Fetus Don't Fail Me Now: How Scientists Raise Children

An anonymous reader writes "In the latest column from scientist, humor columnist, and stand-up comedian Adam Ruben, he examines his own umbilicus and considers how being a scientist will affect his approach to raising his only slightly post-fetal child. From the article: 'I don't know how other prospective fathers treat their wives' pregnancies, but I saw it as a science project. It had a protocol, parameters, a timeline, and even the one item that makes funding agencies happy: a deliverable. I found myself poking at my wife's abdomen, asking, "Who's Daddy's little gestating blastocyst? Who's recapitulating phylogeny?"'"

Comments

Divorced in

[Anonymous Coward]

'I don't know how other prospective fathers treat their wives' pregnancies, but I saw it as a science project.'

5, 4, actually no, probably the minute she reads your blog.

Re:Divorced in

[Anonymous Coward]

I found myself poking at my wife's abdomen, asking, "Who's Daddy's little gestating blastocyst? Who's recapitulating phylogeny?

Yea, I'm sure she's shocked and appalled. She obviously had no idea the guy she married was a geek.

Re:Divorced in

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Stop being your career and obsessions. Take a deep breath. Smell the roses and become a human, Mr. Spock.

Re:Divorced in

[interkin3tic]

1. Drunkenly post something to blog, sober up, realize your wife will divorce you if she reads it
2. Submit it to slashdot
3. ???
4. SLASHDOTTED!!!
5. Wife can't read blog, no divorce, no child support payments, profit.

Re:Divorced in

[jenn_13]

So what are you trying to say, (pregnant) wives have no sense of humor?

Re:Divorced in

[Luckyo]

No, he and many others here are just green with envy that he married a woman that actually understands him, and are projecting their experiences on him.

Re:Divorced in

[Requiem18th]

Geeks on my marriage?

*cue*

Icon: Darwin Award Boy?

[G3ckoG33k]

Icon: Darwin Award Boy?

Re:Icon: Darwin Award Boy?

[IceNinjaNine]

Sparkchaser in training...

Sometimes not at all.

[Hatta]

Data show that having children decreases happiness. They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science) and they're extremely expensive (scientists don't get paid that much). Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[mwvdlee]

Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?

Genital arousal combined with absence of contraceptives.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[LS1 Brains]

All I can say, is "they're doing it wrong." If a child doesn't increase your happiness, you either had the child at the wrong point in your life, you weren't prepared for the supposed negative aspects, you have spousal issues, etc. Sure, there's a lot of things that can drag a parent down that aren't the direct effect of the child him/herself. I've read the studies, they say parents THINK they're happier when in fact they're not? Sounds like the incoherent ramblings of someone with some pretty hefty baggage from their own youth.

Take one look at any proud parent beaming when their child marks another achievement. Take one look at any parent boasting about how their child is so smart because they accomplished some task at an early age. Take one look at any parent when they arrive home from work, and walk through the door to be greeting with tiny feet and open arms. Take a look at all the videos parents post on YouTube!

If anyone could think those parents aren't happy, I can't imagine what those folks think would improve a parent's happiness.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[gknoy]

Amen to that. I'm tired all the time, my spare time is shot to hell. I can't schedule video game time reliably anymore, and travel is Highly Inconvenient. The house is a mess and I'm always stressed. All of that is worth it when my kid gives me a big squeezy hug, and watching my kid's joy unfold is pure magic.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[wurp]

You don't think your genes and memes deserve to live on beyond you?

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science)

If the scientist is concerned about the amount of science they would work to interest their progeny in science. If they have multiple children who become scientists and that trend continues through multiple generations you're talking about an exponential increase in the amount of science done rather than a reduction.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Ascoo]

Data show that having children decreases happiness.

Since when were scientists ever concerned about happiness. If they were, they wouldn't be in such an often-unrewarded (financially, emotionally, etc.) profession. Scientists are happiest when they can bring some sort of meaning and structure to what appears to be chaos. Arguably, children are the ultimate form of chaos!

They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science)

No doubt. I'd wager that the majority of the most successful scientists (in terms of publications, innovations, peer respect, etc) are that way because they devote the vast majority of their time to science and nothing else.

and they're extremely expensive (scientists don't get paid that much).

Children can cost plenty but our memory is selective; we often ignore the constant "cons" for a few blissful, and unfortunately infrequent, "pros". In the end, you're probably right that logically, people that make science their raison d'être shouldn't have children. Fortunately for society, these people do as they often encourage the next batch of new scientists...

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[syousef]

Data show that having children decreases happiness. They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science) and they're extremely expensive (scientists don't get paid that much). Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?

Because:
- They don't believe the data
- Scientists are curious and want to experience things for themselves
- They or their partner have a biological urge that it would make them even less happy not to fulfil
- They wish to pass their knowledge and expertise to someone
- Even scientists are not entirely rational beings. We're all just a species of monkey in the end.

If you can afford having children, the unhappiness comes from the overwhelming demands on your time. (Even that could be mitigated to a degree if you can afford to hire a Nanny). The nature of those demands changes as the child grow up. I will tell you this. Though my wife and I have had a very rough trot raising these kids (our own chronic and ongoing medical issues), neither of us for one moment would prefer that they had not existed (2 children under 3). And I'm not saying that just to be politically correct. I'm happy to admit that it took me time to warm to my children (but I always felt a very strong protective instinct). The idea that you just fall in love with them the moment you pick them up was bunk for me. But I do love them dearly now.

If those biological urges did not exist, neither would nearly 7 billion people...Any species that outsmarts it self in the way you are suggesting will perish, and won't be around to have this conversation. I do not see that happening any time soon. Even the poor people of the world who can't afford children are driven by social and biological needs (and often a lack of education) to have them.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[DamnRogue]

Data show that having children decreases happiness. They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science) and they're extremely expensive (scientists don't get paid that much). Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?

Just because there's an ongoing cost and time periods where the net return might be negative doesn't mean that the whole project isn't worthwhile. Driving to the store is less fun and more expensive than reading a book. Cooking is also work. However, after I've done both I get to eat a delicious meal. These studies also tend to only interview people who are in the immediate throes of child-rearing. It shouldn't be surprising at all that if you talk to people in the early stages of a project with heavy up-front cost that they might feel worn down. Now go ask your parents or grandparents what they think about children. Mine have said repeatedly that children are the most, if not the only, truly rewarding thing they've done with their lives. (However, none of them denies that it isn't work.)

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Biologists studying Pandas can appreciate successful and relatively effortless procreation.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[LordLimecat]

Data show that having children decreases happiness.

You have data? Does it show a correlation, or a causation (perhaps the parents need to refine their methods or their attitudes)?

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[pubwvj]

Hmm... Well, if you find children to make you unhappy, eat your time and expensive then you're doing it all wrong. Yes, if you follow the Parenting Magazine rules it may be that way but that still doesn't change the fact that you're doing it wrong. The reality is that it costs little more to raise a child than it does to already exist. Having a child does not change my housing budget (biggest expense), taxes (next biggest) and does almost nothing to my food budget. Basic clothing and other things are hardly expensive.

Reality: Kids are a lot of fun, bring joy to our lives, provide more hands and minds to get things done and pay for themselves many times over without being very expensive at all. Children our a wonderful investment in the future.

What we need are more people in the world to help solve the big problems. But if you don't want to breed, don't worry, I'll have a big family to make up for you.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Data show that having children decreases happiness. They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science) and they're extremely expensive (scientists don't get paid that much). Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?

Happiness is not the most important aspect to being human. Social integration superceeds it, as does honor and empathy, none of which where considered in a silly over simplified study.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Hatta]

I don't think it's cromulent to say that genes "deserve" anything.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are a product of asexual reproduction, you might note that the older generation invented the original sin. You cite "data", which is more accurately described as "statistics". Data is what you fill their heads with so that they can make the next generations of discoveries and advancements. If you do not wish to participate in the long term advancement of science and knowledge then go ye forth into the woods alone and multiply fruitfully.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't argue with science:
http://fyiliving.com/research/the-happiness-factor-in-parenthood/
"Happiness decreases by 0.03 units when parents have one or two children. Having 4 or more children further decrease happiness by 0.06 units."

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Abso-freaking-lutely. The best things in life aren't things - spare time, video games, travel, house, things in the house etc. - none of that brings true happiness. A child, however difficult, on the other hand can make you grow and feel things so deeply it's scary. The depths of a parent's joy and love when they watch their children thrive can only be understood by others who've felt the same.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Hatta]

I've read the studies, they say parents THINK they're happier when in fact they're not?

Yes, self deception is a common coping strategy.

Take one look at any proud parent beaming when their child marks another achievement

Sure, if you only look at the positive moments. The net balance swings towards the negative. Parents don't see it because of choice supportive bias.

If anyone could think those parents aren't happy, I can't imagine what those folks think would improve a parent's happiness

Some free time and a good nights sleep.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[csubi]

If you are 100% pragmatic and atheist at the same time, it is easy to reach the conclusion that the only thing you can really accomplish in life is raising your progeny.
You might speak of social acclaim, success, wealth - all this crap does not count. Only survival.

Now go make one. Or two.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting aside whether that's actually true or not, being happy, having luxuries, and doing your job aren't the only goods. There's also continuance of your existence. Since scientists are less likely to believe in life after death, it becomes all the more important to pass on your genes and legacy to the next generation.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say if having kids does not change your housing or food budget you are the one doing it wrong. Before we had children we lived in a one bedroom apartment. Now, we have a three bedroom house. That is a significant change in the housing budget. And if you can feed teenage boys on the same budget that you had before you had children, you were either way over-buying before, or you are starving them now.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[MonsterTrimble]

Exactly. I can have the shittiest day ever, and when I walk in the door and my kid runs up to me excited to see me saying 'Dad! Dad! Dad!' everything else disappears.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Hatta]

Reality: Kids are a lot of fun, bring joy to our lives, provide more hands and minds to get things done and pay for themselves many times over without being very expensive at all. Children our a wonderful investment in the future.

