Paul Graham’s thoughts, discoveries, and tricks on parenthood(unclepaul.io)
unclepaul.io
Paul Graham’s thoughts, discoveries, and tricks on parenthood
https://www.unclepaul.io/
248 comments
In my opinion, Sydney Poitier’s rebuke of his father in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner should be Chapter 1 Verse 1 of any book on parenting.
What your parents sacrificed for you should be repaid in kind to your kids, not back to your parents. If you don’t have kids, pay it to society.
What your parents sacrificed for you should be repaid in kind to your kids, not back to your parents. If you don’t have kids, pay it to society.
Thank you for this. Powerful stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTgahyvBMk4
Thank you for this. I will watch this scene whenever I act as if I "own" my kids.
[deleted]
That's a solid philosophy.
From behind Rawls' veil of ignorance, how many children would choose not to be born if given that choice? It is at least as reasonable to say that they've been given a most precious of gifts as it is to say that they were forced in to it. And if they'd really rather not exist no one can take away from them the choice to end their life. That few would say this is really an option should balance the perspective that being born is a forced burden.
The perspective of life as an infinite gift gives parents some justification for authoritarianism which some will abuse. The perspective of being forced into it gives children some justification for entitlement which some will abuse.
I think it is harder to get children to not abuse a free pass and I think that parents have a better claim overall. But parents using it is a terrible practice that will backfire. Parents need to earn respect and compliance without relying on the trump card of 'i made you'. It is up to the children to decide what obligations they have towards their parents later on. And this should mostly be a function of raising considerate and capable people with maximal possible buy-in.
I agree that the bulk of children's debt is to society and their own children. But this requires a sense of fairness to notice the debt and the capability to repay it. Parents have a crucial role to play in developing these.
The perspective of life as an infinite gift gives parents some justification for authoritarianism which some will abuse. The perspective of being forced into it gives children some justification for entitlement which some will abuse.
I think it is harder to get children to not abuse a free pass and I think that parents have a better claim overall. But parents using it is a terrible practice that will backfire. Parents need to earn respect and compliance without relying on the trump card of 'i made you'. It is up to the children to decide what obligations they have towards their parents later on. And this should mostly be a function of raising considerate and capable people with maximal possible buy-in.
I agree that the bulk of children's debt is to society and their own children. But this requires a sense of fairness to notice the debt and the capability to repay it. Parents have a crucial role to play in developing these.
Well said.
I believe this to be the fundamental realization that would change the world for the better, if enough people had it. So many of the ills of the world can be traced back to childhood trauma and mediocre education.
I think we have been going through a few decades where mainstream parenting values have been mostly narcissistic. Parents seeing their children as indebted to them is both the norm and an abomination. I have some hope that more and more people are seeing things as you do.
I believe this to be the fundamental realization that would change the world for the better, if enough people had it. So many of the ills of the world can be traced back to childhood trauma and mediocre education.
I think we have been going through a few decades where mainstream parenting values have been mostly narcissistic. Parents seeing their children as indebted to them is both the norm and an abomination. I have some hope that more and more people are seeing things as you do.
It seems like a lot of people get married and have kids just because it's the thing people do. Which I guess you can't really fault them for, but it is the root of a lot of society's problems as you say. I think it's great that my generation is seeing lower marriage rates and people waiting until later, I optimistically interpret that as a sign that people are starting to bring more intention into those decisions.
Here's a hot take: In a generation or two, once the technology matures, we'll start seeing a lot of people opting (themselves or their children) into reversible sterilization, and it will soon become the norm.
Here's a hot take: In a generation or two, once the technology matures, we'll start seeing a lot of people opting (themselves or their children) into reversible sterilization, and it will soon become the norm.
> It seems like a lot of people get married and have kids just because it's the thing people do. Which I guess you can't really fault them for, but it is the root of a lot of society's problems as you say.
My case would support your supposition because I was distressingly incompetent in my early 20s. I wasn't a prize at 28 (my first born) either but at least I was at a point where I could form better expectations for myself.
Past that, I find most young people today to be measurably more balanced & competent human beings than my generation was. I have strong confidence in their abilities to guide little people.
To be clear tho, even in my generation I was a terrible outlier.
My case would support your supposition because I was distressingly incompetent in my early 20s. I wasn't a prize at 28 (my first born) either but at least I was at a point where I could form better expectations for myself.
Past that, I find most young people today to be measurably more balanced & competent human beings than my generation was. I have strong confidence in their abilities to guide little people.
To be clear tho, even in my generation I was a terrible outlier.
> In a generation or two, ... a lot of people opting ... into reversible sterilization
Sterilized people are much less likely to propagate their habits to the following generations.
So sterilization habit is unlikely to stick.
Sterilized people are much less likely to propagate their habits to the following generations.
So sterilization habit is unlikely to stick.
On the former: I’ve seen a lot of my peers pursuing a “checkbox” approach to happiness. They try to check all the boxes and expect fulfillment at the end. It hasn’t been working out for them. Some people like and want kids, and that’s great. But having kids because it’s the “next step” is a horrible plan.
Second: we already have that. It’s called the pill.
Second: we already have that. It’s called the pill.
Yeah that's interesting, I called it a hot take because a lot of people get up in arms when you talk about sterilization, yet the pill does has widespread acceptance, though of course it is somewhat different and has a number of drawbacks, notably that it has significant side-effects and has to be taken continually.
I'm thinking more along the lines of something like Vasalgel/RISUG, basically a shot you get once or very infrequently, that could become a sort of automatic or default health procedure like vaccines.
I'm thinking more along the lines of something like Vasalgel/RISUG, basically a shot you get once or very infrequently, that could become a sort of automatic or default health procedure like vaccines.
We have that too! Think IUDs or implants, which last for years. Some are even hormone free! They last about 3-10 years, depending on which specific device we’re talking about.
What’s fascinating is that these are for men, and the reactions around that specific detail reveals a lot about us as a society.
What’s fascinating is that these are for men, and the reactions around that specific detail reveals a lot about us as a society.
Families, especially children, also add purpose and fulfillment to life that is otherwise missing for many.
On the contrary, it seems the breakdown of the strong family unit is causing most of the problems of society.
On the contrary, it seems the breakdown of the strong family unit is causing most of the problems of society.
I think it's two sides of the same coin - what was the cause of the breakdown?
Either way, we're at a point where a lot of people are having kinds that they hadn't really planned for, or might not have wanted, or can't afford, or otherwise aren't able to give proper care to.
Either way, we're at a point where a lot of people are having kinds that they hadn't really planned for, or might not have wanted, or can't afford, or otherwise aren't able to give proper care to.
Arguably the latter is happening at the lowest rate in history, and for the first time we’re seeing the opposite.
The average number of children that a woman wants in the western world is now about 1-1.5 higher than she will have on average, which means that women want more kids and choose not to for other reasons.
The average number of children that a woman wants in the western world is now about 1-1.5 higher than she will have on average, which means that women want more kids and choose not to for other reasons.
I do agree that things are getting better, but still:
- In 2011, 45% of pregnancies in the US were unintended (as you note this is down from 54% in 2008, though it generally hovers around 50%) [1]
- About half of the unintended pregnancies come from women that were attempting to use contraception. [2]
- In 2001, 44% of US unintended pregnancies resulted in births.
- It is estimated that more than half of US women have had an unintended pregnancy by age 45
This still seems like a huge drain on society. And, of course, this doesn't even begin to consider the eastern and developing worlds that are much farther behind.
Also, this is not to argue that every unplanned pregnancy becomes an unmitigated disaster, I know there are many wonderful people that came from accidents. But I still think it would be a great milestone for humanity to reach a point where by default these things generally didn't happen.
[1] https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-u...
[2] http://shriverreport.org/why-are-50-percent-of-pregnancies-i...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy
- In 2011, 45% of pregnancies in the US were unintended (as you note this is down from 54% in 2008, though it generally hovers around 50%) [1]
- About half of the unintended pregnancies come from women that were attempting to use contraception. [2]
- In 2001, 44% of US unintended pregnancies resulted in births.
- It is estimated that more than half of US women have had an unintended pregnancy by age 45
This still seems like a huge drain on society. And, of course, this doesn't even begin to consider the eastern and developing worlds that are much farther behind.
Also, this is not to argue that every unplanned pregnancy becomes an unmitigated disaster, I know there are many wonderful people that came from accidents. But I still think it would be a great milestone for humanity to reach a point where by default these things generally didn't happen.
[1] https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-u...
[2] http://shriverreport.org/why-are-50-percent-of-pregnancies-i...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy
Proper care does not -only- mean adequate food. Indeed more children are properly fed than ever. There are various other aspects though. Your parents feeling you should be eternally enslaved to their desires for your whole life just because they made you, for example, is the norm, and as stated above, is an abomination. It creates enormous psychological stress and leads to - surprise! - broken families. Becoming materially independent from your parents is inevitable - and that's when what bonds really formed shows.
I asked my dad about this. His answer was, (paraphrased) "We don't even come close to even with all the joy you and your brothers gave your mom and I. And now with grandkids you're paying out more than ever!"
And I get what he means. I have two toddlers and they're positively exhausting. But I've never before felt joy like this. They give my life very very clear purpose when before I was a bit lost.
And I get what he means. I have two toddlers and they're positively exhausting. But I've never before felt joy like this. They give my life very very clear purpose when before I was a bit lost.
I am Hindu and in Hinduism the perspective is that all beings choose to be born into this world. I just thought I'd offer a common (in terms of Earth population and number of Hindus) counter perspective
Not true. The varna system advocated by the vedas the holy books of Hinduism is all about the division of laborers(not labor). Its the foundation for the caste system, where privilege is based on birth and even education is restricted to kings only be allowed to the priestly caste. Only after the invasion of British this has changed. The kings were okay with this because they don't have competition for their place. This hierarchy of social ladder worked because of the privilege one gets by birth over those under the hierarchy.
Well firstly, the varna system doesn't change the Hindu perspective that one chooses one's birth. If you believe the mis-information about the varna system (which I explain below), then it just means that you believe you chose to be born into the cast that you are. That still lines up with the core tenets of Hinduism, that one chooses one's birth based on the ripe karmas.
However, what you have shared about the varna system is false. The original caste system - the varna dharma - simply means that at different stages of life and different people more naturally express ways of serving society - some are workers, some are business people, some are warriors, some are priests. The Vedas do not declare that this is fixed through one's whole life or even determined by one's lineage. A brahmin (priest caste) does not need to be born from brahmin parents, but people have distorted the varna dharma to mean that brahmins must be from a brahmin family, and that brahmins should be above others in status. All the casts are equal, but they are not the same.
The British further abused the caste system and perpetuated this false understanding of it for their own benefit. They encouraged the castes to remain fixed through one's life and be base on lineage. This is not the original way. The Vedas actually tell us that castes are fluid through one's life and not based on which family one was born into.
However, what you have shared about the varna system is false. The original caste system - the varna dharma - simply means that at different stages of life and different people more naturally express ways of serving society - some are workers, some are business people, some are warriors, some are priests. The Vedas do not declare that this is fixed through one's whole life or even determined by one's lineage. A brahmin (priest caste) does not need to be born from brahmin parents, but people have distorted the varna dharma to mean that brahmins must be from a brahmin family, and that brahmins should be above others in status. All the casts are equal, but they are not the same.
The British further abused the caste system and perpetuated this false understanding of it for their own benefit. They encouraged the castes to remain fixed through one's life and be base on lineage. This is not the original way. The Vedas actually tell us that castes are fluid through one's life and not based on which family one was born into.
Your statements in the first paragraph are contradictory.
> Well firstly, the varna system doesn't change the Hindu perspective that one chooses one's birth.
> That still lines up with the core tenets of Hinduism, that one chooses one's birth based on the ripe karmas.
Vedas says one is born according to his past life karma.
> The original caste system - the varna dharma - simply means that at different stages of life and different people more naturally express ways of serving society - some are workers, some are business people, some are warriors, some are priests.
If people were allowed to change caste most people would have changed to priestly caste as it is the most easy life one can have.
> A brahmin (priest caste) does not need to be born from brahmin parents
No father would want his child to convert to lower caste.
> The British further abused the caste system and perpetuated this false understanding of it for their own benefit.
I am not saying Britishers came as saviors, but they are the ones who setup schools to everyone, obviously for their own profit ,but still mass education happened only after their conquest.
> This is not the original way. The Vedas actually tell us that castes are fluid through one's life and not based on which family one was born into.
