
30% through your life, you’re likely 90% through your best relationships - hunglee2
http://qz.com/572284/the-tail-end/?utm_source=parVC
======
codingdave
This article shows zero understanding of the relationships one has with their
spouse and children. Those grow and build over time, and are the people you
really will spend your time with in your elder years. Thinking of them,
someone who is only 30 has possibly not yet even met the people you will spend
the rest of your life with. There is far more to come.

~~~
georgemcbay
Many (most?) people will divorce their first spouses and some people will
never have children.

I don't disagree with your point that the article is overly simplistic with
relationships (presumably because it is told from the POV of a person who is
unmarried with no kids) but it also is more complicated than just assuming
everyone will get married, stay married and have kids.

~~~
codingdave
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-
surge-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-
over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html)

Your point is well taken, but divorce rates are dropping, so while we aren't
living in the world of "Leave it to Beaver", neither are we in the lousy
marriage climate of the 80s.

~~~
dogma1138
Don't all signs point to the economic climate being the reason as people can't
afford a divorce?

~~~
codingdave
To which economic climate are you referring? The rates have been dropping for
40 years... the economy has had many changes during that time.

The other comment was closer to the reasons I've read - later marriages,
and/or people who do not marry in the first place.

~~~
Grishnakh
The other ugly factor is that the rate of single-parent-dom has increased
enormously. So tons of kids are growing up in households with only one adult,
are "latchkey kids", and aren't seeing any role models for what loving adult
relationships should look like. This does not bode well for the future.

------
autarch
Only if your best relationships are with people you met in high school.

My best relationships right now are with my wife and my close friends in the
same city as I live in. I see them a lot more than I see people from high
school (which is never).

~~~
wtbob
> Only if your best relationships are with people you met in high school.

Or, as in this case, with one's parents and siblings. Which seems reasonable
to me: as much as I like the folks I went to high school & college with, my
parents and brothers are the people I'm closest too. No doubt were I married
my wife would be an exception … but at my age I've accepted that will never
happen.

~~~
rokhayakebe
_but at my age I 've accepted that will never happen._

Being totally judgmental: As a hack, why not try and think differently about
this for 2016 as in "now I am at the right age and ready to find a companion."

~~~
epalmer
When I gave up looking for a partner I found my future wife. It happened in 6
months> (we took 2 years to decide to marry).

She is my best friend and after 30 years our relationship is getting stronger
and stronger every year.

Next to my wife my kids are everything.

~~~
Grishnakh
You don't know how old the GP is. He did say, "...at my age..." He could be
60+, in which case the likelihood of him finding a really great partner really
isn't very high, unfortunately. Also he doesn't say, but kinda implies that
he's always been single. Usually, people like that never get married. It's
sad, but true.

Remember, as you get older, you get more set in your ways usually, so it's
harder to find compatible people. It's easier when you're in your early 20s
and your personalities are still developing: you can "mold into" each other.

Obviously, when you "gave up" you must have been rather young for that to have
been over 30 years ago, and for kids to have resulted from it. Either that, or
you're in your 90s (and your wife is several decades younger than you), or
you're a vampire or something.

~~~
epalmer
I was late 29 when I gave up looking. Had a date with my future wife on my
30th birthday. Married at 31 (almost 32) and kids significantly later. So I'm
62 and have a 23 year old and an 18 year old.

------
nether
Articles like these make it seem really hard to avoid a scarcity mindset. I
get desperate, clingy toward people and experiences since every advice
columnist says "life is short!" and this may be my last chance at happiness.
But meanwhile you're supposed to think otherwise with a feeling of abundance,
even if that doesn't reflect reality.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I take it as a caution to continue making relationships with new people. I was
involved in Scouting for 20 years, and never stopped meeting people. I now
know the kids of some Scouts I first met!

------
theunixbeard
Original: [http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/the-tail-
end.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/the-tail-end.html)

Check out Tim's other articles, they are great.

Some of the favorites I have bookmarked:

[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/taming-mammoth-let-peoples-
opi...](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/taming-mammoth-let-peoples-opinions-run-
life.html)

[http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-
are-u...](http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-
unhappy.html)

[http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/11/life-is-picture-but-you-
live-i...](http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/11/life-is-picture-but-you-live-in-
pixel.html)

------
achamayou
That's ignoring entirely the possibility of children, grand-children, nephews
and nieces etc.

Plenty of opportunity for meaningful relationships with younger generations.

~~~
crusso
The fact that the author is 34 and the notion that future relationships with
children weren't even mentioned is a fairly telling comment on the evolution
of society.

