Brain has five 'eras' with adult mode not starting until early 30s(theguardian.com) |
Brain has five 'eras' with adult mode not starting until early 30s(theguardian.com) |
[0] https://andreian.com/hobbits-coming-of-age/#:~:text=What%20y...
I just met up with my Brother-in-law and his friends for our yearly gathering. All of them are in their 30s and none of them are in what I would consider 'adult mode'.
They are all un-married/no kids, barely scraping by, partying every weekend/wasting money on weed and booze. Certainly no careers (mostly retail, some unemployed and still living with parents).
I wonder if these numbers will change with the new generation, because so many are not having kids or getting married.
The median income almost doubles between age 23 and 35.
When I think about my friends and friends of my relatives, what GP described appears to be the norm - also among the educated and in the upper-middle class. They often identify themselves as "dog parents".
The problem with such reports (the studies themselves method-wise etc are in general fine I guess, but how the results are interpreted and disseminated is the issue) is that unless we find some specific correlations with behavioural and such measures, it makes no sense to give these kind of meanings such as "adolescence", adult mode", behavioural/mental/cognitive matureness or whatever cultural or other norms one may think a "mature/adult person" should abide to. Especially since these abstract topological measures, while interesting, are not that trivially linked with real outcomes in a causal sense, and instead of eg simply reflecting rather environmental or other changes in a person's life.
I have similar concerns about reporting on this paper - feels ripe for pop-sci misunderstandings.
I've always found it interesting that laws are set by politics to allow privileges at certain ages (16, 18, 21), but car rental companies - whose motives are more purely data-driven - won't rent to anyone under 25.
I'm certainly not advocating withholding suffrage until 25, but driving... the data is very strong that it would save lives.
People already pick and choose who they feel sympathy for and give a pass to on the basis of their personal experiences, belief system, and social proximity. Think of how many, for instance, ridicule politicians for being too saintly and enabling or mean and without empathy then give their friends and family a pass for the exact same behavior. They'll get angry with celebrities for things that they allegedly did then shrug off a driver running a red light and nearly killing them because they "don't take things personally". Addicts are a blight on society until it's somebody's child or brother or sister in which case they just need help. Et cetera ad infinitum.
People (you and I included) are fickle. This changes nothing.
That's why as you get older you start to understand what the heck is happening in your life, because you finally have multiple experiences to compare to. Then you can finally understand what is meant to be traumatic and what is right and wrong. The first time you went through something you were basically numb to the experience.
I thought it was because if people die in battle at that age, they were statistically unlikely to leave widows and children to collect pensions.
I think it’s more about as you get older and wiser you realize war isn’t such a good idea for your future.
Early 30s is mid-life mode.
Why? Because time and time again research shows we should treat people 13 and up as adults. Even when they get some extra years of youth-judgement in court, and we put 18/21 in place as lawful adult...
Q: "Is this based on a clearly expressed scientific theory?"
A: "Be serious -- it's just an idea, a narrative."
Q: "What would constitute a basis for either statistical validation or falsification?"
A: "You're confusing psychology with science. That's naive."
Like most such things, I'd expect this to be a spectrum, and I may be somewhat of a late bloomer. Regardless, I have a theory that there is somewhat of a protective effect operating here. Believing in a simpler reality which involved future wish fulfillment for me - however unrealistic it was - may have helped me survive. Coming to acceptance of what I see as a more accurate but far bleaker perspective required me to grow strong enough to sustain my will to live despite that perspective.
Biggest lesson learned: I could not do it without at least one other person (or more) who I trust almost 100% with all of myself. Realizing that going it alone is futile is definitely part of what I consider becoming an adult, and it can take a long time to fully accept that.
Its strange. The biggest lesson I learned was almost the opposite: I learned that the meaning of life has nothing to do with other people or their estimation of me. It has more to do with who you are when there is nobody else around. Other people often act as a sort of fun house mirror that distort and reflect back a false image.
Learning to be happy alone and seeing through the pleasant lies is absolutely vital to becoming an adult.
It's easy to identity lies and hypocrisy in others. But the brain has all sorts of tricks to prevent it from looking inwards; at least for me it prefers feeling rewarded to deep self-criticism. Finding someone who sees me and will happily call me on my assumptions, conditioning, and BS has been a great gift.
We also ultimately derive pretty much everything we most value in life from our interactions with other lives, which is why I think it's so important to develop high-trust relationships with at least one or two other people so we can continue to grapple with the fact that we all have different perspectives, weaknesses and strengths and can usually learn more and get significantly more things done when we cooperate than when we're running solo. Which requires trust.
YMMV, of course. Some people can go build a cabin in the woods and live off the land and spend all their free time meditating and be perfectly happy. But that's not most of us. And even those people eventually get too old to keep taking care of themselves.
Whatever your "meaning of life" may be, it's not the estimation of you that other people have that is important, but we are incredibly social creatures. Life is really not possible for individuals of our species without some level of society and community. Even Christopher Knight - the North Pond Hermit in Main who lived alone without human contact for 27 years - survived by burglarizing cabins and camps and was eventually reintegrated into society.
I guess my point is this is a dialectic. Both can be true, and both are true. The "trust almost 100% with all of myself" might be debatable, but "I could not do it with at least one other person" seems kind of obvious, as does "Learning to be happy alone is vital to becoming an adult."