That's just wishful thinking on your part. The data is inconsistent with your position here.

If you still want to have a big family, go right ahead. We need new blood to feed into the ponzi scheme we call our economy. I'll happily take advantage of the cheap labor young people provide for as long as you're willing to raise them.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[repapetilto]

Nope. Spreading Ideas (ie memes) can be just as much an accomplishment as spreading genes. If the population is big enough it may even be more of an accomplishment. Theres no reason you can't do both though.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

why would anyone who respects data have children?

You've got to get a control group from somewhere.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Mindcontrolled]

Given the usual reasoning as to why scientist do anything around here lately, they probably do it for the funding. Also, to establish a communist world government. Of course, taking your tax money is part of it, but that is a given. There might be some other conspiracies involved, but I am not enlightened enough to see through those. I am sure, though, that someone will open my eyes soon...

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Translation Error]

Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?

Test subjects.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Mindcontrolled]

I fear that in the next decades we will hit deep, deep shit. I am at an age where I still have the option, but at the moment, I think that putting children into this world would not do them a favour.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[kelemvor4]

Genital arousal combined with absence of contraceptives.

Or the failure of said contraceptives to perform. Although when used properly, this is rare - it does happen.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[LS1 Brains]

Yes, self deception is a common coping strategy.

Looking at my own life as a parent, I have yet to feel like I'm coping. Rather, I find myself looking forward to the next opportunity to spend with my family. Judging by their reactions when I walk through that door, they apparently suffer the same coping strategy as I do.

Sure, if you only look at the positive moments. The net balance swings towards the negative. Parents don't see it because of choice supportive bias.

The "negative" moments are no more troubling than those elsewhere in life. Heck, a lot of those negatives are a great source of amusement for my wife and I, and they make for some absolutely adorable photos. Work issues have been much more of a chore than child rearing, and I feel my job is quite productive, in a nice laid back atmosphere. The net balance is FAR greater in the positive, than the negative for both work and family life. Maybe I'm coping... But damn if I don't have fun doing it.

Some free time and a good nights sleep.

The kids sleep fine, so I sleep as much as I want. I have plenty of free time, I just choose to spend it with friends AND family. Our children are active participants in our daily lives, not burdensome tethers. That may be the key for folks who think like you though, and again refers back to my original comment - if you're not ready, you're not ready. For those "adult" things you don't take your kids to (loud concerts, romantic evenings, etc) the kids LOVE spending the night/weekend with the grandparents.

Put simply, if you feel you screwed up your life and regret your choices, it doesn't mean everyone else did.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[linuxwolf69]

Not getting a good nights sleep is typically only in the first few months, or year. I have no problem with getting a good nights sleep because of my 9 and 12 year olds. Even when my wife has another child, I don't think I'll be missing much sleep due to her refusal to allow me to get up in the middle of the night to take care of the baby. Even if she does want me to get up, I did that for 2 kids before. It was a pleasure then, and will be a pleasure in the future.

As far as free time, I have a lot of it. I just choose to spend most of it with my kids instead of playing video games. It's more fun to take the kids to the zoo, go bowling, or even just hang out and play Uno than playing a video game by myself.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[interkin3tic]

Data show that having children decreases happiness. They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science) and they're extremely expensive (scientists don't get paid that much). Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?

Yeah, but that data showing children decreases happiness comes from "social scientists." There's data and then there's "data."

PS. I'm sorry to any social scientists who were offended at that joke, but 100% of poll respondents found it was totally true and furthermore that you should all get real jobs and quit crying about it.

PPS. I tease because I'm envious of your easy methodology that don't require working with dangerous chemicals or squinting at slides.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[way2trivial]

ever see idiocracy?

aren't people just another way for gametes to keep coming around?

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Hatta]

They've actually done these studies. Child-free people are happier at all stages of life, including after the children are grown.

When you think about it, this makes sense. They've been doing what they wanted for the past 20 years, instead of what they had to do. They're better off financially for it too.

Sure, parents and grandparents will deny it. Self-deception is a common coping mechanism, and it's required for propagation of the species. You can't rely on self-reporting to measure differential happiness since people can only imagine how happy they would be if they had made another choice. You have to do long term longitudinal studies. These studies have been done and they show that parents of adult children are happier than parents of young children, but not as happy as married but child free individuals.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Darinbob]

I have to disagree with your data. Children can cause happiness in many people. Yes they're expensive and they eat a lot of your time but that doesn't make someone unhappy. What the data does is take love out of the equation and substitute in the number of diaper changes over a lifetime.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[linuxwolf69]

Or it could be that pubwvj already had a big enough house (my best friend has a 2 bedroom condo, so 1 kid would not increase his housing budget), and possibly ate out a lot (again, best friend does this). After having kids, shift eating out to buying groceries and cooking at home, thus not increasing the food budget either. I've done similar with food budget in that I'd go out to nice restaurants 2 - 3 times a week and eat out at lunch nearly daily before I had kids. That adds up. Spending that money on groceries allows for more food for the same cost. Easy to do.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[COMON$]

Anyone who understands logarithmic expansion understands the impact of raising a child successfully will most likely far outweigh anything you will do in your lifetime. As well I am going to have to ask for citation on your "Data show that having children decreases happiness" Here is the first non-religious result in a google search for Children and happiness http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/11/the_effect_of_c.html (There is a newsweek article there but it has no data).

Being a childless couple that Fosters, I can say firsthand that I have experience with many different families and the negative side. Some people are excessively self centered, having children exposes that self centered nature. For the folk that already understand that they aren't the center of the universe, parenting is a joy. Not having children allows the selfish to continue in their ignorant world, maybe that makes them happier, but evolutionarily speaking we have had a couple million years to have it hardwired into ourselves to procreate. This alone suggests that deep happiness should be found in successfully parenting progeny..

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-deception works both ways, including for those child-free individuals who say that they are happier.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Hatta]

This is a well established result in the social sciences. Do your own research.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree...I'm not a happy person right now, I work full time and have 3 kids under the age of 7. Thats not what makes me unhappy, what makes me unhappy is that right now, on top of all of that, I'm in school full time. What makes me unhappy is coming upstairs from spending that last 10 hours writing a paper to seeing 3 little heads pop up to see if I am going to play, only to watch them go back down broken-heartedly because I say "I'm sorry, I still have a lot of work to do". What makes me happy is when I let my wife know I'm done with that paper and I hear 3 elephants running down the stairs only to try to (and failing miserably at being quiet) sneak up on me and tackle me over the couch. Or when I open the door and hear "DADDY!!!!!!!" and get mugged before I can get more than 1 foot in the door.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[MikeBabcock]

Self deception is what keeps us from being insane.

You should read those studies too :)

Being realistic about yourself and your surroundings rarely leads to happiness.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

People shouldn't do or attempt things that are difficult or unpleasant. They should just kick back, take it easy, play a few games and get lots of sleep. Anyone who disagrees with this is a fool.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[mldi]

Conversely, you could be having the greatest day ever, then when your kids come home from school and tear each other to pieces and call you whining about it in the middle of the afternoon... well, your day is shot to hell.

I get no such lip from my fish, and they are also enjoyable to watch.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[csubi]

Helping your species / population / society to survive by spreading ideas and propagating your genes is the best possibility, true. Being the last survivor does not change anything, so making sure that the others make it, too, makes sense.

Just spreading ideas but failing to reproduce : still a failure, you are out of the game. Not that it matters on the long run, you just have to choose a long enough time-scale.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[mldi]

Self-deception works both ways, including for those child-free individuals who say that they are happier.

Unless there's a biological reason why the child-free couple can't reproduce, it's usually a much more intentionally made decision to be child-free. There were many years the couple probably could have decided to have a kid. It takes a very determined mind not to after having all those years to think about it.

I wouldn't call that self-deception.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Hatta]

Anyone who understands logarithmic expansion understands the impact of raising a child successfully will most likely far outweigh anything you will do in your lifetime

What does that even mean? The impact to who? Positive or negative impact? Having a child certainly has a powerful positive impact on that child's life. That doesn't mean it has a positive impact on yours.

Here is the first non-religious result in a google search for Children and happiness http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/11/the_effect_of_c.html (There is a newsweek article there but it has no data).

This study has been retracted. You can read the erratum. I'll paste it here for convenience:

After publication of the paper âoeChildren and Life Satisfactionâ I have uncovered an important coding mistake in the dataset. Several observations of the life satisfaction measure were unintentionally assigned the wrong value in the construction of the panel.

After correcting the problem, the main results of the paper no longer hold. The effect of children on the life satisfaction of married individuals is small, often negative, and never statistically significant. I ask all readers to disregard the results of this paper and deeply apologize for this unfortunate mistake. I have asked the journal to withdraw the paper but, being too late for that, an erratum was the only alternative.

If you really need references, go through the references that Angeles claimed to disprove. They are right.

Some people are excessively self centered, having children exposes that self centered nature. For the folk that already understand that they aren't the center of the universe, parenting is a joy.

Or some people are so self centered that they believe the world really needs another little them. Those of us who aren't self-centered are happy to see our genes die with us.

evolutionarily speaking we have had a couple million years to have it hardwired into ourselves to procreate. This alone suggests that deep happiness should be found in successfully parenting progeny..

Actually, it suggests that deep happiness should be found in having lots of sex. This is one of the reasons that actually having children tends to decrease happiness.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[mldi]

Data show that having children decreases happiness. They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science) and they're extremely expensive (scientists don't get paid that much). Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?