~~~
nostrademons
It is a fairly telling comment on the evolution of _the author_. Unless you're
fond of generalizing from a sample set of 1, it gives you virtually no
information on the evolution of society.

~~~
crusso
The article was upvoted to the front page of HN by more than 1.

------
level09
I find the article too subjective. After 30 I am finally able (financially) to
travel around and meet interesting people, travelling increases probability of
meeting more people and forming interesting relationships.

------
HiLo
Is somebody really trying to quantify meaningful, long-term human
relationships?

I kind of thought almost by definition that these things were more nuanced
than that. Some of the thing that gives them so much meaning over the long
run, in my opinion, is the variability in these relationships. Kids making
good with their parents, old friends putting past qualms behind them,
neighbors finally taking the time to talk to one another, etc.

------
jpeg_hero
I am not sure that the time I spent with my parents from age 2 yo to age 3 yo
was 365x better than the Saturday I just spent with them.

Google:"childhood amnesia"

------
QuercusMax
This year I moved from Ohio (where I've lived all my life), where my parents
and younger brother (1.5 years younger, we are very close when we were small)
lived about a half hour from me, but I typically only saw them once a month or
so, as my parents and younger brother are very busy and I have four children,
which makes going out complicated.

Now I'm living in California, a similar distance from my older brother (10y
older) who moved away when I was still in middle school. We now see each other
twice a week, and my kids now have a real relationship with their cousins and
my brother and his wife.

This article really made me think; I'm not super sure what my point is
exactly, but thinking about things this way can be useful.

------
oldmanjay
I can tell by the title this article is written by someone who cannot
distinguish between their life experience and the rest of the world.

~~~
coldtea
The article is plain math. Their experience is irrelevant.

Unless you happen to live in a nearby house with your parents/siblings, or are
able to commute every week to where they live, you're in the category the
author describes, and you have seen the most you'll ever seen them by your
thirties.

There no workarounds around this. Either you live nearby and you have the
opportunity to see them often, or you have the most days spend with them
behind you.

------
djsumdog
I've lived outside the US for four years. I move about every two years. I have
amazing friends from all around the world and I work hard to keep up with
then; even meet up with them on other sides of the planet.

Honestly, I think I'm on the better end of the quality vs quantity agreement
(plus my sister and I never really got along either).

------
elorant
The more I understand of life and myself the more meaningful my relationships
become. So getting older is a blessing in that regard, not a disadvantage.

------
mortenjorck
I propose that this model of time spent with people is too simplistic. Shared
daily time, whether with parents or childhood friends, builds relationships in
a way that is naturally resilient to later time apart. It's not impervious, of
course – you have to commit to maintaining these relationships, but we have
more channels through which to do this than ever before. Not seeing a family
member for a few months is an entirely different thing from not
_communicating_ with them for a few months.

------
tahssa
Quantity vs. Quality should have been considered.

I've found keeping certain people I love at arms length by interacting
somewhat infrequently actually makes an otherwise unbearable relationship
great. Somewhat like living on the ocean or in the mountains one slowly loses
the appreciation of what once was spectacular to the unseen eye.

Take with that the loss of any new gains by doing something else with your
time and you will find none of the salient points have much value.

------
Namrog84
Some of my favorite people I first met by moving far away from those I loved
:|

There are also lot of sad things. There was a moment of time someone picked
you up and then put you down for the last time.

Many of the things have already ended. I wish the article touched on at least
1 thing that may still have 100% left and some things that have 0% left as
well for some contrasting.

~~~
MrQuincle
Death and virginity.

------
scandox
I think it is possible to say we have ongoing relationships with people we
never see or talk to...even with the dead. Depends how intensely the person
affected us.

Sometimes actually meeting someone again diminishes the quality of my
relationship with them.

------
hamhamed
I'm 20, and say I'll live until my 60's..

Ever since I've co founded a startup, I've been meeting ppl I've never thought
I would ever meet. My pre-startup era relationships are just regular ppl who
have 9-5 jobs. I am def not through 90% of my BEST relationships..hell
probably not even at 5%. I've got a lot more to meet.

This article is based on if you were going to live until 90, meaning after 30
ur basically fucked..while it may be more true, I still think it's way too
early. Especially if the target demographic is ppl who browse HN

~~~
rwmurrayVT
i hope ur start up helps u n ur ppl allow us non-start up 20+ yr olds embrace
short hand.

