Yeah but the difference is, I labelled it as "personal experience", and not some sort of "study". I also did not state it was in any way evidence for anything.
I simply said that in my experience, it's been great fun...
It's up to you though. Don't have kids.. Don't buy a house. Go travelling. Just don't get to 80 and wish you had done things differently.
Wow. Timr nailed it. It/They, You, I are very powerful context words. Next time you get in a real-life, face to face argument with someone and you want to escalate to shouting - start using you do this, you do that. I've overheard parents doing this with their kids many times. "Why don't you clean up your room?"
For bonus points, if you want to appear to be an elitist/snob to people you've just met say stuff like "This restaurant is the best" or "You should try this restaurant". I think this is called the God perspective (You passing judgement). (Always better to just make a statement of your opinion - "I like this place. Their food is different")
The OP is suggesting that a published study is "cherry-picking" data -- but isn't providing any evidence to support his claim. His only argument is his personal opinion.
It's sad that a blatant logical fallacy can become the second-highest-rated comment attached to this article.
Published or not, "happiness research" is notoriously difficult. It isn't exactly hard science.
Here's another personal opinion: our daughter is pretty much the most important thing I've ever done, and even if something like Hecl were to become hugely popular, she still would be to me, although perhaps not to the world at large. I would bet that someone like Linus might feel similarly.
Many other things you do in life might have significant impacts on lots of other people (perhaps adding up to 'more overall impact'), but a child's life and future is entirely in your hands, which is a huge responsibility.
Exactly, what happens when you get older and realize that you haven't actually DONE anything.
You will die and no one will actually blink an eye. YOU may have had great experiences, but if you have no one with to share them, after you die they are gone.
Start a great company? How many of the web 2.0 companies people are starting actually will change people's lives?
In eight generations time, about 200 years, your offspring will have 256 ancestors to learn about.
Do you really think they will bother if you have no other achievements other than having kids? How much do you know about your ancestors from the 1800s? How much do you know about the greatest scientests from the 1800s?
Immortality doesn't come from your children. For most of us we don't have a shot at it at all, of course. But as we will be dead I doubt we will care.
I said nothing of immortality, I said of SHARING. When I was 12-14 I used to go play golf with my grandfather and he would tell me stories of his time in WWII, or working on the nuclear tests after the war. My other grandfather used to take us out on his boat. Neither will be remembered in 200 years, but they both had a lot of fun sharing their stories with their grand kids.
As for immortaility, I don't care to get my name in a history book, but I do want to leave my mark on the world. I want to CHANGE something. One of my grandfathers was a doctor and started a hospital in Guatemala. Which do you think has had more positive effect on the world? One of you guys comes us with a web 2.0 startup selling advertisements, makes 10 million dollars for yourself, has no kids, and then the site dies after 5 years, you die 50 years later. Or the guy who never made a huge amount of money, but started a hospital? His name may not be remembered, but his contribution has an effect on people everyday.
1) You can share stories with lots of people other than grand kids. Try having a wife, friends, or a blog.
2) Guy who makes 10 million and donates 1 of it probably has more positive effect on the world. I'm not sure what the going rate on a Guatemalan hospital is, but sure it's less than that.
3) One living startup founder is by far the biggest philanthropist of all time, and has raised and begun to deploy an amount of charity money that could probably double the number of hospitals in the world and still have 3/4 of its funds left. He'll likely do more to wipe out malaria than all of humanity has up to this point.
Nice subtle racism. "I'm not sure what the going rate on a Guatemalan hospital is, but I'm sure it's less than [1 million dollars]". A million dollars barely buys you an MRI machine - which would cost the same no matter where you are since it is an international market. A million dollars doesn't build a building, even if you think Mexico is cheaper, it is not 1/500th of the price.
Preceded by "try having .. a blog". Yes, the father/son connection and the blog/reader connection are definitely comparable. I see your point, and will now sever family ties in favor of blogging.
And then you site Bill Gates - as if that is a typical startup founder. Not even sure what that has to do with anything.
I'm pretty glad Jonas Salk's forebears didn't share your opinions on "immortality". Fortunately, yours is one of the rare misapprehensions that self-corrects. ;)
In a bit of stereotypical geekery, anyone remember the star trek episode where they pick up the fighter pilot when they go to the past, and realize they can't keep him because he's sort of a nobody, but his kid will be someone very important?
YOU may have had great experiences, but if you have no one with to share them, after you die they are gone.
