[Aspie] How do people have more than 2 children?

[10khitman]

One child you can love fully, obviously.

Two children I believe you can love fully, you can raise them as companions, as brothers/sisters, as a small little family unit where things are still private, cozy and connected. 

Anything more and it just becomes a horde. Like you are just collecting children. It's psychotic to me and just so weird. Back in the day when it was about growing nations and building dynasties that's one thing. But now? Just weird. So weird to me honestly. 

Just me or there's something wrong with those kinds of people?

Seems soulless. No love. No intimacy.

[brocode]

this idea comes with the preconceived notion that u can only love 2 children

define "fully love"

at the end of the day, u r procreating, they are ur own blood.

[vicious cycle]

this was very common back then, more than 4 children I mean. I have a more 'cold' view on this that cuts the whole romanticism. procreation is the way to eternalize by cloning the information that makes 'you.' for sure this doesn't justify some numbers, but then is there any other way to explain it?

[10khitman]

define "fully love"

It's about the intimacy of family

with 3 children it feels chaotic, not connected, it feels, like I said, that it becomes a "horde" of children where you just give them resources and at least one of them will succeed. With 2 or 1, you can actually fully focus on both of them and give them all the support they need and make sure they succeed regardless, or at least do your genuine best. 

Connection = everything theory

this was very common back then, more than 4 children I mean. I have a more 'cold' view on this that cuts the whole romanticism. procreation is the way to eternalize by cloning the information that makes 'you.' for sure this doesn't justify some numbers, but then is there any other way to explain it?

I dont share ur strictly computational disposition to understanding things

[brocode]

define "fully love"

It's about the intimacy of family

with 3 children it feels chaotic, not connected, it feels, like I said, that it becomes a "horde" of children where you just give them resources and at least one of them will succeed. With 2 or 1, you can actually fully focus on both of them and give them all the support they need and make sure they succeed regardless, or at least do your genuine best. 

Connection = everything theory

dont you think this kind of idea stems from an insecurity of one's child failing or a fear of the inability to parent them?

In Jewish families, for example, it is encouraged to have a lot of kids and it is encouraged to notice the behaviorial patterns of kids from a very young age -- are they bold and confident, are they shy and think a lot, are they more scientific and inquisitive, and based on such observations, parents are encouraged to train and nourish their children accordingly.

it doesnt mean they are less loved or successful, just different and unique in their own way.

i gave this as an example

[10khitman]

define "fully love"

It's about the intimacy of family

with 3 children it feels chaotic, not connected, it feels, like I said, that it becomes a "horde" of children where you just give them resources and at least one of them will succeed. With 2 or 1, you can actually fully focus on both of them and give them all the support they need and make sure they succeed regardless, or at least do your genuine best. 

Connection = everything theory

In Jewish families

Anyways, yea, I do think it makes them less loved. Like substantially. Like I don't know how you can argue it doesn't. It is physically impossible in our linear experience of time as humans to give actual connection and emotional support to twelve different children. You either give some the real affection, or you give them all mediocre affection. With 3 children the effect is not as extreme but it's still a lesser magnitude of the same idea.

Traditionally, yea, it works for success because they would all just be farmers or labourers or something; jobs were basic, it took minimal analysis to determine what you children would be good at. But in this modern society? Where we have such a degree of comfort and wealth (at least in the west), and such specified jobs and places in society? Don't think so. There is no "scientist"; there is a spectrum from nurse to astrophysicist. There is no "tradesman" or "philosopher"; we are too detailed now, too specialized. 

I don't want to be a shepherd of my children, I don't want to be a breeder or an analyzer, I want to be a connected father who has extremely deep memories and experiences with a tight and intimate circle of people whom I share my entire life with.

[hollow]

https://youtu.be/YEzcmi8eswc

[brocode]

define "fully love"

It's about the intimacy of family

with 3 children it feels chaotic, not connected, it feels, like I said, that it becomes a "horde" of children where you just give them resources and at least one of them will succeed. With 2 or 1, you can actually fully focus on both of them and give them all the support they need and make sure they succeed regardless, or at least do your genuine best. 

Connection = everything theory

In Jewish families

what's wrong? they're still families and humans nonetheless, just a different culture. imagine i tell u about the culture  of a congo tribe, you'd perceive it almost the same way.

Anyways, yea, I do think it makes them less loved. Like substantially. Like I don't know how you can argue it doesn't. It is physically impossible in our linear experience of time as humans to give actual connection and emotional support to twelve different children. You either give some the real affection, or you give them all mediocre affection. With 3 children the effect is not as extreme but it's still a lesser magnitude of the same idea.

Traditionally, yea, it works for success because they would all just be farmers or labourers or something; jobs were basic, it took minimal analysis to determine what you children would be good at. But in this modern society? Where we have such a degree of comfort and wealth (at least in the west), and such specified jobs and places in society? Don't think so. There is no "scientist"; there is a spectrum from nurse to astrophysicist. There is no "tradesman" or "philosopher"; we are too detailed now, too specialized. 

I don't want to be a shepherd of my children, I don't want to be a breeder or an analyzer, I want to be a connected father who has extremely deep memories and experiences with a tight and intimate circle of people whom I share my entire life with.

as much as i understand where u r coming from, it is very flawed and selfish to think of it that way.
besides ur kids being reminiscent dolls of urself, u have to understand they are still humans at the end of the day.

they are still humans with interests, passions, and desires.
as a parent it will be ur responsibility to aid them in their growth, not necessarily just shove them with love and money and food and make them dependent on u, that's not the role of a parent.

the role of a parent is to teach their children how to fish, not give them fish for life.

that being said, having a lot more of urself, is pride that u have a lot of urself, a sense of "pride" that ur kids are the ones being at it.

