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

Being ambitious and being a dad

nicholascharriere.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 802 posts

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#781

Post by siren2026 »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #747
siren2026 wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I hear people say this with all the morale high ground that comes with it I’m always wondering if it’s partially because of some hormonal changes. It has been proven recently that the human brain changes after having kids. I know you didn’t intend it that way but there are so many people that are extremely judgmental about having kids (or rather judging people that don’t have kids). I also understand that it’s s…

I mean the obvious retort to this is that until you become a parent all of your behaviour is probably driven by some deep evolutionary desire to demonstrate your suitability as a mate. So we can dismiss opinions of non-parents as well.

Ideally we should discuss all those behaviour (becoming parents, becoming successful) logically without the hormones and feelings that makes you think they are the most important thing in the world.

Essentially discussing facts versus emotions.

Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#782

Post by the_af »

siren2026 wrote: post #780
the_af wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a parent is in large part about feelings. Also, the context of this conversation was replying to this assertion: > You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings So it's about feelings, not about "rational discussion". Not a "fallacy" like you claimed, but the actual topic of discussion.

This discussion is many level deeps based on a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life. And other grand similar statements. >>> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.

I don't think so. You specifically replied to a comment by calling it a "fallacy", when it was discussing feelings of parenthood. That's very specific and cannot be excused as arguing it was addressing the broader context of TFA. And the whole sub-thread was about feelings.

Also, nobody here -- the people you're debating with, I mean -- is arguing that having kids is universally the most meaningful thing anyone can do with their life; they are instead offering their personal perspectives. For example, in the sentence you quote:

> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life

The operating words are "I have done with my life"; it's not telling you what you should do with yours.

In fact, the whole debate in this sub-thread was sparked by a very aggressive comment (not yours), but which you chose to implicitly defend:

> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.

Well, whether the person saying the above has or doesn't have children is entirely relevant. It's not a "fallacy". We're discussing feelings, even the above comment acknowledges it; and in relation to parenthood the fact remains: these feelings must be experienced, you cannot truly comment on them otherwise. I mean, you can, but your opinion wouldn't be of much value.

Read again the comment that prompted the above comment:

> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.

Really, it's all about subjective feelings. Which, essentially, is all that matters in the context of this conversation. If you don't have children, you won't have felt like this. You simply cannot. So it's not a fallacy to ask if you have them.

edit:

> a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life

The blog doesn't claim this, either.

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#783

Post by bevilp »

sneak wrote: post #756
Forgeties79 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very snarky, flippant, uninformed take that serves no purpose other than to tear others down in an effort to validate your decision. Have kids or don’t, live your life the way you want. But taking unsolicited dumps on other people’s decisions is a pretty lame way to live. And yes, you do have to have kids in order to understand what it feels like to have kids. You do not know what it’s like, as evidenced by…

Other people’s choices have externalities that harm society. I don’t need validation for not doing something that benefits no one and harms everyone. It’s already obvious that abstaining from this selfish and self-indulgent activity is the only intelligent choice. Furthermore I don’t need to shoot heroin to know that shooting heroin feels extremely good and that the people that do it really enjoy the feeling. I also…

Forgeties79 is talking about understanding parenthood at the experiential level. You can read as much as you want about how heroin makes people feel extremely good, you will never understand at the experiential level how it actually feels until you use it yourself. Not that I recommend...

Also you seem to be saying that not having children is the "only intelligent choice". Intelligent for what? Then you state that we are "an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA." while in the same breath excluding yourself from being said system, calling yourself logical and calling your preference superior to others.

And "harms everyone" assumes the damages of the life you create outweigh the goods. That's your value judgment, not a measurement, and plenty of the people actually created have thought it through and disagree... As for one benefit? Existing people benefit, including you. Everything keeping you alive was built by people who had to be born.

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#784

Post by rnewme »

pac0 wrote: post #533
psim1 wrote: post #484

I felt successful before I had kids. Satisfying, upward-moving career; happy marriage; lots of travel; volunteering in multiple organizations. I liked all these things, succeeded in them, people liked me, etc. As a dad, I feel like a total loser. All of the aforementioned are diminished or put entirely on hold (travel, most volunteering). I'm medicore at everything, except parenting, in which I am successful at keepi…

Maybe the problem is trying to satisfy the wishes of someone who doesn't know what they want, because they're under 6 years old! What worked for me to make the experience of raising kids better is paying attention to the small things they notice. For them the world is a completely new place, and if you can get in tune with that, you can rediscover the world all over again from another angle. Talking with my son makes…

https://sive.rs/pa

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#785

Post by ytoawwhra92 »

siren2026 wrote: post #781
ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the obvious retort to this is that until you become a parent all of your behaviour is probably driven by some deep evolutionary desire to demonstrate your suitability as a mate. So we can dismiss opinions of non-parents as well.

