‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’ • Hacker News Board

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#381

Post by notyourday » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

yholio wrote: post #73

> And with men I date, I feel pressure to make something of the relationship too soon (move in, get married, “I have to have kids in a couple of years”; fun times!). All the while still trying to be the sexpot 25-year-old I thought I was until what seemed like a moment ago. It sounds like going from one end of the spectrum (aventuros, yolo) to the other (a family, fast), all while punching above their weight, so to s…

> When youth starts to fade away, reality kicks in - the highly desirable partners are not interested, and the average ones are already committed to long time partners who valued them in their own youth. Their "family" started a long time ago with mutual investment - you can choose not to make that trade-off but cannot have the cake and eat it too.

As someone who has his cake and eats it too (and has ice cream) I can tell you that this is incorrect. Highly desirable partners could still be interested if you have used your younger days to acquire the skills that would compensate for not being a 25-year-old sex pot.

Unless she is Miranda Kerr she better be prepared for a life of someone who needs to go to the grocery store even when it is raining, and needs to take out trash even if she does not feel like it and needs to deal with a washing machine being broken all while a cat peed in a rug because her partner did not clean the litter box. And boy if she has been a sex pot between the ages of 17 and 35 she is in for a surprise.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#382

Post by RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

So, basically this[0] and this[1]. If the author just needed to vent and sympathetic ears, then the columnist's 2000+ words platitude is fine. However, if she really wants out of the situation, then a more pragmatic[2] -- tldr; treat finding a SO like a job; she already professed that she's found no fulfillment on her current job, so might as well -- approach would be more useful.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-gfxjAaZg0 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwVRoUxr9pk&t=55 [2] https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#383

Post by justhelpingout » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

acabal wrote: post #358

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #145

This probably won't be popular, but what the hell. I feel like, if you strip away the outward trappings and dogma, this is what religion is good for. Not in a "believe in Jesus" or "trust in God" kind of way, but in a "how to orient your life" kind of way. Which is to say, the actually useful portion of religion generally teaches that your best life is probably not focused on you. It isn't about finding yourself, or…

I very much agree and I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Interestingly enough, this line of thought is not new. People like Auguste Comte in the 1850s saw the industrial and technological revolution as an engine working to erode religion, and he wanted to work towards an alternative. For many people, religion generally provides two things: 1) An overt faith-based explanation of why we're here, how the world…

A system of ethics and moral rules that is evolved over time with no relation to how things are in themselves is simply so much legacy code, to be replaced by the stronger man at a time convenient to him.

If, on the other hand, moral rules and ethics are due to the natures of things then there must be someone who intended things to exist in the manner they are intended to exist. That being must be a person because of the principle of sufficient cause (since we exist). Faith is the response to communication from this person. It does not require abandoning of reason, but simply picks up where reason cannot ascend to because of its lack of perspective.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#384

Post by justaguyhere » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

duderific wrote: post #364

justaguyhere wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people who are perpetually single, with pretty much no relationships at all in their adult life. I don't know what is worse - having a handful of relationships that don't last a long time, or not having relationships at all. We have so many communication tools at our disposal today - ideally, it should be ridiculously easy to make friends, love/date etc as one can reach a person on the other side of the pla…

Could it be that, because people are online more and communicating in person less and less, that actual in-person meetings are fraught and awkward? It's a lot easier to just have "online" friends to whom you can present your "best" self, and only see their "best" self in return (photoshopped, carefully edited comments etc.)

Part of the problem, yes. I also find people unwilling to put in even the basic effort to make and maintain friendships, offline. It is easier to text than email, it is easier to email than call, it is easier to call than meet in person and so on...

Things are bad for men than women, from what little I see around me. Broadly, I find people are more willing to help women than men, all else being equal. Maybe this is why men's lifespans are shorter than women's? Men are expected to "man up and shut up", whatever that means. So they don't seek out friends, don't speak up...

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#385

Post by VLM » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:44 PM UTC

api wrote: post #74

citilife wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> decades at a time I think we're seeing the result of the baby boomer generation, essentially. They rejected the old, as you put it -- stern way of parenting. I'd argue, perhaps it wasn't so much stern as it was the structured. There was structure, expectations, and responsibilities. Things previous generates required to live. Since then, we've grown increasingly accustomed to insane amounts of wealth (or perhaps de…

Social trends almost always overcorrect. I wouldn't be surprised if we overcorrect the other way in future generations, then back again, etc. People seem to have trouble with the idea that the optimum is not at an extreme.

Demographic replacement in the sense of the original posts "American parents" vs "Immigrant parents" will put a natural damper on whatever oscillations "American parents" try to implement. The woman in the linked story will never have descendants to overcorrect.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#386

Post by justhelpingout » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

the_clarence wrote: post #375

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #145

This probably won't be popular, but what the hell. I feel like, if you strip away the outward trappings and dogma, this is what religion is good for. Not in a "believe in Jesus" or "trust in God" kind of way, but in a "how to orient your life" kind of way. Which is to say, the actually useful portion of religion generally teaches that your best life is probably not focused on you. It isn't about finding yourself, or…

As an atheist I’ve been thinking about that lately and I think I can agree. It looks like in the US nobody cares about the poor people and the homeless and the church is pne of the last organization trying to help people (and convert them, but still). As long as the US will demonize socialism, people who have nothing won’t get help from the government.

