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

In the long run, we're all Dad

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 169 posts

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#21

Post by the_af »

pyentropy wrote: post #10
pizzafeelsright wrote: post #8

I read of an inconsistent mindset. God this. God that. "Natural selection didn't design" which is contradictory. Evolved murder monkeys. Happy to have babies. Women are indeed saved by childbirth. Men too.

You haven't read Scott's blog enough :) He's an atheist psychiatrist. However, he enjoys how natural selection, social dynamics and reputation can also be modeled by the moral rules of most religions. For example, going to therapy isn't that different from practicing confessions in a church.

> For example, going to therapy isn't that different from practicing confessions in a church.

Depends on the kind of therapy. Some are more dogmatic and one might even call them "religious" (overloading the word), while other forms of therapy are more grounded and based on empiricism -- the latter ones are far removed from religious confession.

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#22

Post by the_af »

pj_mukh wrote: post #5

"There is a secret known only to parents of twins, medical residents, and Alexey Guzey: the human body does not actually need sleep. After 31 hours awake, you get an integer overflow in God’s database and go back to being well-rested again. Also you gain the ability to see angels." LOL. Amaze. On that note, I've heard some amazing things about the Snoo. It was banned from our house because of Luddit-ian reasons, but…

> LOL. Amaze.

Don't be too amazed though. What he states isn't the scientific consensus. Persistent sleep deprivation is harmful to human beings, and you don't "reset and go back to well-rested again". Some sleep deprivation can be endured though, as any parent will tell you -- I know I wasn't "well rested" afterwards. I mostly was grumpy and very slow to think.

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#23

Post by danenania »

pj_mukh wrote: post #5

"There is a secret known only to parents of twins, medical residents, and Alexey Guzey: the human body does not actually need sleep. After 31 hours awake, you get an integer overflow in God’s database and go back to being well-rested again. Also you gain the ability to see angels." LOL. Amaze. On that note, I've heard some amazing things about the Snoo. It was banned from our house because of Luddit-ian reasons, but…

"I still maintain you're not bonding with your baby at 3 am"

I'm not so sure about that. There's a lot happening beneath the surface both biologically and psychologically (on both sides) when a parent soothes a baby at 3am.

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#24

Post by inglor_cz »

boiler_up800 wrote: post #16

Congrats to him. I’ve seen stats that somewhere between 30-50% of all twins are born through IVF. So technically not a huge surprise on that result. A little surprised on the 50% death rate for children before the age of 5 in 1800. It’s amazing how recent that is.

If you visit a cemetery with still readable headstones from the 1800s (even the late 1800s), there will be an awful lot of kids there.

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#25

Post by coldtea »

>Modern academics have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. If Onan had impregnated his brother’s wife, the resulting child would have been the heir to the family fortune. Onan refused so he could keep the fortune for himself and his descendants

That required "modern academics" to explain? It was already self-evident in the original telling, a couple of millenia ago... Sure, the other cases of condemnation of masturbation might not be so clear cut.

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#26

Post by adamlgerber »

koliber wrote: post #6

Good writing advice says that each sentence has a single goal. The goal is to draw the reader in, and convince them to read the next sentence. This article does it masterfully. The title drew me in. The opening sentence finished the job. Well done.

Scott Alexander is not for everyone (as I've learned by unsuccessfully foisting him on friends for years) but for people who are even remotely interested he is probably the greatest internet writer alive.

I'd love to hear alternative GOATs.

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#27

Post by mariusor »

jawns wrote: post #9

> Modern academics have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. It's only perfectly reasonable if you aren't familiar with the broader context. Breaking the levirate marriage custom was not in itself considered an action worthy of severe punishment. Indeed, there was a well-defined ceremony, spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:8-10 [1], intended to humiliate a man who refuses to marry his brother's widow. But b…

> embarrassing nickname

Which one was that?

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#28

Post by adamlgerber »

antonvs wrote: post #4

Sad to see "Jennifer" listed as a "newer name". Aside from that spelling being more than a century old, it's just a newer spelling of Guinevere, a name which dates back to at least 1100, when it started appearing in written Arthurian legends. The Welsh form, Gwenhwyfar, is attested before that.

your fact is incontestable, but labeling this as 'sad' is.

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#29

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

mgaunard wrote: post #13
koliber wrote: post #6

Good writing advice says that each sentence has a single goal. The goal is to draw the reader in, and convince them to read the next sentence. This article does it masterfully. The title drew me in. The opening sentence finished the job. Well done.

Myself I closed the tab at the second sentence, so I can't attest to that.

And yet that first sentence was reason enough for you to leave a reply. In a way it did evoke something in you that probably most texts don’t do.

Re: In the long run, we're all Dad

#30

Post by jihadjihad »

mariusor wrote: post #27
jawns wrote: post #9

> Modern academics have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. It's only perfectly reasonable if you aren't familiar with the broader context. Breaking the levirate marriage custom was not in itself considered an action worthy of severe punishment. Indeed, there was a well-defined ceremony, spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:8-10 [1], intended to humiliate a man who refuses to marry his brother's widow. But b…

> embarrassing nickname Which one was that?

I am assuming GP is referring to Onan in Hebrew: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%9F#Hebr...

Edit: possibly Halizah [0] instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halizah

Further edit: didn't see the [1] in GP...whoops

Post reply on HN