There are many selves, and you will never know your true self. Because you can only process yourself through your own mind, which will perform transforms, regardless of how hard you try not to. And maybe there isn't even a true self, only perceptions.
i think of this as the 'no longer caring if my socks match' era.
why:
You can't see them, my jeans cover my ankles
why are you looking at my socks?
both socks have the same texture that's all that matters
who has time to sort socks?
The parent’s advice is toxic and mistaken. It’s a road to codependency. I’ve been with my wife 20 years, married 15. I would have said the same thing they said — I can’t do it all on my own, I need someone else.
Rubbish. And also dangerous rubbish. I’ve been weak for a long time simply because I hadn’t taken myself seriosuly. I literally believed that I couldn’t do it alone, which was wrong.
It was unfair to my wife to use her as an emotional support when she didn’t want to be. She’s been there for me a lot over the years. But when you tell someone that you can’t do it without them, it’s no longer their decision, and that’s unfair. Both to her and to me.
Please read Codependent No More, and especially Lost in the Shuffle by Subby. (I’ve identified a lot more with the latter.)
The point is, it’s okay to be having a rough time with your wife. Let go. Let her do her own thing. Stop caring so much. It’s okay for her to be upset and not want to help/have sex/go to an event/involve you/whatever the problem may be. The reason it feels rough is because you personally let it feel rough. Once I adopted that mindset, it became so much easier. And ironically my marriage improved.
Meds are also important. Make sure you’re on a good dosage of antidepressants if you need them, and a mood stabilizer. I recently started Latuda and dropped Seroquel per my psychiatrist, and it’s been night and day.
Lastly, keep trying to talk to people about your problems. I ended up reaching out to a random person on Twitter. They were kind and to my surprise happy to listen. It was one of the main reasons I was able to get through it all. The best person to talk to is a therapist, though I’d be happy to listen till you can find one.
You’re strong. You need to believe that. And you’re strong independently of your family or anyone else. Give yourself credit for getting as far as you have; that part has been important too.
The only wisdom I can offer: other people emotions don’t have to control yours (despite what they tell you). The best take on this that I know: be like a goose - they don’t get wet, just shake it off.
And take care of yourself!
Everyone's situation is different, but I can say that in even a semi-healthy relationship, time heals many wounds, greater mutual understanding grows, hard edges can soften and people will often surprise you. You can also learn things you could improve about yourself which you were previously blind to. The sense of stability this reinforces is immensely helpful.
On the other hand, I also have an ex-- and while I wish I would have ended that differently in hindsight, it did need to end for my mental health to improve. If you are with someone who abuses you, cannot be reasoned with and never admits fault, it is wise to plan several exit strategies.
It was helpful to figure out some of my stuff and deal with a bunch of trauma.
Every relation is different. A successful relation is built when both side are compatible.
What does compatible mean, though? Some relations are swingers. Some relations follow strict religious rules. Some people need taking a beating, and I don't mean an erotic one. In None of this cases I am meaning they are codependent, and then there are successful codependent relations.
The only constant I have seen is that every successful relation has discussions, fights, momments when they considered separating. And there is compromise, in every case.
I am sorry I don't have any specific advice. Good luck
Weird, for me its the complete opposite. I accepted to live alone for the rest of my life because a) I am undesired and I wont make a move. b) I barely met people I would even consider it being worth talking to, I need to feel equal on a cognitive level and not a lot of people match that requirement. I either feel lesser or above.
It's very hard to see outside of our early conditioning without outside perspectives. We may have a vague sense that we might not have been given the best tools for social development (we may even be brutally aware of it), but having someone that has the skills that we are missing is often more important than that they have equal skills in areas we are strong in. Having a good partner can make you realize things about yourself and open you up to things that you never even realized were there.
Expecting perfection out of life is definitely a road to unhappiness.
If you're less [intellectual? experienced?] then you can learn and grow.
If you're above, you can foster them, teach, inspire.
These are all worthwhile. But maybe not things you want or find fulfilling?
So if you were childlike before in your thinking I guess at least you’re a college student now.
If I had a broken leg, it’s obviously not going to help trying to fix it myself. Why would it be a stretch that unhealthy thought patterns, which by their nature are self reinforcing, not require an external influence to help break the feedback loops?
1. Infancy --- The Moon. Since the Moon waxes and wanes more rapidly than any other celestial object, this period is characterized by the fastest development.
2. Childhood --- Mercury. As Mercury is the fastest of the planets, at this age children have the short attention spans and flit from one thing to the next.
3. Youth --- Venus. Starting around puberty, a man's mind starts to become focused on love.
4. Young Adulthood --- The Sun. A man comes of age, he starts to think about his work and people begin to take him seriously.
5. Middle Adulthood --- Mars. In his mid 30s a man's demeanor becomes more severe. He realizes he has certain goals he would like to accomplish and there is not much time left to achieve them.
6. Maturity --- Jupiter. By his mid 50s, having achieved what he can in his life, he has arrived at a position of authority in the community. He has gravitas and respect.
7. Old Age --- Saturn. By his late 60s, he starts to decline physically and mentally.
See Liber 777 Col. VII [0], Key Scales 3 through 9 inclusive. Also note that Key Scales 4 through 9 in Col. XCVII, excluding Saturn in old age, correspond to the "Ruach," "soul," "mind," or (one could say) "post-bicameral ego" of man.
