Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote: Harry Browne strikes me as a man who never found a mate who matched him. I think most of his writings are very good, but his relationship advice reads very bitterly.

I would think being a libertarian during the time of the counterculture movement had to be rather frustrating for HB.

Lets face it, even today, the vast majority of women are simply not very good at engaging in consistent self-improvement unless they're relatively farther from the "feminine" end of the sexuality U-curve.  If women are so wrapped up in their hormones, emotions and drama, it will subvert their prefrontol cortex over and over.  As we all know from the news, motherhood is hardly a universal panacea for them to get their shit together either.

As a male libertarian, I think you've got no choice but to lower your standards/expectations if you can't find that rare woman that can match your intellect and political ideology.  That has its costs.

notsheigetz wrote: Personally, I think this is an excellent way to meet someone.

Didn't you find the green card/gold diggerish aspect of the relationship to be troubling?  How can you be 100% sure shes loves you for who you are, rather than what you're providing to her?

I had a "born again" friend from high school that met his wife this way.  Since he went to college in the midwest where everyone gets married at very, very, very young ages, he had to keep expanding out the search radius and eventually said what the hell, and wound up meeting her in the Phillipines.

D1984 wrote: Somehow the choice of being in a miserable relationship doesn't seem any more appealing (except perhaps by not getting financially mauled in divorce court) than being divorced. Either one is a thoroughly bad alternative...it's like being asked to choose between life in prison and lethal injection. By not getting in a relationship and/or marriage in the first place, one precludes either of the above bad eventualities (divorce/acrimonious breakup or miserable, freedom-crushing, soul-destroying relationship) from happening to oneself.

Almost all people are not thinking it through rationally before going into a relationship.  There's all these biological urges/fetishes and social expectations they are trying to fulfill that have absolutely nothing to do with personal compatibility similarity. 

MediumTex wrote: As I sit and write this I just finished putting together some toys this Christmas morning and there are three kids running around the house and almost everything they do makes me happy.  As the kids are running around, my wife is making me something to eat, and this is one of the many things that she does that also makes me very happy.

Just wait until they are teenagers... 

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: As I sit and write this I just finished putting together some toys this Christmas morning and there are three kids running around the house and almost everything they do makes me happy.  As the kids are running around, my wife is making me something to eat, and this is one of the many things that she does that also makes me very happy.

Just wait until they are teenagers... 

Yeah.  I put my parents through a lot as well.  I think that it's just part of life.

Pointedstick wrote: To clarify a bit about the "soul mate" deal, I didn't mean it in the way that suggests some deity created a perfect match for everyone, or even that everyone has a perfect match. My wife whom I love very deeply has differences that require compromise, yet the fundamentals of our relationship are such that compromise comes easily because our natures are simply very compatible vis-a-vis the way we see the world, react to events, and make our goals. I think that's what I meant by "soul mate" rather than any kind of religious or new-agey meaning. 

I am just curious:  do you know the Myers-Briggs personality type for your wife and yourself?

MachineGhost wrote: Didn't you find the green card/gold diggerish aspect of the relationship to be troubling?  How can you be 100% sure shes loves you for who you are, rather than what you're providing to her?

I had a "born again" friend from high school that met his wife this way.  Since he went to school in the midwest where everyone gets married at very, very, very young ages, he had to keep expanding out the search radius and eventually said what the hell, and wound up meeting her in the Phillipines.

I found mine in the Philippines too but I've been out of high school for a LONG time. I did spend some time in the Philippines shortly after high school as well as some other Asian countries courtesy of Uncle Sam so I was somewhat familiar with the third world poverty that you find there. When looking for a wife I can assure you I did not look in the same places where I got to know Asian women the first time around.

Having been married for 8 years now I have gotten to know lots of happily married couples who went the same route. Filipinos love to socialize and this has given me a social life like I've never had before. I hear stories about golddiggers but I honestly haven't yet met anybody who had that experience.

