> Cut your commute. Sacrifice space to relocate around work, or sacrifice pay to work closer to home.
Most of these suggestions are detached from reality, I don't move away from my family because I feel some arbitrary social expectation, I do it because I want space and freedom. Maybe for the few that are both A) highly extroverted and social, and B) happen to have a good relationship with all of their family members/friends family, this could appear pleasant.
Another option is to simply not have kids, no one is forcing you (outside of possible familial pressure, all the more reason to keep a healthy distance...)
> Most of these suggestions are detached from reality, I don't move away from my family because I feel some arbitrary social expectation, I do it because I want space and freedom.
I'm going against the grain a little here, and say that's reasonable. Not all families are great to live with. Heck, I had some cousins I tried living with and nearly permanently damaged my relationship with them.
I will say deciding to live with an extended _found_ family can be awesome. There's usually someone around to help pick up slack, and there's nothing quite like the relationships you can form based on that extended time together.
Even the extended found family thing, though? Not always great. I'd say what communal living does is make for higher lows, and sometimes lower highs. If you're in abundant circumstances where you have multiple close relationships and survival/logistics aren't an issue, it's largely unnecessary -- but if you aren't, it's really worth trying.
> Cut your commute. Sacrifice space to relocate around work
I've actually done this. It was a massive financial stretch, but probably the best thing I've ever done for my own and my family's wellbeing...and it's not a thing that just anyone can do.
I've also done the opposite, as circumstances and life changed.
Even later in life, I've gone completely the other way. I commute once a week to spend Tuesday through Thursday near my job in another city.
Every person, situation, and dynamic is unique. There's no one-size solution that applies all of the time. The real key, IMHO, is reflecting on and knowing what you want, and then optimizing for that.
> A) highly extroverted and social, and B) happen to have a good relationship with all of their family members/friends family, this could appear
Only B is required. Why would you need to be extroverted to live with your family!?
If you do not have a good relationship with your family that is the real problem.
Why not cut your commute. Working from home has been so liberating.
> Another option is to simply not have kids, no one is forcing you
Most people want to have kids. They are the most fulfilling thing in most people's lives. Its an option, but it means giving up a lot so is anything but "simply".
I hope you understand that "why not cut your commute" is a highly privileged question; I'm happy its been easy for you, but wfh is not a guarantee in most lines of work, and neither is reasonable CoL anywhere; wherever you live, you still need to pay bills (and not to mention that the process of moving itself is rarely easy).
And there's a lot of things I would love/want to do that I "simply" don't, because I either can't afford it, or its otherwise incompatible with my current position in life/security. This is part of being an adult.
And I have a decent relationship with most family members near me, but spending time with them is still eventually mentally exhausting, I moved out for a reason. I suspect more extroverted people do not experience such exhaustion from continued socializing (which would obv be more frequent in a multigenerational/multifamily home), so thats why I mentioned it.
> Why not cut your commute. Working from home has been so liberating.
For people who work as, say, a crane operator at a loading/unloading dock it's exactly a simple thing to ask ships and trains to come all the way to your house. Same thing for bricklayers, warehouse workers, cashiers, librarians, archeologists, prison wardens,...
"detached from reality" seems like an overstatement.
Most of these are tradeoffs. Space and freedom is clearly what is sacrificed in this tradeoff, but that doesn't mean it isnt realistic. I tend to agree that these are the choices people are presented with. the question is just the balance they choose to strike.
One problem that is hard to consider is that parents are humans too, and as parents start to get children older and older, things become complex. We get older and start to feel our time slip away and all the stuff we wanted to do become less and less real, we feel fear and anxiety, and make suboptimal decisions. The world is a harsh place full of noise, so let’s cut parents some slack too. :)
Nobody does this because nobody wants to do this. Communal and multigenerational living was the default standard for all of human history. But as soon as people are wealthy enough in any society, they get out of it.
>Communal and multigenerational living was the default standard for all of human history. But as soon as people are wealthy enough in any society, they get out of it.
This. I'm not sure why we pretend poor people live like that because they want to or because their society is better, when the reality is that most people wouldn't live like that if they had a choice.
>It's no doubt fine enough for adults, but the blog post is focused on how it affects children
Doubly so for children. Being locked into a rigid hierarchical familial/social situation that one is born into completely inhibits the development of self reliance, individuality, and a (healthy) ego. You are never allowed to be something that you are not expected to be by others and thus can never truly grow as a person. And if you try, you will be cut down to size, because "who do you think you are?".
