9 ms·

In the long run, we're all Dad

282 points by impish9208 3y ago

cafard 3y ago
Very sweet. It doesn't require twins to make you feel as if you were being towed down the interstate on a skateboard. (The analogy occurred to me many years before a friend lent me Snow Crash.)
hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
Good for you, Scott!
Ygg2 3y ago
Completely wholesome ramblings of a new dad.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  This is what I imagined my first dad post would have looked like if I had any writing talent ( or had any sleep in those times ). Chuckled most of the way. Cheers!
jpm_sd 3y ago
Loved every bit of it. Congrats to the new parents. As a father of three, I think I got the biggest laugh out of: "I cannot quite remember why I thought this would be a good idea. I blame the pronatalist influencer conspiracy."
pj_mukh 3y ago
"There is a secret known only to parents of twins, medical residents, and Alexey Guzey: the human body does not actually need sleep. After 31 hours awake, you get an integer overflow in God’s database and go back to being well-rested again. Also you gain the ability to see angels." LOL. Amaze. On that note, I've heard some amazing things about the Snoo. It was banned from our house because of Luddit-ian reasons, but I still maintain you're not bonding with your baby at 3 am and parents should get that extra sleep and let a robot handle the near-robotic motions required to put a (< 6month old) baby back to sleep.
- jefftk 3y ago
  The Snoo worked very well for us with baby #3 (#1 and #2 were before it was released). I'm optimistic that we will continue to make progress in this area and find something that works for a larger fraction of babies!
- the_af 3y ago
  > LOL. Amaze. Don't be too amazed though. What he states isn't the scientific consensus. Persistent sleep deprivation is harmful to human beings, and you don't "reset and go back to well-rested again". Some sleep deprivation can be endured though, as any parent will tell you -- I know I wasn't "well rested" afterwards. I mostly was grumpy and very slow to think.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    The writing was “tongue in cheek.” He doesn’t actually mean it.
    - the_af 3y ago
      Oops. I misunderstood the tone. Maybe I need more sleep? ;)
- danenania 3y ago
  "I still maintain you're not bonding with your baby at 3 am" I'm not so sure about that. There's a lot happening beneath the surface both biologically and psychologically (on both sides) when a parent soothes a baby at 3am.
  - pj_mukh 3y ago
    Well, the key differentiator is at 3am. I haven't seen any evidence that the bonding at those times is somehow special. I am assuming you are bonding with the baby at other times during the day.
    - 3y ago
koliber 3y ago
Good writing advice says that each sentence has a single goal. The goal is to draw the reader in, and convince them to read the next sentence. This article does it masterfully. The title drew me in. The opening sentence finished the job. Well done.
- mgaunard 3y ago
  Myself I closed the tab at the second sentence, so I can't attest to that.
  - squidbeak 3y ago
    You missed a great joke about provoking God to laughter.
  - compiler-devel 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
    And yet that first sentence was reason enough for you to leave a reply. In a way it did evoke something in you that probably most texts don’t do.
    - mgaunard 3y ago
      I think it's more hacker news that I'm interested in, and how the article was representative of the crowd that gathers here. Start-up founders are often of the age to start having children I guess. Even if having a child and a start-up at the same time is most definitely not a good idea.
      - oooyay 3y ago
        The average age range of startup founders is 35-45. The average age of people having their first kid is 30. That said, there's a lot more than startup founders here. Always was.
antonvs 3y ago
Sad to see "Jennifer" listed as a "newer name". Aside from that spelling being more than a century old, it's just a newer spelling of Guinevere, a name which dates back to at least 1100, when it started appearing in written Arthurian legends. The Welsh form, Gwenhwyfar, is attested before that.
- matthewowen 3y ago
  That’s an interesting fact I didn’t know before that makes sense in retrospect. I wish you hadn’t phrased it snarkily tho: is it really “sad” that someone doesn’t know an interesting fact that you do, or is it a fun opportunity for others to learn something?
  - antonvs 3y ago
    The author took a position on the name’s newness, which implies he did some research. Blog authors like this remind me of ChatGPT: they write with an affected authoritativeness completely disconnected from the actual value of their words. This gains them a following in the same sort of way that Donald Trump, Joe Rogan, or Jordan Peterson gain a following. That’s also sad to see.
  - Smaug123 3y ago
    FWIW I didn't read snark. I read "I am sad to see…", much as I might be sad to see the history of any other ancient thing forgotten.
    - antonvs 3y ago
      A little bit of both, really. But thanks for the charitable reading.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > Sad to see "Jennifer" listed as a "newer name". See also "The Tale of Tiffany" from CGP Grey: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LMr5XTgeyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LMr5XTgeyI
pizzafeelsright 3y ago
I read of an inconsistent mindset. God this. God that. "Natural selection didn't design" which is contradictory. Evolved murder monkeys. Happy to have babies. Women are indeed saved by childbirth. Men too.
- pyentropy 3y ago
