[HN Gopher] Should you trust your gut?
___________________________________________________________________
Should you trust your gut?
Author : abhaynayar
Score : 46 points
Date : 2022-09-21 15:33 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vox.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vox.com)
| cainxinth wrote:
| Whether or not you should trust your gut depends on what's in
| your head. People that have built up a lifetime of wisdom, muscle
| memory, well-honed instincts, and institutional knowledge should
| absolutely put a lot of stock in their hunches and feelings.
|
| Everyone else should be somewhat skeptical of their gut and
| doublecheck with the people from the first group.
| muzani wrote:
| Article is about how culture puts us on autopilot when chasing
| happiness. Very little to do with guts.
|
| Many comments, including the top comment at the moment is about
| decisions on gut instinct and nothing about happiness.
|
| How interesting. I would like to talk about the article but I
| feel there's a different conversation going on.
| TheFattestNinja wrote:
| I suppose that following instincts offers a much much discounted
| cost on your psyche for "getting it wrong".
|
| Let's say I have a choice between A and B. My instinct is telling
| me A, and I have a rational reasoning for B.
|
| Assuming that the strength of the instinct (0 - 100, "complete
| indifference" to "every cell if my body is screaming for it") is
| comparable to the confidence I have in my reasoning (0 - 100,
| "complete guess" to "I have factual proof and competence that
| tells me this is the answer"), then if I get it wrong because I
| went with A I'll be much more prone to accept it as "I'm ok with
| this mistake" then if I went with B and go it wrong.
|
| This, to me, is true at all levels of intensity. If I don't have
| strong feelings one way or another I'll follow instinct over
| reason and assume that my subconscious knows something I don't.
| If my rational confidence and instincts are high (assuming I dont
| have time to analyze the conflict), if I get it wrong
| "rationally" I'll kick myself more than if I got it wrong
| "irrationally".
|
| So there is a real advantage in mental health with going with
| guts.
| dmillar wrote:
| Didn't Malcom Gladwell already answer this question in Blink?
| Like nearly everything in life, the real answer is "sometimes."
| paulpauper wrote:
| that is the best answer for almost anything in life "sometimes"
| or "it depends"
| the_af wrote:
| I agree the answer is "sometimes".
|
| However, I want to point out everything Gladwell affirms should
| be subject to strong scrutiny, since he seems to follow the
| playbook of "never letting the truth get in the way of an
| interesting story". I've seen lots of his assertions
| challenged.
| nightski wrote:
| This is a false dichotomy. One can both take data into account
| and go with their gut after having evaluated such data. But data,
| by it's very nature, is rearward looking. It is really dangerous
| to become a solely data driven person/organization.
| uwagar wrote:
| i did and refused the covid vaccine.
| swayvil wrote:
| Beyond the little game of reason, gut is all you've got.
|
| Consider our magnificent science. Guess what it stands on?
|
| That's right. Pure gut.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Science _used_ to be based on theology.
|
| Both Oppenheimer and Whitehead, in their respective histories
| of science, say that it grew out of a Christian world view -
| that God created the universe. And not just any God, but a
| reasonable God, and therefore there was (theological) ground
| for expecting that the universe could be understood by reason.
|
| This was the difference between the start of western science
| and, say, the Greeks. The Greeks had most of the facts that
| western science had at 1600. But the Greek gods did random
| stuff to the universe for random reasons, and within that world
| view, there was no point systematically and rationally
| investigating the universe.
|
| But that was then. Science now is not built on that world view.
| Science now is built on the track record of science delivering
| for the last 400 years. Many (most?) people today believe the
| scientific method without believing the Christian world view.
| It remains to be seen whether that 400-year record of success
| is a sufficient epistemological base for science to continue,
| but it's certainly more than "pure gut".
| swayvil wrote:
| Fine. Pure gut and a large account of gut-derived models.
|
| I refer only to the foundation. Not what's been built upon
| it.
|
| Even christianity is founded upon gut. The layered
| authoritarian edifice (be it religious or scientific) is...
| I'm not sure what you call that.
|
| What do you call it when you have a model but have lost the
| empirical basis for that model?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Christianity is founded on the resurrection of Jesus as a
| historical event. Not on "gut". (You can argue that the
| foundation is _false_ , but it's still not "gut".)