Happiness is not the most important aspect to being human. Social integration superceeds it, as does honor and empathy, none of which where considered in a silly over simplified study.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But it's not fact. Really, if you wanted to be responsible as a human being, you'd limit your procreation in order to reserve earth's resources.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[StikyPad]

Catastrophic failure of personal protective equipment. ("Wow, this feels really great all of a sudden!")
Inconsistent test methodology. ("Hmm, I feel like I'm forgetting something. Oh well, it'll come to me.")
Manufacturing defects discovered in product testing. ("You are? That's... amazing. Truly.")
Unscheduled discharge during preliminary phase of operation. ("Oh shit.")

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[mldi]

Speaking of logarithmic expansion, let's talk about overpopulation. We only have so many natural resources, and renewable resources have a limited renewable rate. You accuse people who don't have children of being selfish? I truly don't understand that logic. Why should anyone be judged on how much responsibility they want to take on? Maybe they're thinking of the greater good of the planet and/or the human population rather than their own limited circle of existence?

As for the urge to procreate being hard-wired... yes, this is true, but we live in a world where survival is not the challenge for most people. Procreation is a survival trait, and unless we have a plague that wipes out 98% of the population, it's not a huge agenda any more for the survival of humans. What should be thought about now is how we can continue sharing this planet without burning it all to hell and turning it into a wasteland. I'm no tree-hugger, but at the rate of our current growth it becomes common sense. And our current numbers only took what, a few hundred years to massively explode?

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need more people to solve big problems. We need smarter/more educated people. I would rather have 10 educated individuals than 100 uneducated.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[The Great Pretender]

I still have the model from my kids first few months of time sleeping and time of pooping as a function of feeding where I achieved an ~80% success rate in predicting when he would wake us up and when we would have to change the diaper.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[RMingin]

My daughter now understands the concept of, and desires to begin fragging. THIS is parenthood. I raise the next generation of uber-twitch spawn-camping FPS-dominating A-holes!

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[xaxa]

Data show that having children decreases happiness.

Since when were scientists ever concerned about happiness. If they were, they wouldn't be in such an often-unrewarded (financially, emotionally, etc.) profession

There is much more to life than money. Many scientists I know (and I work with lots) feel they're doing something positive for the world, and the high-paying alternative jobs are bad for society. We're paid less, but I have a practically zero-stress job, 30+8 days paid leave per year, flexible hours (where if I accumulate more than 8 hours I'm required to take a day off), ...

People in my year from university who work at banks and hedge funds have to get to work for 6:30, stay until 22:30, worry about work all the time, get the legal minimum of leave (20+8), and 1.5-2× as much money. I get a phone calls every month or so from recruiters (people from uni have my contact details, and would get a big bonus if someone they referred was recruited) but I'm not interested.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I've read the studies, they say parents THINK they're happier when in fact they're not? Sounds like the incoherent ramblings of someone with some pretty hefty baggage from their own youth.

No, I don't think you have read the studies. The studies had people answer fairly standard questions about life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, mental well-being, etc. Then when the results were grouped by whether the person was a parent or not, the parental group averaged significantly less than the non-parents.

There are lots of theories as to why there is such a strong and repeatable divide in self-rated happiness levels, but it doesn't really matter - no "hefty baggage" is required to see that the actual results are heavily biased against being a parent. If there is any "baggage" here, it's from the guy trying to deny these straightforward, self-reported measurements by slagging them off as "incoherent ramblings."

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Ironhandx]

Damn. I'm like this already due to work and I don't have kids.

Is there something wrong with me?

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[jsvendsen]

Yes, self deception is a common coping strategy.

Irrelevant, as the successful application of coping strategies is an essential component of happiness.

That's not to say that asking people how happy they are give you any kind of accurate answer. Then again, most established measures of objective happiness (an oxymoron) aren't likely to accurately describe the -- high stress, high personal sacrifice, yet rewarding and characterized by a feeling of purpose -- daily life of parents of young children.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[inflamed]

Unfortunately science isn't free and funding is not proportional to the number of scientists.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the simple fact, that children are actually you 2.0, and their purpose is your immortality.
Don't see them as separate parts. See them as parts of you.

Then your perspective suddenly shifts dramatically.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[gknoy]

May I politely request that you teach her to be a twitch, spawn-camping, FPS-dominating polite young lady instead? :-)

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if that's not the entire problem with society in a nutshell, I don't know what is...

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[hat_eater]

Getting bogged down by the needs of children is easy. Nearly inevitable. Getting the benefits of having kids... far less so. That might go a long way towards explaining the results.
Remember that this is the average - there are people who are happier since they spawned offspring (me). And yet I don't know if it would show in the questionnaire. Many aspects of our life suffered because we don't have the time and/or energy to pursue a lot of things that used to give us joy. To the extent we were accustomed to at least. OTOH, there are moments when I very intensely feel that it is well worth it. Does a drawing of a big red heart that hangs on the fridge increase my marital satisfaction? My financial status? My mental well-being?
I don't think one can rate happiness using a questionnaire. Not if the subjects consistently tell you that you got something wrong.
Or perhaps one can, for a certain definition of happiness.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there something wrong with me?

In the sense that your personality is evolutionarily maladaptive and your genome will be snuffed out of the tree of life... yes.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[codeAlDente]

Show your data to someone who's dying old and alone. Kids are fun. I have two. I'm a scientist. I dispute the notion that time in the lab is always time better spent. Even the most quantitative scientists benefit from an appreciation of how life works, and there's no better way to observe it than raising children.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't think one can rate happiness using a questionnaire. Not if the subjects consistently tell you that you got something wrong.

Who says they tell you that you got it wrong? This is all relative. You may think you are happy, but you know nothing about the happiness of the people without kids.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[RMingin]

I seem to be getting that despite the A-hole training. I should have married a more belligerent woman, apparently.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I've read the studies, they say parents THINK they're happier when in fact they're not? Sounds like the incoherent ramblings of someone with some pretty hefty baggage from their own youth.

What, exactly, is the difference between thinking that you're happier and being happier? Happiness is a thing that exists only in your mind.

If you believe that you are happy, you are happy. It's when you can't believe that you're happy that you have problems.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are 100% pragmatic and atheist at the same time, it is easy to reach the conclusion that the only thing you can really accomplish in life is raising your progeny.

Hmm, I don't follow your reasoning. I would have thought a 100% pragmatic athiest would recognize that evolution is a natural law like gravity: it's not what should happen, it's what does happen - that trying to help evolution by having children is like trying to help gravity by laying down.

And, that not only is there no god, but that life has no fundamental purpose and free will is almost certainly an illusion: the most a person can hope for is that the combination of laws of physics and random chance that control a person's life will not subject that person to too much suffering - and maybe even provide the occasional glimmer of some positive feeling or other.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[DynamiteNeon]

The problem with those studies has always been that there is no objective way to measure happiness. What they're usually measuring is stress and energy levels during a particular period. The 1st year with a baby is tiring and stressful. You do have to compromise a lot.

Also, every single one of those studies which I've read had the caveat that most of the parents said it was worth it even with the pressures. That should tell you something about the problems with measuring this sort of thing.

Personally, my daughter just turned one a few weeks ago. This year was tiring, stressful, full of compromises, and yet, as with some of these other parents, worth it to me. The things I compromised on mostly have turned you to be things I didn't really need in the first place. Sure, there are times when it would be nice to have a babysitter for the evening to go out with friends, and I'm less inclined to come home hung over now since I don't want to be the one up the next morning with my daughter, but some of that will come back as she gets older. When all is said and done, a lot of this is temporary until the child grows up a bit more.

You can argue it's a form of Stockholm syndrome or some sort of self-delusion, but what difference does it make if I still tell you I'm happy now?

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Lemmy Caution]

Incorrect. The data shows that there isn't a significant difference in happiness between those who do and do not have children. Which means either that there's no correlation, or that people are generally making the right choices for themselves for the most part.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the same "shitty day amelioration" from my cats. When I slump in a chair and a small warm furry creature jumps into my lap, purrs, and butts me under the chin for a pat, I feel much better.

Cats are a much cheaper option - you don't have to send them to college :-)

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[ppanon]

One the other hand, after three years, you're still shovelling feces.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[ppanon]

Believe it or not, all people with kids first actually went through a period (of varying length) where they did not have kids. They therefore do have a baseline to measure against.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Believe it or not, all people with kids first actually went through a period (of varying length) where they did not have kids. They therefore do have a baseline to measure against.

Yeah, because the ONLY thing in their lives that has changed are the kids. You've clearly thought that one through.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[repapetilto]

Yea, I like your thinking. I always say the only meaning of life is to make more like yourself and most people don't get it. Its too simple of an explanation and they'd wanna have some obscure or unattainable meaning to strive for. Most people act on it anyway... without the feeling of fulfillment though.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Yvanhoe]

And a cultural tradition of pressuring women into making child despite all the data indiacting this is a bad idea.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[JockTroll]

Don't see them as separate parts. See them as parts of you.

I like to see them as spare parts. Just in case.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[JockTroll]

Anyone who understands logarithmic expansion understands the impact of raising a child successfully will most likely far outweigh anything you will do in your lifetime.

If you raise a serial killer, sure.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[syousef]

Amen to that. I'm tired all the time, my spare time is shot to hell. I can't schedule video game time reliably anymore, and travel is Highly Inconvenient. The house is a mess and I'm always stressed. All of that is worth it when my kid gives me a big squeezy hug, and watching my kid's joy unfold is pure magic.

