it's no secret that the pool of smart, introverted men vastly outnumbers the pool of smart, introverted women. i can get along with pretty much any chick for a while, but i really don't think i could spend the rest of my life with a girl who wasn't at least somewhat intelligent, and who doesn't require the constant maintenance of an extrovert.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34974874)

cope

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975527)

I don't really regret avoiding marriage in UG though because I probably would have gone to LS then, and that would have been terrible. Same goes for the early extremely low-paying years of my job, where I was pretty fat as well. This past year has been the first time in my life where trying to get married actually seems like a good idea, disregarding my own personal sentiments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975460)

The bigger shift was one of perspective and outlook. I was a huge striver as a kid, strived my way into a top UG, and was really disappointed and repulsed by the world I found there. Their values were vapid, their morals were repugnant, their politics were terrifying, and the major career paths, while lucrative, seemed miserable. Not only that, but all those trends were clearly intensifying nationwide. I grew up in the Bush years in a very conservative, traditional, patriotic milieu. UG brought the realization that everything I valued and believed in was in steep, perhaps terminal decline.

Besides killing my striver impulse, all this sort of changed my personality in a hard-to-describe way. I'm less respectful of authority, I'm more of a rule breaker (despite still being a total prude), I'm more laid-back (striving is flame, so why be uptight?), I'm funnier, and I'm definitely stranger. In high school, I was really smart but not known for much else. As an adult I think a lot of people consider me a full-blown eccentric.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34976004)

I don't disagree with Sasse on much. I dislike him for his priorities and demeanor, which seem to imagine all of America is still like Nebraska, and the country isn't in a steadily-escalating crisis where a large and powerful faction essentially wants his culture and way of life destroyed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34983194)

*denied scholarship*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34983126)

im trying to get OUT of the modern urban dystopia, not further into Gotham's filth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34974982)

freshman year of college, in a class, and locked it down fast

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975725)

Work.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975760)

LOL @ wanting to marry an extrovert. Introverted females are fucking awesome.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975770)

1) desperately convince others that they have to have kids

2) rage about "dinks" and how they need to be taxed to death

3) accuse non-kidhavers of having all the worst traits that they themselves still do but now have to hide away for the kids

It's very sad

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34974816)

1) I'm not trying to convince just anyone to have kids; rather, high-IQ likely-white people who are apt to delay childbirth endlessly.

2) I certainly do not favor confiscatory taxes. Taxes are way too high across the board. I would like a large tax credit or what have you for kids, esp. one that was regressive such that it kicked in at high brackets, but that's just because eugenics is good social policy.

3) I didn't say kids were ennobling, I said there are parts that are very enjoyable. Character is largely fixed throughout life; kids won't change that. And happiness surveys show people will take a happiness hit after kids, though I suspect much of that is due to over-parenting and crazed expectations. Regardless, happiness surveys show recovery to baseline or better in later years, and there are many deeply touching and moving moments in the interim if you're open to them.

* * *

In short, you've made plain you have an axe to grind on this subject, and that's fine - I say, sharpen your axe to its utmost. But it comes off as a bit thin-skinned when you take any and every poast about the joys of kids or similar as some sort of concerted attack on your lifestyle (which you're perfectly entitled to lead).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34974865)

In any case, I'm going to assume that you are too smart to believe this bullshit about "happiness surveys"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34974900)

The main joys of having kids seem to do with small or precious moments that make the daily dizzying and horrifying moments worth it.