  You haven't read Scott's blog enough :) He's an atheist psychiatrist. However, he enjoys how natural selection, social dynamics and reputation can also be modeled by the moral rules of most religions. For example, going to therapy isn't that different from practicing confessions in a church.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    > For example, going to therapy isn't that different from practicing confessions in a church. If your therapist responds to your sharing by suggesting that straying from their advice, or some kooky ancient text, results in eternal damnation then run far away. Churches can be devastating to ones mental health. Do not recommend.
    - kaonwarb 3y ago
      > Churches can be devastating to ones mental health. Do not recommend. No issue with your first clause: indeed, churches can be devastating to one's mental health (as can ~anything). That observation does not support your second clause. Religiosity is generally associated with lower mental health problems [0]. Correlation is not causation, of course; difficult to do a prospective study in this field. [0] E.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8462234/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8462234/
    - datameta 3y ago
      This is as silly of a strawman as creating a scenario where in the confession booth your priest goes over the BioPsychoSocial model and how their mental health is important for their overall well-being.
  - 3y ago
jawns 3y ago
> Modern academics have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. It's only perfectly reasonable if you aren't familiar with the broader context. Breaking the levirate marriage custom was not in itself considered an action worthy of severe punishment. Indeed, there was a well-defined ceremony, spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:8-10 [1], intended to humiliate a man who refuses to marry his brother's widow. But being given an embarrassing nickname is a far cry from being smote by God. And if you get to inherit your brother's riches, it might be a fair price to pay. But Onan's sin is described as something he did, rather than something he failed to do. It is pretty clear, when you look at the text the way someone of that time would have looked at it, that Onan's offense was not merely that he was being selfish, but that he was employing a method that severed the procreative element of the sexual act. He could have refused to marry Tamar. He could have refused to have sex with Tamar. But instead he fulfilled the letter of the levirate marriage custom without fulfilling its spirit. He used her for his own sexual satisfaction, but then deprived her of the natural ends of that action. [1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2025%3A8-10&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%202...
- mariusor 3y ago
  > embarrassing nickname Which one was that?
  - jihadjihad 3y ago
    I am assuming GP is referring to Onan in Hebrew: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%9F#Hebrew https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%9F#Hebr... Edit: possibly Halizah [0] instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halizah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halizah Further edit: didn't see the [1] in GP...whoops
    - yorwba 3y ago
      For failing to click the source link in the top comment, your line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled. [1]
laverya 3y ago
I think he might still have a slight grudge against the New York Times. Can't really blame him, though.
raverbashing 3y ago
> No, seriously, I’m not comfortable telling the Internet my kids’ names. I’ll let them get doxxed the usual way - by the NYT, the first time they express a problematic opinion. Heh too true > The engines heroically tested hyperprior after hyperprior to compress the data into something predictable. Heh, which hyperpriors do exist is still a matter of debate. > Your mother worked for a company synthesizing genetically engineered tooth bacteria that prevent cavities Ah that part is actually surprising!
boiler_up800 3y ago
Congrats to him. I’ve seen stats that somewhere between 30-50% of all twins are born through IVF. So technically not a huge surprise on that result. A little surprised on the 50% death rate for children before the age of 5 in 1800. It’s amazing how recent that is.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  I kind of treat 1800 as old enough that I'm not surprised, but for me it's surprising to look at the huge 27% children death rate that we still had in 1950, as it's amazing how recent that is.
  - loeg 3y ago
    Keep in mind that was a global average in 1950. In the US it was like 3%.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  If you visit a cemetery with still readable headstones from the 1800s (even the late 1800s), there will be an awful lot of kids there.
- aantix 3y ago
  IIRC, 90% are farmers. Each farm can output enough food for five other people if all things go right (weather, health, etc). That’s horrible efficiency. Stories of families with ten kids and even the little ones having adult responsibilities. It was an all-hands-on-deck affair to prepare for the winter and without everyone’s help, someone probably dead.
- kqr 3y ago
  > I’ve seen stats that somewhere between 30-50% of all twins are born through IVF. So technically not a huge surprise on that result. This sounds like some sort of confusion of the inverse. The fact that most twins are borne through IVF does not imply that any conceptiin (assisted or not) can expect twins. They are still rare in both cases.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
coldtea 3y ago
>Modern academics have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. If Onan had impregnated his brother’s wife, the resulting child would have been the heir to the family fortune. Onan refused so he could keep the fortune for himself and his descendants That required "modern academics" to explain? It was already self-evident in the original telling, a couple of millenia ago... Sure, the other cases of condemnation of masturbation might not be so clear cut.
zozbot234 3y ago