[0] https://ia902906.us.archive.org/22/items/Liber777Revised/Lib...
>From 32 years, the brain architecture appears to stabilise compared with previous phases, corresponding with a “plateau in intelligence and personality” based on other studies. Brain regions also become more compartmentalised.
--
I felt this 32-year-old shift, but later (now 43). I joke with friends that I was a bone-head like most males until about 30. Joke yes, but feels right.
Prior to 30ish, I was more insecure. Lacking in emotional intelligence. My conclusions from my experience, not projections from what I've read about that time.
My career and relationship history reflect that switch-flip in a way. Only during the second half of my 30s did I begin to feel more secure and more confident in my career, despite not achieving some outrageous senior position or level of income. That career is now in a better and more measured place - in which I recognize what I do well and what I don't do well, and don't beat myself to a pulp for not having "it"
Only in my 30s did I robustly embrace the power of compromise in friendships and relationships. Now I'm near 10 years married (and happy, most of it, let's be real) with two wonderful kids.
And now I'm much capable of reasoning with my anxities, emotions, and insecurities. Do I still ruminate? Yes. Do I still react? Yes. But I know how to redraw situations to reset my in-moment feelings and/or avoid unecessary negative action.
I'm personally curious about this: I'm slightly above 30, I observed significant changes in my behavior recently... and I became a parent this year.
There was no special event in my life that kickstarted this, it was tge beginning of a more mature way to look at things & people. I started to see some repeated events & behaviours that I had already experienced and this also contributed to have a more tempered way to manage things.
As you age of course you still face unknown things, but you star to see that supposed new things rhyme with things you already know.
The stats warrant some caution, though. The main finding is based on figure 4 [1] and I wouldn't be surprised if the number and location of these 'eras' varied a lot if the authors use 40,000 people instead of 4,000.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65974-8/figures/4
In contrast, frameworks from learning theorists such as Vygotsky, Piaget, Bloom, Gagné, Maslow, Bruner and Kolb provide more explicit actionable guidance for parents/teachers (e.g., scaffolding learning in the “zone of proximal development”, designing spiral curricula, applying experiential learning cycles).
My perspective guides me to prefer the pragmatic actionable frameworks. That help someone guiding children (or students) set norms, limits and scaffold growth in daily practice.
I do like the conversation that's cropping up here though from this article. A lot of lovely self-reflection.
> From 32 years, the brain architecture appears to stabilise compared with previous phases, corresponding with a “plateau in intelligence and personality”.
For example, here - is this *caused* by genetics, or is it because in today's society this is about the age when you have finished your schooling and first working experiences and have simply less to learn?
I know my examples simplify the reasoning, but the question about causality still stands, I think.
It was kind of odd. I'm more serious now (but at the same time.. less?). I'm way more easily able to focus on what actually matters in this life. (In saying that, I think it's more likely that my brain has finally decided what's important... in a way I feel like a passenger)
People don't grow up until they need to. Of course you're gonna see college educated rich westerners delay whatever mental markers you're looking at. And likewise people who "stay active" seem to stave off the mental decline of old age.
Losing a close relative or a job is normal adversity that everyone will go through but not everyone has. Going through those other things while having a different philosophy or life ethos than those around you, thus also causing you to prioritize and pursue different things in life adds a different layer of challenge. That causes you to have to figure stuff out on your own and thus contributes to maturing in a different manner and at a different rate.
His answer: "I'm a better writer."
The Cambridge research cited in this study categorizes late-life changes in brain function as nothing but declining capability, all the way down. My guess is they are mostly right. But I'm intrigued by the notion that some of that elder erosion might lead to new clarity about how everything fits together.
I am 55 but my brain tells me I am 35 or 40. This is not a "crisis of the 50s'", I did not change anything in the way I behave, it is just that I somehow stopped changing my behavior when I was around 35-40. This was not intended and it is only now that I realized it.
When I look at pictures from this time, I am very similar. I aged of course but the clothes and behavior is the same. The interests are the same. My opinions and overall maturity is the same. It does not mean that they are great, just that they do not change.
I wonder when the next change will be, when I will look at the past and say "I changed"
In my late 20s/early 30s I was under water on my house, not getting paid enough, and had a small child. It was clear that I had to step up and "be a man." Which, I intuitively think had a bigger effect on me than simply getting older.
So I have, on average, another 7 years until I'm officially a typical old man? Great, just great.
But I can vouch for the earlier milestone. I grew up as a socially challenged geek with nobody to tell me that I'm just wired differently and it's not my fault, I didn't somehow not do my homework, that I'm not like the cool kids. Right around age 30 I had this epiphany... this is how I am! Instead of always looking for someone or something to teach me how I think I should be... just embrace what, in fact, I am. If I'm a geek, then just live my life best as a geek. The resulting increase in self-confidence did help socially. So just another prerogrammed "adulting" threshold? Maybe.
What you end up getting is people ~10 years into an exciting career where suddenly they can't perform or cope as well as they used to. But they can also be in a pretty senior position by then and be pushed out of their comfort zone.
That is an absurdly small sample size to make such a conclusion.
It seems this age range could at least partly be culturally attributed. In modern industrialized life, many people don't have to "grow up" until a later age. At the risk of generalizing, people have more support from family, friends, and society at large.
Is the forming of those neurons based on some natural law, or is that people just haven't had to live the experiences that do so until their 30's nowadays?