Everything is a trade off.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34974913)

For example, "Great Society" programs, welfare, and dependent credits have led to an explosion of out-of-wedlock childbirths in the American black community, and over a few generations this has gutted that community. All of this was perfectly predictable at the time, even using the social stats of the day (Moynihan was pilloried before he was praised). But sensible policies which avoid dysgenic effects (at minimum) cannot even be considered if the whole field is barred with the catchword, "racism."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34983033)

*shits on the only people trying to ensure millennials will see a penny*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975773)

Does make a lot more sense for twins though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975652)

Also, the fact that you think all non-childmos do is fuck sluts and stack cash says more about your life pre-family than anything else. I’d have to give up a lot of things I love and am pursuing to raise a family. It’s a trade-off that I’m not sure is worth it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975540)

It's the most 180 thing with the right woman and I wish I had done it a couple of years sooner. For my friends in unhappy marriages, though, having kids has almost universally made things worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975753)

Guys, many of us have nieces and nephews. We've seen this. It is also kind of obvious that this line is self-serving. It isn't like we can have kids and then openly regret it. It just isn't socially acceptable. So you have to make the best of it and pretend like the small cute things outweigh the huge costs (financial, emotional and physical), whether it is true or not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975752)

Look, it's true. I have no interest in other people's kids -- I don't even really care much for my niece and nephew. My daughter, on the other hand, is tied for my favorite person in the world.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975769)

Chink niece and nephew?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975789)

i actually wasn't getting at the racial angle, but more the fact that on your side the kid has your DNA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975808)

It really is different when it's yours. The comments in this thread about being woken up in the middle of the night, poop, etc. -- ROFL. It sucks for a few months when you're tired, but after that you care so deeply that she starts crying in the middle of the night and you bound into her room to comfort her. It's instinctual and really not an issue v. being woken up by, e.g., neighbors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975821)

Re costs - nobody is denying the costs.

Re your accusation of bad faith and effrontery: it is inconsistent with the data, which shows happiness rebounds after having kids, few regret having them long term, and everybody loves grandkids. But you're entitled to your beliefs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975793)

Well, happiness studies show you're fine either way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975823)

The cute little moments are only meaningful due to this bond, not because they are in themselves meaningful moments. They only have meaning because only you as the parent have the context of all the things that happened to get to the point where they say this thing or do this action (because you taught them, because their little brain finally made a connection that x leads to y, etc). Without that context and that bond, it’s not meaningful when your nephew or niece does the exact same thing.

I admit it’s harder for fathers to develop this bond compare to mothers, but given your love for shitpits and overpriced SUVs, I don’t think it impossible for you to develop a bond with your own kid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34976332)

I have to say, I will never understand Fish's overwhelmingly pro-marriage opinion combined with his inability to understand the bond created between parent and child. To me they are two sides of the same coin, it's just that he's experienced one and not the other.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34976351)

I just don't understand how he argues so vehemently for one while not understanding the other. Unless it's shtick to some degree.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34976416)

That's just crazy talk.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34978197)

That said, I had a child under ideal circumstances...healthy child, unlimited grandma help who lives in the same neighborhood, no financial problems, everybody is home before 6 and flex schedules. I don’t know if the little moments are worth it to people who have children in a lot less ideal situations. For the majority of people, being away from extended family makes raising kids a fundamentally different experience that isn’t as enjoyable. Your situation is also an example of a nightmare that parents often fear. That you had another child under those circumstances is pretty amazing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34975824)

In the spirit of striking back against the oppression of kid-havers, here's something for you smug fucks to consider: a great deal of what kid-havers believe is some kind of elevated, quasi-spiritual love bond with their children is just their ape brains steering them with the same neurotransmitter conditioning that drives most of our behavior. You guys think you're doing something special but you're just rooting around in the same behavioral pigpen as anything else in the animal kingdom. You're indulging your ego when you affirm to yourself that reproducing is part of a really special destiny that truthfully is nothing than a routine biological expression. Many of you also reduce the crucial emphasis of family down to the most vain, self-regarding component: oh whooo look at little meeeeee what a special little person!

*dies a l o n e*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34983084)

So why not cut the crap? You're not oppressed. There is no conspiracy. At most you've endured mild needling from your mother, who just wants grandkids. And the "stunning insights" you offer have been re-discovered by each generation, usually by kids in adolescence, and eventually integrated into a mature personality.