For the record, in case you don't know it, you can't just meet somebody on the internet and fly them over as a mail-order bride any more. You have to actually go visit them in person and provide proof that you did when you file your application for a fiance' visa. I personally made two visits to the Philippines along with my 8-year-old adopted granddaughter before I brought my wife over here and we toured the country visiting her home town and meeting family and old friends. You get to know a lot about somebody that way.

My wife actually did always have dreams of coming to America but I also had dreams of marrying a beautiful woman so you can't say that it isn't true love just because you're making somebody's dreams come true. If you're a decent judge of character I don't think it's that hard to weed out the golddiggers from those who just want what most women want - a decent life with a decent husband.

(And BTW, her son, now 25, also got a greencard in the process although he originally did not want to come and I had to talk him into it).

edsanville wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: To clarify a bit about the "soul mate" deal, I didn't mean it in the way that suggests some deity created a perfect match for everyone, or even that everyone has a perfect match. My wife whom I love very deeply has differences that require compromise, yet the fundamentals of our relationship are such that compromise comes easily because our natures are simply very compatible vis-a-vis the way we see the world, react to events, and make our goals. I think that's what I meant by "soul mate" rather than any kind of religious or new-agey meaning. 

I am just curious:  do you know the Myers-Briggs personality type for your wife and yourself?

I'm very strongly an INTJ. Every time she takes the test she gets a different value, but the most common two are INTP and INFJ. She is one of those rare female libertarians, although she won't admit it because she doesn't like political labels and thinks the whole world of politics is rotten to the core.

Pointedstick wrote:

edsanville wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: To clarify a bit about the "soul mate" deal, I didn't mean it in the way that suggests some deity created a perfect match for everyone, or even that everyone has a perfect match. My wife whom I love very deeply has differences that require compromise, yet the fundamentals of our relationship are such that compromise comes easily because our natures are simply very compatible vis-a-vis the way we see the world, react to events, and make our goals. I think that's what I meant by "soul mate" rather than any kind of religious or new-agey meaning. 

I am just curious:  do you know the Myers-Briggs personality type for your wife and yourself?

I'm very strongly an INTJ. Every time she takes the test she gets a different value, but the most common two are INTP and INFJ. She is one of those rare female libertarians, although she won't admit it because she doesn't like political labels and thinks the whole world of politics is rotten to the core.

Very interesting!  It got me thinking, and I found this article:

http://www.personalitydesk.com/story/co ... ality-type

It claims that intuitive thinkers tend to be dissatisfied with other intuitive thinkers in relationships.  Assuming your wife is only an NT half the time, maybe that's OK . 

Also, the sex of the two matters.  I'm an INTP.  Unfortunately, the article states "Women married to INTP men had the highest level of dissatisfaction..."

Just my luck.

notsheigetz wrote: When looking for a wife I can assure you I did not look in the same places where I got to know Asian women the first time around.

Well, that's good enough advice if you're saying what I think you're saying...to paraphrase what Pointedstick said about the Catholic Church (although in this case it's about a VERY different institution than the Church): "You can take the girl out of the bar but you can never take the bar out of the girl"

Having been married for 8 years now I have gotten to know lots of happily married couples who went the same route. Filipinos love to socialize and this has given me a social life like I've never had before. I hear stories about golddiggers but I honestly haven't yet met anybody who had that experience.

For the record, in case you don't know it, you can't just meet somebody on the internet and fly them over as a mail-order bride any more. You have to actually go visit them in person and provide proof that you did when you file your application for a fiance' visa. I personally made two visits to the Philippines along with my 8-year-old adopted granddaughter before I brought my wife over here and we toured the country visiting her home town and meeting family and old friends. You get to know a lot about somebody that way.

My wife actually did always have dreams of coming to America but I also had dreams of marrying a beautiful woman so you can't say that it isn't true love just because you're making somebody's dreams come true. If you're a decent judge of character I don't think it's that hard to weed out the golddiggers from those who just want what most women want - a decent life with a decent husband.