As far as I know, forming neurons isn't something that "just happens". It happens due to catalysts in life. In pre-modern society, and indeed most likely in under-industrialized nations today, those catalysts, those experiences, would happen earlier. As others mentioned, there is a clear correlation with the typical age in which modern society gets married, settles down, and has kids.
I wonder what that era age would have been 200+ years ago.
Nonetheless I am never going to stop saying I still feel like I am 16. Just more confident 16.
my spouse is 3 years younger and when i told her my conclusion i added that i feel no urgency, only that something shifted
this was 3 years ago and now my spouse is 32 and said the same thing to me, someone who previously had NEVER wanted to go through the process of childbirth[0]. had to remind her that we had the same convo when i was her age
incredible that shift has been pinned down with research
[0] 10 years of big hospital nursing can be like "scared straight" for pregnancy
In the last year or so I have begun to adjust my life expectations. My father was in his nineties when he died, but I no longer believe I will reach my seventies.
Things like this only tend to confirm my sense that I am neurologically ageing at a rate that is unusual.
But I also feel like people grew up or had to grow up earlier back when. My parents were married, bought a house and had kids on the way by their mid 20's, when I was that age I had just about finished my education and started my first fulltime job, it'd take another decade to buy a house. Buying a house / getting a mortgage is a major commitment, and I think you'd get a big boost of adulthood / personal development if you do that in your mid 20's.
I only wonder if there is going to be a next stage, the magical "midlife crisis", where I'm going to question all my decisions up to that point and I'm curious how I'm going to handle that.
The only reason this would not be the case is if you have specific requirements for the life of your child.
I'm 43 and I'm still not convinced that I'm not three kids stacked in a trench coat.
I remember being 33 and buying a house and thinking "Someone call the cops, this banker is letting a child sign mortgage papers".
When I put on nice clothes for a fancy dinner, I feel like I'm cosplaying as a functional and responsible adult, despite having a great career (Staff-level engineer that will likely be promoted to Principal in a few months). I fly First Class and feel out of place, like First Class is reserved for people that have their shit together.
Someone said that this feeling goes away when your same-gendered parent dies, but my dad passed in 2019 and it's still pervasive.
I'm a great parent because it is what is necessary and my children had no choice or consent in existing, but I also tell anyone younger that unless they are absolutely sure they want kids and are ready for decades of suck, don't do it [1] [2] [3]. Live your best life, be true to yourself, find your passion and joy exploring and being curious; one can do this without children. If one needs kids to mature or become a better human, find a therapist first. Also, maturity is optional. You have to grow old, you don't have to grow up (take on responsibility unnecessary to take care of yourself, broadly speaking). Religious beliefs aside (potential reincarnation and whatnot), enjoy life, you only get one run through your part of the timeline. Don't waste it on the expectations or belief systems of others.
[1] (lack of support systems, both social and familial, ~$380k in 2025 dollars to raise a child 0-18 in the US not including daycare and college, etc; n=1, ymmv)
[2] Parents Under Pressure: The U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory on the Mental Health & Well-Being of Parents - https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/parents-under-pressu... - 2024
[3] The American dream will cost you $5 million, report finds - https://www.axios.com/2025/09/22/the-american-dream-will-cos... - September 22nd, 2025
I think nature doesn't care whether it's easier or better or whatever. It only cares for _more_ children to survive until their own time to have children.
Probably so that they can grow with their children.
And we have to guess that evolution didn't "respond".
Sooooo, we have some lack of fit, evolved over 10s of thousands of years for life as it was then and for the last ~5000 years in selected cultures faced with something quite different, powerful governments and armies, metals, weapons, tools, sailing ships, agriculture, domestic animals, ....
Supposedly for those 10s of thousands of years in parts of Europe people formed tribes and had some communal living, that is, in a long house, maybe 50-100 yards long 10-20 yards wide, with walls and roof forming a semi-circle. So, women and children got their socialization, security, lessons, skills, not merely from a couple, a bonded husband and wife living just as a couple, but from the tribe as a whole. I.e., now, for a lot for a person to learn and have, including shelter, we are depending heavily just on the mother and father.
And it has had positive side effects too. It’s incredibly useful to be uninterested in promotions and raises. To want to work less, not be paid more. It makes it easy to say and do the right thing rather than the self-preserving thing or self-promoting thing. It’s kind of ironic because I think that makes me better at my job.
It’s quite calming to have such a clear identity. There really is a peacefulness to knowing, at all times, where my compass points.
Kids rewired my brain too. Definitely not a perfect operator at all times, but I have - as you stated - a clear intention on how I'm spending my day.
Contrast to 20s and even some of 30s - definitely pre-kids but also pre-marriage - when I worked a lot more and thought that work was my most important north star.
Sounds like a stage of brain development I haven’t reached yet :)
[sent from my steady state of pulp]
Try this. Think hard about what you think "it" is. Is it CEO? Making $1M a year? Making $5M a year? Healthy family? Etc.
I think what you realize in the brainstorm is you have some of "it" already. But something's missing.
So, then ask this question: can you change your situation to attain that missing thing? If so, how? And if you aren't doing that, why? Ask why again. A third time.
Inaction is a very easy way to get stuck overthinking "it" when you might get that thing just by changing/trying your situation to the best of your ability.