Why the heck is this guy using AI robot technobabble like "surprisal-minimization engines" and "hyperpriors" to reference the birth of their kids. That's so fucked up, not everything in the world is about "tech" and VC-fueled bubbles for goodness' sake! I realize that we're on the orange site and VC is everything here, but still it's the first time I've seen anything remotely like this. And regardless it can't possibly be a mentally healthy attitude for any new parent. Your kids are human beings with needs and a moral standing of their own, they're not frickin "engines" or robots for you to train as your minions.
- strulovich 3y ago
  If you’ve been following this blog you’d know that this is a frequent subject of it. This is similar to a programmer parent getting a “hello world” shirt for their baby.
- kqr 3y ago
  Cynical view: to signal to other capital-R Rationalists that the author is still one of them, despite parenthood (which has a way of affecting people's rationality.) Pragmatic view: that's the kind of analysis people like from Scott Alexander so where else should it go if not on his blog? If you don't like it, stay away from submissions with that domain name.
  - csdvrx 3y ago
    > Cynical view: to signal to other capital-R Rationalists that the author is still one of them, despite parenthood (which has a way of affecting people's rationality.) It may be the most reasonable interpretation. However, is it rational to want to have a futurama brain slug? https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Brain_Slug https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Brain_Slug
- ctoth 3y ago
  This is literally a joke. A callback to an article called The Demiurge's Older Brother written many, many years before the current AI hype. Also, Scott has been beating the drum of surprisal minimization for years and years now, see articles like [1] and [2]. [0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/21/repost-the-demiurges-older-brother/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/21/repost-the-demiurges-o... [1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-way-up/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-way-... [2]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/04/god-help-us-lets-try-to-understand-friston-on-free-energy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/04/god-help-us-lets-try-t...
ambicapter 3y ago
Happy for him!
kqr 3y ago
> Parents are supposed to teach their children the skills they need to navigate the world. This already feels somewhat obsolete - where are the Google programmers who were taught Python by their fathers, or the Instagram influencers who learned content creation on their mother’s knee? Soon it will be completely hopeless. Where we’re going there are no roads. This was a clear presentation of a thought that has bothered me a lot. It's easy for me to get engaged and keep teaching my children specific techniques, so I have to occasionally stop and remind myself to teach them things like falsification, self-monitoring, incorporating feedback, noise filtering, pattern recognition, and other meta-skills that they can use to build far more skills than I could ever teach them.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  You don't have to teach them any of those things, you just have to live them. They're smart, they'll figure it out.
  - kqr 3y ago
    Looking at many of the adults around me, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that these are things that don't come naturally to most people.
    - ajkjk 3y ago
      Well that's my point. People learn character and wisdom by being shown, not being taught, and nobody was showing them.
      - kqr 3y ago
        I see your point and disagree a little less. I still think (and the Oxford Handbook of Expertise backs me up here) most people benefit from active instruction. If nothing else because it gives them a language in which they can discuss the skill with other people. Very helpful when one desires feedback.
        3y ago
csdvrx 3y ago
Is it rational for a rationalist to want to be a parent, knowing that having a kid rewrite your utility function? (so said parent would accept sacrificing their life for saving the life of their child) It looks like the futurama brain slug parasites that someone explained me about last time I asked: https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Brain_Slug https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Brain_Slug It's even less rational for a woman, given the many damages it causes to the body (something he discusses in the article) I often see having a kid "creates a joy that couldn't be experienced before", but the same thing could be said about drugs: you want to preserve your utility function from such deep influences, so you try to avoid getting addicted to drugs. If one wouldn't rationally chose to get addicted, why chose getting a child? The only reason I see is in the title: as a psychological protection about death (the pun on "in the long run, we're all dead") In case the person finds no other meaning in life, a cheap way out is to create one by reinterpreting the path-dependent set of random events (I wouldn't be here if my parents didn't have a kid, etc, and neither would the human race), choosing to continue this chain and call that "meaning" I'm not convinced. The whole article seems like an elaborate rationalization (especially the part of lack of sleep and lack of free time) to try to convince the author and the followers as noted in the meta: > I think it’s a conspiracy. All the pronatalist influencers get together and say that pregnancy isn’t so bad. Young women believe them, and so the human race survives another generation YES
- lovecg 3y ago
  Is it rational to do anything pro-social that might not have any direct benefit to oneself? If humankind is to continue and to reach new heights someone is going to have to reproduce, so at the very least it’s a service towards that goal.
- Kronopath 3y ago