|
| > What do you call it when you have a model but have lost
| the empirical basis for that model?
|
| Epistemological zombie? And yes, both science and (much of)
| Christianity are in that state - Christianity because many
| "Christian" churches now reject the historicity of the
| resurrection, and science because Michael Polanyi destroyed
| logical positivism and they have nothing to replace it
| with.
| swayvil wrote:
| >Christianity is founded...
|
| I think that's some of that "epistemological zombie"
| talk. Surely somebody at some point made an observation.
| And then interpreted it as "resurrection". Or some
| metaphor thereof.
| bravura wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Unless you were raised in an environment very different than the
| world you are in today. e.g. your youth was in a hostile
| environment and now you are in a safe environment. Or your youth
| was in a safe environment and now you are in a hostile
| environment. In that case, I am not sure how you unfuck yourself.
| The former case seems to lead to the most difficult to correct
| instincts.
|
| It's easier to become harder and more mortified than to become
| softer, more pliable, and more trusting.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Take the past centuries and try to find 80 years where trust in
| the powers that be would have been optimal, contrasted against
| endless skepticism, cynicism and general distrust. And there's
| no reason to think this trend is changing; a strong argument
| could made that it's trending worse.
|
| The point I make with this is that if we view things through
| the lens of being 'hard' vs being 'soft', then the worst case
| outcome of being 'hard' is relatively miniscule - looking a
| genuine gift horse in the mouth may cost one a 'gift.' By
| contrast the consequences of being 'soft' can be extreme. To
| run with the same analogy - happily opening your gates to that
| beautiful wooden horse from Troy. What a gift!
|
| The reason I use 80 years as the metric is because that is,
| more or less, the time before we get to discover the answer to
| that final question. And you never know whether you're in a
| good time, or a bad time. The bad guys don't simply announce
| "Hey guys. I'm evil. Let's go do evil things to those other
| guys under farcical rationale, because it sounds like a good
| thing to do. Who's with me!?" So all one can do is optimize for
| your entire life, or whatever remains of it.
| tonnydourado wrote:
| I have Crohn's disease. My gut has been fucking with me since I
| was 12. I never trusted the bastard, and never will.
| cgs wrote:
| I think us programmer types need to be careful about
| overanalyzing major decisions and completely ignoring our gut
| feelings. When choosing a life parter for example, you can find
| someone who "looks good on paper" and ticks certain boxes on what
| you think you want, but maybe they aren't a good partner for you
| for simpler reasons. Unless you are self-aware enough to know
| what will actually make you happy, you shouldn't discount your
| feelings. Derek Siver's "Hell Yeah or No" comes to mind here.
| trey-jones wrote:
| The older I get, the more I have to rely on my gut if I actually
| want to get any decisions made because I can't remember why I
| know something, or sometimes what I know that makes the decision
| correct.
|
| I don't mean that I'm being reckless (I'm reckless sometimes). I
| trust my gut to have some actual basis in knowledge. Another
| thing that I've learned to do as I get older is to freely say "I
| don't know" if I don't have a "gut" idea of what a decision
| should be. I will happily defer to someone else who convinces me
| that they do know in those situations (which is another gut call
| really, of whether to trust someone else).
|
| In any case, I am a strong believer in making a decision and
| following through with it (within reason), rather than stagnating
| forever in indecision and research. Some research yes, if
| necessary, but at some point you have to pick a direction and go.
|
| Edit to directly address the need for data: I'm firmly behind
| data-based decision making. Two arguments come to mind against
| "most gut decisions are wrong":
|
| 1. When I make a gut decision, it's based on data that I've
| collected at some point.
|
| 2. Pertinent to my first point, but also to data collected more
| consciously in preparation for a decision. Data is also wrong
| sometimes and misleading often.
|
| I go back to my idea that making a decision is better than not
| making a decision, usually. The next step is objectively
| monitoring the consequences and bailing out if you were wrong.
| Denial is much worse than making that wrong decision to begin
| with.
| RspecMAuthortah wrote:
| > In any case, I am a strong believer in making a decision and
| following through with it (within reason), rather than
| stagnating forever in indecision and research. Some research
| yes, if necessary, but at some point you have to pick a
| direction and go.