Assuming this is true, who has the authority to decide who should belong to which caste. Obviously the people in the highest caste will decide and they will try to main the power. Its simple as that.
> That still lines up with the core tenets of Hinduism, that one chooses one's birth based on the ripe karmas.
Vedas says one is born according to his past life karma.
> The original caste system - the varna dharma - simply means that at different stages of life and different people more naturally express ways of serving society - some are workers, some are business people, some are warriors, some are priests.
If people were allowed to change caste most people would have changed to priestly caste as it is the most easy life one can have.
> A brahmin (priest caste) does not need to be born from brahmin parents
No father would want his child to convert to lower caste.
> The British further abused the caste system and perpetuated this false understanding of it for their own benefit.
I am not saying Britishers came as saviors, but they are the ones who setup schools to everyone, obviously for their own profit ,but still mass education happened only after their conquest.
> This is not the original way. The Vedas actually tell us that castes are fluid through one's life and not based on which family one was born into.
Assuming this is true, who has the authority to decide who should belong to which caste. Obviously the people in the highest caste will decide and they will try to main the power. Its simple as that.
> Your statements in the first paragraph are contradictory.
> Vedas says one is born according to his past life karma.
It seems like there are some gaps in your understanding of Hindu and Vedic thought. Yes, you are born according to your past life karma, but the soul (in a body or in the other loka) always have free will – so you chose your karma – you chose to do actions that created future karmas to be resolved. By extension, you chose your birth. This is the full understanding.
> If people were allowed to change caste most people would have changed to priestly caste as it is the most easy life one can have.
You are misconstruing the abuse, misapplication and misunderstanding of the varna dharma with how the Vedas define it.
1. In the original varna dharma, there isn’t an “easier life” for one caste or another. Everyone does there dharma and that takes work. According to the Vedas one caste is not superior to another, they are equal but different.
2. Your natural abilities are the way that you choose your caste. One person has no interest or ability for the spiritual life, but they are good at business. Your natural abilities are chosen based on past karma, which you also chose.
> No father would want his child to convert to lower caste.
Of course that is so when in the abused and misapplied varna dharma. This would not be a problem if the varna dharma were applied as it is in the Vedas. A person of the priest caste would offer equal respect to the worker caste, for example.
> but still mass education happened only after their conquest.
Which has been very problematic. Education for all is good, but they have enforced Christian education and many other negative things. I am not arguing that before the British things were perfect – the argument here is how the Vedas defined the varna dharma system vs how it has been misapplied, both before and after the British. Please understand this – you originally stated misinformation about what the Vedas say.
> Assuming this is true, who has the authority to decide who should belong to which caste. Obviously the people in the highest caste will decide and they will try to main the power. Its simple as that.
Continuation of the misapplication of the varna dharma, against the teachings of the Vedas. The authority should be by one’s own volition and the community.
If the varna dharma is actually applied as it is outlined in the Vedas there is equality and justice for all. But it has been abused and used to keep certain people in power. That is not the way it is outlined in the Vedas. This inequality is wrong and against Vedic teachings.
> Vedas says one is born according to his past life karma.
It seems like there are some gaps in your understanding of Hindu and Vedic thought. Yes, you are born according to your past life karma, but the soul (in a body or in the other loka) always have free will – so you chose your karma – you chose to do actions that created future karmas to be resolved. By extension, you chose your birth. This is the full understanding.
> If people were allowed to change caste most people would have changed to priestly caste as it is the most easy life one can have.
You are misconstruing the abuse, misapplication and misunderstanding of the varna dharma with how the Vedas define it.
1. In the original varna dharma, there isn’t an “easier life” for one caste or another. Everyone does there dharma and that takes work. According to the Vedas one caste is not superior to another, they are equal but different.
2. Your natural abilities are the way that you choose your caste. One person has no interest or ability for the spiritual life, but they are good at business. Your natural abilities are chosen based on past karma, which you also chose.
> No father would want his child to convert to lower caste.
Of course that is so when in the abused and misapplied varna dharma. This would not be a problem if the varna dharma were applied as it is in the Vedas. A person of the priest caste would offer equal respect to the worker caste, for example.
> but still mass education happened only after their conquest.
Which has been very problematic. Education for all is good, but they have enforced Christian education and many other negative things. I am not arguing that before the British things were perfect – the argument here is how the Vedas defined the varna dharma system vs how it has been misapplied, both before and after the British. Please understand this – you originally stated misinformation about what the Vedas say.
> Assuming this is true, who has the authority to decide who should belong to which caste. Obviously the people in the highest caste will decide and they will try to main the power. Its simple as that.
Continuation of the misapplication of the varna dharma, against the teachings of the Vedas. The authority should be by one’s own volition and the community.
If the varna dharma is actually applied as it is outlined in the Vedas there is equality and justice for all. But it has been abused and used to keep certain people in power. That is not the way it is outlined in the Vedas. This inequality is wrong and against Vedic teachings.
I will address the most important point about education first.
> Which has been very problematic. Education for all is good, but they have enforced Christian education and many other negative things.
How is getting educated becomes problematic verses no education at all. I am taking about basic reading and writing ? Controlling the access to education and maintain the hierarchy of the society is the fundamental idea of the varna system. This is one of the important reason there were very few Nobel laureates and inventions have come from India in correlation with its population. By the way Britishers never had religion as part of education.
> It seems like there are some gaps in your understanding of Hindu and Vedic thought. Yes, you are born according to your past life karma, but the soul (in a body or in the other loka) always have free will – so you chose your karma – you chose to do actions that created future karmas to be resolved. By extension, you chose your birth. This is the full understanding.
This is same as saying you don't choose your varna/caste.This is just another way of saying you are born in to lower caste and have to do the back breaking job because for your sins in the previous birth.
> In the original varna dharma, there isn’t an “easier life” for one caste or another.
A priest life is much easier than a farmer or manual scavenger.
> Your natural abilities are the way that you choose your caste. One person has no interest or ability for the spiritual life, but they are good at business. Your natural abilities are chosen based on past karma, which you also chose.
Not true. Its very explicit. Even if it assumed true, once education is denied and fathers occupation is enforced on the children's for all the generation's how does one will have the time to find out and grow their natural abilities ?
> A person of the priest caste would offer equal respect to the worker caste
If education is not restricted based on religion, then one does not have to seek privilege or validity based on birth.
> The authority should be by one’s own volition and the community.
The enforcement is not by community its by the kings as preached by the vedas. The kings enforce varna system by denying education, owning property based on the caste or enforce fathers occupation over their childrens. Naturally kings have the incentive to avoid competition and hold on to their power.
> Which has been very problematic. Education for all is good, but they have enforced Christian education and many other negative things.
How is getting educated becomes problematic verses no education at all. I am taking about basic reading and writing ? Controlling the access to education and maintain the hierarchy of the society is the fundamental idea of the varna system. This is one of the important reason there were very few Nobel laureates and inventions have come from India in correlation with its population. By the way Britishers never had religion as part of education.
> It seems like there are some gaps in your understanding of Hindu and Vedic thought. Yes, you are born according to your past life karma, but the soul (in a body or in the other loka) always have free will – so you chose your karma – you chose to do actions that created future karmas to be resolved. By extension, you chose your birth. This is the full understanding.
This is same as saying you don't choose your varna/caste.This is just another way of saying you are born in to lower caste and have to do the back breaking job because for your sins in the previous birth.
> In the original varna dharma, there isn’t an “easier life” for one caste or another.
A priest life is much easier than a farmer or manual scavenger.
> Your natural abilities are the way that you choose your caste. One person has no interest or ability for the spiritual life, but they are good at business. Your natural abilities are chosen based on past karma, which you also chose.
Not true. Its very explicit. Even if it assumed true, once education is denied and fathers occupation is enforced on the children's for all the generation's how does one will have the time to find out and grow their natural abilities ?
> A person of the priest caste would offer equal respect to the worker caste
If education is not restricted based on religion, then one does not have to seek privilege or validity based on birth.
> The authority should be by one’s own volition and the community.
The enforcement is not by community its by the kings as preached by the vedas. The kings enforce varna system by denying education, owning property based on the caste or enforce fathers occupation over their childrens. Naturally kings have the incentive to avoid competition and hold on to their power.
This is tiring. Can you confirm that you understand or do not the difference between what the Vedas declare about varna dharma and how it has been abused? This core point you continue to either ignore or not comprehend. Your entire argument is useless because it continues to be based on the misapplication of varna dharma, which I agree, is not good.
> By the way Britishers never had religion as part of education.
That is utterly, laughably, ridiculously false. I can't believe someone with even a modicum of intelligence would say that.
If you don't believe in karma that's fine, but whether you believe in it or not doesn't mean you continue to state false things about the Vedas. One can have a correct understanding of something without necessarily believing in it. But your understanding has been incorrect this entire thread, where I've each time pointed to the difference between what the Vedas declare in contrast to what people have done. This difference you can't seem to grasp.
> By the way Britishers never had religion as part of education.
That is utterly, laughably, ridiculously false. I can't believe someone with even a modicum of intelligence would say that.
If you don't believe in karma that's fine, but whether you believe in it or not doesn't mean you continue to state false things about the Vedas. One can have a correct understanding of something without necessarily believing in it. But your understanding has been incorrect this entire thread, where I've each time pointed to the difference between what the Vedas declare in contrast to what people have done. This difference you can't seem to grasp.
You are trying to project the varna system and vedas are preaching good things but only the implementation is bad. That is not true. Division of laborers(not labour) and enforing them over the generations even if you don't believe in karma is baked in to the core philosophy of the vedas.
> That is utterly, laughably, ridiculously false. I can't believe someone with even a modicum of intelligence would say that.
Citiation please. Britishers primary goal is colonization. Missionaries came much later and they did not interfere with the education system.
> That is utterly, laughably, ridiculously false. I can't believe someone with even a modicum of intelligence would say that.
Citiation please. Britishers primary goal is colonization. Missionaries came much later and they did not interfere with the education system.
> and enforing them over the generations
How many times do I need to repeat that the Vedas do not say this? Apparently you will never understand. According to the Vedas, one's varna dharma is independent of one's family. I've said this in every single post in this thread. The Vedas declare that one's varna dharma does not depend on in which family one has been born. One's varna dharma according to the Vedas is not dependent on one's family.
I suspect based on your username (John) and your use of "Britisher" that you're a Christian in India, which is likely why you continue to spread ignorance and idiocy about the Vedas.
How many times do I need to repeat that the Vedas do not say this? Apparently you will never understand. According to the Vedas, one's varna dharma is independent of one's family. I've said this in every single post in this thread. The Vedas declare that one's varna dharma does not depend on in which family one has been born. One's varna dharma according to the Vedas is not dependent on one's family.
I suspect based on your username (John) and your use of "Britisher" that you're a Christian in India, which is likely why you continue to spread ignorance and idiocy about the Vedas.
> According to the Vedas, one's varna dharma is independent of one's family. I've said this in every single post in this thread.
Yet, every time you have been wrong((https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/4104). What vedas says about movement of varna is that it is permitted only if it is accepted by other community which is not practical due to the incentive structure i have already explained in my previous reply. The varna conversions are cited only in the stories from the hindu holy books, it is never an independent choice. And the rules are entirely different when it comes to the highest varna in the hierarchy(i.e priest). The priest must volunteer himself to change if he feels for 16 years he has not done the duties according to his varna(NOTE: The pronoun "he" is used intentionally. Because women is considered lower that the bottom of varna system) . Now do you see why the movement b/w varna never happened and not practical.
> I suspect based on your username (John) and your use of "Britisher" that you're a Christian in India, which is likely why you continue to spread ignorance
I am born to Hindu family, but i am an atheist turned antagonistic. My motivation is to make logical conversation and convince that getting rid of varna system is better for India and not undo the progress.
> your use of "Britisher" What do you mean by this ?
Yet, every time you have been wrong((https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/4104). What vedas says about movement of varna is that it is permitted only if it is accepted by other community which is not practical due to the incentive structure i have already explained in my previous reply. The varna conversions are cited only in the stories from the hindu holy books, it is never an independent choice. And the rules are entirely different when it comes to the highest varna in the hierarchy(i.e priest). The priest must volunteer himself to change if he feels for 16 years he has not done the duties according to his varna(NOTE: The pronoun "he" is used intentionally. Because women is considered lower that the bottom of varna system) . Now do you see why the movement b/w varna never happened and not practical.