  > Is it rational for a rationalist to want to be a parent, knowing that having a kid rewrite your utility function? You’re making an assumption that their desires (or, if you must, “utility function”) weren’t already in that direction to begin with. As a personal anecdote, I can say that I remember myself wanting kids/a family as far back as elementary school. Now that I’m married and kids are plausibly on the horizon, I can’t say that’s really changed. At the risk of speculating, I get the feeling you may not want kids, and are projecting those feelings onto other people.
asylteltine 3y ago
DINK life. I can’t understand why people consciously decide to have children. I really can’t.
- compiler-guy 3y ago
  OP points his finger at the protonatalist conspiracy.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  can you understand why people consciously decide not to have them?
  - asylteltine 3y ago
    Yes that part is very easy. I can’t understand why someone would choose to give up their prime years for a child. The entire idea of retirement is a direct consequence of this. You don’t need to retire if you can you know, just continuously enjoy your life the entire time.
    - cjameskeller 3y ago
      I think there's a direct comparison to be made with the choice to devote one's "prime years" to building a startup. It's a meaningful project that materially impacts the world in a way that one has a decent degree of control over. And it can be fun, even in the same moments it is deeply difficult!
      - asylteltine 3y ago
        Not really because you can just walk away from a failing startup. A startup can also profit, or you can hire people to take responsibility away from you, or even sell the startup. A child to me is more akin to a jail sentence in that you can’t escape without getting in even more trouble.
- jackcosgrove 3y ago
  I'm sure you could imagine, if not understand, some reasons. In countries without social insurance people have children so the child will take care of them in their old age.
compiler-guy 3y ago
For those wanting to nitpick this or that point from the article: A title like that should set the expectation that it’s not _entirely_ serious and there might, just maybe, be a joke or two buried within.
- fennecbutt 3y ago
  Isn't that an attempt to gatekeep the comments? Pretty sure the definition of comment basically encircle "whatever the hell anybody wants to say". The fact that we all interpret things differently is beautiful; we're not a hive mind even if it does result in all of our strife.
travisgriggs 3y ago
I’m impressed this guy has time to write. My wife and I raised four children. My wife was blessed to be able to be a “stay at home” mom during the early period. It was a lot of work. I often joke that after the first two weeks of our oldest, I had no recollection of what the first two years of marriage had been like. The child rearing experience is just so all consuming. Four years ago, that oldest child got pregnant. And then discovered it was twins. We made plans to be there and help like is often the case. Holy crap. Two infants is so much more work than one. It doesn’t double the work load. It compounds geometrically. I think my wife spent the first three months there. So, yeah, I’m impressed this guy has time to write. Next time you meet someone with twins, give them some cred for making it through the first few months. It is an astronomical effort.
- kqr 3y ago
  I agree. Children gave me a lot more time to read, surprisingly, but I have hands that are way too busy to write as much as I would like to.
  - Auracle 3y ago
    When does that come? I’m the father of a (very) active 2 year old with another on the way. “Come on daddy, let’s play” is a refrain I hear probably 50 times a day.
    - kqr 3y ago
      Mainly in the first year, to be fair. My children would only sleep with active assistance (stroller, in my arms as I walk around) so I spent many hours walking and had an e-reader with me for that. Now at 2 and 4 I have the same experience ad you. I hear it gets better!
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  He's told us how in a previous post. "On the other hand, I know people who want to get good at writing, and make a mighty resolution to write two hundred words a day every day, and then after the first week they find it’s too annoying and give up. These people think I’m amazing, and why shouldn’t they? I’ve written a few hundred to a few thousand words pretty much every day for the past ten years. But as I’ve said before, this has taken exactly zero willpower. It’s more that I can’t stop even if I want to. Part of that is probably that when I write, I feel really good about having expressed exactly what it was I meant to say. Lots of people read it, they comment, they praise me, I feel good, I’m encouraged to keep writing, and it’s exactly the same virtuous cycle as my brother got from his piano practice." https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-tal...
skywhopper 3y ago
As soon as the author starts getting into statistics, there are so many bad assumptions being made that the conclusions being drawn are just ridiculous. Just as a first pass, the fact that you are widely read does not mean you are a good writer. Secondly, it's obvious that genetics don't determine everything about someone's life (surely a writer would recognize that writing is not wholly an inherent skill?), so going off on a tangent about what it would mean if it were is not actually all that interesting. Didn't get much further than that.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  Same here. Couldn’t take anything much seriously after realizing this guy is pretty sold into ideas that are one step removed from eugenics. But somehow, surprisingly, it’s what I’ve come to expect of most “rationalists”.
andai 3y ago
[dead]
sieste 3y ago
Why do people flag this? Edit: nevermind, not showing as [flagged] anymore, but I'm still curious...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fschuett 3y ago
[dead]

