On the contrary, developing a deep relationship with someone very different than myself (different religions, native languages and countries, socioeconomic class, race, gender) has shown me the lies I've been telling myself all my life.

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.

I feel like we need both. There are mental/emotional experiences I have on the regular which there is no point in trying to communicate to someone else but still bring me great benefit. We need to value our alone time, absolutely.

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.

This is an interesting perspective but I think both are necessary. At different times in my life (perhaps correlated to the "brain eras," though I'm still a bit skeptical of the details here) I've needed others for development and contentment, and at other times, I've needed to focus on self-love and solo happiness as you describe.

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."

Both of you are right - OP is right that life does become weary when you have to do everything yourself, with no help or support from others - and that includes emotional support. We are social creatures, after all. You are right that we as adults also need to learn to be comfortable / content with our thoughts when we are alone with them, and not define our happiness through our relations. We all need both solitude and company, to introspect and grow.

We're a social species. It's not a funhouse mirror, it's just another side of your personality. No human can even survive in isolation, so the solitary side of you is an exceptionally small part of who you are.

The danger with self reinforcement is you can convince yourself of almost anything.

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 learned that the meaning of life has nothing to do with other people or their estimation of me.

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?

I’m going to go against the grain here.

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.

Sorry I don’t know your circumstances but “Walking on Eggshells” by Langford has literally saved me.

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!

I'd hit up a solo therapist. I went through a hard time with my wife and turns out she just sucks. Be warned that she sucked a lot worse in the divorce and states differ wildly in how biased they are against fathers if you have kids.

It was helpful to figure out some of my stuff and deal with a bunch of trauma.

Consider posting on https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/ . Note however that they don't allow posts about identifying problems - e.g. Why am I having a hard time with my wife?. Rather, you are expected to know what is your specific problem and seek solution to that. Don't go to Reddit - the standard advice there will be "your wife / husband is a toxic partner, run and get a divorce".

I have had many difficult times with my current S.O. over 15+ years.

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.

Every person is different. Some people don't need a stable relation, some people *can't have* a stable relation, some people thrive with it.

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

It's not so tersely defined as that, I don't think. It's kinda like wax in a lava lamp of information. Some gloops, the others glop, until eventually you gloop and glop and feel confident. Rigid labels and markers on the spectrum don't really hold universally true, I'm finding.

It's not helpful to redefine terms separately from the article.

You certainly don't need to have someone in your life -- as someone who married late and has two kids now I sometimes look back on my long period of begin single with fondness -- but I would also recommend being very honest with yourself. Very few people are totally undesirable and expecting others to meet some predetermined standard is very common among people that don't interact socially very often (I speak from experience). While I'm lucky that my wife is very bright (and in many ways much smarter than me) the most important thing that she has given me is new perspectives on life and seeing that it's more important to be kind and helpful than smart.

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.

> I need to feel equal on a cognitive level and not a lot of people match that requirement. I either feel lesser or above.

Expecting perfection out of life is definitely a road to unhappiness.

What makes someone worth talking to?

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?

Why are you so arrogant that you feel most others aren't on your cognitive level? Most likely you're not actually as smart as you think you are.

Your A) is a fallacy. Carefully consider that one. Fore B) You're mad projecting onto other people. I used to do this and frankly, I came across as a complete ass a lot of the time. People are super complicated and no other person can figure them out completely, let alone as quickly as you think you are.

The parent comment was talking about having trauma. They were probably once in a position where they very much weren’t healthy, and through the gradual gaining of awareness came to the realization that they needed help.

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?

I suppose that constantly changing and revising the language we use to refer to everything at least has the upside of allowing us to use the latest frontend frameworks every year.

The work never ends, friend.

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)

It’s a lot more complicated financially for people. You used to not have to rely on dual incomes just to survive. Wealth inequity, housing affordability, and healthcare have all changed. This is why many are choosing to have kids later in life or not even at all because of those reasons and even the environment with climate change it’s a hard decision to make to bring new life into this world to suffer in it.

I agree. Having children does make ones priorities very cut and dry. I found it a lot easier to "adult" once I had children. My Friends, at the time often asked, "Is having children hard?" I often replied, in the beginning at least, "Children are easy, it's everything else that is hard."

