« The Lady in the Water | Main | Adverse Selection among the Kiwis »
What do we have reason to be uncertain about?
I can understand not wanting kids. I can understand wanting kids. What I cannot understand is not knowing whether you want kids. Having kids and not having kids are not alike. Not even close. The choices are not remotely equivalent. How do you answer the question with “Eh. You know, whichever.” How do you not know?
Here is more explanation, and here is a follow-up post, both from my current favorite theorist of rational choice. From another direction, the newly unattached Jacqueline Passey is unsure where to live, yet she is sure about not wanting children.
I find it easier to be certain when comparing two similar items or courses of action. I am sure that I prefer the Beatles to The Rolling Stones. Both are British popular music groups from roughly the same period of time. It is tougher to rank Charlie Parker relative to Dvorak. I reluctantly opt for Parker.
Some uncertainty about children may stem from the difference between ex ante and ex post preferences. You're very happy having the kid when he or she comes but you did not care about that particular kid "in advance." Some of the "uncertainty" therefore is faux; it represents a confusion about which perspective to report.
Then there is the margin. How many kids should you have? I doubt if anyone is, ex ante, certain about this, although a few people may pretend to be ("Three is the number for me."). But one extra kid is a huge, huge difference at the margin, especially if you are moving from one kid to two (or so I hear). So it must be allowed that we can be uncertain about very drastic changes in our lives.
Most fundamentally, are indeed many people uncertain about having kids? How might we define such uncertainty? Surely we cannot trust our self-deceiving subjects to report their true intentions. Medical issues and "finding a mate" issues aside, for most of us isn't it "in the cards" whether we will have kids, no matter how much we hem and haw in advance? (What is the function of the feigned uncertainty? Does it make the later decision "easier to live with" if we first pretend to put up a fight? Do we create an illusion of autonomy to feel in control?) Would small changes in our lives lead to big changes in the outcome here? I wonder.
What is personal uncertainty anyway?
Most of all, I am uncertain what we have reason to be uncertain about.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 14, 2006 at 06:55 AM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
It would be more interesting to know whether a single person or a couple is asked to respond to the question. Whether a couple wants to have kids or not should be generally evident by the time they get married, and their combined expectations and desires would factor greatly into such a decision.
As a single male, my preference is unknown to the extent that if I were forced to go it alone I would not have children but I am undecided because of the very fact that there is the other viewpoint and combined lifestyle involved. Therefore, whether I am a father when I die is highly influenced by whether my mate desires children or not (or is also indifferent and we come to some mutual decision that we otherwise could not).
Even though the choices are very different, they are not zero-sum nor is one inherently bad. For someone who is single, weighing the pros and cons of parenthood is wasted exercise since a whole other view will be involved that you cannot know in advance. Therefore, aside from the extreme choices, it is most logical that a single person would be indifferent toward the decision (or at least non-committal to their choice.) A couple is more likely to be committal, but if their personal circumstances do not allow for a child in the immediate future, desired or not, then the value analysis may not occur and both indifferent viewpoints would probably remain.
Posted by: Dave Johnston at Aug 14, 2006 8:27:01 AM
As cited by Jack & David Hirshleifer's textbook (6th ed. Price Theory, p. 81), Ben-Porath and Welch found that parents with all boys or all girl children were more likely to have another child, ceteris paribus. There are some other interesting things there and it is an interesting text.
Posted by: jim at Aug 14, 2006 8:29:43 AM
You have _Stumbling on Happiness_ as a recommended book, and yet still quote someone someone asking, "How do you _not know_?"
That's an entertaining diversity of viewpoints.
Posted by: Brent Buckner at Aug 14, 2006 8:53:23 AM
As the father of 3 pre-schoolers, and the observer of a number of other families of 1-4 kids, I'd strongly question the comment that "one extra kid is a huge, huge difference at the margin". I'd view the relative impact as the following for my family, and similar for others I know.
1st kid = 1.0
2nd kid = 1.4
3rd kid = 1.7
4th kid = ~2.2 [break point for travel ease, and crisis management becomes more difficult]
Obviously there are a few factors that can completely alter these values. Medical/behavioral issues can make the 2nd child a 3.0 (e.g. my younger brother). A wider age spread can reduce the marginal increase in impact because the older kids help with the younger one.
But the majority I know who went from 1 to 2 found the second kid to be a lot less lifestyle altering. You've already had to adjust to staying home, sleep changes, baby stuff purchases, learning how to diaper, feed, dress, etc.
Posted by: Lou at Aug 14, 2006 9:43:42 AM
If you are young you may not want kids now, but you do not know what you will want 5 or 10 or even 20 years in the future.
