6 ms·

I'd say no relationships, including family relationships, should be maintained if they aren't in the long-term self-interest of all parties. In other words, ev

by jes 10y ago

I'd say no relationships, including family relationships, should be maintained if they aren't in the long-term self-interest of all parties. In other words, every relationship is a trading relationship, and the currency of the realm isn't always, or even often, monetary in nature.

harryh 10y ago
How many times do I have to get annoyed at my kid for waking up in the middle of the night before you're OK with me kicking him out of the house? Keep in mind that he is currently 11 months old...
- jes 10y ago
  Kicking your child out of the house for doing what a child does is not in your long-term self interest or his.
  - terrywilcox 10y ago
    Correct. Put him up for adoption instead.
    - jes 10y ago
      I'm unclear as to whether this was meant to be sarcastic or not. My point is this: Children have a certain nature; part of being a child is development of the ability to regulate one's emotions. Loving, thoughtful parents will (hopefully) learn about such things, such as Dr. Porges "Polyvagal Theory" and then be able to help their children with this process. I am not suggesting that people should abandon important relationships on a whim. I apologize if I was unclear on this.
      - terrywilcox 10y ago
        No sarcasm at all. Child abandonment is clearly bad for the child and can see the parent thrown in jail. Adoption is the better choice for both parties. I think you perhaps missed the broader point though. If you're raising children as servants to take care of you when you're old, then yes, self-interest is a good reason to keep them around. They will also likely act in their own self-interest and ditch you. Otherwise, raising a child requires a great deal of self-sacrifice with absolutely no guarantee that you'll even get the satisfaction of a job well done. It's a total crap shoot and even the emotional return on your investment is likely to be poor. Acting only in your own self-interest is a good way to stay single and childless though. At least you'd have plenty of time to read Ayn Rand.
        reitanqild 10y ago
        > If you're raising children as servants to take care of you when you're old, then yes, self-interest is a good reason to keep them around. I suggest you read GP a bit closer and/or work on when and how to apply your sarcasm :-) For starters you conveniently leave out both religious as well as purely selfish evolutionary motives.
        jes 10y ago
        You and I seem to be having a good conversation. Thank you for that. I don't think raising my children to take care of me when I'm old (should be any day now) would be acting in my self-interest. In fact, I think it would be acting against my self-interest. A better model, I think, is for me to do all that I can to be self-sufficient, and not predatory in nature, in terms of expecting other people to care for me. As long as I can find pleasure in life and activities that interest me, like hacking in Lisp, or re-learning how to weld, or reading about philosophy, I'd like to go on living. When there are no longer reasonable things for me to pursue, then it's time to go. I certainly don't expect my children to do anything more for me than they freely wish to do. Children are not born to be servants to their parents, as you observe. That's why I think it's incumbent on parents to treat their children as best as they possibly can, since children come into a family without being able to consent, and since children are essentially powerless to leave a family that treats them poorly, until they reach some age where they can be self-sufficient.
        iofj 10y ago
        With interest rates at 0.25% and the Fed talking about doubting whether they should go down or up, I hope you're not thinking that a pension fund will take care of you when you're old. That won't happen. With interest rates under inflation, you are in fact losing spending power (that is of course the point of the policy: incentivize people to spend now, not save to accelerate the economy). Pension funds are failing because of Fed policy [1], and the current elderly are plundering them dry for the same reason you defend children. They have a right to a pension [2]. Given that stocks have now also refused to go up further (since January SP500 has only gone down. Granted, they came back up to about 2100, but there is negative return so far for the year. How negative varies quite a bit from day to day, but may God help retirees if they drop from here and stay down). The model where Children take care of elderly is coming back, unless the Fed and the ECB stop acting like we're in the midst of a deep recession. > Children are not born to be servants to their parents, as you observe. That's why I think it's incumbent on parents to treat their children as best as they possibly can, since children come into a family without being able to consent, And if the alternative is to starve to death a year or two after you no longer have the ability to work ? What if the alternative is merely to live in poverty when you stop working ? Do people have the right to not live in complete poverty ? I'd say yes. What if there is no choice but to "use" children to accomplish that, like we did for 90%+ of history ? That second one seems to be happening to plenty of elderly today, and they had far, far better circumstances to avoid it than you or I do today. I'm not even saying that this is moral, or that it is what you have to do. I'm saying it's what's going to happen if present circumstances remain. [1] https://next.ft.com/content/c9966bea-fcd8-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d https://next.ft.com/content/c9966bea-fcd8-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/20/retirement/central-states-pension-fund/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/20/retirement/central-states-pe... http://www.pionline.com/article/20160502/PRINT/305029995/kroger-ups-challenge-central-states-reduction-plan http://www.pionline.com/article/20160502/PRINT/305029995/kro...
  - mangeletti 10y ago
    It's painful watching you futilely try to impart some basic wisdom to a bunch of junior high school students. I recommend an episode of RadioLab called "The Good Show"[1]. 1. http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/
    - jes 10y ago
      I'm enjoying the podcast you recommended. Thank you. I've liked some of the work by Sam Harris, as well.
- bbcbasic 10y ago
  Really. You get angry at a baby? To answer your question... kick him out this week by getting a relative to take care of him for a night and catch up on sleep.
  - jon-wood 10y ago
    Best advice ever right there - our sanity was saved on several occasions by friends offering to look after our child for a night when he was small and not sleeping.
- timv 10y ago
  How many times do you put up with your kid beating up his mother when he comes home drunk in the middle of the night before you require him to move out of the house? Keep in mind that his is 15 years old... As parents, we tend to believe that we will always love our kids in a way that allows us to maintain healthy functioning relationship with them no matter what happens. But when you see what can go wrong in families and how 1 member's behaviours can have a massive detrimental impact on the other members, you realise that there are limits to that. While I will always love my kids, I know, objectively, that there are circumstances that could force me to fundamentally alter the terms of my relationship with them. I pray that never happens, but I know it's possible. Similarly, I know plenty of people who no longer have any relationship with one or both of their parents due to the way they were treated as kids. Society (rightly) tends to be more accepting of a child who decides to sever their relationship with an unloving parent than the reverse.
  - fullshark 10y ago
    Your point is ok but your hypothetical is so ludicrous it undermines it.
    - timv 10y ago
      > your hypothetical is so ludicrous My wife is a former welfare case worker. The scenario I painted is quite real, but if it is so far removed from your reality that it seems ludicrous then that says good things about your family life.
abraae 10y ago
Perhaps true, in a real super rational techy view of the world, as long as by long term you mean the entire life of all the family members. But not a particularly useful observation, just as the concept that "giving to charity is an act of selfishness, since people only only do it to feel better about themselves" might be true but is not useful.
- jes 10y ago
  I try to live my life as an empiricist. I didn't choose the family that I was born into. If my family treats me poorly, abuses me, etc., then bailing out on them makes sense. In the same way, if someone in your life never shows curiosity or empathy towards you, you should probably leave the relationship.
- ryanobjc 10y ago
  Not even, you know that some families aren't so functional and actually very destructive. Children and parents "break up" all the time. Ask anyone who is LGBT for example (especially older and trans). Also many families have that "one uncle" (or whatever) who is somewhat estranged and isn't invited to stuff. All without a "super rational techy" view of the world.
  - jes 10y ago
    Spot on, in my view.
terrywilcox 10y ago
I recommend not having children if you're only keeping them as long as it serves your self interest.
- jes 10y ago
  I recommend thinking carefully about what is to your long-term self-interest, and then acting accordingly. That would include not creating children if you and your partner are not certain that you want them and will do what is required to raise them in a peaceful, loving and rational home.
  - terrywilcox 10y ago
    I can't explain why you're wrong about kids and self-interest. It's something you have to experience for yourself. You may have an epiphany about the 50th time you yell "watch out for that car". I swear she _wants_ me to have a heart attack.
    - jes 10y ago
