Things I Learned from My 2 Year Old Baby Girl
madeincosmos.substack.com
madeincosmos.substack.com
For a long time, I’ve had this nagging feeling that we’ve lost something really important by switching from an animist-based metaphysical view of the world (which seems to have been widespread in tribal societies) to a scientific-rationalist “individual in world” (broadly, theistic) model. In religious studies, this is called “disenchantment” and examples like the author’s suggest that this is a learned cultural phenomenon and not something inherent to how humans see the world. The interesting question is, will future technologies push us back to an animist perspective? A future full of unexplainable and incomprehensible AIs seems almost naturally animist to me.
I call it "the Daemon-Haunted World" after Sagan's book:
> "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" is a 1995 book by the astrophysicist Carl Sagan and co-authored by Ann Druyan,[1] in which the authors aim to explain the scientific method to laypeople and to encourage people to learn critical and skeptical thinking. They explain methods to help distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science and those that can be considered pseudoscience. Sagan states that when new ideas are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of skeptical thinking and should stand up to rigorous questioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_haunted_world
Just as we are about to defeat superstition once and for all, we populate the world with new "spirits" called "Siri", "Alexa", and "Cortana".
We do this too, but we also often acknowledge, in front of the kids, that we have a lot of privilege to be able to do this. I want to make sure they know that poor people don't have the time to do what we do, because I already see signs of them asking "why don't homeless people just get jobs" and "did you know [classmate] has never been on a cruise before!!". I answer those questions too but I'm hoping to change their world view so they don't have to ask because they already know.
Obviously I had no idea what was going on. I went home to my parents very middle class home and promptly told my own Dad I wanted to take my 4th grade girlfriend to a Warriors game with box seats and a limo! How funny looking back.
This is a fair question to ask, though. Why don’t they just get jobs? What are the structural issues in society that lead to this? Why are some people chronically homeless while the average length of homelessness (for those experiencing it) is “just” around 150 days? Why is getting a job not the solution for many? Why are there even people with jobs who are homeless?
That’s a wonderful (and important) discussion to have!
There are entire fields of research devoted to the question “Why don’t people just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? What is preventing that?”. It’s a great question that everyone should take time to think about imo.
edit: this gets even more interesting when you expand beyond USA. Why are there homeless people in countries with full safety nets? When someone can collect unemployment or disability that is meant to cover basic needs, why are they on the streets and asking passersby for handouts?
I feel that it's more fruitful to not frame discussions on "why homeless people X" and instead think about why some of us end up losing any support and specially income so that the only and best option is to lose our home.
I don't think it's healthy let alone desirable to discourage pointed questions from kids. It's another thing altogether to teach them to be tactful and tip-toe in mixed company around sensitive topics (which goes beyond the level of maturity of a child), but they shouldn't have to do that with their own parents.
Reframing a question isn't tiptoeing around it: "that's a Wrong Question" is the start of an answer. Though, probably the kind of answer you'd give someone able to read The Ask and the Answer and realise it's about fascism.
Answering with a "Why don't they? What's keeping them from doing so?"-type reframe is the better approach for people not used to making such leaps on their own: you're teaching them to do this reframing, and to question premises.
(Wrong Question = question from an invalid premise)
No. The problem is not whether X has a job or not. The problem is why X was forced to lose their home. In this day and age you can still lose your home even if you are juggling multiple jobs.
Not with geared-to-income housing that one rents. A house you own, yes, but the outcome of no longer owning a home does not translate to homelessness.
Off the top of my head, homelessness can be caused by drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, financial distress, or a desire to just tune out from societies responsibilities. I'm sure there are more.
Some would like intervention, some would not. There is no "one size fits all" solution.
The easy ones to help are the ones who are homeless for financial reasons. They need a leg up, and once up will be just fine.
It's much harder when people are unemployable (mental illness, drug abuse etc) and basically need either reoccurring rehab, or long-term medical care. Our society does not function well for those too sick to fit in.
If it was honest direct question, the only true answer is that being homeless makes getting a job super hard. You need stability, you need address, you need to guard your belongings and you are too tired to be reasonably effective in work. And employer does not want you. And that is where it stops despite ignoring quite a huge amount of reality.
And the issue with homelessness is not primary job issue. It is housing cost issue. It is mental health issue. It is social safety network issue. And drug use issue and violence issue. It is many issues in perfect storm that touch jobs only in an artificial way.
edit: i'm serious. do you guys know any drug addicts? you lose your ability to make a plan.
