= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I don't have the citation to hand, but IIRC there's research suggesting higher variance among parents is the most significant effect.
In response to
Happiness and Children
Good to know, but does that research clarify whether happiness is overall higher or lower in the long run?
In response to
Happiness and Children
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).
Happiness and Children
There is a lot of research on this topic. I know later studies contradict earlier studies, but I'm not sure who to believe here. Wondering if anyone can help.
In case it isn't clear, the basic question is the effect of having children on happiness.
Asking about polyamory in Melbourne
What communities are there where one can find polyamorous dating in Melbourne? I've decided to give it a try, primarily because my poor social skills mean I should go for the highest possible chance of success rather than anything else for the time being. If there is some degree to which I have options, requesting the best choice for somebody with good academic skills but very poor social skills and Aspergers Syndrome.
Noting that I consider success to be very unlikely here under my circumstances, but given this is Lesswrong we should all be aware that sometimes it is worth attempting something unlikely dependent on potential payoffs. At the very least, a lower potential acceptance threshold means in the worst case scenario it's metaphorical training wheels for monogamous dating.
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.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
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)