I love my children dearly and wouldn't swap them for anything, but I still hate all the sacrifices. I'm kinda tired of the idea that a hug has to fix everything and make it alright. Some of us just aren't built that way. And sometimes the hugs can be few and far between (think military service, not my situation though).

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[syousef]

All I can say, is "they're doing it wrong." If a child doesn't increase your happiness, you either had the child at the wrong point in your life, you weren't prepared for the supposed negative aspects.

Some people are never prepared for the negative aspects, and there's nothing supposed about them. Not everyone would be happy being a mechanic, so why would everyone be happy being a parent? "They're doing it wrong" is unhelpful. The job just doesn't suit some, and by the time they discover that their choice is to either be self centered assholes or take care of their children anyway, despite the sacrifice.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[syousef]

Exactly. I can have the shittiest day ever, and when I walk in the door and my kid runs up to me excited to see me saying 'Dad! Dad! Dad!' everything else disappears.

That's excellent, but if someone doesn't feel that way, does that automatically make them an asshole? I think we spend too much time assigning blame for people that are different. What counts is that you make an effort for your children and love and support them. How you feel just doesn't come into it. If you can get pleasure out of it, fantastic. But you are the adult and they are the helpless clueless life you brought into the world and are responsible for nuturing.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Beliskner]

One the other hand, after three years, you're still shovelling feces

Cats are very easy to train, all you need is a litter tray, they instinctively like to keep the house tidy unlike dogs.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[J4]

"....why would anyone who respects data have children?"

Probability

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[AmiMoJo]

Wow, this feels really great all of a sudden!

It amazes me that with all our space age technology we can't come up with anything better than a plastic bag. I guess there really is no other way to stop disease other than not physically touching those parts of the body together, but people who are in a stable relationship are probably only concerned about contraception and mess.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, correlation does not imply causation. No one but you has ever realized this before (except everyone who ever took one class in college). I think you've figured it out the problem with all research you don't like. Those scores of scientists with they're unequivocal studies just missed this glaringly obvious fallacy. Because they're stupid.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[pnutjam]

If I think I'm happy, isn't that all that matters, to me?

Happiness is a choice.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[COMON$]

Thanks for the reply.

You simply asked "why would anyone who respects data have children?". If you are going to restrain the results just to the data asking whether or not it makes you happy, then yes you are correct. But the dataset is much larger. When considering the payoff of having children and doing it right, the advantages are enormous. Much in the same way work may not make you happy, the indirect results can. Thus we dont base our actions completely on what makes us happy.

Thank you for the reference.

Self Centereness transcends the ability to procreate, some people are stupid enough to procreate. I simply wanted to point out that having to be responsible for another life is a pretty clear mirror for who you really are. I do know several well adjusted people who never had kids, mostly due to infertility. The ones who choose to not have kids in my life have other issues, but I live in a largely religious community so there are other factors there.

Having sex, is pleasurable because it encourages us to procreate, the outcome is what our hormones are aiming for. The orgasm is just the instant gratification we need for motivation. I do not see your correlation to the second statement.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[COMON$]

Ahhh Malthusian economics. Big fan of Ishmael are we? Ok I am done being inflammatory :)

But in all seriousness, while I have never met a person who is choosing not to procreate due to the aforementioned theory, it is to the advantage of enlightened environmentally conscious people such as myself to have at least 1 child. Given that I cannot have children and will be adopting I will move in the other direction and would encourage many others to do so.

The reason enlightened environmentally conscious people should raise children (their own or adopted), is the teaching and raising of a set of individuals who will most likely have many of your own morals. This has always been a problem of my fellow liberals, they are being bred out of existence.

Yes, most likely we will have a plague, it happens every time. Talk to a good historian, or biologist. One fact of nature, with each spike in population there is a steep drop. nature finds a way to balance the scales. If it isn't disease, it will be famine, if it isn't famine it will be war.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[COMON$]

One could only help to have a little baby Dexter :)

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[EsbenMoseHansen]

That's why other people's children were invented. So you can try out how you like dealing with children.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's on argument:
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046501867X

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Hatta]

It boils down to a few simple bullet points:

        * Although the research suggests that kids have a negative impact on happiness, the effect is small. It is also true that the same research shows that people that are married with kids are happier than those that are single without kidsâ"something that is rarely emphasized in the write-ups of this research. Also parents overwhelmingly say they would be a parent again if they had to do it all over again. The same is not true of those without children; a much higher percentage express regret at not having had a child. Basically: the happiness data may not be telling the whole story.
        * All or nearly all of the negative effect of children on happiness can be attributed lack of sleep and lack of downtime. Being a parent (especially nowadays) takes a lot of time and effort.
        * So⦠why donâ(TM)t we identify some of the things that other research has shown us make parents frazzled but that donâ(TM)t actually affect the long term development or happiness of our children and letâ(TM)s, er, stop doing those things. And get a little more rest and have a little more fun.

1) Being married with kids is better than being single without kids. Being married without kids is better still, and being single with kids is the worst of all. Not a point in favor of having children.

2)Lack of sleep and downtime is an important factor in unhappiness. If you can afford to hire someone else to wake up in the middle of the night to calm your crying child, then good for you, it doesn't apply. But for everyone else, this is important.

3) How much fat is there to trim? You can't really ignore a crying child in the middle of the night. How many times a week can you afford to hire a babysitter? What are you going to do when Billy refuses to put away his toys? Are you going to discipline him? That's not restful or fun. Are you going to let it slide and clean up yourself? That's not restful or fun either.

This is simply not a practical solution. There's already not enough time in life to rest and have fun, even if you don't have kids.

i think maybe you shouldn't have left me to do my own research. want some lotion for that burn?

Yeah I probably shouldn't have, since you didn't actually find any data. And what you did find, didn't even support your argument. Feel free to try again if you like.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If I think I'm happy, isn't that all that matters, to me?

The Jim Jones congregation was happy.

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Eponymous Hero]

wow you are really lost, aren't you. i can't believe you're still here.

1) Being married with kids is better than being single without kids. Being married without kids is better still, and being single with kids is the worst of all. Not a point in favor of having children.

Doesn't exactly explain the millions of people who are infertile or sterile, are married, and wish to have kids despite their alleged happiness without them. Doesn't exactly explain the people who are married and wish to adopt, or are single and wish to adopt. Doesn't explain the number of gay and lesbian couples who wish to adopt children despite a contradictory wish to not procreate naturally.

2)Lack of sleep and downtime is an important factor in unhappiness. If you can afford to hire someone else to wake up in the middle of the night to calm your crying child, then good for you, it doesn't apply. But for everyone else, this is important.

Hmm, let's see. Periods of my life where I went years without good sleep and yet had the time of my life....
1. College
2. Starting my own business
Yeah, according to your theory, going to college and starting a business have to be the most unhappy moments of anyone's life.~ Let's not forget also that things in life that are worth having are worth working hard for. Getting a college degree, running a successful business, and raising kids into a happy successful adulthood are all major accomplishments. however, only one of them takes the average person a minimum of 16-18 years.

3) How much fat is there to trim? You can't really ignore a crying child in the middle of the night. How many times a week can you afford to hire a babysitter? What are you going to do when Billy refuses to put away his toys? Are you going to discipline him? That's not restful or fun. Are you going to let it slide and clean up yourself? That's not restful or fun either.

the same parallels to college and starting a business apply here. you can't ignore homework deadlines / accounts due, how many times a week/month/year can you afford to keep hiring and retraining staff / paying tuition, what are you going to do when your employees embezzle from you, are habitually late, lose your largest clients....

really, your questions about raising kids are naive. nobody knows how to raise kids without practice, much like everything else in life that's worth doing. let's take a professional x-games athlete for example. the kinds of things these athletes do to practice what they do is not restful, and the painful consequences of failure are not fun. what's less fun, breaking a collarbone or getting your son to clean his room? but you do it anyway, because the reward for getting it right is so great. great rewards are a cause of happiness (sorry, i don't have any data on that).

sounds like you think having rest and relaxation is the most important thing to life. well shit, let's get rid of all schools and jobs. and still get rid of working to survive. we still need to make babies to survive, but our culture now has us working to enjoy luxury, not simply to survive. even if you have kids today you still enjoy far more luxuries in life than we as a society even deserve. basically any argument against having kids that relies on a complaint against losing pet luxuries is so stupid as to be laughed out of existence.

and finally we come to the last stupid thing you said:

Yeah I probably shouldn't have, since you didn't actually find any data.

**coughcough** and where's your data? there's no burden of proof on me, i'm not required to prove you right. you made a retarded blanket statement that -- as we ultimately come to find out, belies your preference that our society fuck off and sleep in over the preservation of our species -- and fail to provide any proof when called out. i then laid out a very reasonable request to establish a value system for happiness (yes, i kno

Re:Sometimes not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

And in good families when parents get too old one of the siblings is capable and happy to have their parents spend their final days in their house. Full proof retirement plan. Also if you raise your kid right when they become young adults they can help you with stuff you may not know about and have philosophical discussions with you. What could be better than this?

Scientist treating pregnancy as science experiment

[elrous0]

This reminds me of one of those "Autistic Reporter" stories at the Onion News Network.

Fortunately, nature generally is pretty good at stopping scientists from reproducing--which may ultimately be for the best. I can really only take so much of there pedantic over-analysis of even the most trivial things. I guarantee you that, even now, a scientist reading /. is furiously typing away at his keyboard to point out the fact that I misused "there" in my previous sentence.

Re:Scientist treating pregnancy as science experim

[Xoltri]

-1 grammar troll :)

If you ever have children, don't make my mistakes.