282 points by impish9208 3y ago

Very sweet. It doesn't require twins to make you feel as if you were being towed down the interstate on a skateboard. (The analogy occurred to me many years before a friend lent me Snow Crash.)

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago

Good for you, Scott!

Ygg2 3y ago

Completely wholesome ramblings of a new dad.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
This is what I imagined my first dad post would have looked like if I had any writing talent ( or had any sleep in those times ). Chuckled most of the way. Cheers!

jpm_sd 3y ago

Loved every bit of it. Congrats to the new parents. As a father of three, I think I got the biggest laugh out of: "I cannot quite remember why I thought this would be a good idea. I blame the pronatalist influencer conspiracy."

pj_mukh 3y ago

"There is a secret known only to parents of twins, medical residents, and Alexey Guzey: the human body does not actually need sleep. After 31 hours awake, you get an integer overflow in God’s database and go back to being well-rested again. Also you gain the ability to see angels." LOL. Amaze. On that note, I've heard some amazing things about the Snoo. It was banned from our house because of Luddit-ian reasons, but I still maintain you're not bonding with your baby at 3 am and parents should get that extra sleep and let a robot handle the near-robotic motions required to put a (< 6month old) baby back to sleep.

jefftk 3y ago
The Snoo worked very well for us with baby #3 (#1 and #2 were before it was released). I'm optimistic that we will continue to make progress in this area and find something that works for a larger fraction of babies!
the_af 3y ago
> LOL. Amaze. Don't be too amazed though. What he states isn't the scientific consensus. Persistent sleep deprivation is harmful to human beings, and you don't "reset and go back to well-rested again". Some sleep deprivation can be endured though, as any parent will tell you -- I know I wasn't "well rested" afterwards. I mostly was grumpy and very slow to think.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  The writing was “tongue in cheek.” He doesn’t actually mean it.
  - the_af 3y ago
    Oops. I misunderstood the tone. Maybe I need more sleep? ;)
danenania 3y ago
"I still maintain you're not bonding with your baby at 3 am" I'm not so sure about that. There's a lot happening beneath the surface both biologically and psychologically (on both sides) when a parent soothes a baby at 3am.
- pj_mukh 3y ago
  Well, the key differentiator is at 3am. I haven't seen any evidence that the bonding at those times is somehow special. I am assuming you are bonding with the baby at other times during the day.
  - 3y ago

koliber 3y ago

Good writing advice says that each sentence has a single goal. The goal is to draw the reader in, and convince them to read the next sentence. This article does it masterfully. The title drew me in. The opening sentence finished the job. Well done.

mgaunard 3y ago
Myself I closed the tab at the second sentence, so I can't attest to that.
- squidbeak 3y ago
  You missed a great joke about provoking God to laughter.
- compiler-devel 3y ago
  [flagged]
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  And yet that first sentence was reason enough for you to leave a reply. In a way it did evoke something in you that probably most texts don’t do.
  - mgaunard 3y ago
    I think it's more hacker news that I'm interested in, and how the article was representative of the crowd that gathers here. Start-up founders are often of the age to start having children I guess. Even if having a child and a start-up at the same time is most definitely not a good idea.
    - oooyay 3y ago
      The average age range of startup founders is 35-45. The average age of people having their first kid is 30. That said, there's a lot more than startup founders here. Always was.

antonvs 3y ago

Sad to see "Jennifer" listed as a "newer name". Aside from that spelling being more than a century old, it's just a newer spelling of Guinevere, a name which dates back to at least 1100, when it started appearing in written Arthurian legends. The Welsh form, Gwenhwyfar, is attested before that.

matthewowen 3y ago
That’s an interesting fact I didn’t know before that makes sense in retrospect. I wish you hadn’t phrased it snarkily tho: is it really “sad” that someone doesn’t know an interesting fact that you do, or is it a fun opportunity for others to learn something?
- antonvs 3y ago
  The author took a position on the name’s newness, which implies he did some research. Blog authors like this remind me of ChatGPT: they write with an affected authoritativeness completely disconnected from the actual value of their words. This gains them a following in the same sort of way that Donald Trump, Joe Rogan, or Jordan Peterson gain a following. That’s also sad to see.
- Smaug123 3y ago
  FWIW I didn't read snark. I read "I am sad to see…", much as I might be sad to see the history of any other ancient thing forgotten.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    A little bit of both, really. But thanks for the charitable reading.
throw0101a 3y ago
> Sad to see "Jennifer" listed as a "newer name". See also "The Tale of Tiffany" from CGP Grey: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LMr5XTgeyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LMr5XTgeyI

pizzafeelsright 3y ago

I read of an inconsistent mindset. God this. God that. "Natural selection didn't design" which is contradictory. Evolved murder monkeys. Happy to have babies. Women are indeed saved by childbirth. Men too.

pyentropy 3y ago
You haven't read Scott's blog enough :) He's an atheist psychiatrist. However, he enjoys how natural selection, social dynamics and reputation can also be modeled by the moral rules of most religions. For example, going to therapy isn't that different from practicing confessions in a church.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  > For example, going to therapy isn't that different from practicing confessions in a church. If your therapist responds to your sharing by suggesting that straying from their advice, or some kooky ancient text, results in eternal damnation then run far away. Churches can be devastating to ones mental health. Do not recommend.
  - kaonwarb 3y ago
    > Churches can be devastating to ones mental health. Do not recommend. No issue with your first clause: indeed, churches can be devastating to one's mental health (as can ~anything). That observation does not support your second clause. Religiosity is generally associated with lower mental health problems [0]. Correlation is not causation, of course; difficult to do a prospective study in this field. [0] E.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8462234/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8462234/
  - datameta 3y ago
    This is as silly of a strawman as creating a scenario where in the confession booth your priest goes over the BioPsychoSocial model and how their mental health is important for their overall well-being.
- 3y ago

jawns 3y ago

> Modern academics have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. It's only perfectly reasonable if you aren't familiar with the broader context. Breaking the levirate marriage custom was not in itself considered an action worthy of severe punishment. Indeed, there was a well-defined ceremony, spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:8-10 [1], intended to humiliate a man who refuses to marry his brother's widow. But being given an embarrassing nickname is a far cry from being smote by God. And if you get to inherit your brother's riches, it might be a fair price to pay. But Onan's sin is described as something he did, rather than something he failed to do. It is pretty clear, when you look at the text the way someone of that time would have looked at it, that Onan's offense was not merely that he was being selfish, but that he was employing a method that severed the procreative element of the sexual act. He could have refused to marry Tamar. He could have refused to have sex with Tamar. But instead he fulfilled the letter of the levirate marriage custom without fulfilling its spirit. He used her for his own sexual satisfaction, but then deprived her of the natural ends of that action. [1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2025%3A8-10&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%202...

mariusor 3y ago
> embarrassing nickname Which one was that?
- jihadjihad 3y ago
  I am assuming GP is referring to Onan in Hebrew: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%9F#Hebrew https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%9F#Hebr... Edit: possibly Halizah [0] instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halizah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halizah Further edit: didn't see the [1] in GP...whoops
  - yorwba 3y ago
    For failing to click the source link in the top comment, your line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled. [1]

laverya 3y ago

I think he might still have a slight grudge against the New York Times. Can't really blame him, though.

raverbashing 3y ago

> No, seriously, I’m not comfortable telling the Internet my kids’ names. I’ll let them get doxxed the usual way - by the NYT, the first time they express a problematic opinion. Heh too true > The engines heroically tested hyperprior after hyperprior to compress the data into something predictable. Heh, which hyperpriors do exist is still a matter of debate. > Your mother worked for a company synthesizing genetically engineered tooth bacteria that prevent cavities Ah that part is actually surprising!

boiler_up800 3y ago

Congrats to him. I’ve seen stats that somewhere between 30-50% of all twins are born through IVF. So technically not a huge surprise on that result. A little surprised on the 50% death rate for children before the age of 5 in 1800. It’s amazing how recent that is.

PeterisP 3y ago
I kind of treat 1800 as old enough that I'm not surprised, but for me it's surprising to look at the huge 27% children death rate that we still had in 1950, as it's amazing how recent that is.
- loeg 3y ago
  Keep in mind that was a global average in 1950. In the US it was like 3%.
inglor_cz 3y ago
If you visit a cemetery with still readable headstones from the 1800s (even the late 1800s), there will be an awful lot of kids there.
aantix 3y ago
IIRC, 90% are farmers. Each farm can output enough food for five other people if all things go right (weather, health, etc). That’s horrible efficiency. Stories of families with ten kids and even the little ones having adult responsibilities. It was an all-hands-on-deck affair to prepare for the winter and without everyone’s help, someone probably dead.
kqr 3y ago
> I’ve seen stats that somewhere between 30-50% of all twins are born through IVF. So technically not a huge surprise on that result. This sounds like some sort of confusion of the inverse. The fact that most twins are borne through IVF does not imply that any conceptiin (assisted or not) can expect twins. They are still rare in both cases.
lotsofpulp 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago

>Modern academics have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. If Onan had impregnated his brother’s wife, the resulting child would have been the heir to the family fortune. Onan refused so he could keep the fortune for himself and his descendants That required "modern academics" to explain? It was already self-evident in the original telling, a couple of millenia ago... Sure, the other cases of condemnation of masturbation might not be so clear cut.