If you don't want kids, or don't have them, that's your choice & preference, and I wish you a long and happy life. But let's drop the pretense you folks are rebels taking on the evil Nappyian empire.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34983122)

My post is loudly tongue-in-cheek but the main THRUST is valid: out IRL, childless people rarely probe people with children about their rationale and then insist they ought to reconsider their choices. Meanwhile it's evidently acceptable for people with children to question the wisdom of anyone who didn't spawn. Grass is greener, everything is a tradeoff, nobody knows what they're missing out on, yada yada. They're all trite arguments for a yugely consequential action.

Frankly, despite the supposed emotional broadening that children grant their parents , the kid-haver's frequent practice of not understanding why others choose differently is the more autistic of the two positions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34983490)

It could be we have a mere empirical disagreement, or hang out with different people, such that we're just two ships passing in the night. I've observed plenty of twentysomething to early-thirties people who BLANCH and ICK and MAKE FACES at the revolting prospect of seeing a dumb baby in their facebook feeds (I don't like seeing them either, and do not post mine!) then make it into some sort of life philosophy. And I've spoken to many people, online and IRL, who subscribe to the notion humanity is a curse or stain which must be removed -- indeed, I see this as the logical endpoint for an intellectually consistent lib in today's climate -- and it is this pozzed strain I mainly tilt against.

But you come from a different angle. If I understand you right, you are saying (among other things) that, in your experience IRL, kidhavers often upbraid nokidmos and inveigle them with trite arguments (never know what you've missed, precious memories, etc.), whereas the converse is seldom true, and this state of play is problematic given the consequences of kidhaving are vast and only one side may fairly be considered.

All this may be true, but it's no argument against kidhaving. Rather, it is a statement the arguments you've heard for having kids are not good. But query: what are the odds you would have heard good arguments, even if they existed, given most kid-havers were simply driven by a biological imperative, whereas abstainers are going against the grain?

That is a far cry from saying good arguments are not out there. I've offered a couple decent ones ITT, mostly drawn (w.r.t. the stats mentioned) from Bryan Caplan's _Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids._ [This in regards to happiness surveys, surveys re: grandkids, surveys re: people who wished they didn't have kids.]

I'd make two other observations here.

First, to the extent you're an oddball (most here are) the best bet you have of finding someone who understands you is simply to create them, such that you can have a good shot at a very deep bond for decades for the price of financial pain & discomfort. That's pretty good.

Second, the no-kidmos assessment of the dynamics of the kid-having choice may be backwards. _Because_ no-kidmos are the types to use logic and reason to game out a choice like having kids, they're precisely the ones who should be breeding more, but unfortunately, as just discussed, they are likely to encounter only facile arguments for having kids, at best. And this tendency will just worsen over time, as the sentimentalists have more kids without considering relevant factors and rational nokidmos delay. Eventually, we come to a state where most people having kids have not weighed relevant considerations -- but that's just because, genetically, they are the type of people not to weigh relevant considerations! Yet, as noted, that says nothing about the strength of arguments for or against kidhaving.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34983819)

2) the asymmetry between breeders' proselytization to the childless and lack thereof in the contrary direction is perfectly justified by society's self-interested need for breederism (and hence, the society's self-reproduction) to prevail as a social norm. it is not, and does not need to be, justified on any greater level than that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34986034)

2) I'm not asking anyone to justify the behavior. You're waging some kind of polemic for a biological imperative when nobody is questioning it. The point was only that society does hold an odd double standard where the choice not to have kids is viewed askew and openly questioned, but most parents would be perplexed and offended if someone asked them why they chose to have children.

The dynamic used to make more sense when having kids was necessary for security and survival purposes. In our blown out post-industrial GC rocket ride to hell, children aren't as critical to the overall livelihood of most people. The social norm is at least partly born out of that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3836449&forum_id=2#34987958)