[Jailbrekr]

1) You never bug a pregnant, hormonal woman. EVER.
2) You never refer to fetus as a blastocyst, parasite, or nickname him "blobby"
3) The only acceptable response is "Yes dear, no dear, I will rub your feet right away dear".
4) Never tell her that stretch marks are camoflauge to help her hide in the tall grass to escape predators.
5) In the later stages of pregnancy, when she is immoble, that is not an opportunity to dutch oven or teabag her.
6) Never refer to pregnant sex as "intercourse and a handjob all in one", otherwise you will not get intercourse OR a handjob.

Learn from my mistakes young nerdlings. Oh, and if you'er wondering, I'm still married. Why, I know not.

lol

[lennier1]

Slashdotted within 5 comments.

Re:Murderers.

[riverat1]

Abortion has been around since before ancient Greece existed. We just use more sophisticated methods now.

Only one possible response ...

[MacTO]

At times like this I wish that I was a stupid, shallow person rather than a scientist -- just so that my children don't end up with the long list of psychoses that that child will end up with.

(Don't get me wrong: it is important to raise creative and rational children. But treating them as a science experiment, even in good humour, is going to be damaging.)

Re:Only one possible response ...

[wmbetts]

Have you done any experiments to prove this?

Re:Only one possible response ...

[MacTO]

As an astrophysicist, I'm an observationalist and not an experimentalist ...

I do a fair bit of work with children in the arts and the sciences. Even though there are some truly splendid geek-children out there, I've found that the ones who are engaged by the arts are better adjusted socially, emotionally, and intrapersonally. Of course, the ones who express enthusiasm on both sides are the most interesting and seem to have the most constructive behaviours.

Don't bring the clipboard to bed...

[fahrbot-bot]

It had a protocol, parameters, a timeline, and even the one item that makes funding agencies happy: a deliverable.

So does sex. Note that scientific jargon doesn't usually make good pillow talk.

Re:Don't bring the clipboard to bed...

[syousef]

It had a protocol, parameters, a timeline, and even the one item that makes funding agencies happy: a deliverable.

So does sex. Note that scientific jargon doesn't usually make good pillow talk.

Monty Python disagrees. (Sign in required)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLKMQtfZLUw

Re:Don't bring the clipboard to bed...

[Tr3vin]

Yes, because the ladies all LOVE Monty Python.

Re:Don't bring the clipboard to bed...

[interkin3tic]

An early pioneer at microscopy, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was one of the first ones to look at sperm cells, around 1677. He describes that the samples were obtained fresh, and added the disclaimer "What I investigate is only what, without sinfully defiling myself, remains as a residue after conjugal coitus."

In other words, in this pioneering study of human sperm, Mrs. van Leeuwenhoek was an uncredited lab assistant in an unusual capacity.

Re:Don't bring the clipboard to bed...

[Intropy]

Having been in academia for the last decade I can assure you that is most certainly not unusual behavior for a lab assistant.

Re:Don't bring the clipboard to bed...

[JockTroll]

Some do and some also love a good spanking. And after the spanking, the oral sex.

Pregnant Science Experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the way you put this, but I took it from a phsycology angle. It is amazing to watch how children go through each stage of development. You can almost mark the day when they go on to the next stage. It is amazing. But, don't over analyze your child, just take them for face value and you'll have much more fun!

It's a vicous cycle!

[mrnick]

while (1){ fork(); ); // Hope derivatives will achieve far more success

Re:It's a vicous cycle!

[gratuitous_arp]

while (1){ fork(); ); // Hope derivatives will achieve far more success

That's the way it all feels sometimes, isn't it?

Re:It's a vicous cycle!

[RMingin]

I think you have a syntax error. Your curly brace is open. (For those wondering, I have reproduced. It did not affect my pedancy.)

Re:It's a vicous cycle!

[dotancohen]

while (1){ fork(); ); // Hope derivatives will achieve far more success

That won't compile. You didn't put a closing bracket, and there's an errant close parenthesis in there.

Re:It's a vicous cycle!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry if this is boring but I have some ideas for creating life in a program. Its not perfect but I think I may be able to create a pretty good artificial life (depending on what you consider life) from this.

#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
int bodyfailure,ready;
void main()
{
while(1)
{ //bodyfailure can happen here
  eat(); //organize what is learned and helps prevent bodyfailure
  sleep(); //bodyfailure has probability of happening here.
  live(); //make & break friends play and maybe get ready for a fork
  activities();
  learn();
  work();
  if(ready)
      fork(); //teach friends and children (children get higher priority)
  teach();
  if(bodyfailure)
      break;
}
die();
}

I know how he will raise his child

[Anonymous Coward]

'I don't know how other prospective fathers treat their wives' pregnancies, but I saw it as a science project. It had a protocol, parameters, a timeline, and even the one item that makes funding agencies happy: a deliverable.

I know how he will raise his child. With supervised visits every other weekend.

Re:I know how he will raise his child

[JockTroll]

Probably not. He will have a restraining order filed against him. Seriously, scientists raise kids just like everybody else. This guy is simply obsessive and some time in the loony ward could fix him up.

Statistics

[pubwvj]

Definite science project. The whole thing from wooing to breeding to birth to development through adulthood. We spaced ours apart by five years so we could repeat the experiments to test for statistical validity in our sample set. The cool part is you can let the kids participate in, at least some, of the experiment. Kids are great fun!

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternate response:
3) Yes dear, I will go out for pickles and ice cream.

bonus - guy gets some alone time

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[wmbetts]

I wish I would have seen you're post 5 years ago. +1 informative!

Re:Murderers.

[pubwvj]

Nature dumps most fetuses before you're even aware you are pregnant. I realize you probably didn't know that. I do a lot of work with selective breeding. Of all the embryos fertilized very few gestate and are delivered. Do read up about this. You'll find that human purposeful abortion is actually a minor thing.

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[Intropy]

Agree with all of the above. When I referred to our "little blastocyst" my wife got upset and chided me for not knowing that by three weeks we most certainly had a gastrula.

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[wmbetts]

Yay for fast clicking. You're should be your.

Re:Murderers.

[Quiet_Desperation]

These days a fetus is lucky to even have a crack at life.

Or a life of crack.

(rimshot)

Thank you!

(bows)

Who's recapitulating?

[CODiNE]

Ummm... nobody actually. I'm always amazed to find that people are still taught that and believe it. Haven't they ever heard of DNA? Perhaps his joke went "wooosh". I sure hope he was joking.

Recapitulation Theory

Re:Who's recapitulating?

[ideonexus]

Haekel's specific theory of recapitulation was wrong, but mammals, including humans, do generally recapitulate the physical traits in the order in which they appeared evolutionarily. I'm not sure to what you are referring to with the "Haven't they ever heard of DNA?" remark, but DNA merely provides the guidelines for development which we see adjusting the length of time for certain traits to develop in the womb, not the order of development. For example, the minor DNA differences between humans and chimps makes humans spend more time in the brain development phase, but that phase occurs in the same sequence in both species. Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen J. Gould all refer to embryonic recapitulation as a valid hypothesis in their books, but many scientists got scared away from it because Creationists have exploited the fraudulent Haekel drawings. Whether you like it or not, you went from a single cell, to multi-cell, to something that looked like a worm, to something that looked like an amphibian, on up through your evolutionary history... not species by species, but trait by trait.

Re:Who's recapitulating?

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem with the recapitulation model is that it isn't really useful for anything. I mean, it would be neat if it showed the ancestry of an organism, but really it just shows how to simply and efficiently turn an organism with simple anatomy into an organism with complex anatomy. A mammal starts out like a ball, then a layered ball, then a tube, and so on. Your example about the brain development phase is an excellent illustration of the actual deficiencies of the model. If it were correct, human would develop very very much like human-ancestor, with the differences tacked on at the end. So the embryonic development of all primates should be very very similar indeed until the end, when they would diverge. But the divergence (small as it is) is spread out throughout the development.

Re:Who's recapitulating?

[CODiNE]

I mentioned DNA because I've talked to people who believed that during development the fetus literally does a fast-forward playback of evolution and actually IS changing from one species to another. As if a premature baby would come out all furry and have a strong craving for bananas.

Not ammused.

[mcmonkey]

Without RTFA, I guess there isn't much here in terms of humor or science. I mean talk of an experiment with "protocol, parameters, a timeline, and..a deliverable," but no control?

Weak sauce.

Re:Not ammused.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is actually quite rare with controls in studies on child rearing. Exception being twin studies. But those usually show that child rearing practices matter almost not at all and nobody wants to hear that.

Re:Not ammused.

[DudeTheMath]

An interesting study was done at my alma mater, CWRU, that found that while reading was closely tied to heredity, math ability was influenced by nurture.

Scientists Comedians and Children

[oakwine]

take away valuable time better spent playing World of WarCraft.

data does not tell the whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ted.com/talks/rufus_griscom_alisa_volkman_let_s_talk_parenting_taboos.html Let's talk parenting taboos: Rufus Griscom + Alisa Volkman

here is a TED talk that takes that first data point on decreased happiness and digs deeper.

Re:data does not tell the whole story

[syousef]

http://www.ted.com/talks/rufus_griscom_alisa_volkman_let_s_talk_parenting_taboos.html Let's talk parenting taboos: Rufus Griscom + Alisa Volkman

here is a TED talk that takes that first data point on decreased happiness and digs deeper.

Yeah, the time and effort sucks. It ages you. It can make you unhappy. Now ask them if they could, would they give up their children for someone rich and successful to raise. I don't see them adopting their children out.