Regardless of the extent of drugs' blame, I'm skeptical of any solution to homelessness that entails just putting them in a cubicle, "no strings", and declaring them no longer homeless. Yes it can be a useful mechanism, but there's more work to do beyond that, it's admission that there's more to fighting homelessness than shoving people in free apartments.
I'm more curious as to why there's not an equivalent grassroots leftist sentiment for getting them jobs, as though that were somehow undignified. But notwithstanding the sometimes distorted incentives, maybe that's the actual hard part - holding down a job, and getting one that pays enough to make rent. Jobs can give us a sense of meaning, but if validation and social needs are being replaced by a similar proxy among the homeless, then maybe motivation is stifled - on top of the general fatigue that comes from it.
Typed out that way, does that still make sense in your head?
This is not your typical chick-and-egg type problem. Those who are not addicted to something tend to be off the street relatively quickly. It's those with pre-existing problems that don't, such as drugs, mental instability, etc.
The over-representation of certain demographics amongst the homeless tells you full-stop this is true, such as war veterans.
Correct. Not overnight.
> Typed out that way, does that still make sense in your head?
Yes. It's not hard to get exposed in those circles.
> Those who are not addicted to something tend to be off the street relatively quickly.
Citation needed.
> It's those with pre-existing problems that don't, such as drugs, mental instability, etc.
Mental instability is self-medicated with drugs.
I'm guessing you've never seen directly or by proxy what happens when someone ends up in jail because they attacked a family member with a knife as a result of them going off their meds.
I didn't say mental illness, I said mental instability.
People with those sorts of mental instabilities find they have NO support structure because they're fundamentally unsafe to everyone but state actors.
https://www.hudexchange.info/sites/onecpd/assets/File/CoC-Sy...
It gets even worse for you when you start to realize the how many people aren't even counted because they're homeless for mere days due to being kicked out, unexpected circumstances, etc.
What you're thinking of are what's known as "chronically homeless" and your challenge is showing both that drug users are a significant portion of those who are homeless for under 100 days and that those who are not drug users are a significant portion of the chronically homeless.
For many people, there is, and they're capable of doing that work themselves once they're relieved from other pressures (like day-to-day survival). We all probably know someone that isn't enough for, but why not start with the lowest-cost interventions?
> maybe that's the actual hard part - holding down a job, and getting one that pays enough to make rent.
That's a hard thing for anyone – though within most people's ability. (Ignoring, for the moment, the question of whether people should be obliged to in order to continue living.) Having a place to live makes both getting and holding a job much easier.
Getting their square meals every day isn't the challenge for them. Even the meth tweakers eat.
> why not start with the lowest-cost interventions?
I don't think housing is the lowest-cost intervention
> Ignoring, for the moment, the question of whether people should be obliged to in order to continue living
No one is obliged to in the Western world, such is the safety net.
You MUST have an address to write on the forms, you must have a phone number. For a job you'll need to have a shower, clothes, transport, etc.
I recently interviewed a few high school students and they each made a point of professing their privilege. Even a kid who emigrated recently and lives in a poor part of town talked about his privilege. When everyone talks about their privilege, the word loses its meaning.
I understand the point of being self-aware. And I wouldn't have been so struck if some of the kids had used different words. But they just sounded like little robots, reciting a mandatory confession. So if you want to talk about privilege with your kids, at least mix up the terms every now and then.
Think about it this way. You worked damn hard so that your children have a better life. I know I do. So did my parents. Is it unfair that we give that advantage to our children? No. And certainly neither you or your children have anything to feel guilty about.
I’m not from the US so I don’t understand the whole slavery issue but still, no one alive today deserves this insane guilt put on them now for some ancestor sin. That’s called collective guilt and it’s why nazis killed Jews. People need to stop it.
Life is unfair and we are all different. What you do with your talents and resources is what counts. Not what some ancestor of yours did. It’s ridiculous. If you do feel privileged, give away your wealth. If you don’t, then don’t. But for gods sake stop feeling guilt about things you didn’t do.
There's a video with Dsouza (spelling?) where he's speaking at a college campus with a bunch of college kids who are attacking him in the Q&A. He made the point that college admissions is limited and if they truly believed what they were saying, they would quit college to give another the opportunity they are privileged to have.
Of course there were reasons why that particular college kid didn't have to do that...and more power to said college kid, I would defend their right to stay.
But I've always loved the hypocrisy in that moment.
I find it interesting that many people would be quick to recognize a physical trait as an advantage (like are we that impressed if a heavy weight boxer beats a light weight boxer?) But someone recognizing that race, family money, good genes, or whatever as advantages is somehow "woke" and apologetic.