Ideally we should discuss all those behaviour (becoming parents, becoming successful) logically without the hormones and feelings that makes you think they are the most important thing in the world. Essentially discussing facts versus emotions. Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.

> without the hormones and feelings

I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways.

Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children.

In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#786

Post by xp84 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #602
xp84 wrote: post #87

I have a good friend who has a special needs kid and we've discussed his struggles at length - suffice it to say that it takes an order of magnitude more time and attention than what's described here. The thing is, you of course don't get tipped off that you've been selected for that particular curse (and yes, I'd say it's a curse. It's not some inspiring after-school special thing, it's unfair as f*k to all involved…

In some cases you CAN be tipped off about this, and even abort as a result depending on where you are! Many people act like this is some sick thing to do. It's mercy.

You're right about this, for some conditions, and of course depending on laws may have options.

But I want people to be fully aware: There isn't a test for a lot of disabilities, including what my friend's kid has, so, the gamble must be factored into your decision because there's no way to guarantee you won't face this kind of thing.

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#787

Post by siren2026 »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #785
siren2026 wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally we should discuss all those behaviour (becoming parents, becoming successful) logically without the hormones and feelings that makes you think they are the most important thing in the world. Essentially discussing facts versus emotions. Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.

> without the hormones and feelings I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways. Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having…

It is perfectly possible to study the world around us without our emotions and feelings. There is in fact a ton of philosophy that has been written on this topic. Please read about rationalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children:

- Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty. One way to measure difficulty is that fewer people are able to achieve it. Everyone (literally almost everyone) can have kids. But only a select few can win a gold.

- By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids. You will be in a lot of history books, and a ton of people will look after you. You will inspire the next generations. By having kids, you will also change the next generation but I would argue by way less than by winning gold in the olympics.

See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.

>>> In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.

No, again: those words have measurable meaning: Having children is neither special/unique (as it is literally the normal outcome for most people), neither difficult (at least to HAVE children is not difficult, raising them well has probably some level of measurable difficulty). How can you disagree with this logically?

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#788

Post by ytoawwhra92 »

siren2026 wrote: post #787
ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without the hormones and feelings I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways. Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having…

It is perfectly possible to study the world around us without our emotions and feelings. There is in fact a ton of philosophy that has been written on this topic. Please read about rationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children: - Logically, this is a way more difficu…

> See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.

No, they're not logical arguments, they're based on a whole suite of assumptions about value systems that I would argue reflects more about how you feel about the world than any sort of rational/objective assessment of what constitutes a "grand achievement".

> Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty.

Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident. Can you make an argument for this that isn't an appeal to emotion?

> By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids.

Same exact response from me. Why is a bigger legacy grander or more of an achievement? Can you make a logical argument in favour of a bigger legacy that's not an appeal to emotion?

I see no logic in your arguments, I see you restating your values as if they are logical.

> How can you disagree with this logically?

I don't disagree with what the words mean, I'm saying that you think special/unique/difficult = grand accomplishment for feelings-based reasons, not logical reasons.

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#789

Post by siren2026 »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #788
siren2026 wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is perfectly possible to study the world around us without our emotions and feelings. There is in fact a ton of philosophy that has been written on this topic. Please read about rationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children: - Logically, this is a way more difficu…

> See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings. No, they're not logical arguments, they're based on a whole suite of assumptions about value systems that I would argue reflects more about how you feel about the world than…

This is going to be my last reply because we are talking past each other.

I think it is perfectly fine and logical for you to reply to my logical arguments with other counter-logical arguments such as:

>> Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident

You could say to you a "grand achievement" is keeping your bloodline as this is what evolution wants us to be. That has some logic. I actually would agree with some of those arguments, and we could go back and forth. Sure, it represents some of our values but you are making at least some logical sense.

What I reject is reasoning such as: "Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life." and when asked clarifications around why that would be the cause, the replies are "feelings, and you will know when you have them".

Re: Being ambitious and being a dad

#790

Post by sho_hn »

selimthegrim wrote: post #669
sho_hn wrote: post #39

Many years before becoming a Dad, I recall watching a video recorded by the Penny Arcade web cartoon folks while working where they reflected on both becoming fathers and asked themselves if it had been a net drain on their productivity and creativity. They both concluded (not quickly, they discussed it) no , because it forced both of them to level up their time management game, quit whining and learn to get on with…

What's the old cult video game?

Trespasser!
Post reply on HN