Shall I introduce you to the phenomena known as "writing" and "publishing"? No, wait! I see you've already discovered them for yourself!
There are also concepts like "teaching", "friendship", "neighborliness", and "public service" that you might like to explore. If you die without kids and "nobody blinks an eye"... it's not because you didn't have kids.
I strongly suspect there are probably a few comparable studies out there that draw quite different conclusions and I think it's too bad the author didn't do a better job of covering the actual details of the studies as well as the results of the overall research in this area.
Wouldn't it make sense to first check if there are different conclusions before you declare "it's too bad" the writer failed to mention them? Google has this new feature called Search. You might like it.
I strongly suspect our happiness is controlled by drugs in our water system, but the author failed to cover research in the area of "I make shit up on the internet".
Happiness is subjective, and frankly my happiness is dependent on what I achive in life, as I expect most people on here are. People on here are trying to set up companies, most of whom will likely fail as most start-ups do in the first couple of years and they bring a lot of stress and depression, but everyone on here seems positively extatic that they're doing something that in two decades they can say they did something with their life.
I would hate myself if I got to 80 and realised I'd never accomplished anything. If I have kids, I know I'll have done at least _something_ with my life, I'll be able to say 'I raised my 2.4 kids well' and be proud of it. Just like I'm proud that I've moved to a different country.
I'm proud of my life already and I'm only in my 20's, having kids is only going to make me more proud of my life, just as many other things I aim to accomplish will. So I really don't care if I'm not as smiley happy for a few years as I'll be happy that I've done things other people haven't.
Actually, I think I remember an article claiming that having a startup does make entrepreneurs happy. It's everything else (income, social life, stress level) that gets worse for entrepreneurs when they start their own business.
Working for myself has definitely lowered my income, at least for the short term. But I'm fairly happy.
It always amuses me when people point to their kids as their proudest achievement. It puts me in mind of this:
function generation(input) {
output = input + 0;
generation(output);
}
Lots of activity, no progress. Your greatest achievement should be something you did that any kids you have would be proud of. Merely spwaning offspring is something that anyone can do - and some of the best kids in every generation come from the worst homes so 'doing it right' is hardly a value added activity.
Raising a child is a lot more than "spwaning offspring." You're obviously not a parent and have no appreciation for what your parents have done for you.
In the meantime keep playing halo and wanking to online porn.
Insisting that only parents can have opinions on the subject of kids is a bit odd. I would bet that you have an opinion on nuclear power, despite never having built a reactor in your back yard.
Society pays quite a lot towards the cost of children as well (depending on where you are). For example here roughly 10% of income is taxed to pay for universal healthcare, of which a large chunk goes to subsidised and free care for children. If society is picking up part of the bills it should get part of the credit.
(And I don't play Halo, nor am I single. I'm not even that young. Ad hominem is the lowest form of argument.)
I don't know, I think kids are one of those things that change your mind about a lot of things, when you actually have them.
It's funny hearing non-parents views sometimes, as they bear little relation to how things really go in practice.
Imagine taking relationship advice from someone who has never had a girlfriend. Sure, they can have an opinion, but I'm not likely to take much notice of it.
I wouldn't go to a non-parent for advice on how to quiet a toddler or get your kids to help clean the house. On the other hand, parents can be somewhat irrational when it comes to societal issues. Risk tolerance goes way down, particularly for "dramatic" risks like child abduction.
He isn't saying you shouldn't have an opinion, but that you won't _get_ it until you are a parent. I am not a parent, but I can understand that I DON'T know what if feels like until you are. I didn't know what love was until I had a long term girlfriend, and I didn't know what love really was until I broke up with that girl and found the right one, even though I thought I did. So I think it is reasonable to extend that to - you have no idea what it feels like to be a parent until you are one. The pool of parents is so large I don't think you can make broad generalizations, I think a lot of it has to do with the stress of paying for kids so breaking it up by class would be interesting.
Although, I'd value the opinion of someone who did build a reactor in their back yard in a whole different class than someone who went to a few Greenpeace rallies.
Judging from what you see if you walk into a Wal Mart, anyone can raise a child too. They maybe can't do a good job of it, but I'd wager they'll be just as convinced they did as you are.
There is always lots of talk 'round these parts about "how are you going to change the world?" Many people, parents included, don't realize that the simple act of raising children is loaded with this very possibility.
As mentioned below, yes, plenty of people simply spawn offspring, and that's problematic. But there are also plenty of parents who take their task very, very seriously.
