Hacker News Reader

Wow what huge expectations (edit: which is fine btw, just probably inhibiting to a relationship). I respect my wife, am amazed at what she does on instinct and emotion (compared to my incessant need to validate choices rationally) and learn from that every day. This was not something I could have ever foreseen (so among the things one doesn't know one doesn't know). She is great with the kids and as a result they are nice kids (one can learn a lot from nice kids). I actually like that she's not into scifi it gives me some alone time. We also bicker sometimes, her communication can be quite imprecise and my ability to quickly determine context correctly is limited. I guess I'm good a picking that one possible way of misinterpreting her.

Is she my perfect mate (meaning the best there is on the planet)? Very probably not, I would certainly like to tweak some things here and there (I want more sex, she wants more romance, the standard chicken and egg story. I guess that's why they tell you to keep working on your relationship).

Is the search for a potentially better mate worth the pain on me, her and the kids? No. I'm happy and can do most things I want. I appreciate that she wants the same life as me (a rural house near nature), we certainly agree on how we want to raise the kids, I find her attractive physically and have learned to appreciate her strong will (over time). I guess the big things are important, don't let the little things get in the way of happiness, and keep working at it ;)

Remember: Happiness = Reality - Expectations

I feel like you summarized my life.

I have four areas I think of relationships in; physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual.

We don't have to align perfectly in any or all areas, but there has to be activity and I do have a belief that people have a minimum they can tolerate in any one of those areas.

I think expectations are well... expected. It's just that some are socially obvious and others are unique to the individual. Willing to navigate these as a partner (or any relationship at different levels) provides a connection for doing this "better together".

> Wow what huge expectations

If "I want someone who has the same cultural taste as me" in terms of films etc. is "huge" then I guess we should just marry at random.

I was reacting more to "if a person doesn't share my tastes and isn’t willing to sit with me during all these moving and emotionally rich experiences day in and day out", especially the "day in and day out" part.

That said, if I would limit my mate choice to someone who likes the same films as me I'd be setting myself up for a lonely life ;) (especially since I am already not the best at approaching women I'm interested in (or at least I wasn't, some 20 years ago).

Ah, ok, I see, sorry if I came across accusingly. Think my tone was a bit harash.

Did you find someone? How did you do it, given how shy you say you are/were?

Np :)

Its a long story but involved first developing a friendship and months of fighting feelings of loosing control until giving in and replacing the fear of rejection by a fear being abandoned and being jealous as a result. Actually it is a miracle she became my wife later on... We first met in a bar, our friends knew each other. We went swimming weekly with a small group of friends and started doing more and more together. It was the time of the first sms text messages, what a time that was, now I almost feel old...

Thanks very much for sharing. You know, that does sound quite romantic after all :-D

> I spend most of my free time consuming literature, films and music. Trying to assimilate as much of the canon as I can is what makes me feel alive and in touch with the beauty of the world. Consequently, if a person doesn't share my tastes, then that means that they don’t share my life, and that seems like a bad foundation for any relationship. I do miss companionship, but I would rather refrain from entering into a marriage than into a marriage that would be an exercise in mutual frustration or force me to give up that which gives my life meaning and purpose.

Perhaps I'm unique in this sense, but for me pursuing my own self-satisfaction has never left me feeling that happy or fulfilled. In fact, I suspect it's what fueled my depression throughout most of my twenties.

I always thought if I had enough money, or if I started a successful enough business maybe I'd be happy. But every time I achieved a goal I always felt more empty and confused. I might feel happiness for a little while, but then I needed something else and so the struggle started again.

Something I slowly started to realise in my late twenties was that these goals of mine gave me some surface level meaning, but the deepest meaning came from doing things for others, especially those I love.

I think this is what a lot of people misunderstand about children and relationships today. It's very hard to find deeper meaning from an enjoyment of literature or music. I'm not saying these thing can't bring enjoyment or enrich your life, but they don't typically give someone a reason to wake up in the morning either.

Today people too often think that partying, casual sex or other selfish pursuits will make them happy, but I suspect it has the exact opposite effect. Finding someone who isn't perfect but who you can love and dedicate yourself to, or having children and giving everything you can for them, these are things that can bring us true meaning.

I agree, in short I think there is a very important and underestimated difference between joy and happiness, fun and satisfaction. I think indeed they are even at odds with each other.

It comes back in many aspects of life, i.e., the entertainment industry, the smartphone industry (maybe any industry?) aims to bring you fun, a short-lived positive emotion. What brings you happiness (a long lived positive feeling of satisfaction and peacefulness of mind) is perhaps difficult to discover and deeply personal.