      I do have some experience with parenting. I have three children, in their 20s and 30s at this time. All are doing very well, and we are all on good terms with each other. With respect, I think our different views may be the result of a different understanding of what it means to truly be self-interested. In my view, it's nothing like being a greedy bastard who only cares about sacrificing other people to himself, being a manipulator, being miserly, etc.
      - falsestprophet 10y ago
        "Good terms" is setting a pretty low bar for family.
        nostrebored 10y ago
        Is it, if the GP instilled the same values in his children? I hope that my children will hold me accountable for my actions and vice versa.
plainOldText 10y ago
Judging by the downvotes, it looks like your comment is controversial. I actually agree with you. In a relationship we trade constantly, something for something else: love for love, company for company, or any combination. They are like constant bi-directional streams. As long as both parties are happy with what they receive and give, they will maintain the relationship; when that's not the case, well, that's when we get divorces, friendships destroyed, etc. Yes, blood relationships are somewhat special, but if for instance you permanently severe the relationship with your kids, even though you can still claim they are your kids, I don't think is any different than not having kids at all. However, if you factor in the fact that humans are emotional and highly unpredictable by nature, you'll quickly realize that constantly applying strategies from the business world to your personal relationships will quickly blow up in your face. Flexibility and balance in how you approach things are key.
- jes 10y ago
  I appreciate the comment. If downvotes facilitate thoughtful discussion and inquiry, I'm cool with them. I don't know if I see much of a difference between strategies that work in business, as against strategies that lead to successful, long-term relationships. If you're in a job where your manager ignores you, rebuffs your efforts for honesty in your communications, and generally treats you poorly, should you maintain that relationship, or break it off? Is it any different outside of work? If you have a partner who cheats on you, or is sarcastic all the time, or is indifferent to you, I'd say that's another relationship that should be broken off, if it's clear that it cannot be saved. I agree with flexibility and balance. I also believe in gently confronting people who treat others poorly, trying to correct the situation if possible, and if it cannot, then disengaging. At 56 years of age, I've come to realize that I do not have infinite time to waste on less-than-strong relationships. Thanks again for an interesting comment.
  - plainOldText 10y ago
    I concur with your line of reasoning in your examples. I was not arguing against applying such strategies, I was merely suggesting we shouldn't always use them – to make room for flexibility – as I was trying to avoid claiming complete equivalence between the business and personal sides.
prebrov 10y ago
I really appreciate your further comments. I agree for most part that humans and other living things ultimately act out of self-interest. However, there are circumstances when rationale breaks, like when member of your family develops a terminal decease. A purely rational decision would be to cut emotional and financial losses and abandon them, wouldn't it? Yet, luckily, we don't see that happen. The length to which we go to keep family relationships is irrational, yet I suspect it's a huge component of how we managed to ensure reliance of a system and develop huge societies.
- munin 10y ago
  > Yet, luckily, we don't see that happen. is it lucky? especially in the west, we'll fight a terminal disease long past the inevitable, at the expense of the patients well being. at some point the humane thing to do IS to "abandon" them.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jes 10y ago
  I'm glad you're enjoying this discussion. I'm enjoying it as well. My view is a little different. I don't think abandoning someone who has been a great value to me because they have developed a terminal disease would be consistent with acting in my self-interest. To do such a thing would be to betray the virtues that I hold dear, such as honesty, integrity, justice, pride, etc. For example, consider honesty. If this person was a great value to me, we would have some kind of understanding that we don't just toss each other overboard in tough times. If they get sick and I do toss them overboard, I would be a liar, and that brings a ton of other negatives with it, such as undercutting my personal integrity. There's also the issue of justice. If this person has treated me well, if we have fallen in love, would it be just to abandon them when they are in the fight of their life? That sounds like injustice to me, unless there was some kind of (weird) agreement covering this situation. This reply is getting a bit long, so I'll stop here. If I haven't explained this very well, please say so and I'll try to be clearer.
  - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by jes 10y ago