There is value in their analysis but their conclusions are crap. The value lies in breaking the expected stereotypical social norms and allowing parents to say "no, it wasn't a fairytale romance the minute I picked up my son/daughter". "No it hasn't always brought me untold bliss. Some days I want to scream". What we should be looking at is decreasing the bullshit and providing better support groups where parents help each other so they do not feel alone. Concluding with "children make you unhappy" is just not helpful - certainly not to people who've already had kids. And while they try not to do this, I think the ending is the weakest part of their presentation. (The data and analysis isn't the best either, but as I said it has some value).

Re:data does not tell the whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, that TED Talk made me want children even less. They rationalize around it, but that happiness over time graph is just a killer.

Re:data does not tell the whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

>Now ask them if they could, would they give up their children for someone rich and successful to raise.

Pfft, how unscientific. Of course they wouldn't but that's just their genes talking, merely programming unalterably hardwired into the system. It has little bearing on the truth of the matter.

Re:data does not tell the whole story

[syousef]

>Now ask them if they could, would they give up their children for someone rich and successful to raise.

Pfft, how unscientific. Of course they wouldn't but that's just their genes talking, merely programming unalterably hardwired into the system. It has little bearing on the truth of the matter.

I seriously doubt you're a parent. Parents can be selfish too. I think you'll find most parents actually like their children and don't want to part with them. That's affection not genes.

Re:data does not tell the whole story

[Agent0013]

These people just sound like unprepared idiots to me. They expected life with children to be like the advertisements in a magazine. My wife and I read several good books on what to expect, and have not had some huge expectation crash along with loss of happiness. In fact, we are now wondering why we didn't start sooner. Thanks for sharing, but listening to a couple of idiots talk about how stupid they are does not reflect how intelligent and prepared people deal with things.

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[radtea]

You never refer to fetus as a blastocyst, parasite,

No kidding! A parasite reduces the host's reproductive efficacy!

You'd have to be a gibbering idiot or completely ignorant of the foundations of evolutionary biology to refer to a fetus as a parasite.

It is over rated

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have kids. I don't want kids. My genes are inconsequential.

The world is over populated as it is, there is no need for my spawn to add to the misery. If you feel the need to have kids, by all means do. But please, don't pressure me into having offspring. I don't want any. I can't cope with the responsibily. I won't have kids. It don't bother me,please don't have it bother you.

Re:It is over rated

[JordanL]

No, I think what he was saying is that by a very real property of genetics your point of view on offspring cannot be a prevailing opinion for long. At most, until a single generation dies off, or a specific social culture dies off, but either way such an opinion cannot continue to thrive indefinitely because the genes for it (if any exist) will not be passed down, and the particular world experiences that structured that kind of mind cannot be taught in the absence of children.

Re:It is over rated

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how genes work.

Re:It is over rated

[Dekker3D]

Of course, opinions can be spread through the internet nowadays. Parenting is only part of the equation now, and for some kids it's getting smaller and smaller.

Re:It is over rated

[JordanL]

Regardless, after a single generation, either the species dies or the people who believe otherwise control the earth.

Re:It is over rated

[Dekker3D]

Nop. When overpopulation comes up, people will start thinking of solutions. Just like they do with any other problem that comes up. And there'll always be people who'd just choose not to procreate.

You don't seem to understand that the mindset simply comes from the situation.. even if all the people who believe we should breed less were to die out, the idea would still resurface soon enough if we grow big enough again, as a species, to make unsustainable resources an issue again.

Re:It is over rated

[ppanon]

Or the idea will come too late, you'll have overcommitment of resources beyond sustainability, leading to mass starvation and/or war over dwindling resources. Haviland Tuf is a recommended read.

Re:It is over rated

[pnutjam]

The biggest problem to a tribe w/ slow breeding, is the fast breeding tribe looking at their land...

Re:It is over rated

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Well, that's one solution. Not the prettiest, but it will likely work. (not the war, but famine)

Re:It is over rated

[wurp]

I totally agree that each person should decide whether to have kids. I apologize; I saw an inflammatory comment and I responded with another inflammatory comment slanted the other direction.

On the other hand, I do agree that the tendency to not have kids will self correct, and I'd rather it's the thinking people correcting it than Idiocrats.

Re:Murderers.

[Gerzel]

Yeah they also brought the field of modern medicine which has saved far more.

Before science it wasn't too uncommon for a woman to die during childbirth and the survival rate of children has risen drastically. So if you really cared about fetuses being born and having life you would encourage science.

Of course science also sometimes speaks against religions when the evidence points that way and it teaches people to think and criticize thought and knowledge both are very dangerous to the religious mind.

I want twins.

[0100010001010011]

I tell my girlfriend that I want twins, that way I can name one "Control". With Triplets you'd even be able to do 2 different studies.

Re:I want twins.

[Anonymous Coward]

I offer to help if you want to include double-blind testing during conception ;)

Re:I want twins.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they are born with visual defects, could you call it..... double blind?

gah. terrible.

Re:I want twins.

[bre_dnd]

Or, you could name them Control, Alt and Del.

Re:I want twins.

[Jstlook]

C'mon, any GOOD scientists should be able to get a few dozen different studies out of triplets!

You don't typically use up a whole human body in an experiment!
Seriously.

Re:I want twins.

[NoMaster]

Sure, if all you want to do is toy high school science fair fiddling and not real science.

Every proper scientist should know that you need at least 3 replicates per treatment...

Man, and I thought _I_ was geeky!

[Theovon]

I think I may once have referred to my daughter, before I knew she was a daughter, as a zygote, and I did often refer to her as a fetus. However, my wife did the same. Also, since my wife has various health issues (celiac disease and tyroid problems), we were always treating it as a schedule to follow with milestones and all sorts of measurements. None of this seemed conspicuously unusual to either of us, except perhaps for a combination or envy and pity for those people who people who know nothing about any of this.

Re:Murderers.

[BluBrick]

Yeah, and carpenters are responsible for building abortion clinics. Wake up, people! Carpenters are murderers!

Y'know... Come to think of it, wasn't Jesus a carpenter?

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if you are joking or not. I want to think you are just having fun...but there really are people with huge sticks up their asses and I can't tell if you are not one of them.

The Real Story Here

[scorp1us]

Is a scientist got laid. And his partner kept it.

Which puts her in a group of 2, not since Kathleen Fent has a woman loved such a humongous geek. :-)

Ever see the movie 'alien', honey?

[TiggertheMad]

No kidding! A parasite reduces the host's reproductive efficacy!

well, technically a fetus is a barrier to it's host becoming pregnant.....I think you just added to 'parasite' argument rather than detract from it.

Re:Ever see the movie 'alien', honey?

[_0xd0ad]

technically a fetus is a barrier to it's host becoming pregnant

And technically, if you jump in the pool first you can go outside in the rain and not get wet.

Model parent right there.

[mevans86]

Who's Daddy's little gestating blastocyst? Who's recapitulating phylogeny?

That'll make for some great home movies! And people wonder why kids don't want to go into science these days...

Re:Murderers.

[interkin3tic]

Scientists are responsible for bringing abortion into the world. These days a fetus is lucky to even have a crack at life.

We scientists also proved to the rest of you that sperm were not complete, though small humans, thus masturbation is not a waste of human life as the religious medicine men were saying it was. So you're able to self-pleasure without feeling guilty about it.

You're welcome.

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[Jiro]

7) Never assume that when a guy is a humor columnist and a stand up comedian he might not be intending things completely seriously.

Sheesh.

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[interkin3tic]

2) You never refer to fetus as a blastocyst, parasite, or nickname him "blobby"

Totally. If you actually -do- have a blastocyst, you wouldn't know it. The blastocyst stage is over by two weeks after conception. You can't tell if a woman is pregnant even via pregnancy test until the blastocyst stage is over. Calling it that would just be plain INACCURATE. I guess you could have sex and then start saying that 5 to 6 days later, but you wouldn't actually know for certain at that time. No self-respecting scientist would do that.

Oh, also it might annoy your wife/baby mama, but that's beside the point.

How Scientists Raze Parents.

[VortexCortex]

My first word was "Light", not Mama or Dada.

As a 6 year old boy I black-mailed my parents into subscribing to scientific journals and magazines (discovered via articles referencing them I read in the library). Ethics be damned, I knew all about many of their embarrassing secrets, esp. their gossip of others -- Someone had to take charge of my learning. In their ignorance, they couldn't see the value in feeding a young mind's thirst for knowledge with anything other than Sesame Street, Legos and 3-2-1 Contact. Money was not the issue, I saw many purchases attributed to leisure, and offered to give up my own current & future toys in exchange for knowledge.

I eventually came to respect my parents, but not until they had respected me as sentient member of the family (not an unquestionably obedient pet to be amused with mere toys). "Because I told you to, and I'm your Parent!", was never a logical argument -- It was tyrannical, and I revolted as any free-thinker would to tyranny. They eventually learned that respectfully explained commands worked far better: "Go to bed early so that you'll be refreshed, we have an earlier schedule than normal tomorrow morning." or "Go to your room, I'm upset enough to be irrational!" or "Mom and Dad need some alone time -- could you go play outside or at the neighbors?"

Perhaps having to explain yourself to a child is outrageous -- I say that to do otherwise is to foster ignorance, misunderstanding and thus irrational anger.

For my initial "insolence" and "ungrateful" attitude I suffered copious amounts of corporal punishment (it had little to no effect on my mind -- only reasoning did), but my unlucky parents suffered too under the burden of psychological warfare as I pitted one side against the other; Eg. placing Dad's porno under Mom's pillow, or putting things from Dad's wallet into Mom's purse -- there are so many little things that irritate adults.

My parents finally came to realize that they should also be grateful that they didn't have to talk down to me, or worry about censoring the world for me -- I knew what not to say and when not to say it, and right from wrong because they told me these things. They became grateful that they could simply say: "Sorry, that's too expensive, or dangerous I won't change my mind", and I would understand -- instead of arguing, whining, or throwing a temper-tantrum in public as other children sometimes do.