> I suspect based on your username (John) and your use of "Britisher" that you're a Christian in India, which is likely why you continue to spread ignorance
I am born to Hindu family, but i am an atheist turned antagonistic. My motivation is to make logical conversation and convince that getting rid of varna system is better for India and not undo the progress.
> your use of "Britisher" What do you mean by this ?
I considered this because my faith also believes it. Regardless, I believe the principle stands on it's own.
Meanwhile, I'm pondering the apparent conflict. To that end, these are some of the points I'm considering.
1) Children aren't generally able to fully embrace faith on it's own merits until they are young adults. Until then, their faith is mostly proxied thru their parents.
2) Children have no practical ability to repay debts.
3) Faiths that teach pure service as a calling tend to extend it to parenthood.
4) The principle I'm advocating is a principle to family and to society.
More 4) In my experience, when a personal or societal principle appear to conflict w/ a religious principle, it's often due to an incomplete understanding of the principles in play. I found it is spiritually & ethically safe to allow those principles to co-exist in disharmony until greater knowledge reframes the conflict in a more solvable way.
More 4 tl;dr ver) There is great risk in pushing immature conclusions - much less risk in holding inconsistent ones.
Meanwhile, I'm pondering the apparent conflict. To that end, these are some of the points I'm considering.
1) Children aren't generally able to fully embrace faith on it's own merits until they are young adults. Until then, their faith is mostly proxied thru their parents.
2) Children have no practical ability to repay debts.
3) Faiths that teach pure service as a calling tend to extend it to parenthood.
4) The principle I'm advocating is a principle to family and to society.
More 4) In my experience, when a personal or societal principle appear to conflict w/ a religious principle, it's often due to an incomplete understanding of the principles in play. I found it is spiritually & ethically safe to allow those principles to co-exist in disharmony until greater knowledge reframes the conflict in a more solvable way.
More 4 tl;dr ver) There is great risk in pushing immature conclusions - much less risk in holding inconsistent ones.
> I have a permanent & total obligation to my kids' well being
Such attitude makes it significantly less likely to have kids in the first place: why would a potential parent want to get in debt?
If we want to decrease population of humans, then spreading "parents owe to their kids" attitude is one of the ways to accomplish that.
Such attitude makes it significantly less likely to have kids in the first place: why would a potential parent want to get in debt?
If we want to decrease population of humans, then spreading "parents owe to their kids" attitude is one of the ways to accomplish that.
> Such attitude makes it significantly less likely to have kids in the first place: why would a potential parent want to get in debt?
That might depend on how much value they place on their own life and upbringing.
>If we want to decrease population of humans, then spreading "parents owe to their kids" attitude is one of the ways to accomplish that.
Some things are what they are. This is the reality that's left when the harmful & unproductive assumptions are stripped away. I believe you are right that some less courageous folks will be discouraged when faced with this.
That's okay too. Folks who opt out of parenthood shouldn't be thought less of.
That might depend on how much value they place on their own life and upbringing.
>If we want to decrease population of humans, then spreading "parents owe to their kids" attitude is one of the ways to accomplish that.
Some things are what they are. This is the reality that's left when the harmful & unproductive assumptions are stripped away. I believe you are right that some less courageous folks will be discouraged when faced with this.
That's okay too. Folks who opt out of parenthood shouldn't be thought less of.
If anything, people make kids to extract immense satisfaction out of it.
But to think people will not have kids because of the "debt" philosophy is unrealistic. The truth is, most people would not even have sex at all, were it not for the massive instinctive drive. It's that much of a hassle to find and hold a partner, even more so have kids, and that's not even taking your relationship with your kids into account. If one is daunted from having kids, their train of thought will not even reach the debt part.
But to think people will not have kids because of the "debt" philosophy is unrealistic. The truth is, most people would not even have sex at all, were it not for the massive instinctive drive. It's that much of a hassle to find and hold a partner, even more so have kids, and that's not even taking your relationship with your kids into account. If one is daunted from having kids, their train of thought will not even reach the debt part.
Most people are at "lukewarm" level with their desire to have kids.
If you add the idea of "getting into debt to your children" to the mix -- it tilts the balance to "let's postpone having kids until later" (that "later", usually, does not arrive).
If you add the idea of "getting into debt to your children" to the mix -- it tilts the balance to "let's postpone having kids until later" (that "later", usually, does not arrive).
Please help me with the logic here:
"It concerns something I didn't figure out until I was older, that children are brought into existence w/o their consent.
Now I don't believe this is* (edit: fixed) an evil or unethical act; it's simply an unavoidable facet of reality. However, it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime."
I wonder, why does "my kid didn't consent to be born" mean "I owe him/her?"
Is the implication that being alive is a bad thing?
"It concerns something I didn't figure out until I was older, that children are brought into existence w/o their consent.
Now I don't believe this is* (edit: fixed) an evil or unethical act; it's simply an unavoidable facet of reality. However, it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime."
I wonder, why does "my kid didn't consent to be born" mean "I owe him/her?"
Is the implication that being alive is a bad thing?
> I wonder, why does my kid didn't consent to be born mean I owe him/her?
- From the principle standpoint, the alternatives saddle kids with unearned obligations, that are entirely the result of some adult's choices. This is unethical, while a better perspective is within reach.
- From a practical perspective, there are 2 alternatives (to the principle I espouse):
1) No one owes anyone anything. Good luck newborn. Or...
2) Kids are obligated to repay the debt of their own upbringing ("I raised you so you owe me"). I would hope the obnoxiousness of this thinking would be self-evident. Unfortunately, I've encountered it a lot. I've believed it myself to some degree.
However, I've not seen any evidence that this thinking benefits anyone in a meaningful way. Instead, I've seen it behind countless adults' efforts to belittle and devalue children - as part of misguided attempts to bully kids into some desired behavior.
It's terrible. We need to let it go.
> Is the implication that being alive is a bad thing?
Not at all. Some events are neither fair nor unfair but come with tons of responsibility.
Ultimately the question is who is the best fit to bear that responsibility and to what degree.
Considering all possible scenarios, I think the wisest answer is this: The resources of upbringing should be provided by the parents, in total, unconditionally and in perpetuity.
Obviously, all parents need help with this.
- From the principle standpoint, the alternatives saddle kids with unearned obligations, that are entirely the result of some adult's choices. This is unethical, while a better perspective is within reach.
- From a practical perspective, there are 2 alternatives (to the principle I espouse):
1) No one owes anyone anything. Good luck newborn. Or...
2) Kids are obligated to repay the debt of their own upbringing ("I raised you so you owe me"). I would hope the obnoxiousness of this thinking would be self-evident. Unfortunately, I've encountered it a lot. I've believed it myself to some degree.
However, I've not seen any evidence that this thinking benefits anyone in a meaningful way. Instead, I've seen it behind countless adults' efforts to belittle and devalue children - as part of misguided attempts to bully kids into some desired behavior.
It's terrible. We need to let it go.
> Is the implication that being alive is a bad thing?
Not at all. Some events are neither fair nor unfair but come with tons of responsibility.
Ultimately the question is who is the best fit to bear that responsibility and to what degree.
Considering all possible scenarios, I think the wisest answer is this: The resources of upbringing should be provided by the parents, in total, unconditionally and in perpetuity.
Obviously, all parents need help with this.
The implication is you (the parent) get to decide whether the child being alive is a good/bad thing (for the child). It is in your (the parent's) hands, so you better do the right thing and make it good for that person (the child).
Yeah it could be a very bad thing in some circumstances
My kids owe me nothing because I chose to have kids, but they didn’t choose to have parents.
That is the philosophy i live by. I am from india and When i was a child i was always made to feel guilty of not studying hard as my parents are sacrificing for me. I never wanted to marry but was forced again guilty trapping.Even compared to other asian countries, in india this mentality is very strong. This is mostly due to the religious conditioning enforcing the belief everybody in a society has a role to fulfill.
That is the western way to think about kids I've noticed. In many asian cultures, it's inverted. You owe your parents an infinite debt for bringing you into existence and supporting you.
Either way, I think the entire debt concept is toxic, creating guilt on either side. You're family and you help each other in many ways and nobody really has a debt to another.
Either way, I think the entire debt concept is toxic, creating guilt on either side. You're family and you help each other in many ways and nobody really has a debt to another.
.. or maybe it's both at the same time - we each owe each other a debt that we can never repay, but they cancel each other out precisely, so we owe nothing.
That’s a negative even depressing way of looking at it.
Life is a beautiful miracle with a extraordinary low probability that any one person would be born let alone survive.
As parents we (in partnership with whatever natural or supernatural being coordinates nature) bring that gift to our children. The rest is spot on. We owe it to them to make this a better world.
... but indebted sounds so negative.
Life is a beautiful miracle with a extraordinary low probability that any one person would be born let alone survive.
As parents we (in partnership with whatever natural or supernatural being coordinates nature) bring that gift to our children. The rest is spot on. We owe it to them to make this a better world.
... but indebted sounds so negative.
Many parents do feel as if the kids have a debt towards them.
If someone thinks that way, it is as if they think their relationship with their children in a business way. THAT is the negative and depressing way of looking at it.
The catch is, even if we are to see the parent-child relationship as business, then the "debt" lies entirely to the parents.
In the good occasion, that does not happen, and the relationship is healthy. And if you, yourself, put yourself in debt of your children, it doesn't seem bad things come out of it. It's you making the decision for yourself, after all. Not inflicting it on someone else.
The catch is, even if we are to see the parent-child relationship as business, then the "debt" lies entirely to the parents.
In the good occasion, that does not happen, and the relationship is healthy. And if you, yourself, put yourself in debt of your children, it doesn't seem bad things come out of it. It's you making the decision for yourself, after all. Not inflicting it on someone else.
Interestingly, this perspective (which I also subscribe to, broadly speaking) resolves one of the core paradoxes with utilitarian philosophies - if you believe the moral value of existing has any positive value with respect to not existing, then you would have a moral obligation to have as many children as possible. This is resolved if you believe that existence is at least capable of having less "moral value" than non-existence for some life experiences.
I think the word you are looking for is duty, not debt.
The words “duty” and “debt” (and “due”) are more or less the same idea, and both derived from the latin "debere".
You can think of “duty” as more or less a smoothed out version of “debt-ity”.
You can think of “duty” as more or less a smoothed out version of “debt-ity”.
That's elegant.
[deleted]
> it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime.
This is just an idea you made up.
It has no more grounding in reality than some old rule from the Bible that nobody follows anymore.
Like one of those old rules, it's just an arbitrary assertion.
When we make moral assertions we need to be just as scrupulous as scientists who can only properly assert something when they have evidence. And for the same reasons.
It's a matter of intellectual hygiene.
I understand that many parents love their children immensely. But there is a gap between that, and the moral imperative you are asserting.
You can spend a lifetime helping your children if you love them that much, and that is perfectly rational. But it does not create this universal moral imperative.
This is just an idea you made up.
It has no more grounding in reality than some old rule from the Bible that nobody follows anymore.
Like one of those old rules, it's just an arbitrary assertion.
When we make moral assertions we need to be just as scrupulous as scientists who can only properly assert something when they have evidence. And for the same reasons.
It's a matter of intellectual hygiene.
I understand that many parents love their children immensely. But there is a gap between that, and the moral imperative you are asserting.
You can spend a lifetime helping your children if you love them that much, and that is perfectly rational. But it does not create this universal moral imperative.
> "it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime."
> This is just an idea you made up.
I'd agree that it's a bit on the melodramatic side and it'd be fair to call it arbitrary.
However, I offer that the sentiment behind it is honest.
It works against the common assumption that kids owe their parents for their upbringing (If you feel I made that up then I can't help you here).
I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome and that it's main purpose is to demean & degrade kids (children & adult) - to bully them into some sort of compliant behavior.
That's the core behind the principle. If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look.
> This is just an idea you made up.
I'd agree that it's a bit on the melodramatic side and it'd be fair to call it arbitrary.
However, I offer that the sentiment behind it is honest.
It works against the common assumption that kids owe their parents for their upbringing (If you feel I made that up then I can't help you here).
I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome and that it's main purpose is to demean & degrade kids (children & adult) - to bully them into some sort of compliant behavior.
That's the core behind the principle. If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look.
> However, I offer that the sentiment behind it is honest.
No doubt about that. I think the sentiment behind it is that you love your kids greatly.
> I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome
I agree, but your principle is pretty similar to the one you are criticizing. They are two sides of the same coin. Neither principle is grounded in empirical reality. Both can lead to bad outcomes.
> If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look.