I am articulating what seems linear but in reality its messy and not very linear. It's work and it's trial and error.
But more than ever, I'm ok and comfortable with the construct of my life. I don't make anywhere near what I hoped to make. I'm not an executive. I don't now think that I NEED (and am missing) those two things to fufill my life. (those are examples, I have others)
I felt way more empathetic during the first year my son and my daughter were born, but I feel like I lost that part of me. I kinda miss it
I realize that sounds silly but it really does work. A lot of emotional behavior is muscle like and setting aside intentional practice will lead to longterm change.
1. Set a trigger to engage in the practice like "When I hang out with my kids immediately after the work day"
2. Do the practice. Try to be empathetic to your kids small daily issues. At first, like all newish things this will feel silly but over time it will feel natural.
Obviously try to be genuine. If your kids plight of someone snatching their favorite toy or whatever doesn't move you, don't force it. Just try to practice visualizing yourself in their place. Don't go "fake empathetic kid tone".
edit: I am a man
I'm not convinced it's automatically, or even usually, for the better. Many of the parents I know are deeply and profoundly unhappy.
The authors charted human brain and divided it into "eras" where they saw significant changes based on age. Major life events can affect brain structure, and becoming a parent is one of the most important adult life events. Becoming a parent in early 30s is common. Just these facts combined mean that being in early 30s correlates with brain changes somehow. The authors explicitly mention that they know about this, and that they didn't control for this it yet.
Back to your question, I never said anything about maturing. It is a well-known fact, that female brain changes after childbirth. There is also research that suggests that first-time fathers brain changes too. This doesn't necessarily mean becoming more mature.
I don't think it is. 18 year olds are smarter than most people give them credit for. They probably know math better than most 40 year olds just given their adjacency to math practice in school.
I'm not in favor of restricting at all the people they can vote for. Let them elect an Iraqi toddler to be US president for all I care; if they're the ones taking care of us, they probably have a good reason.
Regardless, specific policy implications are totally beside the point.
The problem with this "well you're not akshually an adult until X" stuff is that it is basically a re-hash of long out of fashion "women are hysterical, blacks have big muscles and small brains" type crap from 200yr ago that was used as a justification to continue preventing these people from finding their own way in life unbounded, consequences and all. First off, the logic is flawed and self referential, of course housewives and slaves couldn't adult, they never had the opportunity to gain the experience, same with 22yo college kids you're measuring today. Removing the racism and sexism by simply applying it to everyone doesn't change the flawed logic. But that's not even the big problem. The big problem is that at a societal level you're reducing the number of person-years available for full adult capacity work and productivity. You can solve this with coercion (state, social norms, etc), but people are less productive when they're not working for themselves so you're still handicapping your own society. A society that does not encourage people to develop and become adult and achieve and produce at full capacity as quickly as possible (which is likely a different timetable in an agrarian society than an industrial one, details left as exercise for the reader) WILL eventually be outcompeted by one that does, though a head start may buy time.
Plenty of data on this: https://theharvardpoliticalreview.com/gen-z-voter-barriers-2...
Please show the statistical calculations in support of such assertion.
Ok, let's do some math.
Approximately 108 to 117 billion humans are estimated to have lived in human history. Let's take 110 billion (the low end) for our purposes.
4,000 / 110,000,000,000 = 0.000003636%
Let's just go with people living today, which is approximately 8 billion (the low end).
4000 / 8 billion = 0.00005%
Not sure if that covers the "statistical" part of your requirement, but it covers the "calculations" part.
I myself would be hesitant to make claims about knowing how neurons and brains and ages work based on a sample size of pessimistically 0.000003636% or even optimistically 0.00005% of the human population and their brains.
What I noticed is that the 4000 samples are all from England and the U.S. Replicating this study with a greater geographical and socio-cultural diversity would be very useful in supporting or expanding these results.
For me to regard a person as worth talking to it requires them to either have lived through similar trauma, be a master at some craft, have some (to me) interesting hobby or a lot of life experience to talk about. I simply dont want to talk about someone's favorite sports team or some trash tv stuff. A lot of topics are also above my head so I zone out easily.
People having people problems bores me so much. I am the type of person ready to irrationally throw their life away in the blink of an eye, I guess I am looking for people like that.
As an example I started tattooing myself without ever having done it before. My arms look like shit but it doesn't really matter to me, I wouldn't change a thing.
Additionally, my social energy is drained very quickly. Having people around me would make me feel trapped. I am nice to every person I meet irl, it would surprise me a lot if people considered me an ass. I am the silent type.
Also no. A) is not a fallacy. In 30 years I was approached once. Whenever I used dating apps I wouldn't get any matches. All I had were some charming talks with friendly women that I initiated when having a night out, but thats about it. I sit in my room all day doing stuff on my computer. Also not the most tidy person. Definitely not desirable and also not willing to change my ways.
The correct title is “Stop walking on eggshells” by mason & kreger.
So I just accept my situation and I don't want to change my ways as I am content with how my life currently is.
No partner is perfect so being in a relationship requires evaluating tradeoffs and deciding where you can compromise compared to your ideal. To do otherwise or expect someone (or yourself) to change is unfair to them. Unfortunately sometimes we think we can deal with something but ultimately can't - that's part of the self discovery and vulnerability/heartbreak of relationships (because we can of course be on the receiving end too). Really you have to be willing to embrace a person's flaws and take long term joy in doing so, and also have gratitude for them doing the same.