I suspect it's a cultural thing as well, with most (all?) wealthy cultures veering towards individualism and working. Whereas with previous generations, the grandparents and environment would be more involved in raising children and educating the new parents.

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.

Exactly that. It's not an arbitrary dated threshold that lead to "growing up". It was the event of having kids. I'm still able to look at my current life through the lenses of a 25 year old me and hell, that looks bleak. But I can say with confidence that I'm content. Of course there are little things here and there but mostly everything is fine.

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.

also its a lot easier to have kids at 20 if the kids grandparents are only 40 instead of 70

People that tell you you need to be ready are lying. The only thing you need to be able to sustain is feeding them, and the rest mostly works itself out. As it has for millennia.

The only reason this would not be the case is if you have specific requirements for the life of your child.

Maybe also because the life spent leading up to the child having was much different earlier - I mean society, jobs, distractions... I'm sure this has an important role as well in setting up expectations and kicking up responsibilities.

I would describe the age of 40 as the time when my brain truly started to function but unfortunately, I feel ashamed of that.

Yet our physiology is tuned to become parents at 16 rather than 40.

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.

100 years ago a lot of people (like my grandparents) left their extended family in Europe and emigrated to the USA.

> Not enough time for evolution to respond

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.

Just practice 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".

It's not a given, but a personal anecdote is that there simply hasn't been a situation in my life prior to kids that required such a sustained focus on the happiness and wellbeing of another person before kids. It really is a type of growth that would be dare say impossible to duplicate without kids. But of course, I could say that I've never had to live through war and don't think that I could really say that I've built the fortitude that that experience gives you, so the point might be moot. Just to say, kids really give you a perspective, that choosing to be childless does not, while being childless is a perspective that all people with kids got.

i think its incredibly difficult for a male to truly become a man without children. it is very easy and seductive to be a manchild forever, whereas society seems to force women to grow up. And its certainly possible for a father to remain a manchild, but i think without that kind of responsibility and focus of having to mentor and keep another human alive its difficult to fully mature.

edit: I am a man

I can accept that the brain changes after becoming a parent.

I'm not convinced it's automatically, or even usually, for the better. Many of the parents I know are deeply and profoundly unhappy.

I think it's not about maturity just about socio- and bio-logically induced re-prioritisation.

Nobody can answer this, because nobody can have the full experience of both being a parent and being childless.

No, I'm not insinuating anything.

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 think it's weird having an arbitrary minimum age to be president. I would probably never vote for someone in their 20s anyway, but I don't think there should be a legal barrier. In my country (Brazil) it's the same age, but we usually just copy US in think kind of policy. I wonder how common it's in the rest of the world.

> It is a little absurd that we expect an 18 year old to navigate the world with the same competence as a 40 year old.

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've become an advocate of restricting the voting age to 25-54. It's basically a reversion to the property holder rule, but shifted to production. The people paying for everything would get to make the decisions.

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.

I'm not sure about the evidence for that gross generalization but young people are much less likely to vote than older people.

Plenty of data on this: https://theharvardpoliticalreview.com/gen-z-voter-barriers-2...

This is why you've gotta actually think about what you believe morally speaking at an early age and then stick to it. I don't vote, drink, or drive myself, and never will, but I hope I will always defend the rights of the youth to.

I'm almost 50 so that train has already passed (right over me)

Having seen a lot of research papers lie, or simply use incompetent math, I'm not sure at all.

There is nothing to engage with. I think tersely. Some researchers could learn.

I find it annoying that a large part of research is the obsession of taking a perfectly smooth, gradual phenomenon and introducing artificial boundaries, sometimes even with formal labels. And then we spend the next few decades rolling it back as we inevitably find out that reality is nuanced, and the arbitrary categorization is more of a distraction than a meaningful tool. But I'm sure this fantastical finding was great for somebody's career.

You don't know me!

:oP

All research is ripe for pop-sci misunderstandings. Always. But this study at least didn't have a cutoff for ages studied.

It's just the popular wisdom these days. Companies tend to deprioritize hiring engineers in their 40s, especially if their overspecialized. At face value, Companies want high-energy 20-somethings that they can mold into their specialty. More likely, they know that 20-somethings expect a far smaller salary.

There's definitely a transition associated with becoming a parent - that is well documented.

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".

>Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Probably not, the comment read more as a way to rant, self-boast, and judge others' lifestyles than anything insightful.