I mean, to be clear, I think the fault in your reasoning is to try to create a universal moral imperative based on an emotion you feel about your own kids. There is a gap there. That is not a justified move. Universal moral imperatives would have to be better grounded than that (just like scientific claims have to).
No doubt about that. I think the sentiment behind it is that you love your kids greatly.
> I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome
I agree, but your principle is pretty similar to the one you are criticizing. They are two sides of the same coin. Neither principle is grounded in empirical reality. Both can lead to bad outcomes.
> If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look.
I mean, to be clear, I think the fault in your reasoning is to try to create a universal moral imperative based on an emotion you feel about your own kids. There is a gap there. That is not a justified move. Universal moral imperatives would have to be better grounded than that (just like scientific claims have to).
It occurs to me that part of your objection may stem from an notion that I'm proposing a rule or some sort of absolute guideline.
If so, my response is that rules too often suck at promoting positive behaviors and that absolute guidelines suck even more.
If so, my response is that rules too often suck at promoting positive behaviors and that absolute guidelines suck even more.
It seems like you don't understand my objection. I'm not sure what the disconnect is. I thought I stated it very directly and plainly.
Also, you did propose a rule and an absolute guideline. It's puzzling to me that you seem to think you didn't do that.
Specifically, you put forward the moral precept that parents have a "permanent and total" obligation to their children.
Also, you did propose a rule and an absolute guideline. It's puzzling to me that you seem to think you didn't do that.
Specifically, you put forward the moral precept that parents have a "permanent and total" obligation to their children.
Sounds like because loving children is a crime in USA, you're trying to rationalize it in the form of mercantilism.
I found his essay on kids [0] a lot more insightful than this collection of short tweets. In particular, he admits that having kids may actually make you less ambitious
The fact is, once you have kids, you're probably going to care more about them than you do about yourself. And attention is a zero-sum game.
I've noticed this in myself. As usual though, he has a hack for this as well: I have some hacks for sailing close to this wind. For example, when I write essays, I think about what I'd want my kids to know. That drives me to get things right. And when I was writing Bel, I told my kids that once I finished it I'd take them to Africa. When you say that sort of thing to a little kid, they treat it as a promise. Which meant I had to finish or I'd be taking away their trip to Africa. Maybe if I'm really lucky such tricks could put me net ahead. But the wind is there, no question.
[0] http://paulgraham.com/kids.html
I've noticed this in myself. As usual though, he has a hack for this as well: I have some hacks for sailing close to this wind. For example, when I write essays, I think about what I'd want my kids to know. That drives me to get things right. And when I was writing Bel, I told my kids that once I finished it I'd take them to Africa. When you say that sort of thing to a little kid, they treat it as a promise. Which meant I had to finish or I'd be taking away their trip to Africa. Maybe if I'm really lucky such tricks could put me net ahead. But the wind is there, no question.
[0] http://paulgraham.com/kids.html
I was impressed when PG admitted this. Empirically, people with kids almost never achieve outlier levels of success (since attention is a zero sum game, and kids force your risk appetite to be lower [1]). But this is an extremely politically incorrect thing to admit, and people seem to be in denial about it.
For the record I plan to have kids (because kids are awesome), but want to push it off as far as humanly possible. It's basically a sign that you've retired/don't have anything that important left to contribute other than steady-state levels of productivity.
[1] I think having Fuck You Money is the best way to prevent kids from lowering your risk appetite. But attention is still a zero sum game (even with nannies helping to offload some of the work), so money won't save you entirely.
For the record I plan to have kids (because kids are awesome), but want to push it off as far as humanly possible. It's basically a sign that you've retired/don't have anything that important left to contribute other than steady-state levels of productivity.
[1] I think having Fuck You Money is the best way to prevent kids from lowering your risk appetite. But attention is still a zero sum game (even with nannies helping to offload some of the work), so money won't save you entirely.
I've wondered if a lot of the bias against older people in tech is actually a bias against parents of young children. Obviously age and parenting are tightly correlated.
I've worked with a lot super smart folks that are older and, thinking back, their kids were old enough to not be a constant concern, or they never had kids. They seem to have both the energy to be focused at work and also a lot of knowledge that someone a few years out of college doesn't yet have. I've also seen this when one parent is a stay-at-home parent, allowing the other parent to be more engaged with work.
Obviously we should be compassionate to people with young kids at home and not hold it against them, because civilization requires a certain number of people to procreate.
I've worked with a lot super smart folks that are older and, thinking back, their kids were old enough to not be a constant concern, or they never had kids. They seem to have both the energy to be focused at work and also a lot of knowledge that someone a few years out of college doesn't yet have. I've also seen this when one parent is a stay-at-home parent, allowing the other parent to be more engaged with work.
Obviously we should be compassionate to people with young kids at home and not hold it against them, because civilization requires a certain number of people to procreate.
I have two kids and I've achieved a lot since having them, but Paul's root argument is absolutely correct. I've staved off a lot of the deterioration by investing tons of money into systems that make family life easier, rather than fight things like house cleaning services and such from a point of "efficiency."
I have far fewer material things, a very basic house, and not very nice cars, but an equally important shift is your financial mindset on helping your family's stability today as well as into the future.
Re-reading this, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Wish I could reword it, but it's how I feel, I guess. Maybe it'll help someone out there. Having kids is tough!
I have far fewer material things, a very basic house, and not very nice cars, but an equally important shift is your financial mindset on helping your family's stability today as well as into the future.
Re-reading this, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Wish I could reword it, but it's how I feel, I guess. Maybe it'll help someone out there. Having kids is tough!
Can you talk about all of the systems you employ to make your efficiency higher?
I am by no means rich by Hacker News standards, and I live a very modest life in a modest home. The money I do have, I use on a personal assistant, housecleaning services, a nanny, and other things that allow me to be as productive as possible at work so when I'm at home, I can maximize family time with the kids and my partner.
I very much believe in the ego depletion theory (though I know, it's not been reproduced) - the more choices I have to make in a sub-arena, the more fatigued I get, and the lower self-control I have. I've just admitted to myself that I am poor at time management, so I've outsourced a lot of things to my personal assistant (whom I would never hire in the past given my income bracket). We have a housecleaner service despite the fact that I'm perfectly capable of cleaning the house, but in doing so I just pile up more tasks that I really don't want to do.
I've had these discussions with other people in my income bracket who say they can't afford to get help around the house, but they drive Teslas, have super nice clothes, buy expensive TVs / electronics, eat out a lot, go on posh vacations... it's about what you prioritize your money towards. I spend a huge amount of my money on my family and their needs, and I want for very little in my personal life.
I see it this way: I'm an entrepreneur, getting to do my thing. That's enough for me. I don't need nice stuff or to go to foreign lands; all the clothes I wear are free from vendors or cheaply purchased at Old Navy / Goodwill / etc. My family emotionally supports my self-employment, which is more than anyone can ask for in this life. They deserve everything else.
I very much believe in the ego depletion theory (though I know, it's not been reproduced) - the more choices I have to make in a sub-arena, the more fatigued I get, and the lower self-control I have. I've just admitted to myself that I am poor at time management, so I've outsourced a lot of things to my personal assistant (whom I would never hire in the past given my income bracket). We have a housecleaner service despite the fact that I'm perfectly capable of cleaning the house, but in doing so I just pile up more tasks that I really don't want to do.
I've had these discussions with other people in my income bracket who say they can't afford to get help around the house, but they drive Teslas, have super nice clothes, buy expensive TVs / electronics, eat out a lot, go on posh vacations... it's about what you prioritize your money towards. I spend a huge amount of my money on my family and their needs, and I want for very little in my personal life.
I see it this way: I'm an entrepreneur, getting to do my thing. That's enough for me. I don't need nice stuff or to go to foreign lands; all the clothes I wear are free from vendors or cheaply purchased at Old Navy / Goodwill / etc. My family emotionally supports my self-employment, which is more than anyone can ask for in this life. They deserve everything else.
> Empirically, people with kids almost never achieve outlier levels of success
That's ridiculous. Do you have any way of backing that claim up? If you're using the word "empirically", you should have.
That's ridiculous. Do you have any way of backing that claim up? If you're using the word "empirically", you should have.
>> It's basically a sign that you've retired/don't have anything that important left to contribute other than steady-state levels of productivity.
That's a pretty blinkered perspective. For the large majority of people, your children are the most impactful thing you contribute. Say you have 2 kids. You marginally reduce your contribution to care for them but in return they contribute two whole lifetimes worth. Way more than you would ever add to your career.
Of course there's prudence in planning, but there are other ways to define your success and contribution other than your immediate economic utililty.
That's a pretty blinkered perspective. For the large majority of people, your children are the most impactful thing you contribute. Say you have 2 kids. You marginally reduce your contribution to care for them but in return they contribute two whole lifetimes worth. Way more than you would ever add to your career.
Of course there's prudence in planning, but there are other ways to define your success and contribution other than your immediate economic utililty.
An alternate approach is to have kids young while you work through the grind-ier stages of your career and then do your high impact work when they're teenagers / young adults. One benefit of this approach is that even if your attention is sometimes away from them during that stage in their life they still get to see what you're doing, and if you take time when you can to talk to them about it they'll feel at least a little bit involved. In my experience sometimes bringing what you're learning as a parent out in the real world back home to them can be very engaging for them. School can be very mundane, and a glimpse in to how the real world works can be very enlightening.
When I first became a parent I thought it would be great if I could just stay home with my kids all the time and not have to go to work. I thought that would be better for them and me, and concluded that's what I'd do if I ever had fuck-you money. Then when they got old enough to have conversations with (3-4 yo) I realized that they really engaged with conversations about things outside their daily lives, which for better or worse can be very routine. If I wasn't going to work I wouldn't have much to tell them that they don't already know. And again for better or worse, young kids and teens tend to see anything that happened before they were born as ancient irrelevant history, so I'm not sure that telling stories about the glory days of past contributions would have the same impact.
Lastly, if you'll pardon a bit of good-natured snark, while
> Empirically, people with kids almost never achieve outlier levels of success
is certainly true,
> Empirically, people almost never achieve outlier levels of success
Is almost equally true!
When I first became a parent I thought it would be great if I could just stay home with my kids all the time and not have to go to work. I thought that would be better for them and me, and concluded that's what I'd do if I ever had fuck-you money. Then when they got old enough to have conversations with (3-4 yo) I realized that they really engaged with conversations about things outside their daily lives, which for better or worse can be very routine. If I wasn't going to work I wouldn't have much to tell them that they don't already know. And again for better or worse, young kids and teens tend to see anything that happened before they were born as ancient irrelevant history, so I'm not sure that telling stories about the glory days of past contributions would have the same impact.
Lastly, if you'll pardon a bit of good-natured snark, while
> Empirically, people with kids almost never achieve outlier levels of success
is certainly true,
> Empirically, people almost never achieve outlier levels of success
Is almost equally true!
> Empirically, people with kids almost never achieve outlier levels of success
Don't most successful people have kids (just like anybody else)?
Also, many people just don't take care of their kids. There are many mono-parental families out there.
Don't most successful people have kids (just like anybody else)?
Also, many people just don't take care of their kids. There are many mono-parental families out there.
> Empirically, people with kids almost never achieve outlier levels of success
> Don't most successful people have kids (just like anybody else)?
I imagine both those things are true.
> Also, many people just don't take care of their kids. There are many mono-parental families out there.
I became a single parent when my wife developed mental illness (which was like getting 5 more kids). In my case self-employment allowed me to be present a lot more often than most single parents can.
Nevertheless, the overriding truth is that nearly every sq inch of modern western society is stacked against single parents.
> Don't most successful people have kids (just like anybody else)?
I imagine both those things are true.
> Also, many people just don't take care of their kids. There are many mono-parental families out there.
I became a single parent when my wife developed mental illness (which was like getting 5 more kids). In my case self-employment allowed me to be present a lot more often than most single parents can.
Nevertheless, the overriding truth is that nearly every sq inch of modern western society is stacked against single parents.
People in any category "almost never achieve outlier levels of success"; that's what "outlier" means. If you mean that people with children achieve outlier levels of success much less often than people without children, then I think you owe us some of the evidence implied by that word "empirically".
J S Bach had 21 children. Karl Friedrich Gauss had 6 children. Warren Buffett has 3 children. Rembrandt van Rijn had 5 children. Isambard Kingdom Brunel had 3 children. Charles Dickens had 10 children. Charles Darwin had 10 children.
The only one of those I picked on the basis of knowing about their children was Bach; the others were the first super-eminent people in their fields who occurred to me that I didn't know were childless.
