5 ms·

When I hear people say this with all the morale high ground that comes with it I’m always wondering if it’s partially because of some hormonal changes. It has b

by siren2026 1mo ago

When I hear people say this with all the morale high ground that comes with it I’m always wondering if it’s partially because of some hormonal changes. It has been proven recently that the human brain changes after having kids. I know you didn’t intend it that way but there are so many people that are extremely judgmental about having kids (or rather judging people that don’t have kids). I also understand that it’s such a hard task that there must be some level of self convincing needed to make it work. All that to say, i tend to dismiss those opinions.

a_c 1mo ago
I feel that physical change the moment I saw my son first time. Something snapped/connected in my brain. I will do anything for that little thing. The feeling is visceral. It is very hard not to preach your best experience to others
- marssaxman 1mo ago
  That added some intensity behind my motivation to avoid parenthood: so many people describe having their brains hijacked in this way that I could not be sure I would be immune. Best steer far clear, I thought.
ytoawwhra92 1mo ago
I mean the obvious retort to this is that until you become a parent all of your behaviour is probably driven by some deep evolutionary desire to demonstrate your suitability as a mate. So we can dismiss opinions of non-parents as well.
- siren2026 1mo ago
  Ideally we should discuss all those behaviour (becoming parents, becoming successful) logically without the hormones and feelings that makes you think they are the most important thing in the world. Essentially discussing facts versus emotions. Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.
  - ytoawwhra92 29d ago
    > without the hormones and feelings I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways. Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children. In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
    - siren2026 29d ago
      It is perfectly possible to study the world around us without our emotions and feelings. There is in fact a ton of philosophy that has been written on this topic. Please read about rationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children: - Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty. One way to measure difficulty is that fewer people are able to achieve it. Everyone (literally almost everyone) can have kids. But only a select few can win a gold. - By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids. You will be in a lot of history books, and a ton of people will look after you. You will inspire the next generations. By having kids, you will also change the next generation but I would argue by way less than by winning gold in the olympics. See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings. >>> In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world. No, again: those words have measurable meaning: Having children is neither special/unique (as it is literally the normal outcome for most people), neither difficult (at least to HAVE children is not difficult, raising them well has probably some level of measurable difficulty). How can you disagree with this logically?

a_c 1mo ago

I feel that physical change the moment I saw my son first time. Something snapped/connected in my brain. I will do anything for that little thing. The feeling is visceral. It is very hard not to preach your best experience to others

marssaxman 1mo ago
That added some intensity behind my motivation to avoid parenthood: so many people describe having their brains hijacked in this way that I could not be sure I would be immune. Best steer far clear, I thought.

ytoawwhra92 1mo ago

I mean the obvious retort to this is that until you become a parent all of your behaviour is probably driven by some deep evolutionary desire to demonstrate your suitability as a mate. So we can dismiss opinions of non-parents as well.

siren2026 1mo ago
Ideally we should discuss all those behaviour (becoming parents, becoming successful) logically without the hormones and feelings that makes you think they are the most important thing in the world. Essentially discussing facts versus emotions. Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.
- ytoawwhra92 29d ago
  > without the hormones and feelings I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways. Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children. In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
  - siren2026 29d ago
    It is perfectly possible to study the world around us without our emotions and feelings. There is in fact a ton of philosophy that has been written on this topic. Please read about rationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children: - Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty. One way to measure difficulty is that fewer people are able to achieve it. Everyone (literally almost everyone) can have kids. But only a select few can win a gold. - By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids. You will be in a lot of history books, and a ton of people will look after you. You will inspire the next generations. By having kids, you will also change the next generation but I would argue by way less than by winning gold in the olympics. See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings. >>> In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world. No, again: those words have measurable meaning: Having children is neither special/unique (as it is literally the normal outcome for most people), neither difficult (at least to HAVE children is not difficult, raising them well has probably some level of measurable difficulty). How can you disagree with this logically?