For an example, just look at the people who never left your hometown compared to the ones who went and made a life for themselves. It's pretty miserable and depressing to see grown adults trapped as the same person they were in high school.
For an example, just look at the people who never left your hometown compared to the ones who went and made a life for themselves. It's pretty miserable and depressing to see grown adults trapped as the same person they were in high school.
Can confirm. Grew up in a small oilfield town in Texas and could not get out of there fast enough. Most (not all obviously) of my high school peers that I kept contact with that never left did not fair as well as I did.
>For an example, just look at the people who never left your hometown compared to the ones who went and made a life for themselves. It's pretty miserable and depressing to see grown adults trapped as the same person they were in high school.
My experience is the opposite. Most people that I know that stayed in my hometown earned less but were married and homeowners by 25, had children and parental daycare by 30.
On the other hand, Most of my peers that moved to the Bay Area are struggling to make the life goals they want. They earn twice as much, but are still priced out of homeownership at 35 and struggle to raise children without community support.
Maybe your experience is different, but IMHO, community is a huge net positive, and life in isolation stifles personal growth. Not every social situation is rigidly hierarchical and abusive.
I may be misinterpreting, but I think that what the quoted post is talking about is probably independent from the kind of development you’ve mentioned.
For instance, while the person who never moved from their hometown might’ve been able to hit societal goalposts earlier on, they may never have had the opportunity to explore, experiment, and figure themselves and what they want to do out (as opposed to the identity they’d picked up via osmosis from family).
Speaking personally, in retrospect I was certainly underdeveloped in that way until my late 20s and early 30s, even though I couldn’t perceive that at the time. The requisite independence/autonomy and experience just wasn’t there until several years later. Had I locked myself into my situation with a marriage and children at that age I think it’s quite likely I would’ve come to regret it in the years following, increasing risk of outcomes such as divorce.
People do prefer space when given an option, but living in a long hut isnt the only way to have community. There are tons of people who intentionally live in co-located communities and make tradeoffs to be close to family.
Do people actually think "somebody tranq that child" or do parents with publicly misbehaving children just feel like they are?
Like, I'm a bit annoyed when there's a crying baby on my bus or something, but I'm annoyed at being caught in that circumstance, not at either the parent or the child.
A crying baby is not misbehaving. A crying baby is wet, hungry, tired, or sick.
If the child is sick, the parents don't really have a lot of thought to spare on the bystanders. (Or anyway I didn't. I'm sorry if you resented the noise, but I had someone else on my mind.)
It's your responsibility as a parent to teach your kid not to be obnoxious to others within reasonable limits and expectations for its age while also managing the situations it's in so that it's not so hungry/tired/whatever that it can't help itself.
Obviously exact expectations all subjective and what's reasonable is a sliding scale based on age of child and situation.
Note that an outsider is likely not going to have the full picture at a glance, so even if it seems like a "wow, this parent is irresponsible and bad" situation, give some leeway. There are plenty of bad eggs, but also just people having bad days or something else entirely.
Oh, if only. But we can be sure that if one is ever unfortunate enough to lose it then it will probably be in public, recorded, and posted online for posterity.
If crying babies were not annoying, we'd be in big trouble. Nonetheless I appreciate parents who mitigate the effect by moving their child, tending to needs, etc.
Loud phone conversation and sodcasting however...
Human history undoubtedly abounds with instances of youth (or others) claiming public space while irritating elders and authority figures, but loud videos on a phone are a portal to the inferno.
I used to be extremely angry when I had to spend some time around loud kids, especially misbehaving kids. Of course I never said anything but I was always fuming inside and wanted to scream at someone. Depending on the child age I was angry at the parent or both. Btw. I was also often aware that my anger is not rational.
Now I'm getting close to becoming a parent myself, and I think I'm suddenly getting much milder. Maybe there's a relation between child tolerance and being a parent? Or maybe it's just age.
My wife is prone to overstimulation when there's too many noises, especially if she's trying to concentrate on something, or there's other unexpected sensory stimuli (especially being bumped or jostled or sudden bright lights), or, weirdly, if she's dehydrated or overheated.
At first, I thought this was just her own idiosyncrasy. Then I realized that I'm also capable of experiencing the exact same thing, in very similar circumstances, albeit a little less prone.
The weird thing is that overstimulation often manifests first as irritation, and then as irrational anger. So many times when my previous understanding was "Oh I get really angry when this happens" or "Oh this sort of thing makes me really cranky", I've realized it's more helpful to frame it as overstimulation.
