The extreme cases can be found in cults where followers cling tighter to their beliefs once exposed.
A great example are the followers of Harold Camping, the Christian radio broadcaster who predicted the end of the world a few years ago, and kept re-predicting when it never came.
But to complete the Camping story, and validate your argument (you still believe only the original, not the recant); Camping stopped after 2 failed dates, re-read his source material, and stated that he no longer believed that anyone could predict the end of the world. (Source: Netflix documentary on Camping)
I suggest you spend a few minutes and do a deep session of introspection and meditate on what your true priorities are.
It's not nearly as easy as it sounds...
Here are some questions to get you rolling:
Why are you working so much? For you? For someone else? For the money? If so, why? What will you do with that money? Is it for you? A family? Do you find yourself enjoying your girlfriend more than your work? What do you get out of your relationship? Why are you with this person? Why are you working on your specific project?
The idea is to discover what you truly value and align your priorities with that– Good luck!
There is no faster way to suck the emotion out of a relationship than to put a schedule at the center of it, and hiding behind the excuse of the schedule is just deferring responsibility.
Scheduling time with spouse (and for kids) is the only honest and practical way of dealing with the question/challenge of "balancing" work life and family life. It's about setting boundaries. And respectful boundaries are always healthy for all in the relationship.
And by "balance" I don't mean equal - I mean having both.
Your post made me angry. I just deleted the post I had written. Here's the replacement.
Not seeing your children unless you have scheduled time to do so is bizarre. Some people would suggest it's borderline mildly abusive.
Children must come before work. It's really fucking simple. This principle is enshrined in the internationally agreed (although I know the US never ratifies these things) human rights for the child. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
Not seeing your children without scheduling time for them has nothing to do with "healthy" (it soumds pathological) nor "respectful boundaries".
The default must be "all my time is spent with my family. Here's the time I set aside for work, but if anything happens to my children I can shift that work to a different time".
> Children must come before work. It's really fucking simple. This principle is enshrined in the internationally agreed...
I read through that Convention, but didn't see any language that backs up your claim. Perhaps I missed it. Can you tell me which part and which article establishes the principle that you claim it does?
"Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,"
And Article 3, section 1:
"1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
Article 3, section 1 has no bearing on the actions of the individual. Notice that the language that targets institutions and governments.
The preamble speaks only of the environment that a child should be placed in. If it is necessary that both parents work 120 hours per week to provide such an environment for their children, then that is behavior that is supported by that Convention.
Op says, more than once, that time with children must be scheduled and that you should avoid seeing them unless it is scheduled. I agree they're not going to avoid ER. What about if the child spontaneously asks for time? Op has said that time should be withheld - as part of "healthy" adjustment and "respectful boundaries".
(I'm not American. I don't understand that comment.)
The OP was asking what to do when these are a given:
1. You work hard and long hours and you enjoy it.
2. You also NEED to spend time with family who already perceive that you are not spending enough time with them.
What do you do?
My response was to this scenario and this scenario alone. How to "balance" that. Your response on the other hand assumes that that you can impose (or have the right to suggest) fundamental compromises on an individual's life-style.
power = P(reject null hypothesis | null hypothesis is false)
From the abstract:
I conclude with several recommendations that can increase the credibility of scientific
evidence in psychological journals. One major recommendation is to pay more attention to the power of
studies to produce positive results without the help of questionable research practices and to request that
authors justify sample sizes with a priori predictions of effect sizes. It is also important to publish
replication studies with nonsignificant results if these studies have high power to replicate a published
finding.
I think that if you use the metric system you should develop a ten hour day - and a 100 minute hour - and a 100 second minute. Without that, Imperial units are best - right?
At least, you can easily divide an hour and a minute by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15. Which is a little more annoying with a pint (...but who would divide a pint anyway).
I do agree that we(humans from other countries) should all just dump resources on the people there -
but I think the legitimate concern here is that while we squabble about resources and their cost, the virus spreads and mutates - and if it makes the jump to airborne, I think it will make the average Joe Smith pretty vulnerable.
It's a prisoner's dilemma sort of thing. The best outcome for ME is if YOU dump lots of money into it, so I sit around on my hands hoping you take action, while YOU do the same waiting for ME to take action. As a result, we arrive at the worse outcome- nobody does anything.
This is the philosophical explanation for government taxation. In this particular case I think we can say that it is now beyond voluntary funded NGOs to solve.
I think the author does this, not for his validation, but to cement the connections in the mind of the Western readers who are raised with a strong basis in science and logic.
