3 ms·

Why is the jump from 1 to 2 bigger than the jump from 0 to 1?

manmal 10y ago
Because it has the potential of reserving nearly all of your leisure time over months-years. Caring for a baby while a crazy 3 year old wants to play/eat/fight can be overwhelming compared to just one kid. There's also the organizational side - every step outside the door becomes an endeavour. Then there is housing - good luck with that 100 sq feet apartment (it could work with one kid, but impossible with two). Same with small cars - forget them with a 2nd kid.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
The progression is not linear. It is exponential in terms of time.
- lrem 10y ago
  There was a post here a few months(?) ago from a guy describing his life with his over ten kids. I'm pretty sure he doesn't spend x*2^10 hours per day on them ;)
  - gerrys0 10y ago
    The hardest is from 2 to 3. After 3, the acceleration goes down. It kind of goes like this (x-axis is # of kids): | ||| |||||| ||||||||||
    - pzs 10y ago
      While I respect that others may have a different opinion, I should add that in my experience the change from 0 to 1 was more profound than that from 1 to 2. Without kids life most likely entirely revolves around your needs, interests and priorities (if you are not a caregiver). The first kid turns that world upside down. The second kid to us mostly meant more of kid stuff. Yes, I agree that it is not a good way to think about having two kids as something that equals to twice having one kid. But a lot that comes with the second will be somewhat familiar, and practice will make you better at it, even though your second kid will probably be very different to your first. My friend wrote in an email that "When we had our first, I thought a lot about what the hell we had done with all the free time we used to have on our hands. Since we had our second, I haven't had time to think." I should add that after having their third, he has barely found time to write emails to me a few times a year. TLDR; step size between 0, 1, 2, etc. kids is subjective.

Because it has the potential of reserving nearly all of your leisure time over months-years. Caring for a baby while a crazy 3 year old wants to play/eat/fight can be overwhelming compared to just one kid. There's also the organizational side - every step outside the door becomes an endeavour. Then there is housing - good luck with that 100 sq feet apartment (it could work with one kid, but impossible with two). Same with small cars - forget them with a 2nd kid.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

The progression is not linear. It is exponential in terms of time.

lrem 10y ago
There was a post here a few months(?) ago from a guy describing his life with his over ten kids. I'm pretty sure he doesn't spend x*2^10 hours per day on them ;)
- gerrys0 10y ago
  The hardest is from 2 to 3. After 3, the acceleration goes down. It kind of goes like this (x-axis is # of kids): | ||| |||||| ||||||||||
  - pzs 10y ago
    While I respect that others may have a different opinion, I should add that in my experience the change from 0 to 1 was more profound than that from 1 to 2. Without kids life most likely entirely revolves around your needs, interests and priorities (if you are not a caregiver). The first kid turns that world upside down. The second kid to us mostly meant more of kid stuff. Yes, I agree that it is not a good way to think about having two kids as something that equals to twice having one kid. But a lot that comes with the second will be somewhat familiar, and practice will make you better at it, even though your second kid will probably be very different to your first. My friend wrote in an email that "When we had our first, I thought a lot about what the hell we had done with all the free time we used to have on our hands. Since we had our second, I haven't had time to think." I should add that after having their third, he has barely found time to write emails to me a few times a year. TLDR; step size between 0, 1, 2, etc. kids is subjective.