I really like kids and others don't seem to

Post Reply New Topic

To OP, I get along with little kids way more than I do with peers of mine. Little kids often make much more sense to me, and we laugh and smile at the same things.

That said, I don't want any kids of my own. As a whole, I think the world needs to adapt a cultural shift that doesn't equate baby making with the meaning of life. They take up a lot of physical as well as mental space and resources. Personally, I get along with kids really great, but I don't want to deal with the negative that comes with kids. Philosophically, kid-raising, as personally fulfilling as it can be for a great many people in the world, I don't think it's socially mindful to make that one's life goal when there's so much s**t that hasn't been dealt with around the world. That should be our primary concern as a species, a pursuit that doesn't necessarily coincide with what our evolved neuro-bio make up tells us, but that can be overcome.

It is based on empirical evidence not based on theoretical potentialities. You should research it a bit more, you would learn that everything I've stated is not only scientifically possible, but also projected to occur within the next twenty years or so. Scientists have been saying this for decades however they have never actually looked at the data. If they did they would have a date around 2045. Like Kurzweil, Itskov, Diamandis, etc. I believe it does bother some people but if you look at the data you can clearly see were approaching this point faster and faster. Please try watching a few videos about it, or even do some research yourself. The only thing the doubters say now if that it might slow down. There's no evidence for it slowing down at all; funny thing is it's speeding up exponentially.

The singularity has already started, we've already started to plug in socially and cognitively, and medical science is a booming field with mind blowing concepts. However, for the kind of singularity Kurzweil preaches, look at the political world, the state of inequality and the hierarchies that do so much in determining peoples' fates. These are issues scientists seem to think will figure itself out when the time comes. That's because scientists have the educations and lifestyles that provide buffers that distance them from how these concerns relate to their work.
As for the state of science, only time will tell. I'm familiar with some of the predictions that were made that have proved (semi) accurate. The metanarrative of the singularity, as envisioned by Kurzweil, I'm unconvinced is one of them. Not in that time frame at least.

I believe it will happen even sooner actually. I'm compiling my own data and it seems to be speeding up faster than he predicted. I mostly think this is due to Google and Samsung pushing for this now. I have seen how those in silicon valley perceive this idea. I think Kurzweil is actually pessimistic in the timeline of his predictions.
I don't see why you believe it is far off, care to give any example as to why?

I don't like kids when they are being loud or excitable in public, like in shops and buses, etc. But at the same time I do find small children quite interesting. I just need to get used to them more, as we don't have small children in our family any more (the youngest is 14).

I do get a little bit overwhelmed when a child has a big screaming tantrum near me. I stand there looking like I'm in a lion's den. But I think if I put myself in an environment surrounded by children, I know I would get tuned into the sound of children more, which might help with my coping skills. I am thinking of working in a nursery with children under 5. There is a nursery right near where I live, and I believe that working with small children is quite a good work setting for somebody like me with high anxiety and short attention span. At the moment I do cleaning at a care home, and I feel it's not really for me. They don't seem to ever have enough staff, you're likely to get called in on your days off, you get obliged to work week-ends, the work HAS to be done no matter what, and you can't have any time off over Christmas. I am a person who prefers structure, and I get upset if my routine gets changed unexpectedly (probably because I have Asperger's). Usually working at a nursery or school is a more routine-structured job, as most regular schools shut at week-ends, you get all Christmas off, and you know you won't be likely to be on call to come in at week-ends if other staff don't bother to show up or are on leave or are sick or whatever.

I am on antidepressants so they do make my drowsy. I often feel too exhausted to do cleaning, even if I have enough to drink. I just feel like it doesn't suit me. I know it can be tiring working with small children but it's a different sort of thing. I do have some experience working with toddlers in the past, and it's a nicer atmosphere, and there are always things going on, and my counselor had told me that nursery schools are good for people in my situation. So I think I may go for it.

Fair enough.

And I am sorry about your childhood. My son was very difficult when he was younger, and I was always very aware that in another family, he would have probably been beaten. It makes me sick. I know me feeling genuinely sorry that it happened to you doesn't help you at all, but I am genuinely sorry.

