Yeah, I've been trying to wrap my head around this recently. I always get a bit irked by the inevitable comments confidently asserting things like "humans are social animals, if you think you don't need tight social connections you're just hurting yourself". And then pointing to these results averaged out over the entire population as "proof".
It seems like there's got to be some statistical fallacy being made, like asserting "all humans need visual stimulation to survive" and then all the blind people on earth shrug at the data and realize they're not human I guess? On average it's true, "all humans" would go crazy if deprived of their sight, but it turns out some people do it just fine and can have rich, human lives.
I wonder if it's just when people live very social lives, the idea of deriving satisfaction in life internally, to be able to self regulate and maintain a health sense of identity without frequent input from others, is just too alien to consider. To not dislike people, or lack social skills, but just be as disinterested in socializing as I am in starting a coin collection. Or maybe all that is just extremely uncommon and experiences like mine are just a true rounding error.
I think it is like the way getting married is statistically more healthy.
Friends and a partner act like a small life coach. I am sure many unhealthy habits are correlated with being left entirely to your own devices. I know I would go to the doctor more if I had a partner coaching/bugging me that I go more.
We are the outliers. If everyone was wired like me, the concept of a dinner party would simply not exist and Facebook would look like this.
If it helps you understand the other side - very many people, and I consider myself one of them, went through a long part of life without realizing that "humans are social animals". In my case I was very unhappy for a very long time until I realized that socialization was the missing ingredient. Worse, I didn't even realize I was unhappy, and I had persuaded myself I was fine.
When you have this sort of a revelation, it's difficult to hold it in. You want to shout it from the rooftops. You want to grab every single person you can find who has a life remotely like yours years ago when you were unhappy, and save them, in the same way that you yourself needed saving.
I try not to do this any more because I understand it's annoying, and the message is unlikely to successfully transmit anyways. But I suspect this is the phenomenon you are observing.
Thanks, that does help to see it as good faith advice. I'd be totally on board with a framing like "If you're alone and unhappy or dissatisfied in life, social connection could likely be the missing piece." Though it seems even that often follows up with "If you _think_ you're content being alone, you just don't know what you're missing", similar to how parents talk about how their lives changed after having kids. Which is fine and could be true for pretty much everyone, I just hate that it's stated in a way that's unfalsifiable. That if you think differently you're just fooling yourself, and you'll change your mind once you do it.
I've found a lot of those assertions about how to live a "great" life (often based on societal averages about life expectancy) don't fit my actual subjective experience, and I had to spend years doing all the "right things" in life and wondering why it wasn't fulfilling for me. Similar to the sibling comment, it's been liberating to stop taking that type of advice as applicable to me, but that means it jumps out at me everywhere now, hah.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm approaching my 40's, have had partners, lived with them for years, good relationship with family, never been burned or damaged socially. Those things just still never seemed as central or necessary to me as they apparently are for others.
For me it was the opposite. Once I realized that I don't have to say yes to everything or socialize unless I want to, no matter how seldom, I became much happier.
I've seen that in some cases the definition of mental health will explicitly score against things like "lacks close relationships" or "does not seek companionship". So it always seems to me a bit circular to just assert "being more social is more mentally healthy" when the definition of mental health bakes in "being very social".
If I were to define mental health to include "desires and enjoys spending lengths of time in solitude", then I could assert "Humans as a species crave solitude, mental health is shown to directly correlate with the drive and ability to be alone."
Why not define poor mental health as "puts a gun in mouth and pulls trigger" and then see if it correlates with things like "lacks close relationships". Probably a better method than 'making shit up as you go along' people that want to prove a particular point tend to do.
Another vote for a folding stand + separate keyboard and mouse at desk-level. I'm always working outside the house, and once you can adjust to working on a single monitor it's been great ergonomically.
> They can't fight or flight so their defense is toxins.
The very next sentence.
Animals can run away or fight, so they don't have the need to develop other deterrents. I guess aside from a very few exceptions like Amazonian frogs, which would also not be recommended to eat without very special processing. Probably best to keep off the menu altogether, just like most seeds, stems, and leaves for the reasons described in the parent comment.
For what it's worth, I had a similar experience trying a strict AIP diet for a few months - some improvements in my autoimmune symptoms (some psorasis I've had since childhood), but nothing definitive. When I tried a strict carnviore diet, basically cutting out the vegetable and fruits allowed on AIP, my existing patches of psoriasis disappeared over a few weeks, and no new ones appeared.
