upvote

points

by Aeolun10 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby enos_feedler8 hours ago|
[-]
Explain this please.
reply
upvoteby alanwreath8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I mean: siblings.

Not to discount that it’s great when you play with your kids, but it’s different when your kids play together, and in particular when you can’t play that they have someone to interact with.

reply
upvoteby ptoo4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Not only do they play but they also learn to care for each other. Parental effort doesn't increase uniformly with each child – if you're lucky and have done a good job parenting them, children create a society and help with raising each other.
reply
upvoteby marttt7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yeah, the group dynamics of, say, a family with two children:

   1. Kid A plays with Kid B
   2. Kid A plays alone and Kid B plays alone
As compared to a three-child household:

   1. Kids A, B and C play together
   2. Kid A plays with Kid B, Kid C plays alone
   3. Kid A plays with Kid C, Kid B plays alone
   4. Kid B plays with Kid C, Kid A plays alone
   5. Kid A, Kid B and Kid C all play alone
So, in a bigger family, many more communication patterns between children can arise, which, among other things, might develop the child's empathy etc.

Adding mom and dad as "players" would give us many more possible scenarios here (Kid A playing with mom, Kid B alone or with dad, etc).

I'm a father of two with a low income, and I would like to have a third child for precisely the above described reason. As a sociologist in my country put it -- somewhat harsh words maybe, but probably largely true: a single child might get spoiled, two children may start competing too heavily, but three children and above is company.

reply
upvoteby kakacik2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I disagree, when looking at 3-kids setup out there in the world. Ie my wife comes from such, she is the oldest and all 3 follow the typical 3 kids pattern - oldest was pushed into most responsibility to the point of trauma, middle one feels unappreciated and has inferiority complex as middle ones often do, and youngest is by huge margin the most spoiled one. This is the default for 3 kids that many parents end up with, unless fighting hard against this natural direction.

And yes a lot of interaction, but it doesn't guarantee anything further down the line - when long time adults youngest is still spoiled and selfish and not really a pleasant person to be around with for anybody, including siblings and their own mom. Middle one is scared to have kids, a decision that she may end up regretting later easily. And my wife is also carrying her part of the burden, won't bother you with details.

The grass is always greener behind the fence and all that.

reply
upvoteby marttt2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Insightful comment, got me thinking, thanks for sharing. I suppose, in the end, there isn't all that much logic in human relations, or there are always far too many "unknown unknowns".
reply
upvoteby astura2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
There's very few humans that have enough time, energy, skills, wherewithal, and money to devote to 3+ kids to make these sorts of positive "three's company" interactions happen in the modern world. I am not saying that it's impossible, just that it's difficult and doesn't happen naturally like you're implying.

On a personal note, I never had much positive interactions with either of my siblings, certainly not as children as not now that we're in our 40s either. Lots of fighting, absolutely zero closeness or positive feelings.

reply