It's like we have a world full of completely self-unaware Kramers (of Seinfeld fame) running around. So proud and unapologetic about their karate prowess... https://youtu.be/7t8xwpW8gJQ
Pack it in boys, we're the generation that's finally cracked the "understanding the world around you" nut!
What does that even mean?
This is all a social delusion, exactly like the ones we criticize in our history. This too shall pass (TM) and when it does, perhaps the next generation's response to it will be more useful in helping those that need help.
We don't know, but not recognizing this for what it is, is the height of delusion imo.
Understanding and empathy in this context mean exactly what I explained. Which is understanding how much of your success is built upon the shoulders of your family, community, and simply good luck.
This os the argument made by right wingers. No different from "pull yourself up with your bootstraps" and as a famous US rapper asked "pull ourselves up by the bootstraps? Where the f*ck are the boots?!"
Privilege isnt an issue of individuals, and I will never condone hate aimed at individual for supposed "privilege". But the people - before the word "woke" was plastered as a slogan for upper middle class white kids - have always been complaining that the system is not working to create an equal and fair society. Its selective. Its not in plain sight. To stay "woke" is to notice the subtleties of this new version, evolution of keeping black people as sub-human, incapable and dependent. To be woke ws to see the global order of economies and statecraft is mostly and pretty much exclusively European, the same people who see you as sub-human by holy writ. Thats a hard pill to swallow. You are kidding yourself if you think we can ignore all that and keep it moving.
To make an anology. Its like ocean fish being dumped in a fresh water river. People can sit on the outside and point proudly - "behold. The fish is in the fresh water and not in exposed atmos. Eat. Mate. Lay eggs and be merry." Do ocean fish really want to live as fresh water fish?
Yes, some people are in terrible circumstances due to forces beyond their control. But what you're doing is trying to convince everyone men should be treated as if they have a micro-penis because some men DO have a micro-penis.
The better messaging is that if you do NOT have a micro-penis, you have an opportunity for success if you learn decision making skills (yes, the analogy breaks down, but the point is made).
The messaging matters, but what ends up happening is those for whom the messaging is far less important tend to send the wrong signals because they're not the signals that help assuage their guilt for not helping.
What you are doing is taking things to a personal level when my point was really about systems, macro. So that an individual need not feel guilt. At least someone who isn't the head of state.
How can you make our society more equal and more fair? More "equal" makes it sound like fewer disproportionate outcomes by race. I can't think of a way to achieve that goal in a way that is "fair".
Slippery slope, e.g., acknowledging privilege or past wrongs leads to a dangerous path, such as the Holocaust.
False dilemma, e.g., either one must give away their wealth or not feel guilty, when there are other options.
Genetic fallacy, e.g., implying that the actions of ancestors should not be held against someone because they are not responsible for their ancestors actions. Even if someone didn't choose to have a certain privilege, that does not mean that it does not exist.
Strawman Fallacy, e.g., presenting a misrepresenation of the idea of collective guilt and suggesting that it is the same as Nazis killing Jews.
Like I said, I agree to the extent that guilt can be unproductive. If one feels that, though, about systemic injustices that allowed them to attain a privileged position in life, it could be seen as an invitation to address those and/or current injustices.
How would you have approached it?
GGP comment here was maybe better than most for actually relating the alleged fallacies to what the parent had said directly, but I think it'd be better/politer/more honest good discussion to phrase it like 'this is not the same because blah blah. This kind of argument is known as a blah fallacy.' or not even mention the fallacy, because does it really matter? Unless that's what you want to talk about instead of the actual topic.
It's a bit like saying 'I went through your comment looking for grammatical errors: 1) split infinitive, e.g. blah; 2) missing possessive apostrophe, e.g. blah's blah not blahs blah, ...' versus talking about the content instead and perhaps politely mentioning it. Just a bit 'ha, got you'.
Because that's often what these things are, a test of the values considered important. If accuracy is not important, by all means, don't point out the flaws but rather concentrate on making the other person feel good. Just understand what it is you're doing.
But ask yourself this: How do you arrive at the truth if pointing out inaccuracies is not valued? At that point, why are you even engaging?
Something to think about.
I think you're right, this style of discussion can appear confrontational and focusing on scoring points.
I didn't see it at first - I was just parsing the words without imagining how it might be perceived.
And just as an aside it feels a bit hollow to list it out like this. It reads like a code review from the junior that just finished reading a book on design patterns or code smells. Direct engagement and counterpoint addressing the substance of the argument could be less gimmicky.
There's a first time for everything.
It would be akin to trying to get an extremely wealthy child to understand the experience of using a washing machine for years on end when they've never even seen one because the help does all of that for them.