Since then I've gone on and off of strict carnivore, but anytime I reintroduce vegetables and/or some other carb sources, I'll start to see new patches of psoriasis pop back up within a 2 or 3 weeks usually. So I usually balance on that line now, returning to carnivore if my symptoms start to bother me too much.
> I have a hard time to see any relevance in a life without children anymore.
In my view, having kids is a great way to take off the existential pressure of life being meaningless, by just having a default "do it for them" answer to every single question or hardship in life. And what then will give your child's life such a straightforward meaning? Well, just have kids of their own I guess, and their kids the same, all the way down, forever.
It always seems like a bit of a cop out to me. "Life is empty and meaningless, so I'll just have kids, let that fill up all my time, and maybe they can figure it out." I suppose that could be the history of humanity in a nutshell.
> It always seems like a bit of a cop out to me. "Life is empty and meaningless, so I'll just have kids, let that fill up all my time, and maybe they can figure it out." I suppose that could be the history of humanity in a nutshell.
I understand the sentiment here, and prior to having children of my own, I would have agreed with you. But having kids brings tremendous meaning to one's life in a way that is difficult to explain - it has to be experienced. What you see as an infinite recursion, i.e.:
have children and find meaning --> your children find meaning from their children --> etc., etc. etc.
Being part of the ongoing chain of humanity, there's something beautiful about that lack of an endgame, just being a part of something and then passing the torch.
Having children does not bring meaning in itself. Your interpretation of having children brings you meaning.
I am extremely happy that I do not have children and that I do not have to deal with children. I have so many meaningful relationships with adults and wonderful life experiences and every morning I look forward to continuing with the day. I do not desire children and I'm completely fine with not having them at all.
I've noticed that everyone with kids tends to do two things: one is that they get along with other people who've had kids and they use that to create instant bonds of mutual understanding. And the other is that they take opportunities to convince those without kids to get kids. While I don't take offense, I do feel that there is usually an implication in there that someone without kids is somehow less trustworthy or less of a 'good' type of person, or inferior even.
It's definitely a cop out. There are probably as many assholes with kids as there are without kids in this world.
Having kids and being a good parent can be really hard. Parents trying to convince others to have kids might be trying to validate their own choices. We do that all the time for trivial choices like iPhone vs Android, so it's expected that we'll do it even more for irreversible choices like having kids. I wouldn't read too much into it.
I have two kids and I’ll be the first to tell people who ask that it’s not for everyone. First, maybe with climate change none of us should. Second, you have to be ready to stick with things even when you don’t think you can, like literally do not see a way through. It will break you.
On the flip side you will learn more about what you are capable of and you will be responsible for this little magical person who will make the world and time freeze just for a moment when they give you a hug and a kiss.
Haha there you go - that’s that opportunity that people with kids take that I was just talking about. ;)
But generally yes, everything you’re saying is 100% true and a valuable contribution to this type of conversation.
The thing I think about quite a bit is this: People with children will frequently bring up how much they’ve changed and matured after having kids. And I have seen this happen with many friends. But it’s also very difficult to really imagine the consequences of the lack of that decision. Because you don’t really have a clear view into that alternate timeline in which you don’t have the kids. What’s more we usually view that timeline as static - we don’t imagine ourselves continuing to change and evolve in it. “I was a irresponsible young adult right before kids so I would continue to be that irresponsible today if not for them.” But if you assume that just as much growth occurs in that other timeline, only in a different direction, then not having kids can be just as big and profound a decision as having them.
Having someone who is dependent on you definitely makes you important, whether that's kids or your dying grandmother or something else. But creating that dependency explicitly as a means to feel important is just weird.
"I have a hard time to see any relevance in a life without children anymore."
Consider the fact that Chinese slaves made everything you own, and are wearing. Isn't that worth caring about? Wouldn't it be "relevant" to try improve that situation?
In this person's mind, a person without kids who is trying to solve the problem of human slavery, is living an "irrelevant life". It goes to show you how stupid the average person is, including the average parent.
It definitely does give you a default answer to keep going. And I don't think thats a terrible thing.
I was lucky to have a great childhood. Becoming a parent is one route to giving someone else a great childhood. Lots of humans derive a feeling of meaning from giving good things to other humans, whatever form that might take. Parenthood isn't the only way to do this, of course.
