What My Son's Disabilities Taught Me About 'Having It All'

&#62; "You know cognitively, he's functioning at the bottom 1 percent of children his age," [our neuropsychologist] said. [...] "That means 99 percent of children are doing better than he is." [...] He waited, seemingly perplexed. "Having seen what I saw, and of course you have to be with your son all the time -- I have to ask you, how do you have the patience?"<p>I'm confused, can anyone offer any insight as to how a <i>neuropsychologist</i> would be genuinely surprised by this case? I would have expected that a rather large percentage of a general neuropsychologist's (or at least one that specializes in children) patients would be people who "function at the bottom 1 percent".

I love posts like this on Hacker News!<p>They remind us all that what is in our heads and our hearts trumps everything else: money, stuff, conditions, and the opinions and actions (or inactions) of others who really don't matter.<p>Like just about everyone else here, I can add my own experiences. I'll just say that I have more of some things than I ever thought I would, but the things that I've lost remind me what's really important. Sometimes I wish I had learned this much earlier, but it's never too late...<p>Let's all make the most of the cards we've been dealt - one day at a time.<p>Thanks, OP, for the yank back to reality. Now back to work (with a smile).

Quite off topic, but well worth reading nonetheless.<p>So often we live out lives with the subconscious belief that we'll be happy when ...[insert big goal]. The reality is though, if we can't learn to be happy with our imperfect lives as they are today, we'll never be happy.

Every time I read a story about a kid with developmental disabilities and gut/gluten issues, I'm dying to know if they've ever tried MB12 and L5MTHF injections. God knows it changed my kid's (and my) life.

This is a fantastic heartwarming story that I think most of us will have something learn from. For me, the takeaway was, as Tolstoy said: "When is a man free? When he recognizes his burden", i.e. a graceful acceptance of circumstances that one cannot change. I have long proposed to have a course "Life Engineering" in schools teaching people metaprinciples of planning and enjoying life, this should definitely be one of the reading assignments (along with DFW's commencement speech, and many others).<p>Yet ... yet ... while I truly believe that the thoughts expressed here are a major part of individual happiness, if a significant portion of the society behaves/acts according to these principles, I may not want to live in such a society. Unending hunger for new things, although it generally brings about personal unhappiness, takes society forward faster; there are many examples of such personal sacrifices in science, literature, music, e.g. how many great poets/writers do you know who have a happy family life (came to mind, since I recently read an essay by Alexandra Styron).<p>On a different thread, (overgeneralizing, but only a bit) being content and acceptance is very common in "the East" and not just Buddhism's influence either, it is a common theme in many streams of Islamic thought. Something can be said about the effect of this in why these countries couldn't catch up with the pace of the "materialistic West" (yes, yes, there were a ton of other factors, but I think this may have been one of the major influences).

If anyone is interested in this topic, you should check out Louis Theroux's Extreme Love series <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01gvt26" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01gvt26</a>.<p>Some parents seem to echo the same sentiment, but many of them don't. While larger families seem to be able to cope, and actual appreciate having someone slightly different, many single mothers are forced into having their children taken in by the state.

I told a lady at my son's school, after I dropped him off one morning: "There's at least a billion people who would love to be wearing my shoes right now."

Nice read. Nothing new, just read the old Greek philosopher Epictetus. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus</a>.

I usually have a hard time ignoring the Joneses and feeling content with what I have, and I don't think that's a necessarily bad thing. Those who accomplish the most, from Thomas Edison to Bill Clinton, often do so <i>because</i> of this drive to be better than the rest of us and have it all. Progress depends on discontent, and it's easy to read feel good articles and exchange "happiness" with "laziness".

This aside has nothing to do with autism or the writer of the article. I just want to tackle the "having it all" discussion.<p>When people say they want to "have it all", they're not actually saying they won't be happy until they have <i>everything</i>. A life without tradeoffs is literally impossible. You can't, for example, become an expert on every subject or visit every location in the world or learn how to play every musical instrument ever made. It's impossible. Rather, they want a life full of the stupid bullshit tradeoffs that you have to deal with if they don't have resources, like having to decide between a 90-minute commute vs. living in a cramped space without a dishwasher.<p>Those horrid tradeoffs make it impossible for most people to achieve anything great. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. If you're losing 20 hours per week to housework, you won't have a good career. If you don't have a good career, you won't be able to afford help. You have to bust your ass during your 20s and 30s (and preferably not have any health problems or setbacks) while you can to establish momentum, and just hope that your reproductive potential hasn't declined too much by the time you're career's in order and society has thereby given you permission to have kids properly.<p>Tradeoffs always exist, but there are people who are richer and more established and have a higher quality of tradeoff to face. If you're debating whether to leave a high-level position for a "risky" CEO spot at a funded startup, this is a high-quality tradeoff. If "downshifting" your career means you buy a place with a view of Prospect Park instead of Central, that's a high-quality tradeoff. If having another kid means that one spouse is going to have to give up a career, that's a low-quality tradeoff. People with enough resources (not just income, but also connections; well-connected people don't fret about getting fired and don't have to work 60+ hours per week) <i>can</i> have two successful careers and well-adjusted children.<p>The "have it all" rhetoric is an attempt people make to universalize the problem, because no one can actually have everything, and divert attention away from the more specific/parochial fact that they're miserable because they don't have enough resources (since no one likes a person who whines about not being rich). And if you want to actually achieve something in this world, most people don't have enough. Most people spend their lives bogged down in shitty details implementing the crappy ideas of the people in power.