So if you know all that's not really for you, then good move on your part.
Assuming they are, just for the sake of the discussion: what kind of answer do you expect to this question? You think someone who is arrogant has a theory of why they are so and are willing to share it? I would expect they are mostly blind to their own arrogance. Can be useful to point it out.
I guess it was just a rhetorical question. But it feels weird. Do you think it can possibly do anything else than create hostility?
I guess the "lie" exposed here is the way people can automatically believe they're seeing the truth of a social situation. It is easy to project false experience and motivation onto others. A more truthful approach recognizes windows of uncertainty around many encounters.
I think this applies to basic single-culture contexts too. Even in the same culture or the same family, we don't really know exactly what another person is experiencing.
Many seem cocksure that their social read is correct, and any grief is the other party's deliberate action. It takes a certain detachment to realize that your misreading of a situation may well be the genesis of a negative spiral, rather than a justified response...
Take a simple example, marriage. If you're a Millennial you were probably brought up to think marriage is for love, and should produce kids. Depending on your orientation and enculturation, the wife is 'supposed' to stay at home or 'supposed' to have a career. We don't question the basic outlines of what a marriage looks like, unless you happen to be a part of the polyamory or fundamental religious communities, in which case you probably take those standards as being the ideal.
My husband's entire family had arranged marriages. Seeing their relationships gave me a new perspective on what a marriage can be, and forced us to be intentional about what parts of our culture we bring along. It's not that we're doing marriage 'better' than anyone else, but when you can't assume anything about what a marriage looks like you have to really examine it in detail.
When what you think matters. An animal that questions its belief "there is no tiger behind that bush" and finds a tiger lives longer than one that doesn't.
This implies that almost everything you value is something transient that can, and one day will, be taken away. If not willingly, then by death. Doesn't it make more sense to have a few core values that don't depend on others and then build relationships and all the rest upon that foundation?
To steal from Alan Watts, lets use an example. Imagine a whirlpool in a clear stream. It has great beauty and takes intricate forms as it dances a whirls. You sit beside it and enjoy watching it for hours.
Now ask yourself is it the particular group a H2O molecules that make up the whirlpool that you love? If so it will be gone in an instant, and each moment for you will become another in a series of great losses as the molecules are swept away by new ones. Is it the pattern the water makes that you love? No, the pattern itself changes every moment as well. The change itself is part of what mesmerizes you.
What you love about the whirlpool is something deeper, and more fundamental, something that change can't take from you. That's the thing you have to build your appreciation of life from. Other people are just the molecules and ripples.
> Some people can go build a cabin in the woods and live off the land and spend all their free time meditating and be perfectly happy.
I would argue that a man who can't stand to be alone with himself is either a bad man who is a good judge of character, or an incomplete person.
I don't mean that everyone should go live alone, just that everyone should be able to. You're probably right that most people can't do it, but the majority is often wrong.
Yes, relationships die because everything changes constantly. Nothing is stagnant. But then again everything dies. Ultimately, I want to impact others and be impacted.
I moved to the middle of nowhere after my kids were born. One day I let my child walk home "alone" from school, for the portion that is on our own property, and of course as soon as you do that a fucking Karen will randomly pop out of nowhere, and start interrogating the child. It is like clockwork. You could be 100 miles from civilization and as soon as you do something someone somewhere disagrees with, a fucking Karen (and even in a minivan, down rugged rural dirt roads, how the fuck did she get there?) will magically be there that exact second with a cell phone at the ready to call CPS. Thankfully I was able to stop her before that happened, as I was actually watching from behind the bushes, which in itself is shameful but saved my ass.
by whatever mechanism, humans can breed at a much younger age than they can feasibly take care of their offspring. Up until maybe 75-100 years ago, "it takes a village" wasn't just a trite canard, it was actually how you raised children. I just finished watching a youtuber explain that raising children after having had to move away from your extended family because of affordability is suck and "maybe that's why young people are waiting to have kids, because there's no village anymore."
Retiring in late 60s. If you make it, becoming too infirm in body to get around in 80s.
These seem like brain changes at these transitions are more likely to be effects rather than causes.
The UK has a practical minimum of 18 for Prime Minister (technically there is no minimum but practically there is) but realistically never elects a PM under 40.
For British Sovereign there is also no limit, any particularly young Sovereign has effectively delegated to a council of regents historically. In practice this is also unlikely - although in theory of course we are two untimely deaths from a 12 year old taking the throne.
Between 35-60 at start of term, IQ above 130.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination
Sample size is a whole chapter in statistics, and it's surprisingly how small the sample can be (if certain conditions are present)
Congratulations.
For example, if you explain it (or Reddit) an interpersonal situation it can break it down and e.g. point out certain behaviours or boundary crossings.
But I would be careful, as these chatbots will by default put you in the right, even when you aren't.
If for no other reason than a chatbot can’t call you out on your bullshit, because it has no hope of telling what is or is not bullshit. And that is key. And has no actual feelings, remorse, license to lose, etc. etc.
I found it cathartic because I could basically argue with that person about it, without asking that person to do emotional labor or be subjected to my criticisms of where I felt they were wrong. Ultimately I landed on several points I did eventually go to that person with, I dropped several others that the chatbot pointed out weren't really something it was fair to criticize them for, and I think our friendship is overall better for it.