I will admit, I don't know as much about computer science as I would like to. It's something I imagine I will eventually dabble in, but my interests have not lead me there as of yet (I don't have much control in what I get interested in). More knowledge in this area might change my mind, but for now, I have a hard time understanding how it's theoretically conceivable. There's no general consensus as to how to define what a mind is or how it works, and this is even less so with consciousness (we don't even have a conclusive way to detect one, besides intuition (there are working theories that are helpful in certain situations, but these don't always fit well with each other and are of very limited value)). We barely even know how to address topics such as how the body relates to thought, what is thinking (is it possible without language? how so? what is it that's doing the thinking, and why can't it be done in parallel? or maybe it can in some instances) or rational thought (of which emotions are an essential part (at least for animals). does that mean machines must have something similar to emotions in order to function? what would that look like? would we have to engineer something that replaces and fulfills their function?), so I'm not sure how strong AI can even be on the agenda yet. We can and already do have soft AI and intelligent machines with rudimentary cognitive functions, but strong AI is a long ways away. As is downloading "a person" into a different "body". Using technologies to improve upon human human intelligence is conceivable (we've already got research showing that TMS does that. It would be interesting if gyms would eventually come with those like they already do with tanning beds or massages ), but it would most likely have to be done through analog-like technologies (neuromorphic chips?), not digital. And given that we have no idea how that would effect a person, we are bound to hit a lot of unpredictable technical challenges. After all, we're not talking about using a metal rod to fix a bone or nanotechnology to target cancer cells, this would be messing with people's souls (metaphorically speaking) (and although it might one day be possible to integrate analog technologies, we're still very new to neural networks and don't know much about them (most of what we know comes from working with models that include at most a few dozen at a time) because of how different information is represented).

The technology of silicon based transitors is near it's limit; it will reach it in less than 10 years! The miniaturisation would reach it's limit! It's not for nothing that modern processors don't have a clock speed faster that 3-4GHz, going any faster would cause problem of overheating and energy consumption. With the PS4 and XBox One, for the first time ever in history of mankind, we got consoles that have a slower clock speed that they predecessor. It was not the case in the 90s and early 2000s, as we were seing back then a explosion of clock speed!

Technologies that would allow us to replace silicon based transistors, like graphene based transitors, are not yet ready for mass production and it's unknow when it would be ready. And we can't count on quantum computers to speed up all our calculations, as it only work for some of them. Also, a processor cooled near absolute zero is unpractical for everyday usage.

There is also the problem that even if we were able a machine powerful ebnough, we know yet too little and the working of the brain and the working of intelligence to be able to make it intelligent. And it may be harder to emulate a brain in a machine that what peoples talking about singularity usually think; as to make a accurate emulator we need a LOT of power, much more that the mechanic we emulate. For example, the only snes (A early 90s console with a 3.58 MHz CPU.) emulator compatible with all the official games and with not know bug, needed at least a 3GHz clock speed three years ago. (Since then CPUs have become more performant for a same clock speed.) http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/08/accuracy-takes-power-one-mans-3ghz-quest-to-build-a-perfect-snes-emulator/
The article also mention a Pong emulator that is accurate to the point of simulating the circuit board. In 2011 no home computer could ran it at more that 5-10 fps even with the best CPUs. So simulating the human brain may remain for long a utopia.

Then, the economic problem. Designing a processors with billions of transistors cost a lot of money, meaning you need to sell a lot of processors to make back your money. This may become a problem; the reason peoples don't buy home computers much anymore is because they don't need it, their old computer is enough for their need. The same thing will eventually happen to cell phones and pads. We can't count much on video games to push progress either, as the costs for creating more detailled graphics are exploding and they reaching a point where there is little return to push it more.

Sounds like you found a possible career field, working with children.

But I think that some people just take to it both AS & NT. There are probably multiple reasons. One that came to mind is that kids at that age would not know and therefore judge you based on ASD. I like animals for that reason. Kids.... unless they were mine, not so much. Unless they are the real quiet type.

My own were ok,some of the time they were a pain but I loved them,so I had to endure it.Other people's kids,ugh,I couldn't wait for them to head home after a play date.I don't want small children around,the shrill noises,the smells,the snot streaming,the constant vigilance so they don't drag the frog or fish out of the aquarium.
I have know some people that really loved kids,the more running around the better.No thanks.I don't even want grandkids running around.

I can completely understand why people don't like kids. They are noisy, messy, inconsiderate and unaware of the impact of their behaviour. Sometimes they're bad JUST TO BE BAD. Just to test limits and see what they can get away with.

But I happen to really like kids. But I'll admit I'm really not into babies. I've never liked babies. When friends of mine have babies, I just ignore them (the babies) for about a year and then the older they get the more I like them. I never ask to hold them (there are plenty of others who will do that). Even when my son was a baby I loved him, but I didn't particularly like or enjoy that stage of his development (except for taking pictures! People love baby pictures and he loved having his picture taken)

I coach little kids in sport. And I absolutely love working with them over a period of years and seeing how they develop. Some kids I like more than others. Some kids (kids of my friends) I love but acknowledge their behaviour can be trying. Some of the kids I work with I really click with and others I don't. Unfortunately I tend to especially click with the naughty ones.

A bit of a generalisation but it seems most autistic people either like kids a lot or hate them. From what I've observed, most NTs seem to love their own and tolerate others, with of course exceptions in direction. Myself, got to love 'em, they're cute, a bundle of fun and not dead boring like more adults are. We're children at heart OP and that's no bad thing as long as you can interact passably in adult society too

I like children and much of children's culture, the only TV I watch now is the local public TV station's children's block. What I don't like is babies and toddlers for many reasons. I also need a breaks from children quite often, I could never raise them myself, not full time.