Well, This Happened…

Avatar

Kazzy

One man. Two boys. Twelve kids.

Related Post Roulette

32 Responses

  1. Avatar Chris
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations to you and Zazzy and especially to our future overlord!Report

  2. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    CongratsReport

  3. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    We had two 18 months apart, so I offer both “Congratulations” and “God help you”.Report

  4. Avatar James Hanley
    Ignored
    says:

    Stop. Now. Beyond two kids you are outnumbered, and the number of inter-child conflicts increases exponentially.

    On the other hand, #3 daughter is delightful and I can’t imagine life without her. So maybe you should keep on doin’ as you’ve been doin’.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to James Hanley
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m not-so-secretly REALLY hoping this one is a girl (we plan to find out this time) since I really do want a daughter but think that two might be our limit. If this one is a boy, there will be a strong temptation to try again.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to James Hanley
      Ignored
      says:

      This feels like a mixed message…Report

    • Avatar James K in reply to James Hanley
      Ignored
      says:

      @james-hanley

      Actually I’m pretty sure the number of sibling conflicts should increase factorially.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to James K
        Ignored
        says:

        If the conflicts are between two individual siblings, it’s quadratic: n*(n-1)/2.

        If your kids form alliances, there are (2**(n-1))-1 possible conflicts that involve two sides with all kids on either one or the other. More if some can abstain, but it’s still exponential.Report

      • Avatar Alan Scott in reply to James K
        Ignored
        says:

        Assume that each of n children is either on side A or side B or not on a side at all. Each child can have any of these states independently of each other child so the total number of arrangements in 3^n.

        However, if no children are on side a, there isn’t a conflict. There are two possible non-side-A states for each child, so that’s 2^n arrangements that aren’t conflicts for that reason. Likewise, there are 2^n arrangements that aren’t conflicts because nobody is on side B. However there’s an overlap there. both of those groups include arrangments where nobody is on side A and also nobody is on Side B. Since there’s only one remaining possibility, that’s 1^n cases–which is simply 1 case, that we must make sure not so subtract twice. So that gives us 3^n -2(2^n) + 1 conflicts.

        However, that number treats side A and side B as distinct. If, for example, Sally was on side A and Jimmy was on side B, it would count as a different conflict than if Sally was on side B and Jimmy on side A. We probably don’t want that, so we should divide our number by two to eliminate mirror images.

        That gives us a final total of (3^n + 1)/2 – 2^nReport

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to James K
        Ignored
        says:

        I’ll let you guys argue out the math, and I’ll just go all fuzzy and say it feels exponential.

        More seriously, I think there’s also a factor not caught by the math, which is that any disagreement seems more likely to flare into conflict if there’s a third person around. If 1 has a conflict with 2, and there’s no ally, they might be more likely to back off, sensing less chance for “victory” (whatever they think that might be). But if all 3 kids are present, and 1 senses 3 is on her side on the issue, 1 seems more likely to escalate disagreement into conflict.

        Not that my kids are anything other than perfect angels, of course.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to James Hanley
      Ignored
      says:

      The standard joke is that the third one makes you switch from man-on-man defense to zone.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to James Hanley
      Ignored
      says:

      Just refer the inter-child conflicts to the United Nations. It’ll be as useful as it is with international conflicts but at least your outsourcing the work.Report

    • Avatar Glyph in reply to James Hanley
      Ignored
      says:

      What the Professor said. Three is WAY harder than two. But #3 is amazing (we just celebrated her first b-day).

      Congrats, and prepare to learn why your parents seemed so crazy and cranky all the time!Report

  5. Avatar Will Truman
    Ignored
    says:

    The Gentlings just keep on coming! Congrats!Report

  6. Avatar James K
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations Kazzy.Report

  7. Avatar Murali
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations KazzyReport

  8. Avatar LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    Ah fertility.Report

  9. Avatar aaron david
    Ignored
    says:

    Well done Sir!Report

  10. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations.

    Take time to coddle Zazzy. People seem to thinks second pregnancies are a piece of cake since you’ve already done it before; when the truth is they’re more exhausting because you’ve already done it before. (Mine are exactly two years apart, so I have some similar experience and speak from that experience.)Report

  11. Avatar Michelle
    Ignored
    says:

    Congratulations!Report

  12. Avatar Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    Thank you to everyone for your kind words and support! Most of all thanks to those who did what only we here at OT could do and engage in some complex mathematical debate on exactly how each additional child impacts the work load.

    While you’re at it, can you draw up some figures on what managing 9-15 4-year-olds entails? I might be able to use them to pitch my boss on a raise.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *