I don't have the citation to hand, but IIRC there's research suggesting higher variance among parents is the most significant effect.
Good to know, but does that research clarify whether happiness is overall higher or lower in the long run?
For me having children feels "closer to being a terminal value" than happiness does. So saying "you should have Children because it makes you happy" sounds like "You should have a meaningful job and a loving relationship with your wife because it decreases your chances of having a heart attack by 8%!" or "You should avoid murdering people because it looks bad on your resume".
I can believe that that's true for a significant portion of humanity- that they would choose to have children even knowing it would be bad for their happiness in the long run. It isn't true for me, though, and there are large numbers of people for whom it isn't (or else childlessness in the West wouldn't have risen so much).
I feel your policy makes you more easily manipulable, not less.
What if this person is your boss? Bear in mind that your boss has probably lied to you.
I have an independent income. I demand a transfer, and if I don't get it I quit.
Will you make that connection explicit to them afterwards too? Do you think other people make the connection? How?
If I go on about it enough in conversation, people will have to realise. I won't made it explicit directly to them, but them realising will discourage others.
Luckily, I have a one strike rule against ultimatums. :)
Why doesn't simply not trusting them work for you? How does being hostile to them further your interests?
Because it makes it obvious to people that I'm taking my policy seriously.
How do you execute this zero tolerance policy? There's a vast space between alienating people and simply not trusting them.
A One Strike Rule. If I catch a person lying to me, I never hang out with them against unless I have no case. I also deliberately act in a rude and hostile manner.
However, this only applies if I've already warned them about the policy.
Another thing I should note that it can simply be a matter of human preferences. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of having any truely close relationship (lover or close friend) with somebody who would be willing to lie to me. I see no reason why other wants should somehow override this one.
You seem to be treating lack of social skills as a static attribute rather than a mutable trait. This may not be the most productive frame for the issue.
Improving my social skills is HARD. I could invest a massive effort into it if I tried, but I'm at university right now and my marks would take a nosedive. It's not worth the price.
View more: Next
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Major question. Where do you fit the kind of truth that comes from realising an idea is incoherent, therefore must be wrong?
(For clarity, my view is that the whole notion of 'affective truth' is just plain wrong, but I have nothing to say on that which hasn't been already said)