I don't think there was anything revolutionary there, it's basically journaling with an LLM, but it was more efficient if nothing else.
Edit: I would also caveat that I've attended a lot of therapy, individual and couples, so numerous concepts that some people may not know, things like emotional labor, boundaries, healthy communication, etc. are already very familiar concepts to me. So, I wouldn't recommend a chatbot as a FIRST stop? But if you've attended a lot of therapy and already know a fair bit about how your own feelings work, I think it can help, as long as you explicitly request that it doesn't just glaze you continuously.
may also be lacking in therapist. is certainly lacking in LLM
While during their first year, my initial reaction was usually the correct one. I felt I could "read" them better.
You have the right goal in your focus, you'll get it with time and practice.
It takes a minute
Who doesn't have time? Trying to hyper optimize your time so aggressively that you can't bother with tiny chores is crazy
When we say we don't have time, it's usually just another way to say that we find other things to be of greater inportance.
If you are at the point of cutting out "folding socks" because of the opportunity cost of that two minutes a week, you're fucked in the head
> In psychology, codependency is a theory that attempts to explain imbalanced relationships where one person enables another person's self-destructive behavior,[1] such as addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement.[2]
> Definitions of codependency vary, but typically include high self-sacrifice, a focus on others' needs, suppression of one's own emotions, and attempts to control or fix other people's problems.[3]
It probably has some rational basis in child rearing, it will benefit survival for the parents to be deeply dedicated to supporting their children, to the point where they receive a psychological reward from that dependency. But unhealthy when it comes to adult relationships, at least beyond a certain point.
Codependency is better described IMO as secondhand addiction. It was coined to describe the symptoms of people who live with alcoholics and other substance abusers and the destructive coping patterns they use to survive in the addict's wake. The codependent does not depend on the addict. In fact closer to the opposite.
Upvoted just for mentioning the book though. It was life changing for me.
Make sure the other person adds to the fun, so to speak.
I agree that it's important to be able to have your own independent autonomy to properly function in a healthy relationship, especially a romantic one.
The point I was trying to make is perhaps more subtle than it came across, namely that webs of trust between humans (e.g. 'community') are, in my view, essential to being a fully actualized adult. If you aren't close to anyone, I think that means something is wrong which deserves further inspection, particularly within yourself.
The trick and the trouble is that it’s easy to acknowledge the importance of being independent, especially in a romantic relationship, vs actually doing that in practice. After your 30’s your friends start to fade away, and one day I woke up without any except my wife. That was clearly a degenerate situation unfair to her, and expanding your social circle is something that should be done independent of whatever relationship you happen to be in. In fact, needs to be done.
The trick, as you say, is to know when that is crossing into something unfair. When it goes beyond something like who does the dishes or makes the most money into supporting the other person's core identity. Or when it becomes unsustainable / exhausting for other person. Identifying these issues can be difficult. It requires both partners to be in touch with their feelings and able to communicate openly.
I always felt like I'm 10 years behind.
> The only reason this would not be the case is if you have specific requirements for the life of your child.
If humans could do without 2000 years ago, if the kids in africa can do without now, then clearly the same is true for your own children. God knows they don’t need $7000 braces, which are unaffordable to 99% of the US population too.
Feed them, and love them.
Years ago, at a mindfulness meditation retreat, I heard the word "skilful" used in a very specific way.
Since then, I've tried to become more skilful, and your reply above really evinces the "ongoing journey" nature of that work.
I wish you the very best in your journey!
Great way to put it: "skill"
Learned/experience/must practice the skill of getting comfortable!
Tell me more about retreat? In overall terms? Worth it? Worth doing again?
Also - did it include any substances? Not judging one way or another but I know that some psychedelic concepts align with some retreats.
It was at a point in my life where I was able to do it (and I'm grateful), but I have a kid in kindergarten now, so it'd be hard to convince my wife that it's important enough that she should single-handedly manage for a week.
Overall, I think the major benefit for me, was that it bootstrapped this mental model:
* Our minds are constantly spawning processes, and "learning how to start + keep running a debug process" is an invaluable tool for gathering data.
* Once you've gathered a reasonable amount of data, you will start to spot patterns. One of the teachers at this retreat expressed it as "wisdom will arise"
I have a long way to go, but I'm grateful every day that I have this foundation.
In an ideal world, it'd be nice to do this again, to compare where I am today (IIRC, it's been ~8 years).
P.S. there were no substances included :)
Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known at any age have been among the worst at “life skills”.
Math is at least important in many life skills most would consider important imo. Like budgeting, financial planning, retirement planning, investing, etc.
Just as a thought experiment: what if the threshold for having a vote was tied to paying a positive amount of personal income tax, and the weight of each vote was proportional to the amount paid? How skewed might such a system be? My first reaction is that in countries with high inequality, the wealthy would disproportionately influence the outcome. However, on the other hand, if people avoid or minimize paying taxes, they would lose the power of a weighted vote, which theoretically could incentivize paying taxes in full.
Right now, the top 10% pay about 70% of federal income taxes, so your plan would effectively make 90% of the population's votes effectively worthless.
Perhaps, but as a childless adult who had to take over my parents' affairs as their physical and cognitive health declined, I marvel at the wonderful hits of dopamine parents get as they watch their children grow. It's an adorable perspective on life that I didn't get to share as my mother gradually forgot who she was.
