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

101–110 of 169 posts

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

#101

Post by skywhopper »

As soon as the author starts getting into statistics, there are so many bad assumptions being made that the conclusions being drawn are just ridiculous. Just as a first pass, the fact that you are widely read does not mean you are a good writer. Secondly, it's obvious that genetics don't determine everything about someone's life (surely a writer would recognize that writing is not wholly an inherent skill?), so going off on a tangent about what it would mean if it were is not actually all that interesting.

Didn't get much further than that.

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

#102

Post by CoffeeOnWrite »

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.

That's a half-joke, for what it's worth.

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

#103

Post by nradov »

Spivak wrote: post #94
btilly wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

Expect to see some of those social advancements reverse as declining birth rates threaten the survival of some societies. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it will happen. We're already seeing that in places like Russia where the government is pressuring women to have more children.

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

#104

Post by tomrod »

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…

Whole lotta folks gonna be sad if your interpretation means the rhythm method of birth control is verboten in the eyes of the Canaanite pantheon.

Good thing we have modern birth control methods and everyone is cool with them.

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

#105

Post by CoffeeOnWrite »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #71
thefaux wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It might, but does it come off as pretentious or genuine? It doesn't read like he keeps a thesaurus next to him to sound smarter. Keep in mind he's been doing this for a very long time as well. Also he's well-versed on the subject of rationality, so I would argue that he's probably more rational than most people.

I am not familiar with the author, and read it as genuine, examples where they exhibit humorous self-awareness and humility:

"If your brains are still too small to process such esoteric terms"

"It’s a crazy thing to try, when even your own local predictions are so far from perfect accuracy."

"I cannot quite remember why I thought this would be a good idea. I blame the pronatalist influencer conspiracy."

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

#106

Post by mgaunard »

_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.

I'm an atheist; I've read and studied the Bible as part of my catholic education 25 years ago.

Not that I'm strongly against it, but my attention is challenged by many things, and a man who starts an article about becoming a father with a clear sex-is-for-procreation Bible quote makes it sound like his experience of life is not relevant to mine.

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

#107

Post by LeifCarrotson »

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.

It's because in Scott's recent past, an NYT journalist lied about wanting to write a positive article about him and being OK with using his pseudonym, then instead wrote a very negative article and doxxed him instead. The author is a psychiatrist with some unstable patients, and a blogger with some controversial opinions. It's a whole thing, I read that and chuckled at the tongue-in-cheek humor.

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

#108

Post by gfody »

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.

Peter Welch

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

#109

Post by tomrod »

nradov wrote: post #103
Spivak wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

Expect to see some of those social advancements reverse as declining birth rates threaten the survival of some societies. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it will happen. We're already seeing that in places like Russia where the government is pressuring women to have more children.

I'm with Kurzgesaget on the interpretation here. Declining birth rates will be a problem, but it's not insurmountable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ

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

#110

Post by oooyay »

mgaunard wrote: post #40
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's more hacker news that I'm interested in, and how the article was representative of the crowd that gathers here. Start-up founders are often of the age to start having children I guess. Even if having a child and a start-up at the same time is most definitely not a good idea.

The average age range of startup founders is 35-45. The average age of people having their first kid is 30.

That said, there's a lot more than startup founders here. Always was.

Post reply on HN