zozbot234 3y ago

Why the heck is this guy using AI robot technobabble like "surprisal-minimization engines" and "hyperpriors" to reference the birth of their kids. That's so fucked up, not everything in the world is about "tech" and VC-fueled bubbles for goodness' sake! I realize that we're on the orange site and VC is everything here, but still it's the first time I've seen anything remotely like this. And regardless it can't possibly be a mentally healthy attitude for any new parent. Your kids are human beings with needs and a moral standing of their own, they're not frickin "engines" or robots for you to train as your minions.

strulovich 3y ago
If you’ve been following this blog you’d know that this is a frequent subject of it. This is similar to a programmer parent getting a “hello world” shirt for their baby.
kqr 3y ago
Cynical view: to signal to other capital-R Rationalists that the author is still one of them, despite parenthood (which has a way of affecting people's rationality.) Pragmatic view: that's the kind of analysis people like from Scott Alexander so where else should it go if not on his blog? If you don't like it, stay away from submissions with that domain name.
- csdvrx 3y ago
  > Cynical view: to signal to other capital-R Rationalists that the author is still one of them, despite parenthood (which has a way of affecting people's rationality.) It may be the most reasonable interpretation. However, is it rational to want to have a futurama brain slug? https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Brain_Slug https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Brain_Slug
ctoth 3y ago
This is literally a joke. A callback to an article called The Demiurge's Older Brother written many, many years before the current AI hype. Also, Scott has been beating the drum of surprisal minimization for years and years now, see articles like [1] and [2]. [0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/21/repost-the-demiurges-older-brother/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/21/repost-the-demiurges-o... [1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-way-up/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-way-... [2]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/04/god-help-us-lets-try-to-understand-friston-on-free-energy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/04/god-help-us-lets-try-t...

ambicapter 3y ago

Happy for him!

kqr 3y ago

> Parents are supposed to teach their children the skills they need to navigate the world. This already feels somewhat obsolete - where are the Google programmers who were taught Python by their fathers, or the Instagram influencers who learned content creation on their mother’s knee? Soon it will be completely hopeless. Where we’re going there are no roads. This was a clear presentation of a thought that has bothered me a lot. It's easy for me to get engaged and keep teaching my children specific techniques, so I have to occasionally stop and remind myself to teach them things like falsification, self-monitoring, incorporating feedback, noise filtering, pattern recognition, and other meta-skills that they can use to build far more skills than I could ever teach them.

ajkjk 3y ago
You don't have to teach them any of those things, you just have to live them. They're smart, they'll figure it out.
- kqr 3y ago
  Looking at many of the adults around me, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that these are things that don't come naturally to most people.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    Well that's my point. People learn character and wisdom by being shown, not being taught, and nobody was showing them.
    - kqr 3y ago
      I see your point and disagree a little less. I still think (and the Oxford Handbook of Expertise backs me up here) most people benefit from active instruction. If nothing else because it gives them a language in which they can discuss the skill with other people. Very helpful when one desires feedback.
      - 3y ago

csdvrx 3y ago

Is it rational for a rationalist to want to be a parent, knowing that having a kid rewrite your utility function? (so said parent would accept sacrificing their life for saving the life of their child) It looks like the futurama brain slug parasites that someone explained me about last time I asked: https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Brain_Slug https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Brain_Slug It's even less rational for a woman, given the many damages it causes to the body (something he discusses in the article) I often see having a kid "creates a joy that couldn't be experienced before", but the same thing could be said about drugs: you want to preserve your utility function from such deep influences, so you try to avoid getting addicted to drugs. If one wouldn't rationally chose to get addicted, why chose getting a child? The only reason I see is in the title: as a psychological protection about death (the pun on "in the long run, we're all dead") In case the person finds no other meaning in life, a cheap way out is to create one by reinterpreting the path-dependent set of random events (I wouldn't be here if my parents didn't have a kid, etc, and neither would the human race), choosing to continue this chain and call that "meaning" I'm not convinced. The whole article seems like an elaborate rationalization (especially the part of lack of sleep and lack of free time) to try to convince the author and the followers as noted in the meta: > I think it’s a conspiracy. All the pronatalist influencers get together and say that pregnancy isn’t so bad. Young women believe them, and so the human race survives another generation YES

lovecg 3y ago
Is it rational to do anything pro-social that might not have any direct benefit to oneself? If humankind is to continue and to reach new heights someone is going to have to reproduce, so at the very least it’s a service towards that goal.
Kronopath 3y ago
> Is it rational for a rationalist to want to be a parent, knowing that having a kid rewrite your utility function? You’re making an assumption that their desires (or, if you must, “utility function”) weren’t already in that direction to begin with. As a personal anecdote, I can say that I remember myself wanting kids/a family as far back as elementary school. Now that I’m married and kids are plausibly on the horizon, I can’t say that’s really changed. At the risk of speculating, I get the feeling you may not want kids, and are projecting those feelings onto other people.