This is a naive view of the world. Being childless is a qualitatively different experience for those in different walks of life. A childless financially unstable young adult will have a very different experience than that of a childless financially stable middle-aged adult.
For what it's worth, I think recognizing patterns and then stepping away to say "execute this way, or choose another way" is a huge huge skill. Not all past patterns make sense for current/future situations!
Becoming an engaged father shifted my perspective on who I am, changed opinions on societal matters, and made me feel like the person I was -- despite, from a young age, spending non-trivial amounts of time on contemplating morality and society and considering myself as a youth to be "mature for my age" -- was a selfish git.
I went from "c'mon what's the harm"-ing naysayers to "HEY think big picture! LONG term!" on SO many aspects of life.
The man I was would not get along with the father I am.
Your statement won't be popular, but I agree that, statistically-speaking, it's an overt intellectual "next stage".
You don't need to have kids to nut up and take responsibility for yourself and others.
As a childless person, I believe this is a societal problem, not a biological one. We've broken apart the tribe and made just two people (at most) responsible for most of child rearing. And worse, we pretend the parents are directly responsible for a child's safety and development at all times, even though we all know some kids are just way easier or harder to raise, right out of the box.
43-yr-old parent of 2. I love them. They're amazing. But there are so many challenging moments. So many.
In those deep/profound moments of stress, I try to remind myself that the only thing I really need to do is stay calm. Allowed to have emotions, course.
But to execute some level of calm really helps resolve so much of what you experience.
I mean, what is parenthood if not love and voluntary hardship?
On the other hand, I think you are describing your subjective experience. I've talked with some "one-and-done" parents who deeply love their child, but wouldn't want another one if you paid them.
"Happiness" is one of those words that has thousands of different definitions, so I would frame it this way: Parents almost always describe their children as the greatest joy in their lives, but (in America at least) they also generally express more dissatisfaction and frustration with their lives than childless people.
And it's really weird that anyone would think of something amorphous and uncertain like climate change as a reason not to have children. Even the unlikely worst case scenarios are still going to have less impact than the major wars and plagues that our species has lived through. Some people just lack a sense of perspective.
Dense population creates all this, in reverse without dense civi you wouldnt have all the gadgets we have today :-D
The family used to tax the grown or mostly-grown children in the form of farm labor. The government in many prior centuries taxed like 2-5% total and the rest was intrafamilial support.
Now it is flipped on its head. Everyone else's families tax your child for their social security, socializing the benefits while still you retain most the costs privately.
Thus tragedy of the commons situation. Why make that investment when you can just tax everyone else's kids and rest assured of your own social security, if they don't pay it you can just have them tossed in a cage or their assets seized, no need to have children yourself.
Coincidentally, my aunts did not have to have more than 2, and almost every single one had 2 kids.
Why on earth would you believe that? People have bred animals for millennia. You think they didn’t understand that sex was a required step?
I imagine people have understood that sex led to pregnancy since before Homo sapiens.
People didn't have options besides "not having sex" that worked very well.
This is a toxic myth and acts as excuse to blame extrinsic factors that won't see change by the time you'll need them to, even if they can be fixed. Economic life today can be a lot more complicated for middle class professionals and skilled laborers, but they were only ever a fraction of the population in the first place, and families in tougher circumstances than today's middle class folk figured out how to navigate the cards they were dealt.
Emotionally, it legitimately sucks if you come from a comfy middle class background, and have a career that you believed should have been good enough to deliver the life you remember your parents or grandparents having and now doesn't seem to be. It feels unfair and disorienting, maybe. But the fact is that middle class lifestyle is gone for now, and if it does manage to get restored, that restoration will take a generation or two to come.
In the meantime, you have to figure out how to adapt and live that more modest and "more complicated financially" lifestyle. It can be done. Lots of people have been doing it for a long time. Along the way, you'll probably discover that lower class folk who never had the luxuries of your parents and grandparents in the first place were not seeing the world as something they had to "suffer in": they lived in homes, but often with more people in them. They traveled, but more infrequently, less glamorously, and with more pragmatic rationale like "visiting family" than "seeing the world". They had parties, but served simpler dishes on less fancy platters. They had "child care" when two parents worked, but got it by exchanging favors with family or neighbors instead of sending half a paycheck to a prestigious daycare. They laughed, they drank, they had kids. It's not a world of suffering to just not have some luxuries.
Today many young people would consider that life to be stifling, boring, or "suffering" but it was fine. Kids really don't care as long as they feel secure.
There’s major inflation in middle class expectations. People earning median income are expecting a very upper-middle-class lifestyle. A house bigger than their parents owned with nicer finishes, two new cars, frequent travel, eating out constantly, etc.
My parents were on the upper end of middle class when I grew up and we lived in a home with carpet and laminate countertops. Now everyone wants hardwood floors and quartz and more square footage, too. A lot of folks are driving cars that cost a year of their take home pay. Cost of living is too high but expectations seem to have risen even faster.
What you’re sensing is that things that were luxuries are now not. It’s not a big deal to pay $500 for the quartz countertops when your house is $800k.
What has gone up is the cost of essentials and the base level of goods to participate in society: housing, transportation, medicine, and education.
So yeah a TV you thought was untouchable is 3 days of minimum wage work. But it’s orthogonal to why people feel economically disposssed.
Unfortunately, the music has to stop, and that's where we are now