|
| I am the type that struggles with the indecisive behavior and
| had to pay serious opportunity cost because of this type of
| behavior. I struggle with indecisiveness even with seemingly
| small decisions such as picking a restaurant for dinner.
|
| Any pointers on behavioral trainings to change that? In this
| context, even if I have (and I typically do) have also "gut
| feeling" about something, I struggle to follow through.
| trey-jones wrote:
| I'm afraid that I don't, and in fact that despite my belief
| in the concept (decisiveness!) I definitely struggle to
| adhere to it sometimes as well. Your example (where to go for
| dinner) puts my in mind of my wife, who does much the same
| and I get to watch her agonize and stress over tiny decisions
| that in my mind have no consequence whatsoever one way or
| another.
|
| In fact, I do think that being married to her forces
| decisiveness from me, in many cases. But for others, I just
| don't empathize very much, even with her. I'm quick to point
| out that it's a tiny difference that won't make any
| difference in the long run, but it doesn't seem to help her
| at all (I'm not insensitive as this may sound, I really am
| trying to help and she knows that).
|
| That's the only thing I can say though - maybe analyze why
| you think this is an important decision, worth your time of
| consideration. If you can't think of a good enough reason,
| then say to yourself, "it doesn't matter", and flip a coin.
| Maybe literally, if that helps.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| The older I get, the more I realize that you could infinitely
| try to optimize for a decision to be right.
|
| At some point you just need to decide.
|
| The majority of things in life aren't worth taking to much
| effort to optimize your decision.
|
| Your gut is a great heuristic, but the trick is to know when
| you should put in a little more effort than just trusting your
| gut.
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| Also, it's often the case that you can't collect all the
| relevant information from your starting point.
|
| Sometimes once you start moving in one direction, any
| direction at all, you gain more perspective on what the right
| decision is.
|
| So it's important to maintain flexibility and be able to
| update your decisions.
| RichardCNormos wrote:
| Your "gut" developed over tens of thousands of years of
| evolutionary pressure. There's way more information encoded
| into it than we would expect.
| rmnclmnt wrote:
| I do agree with the reasoning here. For a few weeks / months, I
| have been trying to trust my first instinct / intuition more
| and more, sweeping away any second guessing when it comes in.
| So far, it seems to be working great and frees my mind so much
| it's refreshing!
| TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote:
| That's called wisdom.
|
| Learning from past mistakes, past times you were fooled, times
| you were right, pulling from a vast and diverse set of
| knowledge that only makes sense in hidsight.
| code_runner wrote:
| I suffer from some pretty intense Analysis Paralysis at times.
| I've found that there are so many tradeoffs in each and every
| decision in software that you've just gotta pick what feels
| right and get moving. I guess that's the same as listening to
| my gut?
|
| I've yet to avoid any/all hurdles as a result, but I've yet to
| reach one I couldn't figure out how to get over either.
|
| There is no perfect decision and the line between "ok" and
| "great" decisions is verrrrrrry fine.
| jventura wrote:
| > I suffer from some pretty intense Analysis Paralysis at
| times.
|
| I used to be like that when I was younger. Not only for
| specific things regarding software, but for many things in
| life. Eventually I've developed my own "mantra" which is
| something like "any-thing is better than no-thing".
|
| Nowadays it still happens to me some of the times, mostly
| when I have too many things to do at the same time and don't
| know where to turn to. One example: from 19:00 to 19:30 every
| day I have to set the table, do the dinner, prepare the soup
| and fruit for my small kid and wash some dishes, as my wife
| baths the kid. Some days it is too much at the same time, and
| I start to feel paralyzed, like where do I turn to? My
| current solution is just to do anything. Anything at all. And
| as soon as I do anything, I start to see things moving, and
| instantly, that paralyzing feel goes away!
| hutzlibu wrote:
| I have the same. What helped me was to learn the concept of
| "good enough", because sometimes or rather often, there is
| just no perfect solution.
| stevievee wrote:
| Well put. I am the same way.
|
| I view it as the vector of my past experiences and knowledge.
| Though, I do have to be careful not to conflate gut with excess
| of any emotion ex. greed, hope etc. I am also carefully aware
| of when the "rules of the game" might be changing but that
| might be the "data" you are describing.
