisposed to enormously love our children. But it's just a massive bias , not an absolute requirement. Acting like anything short of complete and unconditional love with absolutely no complaints or downside somehow means that there's something wrong with a person just suppresses completely legitimate feelings and makes it difficult…

> Yes, we are predisposed to enormously love our children. But it's just a massive bias, not an absolute requirement.

You're not getting the entire point of Jeff's post if you are saying something like this. If you aren't a parent, fair enough, you simply don't understand. No disrespect intended but this is the truth.

If you are a parent, we should clarify that "unconditional love" doesn't mean no complaints or downsides. Nobody here is suggesting that.

Post reply on HN