J S Bach had 21 children. Karl Friedrich Gauss had 6 children. Warren Buffett has 3 children. Rembrandt van Rijn had 5 children. Isambard Kingdom Brunel had 3 children. Charles Dickens had 10 children. Charles Darwin had 10 children.
The only one of those I picked on the basis of knowing about their children was Bach; the others were the first super-eminent people in their fields who occurred to me that I didn't know were childless.
Modern examples (like Warren Buffett) are probably better, since most of those men lived during times when there were almost zero expectations placed on fathers, apart from making an income. Men could almost completely ignore their children without their spouse, the children, or anyone else seeing it as a problem.
OK, let's stick with modern examples. We already had Warren Buffett.
Some very rich tech people: Bill Gates, 3 children; Larry Ellison, 2 children; Jeff Bezos, 4 children; Mark Zuckerberg, 2 children. (I just picked some rich tech people and checked whether they had children; no deliberate cherry-picking here.)
The most recent Nobel prize in physics went to Jim Peebles (3 children), Michel Mayor (3 children), and Didier Queloz (haven't been able to find out, so maybe none?).
I'm not going to spend ages looking up stats for every area of human achievement, and maybe it turns out that all these people had children after achieving success (lots of us non-outliers, after all, wait to have children until we're reasonably secure financially), but at any rate it certainly doesn't seem as if highly successful people are unusually likely not to have children at all.
Some very rich tech people: Bill Gates, 3 children; Larry Ellison, 2 children; Jeff Bezos, 4 children; Mark Zuckerberg, 2 children. (I just picked some rich tech people and checked whether they had children; no deliberate cherry-picking here.)
The most recent Nobel prize in physics went to Jim Peebles (3 children), Michel Mayor (3 children), and Didier Queloz (haven't been able to find out, so maybe none?).
I'm not going to spend ages looking up stats for every area of human achievement, and maybe it turns out that all these people had children after achieving success (lots of us non-outliers, after all, wait to have children until we're reasonably secure financially), but at any rate it certainly doesn't seem as if highly successful people are unusually likely not to have children at all.
Yeah, those are better ones, and I do agree with you despite the quibbling.
> Empirically, people with kids almost never achieve outlier levels of success
I really don't think this is true statistically. Plenty of outliers with kids, as far as kids go.
Moreover, argument is not true, especially for men. Many men leave most of care and career sacrifice on their wifes. They may be slightly inconvenienced by kids here and there, but actually spend equal or even more time in work then before. (Cause home isore boring and wife less friendly now)
I really don't think this is true statistically. Plenty of outliers with kids, as far as kids go.
Moreover, argument is not true, especially for men. Many men leave most of care and career sacrifice on their wifes. They may be slightly inconvenienced by kids here and there, but actually spend equal or even more time in work then before. (Cause home isore boring and wife less friendly now)
Name 5 people who will be remembered in 100 years and who had kids before starting their Grand Project. It's pretty hard.
They tend to launch both simultaneously (eg: Henry Ford).
Reality might skew a little in tech because of some high profile successes that occurred while founders were absurdly young.
Reality might skew a little in tech because of some high profile successes that occurred while founders were absurdly young.
I heard, Bill Gates' mother helped him with the start.
Honorable mention: Anthony Fauci but he won't be remembered in 100 years. But, who will? J.k.Rowling, Donald Trump, Barack Obama. Then I am out of ideas, through I can think of both childless and non childless people.
Not slowed down by children: Albert Einstein, Joseph Stalin, Goering, Speer. (I happened to read about that period a lot).
Bill Gates, Musk also have children, but I don't think business owners are remembered that long. Plus, Elon Musk is not active father. More if sponsor from what I heard. The "remembered after 100 years" basically limits me to politicians making massive changes. But if you check those who won Nobel prize, they have plenty children too. And writers have them too.
Seriously, career of males are not much harmed by children. It used to be an advantage even
Not slowed down by children: Albert Einstein, Joseph Stalin, Goering, Speer. (I happened to read about that period a lot).
Bill Gates, Musk also have children, but I don't think business owners are remembered that long. Plus, Elon Musk is not active father. More if sponsor from what I heard. The "remembered after 100 years" basically limits me to politicians making massive changes. But if you check those who won Nobel prize, they have plenty children too. And writers have them too.
Seriously, career of males are not much harmed by children. It used to be an advantage even
The question is whether they had children when they began their ambitious project. Bill Gates was definitely childless when he started Microsoft. He met his wife Melinda through Microsoft; she was an employee. I don't know about Musk but the question is whether he had kids when founding Paypal.
So like, business man count only if they started business late? Successful person that did not started during college is too much of complicated rule. You require someone who had kids too young or started work life too old.
Musk was born I'm rich family for that matter. And was not hold back by kid at all, cause he was not spending hours with them or something. Ha had nanny.
Musk was born I'm rich family for that matter. And was not hold back by kid at all, cause he was not spending hours with them or something. Ha had nanny.
Rather how he would have kids without business?
Age is a pretty strong confounder here, for more than one reason.
people with kids almost never achieve outlier levels of success
I agree, though I’ll add that my perspective has become much, much longer. I am laying plans for 20-40 years from now and continuously attend to their fruition. I don’t think that would have been possible without kids and, in light of the compounding nature of life (and capital), it feels like a super power.
I really like this point, and 100% agree having had a wee one recently. I've found I'm more discerning about opportunities, not jumping headlong into any new thing.
If anything having a kid has helped me focus, by cutting out a lot of extraneous noise in other parts of life.
If anything having a kid has helped me focus, by cutting out a lot of extraneous noise in other parts of life.
I guess it depends were you are in life. I’ve noticed since having kids that working and succeeding takes on a whole other meaningful level. Before, ambition was tied to abstract things I didn’t quite care too much about, i.e. money. Now, being my best self is the greatest teaching tool for our kids as they look to us as role models.
I've really, really enjoyed pg's tweets on parenting and his kids. It's obvious he loves his kids and he loves being a dad.
Given how much of parenting advice/writing is written by and for moms (rather than dads), and given how much of it is (separately) written by and for people who are both extremely anxious and not very analytical, reading pg's thoughtful and joyous takes on being a parent makes me want to be a parent, too.
Given how much of parenting advice/writing is written by and for moms (rather than dads), and given how much of it is (separately) written by and for people who are both extremely anxious and not very analytical, reading pg's thoughtful and joyous takes on being a parent makes me want to be a parent, too.
> and not very analytical
Yeah. Stuff that is written in an affective style drives me crazy. I want to scream "Stop trying to make me feel the emotions, and get to the point already!" I find it rather hard to read.
For certain people, PG talks their language in a way that few others do. Not that others couldn't, but at the moment, very few do.
Yeah. Stuff that is written in an affective style drives me crazy. I want to scream "Stop trying to make me feel the emotions, and get to the point already!" I find it rather hard to read.
For certain people, PG talks their language in a way that few others do. Not that others couldn't, but at the moment, very few do.
As a new father, it is crazy how little us fathers write for each other. Almost everything I read on parenting is directed at mothers, and in some ways, it is infuriating.
Either way, seeing someone write about parenting and reference fatherhood is always a fresh breath of air.
(In a way, I guess I have tasted what it can be like as a woman in engineering, with everything written for "him".)
Either way, seeing someone write about parenting and reference fatherhood is always a fresh breath of air.
(In a way, I guess I have tasted what it can be like as a woman in engineering, with everything written for "him".)
I was a stay-at-home parent with a Y chromosome.
It was a deep and profound eye opener for me to (1) notice how most of the writing about the stuff I did all day was written specifically for people without Y chromosomes
but more importantly
(2) it made it much more clear to me what it must be like to be a woman who wants to be or is a part of a male-dominated field. Even though I was already aware of the concept of gendered literature as it pertains to a field of endeavor, wow, was it a totally different experience to have it apply directly to me and to my feelings. I used to be a bit cavalier about this - acknowledging that it was a real thing, but downplaying its significance.
No more. The kid is now 25, and we talk gender politics every other week :)
It was a deep and profound eye opener for me to (1) notice how most of the writing about the stuff I did all day was written specifically for people without Y chromosomes
but more importantly
(2) it made it much more clear to me what it must be like to be a woman who wants to be or is a part of a male-dominated field. Even though I was already aware of the concept of gendered literature as it pertains to a field of endeavor, wow, was it a totally different experience to have it apply directly to me and to my feelings. I used to be a bit cavalier about this - acknowledging that it was a real thing, but downplaying its significance.
No more. The kid is now 25, and we talk gender politics every other week :)
Out od curiosity what we're biggest things that you noticed or annoyed you? (I am woman programmer who was stay-at-home few years and I am curious.)
It's been a while now :)
Almost any book on raising young children (say birth to 5) would be written with the assumption that diapers, feeding, play arrangements, and what we might call "very early childhood education" were the responsibility of a mother. Many early children's books would feature mothers as the ones taking care of young children too, and that grated on me a bit.
To be fair, there's a flip side to this which is almost as bad. By the time my child ended up at a (co-op) nursery school, I of course got huge karma from all the other stay-at-home mothers there for doing precisely what they did. That wasn't comfortable either, but at least it was an ego massage.
A couple of decades later ... it all seems like water under the bridge now compared to the deeper gender politics that we still face, and I am only glad that it made me pay attention to what I had previously assumed was a trivial thing.
Almost any book on raising young children (say birth to 5) would be written with the assumption that diapers, feeding, play arrangements, and what we might call "very early childhood education" were the responsibility of a mother. Many early children's books would feature mothers as the ones taking care of young children too, and that grated on me a bit.
To be fair, there's a flip side to this which is almost as bad. By the time my child ended up at a (co-op) nursery school, I of course got huge karma from all the other stay-at-home mothers there for doing precisely what they did. That wasn't comfortable either, but at least it was an ego massage.
A couple of decades later ... it all seems like water under the bridge now compared to the deeper gender politics that we still face, and I am only glad that it made me pay attention to what I had previously assumed was a trivial thing.
Part of why it's like this could be because of how our dads and their dads handled being fathers. Perhaps too often they didn't own it, made child raising women's work, and created that gap in society that we see here today.
I might be wrong. I used to get a little frustrated by how men are treated as parents though, and I've come to think it's no one's fault today. If some old lady congratulates me for spending time with my sons (something I do every day and while it is nice, I don't want people to think it's remarkable and novel), I shouldn't assume it's condescending or rude; it's more likely that her husband rarely spent time with their kids and/or her father never spend time with her. She could be totally sincere.
Similarly, there could be very little written for us because in much of the world and recent history, raising kids has been largely placed on women. We might need to start writing if we want to see that change.
Again, I could be wrong. I think about it quite a bit though. Being a 'single dad' was a real eye opener about how men and parenting are perceived in society.
I might be wrong. I used to get a little frustrated by how men are treated as parents though, and I've come to think it's no one's fault today. If some old lady congratulates me for spending time with my sons (something I do every day and while it is nice, I don't want people to think it's remarkable and novel), I shouldn't assume it's condescending or rude; it's more likely that her husband rarely spent time with their kids and/or her father never spend time with her. She could be totally sincere.
Similarly, there could be very little written for us because in much of the world and recent history, raising kids has been largely placed on women. We might need to start writing if we want to see that change.
Again, I could be wrong. I think about it quite a bit though. Being a 'single dad' was a real eye opener about how men and parenting are perceived in society.
[deleted]
Parenting trick: invent a gesture that means "I love you." 2 yos like it as a game. 8 yos like it because they can use it in public.
I learned to say "I love you." It still gets an "I love you, too" nearly twenty years later by default. If I don't fuck up, I expect it will work on my deathbed. It probably helped that I often add "and am very very proud of you" when I've thought it's a good thing to say. Most recently by text across two thousand miles in the midst of a pandemic. Because I was. YMMV.
I learned to say "I love you." It still gets an "I love you, too" nearly twenty years later by default. If I don't fuck up, I expect it will work on my deathbed. It probably helped that I often add "and am very very proud of you" when I've thought it's a good thing to say. Most recently by text across two thousand miles in the midst of a pandemic. Because I was. YMMV.