Why does the distinction matter? It has different solutions! (Irrational) anger mostly has the solution of just trying to get over it, take some breaths, calm down, logic through it. That's all very well and good, but if the source of the anger is repeated, you'll have to keep doing that the whole bus ride/airplane trip/waiting room duration. If you can realize that you're overstimulated, you can make a point of reducing stimuli: rehydrating (again, I can't emphasize enough how much of a mysterious correlation there is), and basically doing a bodyscan to figure out what stimuli you're experiencing and how you can reduce them. Creating darkness, putting on sunglasses, even just closing your eyes, adjusting your clothes or seat or position so you're not getting chafed or poked or pushed, earplugs obviously help with the child crying but they also reduce other noises that might be a big factor in your irritation, often taking off a layer so you're not feeling overwarm.
And it helps to reframe it as "Oh hey my brain is processing too many sensations at once and kind of throwing a tantrum" rather than "Wow I'm really shitty and selfish and judgemental when there's a noisy child." It's been a real change in perspective.
Once you have a kid you'll get mad that they don't know how to calm the kid down effectively, or seem to not want to put in the effort in many cases.
For example, when we went out to eat with our infant/toddler when she got bored I'd take her outside for a walk to calm her down. 2 - 5 minutes is enough.
Then you see parents just scrolling on their iPhone while the little one screams. If I wasn't a man and would have the police called on me, I'd ask them to do it myself.
Yes. But I do draw a distinction between "normal" child behavior and parents who have literally zero control over their little monsters. Babies cry. It happens. It's fine. Toddlers say or do inappropriate things as they learn to navigate the world. They have meltdowns sometimes too. But then there are parents who let their kids run screaming through shared spaces or lets them knock items off of shelves or harass other people. Decent parents will try to mitigate their children's behavior. Bad parents just watch uselessly.
> Combine multiple families in one household.
> Adopt multigenerational living.
> Cut your commute. Sacrifice space to relocate around work, or sacrifice pay to work closer to home.
Most of these suggestions are detached from reality, I don't move away from my family because I feel some arbitrary social expectation, I do it because I want space and freedom. Maybe for the few that are both A) highly extroverted and social, and B) happen to have a good relationship with all of their family members/friends family, this could appear pleasant.
Another option is to simply not have kids, no one is forcing you (outside of possible familial pressure, all the more reason to keep a healthy distance...)
> Most of these suggestions are detached from reality, I don't move away from my family because I feel some arbitrary social expectation, I do it because I want space and freedom.
I'm going against the grain a little here, and say that's reasonable. Not all families are great to live with. Heck, I had some cousins I tried living with and nearly permanently damaged my relationship with them.
I will say deciding to live with an extended _found_ family can be awesome. There's usually someone around to help pick up slack, and there's nothing quite like the relationships you can form based on that extended time together.
Even the extended found family thing, though? Not always great. I'd say what communal living does is make for higher lows, and sometimes lower highs. If you're in abundant circumstances where you have multiple close relationships and survival/logistics aren't an issue, it's largely unnecessary -- but if you aren't, it's really worth trying.
> Cut your commute. Sacrifice space to relocate around work
I've actually done this. It was a massive financial stretch, but probably the best thing I've ever done for my own and my family's wellbeing...and it's not a thing that just anyone can do.
I've also done the opposite, as circumstances and life changed.
Even later in life, I've gone completely the other way. I commute once a week to spend Tuesday through Thursday near my job in another city.
Every person, situation, and dynamic is unique. There's no one-size solution that applies all of the time. The real key, IMHO, is reflecting on and knowing what you want, and then optimizing for that.
> A) highly extroverted and social, and B) happen to have a good relationship with all of their family members/friends family, this could appear
Only B is required. Why would you need to be extroverted to live with your family!?
If you do not have a good relationship with your family that is the real problem.
Why not cut your commute. Working from home has been so liberating.
> Another option is to simply not have kids, no one is forcing you
Most people want to have kids. They are the most fulfilling thing in most people's lives. Its an option, but it means giving up a lot so is anything but "simply".
I hope you understand that "why not cut your commute" is a highly privileged question; I'm happy its been easy for you, but wfh is not a guarantee in most lines of work, and neither is reasonable CoL anywhere; wherever you live, you still need to pay bills (and not to mention that the process of moving itself is rarely easy).
And there's a lot of things I would love/want to do that I "simply" don't, because I either can't afford it, or its otherwise incompatible with my current position in life/security. This is part of being an adult.