(And BTW, her son, now 25, also got a greencard in the process although he originally did not want to come and I had to talk him into it).

I am aware that one can no longer just bring someone to America after meeting them online or from a catalog (although I was under the impression that even before the 1980s immigartion law changes and the early 2000s IMBRA you still couldn't bring someone back without having at least met them once and shown some proof of a relationship...photos, corrrespondence, etc). My concern with a situation like yours would be that a woman from a poorer country could be playing the "long game" and just waiting years and years to make the final divorce payout bigger.

What exactly qualifies someone as a "good judge of character" anyhow? My personal method is simply to assume someone is not to be trusted until they prove otherwise.

Quote from: Pointedstick on December 28, 2012, 12:14:48 PM
Quote from: edsanville on December 28, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: Pointedstick on December 25, 2012, 08:51:31 AM
To clarify a bit about the "soul mate" deal, I didn't mean it in the way that suggests some deity created a perfect match for everyone, or even that everyone has a perfect match. My wife whom I love very deeply has differences that require compromise, yet the fundamentals of our relationship are such that compromise comes easily because our natures are simply very compatible vis-a-vis the way we see the world, react to events, and make our goals. I think that's what I meant by "soul mate" rather than any kind of religious or new-agey meaning. 

I am just curious:  do you know the Myers-Briggs personality type for your wife and yourself?

I'm very strongly an INTJ. Every time she takes the test she gets a different value, but the most common two are INTP and INFJ. She is one of those rare female libertarians, although she won't admit it because she doesn't like political labels and thinks the whole world of politics is rotten to the core.

Very interesting!  It got me thinking, and I found this article:

http://www.personalitydesk.com/story/co ... ality-type

It claims that intuitive thinkers tend to be dissatisfied with other intuitive thinkers in relationships.  Assuming your wife is only an NT half the time, maybe that's OK . 

Also, the sex of the two matters.  I'm an INTP.  Unfortunately, the article states "Women married to INTP men had the highest level of dissatisfaction..."

Just my luck.

I've taken the actual MBTI twice and one of those "online only" versions once. I got INTJ all three times; I was always close to borderline on the S/N scale, moderately Judger, heavily thinker, and all but off the charts on introversion (I also scored quite heavily on Social Introversion on the MMPI); I'm much shyer in real life than on this forum.

Do most libertarians (or libertarian leaning individuals) score INTJ/INTP?

Somehow the choice of being in a miserable relationship doesn't seem any more appealing (except perhaps by not getting financially mauled in divorce court) than being divorced. Either one is a thoroughly bad alternative...it's like being asked to choose between life in prison and lethal injection. By not getting in a relationship and/or marriage in the first place, one precludes either of the above bad eventualities (divorce/acrimonious breakup or miserable, freedom-crushing, soul-destroying relationship) from happening to oneself.

I showed this to one of my coworkers and he said I was deliberately creating a false dichotomy (bad relationship vs acrimonious/breakup divorce) by ignoring option #3 (get into a relationship and it ISN'T soul destroying, miserable, and freedom crushing and she doesn't leave you). Sigh...some people are just unrealistic and are blinded by looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses.

Almost all people are not thinking it through rationally before going into a relationship.  There's all these biological urges/fetishes and social expectations they are trying to fulfill that have absolutely nothing to do with personal compatibility similarity.

Why care about social expectations (provided of course that in not caring about them you don't violate anyone else's rights)? It's not like the people/religion/culture that create/s those expectations will collectively be the ones to suffer the consequences of a failed relationship; it'll be the individual who actually got into said relationship based on those expectations and not on compatability.

As for biological urges, there are various ways to deal with that without being tied down in a relationship....haven't they ever heard of "find em, f*ck, forget em" or "play, pay, and walk away"? For that matter haven't they heard of anaphrodisiacs (ketoconazole combined with low dose SSRIs will do wonder to crush libido)?

