Why are great men bad fathers?

Why are great men bad fathers?

Attached: .png (462x478, 172K)

Is having daughters the ultimate cuckoldry?

SOCKrates NEGLECKted his kids

this post is a psy-op to trick mediocre men into being bad fathers as a way of posturing greatness

Tbh it's a good question, many great men over the course of history were absolute shitty fathers, a good example is Einstein who was obvs one of the smartest most innovative men to ever live but as a father, beyond poor (suppose his autism didn't help).

Perhaps it's just an availability heuristic as we can easily identify shitty fathers who were revolutionary or great men, but can't really name many off the top of our heads who were both great men and great fathers. On the other hand it could very well be something to analyse to whether greatness within men often constitutes sacrifices within family life.

Someone more factually informed might be able to give more insight.

caring for someone other than yourself requires a degree of empathy. being great at caring for someone's well-being requires a lot of empathy. a lot of empathy will almost certainly result in other men outcompeting you for any worthwhile position in social hierarchy. the two seem to be mutually exclusive. unless you're a genius, then you can be both top of the food chain as well as full of empathy. but true geniuses are usually autistic enough to not be the best at parenting.

furthermore. even if you are both a great man and a great father, you will have to cease being one or the other because both take time. being at the top of the social hierachy requires 24/7 attention and that doesn't jive with the time requirements of being a great father.

of course it all depends on your definition of great-ness. masculine greatness as we currently conceive it and great fatherfood are kind of polar opposites.

On top of my head Darwin, Marx, and Jung were reportedly very good fathers.

Actually the ability to be a good parent doesn't necessarily have much to do with empathy unless you're a mother, and even then it's more your degree of trait agreeableness than empathy as such (hence why women are more agreeable than men 60% of the time).

Relating to that, it's also why men occupy higher positions within companies because they are more disagreeable, especially high-performing men at the very top (although you should note that there is an optimum level, too much disagreeableness results in negative impact across the domain of jobs).

The role of the father is more associated with play than nurturing, which is typically the case although there is some overlap where there are nurturing men and encouraging playful women in relationships.

Yeah i am leaning more to an availability heuristic as i'm fairly certain there's no empirical data detailing any correlation to being a cunt of a father and being great. To my current psychological expertise that is.

I don't mean that the father should exhibit a lot of empathy towards the child in their interaction, but that it takes a level of empathy to even take an interest in the development of your child and the time and effort associated with that.

>Marx
>Jung
>Great men
kek

> it's more your degree of trait agreeableness than empathy
Agreeableness literally measures empathy.

>Marx
>Jung
>Great men

Attached: EA42mJJXYAEzxWF_(2).jpg (1172x659, 150K)

Also to add to this, lacking empathy and being disagreeable doesn't always result in good job performances either. Otherwise psychopaths would occupy all the top positions of companies and although there is seemingly an increased number of psychopaths within said companies (normally around 10% of people in businesses and 1% in general public) they don't operate at the highest level due to the nature of a psychopath to exploit and corrupt. Hence there being a limit to the degree of disagreeableness and, shall we say diminished levels of empathy, have in regards to job performance and productivity (greatness).

EXCELLENT THREAD LADS. REALLY ENJOYED THIS BOOK.

Yeah neither did I, see

Hmm not necessarily and not really lol. You can't measure empathy so it's impossible to say what traits have a proclivity towards levels of empathy, we just assume that agreeable people are more empathetic but there's no empirical data to support that at all to my knowledge (if you have some studies that say otherwise i'd love to see), also it doesn't really make sense to flat out assume that because someone is more agreeable that they have a higher level of empathy or vice versa, because you could just be a coward and you see that a lot with the white knight nice guys (although that's not genuine empathy).

Why don't you consider jung or marx to be valid examples of great men lol?

Marcus aurelius is the one that always comes to my mind.

>daughter
Once she's married she not your responsibility anymore.

I've always summed it up like this.
It's a mother's role to make sure the children survive into adulthood
It's the father role to make sure they become adults

think about it logically

I don't know about jung but Marx just leeched off rich friends while writing a bunch of nonsense. He didn't really do anything to be considered "great".

Since he disagrees with them they must be ignoramus imbeciles and not the other way around.

I think the general gist of their roles is summed up pretty well there. Although obviously it's much more complicated than that, as a minimal level of analysis it does the job.

he was the protoNEET, a pioneer, true great

Attached: 1518389118761.png (492x495, 312K)

I've not actually read the communist manifesto or any of marx's writings and desu my knowledge around his philosophical standings and workings of him are vague at best so I can't really comment, was just curious why you didn't consider him great because he's obviously revered and remembered over a century later.

I have however read a lot on Jung and am currently halfway through Archetypes of the collective unconscious and can safely say as a psychologist he was perhaps one of the best (especially when considering the psychodynamics) to have ever lived

>Although obviously it's much more complicated than that, as a minimal level of analysis it does the job.
Exactly, I didn't mean it as an absolute statement.

good fuck that bitch

Attached: 567567.jpg (800x450, 61K)

Yeye I get you i just had to be pedantic lol

>why you didn't consider him great because he's obviously revered and remembered over a century later
The issue is a lot of his main ideas he is famous for a just purely theoretical, they aren't based on reality, it's the economics quivalent of "flap your arms and you can fly!". You have to realise even Marxist purist like Lenin quickly realise marx wasn't correct about many things and quickly adapted.

He's revered by people who have absolutely no understand of fundanental economics. I'm not talking about pro-capitalist ideology but extremely basic stuff like how price fixing affects supply and demand. I suppose you could call him great based solely on his influence for better or worse, then sure he was a great man. But if we talk about what he did, and what that has contributed to mankind then I wouldnt call him great

based

Very true else you could also say the same about Hitler and Stalin being considered great lol. Yeah my knowledge on economics isn't great but desu I feel anyone could easily come to the conclusion the basic doctrine of communism would result in catastrophe economically. I know that in large part also the rise of communism was in part due to the death of good and increase of nihilism as said by Nietzsche as I've read quite a bit on that, so maybe that gives some explanation to why he is still regarded as great because he provides a theoretical model of utopia (even though the idea of a Utopia is completely wrong in what it provides human beings).

Bruh, I'm not a Marxist but do you seriously think Marx is an un-intelligent rich nigga that just wrote a bunch of random words? Obviously he had a coherent system and metaphysics in construction. Have you not read him? His historical importance cannot be denied and he has certainly greatly helped workers in the dialectic nature of history, as well as killed millions.