| belkarx wrote:
| Blindly not trusting the impressions your brain gives you based
| on connections and information you've gained in the past is
| wrong, however being cynical when specifically considering the
| _root_ of why you think a certain way and considering then
| correcting internal biases is useful (meditation!)
| legrande wrote:
| My analytical mind over-rides gut instinct. Second order thinking
| that conceptualizes every possible permutation and what could go
| wrong & right given various inputs. Listen to your analytical
| mind.
| fooker wrote:
| I do the opposite. I let the analytical part make decisions,
| but gut feeling have veto power.
|
| You can not reason about unknown unknowns or model black swan
| risks.
| verisimi wrote:
| > Want to be happy? Don't follow your gut.
|
| And that strapline tells me all I need to know....
|
| I don't care about being happy - its an ephemeral feeling, that
| can even be induced by drugs. Why should it be held as the
| pinnacle of anything? Should my life be about chasing doughnuts
| and bjs?
|
| What I do want is to understand and get closer to the truth and
| meaning.
|
| PS But I also understand why 'happiness' is promoted as a value
| to be sought. It opens you up to being sold to alleviate
| 'unhappiness' and to lessen 'pain'. As if pain is something to be
| avoided as opposed to an opportunity to learn and change.
| adolph wrote:
| _A new book by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, called Don't Trust Your
| Gut, argues that our "gut" -- or whatever you want to call it --
| is usually wrong. And it's wrong because our intuitions are often
| influenced by false impressions or dubious conventional wisdom._
|
| The continued existence of homo sapiens over the last X years
| would be evidence undercutting SS-D's conjecture that intuitive
| decisions are wrong more often than right. Of course, to
| understand the relationship between claim and evidence it would
| be necessary to understand what SS-D means by "wrong."
|
| As an example of right/wrong, he cites the relatively short
| lifespan of record stores compared to a dentist office as a
| method of deciding what kind of business to open. It isn't clear
| if SS-D is being facetious in terms of business opportunity
| options, but it is clear that SS-D deals in very low dimensional
| data, not information, knowledge or wisdom.
|
| Skipping to the summary statistical result is a short-sighted
| decision method. To get Tower or Waterloo or any other cultural
| institution, many other ventures opened, innovated and failed as
| part of an evolution of innovation. To get evolution there must
| be mutation and selection. Survivorship bias makes the post-hoc
| claim that if only we did it the "right" way we need not have had
| all the short lived record stores. It doesn't admit that the
| "right" way wasn't known at the start.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
| taxicabjesus wrote:
| My greatest success as a taxi driver was learning to follow my
| intuition. One passenger led to the next, until I'd met all the
| people I was supposed to meet for that day.
|
| At the start of a shift I'd ask myself where to go. When I was
| between passengers, driving around thinking about where to find
| my next fare, I'd do a "left, right or straight" as I approached
| intersections. Sometimes it was definite response, sometimes I
| got the impression that it didn't matter.
|
| One of the passengers I've told you all about ... I was next to
| her apartment when she called for her taxi. She's doing much
| better now, because I took some time to talk to her.
|
| Ingo Swann said something about how we have much more than the 5
| physical senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. ...
| Random blog post about our other 'senses':
| https://www.hellahealth.com/blog/wellness/humans-five-senses...
|
| (I met Ingo before I took to taxi driving:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32587071 )
|
| Intuition helps keep us alive, and helps put is in the right
| place at the right time so we can meet the people we're supposed
| to meet to move us along on whatever we're working on.
| dcanelhas wrote:
| I listened to the Vox Conversations podcast and I feel somewhat
| skeptical about the conclusions regarding happiness. The author
| of the book says that he trusts a major study on the subject
| because it sampled what people were doing at the precise moment
| when queried and how happy they felt at that point in time. He
| then concludes that we are most miserable when e.g. studying and
| working and happiest when getting laid. The problem I see with
| this is that if they, for instance, would've asked a person just
| after doing heroin for the first time, how happy they were _in
| that precise moment_ it would maybe be off the chart. Saying we
| should avoid stuff that brings long term fulfillment and
| satisfaction to remember having done seems like a trap. We 're
| only our present selves for an instance, but our future selves
| for years to come.
| [deleted]
| jeff-davis wrote:
| "The average record store lasts 2.75 years. The average dentist
| business lasts 19.5 years."