D1984 wrote: I've taken the actual MBTI twice and one of those "online only" versions once. I got INTJ all three times; I was always close to borderline on the S/N scale, moderately Judger, heavily thinker, and all but off the charts on introversion (I also scored quite heavily on Social Introversion on the MMPI); I'm much shyer in real life than on this forum.

We had a Meyers-Briggs discussion on this forum a while back, and by far the most common type among the folks who responded was INTJ (only 2% to 4% of the general population):

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=1

D1984 wrote: Do most libertarians (or libertarian leaning individuals) score INTJ/INTP?

I suspect not, but that's just a hunch without any evidence. But people who participate in online discussion forums--libertarian or otherwise--seem to be heavily weighted toward INTJ (prefer asynchronous communication, like to logically debate just about every topic that comes up, quick to point out when other people are mistaken or using flawed reasoning, delve very deeply into subjects that currently interest them, etc.). In other words, INTJ's are simply what most people refer to as "geeks."

edsanville wrote: It claims that intuitive thinkers tend to be dissatisfied with other intuitive thinkers in relationships.  Assuming your wife is only an NT half the time, maybe that's OK . 

Also, the sex of the two matters.  I'm an INTP.  Unfortunately, the article states "Women married to INTP men had the highest level of dissatisfaction..."

I would not give much credence to Meyers-Briggs for personality compatibility similarity.  It has no scientific rational.  If it were only that easy, all online dating websites would offer the test.

MachineGhost wrote:

edsanville wrote: It claims that intuitive thinkers tend to be dissatisfied with other intuitive thinkers in relationships.  Assuming your wife is only an NT half the time, maybe that's OK . 

Also, the sex of the two matters.  I'm an INTP.  Unfortunately, the article states "Women married to INTP men had the highest level of dissatisfaction..."

I would not give much credence to Meyers-Briggs for personality compatibility similarity.  It has no scientific rational.  If it were only that easy, all online dating websites would offer the test.

Well, that article was composed of empirical observations, and what is science but empiricism and (always imperfect) modeling?  I'd say it's about as scientific as you can get in a field like psychology, which is difficult to apply inductive logic to.  Much like economics, actually.

Anyway, if there was absolutely nothing to the MBTI, I would expect no statistical correlation when it comes to relationship success.  Also, the massive correlation between INTJ/INTPs, and members of this forum is certainly not random.  Those two groups only compose 6% of the population, and yet they are about 80-90% of this message board.

In other words, I've found the MBTI framework to be very intriguing, and quite scientific indeed.  Of course it's not perfect, but nothing in science is perfect.

D1984,

I also don't understand how the Buddhist idea of nirvana makes any sense. You eventually attain a state of non-attachment to anything as your final destination and that's a GOOD thing? Maybe for doodle...I happen to like the (pleasant) parts of a material existence, thank you very much, and don't wish to become unattached to them.

Im not an expert in the Buddhas teachings by any stretch of the imagination, but here is what I have gathered so far on this topic...

One of the Buddhas fundamental teachings is what he calls the four noble truths: 1) everything in this life contains suffering, 2) everything is impermanent 3) everything lacks independent existence or fixed self 4) nirvana is tranquility

When the buddha talks about suffering and the cessastion of that (nirvana) he means that we suffer when we dont recognize the reality of impermanence and lack of independent existence. If we cling to our sense of independent self as if it were permanent then life as a whole becomes suffering. When the buddha talks about "suffering" he is also referring to pleasure, happiness and success....both positive and negative things we experience become part of this cycle called "samsara". In other words, by grasping at things we like and pushing away that which we dont, we may fool ourselves into thinking that if we try hard enough we can make our lives into something that is permanently agreeable. We cling to the "good" and expect it not to change. We protect our egos and make them important and powerful by becoming "better" than others. Sometimes we succeed and we are "happy", and sometimes we fail and we feel terrible. That is " samsara" or the cycle of existence, the emotional up and down of our lives.

