Then why did you ask which I would want most for my child? Maybe this is one of those trick questions where allistic people know they are supposed to intuit the context or subtext and “read between the lines.”

Seriously, if you meant to ask a question about the nature of the occupations, why did you instead directly ask us a question about our aspirations for our children’s achievements?

#ActuallyAutistic

I said CEO, not because I'd want them to climb a corporate ladder, but because if they get into #entrepreneurship, which is a creative endeavor, and they're successful at it, then that's where they'll end up.

Superstar entertainer would have been my second choice.

My initial reaction was revulsion at all of the options, which says much more about how I feel about current political leaders than it does about my child.

Then I remembered that one of the problems with political leaders is that the worst examples are drawn to the position for the wrong reasons, and that what we need are people who genuinely want to find the best solutions.

On reflection, my child could be one of the good ones. Thus my choice.

Actually none of them. I don't care about end goals. I care that whatever journey they are onto they are happily becoming a better version of themselves.

If achievements come, they're just a bonus.

@bhawthorne it's not a trick question but it might feel that way. "Would you want X for your child?" is another way of asking, "Do you think X is good for someone? Or is minimally harmful?"

Because for many of us, we want what's best for our kids more than almost anything, so it's a way to think about an option with the utmost care for the participant.

It may be specific to your family; if your child is passionate about lacrosse, sports might be the best option for them, if not for everyone.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. That is helpful, and I’ll go back and answer in that basis.

To be clear, I wasn’t trying to be difficult, but rather I was trying to be helpful by pointing out that this sort of cute but unclear use of metaphor can be problematic for many neurodiverse people. If you want your polls answered by as many people as possible, and not just the subset of people who think the way you do, you might want to ask the questions you actually want answered and not assume that other people can read your mind and intuit what questions you are actually asking beneath the metaphors!

I mostly enjoy your polls and do my best to enjoy them as thought provocations rather than as pedentry provocations.

Anyway, curious whether anyone has attempted to characterize differences in outcomes across these four, with caveat that it'd be hard to calibrate "levels" across them.

ps I chose CEO for my hypothetical child as I imagine this path would impose the least obligation on me. Perhaps this kind of thinking is why such child is hypothetical only!

I have four children, so I think I might answer differently for each child. However, here's how I'm thinking about it.

Every CEO I've met has been a giant d-bag. It seems to be a requirement of the profession. I hope none of my children ever have the kind of sociopathic traits needed to be a successful CEO.

It's hard to believe that there really are good, honest politicians. I feel like I would worry that my children, even if they went into politics with worthy goals and good ideals would eventually have to sacrifice those, and I wouldn't want that for them.

Personally, I'm not really into sports, but I don't object to them. I wouldn't want my kids to get into sports that have a very high risk of server injury, such as football (any variety), hockey, or boxing. But if one of my children was very skilled at a relatively safe sport, and that brought them a lot of joy, I'd be happy for that for them and would be proud of them. My nine-year-old is getting really good at chess. I think that counts.

I answered entertainer. Being an entertainer has a great capacity to bring others joy, which can be very fulfilling, I think. While there are aspects of being a "superstar" that can be negative, like loss of some personal privacy, by and large, I think it would be a fulfilling experience.

@evan@cosocial.ca

eww. people are really fond of the worst option, huh?

sports champion is probably pretty unhealthy unless it's a mental sport maybe.

CEO makes you a state-capitalist crony and boss, which is morally corrupting, but probably not nearly as much as 'politician'.

superstar entertainer, may not be that great mentally, but given the money, i think they have a fair bit of choice what they'll get involved with 🤷.