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

41–50 of 169 posts

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

#41

Post by kqr »

zozbot234 wrote: post #36

Why the heck is this guy using AI robot technobabble like "surprisal-minimization engines" and "hyperpriors" to reference the birth of their kids. That's so fucked up, not everything in the world is about "tech" and VC-fueled bubbles for goodness' sake! I realize that we're on the orange site and VC is everything here, but still it's the first time I've seen anything remotely like this. And regardless it can't possib…

Cynical view: to signal to other capital-R Rationalists that the author is still one of them, despite parenthood (which has a way of affecting people's rationality.)

Pragmatic view: that's the kind of analysis people like from Scott Alexander so where else should it go if not on his blog? If you don't like it, stay away from submissions with that domain name.

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

#42

Post by kaonwarb »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #20
pyentropy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. If your therapist responds to your sharing by suggesting that straying from their advice, or some kooky ancient text, results in eternal damnation then run far away. Churches can be devastating to ones mental health. Do not recommend.

> Churches can be devastating to ones mental health. Do not recommend.

No issue with your first clause: indeed, churches can be devastating to one's mental health (as can ~anything). That observation does not support your second clause. Religiosity is generally associated with lower mental health problems [0]. Correlation is not causation, of course; difficult to do a prospective study in this field.

[0] E.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8462234/

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

#43

Post by reducesuffering »

the_af wrote: post #22
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.

The writing was “tongue in cheek.” He doesn’t actually mean it.

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

#44

Post by datameta »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #20
pyentropy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. If your therapist responds to your sharing by suggesting that straying from their advice, or some kooky ancient text, results in eternal damnation then run far away. Churches can be devastating to ones mental health. Do not recommend.

This is as silly of a strawman as creating a scenario where in the confession booth your priest goes over the BioPsychoSocial model and how their mental health is important for their overall well-being.

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

#45

Post by jeffrallen »

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.

[flagged]

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

#46

Post by jeffrallen »

adamlgerber wrote: post #26
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.

Rob Beschizza.

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

#47

Post by Smaug123 »

matthewowen wrote: post #17
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.

That’s an interesting fact I didn’t know before that makes sense in retrospect. I wish you hadn’t phrased it snarkily tho: is it really “sad” that someone doesn’t know an interesting fact that you do, or is it a fun opportunity for others to learn something?

FWIW I didn't read snark. I read "I am sad to see…", much as I might be sad to see the history of any other ancient thing forgotten.

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

#48

Post by kqr »

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.

> 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.

This sounds like some sort of confusion of the inverse.

The fact that most twins are borne through IVF does not imply that any conceptiin (assisted or not) can expect twins. They are still rare in both cases.

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

#49

Post by giraffe_lady »

adamlgerber wrote: post #26
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.

[flagged]

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

#50

Post by lotsofpulp »

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.

I recall my wife’s doctor saying that was because they used to implant multiple embryos during IVF, and they no longer do that, especially since the Octomom fiasco.
Post reply on HN