If you are of a strong scientific mind and high intellect: Toss out everything you know of the parent / child roles. Treat your children as you would like them to treat you, or as adults treat each other -- With respect. If they disrespect you, discipline them, but if you disrespect them, they will discipline you (what do you think an embarrassing fit of kicking and screaming is?).

A wife would be outraged at being sent to her room by a Husband, or vise versa. -- Indeed it may be best at times to calm down after a bit of distance and time, tell your children this, they will be less prone to irritate you if they can tell what's irritating. Oft times the whole issue can be avoided with a bit of communication: "Please stop that, I don't like it when you do that." You do not have to abandon your role as parent -- "Trust me, son, I can't explain why but you shouldn't do that" or "I need you to do this for me..."

Scientists beware -- Your genes may cause you to spawn a "monster" such as me -- A thirsty mind frustrated by its role as a child.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[MikeBabcock]

Perhaps having to explain yourself to a child is outrageous -- I say that to do otherwise is to foster ignorance, misunderstanding and thus irrational anger.

I encourage my daughter to disagree with me if she thinks she's right and can support her claim. I frequently point out that mindless obedience is not encouraged either. That said, she's very respectful and treats others well, including teachers who've claimed she doesn't know what she's talking about when she does.

A personal moment of pride was when she wrote a note to get herself out of after-school care. She wrote it first person, not claiming to be from her parents, included my cell phone number on it as back-up, and left it with a friend and took off. My phone rang with a panicked teacher explaining that she had this note I obviously didn't write and I told her it sounded fine to me.

Watching other parents raise mindless blobs is very frustrating.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you're not as smart or awesomeas you think you are.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, Lex. I appreciate your argument, but have you killed Superman yet?

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[trytoguess]

"Go to your room, I'm upset enough to be irrational!"

I'm curious, why did you accept this answer when it's a variation of "I'm not going to rationalize my anger, just gtfo?" The way you describe your precocious self, this shouldn't have been a acceptable response.

For what it's worth, it's great that you were able to an understanding with your parents at a young age. I know I was too hedonistic and self-centered to ever act the way you did. Not saying your methods of child rearing are wrong, just noting, it's not a surefire thing. Sometimes no amount of rationalizing will work, and luckily (I suppose) for most parents, most kids don't think up plans like hide Daddy's porn in Mommy's pillow.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Depends how young.

When you're less than 6 years old, you don't have enough reasoning to be able to really accurately argue with your parents. At that age, kids need to know that parents are God, and to go against God is a near death sentence. Otherwise you end up with the screaming, yelling brats you see at supermarkets every day. I mean, Christ, if a parent says "No I'm not buying you chocolate" you don't run around the shop throwing products on the floor and screaming for 15 minutes (happened a few days ago).

When I was that young, I'd never have dared to do that. I think it comes down to modern families being so scared of disciplining their kids. I always got the wooden spoon when I threw a tantrum or did something wrong, kids these days get a Mars bar to shut them up.

I think there does get to an age when, assuming the parents have raised the kids properly, when you start understanding common sense and logic. And nothing is worse for a kid than to look at their parents and say "They aren't making logical sense" - because as soon as that happens, you lose respect for those parents.

In retrospect, I understand my parents often were seeing the 'bigger picture', stuff I didn't understand at that age, but understood as I got older. But in their frustration, they would often say things that didn't make sense - a mixture of their own emotional annoyance, and trying to make it sound logical at the same time. A mixture of trying to argue with logic they would use with another similar aged person, and logic they'd use with someone younger.

I think arguing with a child is a skill in itself, especially if they're smart. They can understand a lot of logic you'd expect older people to understand, and yet, in some other aspects, they just "don't get it" since it comes with experience, rather than theoretical knowledge. Trying to word that in a way that supports your point can be hard, and I guess it's very easy to fall into your own contradictions then, which they'll ruthlessly pick up.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[justinlee37]

I don't think you need to use a "wooden spoon" to raise children.

My Dad had a fairly novel solution to the "temper tantrum in the store" problem. He simply ignored my tantrum and walked away. Once I realized that I was by myself I got scared and ran to the next aisle to find him. Of course, I immediately started my tantrum again, but he just walked away again. Once I learned that throwing the tantrum wouldn't get me what I wanted, I stopped throwing them -- no "wooden spoon" required.

The research shows that corporal punishment is not a good way to raise children. It causes them to become impulsive and violent, and in the end, they won't internalize the values that you wish to teach them, and then they'll run wild as soon as you're not around.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Jarik_Tentsu]

I think it ties into the rest of raising. It's not an isolated thing - "Use wooden spoon, and who cares about the rest."

I do think the wooden spoon is only useful at a very young age. After that, you can generally be reasoned with, or punished in different ways.

My parents raised me with a strong sense of values, a logical way of thinking, wooden spoon and yet, many positive benefits too. Despite the fact that using the wooden spoon is ruling through 'fear', I think the other aspect is creating respect, and a want to please. So yeah, I was scared of my parents, but I also loved and respected them, I wanted their approval and I thought that all their values made sense, and wanted to adopt them.

I'm not impulsive or violent at all, and I learnt the values my parents wanted to teach me. My values do differ a tad (since they're Christian, and I'm now atheist) but on a whole, I adopted a large number of it.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Sorry to double post, but I forgot to add.

I think one major thing is not to do it in anger. If you smack a kid in anger, it makes the kid think violence is an acceptable outlet for anger and frustration.

My parents never hit me when they were angry. Only when they were very calm, very logical and very rational. So it become more of a "This is a rule, you've broken it, so you suffer the punishment" as opposed to "I'm angry, so you're getting hit" - which could be what you were referring to in the 'imparting violent tendencies'.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[OpenLegs]

You obviously don't have kids. Or if you do, they haven't reached 2 yet.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you didn't just have aspergers?

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Sumtingwong]

So, where the fuck is my time machine, genius?

Logic and consequence are two completely different things and applied as a parent with utter and complete lack of prejudice. You do/did something that you though to be logical at whatever age you were: "...put my dad's porn under my mother's pillow..." results in a quick consequence of a) writing an essay; b) pushups; c) timeout; d) clean bathrooms with *extra* attention on the toilets in this house. A child's mind is not an adults and does not see consequence/big picture, *regardless* of the logic. If, in fact, this was so with your highly advanced intellect, please refer to my opening question.

The most important thing a child can learn is to do what they are told the first time. Bar none. Obviously your parents did not pursue this empirically proven method of parenting.

So, I imagine that you, now as an adult, are actually applying this vast wealth of knowledge you gained at the expense of your parents for the betterment or society?

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Tooke]

I have to ask, did you accidentally use the word 'raze' (instead of 'raise') or was it an intentional pun of some sort?

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame that your mighty, rational mind, ever so much more powerful than the puny organs of your parents, doesn't know how to pluralise Lego.

HINT: Legos is NOT the answer.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[JockTroll]

So, what are you doing now, burger flipper? Your parents did everything wrong and you were nothing but a spoiled, rotten, annoying brat who wasn't worth one thousandth of the time wasted on your worthless person. Why, with your "superior" intellect you can't even spell "raise" right. I expect ortography and grammar to be below your oh-so-precious little mind, loserboy. Kids must be educated, point. Parents are not friends or anything, they're PARENTS. Most of the things they do can't be understand by children who don't have the maturity, experience and knowledge to understand their choices. Your dad cannot spare time to play with you? Too bad, he's got to work so that your hungry little belly can be filled. Kids deserve no respect and should receive none. Your stupid parents didn't even get the basic fact that they didn't have just a responsability towards their useless prole, they had it towards the whole of society not to let an egotistical self-aggrandizing piece of shit run amok among civilized people. You blackmailed your parents? And they let you LIVE? In a sane family you wouldn't have just been punished by harsh beatings, you would have not received any gift of any kind for a minimum of one year - which is eternity to a kid. More insolence would have resulted in you being forced to pack up all of your toys and sell them. Play in an empty room, loserboy, see how much you like it. It's a shame abortion after birth is still illegal. Romans knew how to deal with your ilk - parents had life and death rights over their prole and rightly so. And by the way, you demonstrate lower than average intelligence coupled with an unjustifiably large ego. I'm surprised life (the harshest teacher of all) hasn't destroyed you yet. You must be living off someone else. Dismissed, loserboy. Shit on your own face, my excrements are too precious to be wasted on you.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[syousef]

See the problem with that is you are an atypical example. Most children, treated like an adult in terms of responsibility etc, would not thrive. That said it is true that we talk down to children too much.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps having to explain yourself to a child is outrageous -- I say that to do otherwise is to foster ignorance, misunderstanding and thus irrational anger.

I encourage my daughter to disagree with me if she thinks she's right and can support her claim. I frequently point out that mindless obedience is not encouraged either.

Hear hear on that. Our daughter just had her first birthday, but she's already had one instance where she was given a simple choice of responses and gave an answer which, while not what Mommy wanted to hear, was still valid. Near the end of a meal, she started playing with the food, and Mommy asked, "Are you going to eat that food or play with it?" Kiddo thought for a moment and said very clearly, "Play". So the meal was over.

We're striving to raise her to think in a manner such that, if we ask the "all your friends jumping off a cliff" question, her response would be, "Depends. Why are they jumping off the cliff?"