If we are not successful in fulfilling our desires or in avoiding unpleasant things, our lives become painful. But even if we are successful and happy, that happiness or success is still centered on our mistaken sense of permanence and independence. Since those agreeable things are based on the hope that they will be permanent and will fufill our self centered desires, often we fear the loss of everything that our happiness depends on. When you hear all this you might think Buddhism is dark and pessimistic, but really it is just saying that both positive and negative things in our lives lie within this realm of samsara or the cycle of suffering.

Nirvana is breaking out of this cycle. It is seeing ones life in accordance with the reality of impermanece and lack of independent existence and settling into the peace that follows from that.  We all know that no matter how successful we are, death will eventually come and take everything from us. I guess you could say that nirvana is a bit like dying before you die, so that you are truly free to live...

This is a complicated topic and I have done it no justice here...im still a total newbie when it comes to this.

edsanville wrote: In other words, I've found the MBTI framework to be very intriguing, and quite scientific indeed.  Of course it's not perfect, but nothing in science is perfect.

Well, so is astrology.  After all, that framework relies upon atomically precise cycles, timing, spatial relationships and empirical observations.  Yet, correlation is not causation.

But, as far as predicting relationship outcome success, the various flavors of MBTI do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, experimentally or peer-review.  What does work is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16PF_Questionnaire

Getting back to the OP, the problem with the online dating industry is it is like the sickcare industry.  It is not in their self-interest to actually be effective at pairing off compatible people and losing the revenue.  It may take a nonprofit organization to bring out true matching on the scientific 16PF scale.

MachineGhost wrote: Well, so is astrology.  After all, that framework relies upon atomically precise cycles, timing, spatial relationships and empirical observations.  Yet, correlation is not causation.

Yeah, but astrology doesn't even correlate to anything.

MachineGhost wrote: But, as far as predicting relationship outcome success, the various flavors of MBTI do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, experimentally or peer-review.  What does work is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16PF_Questionnaire

Having worked in science (physical chemistry, not psychology) for ten years, I have a pretty low opinion of the "peer review" system in general, so that doesn't really interest me as much as predictive power.  If there is a high correlation between successful relationships and MBTI pairs, that is predictive power.  The article claims that there is a high correlation, so unless they are fabricating data I would say the MBTI is moderately predictive here.  Not perfect of course.

It would also seem that having an INTJ/INTP personality type makes it more likely that you would be interested in a topic like the PP.  That's also predictive power.

I haven't heard of the 16PF Questionnaire, though.  It could very well be more accurate than the MBTI...  but I am convinced there is something to the MBTI model as well.  This is not an "all-or-nothing" proposition!  It's not a battle to the death between models.

edsanville wrote: It would also seem that having an INTJ/INTP personality type makes it more likely that you would be interested in a topic like the PP.

For what it's worth, the INTJ/INTP type is also heavily overrepresented on the Bogleheads forum. See the following thread:

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... =11&t=2234

edsanville wrote: I haven't heard of the 16PF Questionnaire, though.  It could very well be more accurate than the MBTI...  but I am convinced there is something to the MBTI model as well.  This is not an "all-or-nothing" proposition!  It's not a battle to the death between models.

+1. The 16PF and MBTI are very similar in their basic approach: they both attempt to "map" a human being onto a single point in a multi-dimensional space representing personality. If the 16PF is more accurate than MBTI in its predictive power, that's probably mainly because it uses more dimensions than the MBTI (16 vs. 4, respectively). One could devise a test with even more than 16 factors--32, say--and it might be even more accurate than 16PF. But then the questionnaire would get much longer and most people might lose interest before finishing it. With a smaller number of factors, a fixed-length questionnaire can gauge each factor more accurately.

doodle wrote: Im not an expert in the Buddhas teachings by any stretch of the imagination, but here is what I have gathered so far on this topic...

This is a complicated topic and I have done it no justice here...im still a total newbie when it comes to this.