harryh 10y ago

How many times do I have to get annoyed at my kid for waking up in the middle of the night before you're OK with me kicking him out of the house? Keep in mind that he is currently 11 months old...

jes 10y ago
Kicking your child out of the house for doing what a child does is not in your long-term self interest or his.
- terrywilcox 10y ago
  Correct. Put him up for adoption instead.
  - jes 10y ago
    I'm unclear as to whether this was meant to be sarcastic or not. My point is this: Children have a certain nature; part of being a child is development of the ability to regulate one's emotions. Loving, thoughtful parents will (hopefully) learn about such things, such as Dr. Porges "Polyvagal Theory" and then be able to help their children with this process. I am not suggesting that people should abandon important relationships on a whim. I apologize if I was unclear on this.
    - terrywilcox 10y ago
      No sarcasm at all. Child abandonment is clearly bad for the child and can see the parent thrown in jail. Adoption is the better choice for both parties. I think you perhaps missed the broader point though. If you're raising children as servants to take care of you when you're old, then yes, self-interest is a good reason to keep them around. They will also likely act in their own self-interest and ditch you. Otherwise, raising a child requires a great deal of self-sacrifice with absolutely no guarantee that you'll even get the satisfaction of a job well done. It's a total crap shoot and even the emotional return on your investment is likely to be poor. Acting only in your own self-interest is a good way to stay single and childless though. At least you'd have plenty of time to read Ayn Rand.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        > If you're raising children as servants to take care of you when you're old, then yes, self-interest is a good reason to keep them around. I suggest you read GP a bit closer and/or work on when and how to apply your sarcasm :-) For starters you conveniently leave out both religious as well as purely selfish evolutionary motives.
      - jes 10y ago
        You and I seem to be having a good conversation. Thank you for that. I don't think raising my children to take care of me when I'm old (should be any day now) would be acting in my self-interest. In fact, I think it would be acting against my self-interest. A better model, I think, is for me to do all that I can to be self-sufficient, and not predatory in nature, in terms of expecting other people to care for me. As long as I can find pleasure in life and activities that interest me, like hacking in Lisp, or re-learning how to weld, or reading about philosophy, I'd like to go on living. When there are no longer reasonable things for me to pursue, then it's time to go. I certainly don't expect my children to do anything more for me than they freely wish to do. Children are not born to be servants to their parents, as you observe. That's why I think it's incumbent on parents to treat their children as best as they possibly can, since children come into a family without being able to consent, and since children are essentially powerless to leave a family that treats them poorly, until they reach some age where they can be self-sufficient.
        iofj 10y ago
        With interest rates at 0.25% and the Fed talking about doubting whether they should go down or up, I hope you're not thinking that a pension fund will take care of you when you're old. That won't happen. With interest rates under inflation, you are in fact losing spending power (that is of course the point of the policy: incentivize people to spend now, not save to accelerate the economy). Pension funds are failing because of Fed policy [1], and the current elderly are plundering them dry for the same reason you defend children. They have a right to a pension [2]. Given that stocks have now also refused to go