That's something to strive for - that those around me will want to say that on my deathbed. I mean, there's not much else that is going to matter to me then.
programming for kids
#### kodable https://www.kodable.com/
#### scratch https://scratch.mit.edu/
#### tynker https://www.tynker.com/
#### blackly https://developers.google.com/blockly/
####star logo http://education.mit.edu/starlogo-tng/
#### alice http://www.alice.org/index.php
#### kodu form microsofts https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/download/confirmation.aspx?i...
#### android app inventor http://appinventor.mit.edu/explore/
#### kids ruby http://kidsruby.com/
#### Lua programming language https://www.lua.org/
#### kodable https://www.kodable.com/
#### scratch https://scratch.mit.edu/
#### tynker https://www.tynker.com/
#### blackly https://developers.google.com/blockly/
####star logo http://education.mit.edu/starlogo-tng/
#### alice http://www.alice.org/index.php
#### kodu form microsofts https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/download/confirmation.aspx?i...
#### android app inventor http://appinventor.mit.edu/explore/
#### kids ruby http://kidsruby.com/
#### Lua programming language https://www.lua.org/
Is KidsRuby still active? The downloads page isn't working (leads to an access denied page) and the twitter account hasn't posted anything for 5 years.
Hardware programming for kids
Crumble https://redfernelectronics.co.uk/crumble/
BBC Micro:Bit https://microbit.org/
CodeBug http://www.codebug.org.uk/
Hardware programming for kids
Crumble https://redfernelectronics.co.uk/crumble/
BBC Micro:Bit https://microbit.org/
CodeBug http://www.codebug.org.uk/
Hardware making for kids (using 3D printing/Laser engraving/mills/soldering): https://beamakerclub.com/
I am an advisor
I am an advisor
> Writing Basic programs (I'm teaching my son Basic) reminds me that there was once a time when I used to be impressed when my programs were long. Look at all the work I've done, I used to think.
I am glad I am not alone I thinking that BASIC is still a great language to teach young kids to program. I love how there is not a lot of boilerplate (for example the parenthesis for the print call in python and indentation).
I am glad I am not alone I thinking that BASIC is still a great language to teach young kids to program. I love how there is not a lot of boilerplate (for example the parenthesis for the print call in python and indentation).
C64 BASIC was the first language I learned which is probably true for lots and lots of other people. However, I learned it by reading the book that came with the computer and trying it out.
I cannot really imagine someone teaching me a programming language. Half the fun was trying to "get it". I think that if I had had someone teaching me BASIC back then, it would half felt like trying to solve a Sudoku with someone watching over your shoulder and telling you which numbers to put.
I cannot really imagine someone teaching me a programming language. Half the fun was trying to "get it". I think that if I had had someone teaching me BASIC back then, it would half felt like trying to solve a Sudoku with someone watching over your shoulder and telling you which numbers to put.
It's possible to use BASIC on the ESP8266 / NodeMCU boards: http://www.esp8266basic.com/#
At the moment primary school age (5 to 10) children in the UK seem to learn some flavour of Scratch. And then (in the UK) they also tinker with boards like Crumble or CodeBug or BBC Micro:Bit (which use blockly or MS MakeCode or something a bit like Scratch).
I don't know what the next step in progression is. I'm curious about what HN readers would think good stepping stones would be? Direct to Python, or something else then to python?
BBC Micro:Bit https://microbit.org/
Crumble https://redfernelectronics.co.uk/crumble/
Codebug http://www.codebug.org.uk/
At the moment primary school age (5 to 10) children in the UK seem to learn some flavour of Scratch. And then (in the UK) they also tinker with boards like Crumble or CodeBug or BBC Micro:Bit (which use blockly or MS MakeCode or something a bit like Scratch).
I don't know what the next step in progression is. I'm curious about what HN readers would think good stepping stones would be? Direct to Python, or something else then to python?
BBC Micro:Bit https://microbit.org/
Crumble https://redfernelectronics.co.uk/crumble/
Codebug http://www.codebug.org.uk/
Python seems to be what's chosen next; couple of years ago I did the UMich/Coursera course "Python for Everybody" as prep for parenting a high-schooler as I'd never done any Python, good level for that.
I think if they're looking at the js behind the blocks in blockly that python isn't a very big step.
I think if they're looking at the js behind the blocks in blockly that python isn't a very big step.
Same here. Truth be told, I likely wouldn't be a programmer today if not for BASIC. My first exposure to programming as a kid was actually a COBOL book, explaining how to punch cards. Didn't get far there. Bought a C++ book and didn't get far there either. Found BASIC and found myself writing til my fingers were sore. One thing it taught me about myself is that I'm very very biased and/or strongly opinionated about languages and how they look. Love BASIC, hate COBOL. Love Python, hate Perl. Love Go, hate Rust. I feel like I'm cheating myself out of cool paradigms, but my brain has this builtin disgust reaction I can't get past.
Being an uncle of 10 month now I have made a list of the things to keep in mind when I decide to have my own children. It's pretty short:
- Spend as much time with your child as possible and let them roam free. Just have a loose eye out and don't overprotect everything, children are really not that fragile. This includes letting them eat dirt and play with pets without worrying too much
- Children observe/copy/improve (and wil let you know when they are not interested in stuff). It's really fascinating to watch. Keep that in mind when you want them to learn something
- Let them play with other children without worrying that it'll be bad for them. Also don't be scared to hand your toddler over to some other family member to hold etc...noone will drop them. Humans intuitively understand how to care for babies/children
- Do research and base stuff on that (name bias and praising effort vs. ability are the only two that seem interesting on a quick glance)
That's all I got so far. And there's a certain set of values I want to teach but I believe the best way of doing that is by living it (be decent to people, be critical of yourself/don't take yourself too seriously, always stay curious about life, value freedom highly).
- Spend as much time with your child as possible and let them roam free. Just have a loose eye out and don't overprotect everything, children are really not that fragile. This includes letting them eat dirt and play with pets without worrying too much
- Children observe/copy/improve (and wil let you know when they are not interested in stuff). It's really fascinating to watch. Keep that in mind when you want them to learn something
- Let them play with other children without worrying that it'll be bad for them. Also don't be scared to hand your toddler over to some other family member to hold etc...noone will drop them. Humans intuitively understand how to care for babies/children
- Do research and base stuff on that (name bias and praising effort vs. ability are the only two that seem interesting on a quick glance)
That's all I got so far. And there's a certain set of values I want to teach but I believe the best way of doing that is by living it (be decent to people, be critical of yourself/don't take yourself too seriously, always stay curious about life, value freedom highly).
I love to highlight text on my browser as I read. The fact that it auto-clicks into the tweets as I'm highlight is infuriating.
I do too! I can't use Medium, it gets so annoying.
Does anyone else feel this is extreme amount of pushing/hand-holding to kids to have them learn programming?
My own experience is this: (1) kids meticulously observe what their parents do in their "natural" state and get interested in that, however, (2) kids develop sort of "not for me" or even outright repulsion for things parents what them to excel at.
So the best way for kids to get interested in X is just to do that yourself all the time and let them approach you with questions while never let them feel that you are way too good at that. One technique is to do Conway style "blunders" while teaching something to kids. This apparently makes them feel that there is room for them to come in, contribute and think independently.
My own experience is this: (1) kids meticulously observe what their parents do in their "natural" state and get interested in that, however, (2) kids develop sort of "not for me" or even outright repulsion for things parents what them to excel at.
So the best way for kids to get interested in X is just to do that yourself all the time and let them approach you with questions while never let them feel that you are way too good at that. One technique is to do Conway style "blunders" while teaching something to kids. This apparently makes them feel that there is room for them to come in, contribute and think independently.
I have 5 sons. I exposed all of them to computer, appliance & car repair. That involved setting them in front of the project, tool in hand & letting them go as far as they could.
Only one really bit into it & he largely eclipsed my ability by the time he was 18.
The others found their own skill sets, mostly with stuff I suck at.
Edit: Interestingly, one is training as an electrician which is tangentially related to my skills. However, he came to that totally on his own.
His learning is best aided thru support, not influence.
Only one really bit into it & he largely eclipsed my ability by the time he was 18.
The others found their own skill sets, mostly with stuff I suck at.
Edit: Interestingly, one is training as an electrician which is tangentially related to my skills. However, he came to that totally on his own.
His learning is best aided thru support, not influence.
Speaking from personal experience, the seed was planted and just took longer to grow.
I share a hobby with my great grandmother. I was never interested in it when my parents were involved with it, but on my own I still think of grandma when I’m making plans. It was just something she did, often while we were visiting.
I share a hobby with my great grandmother. I was never interested in it when my parents were involved with it, but on my own I still think of grandma when I’m making plans. It was just something she did, often while we were visiting.
If you are trying to force your children to grow up to be coders, that would be extreme. But the parents and educators I know consider it more of a new facet to basic literacy. You know how to read. You know how to write. You know basic computational concepts.
In a casual conversation, or web forum, when the subject comes up, mention "piano lessons" and watch what happens.
I had no problem spending many hours learning to program the Apple II+ we had but I always felt forced to practice playing the piano. I think the difference for me was the computer was a puzzle to be figured out and I saw a lot of potential reward in it whereas the piano just seemed like something that had little use beyond the skill of coordinating the reading of notes to playing them. My parents did neither of these things so I had no models to base my interests in in these cases at least.
Could you explain what these Conway style "blunders" are? I hadn't heard of them, and a web search didn't turn up anything.
John Conway had a teaching technique where he would appear to make an error in a talk, act slightly confused, then restart the problem now that a faulty assumption (for example) was made explicit. Second time around greater insight would be reached.
You have to be very good to pull off that kind of move.
You have to be very good to pull off that kind of move.
I believe they're talking about this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22843693
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22843693
[deleted]
I think the right way to think about is to treat it like reading and writing.
I got down to the one where he says adults lecture kids on morality, but not other adults.
Does he really not get regularly lectured on morality by other adults? I certainly do, and I get a tiny fraction of such lectures compared to my wife...
Does he really not get regularly lectured on morality by other adults? I certainly do, and I get a tiny fraction of such lectures compared to my wife...
I don't know about morality. But I have noticed that many adults tend to expect kids to behave better than other adults.
The behavior of many adults isn't that far removed from the behavior of your average toddler. As a society we seem to have come to accept this as fairly normal though.
The behavior of many adults isn't that far removed from the behavior of your average toddler. As a society we seem to have come to accept this as fairly normal though.
True. Expectations of sharing personal items is one of the biggest.
Why does your wife get more lectures on morality?
My observations hint at two primary reasons:
older women who would be uncomfortable telling men that they are "doing it wrong"
Differing standards for moms and dads. I get kudos for doing anything with my kids. She gets told she is parenting wrong
older women who would be uncomfortable telling men that they are "doing it wrong"
Differing standards for moms and dads. I get kudos for doing anything with my kids. She gets told she is parenting wrong
I got suspicious staring for playing with my kids in public. She could play with other people's kids without even asking.
People say this a lot online but I've never seen it happen, even when I play with other people's kids.
I wonder where the culture is so different, or if this is a case of people reading into (ugh) "resting bitch face"
I wonder where the culture is so different, or if this is a case of people reading into (ugh) "resting bitch face"
In my case, I seem to have "resting pedophile face". It sucks, but we all have our burdens to bear.
Yeah, I had a bit of a baby face when I first became a parent so got some of those same things. As soon as one of them called me "daddy" the ice melted
Maybe people are just making conversation and you shouldn't put so much stock in others sharing their opinions?
I've never hard of people making conversation by telling them how they're doing things wrong, except when it comes to raising kids. How often do you hear stuff like this from random strangers:
It's too cold for shorts.
You're pushing that shopping cart wrong.
You need to wash your car.
That's a lot of ice cream in your shopping cart, maybe you should try eating something else.
It's too cold for shorts.
You're pushing that shopping cart wrong.
You need to wash your car.
That's a lot of ice cream in your shopping cart, maybe you should try eating something else.
>How often do you hear stuff like this from random strangers?
Regularly - when the critic feels the object of their derision is out of earshot.
Parents presume what feedback they get and they're usually right.
Regularly - when the critic feels the object of their derision is out of earshot.
Parents presume what feedback they get and they're usually right.
To expand, I often find that, if I feel strongly about a piece of feedback, it's because a part of me agrees with it. It says more about me than it does the other person.
Going from "People being critical of your wife and not you for the same actions is just conversation!" to trying to guilt a guy for...pointing out that his wife experiences sexism...is pretty strange.
I'm not trying to "guilt" anybody. Please don't spin my words.
My two points are related. I recall hearing comments like that when my spouse and I had one infant child, and I remember taking them more personally, because it's easy as a new parent to feel like you should be doing more. Now if I hear someone comment on something I'm doing as a parent, it's just conversation, and I think the primary difference was my confidence in my own parenting ability.