------
losty
Nonsense. It's a choice to work a typical job and not form new relationships.
It's also the easiest choice.

~~~
coldtea
What exactly is "nonsense" about the article? He didn't say it's fate or
inevitable.

------
eric_h
I'm not actually convinced by the author's point, but I do find the fact that
you can comfortably fit all the days of one's life on a single page (or phone
screen for that matter) to be rather depressing. I don't think it would have
bothered me in the same way 20 years ago.

~~~
Joeri
If you live every day in a meaningful way, does it really matter how many you
have? I see a lot of people in my surroundings who are in a holding pattern
waiting to start living the life they want and do the things they want to do.
I get that the necessities of life often preclude achieving your goals, but I
see a lot of ways in which those people could change their life to be more
aligned with what they claim they want ... yet they don't, and I don't really
understand why.

Don't see those remaining dots as a scarce resource, see them as an
opportunity.

~~~
eric_h
> I see a lot of ways in which those people could change their life to be more
> aligned with what they claim they want ... yet they don't, and I don't
> really understand why

I am this way, and I'm doing my best to work to realign my priorities to
really make the most of the remaining dots. Force of habit makes it very easy
to fall into a "holding pattern", and quite hard to break out of.

I appreciate the perspective of looking at those remaining dots as
opportunity.

------
pavel_lishin
I don't like his first conclusion. I don't _want_ to live where I grew up - I
don't want to stagnate in my rural hometown. Playing it safe by staying near
your family and high school friends means you take fewer chances, and you get
fewer changes to make new relationships.

------
adamwong246
This article (I've read it before today) inspired me to start my current side
project. It's an app that visualizes your google calendar. For instance, you
can really understand how much parent-time you have left.

------
peterburkimsher
So, if I want to tell her that I like her, I should say it quickly in case I
don't see her again?

------
mattrubenstein
whelp, that's officially the first time that statistics has made me cry.

------
armitron
Am I the only one who finds this bit of social conditioning (relationships
with other people) as hugely overblown in terms of what's important in life?

Only in a culture that's so far fallen into degeneracy could something as
tripe as that be considered (near or THE) ultimate purpose of life?

What about technology, scientific progress, our guided evolution as a species
and so on?

We're far too obsessed about "relationships" with other walking-dead sacks of
meat instead of what really matters, our legacy and the future. Which is why
we find ourselves in this sad state of affairs today.

Endlessly bombarded and distracted by cheap entertainment (social networking,
sex, porn, consumerism, money) and all too happy to leave the important bits
in the hands of who exactly? People who have turned academia into a filthy
whore that is constantly being pimped out to the highest bidder.

We have become the plebeians while mega corporations and elite government
groups are free to write history and dictate how we will evolve.

I'm not saying we should live life as automatons, but this article is the
perfect example of someone who's completely missing the picture. It would be
great if we had a stabilizing factor to counteract this sort of bullshit but
alas it's pretty much non-existent these days.

~~~
mbrock
Nonsense. If you don't like relationships that's fine, but calling humans
"walking dead sacks of meat" is just misanthropic rhetoric. Talk about this
being a particularly "degenerate age" is typical of cults. Most people find
social life to be a crucial source of meaning and enjoyment, and view
technology as a means to that end. If you have another set of preferences
again that's alright but why frame it as everyone else being wrong and call a
basic facet of human existence "tripe"?

~~~
armitron
Because I'm not taking anything for granted. I don't see wasting my time
playing cards with friends from highschool as being a basic facet of human
existence.

Or spending unnecessary time with my parents.

Or moving back to the city I was born in order to pursue _that_ , instead of
living in a city where I can make the biggest difference.

My post simply posits the question of re-examining what we've been
indoctrinated with. Look at any ancient advanced civilization and you'll see
that during their ascension they were not operating with "social life" high up
in their list of priorities in life. It was only when same civilizations came
crashing down that "relationships" and social-obsession increased a lot in
perceived importance.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Disagree. Civilization exists _because_ of social impulses built into the
human animal. The ascension of any civilization was fueled by institutions,
cultural norms, guilds and churches and 100 kinds of socialization.

~~~
armitron
I use the word social in a very specific, narrow way, as I have explained.

Institutions, guilds and churches have nothing to do with "relationships" as
exhibited in the article OP linked to, since they are explicitly furthering
the same goals I talked about as being of paramount importance.

Did you read the article?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Do you understand the meaning of 'relationship'? You can't be a member of an
intimate social construct without one. Marriage, religion, even politics is
all about that.

That wasn't an 'article' so much as an infographic. There was little
philosophizing present. That's all been introduced in this thread.