Posted by: joan at Aug 14, 2006 9:48:03 AM
I suspect a lot of the public uncertainty is
really being expressed by people who are
certain they do not want children. The
public uncertainty is a concession to
public expectations--that everyone should
want children, and that those who do not
are somehow different in an unpleasant
way. I speak as someone who never did
want children, and experienced the
negative reception of any overt
statement of my preferences.
Posted by: Donald A. Coffin at Aug 14, 2006 10:53:42 AM
being blind is nothing like being deaf - which is worse? The idea that someone might be uncertain about a choice when they have no first hand information about what the alternative is like ought not to amaze anyone.
Posted by: dsquared at Aug 14, 2006 11:11:45 AM
Donald is right -- many people totally freak out when you tell them you don't want to have children. You should hear some of the things I've been called and some of the other verbal abuse I've gotten because I don't want them. I can see why many people who don't want them would start answering the question with "I don't know" instead.
Romantic partners can also be very hurtful and mean and use emotional blackmail if they want kids and you don't. So I think many times "I don't know" means "I don't want them but I'll have them if my partner pressures me into it."
Posted by: Jacqueline at Aug 14, 2006 11:23:44 AM
'whether I am a father when I die is highly influenced by whether my mate desires children or not'
Speaking as someone who really did/does want children (and has two, with a third soon to arrive), I can say that a lot of people would find your reasoning backward - you're basically asserting that the relationship is primary, and that maintaining it may involve compromises in the quantity of children. I think a lot of people will operate on the assumption that children are the primary value, and that compromises can be made in the quality of the relationship in order to achieve that goal.
Posted by: bbartlog at Aug 14, 2006 11:41:55 AM
6 cats = 1 child
Posted by: rmark at Aug 14, 2006 11:45:08 AM
6 cats = 1 child
Posted by: rmark at Aug 14, 2006 11:45:40 AM
>>Does it make the later decision "easier to live with" if we first pretend to put up a fight?
I'd say that exactly the opposite factor is much more important. Suppose it is not a choice whether to have children, it just happens. (Kind of a cute idea in a high school sex-ed sort of way, isn't it?). Perhaps this is a model of childbearing for men, where women decide. Since we *are* going to be happy with whatever we end up doing, if we don't commit ourselves to a course of action in advance it makes the cognitive dissonance much easier down the line. This way we convince ourselves we've only discovered our true preferences, rather than been stuck with a life we regret.
Though really I'm with dsquared, I think lack of information and experience is a plenty good enough reason by itself.
Posted by: Alex F at Aug 14, 2006 1:02:01 PM
I have to agree with D^2
i think i want kids, but my confidence in how accurate my assesment that my life would improve by becoming a father is quite low. i've spent some time 'pretending' - working with other people's kids. but its really just a shot in the dark, and lots of trust in other people's stories, and matching that up with what i think i'm like.
Posted by: yoyo at Aug 14, 2006 1:17:18 PM
But, D^2 and Alex and yoyo,
Seriously, couldn't you make a solid guess? Haven't you spent a weekend with kids and noticed how different it is from a weekend without kids? You have no preference whatsoever between noisy, fun, constant demands on your attention and setting your own agenda? For that matter, you couldn't decide between being blind or deaf? Blindfold yourself for a day and use earplugs for a day; after that, you wouldn't know which you would rather be? Why don't you believe your preferences in the moment apply to the rest of your life, especially when it comes to choosing between radically different options?
This is obviously a blind spot for me. I know my preference so strongly that I can't imagine what it would be like not to.
Posted by: Megan at Aug 14, 2006 1:51:34 PM
During the 2000 primaries, I had many friends tell me that they were going to support either "outsider" candidate Bill Bradley or "outsider" candidate John McCain, but they weren't sure which one.
It seemed to me that deciding to support Bradley-or-McCain rather than Gore-or-Bush might be hard, but once you made that first choice, distinguishing Bradley and McCain would be very easy. I still can't figure out what reason they had to be uncertain about it.
Posted by: Richard Bellamy at Aug 14, 2006 2:18:30 PM
mostly because of my experience being terribly wrong about what i really would prefer, and my guesses in the past have been worse if i don't have significant experience in the area.
Posted by: yoyo at Aug 14, 2006 2:37:04 PM
bbartlog: My reasoning is only "backwards" for those who feel that being a parent is the most important value in their life; such people would not answer "I don't know" when asked whether they would wish to have children. That said, deciding to raise a child without first recognizing whether one is financially/emotionally/physically capable (either alone or with a partner) would seem "backwards" to me; both for the welfare of the child and for my personal well being. Your retort lends credence toward Donald's statement as well, which I agree with.