up further (since January SP500 has only gone down. Granted, they came back up to about 2100, but there is negative return so far for the year. How negative varies quite a bit from day to day, but may God help retirees if they drop from here and stay down). The model where Children take care of elderly is coming back, unless the Fed and the ECB stop acting like we're in the midst of a deep recession. > Children are not born to be servants to their parents, as you observe. That's why I think it's incumbent on parents to treat their children as best as they possibly can, since children come into a family without being able to consent, And if the alternative is to starve to death a year or two after you no longer have the ability to work ? What if the alternative is merely to live in poverty when you stop working ? Do people have the right to not live in complete poverty ? I'd say yes. What if there is no choice but to "use" children to accomplish that, like we did for 90%+ of history ? That second one seems to be happening to plenty of elderly today, and they had far, far better circumstances to avoid it than you or I do today. I'm not even saying that this is moral, or that it is what you have to do. I'm saying it's what's going to happen if present circumstances remain. [1] https://next.ft.com/content/c9966bea-fcd8-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d https://next.ft.com/content/c9966bea-fcd8-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/20/retirement/central-states-pension-fund/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/20/retirement/central-states-pe... http://www.pionline.com/article/20160502/PRINT/305029995/kroger-ups-challenge-central-states-reduction-plan http://www.pionline.com/article/20160502/PRINT/305029995/kro...
- mangeletti 10y ago
  It's painful watching you futilely try to impart some basic wisdom to a bunch of junior high school students. I recommend an episode of RadioLab called "The Good Show"[1]. 1. http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/
  - jes 10y ago
    I'm enjoying the podcast you recommended. Thank you. I've liked some of the work by Sam Harris, as well.
bbcbasic 10y ago
Really. You get angry at a baby? To answer your question... kick him out this week by getting a relative to take care of him for a night and catch up on sleep.
- jon-wood 10y ago
  Best advice ever right there - our sanity was saved on several occasions by friends offering to look after our child for a night when he was small and not sleeping.
timv 10y ago
How many times do you put up with your kid beating up his mother when he comes home drunk in the middle of the night before you require him to move out of the house? Keep in mind that his is 15 years old... As parents, we tend to believe that we will always love our kids in a way that allows us to maintain healthy functioning relationship with them no matter what happens. But when you see what can go wrong in families and how 1 member's behaviours can have a massive detrimental impact on the other members, you realise that there are limits to that. While I will always love my kids, I know, objectively, that there are circumstances that could force me to fundamentally alter the terms of my relationship with them. I pray that never happens, but I know it's possible. Similarly, I know plenty of people who no longer have any relationship with one or both of their parents due to the way they were treated as kids. Society (rightly) tends to be more accepting of a child who decides to sever their relationship with an unloving parent than the reverse.
- fullshark 10y ago
  Your point is ok but your hypothetical is so ludicrous it undermines it.
  - timv 10y ago
    > your hypothetical is so ludicrous My wife is a former welfare case worker. The scenario I painted is quite real, but if it is so far removed from your reality that it seems ludicrous then that says good things about your family life.

