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

91–100 of 169 posts

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

#91

Post by travisgriggs »

I’m impressed this guy has time to write.

My wife and I raised four children. My wife was blessed to be able to be a “stay at home” mom during the early period. It was a lot of work. I often joke that after the first two weeks of our oldest, I had no recollection of what the first two years of marriage had been like. The child rearing experience is just so all consuming.

Four years ago, that oldest child got pregnant. And then discovered it was twins. We made plans to be there and help like is often the case. Holy crap. Two infants is so much more work than one. It doesn’t double the work load. It compounds geometrically. I think my wife spent the first three months there.

So, yeah, I’m impressed this guy has time to write. Next time you meet someone with twins, give them some cred for making it through the first few months. It is an astronomical effort.

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

#92

Post by 1123581321 »

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 true, but there is no continuity with the old use of the name. Jennifer was presented to the UK and US as a strange name by George Bernard Shaw and gained popularity just because the play was popular on radio and the name sounds nice. Later use in TV made it a top name.

I would bet that there are more girls named Guinevere than girls named Jennifer for philologist reasons. :)

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

#93

Post by hindsightbias »

thefaux wrote: post #65
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.

I always feel like the goal of every Scott Alexander sentence is to show how he is smarter and/or more rational than other people.

He's the Mike Judge of Rationalists.

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

#94

Post by Spivak »

btilly wrote: post #84
ajkjk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes it's from literally biblical times. The social norms were rather different.

To be fair, historically it is our social norms that are more of an aberration. Allowing a couple to get divorced simply because both want to didn't become universal in the USA until about a decade ago. Laws treating the rape of a wife as a crime against her husband were common in the 1960s. Laws prohibiting doctors from helping married couples have access to birth control lasted into the 1960s. All of these were bas…

I don't know why you're being downvoted, our current norms are without question far far better but they are the outlier for human history. Massive technological advancement came with massive social advancements in a really short timespan all things considered.

I'm glad that making lots of babies is no longer something that's necessary for the survival of society and the norms that pressure (force) everyone healthy enough to have children to do so have fallen by the wayside as a result.

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

#96

Post by flatline »

kqr wrote: post #58

> Parents are supposed to teach their children the skills they need to navigate the world. This already feels somewhat obsolete - where are the Google programmers who were taught Python by their fathers, or the Instagram influencers who learned content creation on their mother’s knee? Soon it will be completely hopeless. Where we’re going there are no roads. This was a clear presentation of a thought that has bothere…

The skills I try to instill in my kids are things like: empathy, self-regulation, effective communication, personal boundaries, autonomous decision making, high-level planning, and the basics of adulting. The biggest one I think is adapting to change, because their world will be even more mercurial than the one we are navigating now.

I’m an expert software developer but have not spent time teaching these skills to my 10 year old son. He can get that from literally a hundred other places, and while I am a decent teacher, I’d rather spend our time together focusing on the things I place value on that I don’t think he is likely to get through other sources. I sometimes feel like a full-time therapist for my 12 year old daughter, what good is another A on her middle school report card when she is doing herself in trying to mold herself to meet others’ expectations? She needs an advocate more than a trade skill.

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

#97

Post by rolisz »

gwern wrote: post #86
glitchc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I closed the tab at "cognitive engines." Overwrought balderdash masquerading as prose.

It is not 'balderdash', it is a reference to Scott's longstanding interest in Karl Friston & predictive processing paradigms in neuroscience & psychiatry. If you don't get the allusions, that's your problem, not his.

Oh, it is Scott's problem. I got the references and I still found them to be too much.

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

#98

Post by CoffeeOnWrite »

gwern wrote: post #86
glitchc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I closed the tab at "cognitive engines." Overwrought balderdash masquerading as prose.

It is not 'balderdash', it is a reference to Scott's longstanding interest in Karl Friston & predictive processing paradigms in neuroscience & psychiatry. If you don't get the allusions, that's your problem, not his.

There's a segment on HN that comes out of the woodwork to poo poo artful writing. Parent commenter was not going to appreciate this article. I'd say it's a testament to the author's writing ability that they were able to pull parent commenter in a couple hundred words before they recognized it was "balderdash"!

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

#99

Post by Amorymeltzer »

yohannparis wrote: post #78
_gabe_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the second sentence mentions the Bible? Or some other reason? If it’s the former, I’m a Christian but I don’t just close out articles if they’re written by Richard Dawkins or quickly proclaim that they’re an atheist. There’s still a very real chance that they have some wisdom to share. Just because people share a different religious view than me doesn’t mean I can’t learn from them.

I stopped when they grouped the NYT journalists with murderers and drug-dealers. Clearly someone biais, that also use the bible to make their points. No thank you.

I don't agree with the grouping, but he is making a very specific, personal reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex#New_York_Time...>. It's referenced elsewhere as well, as noted in this comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38734207>

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

#100

Post by ptaffs »

_gabe_ wrote: post #70
mgaunard wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because the second sentence mentions the Bible? Or some other reason? If it’s the former, I’m a Christian but I don’t just close out articles if they’re written by Richard Dawkins or quickly proclaim that they’re an atheist. There’s still a very real chance that they have some wisdom to share. Just because people share a different religious view than me doesn’t mean I can’t learn from them.

As an atheist, mention or quotes from the bible are interesting to me because they help explain our current culture. I'm just challenging your proposal that (all) atheists are not curious.
Post reply on HN