Hacker News Reader

Comment by woliveirajr | Hacker News Reader

> One cause of wasted motion is being passive. Cultivate the identity of Doing Things, overcome the illusion of doing nothing and learn how to take the first step

Being passive is a way (best way?) of energy conservation: might not be the best but you know the outcome when you do nothing or just follow the flow. Trying things needs energy (time, resources etc) and the outcome is not guaranteed, but might lead you to a new optima.

View on HN

And a corollary to that: it's better to make a decision and start moving, even if it's the wrong decision than to do nothing. Just make sure you reevaluate if it's still the right decision and have the ability to change course (iterate). I've heard both Jeff Bezos and Tom Bilyeu espouse this.

If the decision is irrevocable (e.g. getting married), then obviously more care is warranted and doing nothing might be better until you're more certain.

I disagree. The world would be bereft of many of its greatest intellects without the fruits of passivity.

Yes there are plenty of situations in which it is better to act, but I firmly believe the ancients were right that leisure is prerequisite to deep, radically novel thought.

I think we have more leisure in modern times than ancient times - you're probably romanticizing the past here. But apart from that I don't see what leisure has to do with being passive - I think you're conflating things that aren't actually tied together.

I disagree. We do have more “free-time” but what we decide to fill it with is not what I’d call leisure. What we think of as leisure today is not leisurely in any way. We browse on reddit, watch netflix, listen to spotify. And if we “take a break”, we’re just anxiously awaiting the next bit of entertainment. Leisure is walking slow and going nowhere, laying on the bed and letting the mind wander. True leisure is rare and should be refreshing and comforting, but when was the last time it felt like that?

I agree but I'd go even further and say that even something like marriage is quite easily reversible. It depends on your risk tolerance of course.

In some ways, it is. For somebody who changed their name, it's tons of paperwork, at least, to undo that. If they've published papers in the meantime, that name change likely cannot be fully undone. Depending on finances, there may be years of alimony involved. As others note, if children resulted from the marriage, there's no undo. People save money on auto insurance while married, and often, "divorced" is more expensive than "single". If the divorce is amicable, it may be easy to execute -- if not, thousands of dollars and perhaps years of legal battles will be involved. Depends what you call "easy", I guess

Marriage is not that easily reversible. You lose 50% of your assets in the process (+legal fees, alimony, and maybe child support - can be more like 70% with ongoing costs), have to deal with all of the fallout and stigma in your family and social circles.

That's not saying you can't course correct - but the cost is very high compared to most things.

You don't "lose 50% of your assets", you receive your 50% share of the marital assets.

It's like if two cofounders with equal shares sell their company, they split the money. You wouldn't say one cofounder lost 50% of their assets.

In a world where the man joins the union with the majority of the assets, you lose them.

Divorce very strongly favors the female in many ways.

High earning women face the same "problem". The fact that men are more likely to be high earners then women are is a whole separate issue. Divorce law is supposed to be gender neutral, per the Supreme Court ruling (though it might be imperfectly enforced).

Except high earning women are still women and tend to marry even more successful men.

Divorce law is not gender neutral. Custody of kids favors the mother, does it not?

A 50/50 asset split disadvantages men on average because they typically bring more than 50/50 into the marriage.

Since men make more than women generally, if the nth percentile earning woman marries the nth percentile earning man, then the man will make more money, yes. That also means that if they divorce, the woman may take out more dollars than she put in. In the less common scenario where then woman makes more, though, she will take out fewer dollars and may have to pay spousal support going forward.

Meanwhile, custody of children in most jurisdictions is in fact gender neutral, and based on the best interests of the child. However, since more often the mother is the primary caregiver (whether stay-at-home or working full time), courts more often grant custody to the mother.

The first problem would be solved by eliminating gender wage disparities. The second problem would be solved by men providing more of the childcare during the marriage.

Ironically both problems have the same cause. Women do more of the child rearing and household chores. The wage gap is actually mostly a motherhood gap, if you look at the statistics.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find 1 in 10 divorces that "benefit" the man more than the woman. Just my intuition, I don't have any statistics on that. I have a really hard time calling that gender neutral.

I'd say the laws themselves are neutral, but situations vary. Also, 50/50 is just the default split; nothing prevents a couple from agreeing on a different split in a prenuptial agreement, which would then carry the force of law.

You could argue women often throw away their opportunity for a career when they get married.

And good luck trying to have kids without a woman being involved.

Not so much when they get married as when they have kids. Yes that's true.

Kids are irreversible, marriage is highly reversible.

Kids, yeah, definitely irreversible.

Marriage - I don't think it's highly reversible, see my sibling comment.

Yes, I remember reading a paper that showed we naturally offset activity with passivity. So you might go for a long run in the morning and then spend the evening on the sofa. It seems our brains try and keep a balance without us being consciously aware of it.

I'm guessing this is why exercise isn't a successful route to weight loss for most people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com