And I have a decent relationship with most family members near me, but spending time with them is still eventually mentally exhausting, I moved out for a reason. I suspect more extroverted people do not experience such exhaustion from continued socializing (which would obv be more frequent in a multigenerational/multifamily home), so thats why I mentioned it.
> I hope you understand that "why not cut your commute" is a highly privileged question
Yes I do understand that, but it is one of many choices.
It also involves trade offs. For me it was one of multiple benefits of making a lot less money.
> Why not cut your commute. Working from home has been so liberating.
For people who work as, say, a crane operator at a loading/unloading dock it's exactly a simple thing to ask ships and trains to come all the way to your house. Same thing for bricklayers, warehouse workers, cashiers, librarians, archeologists, prison wardens,...
Some of those people might be able to get a lower paid job closer to home, others might be able to move closer to work.
Its not possible for everyone, but it is possible for a lot of people.
"detached from reality" seems like an overstatement.
Most of these are tradeoffs. Space and freedom is clearly what is sacrificed in this tradeoff, but that doesn't mean it isnt realistic. I tend to agree that these are the choices people are presented with. the question is just the balance they choose to strike.
Detached from YOUR reality. Not everyone dislikes their family, though I’m personally with you in that I wouldn’t want to live with mine.
These are all options. They might not suit you, but some might.
i.e. my parents are retired they could live with me, just like grandma lived with them. I've spent tons of time with grandma...
One problem that is hard to consider is that parents are humans too, and as parents start to get children older and older, things become complex. We get older and start to feel our time slip away and all the stuff we wanted to do become less and less real, we feel fear and anxiety, and make suboptimal decisions. The world is a harsh place full of noise, so let’s cut parents some slack too. :)
This is allegorical, folks. Have blowguns shrunk so much in the past forty years that they now fit in your pocket?
Phones. He's talking about smartphones.
Nobody does this because nobody wants to do this. Communal and multigenerational living was the default standard for all of human history. But as soon as people are wealthy enough in any society, they get out of it.
>Communal and multigenerational living was the default standard for all of human history. But as soon as people are wealthy enough in any society, they get out of it.
This. I'm not sure why we pretend poor people live like that because they want to or because their society is better, when the reality is that most people wouldn't live like that if they had a choice.
It's no doubt fine enough for adults, but the blog post is focused on how it affects children
>It's no doubt fine enough for adults, but the blog post is focused on how it affects children
Doubly so for children. Being locked into a rigid hierarchical familial/social situation that one is born into completely inhibits the development of self reliance, individuality, and a (healthy) ego. You are never allowed to be something that you are not expected to be by others and thus can never truly grow as a person. And if you try, you will be cut down to size, because "who do you think you are?".
For an example, just look at the people who never left your hometown compared to the ones who went and made a life for themselves. It's pretty miserable and depressing to see grown adults trapped as the same person they were in high school.
>For an example, just look at the people who never left your hometown compared to the ones who went and made a life for themselves. It's pretty miserable and depressing to see grown adults trapped as the same person they were in high school.
My experience is the opposite. Most people that I know that stayed in my hometown earned less but were married and homeowners by 25, had children and parental daycare by 30.
On the other hand, Most of my peers that moved to the Bay Area are struggling to make the life goals they want. They earn twice as much, but are still priced out of homeownership at 35 and struggle to raise children without community support.
Maybe your experience is different, but IMHO, community is a huge net positive, and life in isolation stifles personal growth. Not every social situation is rigidly hierarchical and abusive.
I may be misinterpreting, but I think that what the quoted post is talking about is probably independent from the kind of development you’ve mentioned.
For instance, while the person who never moved from their hometown might’ve been able to hit societal goalposts earlier on, they may never have had the opportunity to explore, experiment, and figure themselves and what they want to do out (as opposed to the identity they’d picked up via osmosis from family).
Speaking personally, in retrospect I was certainly underdeveloped in that way until my late 20s and early 30s, even though I couldn’t perceive that at the time. The requisite independence/autonomy and experience just wasn’t there until several years later. Had I locked myself into my situation with a marriage and children at that age I think it’s quite likely I would’ve come to regret it in the years following, increasing risk of outcomes such as divorce.
There might be some natural selection there. Some were attracted to experiment and explore (some had shitty family) and left for better pastures.
People do prefer space when given an option, but living in a long hut isnt the only way to have community. There are tons of people who intentionally live in co-located communities and make tradeoffs to be close to family.
Do people actually think "somebody tranq that child" or do parents with publicly misbehaving children just feel like they are?
