Why can’t you just move to a place where people are not defined by their faith (and split, if your wife cannot accept who you are)? Then you need no statement, just live your life. Can you answer this without falling into a sunk-cost trap?
Do marriage, two kids and home ownership fall into the sunk-cost category?
ETA: Missed the note about divorce (which indicates that marriage does fall into your sunk-cost trap definition). What qualifies as “wife cannot accept who you are?” Don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely crossed my mind, but in the absence of some kind of abuse, blatant disregard for my equality/dignity, or something similar… I’m not sure I have good reasons to muck things up that badly in a practical sense (even if starting anew might bring about some relief and eliminate the need for any kind of statement at all).
Do the great majority of cases of not being significantly enough affected by losing such relationships to prevent the avoidance of the loss of the relationship from being primarily engendered by the sunk-cost fallacy imply the presence of sociopathy?
(I’m trying to see if I understand the implications of your statement properly. I would think there could be other factors involved that wouldn’t necessarily prevent the relationship from being considered valued. Perhaps those are rare enough to not affect your statement.)
I’m not a psychologist, and perhaps the use of “sociopath” was hyperbole. And I can imagine the (to my mind) sad situation of being surrounded only by relationships so shallow that no one would suffer much distress if you just picked up and moved, but it definitely looked like that was not the case here, and I would like to think that it’s not the caae for most married couples with children. I’m not saying that the sunk cost fallacy doesn’t come into play when a couple is considering divorce (I suspect it’s very strong), but I think that even in most divorces there are emotional (and other) repercussions that should be looked at as results of your choices rather than as artifacts of cognitive bias.
Whew, though I’d like to know what shminux thinks, too. Actually, I think I already know—whether the comment was edited, or I just missed it… I didn’t see the “and split, if your wife...” in his response.
Assuming you survive for more than the next ten years or so, yes.
Also, your wife is Catholic. If you issue an ultimatum to deconvert, we end up with one of the three following scenarios:
She accepts.
You divorce her. She doesn’t remarry, probably causing her vast emotional harm.
You divorce her. She caves in to emotional pressure and remarries, ousting her from the conventional Catholic community.
All three scenarios weaken overall religious influence and raise the probability that your children will be epistemologically sane. I consider this preferable.
She doesn’t deconvert. We remain married, happily.
She doesn’t deconvert. We remain married, unhappily.
I also predict she could get an annulment pretty easily given my deconversion, which adds another option:
I divorce her. She gets married when she’s ready and is not ousted from the Catholic community.
Also, it seems like you’ve honed in on the beliefs of my children and wife as the most important factors (with a side of my wife’s future unhappiness, but I’m not sure if you counted that toward the weakening of overall religious influence). Do you think there are other factors to weigh?
In any case, I find the most valuable point to be your reminder to me that this is long term. I’ve tried to keep that in mind, though weighting near unhappiness vs. far improvement is definitely a potential trap. I’m 27 and thus probably do have more than 10 years.
Nonetheless, it still strikes me as a complex situation and I’m not settled on how to judge potential future states and sum the collective happinesses of the stakeholders.
She doesn’t deconvert. The extended Catholic community preserves the story of how jwhendy became an evil atheist and abandoned his wife and children as a result.
A very possible outcome. What’s missing is what I pointed out above in my response to Dallas.
Nonetheless, it still strikes me as a complex situation and I’m not settled on how to judge potential future states and sum the collective happinesses of the stakeholders.
How does one factor in various happinesses, potentially negative views of myself and atheists in general, my childrens’ development/emotional/intellectual health, and so on?
Oh, I didn’t realize you had kids. Should have figured it out, given your religious background.
I did not mean a legal divorce. Separating is a tough decision, too, especially with kids, but if you, say, found an attractive employment away from the area you are in, and worked/lived there most of the time, only visiting on weekends/holidays, it might give you a perspective on what you really want.
Oh, I didn’t realize you had kids. Should have figured it out, given your religious background.
Might I suggest you work on your tact in human interactions?
Re. a split simply in the proximity sense, that did occur to me/us during a particularly low point—mostly from my wife in order to help me figure out what I want. I think if I were in a lower emotional state, I’d consider that option more.
If you should have figured it out, and didn’t, did learning so give you a dose of hindsight bias? I suspect that only after learning I had kids did it seem like a dead obvious fact that this was because I had a religious background. Now that you’ve found out, you will insist that I need to accept that the generalization was deserved.
Even if the two can be correlated (and that only even works with certain religious groups), I’m more commenting on the use of generalizations/stereotypes in general. Even if they’re correct, it doesn’t seem to add anything to point out someone meets it.
For example, what if I told you the timing of my children had nothing to do with my religious beliefs?
Lastly, pick a demographic typically associated with drug use. Should someone confide in you that they did drugs, would your next comment be, “Oh, I didn’t realize you did drugs. Should have figured it out, given your age/race/sex/etc. combination?”
Thank you for the explanation. I regret that you found my off-hand comment annoying/offensive. I guess I will refrain from commenting on your posts, as I see no way to avoid this reaction in the future.
EDIT: weird, a note of disengagement provokes a quiet negative reaction. I must be missing something.
This also seems like an odd, blanket generalization. We’ve had one set of interactions on one post… ever. How do you know what will happen in all my posts?
I was simply surprised that you’d think you obviously should have realized I had kids given that I was religious. And so I said something.