Or the reverse, to get a middle class child to understand what it's like to have never even seen a washing machine because you have other humans who do it all for you.
It's the human condition.
But what you're doing is performative in the same way that screaming at people on twitter rather than actually working to help child abuse victims is performative.
It's a way to assuage your feelings of guilt without expending enough of yourself to attempt to improve others' lives.
---
On a side note, I'm aware HN is a "safe space" for folks like yourself, but sometimes it needs to be said. Perspective is a hell of a drug and often when I see posts like this it gets my gander up as someone who went from extreme poverty to privilege. And to answer the question that's coming, I'm known to be extremely charitable to _persons_ who need it, but I don't go out of my way to solve the general problem either. But the difference is I have no illusions about it.
But also, why do people assume others can't have empathy? I don't have to touch a hot stove to know it hurts. I don't need to live in poverty to understand how difficult it is.
Growing up Jewish I have been discriminated against, but I don't assume anyone who isn't Jewish can't understand my discrimination.
It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder, or perhaps guilt for getting out of your situation. You shouldn't. You should be proud of your accomplishments.
But you should also give people the benefit of the doubt that they can actually have empathy even if they haven't lived it.
You do need to touch a hot stove to understand what a burn feels like, just as you need to actually deliver a baby to understand what that feels like. "It hurts" is not understanding in the same way that I'll never truly understand what an orgasm feels like for a woman (and vice versa for them). I've read it starts in the stomach and moves upwards through the body until it climaxes in the head, but who knows if that's actually true. Certainly for me it doesn't feel that way.
Here's the question you have to answer.
If you're walking by a drain that has a dozen chicks trapped in it but do nothing outside of recognize their plight, are you a good person for having recognized or a bad person for that recognition not being a call to action?
_THAT_ is the basic moral quandry you're up against and I'm pointing out that not only is your solution wrong, you're trying to convince others you're moral rather than just neutral.
The best thing that happened when my daughters were born was that, as the author suggests, you get to experience the world (and life) again vicariously through their eyes. There were in fact seemingly ordinary things in the world that I had come to take for granted.
My loss.
This is such a beautiful way to express it. Thanks for sharing.
I cannot stand the cynicism about child rearing nowadays. Our generation chooses to believe that our worries are unique (they aren't). They think they know what raising a child is like because they too were once children, or know others with children. They have no clue.
Again, parenting has been f*ing hard. If I could go back to my old life in a time machine, would I? Hell no.
Almost all these bullet points sound ominous when the author contrasts adult behavior with kid behavior, and she undoubtedly notices the difference too.
Expect the sour behavior when routines get broken or just plain boring, unfamiliar people start coming into the picture due to school or other social needs, pets come and go, moving to a new home, etc. Lots of energy will be dedicated to curiosity, language building, and asking questions since this is all just as profound to her as seeing anything else for the first time. It shapes a personality.
All of the consuming problems in his life consist of what toys he wants to play with, which friends he wants to see and what he wants to do, but there’s no doubt he has them. He’s not so concerned with discovering the world around any more (though still more than an adult), and he has a model for how he fits inside it. Maybe this comes from gaining a true sense of self?
The kids brain will develop in normal way and thus the things parent does will change. But really nothing suggest unusual issues.
Nowadays there are many tools available enabling a person to half-ass parenthood, but they all come at a cost which becomes apparent later, the most glaring example being diet.
It's important to put in as much effort as you can, but it's equally important to not pay attention to people trying to one-up you about this.
> The last few months in Warsaw were very cloudy, so if one of them suddenly shines through the clouds, it’s a big occasion to celebrate.
Just an hour ago I got into a heated debate about this because my friends extrapolate the climate in Warsaw to the whole country.
The weather is one thing I don't miss about that place, having grown up there.
I think a lot of it is self-selection from the commenters - negative comments on an article like this will be perceived as assholeish, so people just skip it.
Because you may find it's not for you. Or even just that things you thought are important are actually wrong or harmful.
These gushing articles can be very encouraging. Yet the experience can vary widely.
It's also good to talk to a variety of parents. Ideally some willing to confide the less pleasant aspects. Because it can be years of painful sacrifice. And some find they cannot handle it, or wished they had made different choices.
I don't personally plan on having kids but this wouldn't help at all. It's like test driving a car by doing the oil and tire change. Everybody knows taking care of a kid is hard/dirty/&c. that's the only part you'll get by babysitting one.
You'll get all the nasty and annoying stuff without any of the positive/long term/meaningful things
IME this isn't true of everyone. And for some the difficulty and sacrifice may be very abstract. Then when faced with the concrete reality some find they cannot stomach it.