[10khitman]

It's about the intimacy of family

with 3 children it feels chaotic, not connected, it feels, like I said, that it becomes a "horde" of children where you just give them resources and at least one of them will succeed. With 2 or 1, you can actually fully focus on both of them and give them all the support they need and make sure they succeed regardless, or at least do your genuine best. 

Connection = everything theory

In Jewish families

what's wrong? they're still families and humans nonetheless, just a different culture. imagine i tell u about the culture  of a congo tribe, you'd perceive it almost the same way.

Anyways, yea, I do think it makes them less loved. Like substantially. Like I don't know how you can argue it doesn't. It is physically impossible in our linear experience of time as humans to give actual connection and emotional support to twelve different children. You either give some the real affection, or you give them all mediocre affection. With 3 children the effect is not as extreme but it's still a lesser magnitude of the same idea.

Traditionally, yea, it works for success because they would all just be farmers or labourers or something; jobs were basic, it took minimal analysis to determine what you children would be good at. But in this modern society? Where we have such a degree of comfort and wealth (at least in the west), and such specified jobs and places in society? Don't think so. There is no "scientist"; there is a spectrum from nurse to astrophysicist. There is no "tradesman" or "philosopher"; we are too detailed now, too specialized. 

I don't want to be a shepherd of my children, I don't want to be a breeder or an analyzer, I want to be a connected father who has extremely deep memories and experiences with a tight and intimate circle of people whom I share my entire life with.

as much as i understand where u r coming from, it is very flawed and selfish to think of it that way.
besides ur kids being reminiscent dolls of urself, u have to understand they are still humans at the end of the day.

they are still humans with interests, passions, and desires.
as a parent it will be ur responsibility to aid them in their growth, not necessarily just shove them with love and money and food and make them dependent on u, that's not the role of a parent.

the role of a parent is to teach their children how to fish, not give them fish for life.

that being said, having a lot more of urself, is pride that u have a lot of urself, a sense of "pride" that ur kids are the ones being at it.

Brocode u are a high iq poster and gave me lots of knowledge and wisdom but in this case I am going to just cordially end this discussion

2nd last line is a good point but with daughters its just: love them and provide for them, then vet a husband for them to do the same when u die. I guess I made this thread with the (arrogant) assumption that everybody knew I only want daughters; I'm not considering sons at all because that is a horrifically unthinkable thought to me that I would even have any.

[10khitman]

And is it a valid criticism of my character that I wouldn't love a son as much as I'd love a daughter. Yes. But that is unrelated to my disposition towards parenting assuming daughters.

[brocode]

In Jewish families

what's wrong? they're still families and humans nonetheless, just a different culture. imagine i tell u about the culture  of a congo tribe, you'd perceive it almost the same way.

Anyways, yea, I do think it makes them less loved. Like substantially. Like I don't know how you can argue it doesn't. It is physically impossible in our linear experience of time as humans to give actual connection and emotional support to twelve different children. You either give some the real affection, or you give them all mediocre affection. With 3 children the effect is not as extreme but it's still a lesser magnitude of the same idea.

Traditionally, yea, it works for success because they would all just be farmers or labourers or something; jobs were basic, it took minimal analysis to determine what you children would be good at. But in this modern society? Where we have such a degree of comfort and wealth (at least in the west), and such specified jobs and places in society? Don't think so. There is no "scientist"; there is a spectrum from nurse to astrophysicist. There is no "tradesman" or "philosopher"; we are too detailed now, too specialized. 

I don't want to be a shepherd of my children, I don't want to be a breeder or an analyzer, I want to be a connected father who has extremely deep memories and experiences with a tight and intimate circle of people whom I share my entire life with.

as much as i understand where u r coming from, it is very flawed and selfish to think of it that way.
besides ur kids being reminiscent dolls of urself, u have to understand they are still humans at the end of the day.

they are still humans with interests, passions, and desires.
as a parent it will be ur responsibility to aid them in their growth, not necessarily just shove them with love and money and food and make them dependent on u, that's not the role of a parent.

the role of a parent is to teach their children how to fish, not give them fish for life.

that being said, having a lot more of urself, is pride that u have a lot of urself, a sense of "pride" that ur kids are the ones being at it.

Brocode u are a high iq poster and gave me lots of knowledge and wisdom but in this case I am going to just cordially end this discussion

2nd last line is a good point but with daughters its just: love them and provide for them, then vet a husband for them to do the same when u die. I guess I made this thread with the (arrogant) assumption that everybody knew I only want daughters; I'm not considering sons at all because that is a horrifically unthinkable thought to me that I would even have any.

Alright
Just so we're on the same page, I never intended to say 2 kids is not "good enough", just am of the opinion that such things related to having babies should happen naturally.

2 daughters sounds like a good family lifestyle for sure.

[hurt]

they want a son so bad they are okay with having 4 daughters before him

[hurt]

also, it’s not that much harder to raise multiple children of a similar age

[hurt]

i’d say up to 5 children is doable

[10khitman]

they want a son so bad they are okay with having 4 daughters before him

Probably actually the case a lot of the time

also, it’s not that much harder to raise multiple children of a similar age

i’d say up to 5 children is doable

It's not about the physical difficulty of success its about the quality of the connection you have with your children