That really resonates. I'm where you were ~10 years ago. But another perspective is that, i try to become successful or develop hobbies to make other people proud of me. I get up in the morning to surprise people or see them respect me. Similar goal to what you've described, but with a slightly different emotion. Yes art and sport and computers make me happy but I can also share them with other people and make them happy.

Yeah but that doesn't mean rush to have kids right...? Because then the best path would be to have kids at like 25, which prob isn't the best way to happiness.

I suspect that the best way to happiness is not to seek it. All the people I know that married young and had kids at 20 years old didn't do it because they thought it would make them happy, they did it because they don't use "happiness" as the north star that guides their decisions. They are from a different culture and religion and have a different value system, one that doesn't consider an action's impact on their happiness to be a winning argument for or against.

Are they happy? I don't know, and it doesn't really matter because it isn't really the goal, but if I had to guess I'd say they're happier than I am.

I don't think I'm the first to realize that happiness visits those who stop looking for it. The challenge is that you have to really stop looking, not pretend to ignore it while you constantly peek over your shoulder to see if it isn't just about to finally show up.

Yeah, you're right.

I guess there is a fine line between "just do it" and "measure twice, cut once".

Of course you can just put your head down and follow the traditional path, and end up fine - with kids, house, etc. But was that the path best for you? Was it the most fulfilling path? Shouldn't overthink that, but also should spend some effort to think about it.

Uh, yes? 25 is certainly not ahead of schedule for having kids. By 30 there start to be physical risks.

Not for a guy. Plus you can marry girls like 3-7 years younger.

25 is not a young age at which to start having kids. If there's stable household income and essential needs are being met, by all means, have kids at 20 if that's what both partners want.

> Finding someone who isn't perfect but who you can love and dedicate yourself to, or having children and giving everything you can for them, these are things that can bring us true meaning.

That certainly seems to be conventional wisdom. I wonder how often it's true? (edit: 40% divorce rate, etc.)

Maybe some people find, or struggle with, meaning more than others? Maybe there's multiple meaningful paths through life?

> Today people too often think that partying, casual sex or other selfish pursuits will make them happy, but I suspect it has the exact opposite effect. Finding someone who isn't perfect but who you can love and dedicate yourself to, or having children and giving everything you can for them, these are things that can bring us true meaning.

That's just some gibberish that married people say; or people who were looking for reasons to live and are later trapped in a marriage trying to explain their existence.

I picked the former and I have a reason to wake up every morning: Doing the former.

A word of caution: this belief may be true, but it’s radioactive. Potential partners can smell it from a mile away. They may not be consciously aware of it, but they’ll smell it. The personality component of attractiveness for men has a lot to do with already feeling fulfilled in your solo activities. No one wants to feel like you are looking to make them a load-bearing structure in your psyche. Some are okay with being used for sex under the right circumstances, but vanishingly few will consent to be used for meaning.

At least, I think this is why I’m single.

> No one wants to feel like you are looking to make them a load-bearing structure in your psyche.

I think you are correct, but I don't think this is exactly what kypro is getting at. expecting to gain fulfillment by investing effort in a relationship is not a turn-off to most people. expecting fulfillment from a relationship while putting forth minimal effort is indeed toxic and will repel people.

> Potential partners can smell it from a mile away. They may not be consciously aware of it, but they’ll smell it. The personality component of attractiveness for men has a lot to do with already feeling fulfilled in your solo activities.

I would generalize this further. people can sense when another person is significantly needier than they are (having or not having fulfilling solo activities is a subset of this). outside of very specific (eg, parent-child) types of relationships, people hate this.

> At least, I think this is why I’m single.

without knowing much about you, I would guess that you're single for the same reason as most single people who want a relationship: mismatched expectations and/or not meeting and talking to enough new people. timing is very important, and the timing will be wrong for most people you meet.

It seems to me that neediness is exactly the belief that other people are essential to your life satisfaction and fulfillment. What do you think it means?

Not the OP but I think neediness is more than that. It's a mismatch between how much you someone need other people for their life satisfaction and fulfillment and how much that same person is willing to invest in the relationship.

So not all people who believe that other people are essential to their life satisfaction and fulfillment are necessarily needy, the ones who are are those who do not give back...

Not everyone is the same, so I doubt being married and having children is what brings true meaning to everyone. Maybe a majority of people feel that way, at least at some point in their lives? But I'd caution against generalizing to everyone. People do have different motivations in life.