asylteltine 3y ago

DINK life. I can’t understand why people consciously decide to have children. I really can’t.

compiler-guy 3y ago
OP points his finger at the protonatalist conspiracy.
zabzonk 3y ago
can you understand why people consciously decide not to have them?
- asylteltine 3y ago
  Yes that part is very easy. I can’t understand why someone would choose to give up their prime years for a child. The entire idea of retirement is a direct consequence of this. You don’t need to retire if you can you know, just continuously enjoy your life the entire time.
  - cjameskeller 3y ago
    I think there's a direct comparison to be made with the choice to devote one's "prime years" to building a startup. It's a meaningful project that materially impacts the world in a way that one has a decent degree of control over. And it can be fun, even in the same moments it is deeply difficult!
    - asylteltine 3y ago
      Not really because you can just walk away from a failing startup. A startup can also profit, or you can hire people to take responsibility away from you, or even sell the startup. A child to me is more akin to a jail sentence in that you can’t escape without getting in even more trouble.
jackcosgrove 3y ago
I'm sure you could imagine, if not understand, some reasons. In countries without social insurance people have children so the child will take care of them in their old age.

compiler-guy 3y ago

For those wanting to nitpick this or that point from the article: A title like that should set the expectation that it’s not _entirely_ serious and there might, just maybe, be a joke or two buried within.

fennecbutt 3y ago
Isn't that an attempt to gatekeep the comments? Pretty sure the definition of comment basically encircle "whatever the hell anybody wants to say". The fact that we all interpret things differently is beautiful; we're not a hive mind even if it does result in all of our strife.

travisgriggs 3y ago

I’m impressed this guy has time to write. My wife and I raised four children. My wife was blessed to be able to be a “stay at home” mom during the early period. It was a lot of work. I often joke that after the first two weeks of our oldest, I had no recollection of what the first two years of marriage had been like. The child rearing experience is just so all consuming. Four years ago, that oldest child got pregnant. And then discovered it was twins. We made plans to be there and help like is often the case. Holy crap. Two infants is so much more work than one. It doesn’t double the work load. It compounds geometrically. I think my wife spent the first three months there. So, yeah, I’m impressed this guy has time to write. Next time you meet someone with twins, give them some cred for making it through the first few months. It is an astronomical effort.

kqr 3y ago
I agree. Children gave me a lot more time to read, surprisingly, but I have hands that are way too busy to write as much as I would like to.
- Auracle 3y ago
  When does that come? I’m the father of a (very) active 2 year old with another on the way. “Come on daddy, let’s play” is a refrain I hear probably 50 times a day.
  - kqr 3y ago
    Mainly in the first year, to be fair. My children would only sleep with active assistance (stroller, in my arms as I walk around) so I spent many hours walking and had an e-reader with me for that. Now at 2 and 4 I have the same experience ad you. I hear it gets better!
reducesuffering 3y ago
He's told us how in a previous post. "On the other hand, I know people who want to get good at writing, and make a mighty resolution to write two hundred words a day every day, and then after the first week they find it’s too annoying and give up. These people think I’m amazing, and why shouldn’t they? I’ve written a few hundred to a few thousand words pretty much every day for the past ten years. But as I’ve said before, this has taken exactly zero willpower. It’s more that I can’t stop even if I want to. Part of that is probably that when I write, I feel really good about having expressed exactly what it was I meant to say. Lots of people read it, they comment, they praise me, I feel good, I’m encouraged to keep writing, and it’s exactly the same virtuous cycle as my brother got from his piano practice." https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-tal...

skywhopper 3y ago

As soon as the author starts getting into statistics, there are so many bad assumptions being made that the conclusions being drawn are just ridiculous. Just as a first pass, the fact that you are widely read does not mean you are a good writer. Secondly, it's obvious that genetics don't determine everything about someone's life (surely a writer would recognize that writing is not wholly an inherent skill?), so going off on a tangent about what it would mean if it were is not actually all that interesting. Didn't get much further than that.

polygamous_bat 3y ago
Same here. Couldn’t take anything much seriously after realizing this guy is pretty sold into ideas that are one step removed from eugenics. But somehow, surprisingly, it’s what I’ve come to expect of most “rationalists”.

andai 3y ago

[dead]

sieste 3y ago

Why do people flag this? Edit: nevermind, not showing as [flagged] anymore, but I'm still curious...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

fschuett 3y ago

[dead]