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

How to Pick a Mate (1946)

gutenberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#101

Post by DirkH »

wnolens wrote: post #31

Skimmed through a few sections, can't help but compare it to "The Game" with marriage as the goal instead of pickup/sex. But treats it like a game all the same, and treats women like pawns in that game.

Possible difference is "The Game" actually ends as a warning to those who just see it as a games and doesn't skimp on the emotional turmoil men go through that refuse to stop tying their self-worth with how much they get laid.

Dunno if this book does the same where at the end it does a 180 and shows you how damaging it can be to tie one's self-worth to getting married.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#102

Post by Veraticus »

judge2020 wrote: post #100
Veraticus wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If economic growth is a byproduct of population growth, then we need to find new patterns for economic growth. There was never a future in which human populations would (or could) increase forever. Blaming wealthy capitalists for ruining motherhood/fatherhood seems rather conspiratorial. Why do you believe men and women are not rational actors working in their own self-interest? Again, women want jobs not because cap…

I'm framing this in the sense that capitalism forced nearly all women into the workforce. Without any women in the workforce, a woman could be a full-time mother to their child. Now, they must work to achieve the same level of pay and standard of living as when men were paid enough to sustain a family at home off their single paycheck. It's not a bad thing that women are able to become independent today with no spous…

Women wanted to enter the workforce. No one (capitalism, capitalists, men) forced them to do so. That is why your framing is bad.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#103

Post by judge2020 »

Veraticus wrote: post #99
judge2020 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but in the end it's not real, even for men. You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive. Capitalism glamourized working for these corporations, working to achieve this level of financial independence, in order to i…

> You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive. Humans overall will eventually cease to exist. All of us will be forgotten within a few generations, even if we have children. Motherhood/fatherhood is not the "real end gam…

> Humans overall will eventually cease to exist. All of us will be forgotten within a few generations, even if we have children. Motherhood/fatherhood is not the "real end game of life." You might believe so, but many others do not. Why are their points of view less valid than your own?

It's the end game of life in the sense that your goal in life is to achieve immortality. Pretty much all of our ancestors did this by mating, and within the past 500 years you're likely to be able to find the names of all who came before you on ancestry, which is effectively immortality in name. Irvin Yalom once said, "They say you die twice. Once when you stop breathing and the second, a bit later on, when somebody mentions your name for the last time" (this quote was not from Bansky).

For those that don't, or didn't reproduce, immortality is so extremely hard to achieve. That's why I mention "increasing Google's stock price" - it doesn't matter, and nobody will remember your name for doing so. You'll leave a good life, but that's it. The only way to achieve immortality in this case is to leave a legacy. For example, Steve Jobs is slated to leave a legacy for as long as Apple is alive plus perhaps a thousand years or more. Of course, once humanity is wiped out, it won't matter all too much what anyone did or ever will do, save for all of the species of plants, animals, and insects we've extincted.

It's no secret that money, i.e. capitalism, is one of the biggest factors why millenials and soon enough Gen Z will avoid starting a family. A lot will do it for financial independence but the amount of married couples that also forego children is likely large. For all of them, they won't leave a legacy if they don't create the next Apple. If that's not important to them, I respect that and wouldn't wish to force them into anything, but many married (or prospective) couples are having their dreams crushed by how infeasible it is becoming to financially support children without both parents working a job.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#104

Post by [deleted] »

charles_f wrote: post #82
aaronscott wrote: post #16

I was curious for a summary of what the book suggested. Here is Kagi’s summarizer: - Emotional maturity and stability are key traits for a happy marriage. People who are well-adjusted, have good self-confidence, and can handle problems well tend to have more successful marriages. - Communication and companionship are vital for a happy marriage. Couples need to develop a strong bond through sharing interests, aspirati…

Thanks, that's very helpful. Any indication per whether this is data based or just "common sense driven"?