Babysitting sux in ways being with own kid does not - being with own kid is easier and more pleasant. And conversely, own baby wakes you up and requires much more of your time on the regular basis.
Would be parents need to be well informed of what responsibilities and risks they take on before they're parents.
Many don't have a concrete understanding of how difficult it can be, even for a day. And hearing only from parents who have had a lot of positive experiences and help may encourage an unrealistic outlook.
A couple of thoughts: I think grandparents love grandkids because they finally realize how precious and limited life is. So, they love now more than they've ever loved, and in return they receive love back. It's a shame more parents don't realize it until their kids are fully grown.
One lesson missing: negotiate like your life depends on it. Kids, especially toddlers, are the most ruthless, sociopathic negotiators. They're infinitely attentive. They will adjust their demands in real time if they don't think they think that they're losing out. They will use every tool at their disposal.
Instant Pokemon Go flashback. ;)
That sums it up
Seems OK to me.
But anyway, I think it’s mostly about flamewar potential.
Anyone looking at having children (or any other relationship really) through the lens of cost/benefit will arrive at the logical conclusion that it's a huge investment with an uncertain reward, so likely not worth it from that perspective. There's no arguing with logical reasoning.
People in the developed world(or adjancent) have children anyway because they allow themselves to not apply such thinking for once.
Many people with children talk about how much more wonderful their life has been since they've had them (including here in HN comments). If you think there is a good chance of that happening to you, that's the "benefit" in the cost/benefit analysis and having children can end up being the logical conclusion.
I assume you meant developing world, in which case the reason is probably that many women do not have the opportunity to apply such thinking, due to lacking financial independence and/or access to highly effective contraception such as IUDs.
Nope, developed, where people have children despite a culture of analysing everything to death.
Agreed. Having kids can cause you to change, often for the better. You have the opportunity to be completely selfless.
People often do the worst things to the better part of humanity in the name of "family". I think, among other texts, this heuristic of not being overly attached to family is still relevant if we don't want to sublimate and becomes completely isolated as a species.
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Matthew 10:37)
Yes I know the above isn't an article from Gwern or some sort of neuvo-techo-traditionalist diatribe, or even a peer reviewed paper. My point being that this civic feeling was enough of a point of contention that the authors of the Bible thought to include it.
Anyways, this wasn't meant to be an attack, more like a, what do you think?
I argue that selflessness can only occur from people who can help those thar have no capacity to help themselves. The old, children, the infirmed, the powerless.
The bit I quoted in hindsight does read like fanatical dribble. I'll lean on Tolstoy here and say that from his angle, he posited that only a larger, universally conscious philosophical system (one that many people can understand, not just scientists or philosophers) would elevate our social systems to consider more than just our immediate family.
I think there is definitely choice wisdom in these kinds of collected works, the fact that corrupt churches etc leverage these things is another matter, I think you could read it tabula rasa.
Anyways back to the point, imo you probably don't need a large binding locus like God in smaller groups. I suppose even in larger societies bonds could be maintained along cultural/economic/etc lines. I could in fact just worship science (as DFW says, we all worship).
Having a philosophical system that encourages self-effacement seems to me to be what could undergird the impetus to be selfless. If it happens to be religion or science based doesn't matter, but it's atleast something that has thought put into it and has been QA'd so to speak.
Also I agree with you on your last point, but I think for it to occur it needs to have a why, and the why (to me) can't just be 'cuz family' because it doesn't scale (literally).
I'd go further in the case for selflessness and say that _if_ the happenstance of the decision to be selfless is based on some unthoughtout biological drive, then can it really be selfless? Thinking is the thing here, and why should this necessarily lead to broader self effacement. That's like saying I'd donate my liver to my brother (cuz he's my brother) and after that the consequences and ritual and beauty of the donation are enough to warrant the possible future where I might donate another organ to a complete stranger, because I did the dance.
Both groups state what they consider to be socially appropriate reasons. They might not be entirely made up, but both groups keep the remaining deeply personal reasons for themselves. They reveal them only if they feel very safe.
Freedom of choice offers unlimited possibilities and claws out from momentum and yells at you to think about your choice. Most peoples 'secret' reason for having kids usually amounts to, 'because that's just how it is'.
Absolute statements like this are one of the reasons I avoid the conversation about kids vs no kids. It may be the most rewarding experience of your life, but I can assure you that your experience is not universal.
Unfortunately there is quite the philosophical, ideological, and even dogmatic schism between the two sides.
Like another post I read, if you do have to enter a debate about it, it's probably a more useful exercise to ask each other what it would take for their stance to change.