Having children is easy, and obviously billions of unremarkable people do it. But raising children well is extremely difficult. It requires hard work, deep thinking, and dedication.
"...some of the best kids in every generation come from the worst homes so 'doing it right' is hardly a value added activity."
And many of the worst people in every generation come from the worst homes. Doing it right is most definitely a value-added activity.
Because it's fun? Not everything you do has to be an achievement - in fact you would look pretty odd saying 'my greatest achievement was having a girlfriend'.
There isn't really anything wrong with just having fun, but the human race would be better off if people had more of a sense of perspective.
At my old job we used to play basketball once a week after work. I can't say either this article is true or not, but one thing for sure: guys with kids were much less eager to leave the court and go home. They were the last to leave and first to beg others (kidless) to stay and play a little longer.
Scariest remark so far. I have long had the same suspicion about those co-workers who love the extra-long hours: they are simply afraid to go home and meet the family(?).
That might also (among other things) be the reason employers love to hear that you have a family.
Every single study on couples that choose not to have children confirms that they tend to be well-educated and well-off. If you pick a group that's better off than most in every important category (money, social rank, health, etc), you would expect them to be happier, duh. Correlating one of their many choices with happiness is a classic example of selection bias.
Well let's hand it to Newsweek for enforcing a crappy version of the page because I'm viewing it from my iPhone. It doesn't take me to a mobile version of the story, just a mini-list of "mobile stories".
Schopenhauer knew this - fulfilling our biological urges (to pair off and multiply) is in no way related to human happiness. Where biology and happiness butt heads biology is more likely to win.
Are self-filled surveys accurate in finding out whether someone is happy? I my experience, verbal responses, action and body language often contradict each other. Which is right?
Even having a very beautiful girlfriend can't make you happy all the time. You can still cry while you are at the Disney Land.
All those studies failed to recognize that the state of happiness is not something infinite. And how can you understand and appreciate the happiness if you have never taste the wrath of sadness?
Yes, the studies show us the correlation between having kids and less happiness in people. But remember, correlation does not imply causation.
What this leaves out is the elder years. I believe there is evidence that looking back on an achievements like raising a family lead to happier grey years. Additionally, having someone to care for you when your spouse is gone, and having family to be a part of seems pretty likely to increase happiness. I'd be willing to bet that having grandkids makes people happier. (all play, no work!)
This article is a positive. Those people who read it and decide not to have children, they are at least not replicating there DNA meaning future generations will not have to deal with those who only have love for themselves.
Reminds me of the story of Narcissus where Narcissus fell in love with himself once he saw his reflection. He was so in love with his reflection he didn't leave to eat and died.
I would characterize a person who decides to make partial copies of himself to care for as more self-loving than a person who takes a sober look at resource depletion and decides to seek other means of self-fulfilment, whether that means taking care of already-existing humans or just self-actualizing in solitude.
I am not sure if you have ever flown over the United States... it is mostly empty land. It is not depleted. I happen to live in San Diego, we happen to have thousands of new people moving in every day from Mexico. So if you are not going to use it, it looks like others will.
The article cites longitudinal studies showing randomly selected couples are happier before they have kids and after kids leave the house than while the kids are home. It shows a significant portion of randomly selected parents would rather do chores (e.g., grocery shopping) than spend time with their kids. Neither of those is adequately explained by selection bias.
Selection bias may explain why childless couples, on average, are happier than couples with children. But not any of the dozens of corroborating data points presented in the article.
Don't forget cognitive dissonance: if you have paid a price for something, you have to tell yourself it was worthwhile, or you would feel like an idiot. Hence I am not sure if statements of parents about their happiness can be believed.
Much better to measure these things indirectly (without a questionnaire). I don't know how the cited study did it.
Agreed, happiness has been proven to be subjective. Paraplegics are happy 1 year after their disability causing accident, so wouldn't parents of newborns be the same? It's not a change in circumstances that makes the paraplegics happy, they're still disabled, they didn't magically gain the ability to walk and just not mention it so they keep getting disability. No the paraplegics happiness is subjective, they become happy being a paraplegic just as a parent of a newborn will become happy being a parent.
It's also safe to assume you'll only be happy for a year after your kids leave, and this likely explains the newlywed syndrome that they're happy for the first year and then reality kicks in.
Personal experience says being a parent is one of the coolest and most enjoyable things you can do with your life.
You could also say that "being in a relationship makes people less happy" - quite likely true if you pick out the right statistics.