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[jenn_13]

It's hard to know how much of our logic kids understand, especially when they are young toddlers and don't use many words yet. I try to err on the side of telling my 19 month old son a little more of a rational explanation than I really expect him to understand. This way, I figure, if he doesn't get it, I'm still at least getting in the habit of using logic with him, and on the off chance he does, that's a bonus. Hopefully this is the right way to do things, anyway.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[snotclot]

Yes he comes off as having tried to hard to write a smart-alecky feel-good egotistical comment that reads off like something Orson Scott Card would have wrote for Ender's first-person stream-of-concoiusness (yes I'm aware a stream of conciousness is not nicely written and grammatically correct but is instead a stream of run-on sentences with a much less organized structure), however, I do say his use of 'raze' was quite a nice pun given what he wrote (which I took as a funny short-story Ender type story more than an egotistical ramble).

In short, cut him some slack. He tried hard to be cool, nerdy, and funny.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[JockTroll]

In short, cut him some slack.

No. He can cut his own wrists and die miserably live on MySpace while listening to My Chemical Romance, and be cremated on a pile of Twilight books.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[_0xd0ad]

I think he was going for funny.

I hope he was going for funny.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

rofl

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a mental spoon.

Re:How Scientists Raze Parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can somewhat identify with your childhood experience, VortexCortex.

Part of the problem for me as a child was that my parents simply were not particularly introspective, intellectual and/or analytical, whereas I was, and from a young age. The situation was somewhat akin to Lisa Simpson's position in the Simpson family. When there is such a mismatch it can be difficult for the parents to adequately provide the ideal intellectual and psychological stimulation and environment, simply because it is inherently "alien" to their own minds.

You say that you parents eventually were able to identify and communicate that some of their motivations in actions towards you were "irrational." My parents were just incapable of reflecting like this, especially in the heat of the moment when said irrational actions were occurring.

So I think one of the hurdles is that some children are different in some rather important character-defining ways to their parents, and the parents don't know how to react to this because they cannot fully appreciate the different mindset. I'd put forward the hypothesis that there may be all sorts of rather fundamental differences like this between some children and parents, other than just intellect and logical ability etc. For instance, some children may be much more sensitive and empathic than their parents, leading to similar problems.

As far as treating all children with more seriousness, intellectual respect and so on - it may be juggling act. My guess, and also observations of my peers as a child, suggest that many children do not possess a mind that is suitable for receiving more rational, logical, analytical interaction. They may in fact need, and respond best, to more instinctive-emotive-reactive relationships with adults. Example: telling some children not to stick a fork into an electrical outlet, in a calm considered manner, explaining the reasoning behind this advice may be ineffective and actually be dangerous.

well

[fireylord]

no need for the (pregnant) imo

Re:well

[jenn_13]

The sense of humor comes in handy, especially when you have to put up with a husband and kids. But actually, 99.9% of the time, they are the best thing in my life. Then there are the moments when you have to laugh when something frustrating happens, because there's no point in getting mad about it. Which is why my son had the temporary nickname of "Mom's fountain of joy", while I was learning to be much faster with diaper changing...

Re:well

[overlordofmu]

In what sounds like a similar situation, my kid earned the nickname "the-little-fucker-that-needs-to-stop-pissing-in-daddys-face".

slight correction needed

[fireylord]

Science doesn't speak against religions, Religions get all nervous and feel undermined by what science says, then try and control the information any way they can

Re:slight correction needed

[Gerzel]

Ah yes. True.

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[feufeu]

7) Don't tell her that *she* wanted a baby during labor pains. I did this and almost got killed on the spot...

Preaching to the choir

[fireylord]

Absolutely agree, shame that the stereotyped nerdographic on slashdot are kinda unfamiliar with sunlight, (non-inflatable)girls etc ;)

In other news...

[jenn_13]

Different people have different priorities, and find happiness in different things. This doesn't make any of them wrong or bad.

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[metrometro]

True, although in our case, my wife referred to our daughter affectionately as Blasty well into the pregnancy.

She also sang Frank Sinatra ("I get a kick out of you") to the fetus every day for 7 months or so, so she could compare the response post-partum to a control (Dean Martin). Results were inconclusive. We're considering another trial.

Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

In so many ways the biological process of pregnancy can be described as parasitic, just the foetus released mind control drugs which work rather well in dissipating any notion of parasitic behaviour that the host may have :-) Wonderful thing, physiology

Why is he talking to "it"

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know, it's just a lump of cells which has no innate special qualities, it's only when this lump of cells passes through the magic vaginal doorway, does it become a human being. Otherwise, how could people proactively support abortion?

amirite?

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Be aware, but keep your spine. Seriously.
3) Just because you aren't the one carrying the kid around doesn't mean she doesn't have to respect you as well. Also, the "yes dear" joke is old.

pedantic warning

[Anonymous Coward]

Nature dumps most fetuses before you're even aware you are pregnant. I realize you probably didn't know that. I do a lot of work with selective breeding. Of all the embryos fertilized very few gestate and are delivered. Do read up about this. You'll find that human purposeful abortion is actually a minor thing.

Sorry, but I think you mean to say embryo, not fetus. Most women are aware they are pregnant by the fetal stage. Most spontaneous abortions happen with embryos. Of course there are many fetuses that don't make it through the gestation process, it isn't the same thing. Although you may do a lot of work with selective breeding, I'm afraid you failed this interview question... Do read up about this, please...

On the subject of human purposeful abortion, well, that's another matter, but probably only a minor thing to people who don't appreciate the difference between an embryo and a fetus...

Re:pedantic warning

[ppanon]

On the subject of human purposeful abortion, well, that's another matter, but probably only a minor thing to people who don't appreciate the difference between an embryo and a fetus

I propose the Catholic Church hierarchy as a significant counterexample to your supposition. They refuse to make a significant distinction between a fetus, an embryo, a blastocyst, or even a potentially fertilized egg, yet they appear to consider it a very major thing.

Natural born scientists

[Coward Anonymous]

Babies and children are natural born scientists. They are born a blank slate and they learn, through trial and error, to walk, talk, predict and reason about the world around them. Everyone is born a scientist. The real mystery is at what point do people lose their inner scientist and is it squeezed out of them by society?

Every kid repeatedly smashing an object out of curiosity is a miniature particle physicist - putting energy into a system to see what happens.

Re:Natural born scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

The real mystery is at what point do people lose their inner scientist and is it squeezed out of them by society?
About the time they start going to church...

Re:Natural born scientists

[JockTroll]

Wrong. Science requires method and discipline, and children have none of that. What they have is curiosity, a trait shared by many animals (mainly predators and hoarders) that pushes them to learn as much as possible about the environment in a short time in order to survive in it. There is no scientific method in the child breaking up stuff to see how is made any more than there is in the hamster gnawing open a wooden box to see if there's anything of interest inside. I bet you're just trying to claim the title of "scientist" for yourself out of your little erroneous reasonment. People stop doing that when they've learned enough about the environment that they don't have to actively seek new information en masse. By the time they're adults (in the natural sense, not in the legal one, which happens to be rather early) they start exercising more caution and learn what they actually need. Nature at work, no ideology needed. Is that clear, loserboy?

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[IorDMUX]

My wife and I called our youngest "Smudge" from the first smudgy ultrasound until birth. The nickname was picked up quickly and well received by our extended families.

...Though some of her blog readers were rather put off by our seemingly insensitive choice of name for a son.

Re:Murderers.

[turtledawn]

AND it also proved that men were responsible for determining the sex of their children, eliminating a major excuse men used to control the behaviour of women. Yay science!

Re:Murderers.

[trytoguess]

Plus he was chummy with the whores. Those folks that were most likely to have knowledge of, and do abortions. Geeze, what a bleeding heart, half ass Christian he was...

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[OpenLegs]

Explain #6 better please, I have a very twisted image in my head that I hope you didn't really mean.

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[Anonymous Coward]

I always bug my 8 months pregnant wife lol. You just have to know when to stop.

For quite a while I was referring to the foetus as a alien (technically it is a alien growth within her body). "Just wait babe, she's gonna burst out your belly and go 'raaarrrrrrrr'". It was a good laugh for both of us and as studies have shown, laughter is good for your health. :D

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[GreatDrok]

I once said we were wetting the baby's head while having pregnant sex. Didn't say that again......

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[XManticore]

Considering doing something similar, reading books aloud to one of my unborn children.

My mom read to me every day in the womb, I love books as much as her. She didn't do the same for my sister, who doesn't read much at all. I doubt there's much in that, but who knows –a job for SCIENCE!

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the 'like' button?

Adults are ...

[Dr.Ruud]

Adults are failed children.

Re:Scientist treating pregnancy as science experim

[AmiMoJo]

Not sure if you were joking but science is the reason most of our kids don't die before reaching age 1.

Re:Murderers.

[pnutjam]

yup, ease up at the end or you blow the balls off...

Recapitulation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who's recapitulating phylogeny?"
That's cute I guess but no real scientist would say that. Recapitulation is a bad hypothesis from the 1800s. Who remembers Robert Edmond Grant? Most people remember Richard Owen.

I'm not a scientist but I can be just as pedantic.

Re:If you ever have children, don't make my mistak

[balbus000]

Phil: Blobby, like Bobby, only with an l
Lem: Don't name it or you won't want to eat it. Remember Chester the carrot?
Phil: Yeah, I miss him

Re:Murderers.

[jbonomi]

Good. Abort 'em all, I say.

Re:Scientist treating pregnancy as science experim

[c6gunner]

Fortunately, nature generally is pretty good at stopping scientists from reproducing--which may ultimately be for the best. I can really only take so much of there pedantic over-analysis of even the most trivial things

Yeah, stupid people often have a gut-level reaction - ranging from trepidation to outright fear - when dealing with subjects which they are poorly equipped to understand. This reaction is readily transformed into hostility aimed at those without such limitations.

Oh, right ... big words ... sorry, I'll translate: Don't worry! You're perfectly normal!