abraae 10y ago

Perhaps true, in a real super rational techy view of the world, as long as by long term you mean the entire life of all the family members. But not a particularly useful observation, just as the concept that "giving to charity is an act of selfishness, since people only only do it to feel better about themselves" might be true but is not useful.

jes 10y ago
I try to live my life as an empiricist. I didn't choose the family that I was born into. If my family treats me poorly, abuses me, etc., then bailing out on them makes sense. In the same way, if someone in your life never shows curiosity or empathy towards you, you should probably leave the relationship.
ryanobjc 10y ago
Not even, you know that some families aren't so functional and actually very destructive. Children and parents "break up" all the time. Ask anyone who is LGBT for example (especially older and trans). Also many families have that "one uncle" (or whatever) who is somewhat estranged and isn't invited to stuff. All without a "super rational techy" view of the world.
- jes 10y ago
  Spot on, in my view.

terrywilcox 10y ago

I recommend not having children if you're only keeping them as long as it serves your self interest.

jes 10y ago
I recommend thinking carefully about what is to your long-term self-interest, and then acting accordingly. That would include not creating children if you and your partner are not certain that you want them and will do what is required to raise them in a peaceful, loving and rational home.
- terrywilcox 10y ago
  I can't explain why you're wrong about kids and self-interest. It's something you have to experience for yourself. You may have an epiphany about the 50th time you yell "watch out for that car". I swear she _wants_ me to have a heart attack.
  - jes 10y ago
    I do have some experience with parenting. I have three children, in their 20s and 30s at this time. All are doing very well, and we are all on good terms with each other. With respect, I think our different views may be the result of a different understanding of what it means to truly be self-interested. In my view, it's nothing like being a greedy bastard who only cares about sacrificing other people to himself, being a manipulator, being miserly, etc.
    - falsestprophet 10y ago
      "Good terms" is setting a pretty low bar for family.
      - nostrebored 10y ago
        Is it, if the GP instilled the same values in his children? I hope that my children will hold me accountable for my actions and vice versa.

plainOldText 10y ago

Judging by the downvotes, it looks like your comment is controversial. I actually agree with you. In a relationship we trade constantly, something for something else: love for love, company for company, or any combination. They are like constant bi-directional streams. As long as both parties are happy with what they receive and give, they will maintain the relationship; when that's not the case, well, that's when we get divorces, friendships destroyed, etc. Yes, blood relationships are somewhat special, but if for instance you permanently severe the relationship with your kids, even though you can still claim they are your kids, I don't think is any different than not having kids at all. However, if you factor in the fact that humans are emotional and highly unpredictable by nature, you'll quickly realize that constantly applying strategies from the business world to your personal relationships will quickly blow up in your face. Flexibility and balance in how you approach things are key.

jes 10y ago
I appreciate the comment. If downvotes facilitate thoughtful discussion and inquiry, I'm cool with them. I don't know if I see much of a difference between strategies that work in business, as against strategies that lead to successful, long-term relationships. If you're in a job where your manager ignores you, rebuffs your efforts for honesty in your communications, and generally treats you poorly, should you maintain that relationship, or break it off? Is it any different outside of work? If you have a partner who cheats on you, or is sarcastic all the time, or is indifferent to you, I'd say that's another relationship that should be broken off, if it's clear that it cannot be saved. I agree with flexibility and balance. I also believe in gently confronting people who treat others poorly, trying to correct the situation if possible, and if it cannot, then disengaging. At 56 years of age, I've come to realize that I do not have infinite time to waste on less-than-strong relationships. Thanks again for an interesting comment.
- plainOldText 10y ago
  I concur with your line of reasoning in your examples. I was not arguing against applying such strategies, I was merely suggesting we shouldn't always use them – to make room for flexibility – as I was trying to avoid claiming complete equivalence between the business and personal sides.

prebrov 10y ago

I really appreciate your further comments. I agree for most part that humans and other living things ultimately act out of self-interest. However, there are circumstances when rationale breaks, like when member of your family develops a terminal decease. A purely rational decision would be to cut emotional and financial losses and abandon them, wouldn't it? Yet, luckily, we don't see that happen. The length to which we go to keep family relationships is irrational, yet I suspect it's a huge component of how we managed to ensure reliance of a system and develop huge societies.

munin 10y ago
> Yet, luckily, we don't see that happen. is it lucky? especially in the west, we'll fight a terminal disease long past the inevitable, at the expense of the patients well being. at some point the humane thing to do IS to "abandon" them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jes 10y ago
I'm glad you're enjoying this discussion. I'm enjoying it as well. My view is a little different. I don't think abandoning someone who has been a great value to me because they have developed a terminal disease would be consistent with acting in my self-interest. To do such a thing would be to betray the virtues that I hold dear, such as honesty, integrity, justice, pride, etc. For example, consider honesty. If this person was a great value to me, we would have some kind of understanding that we don't just toss each other overboard in tough times. If they get sick and I do toss them overboard, I would be a liar, and that brings a ton of other negatives with it, such as undercutting my personal integrity. There's also the issue of justice. If this person has treated me well, if we have fallen in love, would it be just to abandon them when they are in the fight of their life? That sounds like injustice to me, unless there was some kind of (weird) agreement covering this situation. This reply is getting a bit long, so I'll stop here. If I haven't explained this very well, please say so and I'll try to be clearer.
- 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]