Like, I'm a bit annoyed when there's a crying baby on my bus or something, but I'm annoyed at being caught in that circumstance, not at either the parent or the child.
A crying baby is not misbehaving. A crying baby is wet, hungry, tired, or sick.
If the child is sick, the parents don't really have a lot of thought to spare on the bystanders. (Or anyway I didn't. I'm sorry if you resented the noise, but I had someone else on my mind.)
It's your responsibility as a parent to teach your kid not to be obnoxious to others within reasonable limits and expectations for its age while also managing the situations it's in so that it's not so hungry/tired/whatever that it can't help itself.
Obviously exact expectations all subjective and what's reasonable is a sliding scale based on age of child and situation.
Note that an outsider is likely not going to have the full picture at a glance, so even if it seems like a "wow, this parent is irresponsible and bad" situation, give some leeway. There are plenty of bad eggs, but also just people having bad days or something else entirely.
I expect adults to maintain emotional control and practice empathy.
Oh, if only. But we can be sure that if one is ever unfortunate enough to lose it then it will probably be in public, recorded, and posted online for posterity.
My pet peeve is parents who hand their children devices and let them turn the volume all the way up.
Yes.
But I'm a jackass and hate loud noises.
If crying babies were not annoying, we'd be in big trouble. Nonetheless I appreciate parents who mitigate the effect by moving their child, tending to needs, etc.
Loud phone conversation and sodcasting however...
Human history undoubtedly abounds with instances of youth (or others) claiming public space while irritating elders and authority figures, but loud videos on a phone are a portal to the inferno.
I used to be extremely angry when I had to spend some time around loud kids, especially misbehaving kids. Of course I never said anything but I was always fuming inside and wanted to scream at someone. Depending on the child age I was angry at the parent or both. Btw. I was also often aware that my anger is not rational.
Now I'm getting close to becoming a parent myself, and I think I'm suddenly getting much milder. Maybe there's a relation between child tolerance and being a parent? Or maybe it's just age.
My wife is prone to overstimulation when there's too many noises, especially if she's trying to concentrate on something, or there's other unexpected sensory stimuli (especially being bumped or jostled or sudden bright lights), or, weirdly, if she's dehydrated or overheated.
At first, I thought this was just her own idiosyncrasy. Then I realized that I'm also capable of experiencing the exact same thing, in very similar circumstances, albeit a little less prone.
The weird thing is that overstimulation often manifests first as irritation, and then as irrational anger. So many times when my previous understanding was "Oh I get really angry when this happens" or "Oh this sort of thing makes me really cranky", I've realized it's more helpful to frame it as overstimulation.
Why does the distinction matter? It has different solutions! (Irrational) anger mostly has the solution of just trying to get over it, take some breaths, calm down, logic through it. That's all very well and good, but if the source of the anger is repeated, you'll have to keep doing that the whole bus ride/airplane trip/waiting room duration. If you can realize that you're overstimulated, you can make a point of reducing stimuli: rehydrating (again, I can't emphasize enough how much of a mysterious correlation there is), and basically doing a bodyscan to figure out what stimuli you're experiencing and how you can reduce them. Creating darkness, putting on sunglasses, even just closing your eyes, adjusting your clothes or seat or position so you're not getting chafed or poked or pushed, earplugs obviously help with the child crying but they also reduce other noises that might be a big factor in your irritation, often taking off a layer so you're not feeling overwarm.
And it helps to reframe it as "Oh hey my brain is processing too many sensations at once and kind of throwing a tantrum" rather than "Wow I'm really shitty and selfish and judgemental when there's a noisy child." It's been a real change in perspective.
Once you have a kid you'll get mad that they don't know how to calm the kid down effectively, or seem to not want to put in the effort in many cases.
For example, when we went out to eat with our infant/toddler when she got bored I'd take her outside for a walk to calm her down. 2 - 5 minutes is enough.
Then you see parents just scrolling on their iPhone while the little one screams. If I wasn't a man and would have the police called on me, I'd ask them to do it myself.
Yes. But I do draw a distinction between "normal" child behavior and parents who have literally zero control over their little monsters. Babies cry. It happens. It's fine. Toddlers say or do inappropriate things as they learn to navigate the world. They have meltdowns sometimes too. But then there are parents who let their kids run screaming through shared spaces or lets them knock items off of shelves or harass other people. Decent parents will try to mitigate their children's behavior. Bad parents just watch uselessly.
Ironically children who are frequently tranq'd will never learn how to behave publicly.