Only on Hacker News would someone post a response this patronising and argumentative. I think the point he made was fine, and I'm way glad to have heard his story. It was lovely.
I disagree and I think the comment is valid. I know many cases in which children and parents are not close emotionally or physically (live away). As they say, your mileage may vary.
It might be logically valid, but it's pretty emotionally tone-deaf to blithely dismiss a long heartfelt personal account by saying "Survivor bias. Caveat emptor." Read the room, as they say.
I don't even think it's logically valid. I think if you raise your children well, the chance that they'll be there for you in old age is very high. If you don't have kids, the chance you will have friends that loyal is low. Blood is thicker than water, people should be realistic.
How do you measure that statistically? All you have are personal experiences. Saying, "not statistics, isn't valid" is obtuse, it leaves you unable to understand anything that is difficult to measure at scale.
> Blood is thicker than water, people should be realistic.
Somewhat off-tangent here, but this is a frequent misunderstanding of this particular quote. The actual quote is: “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb” and it means the exact opposite of what we now use it for. The intended meaning is that relationships entered into as adults are much stronger and deeper than those we are forced into through accident of birth simply because they are intentional. While I hope my children will be there for me in old age, I know that I will be there for my wife and closest friends even though we are not bound by any particular genetic imperative.
> Somewhat off-tangent here, but this is a frequent misunderstanding of this particular quote. The actual quote is: “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb” and it means the exact opposite of what we now use it for.
I hadn't heard of that expression before, so I looked a little at the corresponding Wikipedia page [0] and the sources that talks about this quote [1 and 2]. I also looked at Quora question about the quote [3].
From what I understand, there is no way one with any certainty can say that: "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb” => "blood is thicker than water".
There doesn't seem to be a direct "the blood of the covenant . . ." quote either.
My own thought: I think it is possible that the meaning of both quotes can be true at the same time:
a) If you make a blood covenant with someone => Strong bond, and maybe stronger than with family members.
b) If something serious happens in your life, family bonds tend to be stronger than that of a friend, at least if you don't have some type of covenant (in a broad sense) with that friend.
That appears to be a matter of discussion - the oldest current recordings don't have the conventant comparison and it seems to be a couple of scholars claiming that bit.
This fits my family to some degree. My dad was a little upset that his mom left so much to some friends over him. But, he lived 2000 miles away and while he made a point of calling to talk to her every day she still probably had a stronger relationship with the people that she hung out with than him at the end of it.
I think the reason the meaning shifted is that the original meaning is not particularly accurate. Although that said, I'm looking into it and it doesn't seem settled that that is the etymylogical root. That root also specifically refers to blood shed in battle. My guess is it was war propaganda.
I think the reason is the shorter version is easier to remember, and people love to attribute genuine wisdom to these kinds of statements. Because the shorter version is easier to remember it is near at hand and got used more.
Not really, it's a valid correlation that children raised well generally have better relationships with their parents.
Sometimes children are raised well and turn out to be little shits, but given that we're not drafting a scientific study in the comment section conversational generalities should be forgiven, unless you want every conversation to be so paralyzed by pedantry that no real content is discussed.
>I think if you raise your children well, the chance that they'll be there for you in old age is very high.
Our old friend Dunning-Kruger rather spoils this strategy. I know many people who have been abandoned by their children, but none who could proffer even the vaguest hint of why they might be to blame. Very few people intentionally set out to alienate their children, but plenty of people do it anyway.
Well we can define "having enough self awareness to acknowledge one's flaws and failings" as a precursor for "raising children well". Or more succinctly: "Narcissists don't raise children well".
Note that the entire perception of children has changed over the previous century, and the modern notion of emotionally as well as physically providing for children as a universal constant is a VERY new concept. We still haven't figured out how to do it en masse, although a decent chunk of the population seems to figure it out on their own.
OK, but it's also hacker news. If we just want positive anecdotes and feel-good inspirational stories that don't get debated, and which don't fully address the point or get to the heart of the matter, we could go to a Tony Robbins seminar, and I say this as a both a dad and as someone who doesn't want to go to a Tony Robbins seminar.