My two points are related. I recall hearing comments like that when my spouse and I had one infant child, and I remember taking them more personally, because it's easy as a new parent to feel like you should be doing more. Now if I hear someone comment on something I'm doing as a parent, it's just conversation, and I think the primary difference was my confidence in my own parenting ability.
[deleted]
Totally makes sense, thanks
> Does he really not get regularly lectured on morality by other adults?
He's a billionaire, so he's surrounded exclusively by sycophants.
He's a billionaire, so he's surrounded exclusively by sycophants.
It's not cool when someone gets preached like a prophet. VC stuff, OK, but kids? Come on.
This is pretty stupid. The cross-over between VC and parenting is ... non-existent. Maybe PG is a great person and parent, but I don't know him.
VC playbook: build a portfolio of rapid growth companies, spread a bunch of cash around; expect most to fail but one or a few are huge successes in a short time frame; repeat.
Parent playbook: no real repeatable systems, slow organic growth, everyone succeeds, likely no unicorns, one-and-done.
You cannot engineer and scale parenting.
VC playbook: build a portfolio of rapid growth companies, spread a bunch of cash around; expect most to fail but one or a few are huge successes in a short time frame; repeat.
Parent playbook: no real repeatable systems, slow organic growth, everyone succeeds, likely no unicorns, one-and-done.
You cannot engineer and scale parenting.
pg was famous for his essays before he was famous for being a venture capitalist. I disagree with many of his late-stage essays, but his reflections on parenting aren't the worst.
Agreed. I don't get the adulation here. A lot of this "advice" is honestly pretty weird and not helpful.
Here's a guy who thinks of his kids as products. And things he does and they do as features.
Here's a guy who thinks of his kids as products. And things he does and they do as features.
>A lot of this "advice" is honestly pretty weird and not helpful.
This pretty much applies to most advice doled out by the super rich for consumption by the to the general public.
This pretty much applies to most advice doled out by the super rich for consumption by the to the general public.
Some of them are quite nice but being a parent myself I don't subscribe to all of them. Which is expected, of course.
And then there are some tweets which are very situation/environment specific, like for instance the one about walking to school alone:
10 yo asked when I'd let him and his 7 yo brother walk to school by themselves. I told him the task was not to get himself to school safely, but to get his brother to school safely. I could practically hear his brain struggle to assimilate this paradigm shift.
All of my class mates and I walked to school alone from first class on (6 yrs of age) simply because we used to live in a smaller town where that was no problem. I'd even think that a parent driving their elementary school kids to school would have been looked at funny by the other parents.
Or this one:
Explained to nervous 7 yo that me being on the floor above is the same as me being in the next room, just rotated 90 degrees. After trying various objections, he had to agree.
While it might be true topologically, of course there are just practical every-day considerations why the are not exactly the same.
So, yeah, I find a lot of the tweets entertaining, but not as deeply insightful than some other commenters here.
And then there are some tweets which are very situation/environment specific, like for instance the one about walking to school alone:
10 yo asked when I'd let him and his 7 yo brother walk to school by themselves. I told him the task was not to get himself to school safely, but to get his brother to school safely. I could practically hear his brain struggle to assimilate this paradigm shift.
All of my class mates and I walked to school alone from first class on (6 yrs of age) simply because we used to live in a smaller town where that was no problem. I'd even think that a parent driving their elementary school kids to school would have been looked at funny by the other parents.
Or this one:
Explained to nervous 7 yo that me being on the floor above is the same as me being in the next room, just rotated 90 degrees. After trying various objections, he had to agree.
While it might be true topologically, of course there are just practical every-day considerations why the are not exactly the same.
So, yeah, I find a lot of the tweets entertaining, but not as deeply insightful than some other commenters here.
Yeah, to someone who is wheelchair bound, that the room above them which is only accessible by stairs, is not even close to the same as the room next door.
While that's definitely true, I don' think that's the point here. The 7 yo had anxiety about proximity, which is very common in children that age. They just want to know that the adult is nearby and has not abandoned them.
No one is wheelchair bound. Some people are wheelchair enabled.
Our older one goes to school himself from first grade on. The second is about to start school. Each one getting to school safely is not the problem. Getting them to school safely if they walk together is a problem.
I used to walk with class mates most of the time, I don't remember that making much of a difference if any. But of course, that's the judgment of my 6-year old self. In any event, it just comes down to what I stated above: all of this is / can be very dependent on the specific situation / environment that you live in.
> simply because we used to live in a smaller town where that was no problem
Is this a problem anywhere outside the US? (I’m sure there are a few exceptions)
Is this a problem anywhere outside the US? (I’m sure there are a few exceptions)
This has been discussed in the responses to the tweets, but still couldn't find a definitive answer - why Basic?
I started with Basic too when I was a kid, but if I were to teach my child programming now in 2020, I would choose Python as a first language. It has many graphic tools, and it looks even more beginner-friendly than Basic.
I started with Basic too when I was a kid, but if I were to teach my child programming now in 2020, I would choose Python as a first language. It has many graphic tools, and it looks even more beginner-friendly than Basic.
Basic is great because it has lower level primatives.
I think it's very easy for an existing programmer to forget that even the simplest high level concepts like looping and functions are not familiar to a child. These things are just not optional in python. If you want to make a loop, is has to be a high level one.
I would much rather teach a child "if" and "goto" for them to make their own control flow constructs. Later on after they realise that they are making these things manually all the time then they will learn to value of a function or a for loop and how it simplifies their life.
I think it really helps internalise these concepts.
Literally all the best programmers I know started with basic.
I think it's very easy for an existing programmer to forget that even the simplest high level concepts like looping and functions are not familiar to a child. These things are just not optional in python. If you want to make a loop, is has to be a high level one.
I would much rather teach a child "if" and "goto" for them to make their own control flow constructs. Later on after they realise that they are making these things manually all the time then they will learn to value of a function or a for loop and how it simplifies their life.
I think it really helps internalise these concepts.
Literally all the best programmers I know started with basic.
Especially the python turtle module, imo the best of all beginner teaching options I looked at
Logo on the C64 was one of the foundational tools in my programming journey. It was part of a computing class in primary school, I think when we were 9 years old. For many in the class, this was a first opportunity to mess around with a computer (almost no one had any kind of computer at home back then).
Getting that little triangular turtle to draw the shape of my house, simply by telling it how far to move and which way to turn, ended up being a life altering moment.
I don't know if it's possible to enthrall children with it these days. The graphics must seem absolutely bland and boring compared to many things children these days get to tinker with.
Getting that little triangular turtle to draw the shape of my house, simply by telling it how far to move and which way to turn, ended up being a life altering moment.
I don't know if it's possible to enthrall children with it these days. The graphics must seem absolutely bland and boring compared to many things children these days get to tinker with.
I don't know yet (my child is still far too young for logo) that said I grew up in an era spanning from frogger and handheld lcd tennis to all the BBC games to lemmings and Super Mario, any of which had better graphics than I could make in logo, but they lacked the thrill of creating things for myself that I got from the latter.
We got started with logo (on DOS PCs) at the same age in my school. It took me a long time to even realize it had anything to do with programming, just seemed like a wierd and cumbersome drawing program (compared to PC Paintbrush for example).
A couple years later I started messing around with QBasic & that really pulled me in even tho it took me a long while to learn even the basics.
Computer classes in school (until high school at least) seemed to have been generally be taught by teachers slightly less computer-literate than more advanced pupils in their class.
A couple years later I started messing around with QBasic & that really pulled me in even tho it took me a long while to learn even the basics.
Computer classes in school (until high school at least) seemed to have been generally be taught by teachers slightly less computer-literate than more advanced pupils in their class.
When I was testing a Logo implementation that had been released, I called my much younger cousin to look at it since he had been so good at Logo back in school that they had made him the "class monitor" the following year.
I quickly typed in code to draw a recursive tree and ran it. His reaction was "What?!?! You mean Logo is a programming language like the Pascal I learned at the university?"
Very sad.
I quickly typed in code to draw a recursive tree and ran it. His reaction was "What?!?! You mean Logo is a programming language like the Pascal I learned at the university?"
Very sad.
Honestly what can be expected when the teachers aren't programmers and learned it just before the pupils themselves? Which I guess may be sorta forgivable in the early 90s when there were few programmers (especially in the global periphery) and even fewer that were both programmers & teachers.
Python is more complex than necessary or useful.
The real shame is that there's not a good Beginner's Lisp yet, but when lacking one of those, BASIC is pretty easy to learn, and more importantly is pretty easy to teach.
The real shame is that there's not a good Beginner's Lisp yet, but when lacking one of those, BASIC is pretty easy to learn, and more importantly is pretty easy to teach.
I prefer python professionally. But I have been trying to teach my kids programming via code breaking with the Gravity Falls tv show. Trying to add numbers to letters is very confusing for younger kids.
Almost everyone who's tried with kids has found Scratch to be best by far, up through age 9 or 10
https://parenting.stackexchange.com/This, the Academia SE, and the Workplace SE are wonderful repositories full of shining examples of how many pedantic, bureaucratic sociopaths walk among us.
Ahh, web 3.0
An empty screen except a green box with the text "LOAD MORE", assuming the box might be a button, I press it.
It elegantly turns into a small green square, and then disappear completely, leaving me with a white rectangle on top of a grey background.
These are really great insights, thanks for taking the time to put this together.
Which tool do Hacker News users recommend for reading everything ever written by a Twitter user in chronological order?
Which tool do Hacker News users recommend for reading everything ever written by a Twitter user in chronological order?
Reading everything from an account will usually give you quite low signal to noise ratio. Even for someone like pg's timeline. I usually use min_retweets and min_faves filter of Twitter advanced search to get to the best (crowd-sourced) tweets by someone. For example -
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apaulg%20min_faves%3A200&...
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apaulg%20min_faves%3A200&...
I think GP asked more about ascending chronological order (i.e. "oldest first"). Of course, that's only conjecture, based on what I thought when reading the question.
OTOH, your info about "best" vs. "everything" is of interest, too.
OTOH, your info about "best" vs. "everything" is of interest, too.
> The biggest division in work may be between jobs that involve making new stuff (science, engineering) and those that don't (administration, sales), and you'll be a lot happier if you end up on the side you're suited for.
This is rather binary (and naive) distinction. There is a lot of room for creative work in any field.
This is rather binary (and naive) distinction. There is a lot of room for creative work in any field.
It's not just binary, it's a binary choice between "those jobs that are a bit like mine" and "all the other ones". Imagine what some hypothetical parents with other careers might say:
> ... between jobs that involve being outside (gardener, railroad worker) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...)
> ... between jobs that involve creative expression of your emotions (artist, musician) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...)
> ... between jobs that involve saving people's lives (firefighter, doctor) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...)
In the above, "office worker" includes desk jobs like programmer, startup CEO, and secretary. To people in some careers, those all sound pretty much the same.
A less extreme version of that third example would be jobs that are more people-based (in a meaningful way e.g. perhaps including travel agent but not barista) and those that aren't, which would be a very significant split for some people.
----
As a separate point, and probably a bit more pendantic: I think that even "making new stuff" can mean two different things. If you look at manufacturing e.g. building cars, you typically have a split between interesting design jobs and the factory floor where stuff actually gets built but the job is pretty boring and maybe sometimes even low skilled. Computer programming, even low-level implementation, is more analagous to design in manufacturing (then the "creating" is the trivial file copy of the executable).
But again, to some people that distinction is important and they would rather be building something physical with their hands (plasterer, carpenter, etc.), even if it's to someone else's design, rather than doing something that doesn't involve fine motor skill even if it's "creating" software or car designs.
> ... between jobs that involve being outside (gardener, railroad worker) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...)
> ... between jobs that involve creative expression of your emotions (artist, musician) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...)
> ... between jobs that involve saving people's lives (firefighter, doctor) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...)
In the above, "office worker" includes desk jobs like programmer, startup CEO, and secretary. To people in some careers, those all sound pretty much the same.
A less extreme version of that third example would be jobs that are more people-based (in a meaningful way e.g. perhaps including travel agent but not barista) and those that aren't, which would be a very significant split for some people.
----
As a separate point, and probably a bit more pendantic: I think that even "making new stuff" can mean two different things. If you look at manufacturing e.g. building cars, you typically have a split between interesting design jobs and the factory floor where stuff actually gets built but the job is pretty boring and maybe sometimes even low skilled. Computer programming, even low-level implementation, is more analagous to design in manufacturing (then the "creating" is the trivial file copy of the executable).