[deleted]

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#105

Post by judge2020 »

charles_f wrote: post #82
aaronscott wrote: post #16

I was curious for a summary of what the book suggested. Here is Kagi’s summarizer: - Emotional maturity and stability are key traits for a happy marriage. People who are well-adjusted, have good self-confidence, and can handle problems well tend to have more successful marriages. - Communication and companionship are vital for a happy marriage. Couples need to develop a strong bond through sharing interests, aspirati…

Thanks, that's very helpful. Any indication per whether this is data based or just "common sense driven"?

They sometimes cite data.

> One German study showed that the fewest divorces were in marriages between Jews and that the largest number of divorces occurred when a Catholic married a non-Catholic. In Maryland, twelve thousand young people were asked the religious affiliations of their parents and also asked if their parents were living together, divorced or separated. Here were the percentage of broken marriages found in different groupings:

  When both parents Jewish 4.6%
  When both parents Catholic 6.4%
  When both parents Protestant 6.8%
  When religions mixed 15.2%
Also in "People Who Should Not Marry at All"

Also

> While, as you notice, these fiancées felt extremely reluctant to marry a man who had lost his sexual potency, only a small proportion (16%) would refuse to marry an ex-soldier who had become sterile.

But the main text is written with their own opinions and observations.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#107

Post by matheusmoreira »

judge2020 wrote: post #95
Veraticus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own. For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.

The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is…

> in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline

Already happening. Even in developing countries. Less productive young people in the work force, more unproductive old people depending on social security and whatnot. Everything's gonna be fine until the money runs out. Gigantic economic disaster in the making.

There is no nation without natalism.

> This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's

It will. As will every other country if nothing is done to heavily incentivize motherhood and family formation.

When I say this people usually downvote me to oblivion for some reason. Maybe they think I'm making this up. Well, I'm not. They should read what actual japanese government officials have been saying about this. They use the word "extinction".

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#108

Post by JoeAltmaier »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #107
judge2020 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is…

> in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline Already happening. Even in developing countries. Less productive young people in the work force, more unproductive old people depending on social security and whatnot. Everything's gonna be fine until the money runs out. Gigantic economic disaster in the making. There is no nation without natalism. > Th…

Let me explain then.

Automation, increased productivity continue to rise at least as fast. Not clear we won't be fine simply because of that.

And No we do not have to chase the Malthusian Catastrophe to 'win'. We can do it other ways. Quelling consumerism. Reigning in capitalism. Sensibly designing cities.

The Japanese talk only of extinction of the pure Japan, which is on the face of it a racist policy. Not a real strong point in the argument. Japan will persist, with a normal mix of people from around the world creating a new culture that they want. Not something frozen in time that the octogenarians of Japan worship and cling onto.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#109

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

welshwelsh wrote: post #78
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to assume that you believe that there is only one standard for "good looking people" and that everyone conforms to it?

What "good looking" means might vary somewhat from person to person, but it's not completely subjective. Some people look better than others, which makes them more desirable partners in general.

I beg to differ, but this isn't a hill I care about dying on, so I'll leave it at that.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#110

Post by matheusmoreira »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #108
matheusmoreira wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline Already happening. Even in developing countries. Less productive young people in the work force, more unproductive old people depending on social security and whatnot. Everything's gonna be fine until the money runs out. Gigantic economic disaster in the making. There is no nation without natalism. > Th…

Let me explain then. Automation, increased productivity continue to rise at least as fast. Not clear we won't be fine simply because of that. And No we do not have to chase the Malthusian Catastrophe to 'win'. We can do it other ways. Quelling consumerism. Reigning in capitalism. Sensibly designing cities. The Japanese talk only of extinction of the pure Japan, which is on the face of it a racist policy. Not a real s…

> The Japanese talk only of extinction of the pure Japan

> Japan will persist

> with a normal mix of people from around the world

> creating a new culture

So what you're saying is the actual japanese people will go extinct and all the immigrants who actually have children will replace them and create a new japanese culture.

And you see nothing wrong with that at all.

Post reply on HN