> enter into a marriage that would be an exercise in mutual frustration or force me to give up that which gives my life meaning and purpose

If you have only a single interest and/or taste (like you imply here), it shouldn't be very hard to find someone with 100% overlap with you. After all, if they enjoy entertainment then they share your every taste. I think it is safe to assume that Alain de Botton writes for what he feels is "most people". Most people have interests outside of entertainment.

To me art is almost the opposite of entertainment. Art is supposed to challenge us to grow, entertainment is a way to kill time. Big difference, but missed by a lot of people today.

Yup. This is the difference between high art cinema and entertainment films. I think a lot of people see films that are generally seen as art (such as Wes Anderson films, Lost in Translation, Spike Jonze's Her) as 'pretentious' because they don't see cinema as something that can be taken seriously and are looking for something else out of films. To them, seeing a film ask something of them is bizarre and uncomfortable, like being asked by a performer to come up on stage.

Art can be a form of entertainment. One thing that art definitely is not is a thing that needs to have more gatekeepers.

> I think it is safe to assume that Alain de Botton writes for what he feels is "most people"

He also wrote "How Proust Can Change Your Life", which may or may not be for "most people"

It might be more accurate to say that he writes about what he feels is the human experience, which of necessity is specific to him. After all, he can't really know what other people feel and think.

At risk of being flippant, you're overvaluing media and art over actually living life. Where do you suppose art comes from? More from life than from looking at other art.

Wondering (as for myself too), what is the goal behind consuming/assimilating?

Is it an end in itself, for oneself?

Is it a way to have more/more elaborate exchanges, conversations, relationships with other people? Other people which may share some of the same interests, but may also have others, and other perspectives to bring in the conversation?

I was going to post that I am married to my wife because we share the same high-level goals in life and want to walk that path together, supporting each other along the way. That is certainly true.

> even if the hunger for companionship or childraising at any cost means that such insistently single people might remain a minority.

... then I got to this part. The fact is, raising a family is very much core to our relationship; it's the "high-level goals in life" that I referred to above.

Intuitively, I am very confident that my marriage would make sense and be equally fulfilling if we could not have children or didn't desire them. Objectively, I can't actually make that assertion because my own perspective is so influenced by the fact that family is so central to our lives that I'm not confident I could anticipate what it would be like without that shared desire.

What I can say is that my marriage is something that I rely upon every day, and that the effort that I and my wife expend making and keeping it healthy is very much worth it.

Consumption.

If your life is defined by consumption, you’re not adding anything to the world, which is where most people experience meaning.

Maybe you’re planning to consume now and create later. Marriage is all about creation.

> If your life is defined by consumption, you’re not adding anything to the world, which is where most people experience meaning.

I disagree!

It's not a life I would choose to live, but as you might guess from my username I absolutely see value in consumption.

If GP desires to live a life defined by consumption, by all means, they should do so. Regardless of how "adding to the world" is measured, the capital that GP controls will be transferred to the people producing the content GP consumes - people who are by definition "creators".

If it makes GP happy to be primarily a source of resources for the creative class, I see no social negatives to that behavior.

Almost by definition, they must be adding something to the world to acquire that capital —- so they’re definitely adding something to the world.

I didn’t mean to suggest it’s a social negative. I only meant to suggest they’re defining their meaning by an odd side of the equation.

you will probably never find someone who has the exact same taste in literature, film, and music as you do. in my whole life, I've met only a couple people that share my taste in movies, tv, or music, but never someone with the same taste in all mediums. this doesn't necessarily preclude having a fulfilling relationship with someone though. there are plenty of people out there that are into film, music, and/or literature; they just won't have the exact same taste as you. if you're willing to let them pick some of the time, you could have a great relationship. weirdly enough, it can also be great to date someone who is totally apathetic towards your passion. I dated a girl in college who just didn't care about music at all. it was fantastic; I played whatever I wanted all the time! in some ways, it can be easier to date someone with mostly orthogonal interests.

in my experience, relationships are a lot more "practical" than we like to think. stuff like how your daily routines mesh together tends to matter a lot more than sharing each other's deepest passions. the meaning of "a clean house" can be much more impactful than the meaning of "a good film".

> isn’t willing to sit with me during all these moving and emotionally rich experiences day in and day out

I'm incredibly sad for you. Do you have a theory as to why you must be a passive observer to emotionally enriching human experiences, instead of being a participant in creating them yourself?

You might be glad to know that both my wife and I have been happily “assimilating the canon”, with as much furious energy as before we were married. In spite of the fact that our tastes don’t overlap 1:1. In fact I’ve been introduced to more of the canon through our heterogenous tastes.