Socialism without morality leads to Stalinism. Socialism with morality requires strict (e. g. sworn) obedience to a higher authority (see the monasteries of Catholicism which are strictly speaking socialist).

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#387

Post by jf- » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #376

jf- wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably shouldn’t though, being an old man when your kids are teenagers isn’t very fair on anyone.

I'm not sure this is always the case, starting a family later has a swath of benefits such as more life experience on on the part of parents, greater financial stability, and usually more ability to take time off. Both my parents quit their jobs and raised kids full time when my sister was born, and they were largely able to do so because they had kids later than average.

Balanced vs. ill health due to old age and dying earlier in your child’s life. I’ll agree that having children somewhat later, circa thirties, is better due to stability than twenties, but pushing into the forties is too much for me.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#388

Post by J-dawg » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

greycol wrote: post #317

dragonwriter wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sorry, but of course there is no hope of a normal family for a woman of this age. Eh. While we married much younger, my wife and I had our two kids when she was 38 and 40, and we have age peers who found life partners around or after 35. Unless you are involving a simple tautology by defining “normal family” to be one started before leaving the 20s or something like that, you are just dead wrong.

Exactly, while the ease and likelihood of "having it all" are likely oversold, and an argument for ensuring that kids realize that adults don't get a trophy just for showing up is worth having, pretending that people can't start a family in there 30s from no current relationship (especially if they're willing to make it a focus) is ridiculous.

I agree that radiator is wrong to say “no hope”. You’d only need to find one example of a couple who met and had kids after 35 to disprove that, and I’m sure there are plenty.

But I think both you and the parent commenter are deliberately missing the point. The amount of “hope” is severely diminished, and it gets smaller every day.

The woman is faced with the task of finding a guy who wants kids as much (and as quickly) as she does, without the chance to first bond and grow together in a relaxed and unhurried relationship. She’ll have to reassure him that no, she isn’t settling just because she wants a baby, even though the same thought sometimes crosses her mind.

Plus she’s broke, so this guy will have to love her enough to make a considerable financial sacrifice and then continue to support her through motherhood. (NB this applies whether or not they stay together).

So sure, there’s hope, but you’re being disingenuous if you pretend that there’s a lot of it.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#389

Post by extragood » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

trevyn wrote: post #281

Domenic_S wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love this. We don't want happiness out of life, we want meaning . And we have the most meaning when we're impacting other people. Impacting people can start small, like your wonderful examples, or be huge like starting a successful company. There are so many ways.

I deeply disagree with this — if you can achieve happiness without meaning, there is no need for meaning. Of course, I understand that achieving happiness can be challenging, and that seeking meaning can be a meaningful step on that path. But it is possible to have happiness without meaning, and that seems more valuable than meaning without happiness, or happiness that relies on a sense of meaning.

According to Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", happiness is the greatest good in life.

The pursuit of a meaningful life puts way too much pressure on identifying what is meaningful and worth our energies. That would probably decrease my happiness.

What if I can't find any pursuit that I consider to be the most meaningful? Am I OK committing to something that could potentially be less than optimal in terms of meaningfulness?

It isn't that important for me to evaluate my actions on meaningfulness - I'm bound to disappoint my self by that metric.

Prioritizing meaningfulness over happiness is putting the cart before the horse, in my mind.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#390

Post by prism19 » Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

camelNotation wrote: post #249

prism19 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do what you evolved to do I agree you can't fight your nature and win. However, the counter argument would be: 1. Evolution is not concerned with your happiness, it's concerned with successful survival and reproduction - and keeping you just happy enough to do so. 2. Building a stable relationship and career in one place is quite counter to the thousands of years of itinerant hunter-gatherer, questionably-monogamou…

I said life is better, not happy. I am not happy all the time, but my life is extremely meaningful. I'm leaning in to what evolution expects from me because that is the only thing that makes any sense at all. What real, meaningful purpose do I accomplish by struggling against the things I am most suited to do? I would also point out that thousands of years of itinerant hunting and gathering is not the same as evolvin…

Onboard with meaning > happiness in general.

However, you could argue that we evolved to optimize our reproduction in one of several strategies. For some, it means their best bet is to settle with one family, for others it means profligate mating with dozens of partners. If so, by your logic, neither lifestyle would have any more inherent meaning than the other.

And, well, the 400,000 years of itinerant existence with much stronger evolutionary selection pressures vs. 10,000 years of agrarian society with less intense selection pressures doesn't seem commensurate.

You're arguing very hard for your chosen lifestyle, which includes some sunk cost bias.

Personally, I've done the settled-down thing and the hobo life and neither is more inherently meaningful than the other.

Perhaps you could argue that a pair-bond and a single location and community makes climbing Maslow's hierarchy of needs easier in our current society - that I might buy.