This is very nice and all, but most people don’t do any kind of analysis before having children. They just have them. So what you are doing right now is rationalizing.
Why would you think I didn’t do such analyses before having children? Children didn’t “just happen” to me, for me to justify their existence ex post facto. (This is a good example of the “most people in general” being a bad rule of thumb when dealing with a highly selected subgroup of dubious but cool disposition.)
Me too. We put a lot of consideration into out family planning and given our priors (my: 3-6 children or none; hers: 2-5) we arrived at four actually with the age distance of about 2,5 years each which we (before the act) considered a compromise between stress for us and posibilty to play with each other for the children.
I admit though that I wanted to have children from the beginning. I knew that 1-2 children are inefficient and would rather have had none (though I’m not sure whether I could have gone through with that option).
I said most people, not you. I apologize if I made it sound personally.
Hooooowever, your argument boils down to basically “having someone to bring me a glass of water when I’m on my deathbed”, which is an argument used A LOT for, yep, rationalizing children. And of course, all those people whose children are not there just did it wrong. No True Parent?
In your analysis, have you considered the alternative of spending resources on fun instead of child-rearing, and then committing suicide before dementia kicks in?
I said most people, not you. I apologize if I made it sound personally.
That’s alright, thanks for clearing that up.
Hooooowever, your analysis boils down to basically “having someone to bring me a glass of water when I’m on my deathbed”, which is an argument used A LOT for, yep, rationalizing children.
Rationalizing wouldn’t invalidate the argument. Also, I object to your summary. Would you exchange your parents (considering a loving relationship) for someone who just “brings you a glass of water on your deathbed”? Exactly.
In your analysis, have you considered the alternative of spending resources on fun instead of child-rearing, and then committing suicide before dementia kicks in?
Yes actually, and it’s certainly true there are a number of years in which I’ll have less fun with multiplayer games. That is, until I can have more fun with multiplayer games playing with the children (just an example). If “fun” only equated to “endorphin-release”, we’d have to go for heroin-drips anyways. Happiness has more components. You don’t climb a mountain because every step of doing so is fun, in fact many of those steps can be quite painful. Yet doing so can make you happy. (This is a bit generic of an answer, but then your “you should go for fun instead” wasn’t very child-specific.)
Of course, utility calculations change when there are less resources available. I don’t lack any material comforts because of the kids. Another one of those your-mileage-may-vary points.
And of course, all those people whose children are not there just did it wrong.
Yes, or did it right but got hit with the wrong end of the probability stick.
First I’d contend that very few people are able to efficiently optimize for reaching their goals even in a cursory manner. I wouldn’t bet on a typical person being able to solve a Rubik’s cube in a day. Children are harder, and the time constraints are comparably steeper. Watch typical parents in a Pizza Hut sometime. Are these the sort of people you’d trust to solve actually hard problems? Didn’t think so.
Second, there are many contexts in which “failure” mostly equates with “doing it wrong” (If you do a 100 yard dash but fail to reach the finish line, chances are that you didn’t get randomly hit by a whale—though that’s possible—but that you did something wrong.) For a less wacky example, freshman college students not eventually graduating.
BTW, how do you construct a child?
You supply the nature, and you supply the nurture. You can influence both, and significantly so. I’m not sure what level of detail you’re asking for, and much depends on the specific circumstances. It’s just like problem solving (well, because that’s what it is).
(Since your kid isn’t yet an all-powerful AI, little quirks resulting from the invariable errors you make may be acceptable. So what if your kid randomly yells “I’M A VAMPIRE”, charging strangers? At least their little missteps won’t accidentally destroy mankind. Instead, they’ll lead to karma on /r/childfree! Could be worse. Could be a fire dragon!)
This is very nice and all, but most people don’t do any kind of analysis before having children. They just have them. So what you are doing right now is rationalizing.
Why would you think I didn’t do such analyses before having children? Children didn’t “just happen” to me, for me to justify their existence ex post facto. (This is a good example of the “most people in general” being a bad rule of thumb when dealing with a highly selected subgroup of dubious but cool disposition.)
Me too. We put a lot of consideration into out family planning and given our priors (my: 3-6 children or none; hers: 2-5) we arrived at four actually with the age distance of about 2,5 years each which we (before the act) considered a compromise between stress for us and posibilty to play with each other for the children.
I admit though that I wanted to have children from the beginning. I knew that 1-2 children are inefficient and would rather have had none (though I’m not sure whether I could have gone through with that option).
Well, because most people don’t, therefore you certainly didn’t. It’s, uh, Bayesian or something.
I said most people, not you. I apologize if I made it sound personally.
Hooooowever, your argument boils down to basically “having someone to bring me a glass of water when I’m on my deathbed”, which is an argument used A LOT for, yep, rationalizing children. And of course, all those people whose children are not there just did it wrong. No True Parent?
In your analysis, have you considered the alternative of spending resources on fun instead of child-rearing, and then committing suicide before dementia kicks in?
BTW, how do you construct a child?
That’s alright, thanks for clearing that up.
Rationalizing wouldn’t invalidate the argument. Also, I object to your summary. Would you exchange your parents (considering a loving relationship) for someone who just “brings you a glass of water on your deathbed”? Exactly.
Yes actually, and it’s certainly true there are a number of years in which I’ll have less fun with multiplayer games. That is, until I can have more fun with multiplayer games playing with the children (just an example). If “fun” only equated to “endorphin-release”, we’d have to go for heroin-drips anyways. Happiness has more components. You don’t climb a mountain because every step of doing so is fun, in fact many of those steps can be quite painful. Yet doing so can make you happy. (This is a bit generic of an answer, but then your “you should go for fun instead” wasn’t very child-specific.)
Of course, utility calculations change when there are less resources available. I don’t lack any material comforts because of the kids. Another one of those your-mileage-may-vary points.
Yes, or did it right but got hit with the wrong end of the probability stick.
First I’d contend that very few people are able to efficiently optimize for reaching their goals even in a cursory manner. I wouldn’t bet on a typical person being able to solve a Rubik’s cube in a day. Children are harder, and the time constraints are comparably steeper. Watch typical parents in a Pizza Hut sometime. Are these the sort of people you’d trust to solve actually hard problems? Didn’t think so.
Second, there are many contexts in which “failure” mostly equates with “doing it wrong” (If you do a 100 yard dash but fail to reach the finish line, chances are that you didn’t get randomly hit by a whale—though that’s possible—but that you did something wrong.) For a less wacky example, freshman college students not eventually graduating.
You supply the nature, and you supply the nurture. You can influence both, and significantly so. I’m not sure what level of detail you’re asking for, and much depends on the specific circumstances. It’s just like problem solving (well, because that’s what it is).
(Since your kid isn’t yet an all-powerful AI, little quirks resulting from the invariable errors you make may be acceptable. So what if your kid randomly yells “I’M A VAMPIRE”, charging strangers? At least their little missteps won’t accidentally destroy mankind. Instead, they’ll lead to karma on /r/childfree! Could be worse. Could be a fire dragon!)