Alex: I also agree with dsquared; I only put forth examples of the kinds of information that is lacking (at least when assuming that having a child involves two people). However, saying a lack of experience is a factor is not logical since the question itself can only be answered by one without experience; experience is a control/assumed.
Megan: Your value system ranks having children as a high priority. To understand someone like myself you have to accept that the alternative is acceptable; that having a child is not an end in itself. Yes, I can make a solid guess at this moment in time, but that guess will change once I find a mate and evaluate whether our values, beliefs and circumstances will allow us to bring a child "safely" into this world. Because having a child is not an ultimate goal that I work toward (compromising when necessary to accomplish it), but is instead a possible path I may choose to travel once available, it makes more sense to communicate this as "I don't know" as opposed to stating my preference of the moment.
Posted by: Dave Johnston at Aug 14, 2006 2:49:57 PM
It's much more easy to travel with 1 or 2 kids than with 3 or more. The "industry standard" for ticket packages, hotel rooms, restaurant booths/tables, rental cars, you-name-it... is 4 people max. As soon as you add a fifth to your party, the price skyrockets--hotels want you to rent an additional room, etc. From an economic point of view (that is, cost of maintaining middle-class lifestyle), the big break comes between 2 kids and 3. The marginal cost of feeding and clothing the third one is small, but squiring them all around becomes much more costly.
Posted by: Mark Seecof at Aug 14, 2006 3:16:12 PM
I agree with others that most likely lack of stated preference is used as a matter of political expediency. Many guys (and some women) who may prefer to have no kids find that the question is used as a screen by others for selfishness (or to enter a discussion of an increased committment), so it is much easier to simply state, "I don't know." and change the subject, rather than "No, I'd rather not."
Posted by: nelsonal at Aug 14, 2006 3:30:08 PM
For traveling the breakpoint may be between two and three - though I was one of three kids and don't ever recall my family getting more than one hotel room (but times may have changed...). But for everyday mobility there's a break between three and four, since you can cram three car seats into the back of a variety of vehicles, but for four you really need a minivan or other vehicle with two rows of seats in the back.
Posted by: bbartlog at Aug 14, 2006 3:52:55 PM
My future wife and I used the classic decision tree - she said "I'm pregnant".
Posted by: rmark at Aug 14, 2006 4:38:40 PM
I lean heavily toward biological determinism in my interpretation of human happiness. I think most people are essentially hard-wired for a particular level of happiness and then construct a narrative to explain why their experience is so. Life events can temporarily move the individual away from their base-line but then they generally return to their pre-set level. The only permanent effects are those that alter the fundamental biology. Which things exert an influence on the biology of the brain is an entirely different question...
My point is that I do not believe individuals have a true preference regarding their choice to have, not have, children. Preference supposes that we can estimate which will most positively influence our happiness. If the outcome is largely irrelevant then the preference is illusory. I suspect that there is also a strong inherent drive to reproduce but I doubt whether it moves the individual away from their biological level of happiness in the long-term.
My advice for Megan; choose the number of children according to your (apparently strong) preferences. It doesn't matter but at least you won't have to re-inegrate your identity in the process.
Posted by: Frylock at Aug 14, 2006 5:37:38 PM
I've read and believed that people are happiest when they realize their preferences about having kids. I think the rankings, from happiest to least happy went:
don't want kids, don't have them
want kids, have them
don't want kids, have them
want kids, don't have them
This probably shows up most in people with strong preferences. I think not having kids would drop me into the last category. People who could be happy with or without kids probably justify whichever they end up with.
Posted by: Megan at Aug 14, 2006 5:59:39 PM
I re-read the post and now realize it was Tyler who was asking how many children one should have and not Megan, my apologies.
Posted by: Frylock at Aug 14, 2006 6:02:37 PM
Back when I was growing up in the early 1970's some of my schoolmates were from families of up to ten children. Sort of a tail-end-of-the-Baby Boom deal. From what I gathered - which was of course from a child's perspective, the parents may have thought differently - the impact of one more child was pretty small if the family already was a big one.
A prior commentor has noted that if the impact of the first child is 1.0, the second child is 1.4, the third 1.7 and the fourth 2.2. Based on my childhood experiences, I would guess that the impacts drop very sharply after the fourth child. Which makes sense; what really can be the difference whether you have eight or nine children?
Of course this was the way things were 35 years ago. I've no idea if today's situation is the same, though obviously it arises much less often.
Posted by: Peter at Aug 14, 2006 6:03:27 PM