Why can’t you just move to a place where people are not defined by their faith (and split, if your wife cannot accept who you are)? Then you need no statement, just live your life. Can you answer this without falling into a sunk-cost trap?
Do marriage, two kids and home ownership fall into the sunk-cost category?
ETA: Missed the note about divorce (which indicates that marriage does fall into your sunk-cost trap definition). What qualifies as “wife cannot accept who you are?” Don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely crossed my mind, but in the absence of some kind of abuse, blatant disregard for my equality/dignity, or something similar… I’m not sure I have good reasons to muck things up that badly in a practical sense (even if starting anew might bring about some relief and eliminate the need for any kind of statement at all).
Probably not unless you’re a sociopath who wouldn’t be affected by losing relationships you valued.
Do the great majority of cases of not being significantly enough affected by losing such relationships to prevent the avoidance of the loss of the relationship from being primarily engendered by the sunk-cost fallacy imply the presence of sociopathy?
(I’m trying to see if I understand the implications of your statement properly. I would think there could be other factors involved that wouldn’t necessarily prevent the relationship from being considered valued. Perhaps those are rare enough to not affect your statement.)
I’m not a psychologist, and perhaps the use of “sociopath” was hyperbole. And I can imagine the (to my mind) sad situation of being surrounded only by relationships so shallow that no one would suffer much distress if you just picked up and moved, but it definitely looked like that was not the case here, and I would like to think that it’s not the caae for most married couples with children. I’m not saying that the sunk cost fallacy doesn’t come into play when a couple is considering divorce (I suspect it’s very strong), but I think that even in most divorces there are emotional (and other) repercussions that should be looked at as results of your choices rather than as artifacts of cognitive bias.
Whew, though I’d like to know what shminux thinks, too. Actually, I think I already know—whether the comment was edited, or I just missed it… I didn’t see the “and split, if your wife...” in his response.
Tried to clarify it in my reply. And no, I didn’t edit this particular comment.
Got it; I read in haste then. My apologies.
Assuming you survive for more than the next ten years or so, yes.
Also, your wife is Catholic. If you issue an ultimatum to deconvert, we end up with one of the three following scenarios:
She accepts.
You divorce her. She doesn’t remarry, probably causing her vast emotional harm.
You divorce her. She caves in to emotional pressure and remarries, ousting her from the conventional Catholic community.
All three scenarios weaken overall religious influence and raise the probability that your children will be epistemologically sane. I consider this preferable.
What about other options:
She doesn’t deconvert. We remain married, happily.
She doesn’t deconvert. We remain married, unhappily.
I also predict she could get an annulment pretty easily given my deconversion, which adds another option:
I divorce her. She gets married when she’s ready and is not ousted from the Catholic community.
Also, it seems like you’ve honed in on the beliefs of my children and wife as the most important factors (with a side of my wife’s future unhappiness, but I’m not sure if you counted that toward the weakening of overall religious influence). Do you think there are other factors to weigh?
In any case, I find the most valuable point to be your reminder to me that this is long term. I’ve tried to keep that in mind, though weighting near unhappiness vs. far improvement is definitely a potential trap. I’m 27 and thus probably do have more than 10 years.
Nonetheless, it still strikes me as a complex situation and I’m not settled on how to judge potential future states and sum the collective happinesses of the stakeholders.
How about this:
She doesn’t deconvert. The extended Catholic community preserves the story of how jwhendy became an evil atheist and abandoned his wife and children as a result.
A very possible outcome. What’s missing is what I pointed out above in my response to Dallas.
How does one factor in various happinesses, potentially negative views of myself and atheists in general, my childrens’ development/emotional/intellectual health, and so on?
Bit harsh on the wife, though...
Oh, I didn’t realize you had kids. Should have figured it out, given your religious background.
I did not mean a legal divorce. Separating is a tough decision, too, especially with kids, but if you, say, found an attractive employment away from the area you are in, and worked/lived there most of the time, only visiting on weekends/holidays, it might give you a perspective on what you really want.
Might I suggest you work on your tact in human interactions?
Re. a split simply in the proximity sense, that did occur to me/us during a particularly low point—mostly from my wife in order to help me figure out what I want. I think if I were in a lower emotional state, I’d consider that option more.
Feel free to spell it out for me how the inference that religious background ⇒ kids soon after marriage is offensive.
If you should have figured it out, and didn’t, did learning so give you a dose of hindsight bias? I suspect that only after learning I had kids did it seem like a dead obvious fact that this was because I had a religious background. Now that you’ve found out, you will insist that I need to accept that the generalization was deserved.
Even if the two can be correlated (and that only even works with certain religious groups), I’m more commenting on the use of generalizations/stereotypes in general. Even if they’re correct, it doesn’t seem to add anything to point out someone meets it.
For example, what if I told you the timing of my children had nothing to do with my religious beliefs?
Lastly, pick a demographic typically associated with drug use. Should someone confide in you that they did drugs, would your next comment be, “Oh, I didn’t realize you did drugs. Should have figured it out, given your age/race/sex/etc. combination?”
Thank you for the explanation. I regret that you found my off-hand comment annoying/offensive. I guess I will refrain from commenting on your posts, as I see no way to avoid this reaction in the future.
EDIT: weird, a note of disengagement provokes a quiet negative reaction. I must be missing something.
This also seems like an odd, blanket generalization. We’ve had one set of interactions on one post… ever. How do you know what will happen in all my posts?
I was simply surprised that you’d think you obviously should have realized I had kids given that I was religious. And so I said something.