True, but as someone who has seen many a HN discussion that lacks any sort of empathy or comprehension of social norms or conventions, I cannot help but to advocate for emotional literacy and for the understanding of emotional appeal. Perhaps some of the tech companies and platforms we are seeing face so many problems right now could benefit from emotional literacy. Too much head and not enough heart, one could say.
Also agreed. I don't think anyone would argue that there aren't socially-challenged posters on the internet.
On the other hand, it's almost impossible to actually discuss certain socially-mandated topics objectively without someone playing the "emotionally stunted" card against anyone who takes the negative off the socially mandated position. And the poster in this case didn't call anyone names, and is also responding in a thread about worldwide birthrates. Far from being out of place and not reading the room, I think the second poster trying to effectively stigmatise his reply is the one in the wrong/ that can't read the room. If this is not the place for such a reply, it's hard to imagine where would be.
The root post is very emotional and personal to the point of not really germane to this discussion as a whole. But it was sweet and heartfelt, and the proper response is to simply let it be, and respond to other branches in this very long discussion thread. If one disagrees with the thesis, they can simply ignore it and engage with a different subthread that advances it using a non-emotional approach.
Being prudent about which battles to fight and which debates to pick up and what statements merit argument is part of understanding social norms.
How would you suggest they broach the point that not every family turns out well?
That some end up with kids watching from the car while their mom fights dad's drunken mistress in the Safeway parking lot while dad himself watches on, smoking a cigarette and having a beer?
It's also obvious that some people have had great experiences with kids, yet someone posts it anyways, because this is a discussion forum where we share ideas, question and provide couterpoints. When someone posts a sentimental story as a singular data point on why kids are great, and follows it with a recommendation on having kids, they should expect feedback of all sorts, no?
I find adversarial pedantry much more common than opening up about deep emotional experience, in general, and the latter is way more informative. I don't care that you can say, "not true 100% of the time, QED." Yes, ok, well done. I couldn't possibly have realised that on my own. So glad you have now stifled any emotional depth that the conversation was taking on.
>It might be logically valid, but it's pretty emotionally tone-deaf to blithely dismiss a long heartfelt personal account by saying "Survivor bias. Caveat emptor." Read the room, as they say.
I think the (inadvertent) tone-deafness can work both ways. The gp (gregfjohnson) in telling his personal account was also inadvertently tone-deaf to some potential readers.
If I can compress his comment into 2 parts:
- part 1: "I would like to contribute a bit of information. [...heartfelt story of the joys children and grandchildren...]" <-- can't criticize the part about personal joys
- part 2: "I highly recommend it." <-- this advice inadvertently rubs some readers the wrong way
Although some replies (from nostromo, drukenemo, etc) didn't agree with gregfjohnson, it was triggered by the "recommendation". A reader can dismiss part 2 (recommendation) without dismissing part 1 (personal joys) at all. There are 2 separate concepts there.
Likewise, someone else could write the opposite story, "I don't have the hassle of kids and can go vacations whenever I want. I highly recommend it." -- and a reader with happy children will dismiss the "recommendation" without invalidating the freedom of vacations.
tldr: just because you're relaying a wonderful personal story doesn't mean your "advice" will be accepted at face value because some readers don't see the positive personal anecdote as (logical) evidence for the advice.
I was in here earlier and the vast majority of comments were something along the lines of "I did the social maths and children have been determined unworthy, QED" so the GP I think was just responding with their anecdote to provide another perspective.
It's not surprising that someone immediately jumped on it to argue the maths so to speak, but it is slightly disappointing even if predictable. IMHO it should be ok for someone to recommend something to you that you don't like without it being seen as an invitation to a fight.
You misunderstand the goal. Both the OP and the responder are engaging in a conversation where they are presenting different sides of understanding so that everyone involved has more total information.
They are not arguing over who is right or wrong, they are cooperating so that everyone is more informed.
