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

121–130 of 169 posts

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

#121

Post by btilly »

Aloha wrote: post #113
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 see 'no fault' divorce as an extension of islamic divorce law - in practical terms its not an aberration though - we'd been employing various legal fictions in divorce cases to grant pseudo no-fault divorce as far back as the 1840's - where yes 'fault' was meaningless in the context of the granting of divorce - it just had to exist.

Islamic divorce law allows for no fault, but is also highly asymmetric in how easy it makes it for men and women. A man can initiate a no fault divorce at any time. A woman can ask for a no fault divorce, but it is up to the husband whether to grant it.

Islam is not the only no fault divorce in history. For example ancient Rome allowed for no fault divorces, on more even terms than Islam later would. It's terms were closer to modern US no fault divorces than Islam's terms are.

Modern US laws are reasonably equal between men and women, and do not come from either of those sources. US law comes from the fact that in some frontier states, the uneven ratio between men and women meant that people saw no reason for an unhappy couple to remain married. If they don't want to be married, let them divorce. And let some other guy have a shot at the wife.

This specifically became an issue with Nevada, because Nevada only required a 6 month residency in the state before you could get a divorce. As travel became easier, people from other states routinely took advantage of this as the easiest way to get divorced. That lasted until changing attitudes during the Sexual Revolution caused other states to start adopting similar laws. See https://renodivorcehistory.org/themes/law-of-the-land/ for more on this.

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

#122

Post by yu3zhou4 »

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…

Thank you for this comment. I very much appreciate your and flatline’s take on parenting

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

#123

Post by 542458 »

scruple wrote: post #51
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…

My employer got us a Snoo (rental) for each child. With our twins, they worked pretty well until 4 months or so. Our singleton wouldn't go for it at all. I agree that there's no genuinely useful bonding happening in the dead of the night when you're so sleep deprived that you might be hallucinating. It's just base survival after a certain point. I used to run dual feedings overnight with bottled milk so my wife could…

Thanks for writing this. The second part makes me feel a bit better about my own life - my experiences are the same as yours. Having children exposes flaws in your life skills, mental health, and relationships that were previously invisible. It can be quite distressing, or at least it was for me.

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

#124

Post by glitchc »

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.

When the writing sounds like something you'd hear on an episode of Frasier, it's overwritten. Reading Strunk and White would greatly benefit the author.

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

#127

Post by galdosdi »

mgaunard wrote: post #106
_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'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.

You're behaving foolishly. If you spend just a moment looking at it you'd see the author isn't even taking the religious text he's quoting seriously! So your great fear of accidentally interacting with a religious individual is overblown.

Well, since you chose not to read it, and continue to choose thusly in similar situations, you'll never really be able to confirm or deny whether or not"his experience of life is relevant" to yours. Not sure what the point of engaging in discussion on an article you admit to refusing to read is...

So you are basically refusing to read this simply because the author is even willing to be aware of what's in the bible. What a bizarre and anti intellectual stance.

I've been seeing this strange kind of attitude more lately -- for example, I encountered a young person who refused to read books that were more than 20 years old "because they might have bigoted ideas in them since they're old"

But avoiding reading about the past because it scares you is a great way to remain stupid and cede control of the world to others without such hangups.

> God smote Onan, starting a 4,000-year-old tradition of religious people getting angry about wasting sperm on anything other than procreative sex.

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

#128

Post by asylteltine »

zabzonk wrote: post #83
asylteltine wrote: post #76

DINK life. I can’t understand why people consciously decide to have children. I really can’t.

can you understand why people consciously decide not to have them?

Yes that part is very easy. I can’t understand why someone would choose to give up their prime years for a child. The entire idea of retirement is a direct consequence of this. You don’t need to retire if you can you know, just continuously enjoy your life the entire time.

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

#129

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

kqr wrote: post #64
ajkjk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to teach them any of those things, you just have to live them. They're smart, they'll figure it out.

Looking at many of the adults around me, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that these are things that don't come naturally to most people.

When it comes to influencing, that stuff really does get passed from parent to child in the form of family blogging. Especially because there’s no legality around it yet, you’re free to teach your child from infancy to attract attention in front of the camera from anonymous strangers.

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

#130

Post by blitz_skull »

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…

I disagree with the premise of the quote. Parents are tasked with instilling the VALUES needed to successfully navigating the world. Knowing when to persist and when to quit an endeavor is a values-based calculation, not a skill. Yet it is incredibly important to know.

Instill values. The skills will come naturally.

Post reply on HN