Also, eventually one generation might figure it all out. We can only keep going and find out!
You say it like parents choose the easy explanation. But what if for some people the meaning of their life is to have kids? For sure parenting gives your life _a_ meaning. But I doubt people choose to have kids for that.
I think the choose of having kissy it’s more a mix of ambition, societal conventions and natural instinct.
I haven't had kids yet, but I think having them is the most important thing I can do with my life. I can't fix society's problems. I can't even be sure I helped a nonzero amount even if I exerted myself to exhaustion for my entire time on Earth. What I can do is raise someone who is exposed to my principles and ideals. I can carry my meme on so that they may exert themselves for a lifetime that yields an infentesimal result. It's the only way we'll ever make it.
Well said! Life should be what you want to do - many people don't have ambitions or interests, and I guess defaulting to the evolutionary standard of having kids is a valid response.
I think appetite itself has a lot to do with the nutritional density of what you're eating. I can eat 1000kcal of gummy worms and just be getting started, but 1000kcal of ground beef and I can't look at food for a few hours. Or in other words, it seems like your body will keep giving you hunger-signals regardless of volume, until it gets what it needs (e.g. protein, minerals, vitamins).
I'm not really one for parties or restaurants, but I really enjoyed the walkability of San Francisco when I lived there. It's something that I always miss anytime I'm staying in a more suburban/rural area, having to deal with a car to run any errands, grab a coffee, or meet up with friends.
I'd agree that it's not fully solvable by the school alone. But zooming out, I'd be inclined to say the "society that forced a mother to work 3 jobs to get by" failed. I imagine it's hard to give each child individual attention/care when you're spread that thin, hence being essentially forced to offload chunks of that parenting-responsibility onto institutions.
Which is a much larger and harder issue than a failure of individual responsibility. But it seems like that's the more foundational issue as far as I can tell.
> But zooming out, I'd be inclined to say the "society that forced a mother to work 3 jobs to get by" failed
But how did the mother get into position where a) she's single and b) she needs to work 3 jobs to get by?
One situation is teen pregnancy. Say a girl gets pregnant as a teenager and the father flees (common for single moms). Now she has to raise a kid by herself and drop out of school, limiting her career options.
Is this an individual responsibility fail or a societal fail? I guess you could argue "society failed by not providing her with free contraceptives and/or abortive services and/or social services" but it's just a bad, sad situation no matter how you slice it, and clearly there was some personal agency involved. Even worse, it's a self-perpetuating cycle (i.e. the pregnant teen's offspring is more likely to also be a pregnant teen)
In Baltimore? Don’t know this specific story obviously, but could have something to do with their insanely high incarceration rate. Not to suggest necessarily that those incarcerations are even unwarranted, but rather to point out that this is a feedback loop and not a straight chain of causality with a beginning and end. It doesn’t start anywhere in particular - looking for that “root cause” is a fools errand (aside from centuries of racism, which is what almost certainly spawned these toxic feedback loops, now without “beginnings”).
I think your teenage pregnancy example is probably reasonable, I could see that being a big turning point in a mother's life, where things began getting tougher/worse.
I guess my point is that even if it's clearly an individual-failure, how long should that condemn her to a life of struggle and hardship, let alone her children? If one step off the straight-and-narrow in society means that you need to beat incredible odds to make it back onto the happy-path, we need to work to make that easier to do. Regardless of whether you fell off that path by your own actions today, last week, or decades ago when you were a child.
I'd want to live a society where those struggling get repeated lifelines and assistance to help find some stability. I guess I don't see what the other option is; I don't think we can just give up and let them (and their children, and their children's children...) struggle and fail forever. Even if that means that they need more support/attention than the average citizen for however long it takes.
It seems like there's got to be some statistical fallacy being made, like asserting "all humans need visual stimulation to survive" and then all the blind people on earth shrug at the data and realize they're not human I guess? On average it's true, "all humans" would go crazy if deprived of their sight, but it turns out some people do it just fine and can have rich, human lives.
I wonder if it's just when people live very social lives, the idea of deriving satisfaction in life internally, to be able to self regulate and maintain a health sense of identity without frequent input from others, is just too alien to consider. To not dislike people, or lack social skills, but just be as disinterested in socializing as I am in starting a coin collection. Or maybe all that is just extremely uncommon and experiences like mine are just a true rounding error.