But again, to some people that distinction is important and they would rather be building something physical with their hands (plasterer, carpenter, etc.), even if it's to someone else's design, rather than doing something that doesn't involve fine motor skill even if it's "creating" software or car designs.
It is interesting that science is considered as "making new stuff". In the classic distinction it's the opposite: Art (and artisanship and crafts) is creating new stuff, while science (natural philosophy) is about studying and understanding the existing natural world.
That’s actually what makes it useful. Anyone can exhaustively describe a thing. Only good communicators can select down to their audience, assume things, and then generalize at a level that provides broad meaning.
The strength is in being able to select the first eigenvalues.
After all, the only real thing is the thing itself. A textual description of the thing is not the thing, Cecil’s lost his pipe. So then it falls to you to describe the thing well. To a man standing in front of ten cars, if you say, “the black one” he knows which one. If you say, “it is a motor vehicle made by Mercedes, noted for their three point logo, that is currently painted black” you have more data but not more information.
All the capable people generalize. That is where predictive strength comes from.
The strength is in being able to select the first eigenvalues.
After all, the only real thing is the thing itself. A textual description of the thing is not the thing, Cecil’s lost his pipe. So then it falls to you to describe the thing well. To a man standing in front of ten cars, if you say, “the black one” he knows which one. If you say, “it is a motor vehicle made by Mercedes, noted for their three point logo, that is currently painted black” you have more data but not more information.
All the capable people generalize. That is where predictive strength comes from.
Furthermore, there is also a lot of non-creative work in science and engineering. Ask any grad student or entry/mid level engineer.
Exactly. I find so many of PG's musings to be pretentious in their short sightedness. As if these are great revelations that underscore a deep observation, when in reality they are often shallow or contrived points.
I like most of PG's musings, but I agree that they often pertain to a very thin slice of reality. If we conducted a taste test comparing randomly selected ideas/excerpts from PG and senior engineers who comment on HN, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference.
Most people in science and engineering can think of equally (if not more) clever and thought-provoking sentences, but PG's carry more weight because of who he is. We still live in a world where thought-leading is dominated by who has the most attention.
Most people in science and engineering can think of equally (if not more) clever and thought-provoking sentences, but PG's carry more weight because of who he is. We still live in a world where thought-leading is dominated by who has the most attention.
Ask any engineer.
In software, to invent and make something work, you spend maybe 10% of the time actually inventing/creating things, and for the remaining 90% of the time, you try to "instantiate" your creation, which involves lots of drudgework, code bureaucracy (and sometimes real bureaucracy), dealing with irrelevant crap (e.g. tooling issues) and debugging.
In software, to invent and make something work, you spend maybe 10% of the time actually inventing/creating things, and for the remaining 90% of the time, you try to "instantiate" your creation, which involves lots of drudgework, code bureaucracy (and sometimes real bureaucracy), dealing with irrelevant crap (e.g. tooling issues) and debugging.
The interesting follow up question to that quote would be finding out which one he thinks he is himself.
I suspect he thinks it’s the former, when, of course, it’s the latter.
I suspect he thinks it’s the former, when, of course, it’s the latter.
This is a very interesting comment, applying equally well to Marc Andreesen’s recent “Time to Build”, which I thought was excellent, but his choice of daily work effectively describes the problem. There’s way too much risk and way too little reward in actual creative work versus social value extraction. Almost everybody who is successful at the former moves quickly to the latter.
Science is about making new stuff?
I'd say it is more about discovering what's already there :)
Anyway, the thread related to this dichotomy is great: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1250840771751809024
I'd say it is more about discovering what's already there :)
Anyway, the thread related to this dichotomy is great: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1250840771751809024
And where do you place making stuff that's been done before, or more hands on things eg farmer, electrician, medical doctor?
He probably means the distinction between jobs that are innovative or not, but he's explaining this to a 7-year old, so making stuff is a reasonable approximation of that word.
(I just checked with my kid if he knew what innovative is and he answered it mostly right, but he's 13)
(I just checked with my kid if he knew what innovative is and he answered it mostly right, but he's 13)
Where do the MBAs fall ?
Anyone have tips on how to make kids eat by themselves or generate hunger? My 2 year seems like she hates eating. Feeding her is a painful endeavor everyday.
Watching cocomelon videos helps but this behavior makes me really wonder how people have 2+ kids. Even one kid is a handful for us.
Watching cocomelon videos helps but this behavior makes me really wonder how people have 2+ kids. Even one kid is a handful for us.
First breath and regain some calm! As a parent we feel issues with sleeping, eating, behavior, etc will always last, but in reality most won't last. You're doing a permanent experiment on what's working and what's isn't, while the subject constantly change: it's really hard!
Eating in front of TV is bad for nutrition in general and especially bad for the kids, as multiple studies prove: almost no TV before 6 is a good rule of thumb.
As others comments are hinting, kids know how to regulate themselves regarding food intake, and no kid will let themselves starve, so you can offer a plate with the main course and a small dessert, your kid will eat the main course when she is hungry. Also we found that allowing them to come and go out of table was hard on our sense of properness but helped our kids to eat the complete dish. After a few months, there were able to stay at table for the duration. We also found out that industrial food for children is disgusting, and that nothing beats homemade to open the appetite!
Feeling (and being) overwhelmed is normal, if possible go see a professional to reassure you.
Sources: experience with my kids, reading a lot a studies, and a psychiatrist wife
Keep up!
Eating in front of TV is bad for nutrition in general and especially bad for the kids, as multiple studies prove: almost no TV before 6 is a good rule of thumb.
As others comments are hinting, kids know how to regulate themselves regarding food intake, and no kid will let themselves starve, so you can offer a plate with the main course and a small dessert, your kid will eat the main course when she is hungry. Also we found that allowing them to come and go out of table was hard on our sense of properness but helped our kids to eat the complete dish. After a few months, there were able to stay at table for the duration. We also found out that industrial food for children is disgusting, and that nothing beats homemade to open the appetite!
Feeling (and being) overwhelmed is normal, if possible go see a professional to reassure you.
Sources: experience with my kids, reading a lot a studies, and a psychiatrist wife
Keep up!
Eating is tough with our 1 year old sometimes. What seems to help is not stressing about any particular meal and turning it into a struggle. If she doesn't want to eat much now, that's fine; she'll be hungry at the next meal or even the next day. Overall she gets enough and is gaining the right amount of weight, so it seems she's capable of regulating it herself, and we prevent pointless frustration for everyone by trying to force it. Of course if she wasn't gaining weight as she should be, it would be a different (and I'm sure much more challenging) story.
A lot of people in this thread keep wondering about the choice of Basic and end up suggesting other programming languages.
Let me ask you though, what's the simplest plainest programming language for a preteen that won't have any patience for dealing with syntax?
Let me ask you though, what's the simplest plainest programming language for a preteen that won't have any patience for dealing with syntax?
While I'm not a fan of "visual programming languages", I think Scratch (https://scratch.mit.edu/) and ScratchJr (http://scratchjr.org/) are good. ScratchJr is made for the younger ones, "no reading required" (but knowing the digits/numbers is helpful)
Hammer and nails. Paintbrushes. Clay.
This thread changed my perspective on teaching my kids to code. I won’t.
This thread changed my perspective on teaching my kids to code. I won’t.
Yeah I have a couple of suggestions that come before that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22914598
Logo or Scratch.
3 thoughts:
1. Didn't he had already a personal website?
2. Why is he teaching Basic over Scratch?
3. Will it scale to Kubernetes one day?
1. Didn't he had already a personal website?
2. Why is he teaching Basic over Scratch?
3. Will it scale to Kubernetes one day?
My teaching path for youngens:-
1. electrical circuits (switch, button, battery), no reading necessary, and purely physical. 2. gcompris (computer skills + you can simulate circuits so it connects to 1.) 3. Scratch 4. something textual (e.g. Basic but maybe Python or JS)
1. electrical circuits (switch, button, battery), no reading necessary, and purely physical. 2. gcompris (computer skills + you can simulate circuits so it connects to 1.) 3. Scratch 4. something textual (e.g. Basic but maybe Python or JS)
For 2, I'm guessing that BASIC is a step away from a visual drag-and-drop language towards something that you type in, and it's a stepping stone towards something like Python and other languages.
2. The real question is why Graham is teaching BASIC instead of Lisp.
my random guesses
1. Someone else made this site in order to centralize all of Paul's relevant parenting content in one place.
2. PG prefers the text-only purity of Basic.
3. Who cares.
1. Someone else made this site in order to centralize all of Paul's relevant parenting content in one place.
2. PG prefers the text-only purity of Basic.
3. Who cares.
2. Why is he teaching Basic over Scratch?
Scratch is too mainstream for Graham.
Scratch is too mainstream for Graham.
Very nice and interesting site!
I like the texts and also the concept as a whole. Discovering old tweets is very cumbersome on twitter.com. So this site really meets a need that Twitter itself doesn’t.
I like the texts and also the concept as a whole. Discovering old tweets is very cumbersome on twitter.com. So this site really meets a need that Twitter itself doesn’t.
[deleted]
Do you need to teach 11 yr olds to test their programs after each change.. come on.
I never really understood the whole thing around Paul Graham. His insights on startups and tech are somewhat interesting and legitimate, but at this point I feel like some people are taking his every thought, even mondaine, as gospel...
I've read a collection of his essays and outside of programming/startups, they are really mundane/black & white/binary division. I.e., the world is divided into nerds who are good, and bullies who are bad.
I guess it's halo effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
I guess it's halo effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
You're posting on a paulgraham fansite.
It gets really repetitive and boring to see this sort of comment (and often much nastier ad homenim attacks) every single time any of pg's writing is on the front page.
If you think his observations are mundane, then why not just move on to another link, hopefully one that you're interested in?
If you think his observations are mundane, then why not just move on to another link, hopefully one that you're interested in?
It also gets tiring to have the knee-jerk defensive of PG or any other expert leveraging ina different vertical to be "if you don't love america than get the hell out".
HN loves to question the bonafides of everyone/everything; if you're sick of these comments, why do you take the time and effort to comment?
HN loves to question the bonafides of everyone/everything; if you're sick of these comments, why do you take the time and effort to comment?
I'm in this thread because I am interested in the submission and discussion on either the tweets, the site showcasing them or both.
I replied in a perhaps futile attempt to discourage a comment which has spawned an almost entirely mean-spirited sub-thread.
I replied in a perhaps futile attempt to discourage a comment which has spawned an almost entirely mean-spirited sub-thread.
There are a lot of “hackers” who think that the ability to code or build a successful business is synonymous with deep intellect and wisdom, and a forum such as this naturally attracts a greater number of them who engage in some vicarious glory seeking.
You would think someone who said:
I actually worry a lot that as I get "popular" I'll be able to get away with saying stupider stuff than I would have dared say before. This sort of thing happens to a lot of people, and I would really like to avoid it
would probaly talk less or at least narrow his focus.
replace artists with parents and re-read https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm
I actually worry a lot that as I get "popular" I'll be able to get away with saying stupider stuff than I would have dared say before. This sort of thing happens to a lot of people, and I would really like to avoid it
would probaly talk less or at least narrow his focus.
replace artists with parents and re-read https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm
lots of pressure on that kids psyche
He might be a good entrepreneur but ffs, why the rabid, unthinking enthusiasm in following everything this guy says? Why not make a website for someone else who happens to be a good parent? This cultish b/s is exactly what leads to the hell of Trumpistan. IMO.
PG’s essays are why most people care about him. They’re only sometimes about business. These tweets are a natural extension of his essays.
nice work @k0stas
qqssccfftt(1)
nogabebop23(2)
pnako(2)
[deleted]
It concerns something I didn't figure out until I was older, that children are brought into existence w/o their consent.
Now I don't believe this is* (edit: fixed) an evil or unethical act; it's simply an unavoidable facet of reality. However, it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime.
In short, the debt between children & parents only ever runs one way.
Because of this, I have a permanent & total obligation to my kids' well being, while they in-turn owe me nothing for a lifetime of labor on their belhaf (which as a single parent - changing diapers & earning income - has been substantial).
It doesn't mean my grown kids should or shouldn't contribute to my welfare. It means that my responsibility is to continually tip the scales toward the outcomes they desire.
In our case we operate as one household & there are different obligations in play there. But the Original Debt indicates that any shortfalls (in labor, etc) be filled by me, unless & until more practical solutions are worked out.
My reward is that this really efficient mindset solves lots of problems in advance.