|
| Average means nothing unless the distribution is normal. And
| business longevity is not a normal distribution.
| idiocrat wrote:
| Humans have ~500 million neurons in the gut.
|
| Cats have ~760 million neurons in their total neural system.
|
| So guts can have characters of their own.
| rcktmrtn wrote:
| I got a laugh out of this [1] comment yesterday and was
| considering how it applied here. I don't necessarily think that
| the methodology is garbage, but I would question the ability of
| science to contribute useful information here
|
| > they asked people on their iPhones: Who are you with? What are
| you doing? And how happy are you, 0 to 100? And they built this
| chart, a happiness activity chart.
|
| ... basically, this study "proves" that people _say_ they 're
| happy when they're having sex, in a comfortable environment, or
| enjoying good community and are unhappy when they are "doom-
| scrolling". I don't doubt the integrity of the researchers or
| that the study is reproducable, but I'm confused who this study
| is for.
|
| Are scientists just now figuring out that there is a discrepancy
| between what people KNOW is good for them and what they actually
| do? If not, what business do they have pretending to make
| scientific pronouncements as if they were impartial researchers
| who genuinely considered the opposite possibility?
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32941889
| nradov wrote:
| The older and more experienced I get, the less I trust my gut. My
| intuition is wrong the majority of the time.
|
| I suspect this also applies to most other people, if they're
| really being honest about it.
| notRobot wrote:
| Tangentially related:
|
| In my experience lot of people operate on 'autopilot', and I find
| it incredibly sad. They have all of humanity's knowledge
| accessible to them in their hands through phones, I wish they
| would sometimes stop to search and read and learn and expand
| their internal knowledge bases. I wish people were more curious
| and open-minded.
|
| I've personally always derived a lot of joy from constantly
| learning and improving myself and it's baffling to me how little
| growth and positive change I see in many of the people around me
| over the years.
| mandis wrote:
| What are the learning projects that have best helped you grow?
| RicoElectrico wrote:
| This x 1000!
|
| It's everywhere. From Quora where people from a certain country
| rush to type a non-answer quoting a useless memorized
| definition to your doctor.
| Yajirobe wrote:
| Which country is that?
| [deleted]
| brnaftr361 wrote:
| Yeah, but whipping out your phone could be deemed autopilot, in
| fact, I would say it's a defining feature of modern
| implementation of autopilot.
|
| I kinda feel like what you're getting at is that your iteration
| of autopilot is better than others. In the abstract _most_
| people are pulling information out of the web and ostensibly
| using it to construct a model. The difference here is
| priorities and to some extent the framework of moral
| schematics.
|
| I would expect you're under the impression that what you're
| doing is productive, and productivity is good. That's not
| necessarily the case though - that's just a lens that post-
| Christian western society has adopted for scrutinizing
| individuals, and frankly it's a little harmful.
| notRobot wrote:
| I don't disagree with what you're saying, I feel you
| misunderstand me. I'm not talking about productivity, I'm
| talking about stagnation in life (in terms of not 'growing'
| as a person).
|
| My point is that it's easier than ever before to improve
| yourself through readily accessible resources. I wish more
| people would.
|
| It can be through learning about different people's
| experiences, considering alternative opinions, thinking about
| views that oppose your own, studying social sciences, having
| conversations, and so on.
| dangond wrote:
| It seems to me that the people you describe as being on
| "autopilot" tend to be people that, for whatever reason, do
| not place a lot of value on the concept of improving
| oneself (at least, improving oneself in the manner you
| described, via constant learning, curiosity, and open-
| mindedness). These people simply have other
| priorities/worries taking up their time - making money,
| taking care of family, etc. I myself feel much like you -
| if I'm not constantly studying something or learning a new
| skill, I feel like I am stagnating. However, it is hard to
| make the case for people to constantly accumulate knowledge
| when most people have the knowledge they need to get by and
| accomplish their goals. What benefit is it for me to
| practice piano as a software engineer? I get a profound
| sense of satisfaction at seeing my skill improve and deeper
| appreciation for professional musicians, but is it
| necessary for me to do so? What does the average person
| really get out of reading, say, Plato's dialogues, when it
| comes to things like establishing a stable life, climbing
| the corporate ladder, or paying their bills, if they
| already believe they have a grasp on things? What is the
| case to be made for continuous improvement over improvement
| to the point of necessity, and no further?
| brnaftr361 wrote:
| I don't think I do, let me better explain myself:
|
| From what I've pieced together, you have some value system
| that assesses goodness of growth. Growth is arbitrary and
| personal. You've set up a red herring in your idea of
| growth.
|
| To frame it from first principals - we live in a
| continually evolving system, it's basically mandatory for
| _any_ individual to "grow" in more ways than one: firstly,
| people have to navigate that ever-changing environment and
| as such are exposed to novel information and they _have_
| (at a biological level) to update their priors; secondly,
| at a biological level, invisible though it may be, people
| are in constant flux internally, now it 's speculation, but
| I'd posit that at a biological level emotions, and boredom,
| and restlessness are all evolutionary features to press
| people towards some point, and as a sub-point to this,
| we're constantly remodeling our brains with our minds and
| thus I would posit we can confer "growth" as, ostensibly,
| an individuals model is constantly reorienting itself
| closer to the ground truth that the stimuli from the
| environment inculcates.
|
| What I'm saying is that from my view, the contour you've
| used to define growth is a _trajectory towards some point
| /you/ approve of_, some average of things that are made
| visible to you by others. It seems you want more people to
| conform to your trajectory, which hey, that's fine, but you
| shouldn't harbor the expectation of people to do so. Some
| people want to memorize trivia about Game of Thrones so
| they can be the go-to authority in their social circle on
| the topic. Other people like to ride out their cognitive-
| emotional rollercoasters while rolling around in bed late
| into the day. Other people keep their growth dead silent.
| And every other conceivable permutation of that is going on
| right now, it just doesn't look productive.
|
| And it's good this way. If everybody conformed to one
| particular trajectory most would quickly be left behind. If
| everybody followed a single trajectory, we'd lose the
| treasure of the many diverse forking paths that make up the
| human space.
| vsareto wrote:
| School/Uni burns people out on learning stuff. They finish that
| then want to do other things, which may not involve learning
| something new.
|
| But also plenty of people have anxieties about their livelihood
| these days thanks to wages, the economy, and the state of the
| world. It might be baffling because you lack perspective on
| that front by not having a shit life!
| earthboundkid wrote:
| Every day on Reddit, I see people asking "Should I learn X?"
| And it's so fucking stupid. Why ask? Try to learn X. If it's
| boring, stop. There are no grades. There is no penalty for
| dropping out.
|
| There are legitimate questions to ask, "Is book Y worth the
| money?" "If I learn Z, will it increase my job prospects?"
| But "should I learn X?" is a bad question, and only something
| as awful as years mandatory schooling can make someone think
| it is a good one.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Every day on Reddit, I see people asking "What is X?" And
| it's so fucking stupid. Why ask? Try to learn what is X by
| yourself, you are literally two clicks (long press and
| touch or whatever) away from getting an answer. But people
| don't want to do that (and some of them don't even know,
| for sure). But they are totally okay to register on Reddit,
| ask that question (and maybe even come some time to receive
| the answer).
| RajT88 wrote:
| You should always listen and observe what your instincts are
| telling you.
|
| Sometimes, they will lead you astray, but sometimes they give you
| valuable advice on what to do. Learning what scenarios have a
| high/low success rate is useful. Just my 2 cents.
|
| For example, I have good success rate just feeling around numbers
| and seeing what feels right when doing tasks like, "guess how
| many jelly beans in the jar". I have a very poor success rate in
| deciding whom to date.
| ellen364 wrote:
| A strategy that I've seen turn around someone's relationship
| woes is asking yourself "Would I hire this person?" Not
| thinking about skills, particularly, but more about their
| attitude and approach to things. I was sceptical of the idea
| but, looking back, it changed the rules of thumb the person was
| using to assess potential partners. In their case, it worked
| really well.
| etrautmann wrote:
| Also / instead: would I want to coparent with this partner?
| trey-jones wrote:
| This was the approach that I took, kind of. I was too young
| to really understand what I was doing though, and any
| guesses about what someone will be like as a parent are
| probably just guesses, no matter how well you know them.
| Mostly I just tell people I got lucky.
|
| Not to discount your approach, I think it's a great
| criteria.
| blastro wrote:
| oh shit! :|
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-23 23:01 UTC)