Yes, it is a complicated topic indeed (and difficult to explain in words). And from what I can see, you have done a fantastic job at describing the possibility of love, joy, and tranquility stemming from non-attachment to ego, relationships, and material things. Would be pretty nice to consistently live in the moment and be able to say, "It is what it is, and its all ok as it is."
Thanks.

D1984 wrote: Seriously, wasn't Harry Browne against tying yourself down by getting into a relationship or even worse, getting married?

I recall someone asked HB about this in an interview in the 1990s.  He said something to the effect that when he wrote "How to find freedom..." that he was young, inexperienced, and had been in several bad relationships.  As he got older and wiser he had a change of heart.  He disavowed some of what he wrote in the book regarding marriage/partner relationships.  By then he had long since  reconnected with his daughter and made his peace with her mother.  By the time he died in 2006, he had been married for many years to a wife he loved and cared about, and apparently She felt the same way about him.

So no, Harry Browne was not against marriage, relationships, or children.

smurff wrote:

D1984 wrote: Seriously, wasn't Harry Browne against tying yourself down by getting into a relationship or even worse, getting married?

I recall someone asked HB about this in an interview in the 1990s.  He said something to the effect that when he wrote "How to find freedom..." that he was young, inexperienced, and had been in several bad relationships.  As he got older and wiser he had a change of heart.  He disavowed some of what he wrote in the book regarding marriage/partner relationships.  By then he had long since  reconnected with his daughter and made his peace with her mother.  By the time he died in 2006, he had been married for many years to a wife he loved and cared about, and apparently She felt the same way about him.

So no, Harry Browne was not against marriage, relationships, or children.

Even in the 70s, I don't think he was ever against relationships per se, only marriage.

smurff wrote:

D1984 wrote: Seriously, wasn't Harry Browne against tying yourself down by getting into a relationship or even worse, getting married?

I recall someone asked HB about this in an interview in the 1990s.  He said something to the effect that when he wrote "How to find freedom..." that he was young, inexperienced, and had been in several bad relationships.  As he got older and wiser he had a change of heart.  He disavowed some of what he wrote in the book regarding marriage/partner relationships.  By then he had long since  reconnected with his daughter and made his peace with her mother.  By the time he died in 2006, he had been married for many years to a wife he loved and cared about, and apparently She felt the same way about him.

So no, Harry Browne was not against marriage, relationships, or children.

Perhaps he did change his views (like I said....weak-hearted sellout); you indicated that he said this happened as he became "older and wiser." The funny thing is that at least seven of my co-workers and acquaintances who were laughing at me and saying "you'll change your mind eventually" (this was about eight or eight and a half years ago...my philosophy back then was the same as it is now: "I may live alone and die alone but by God at least I'll die unencumbered and happy" ) have now been married and divorced (one to two different women and he's paying child support to both and alimony to the second) and as THEY got "older and wiser" and looked over what had happened in their lives they admitted that I had been right all along (marriage and relationships are a scam and children are a waste of money and a way to destroy a previously peaceful existence); two of them now presently as against marriage as I was then.

One even confided that after looking at what he got taken for in divorce court that he would have been better off just soliciting paid girls from Craigslist and Backpage a few times a week.....his ex got basically everything (house, the newer car, the kids, plus she had cleaned out the two joint checking accounts the day before she filed...hell, she even took his ATVs--that she didn't even like to ride!--just out of pure spite) of value and he got stuck with most of the unsecured debts (to be fair, he had co-signed for them...but her income was nearly what he made so she should have had to pay at least 40 or 45% of those).

Older and wiser works in both directions. I'm sure if those late 20s to early 40s guys (their ages now) could go back in time almost ten years and meet with their younger selves they would probably want to knock some sense into them.

D1984 wrote:

smurff wrote:

D1984 wrote: Seriously, wasn't Harry Browne against tying yourself down by getting into a relationship or even worse, getting married?

I recall someone asked HB about this in an interview in the 1990s.  He said something to the effect that when he wrote "How to find freedom..." that he was young, inexperienced, and had been in several bad relationships.  As he got older and wiser he had a change of heart.  He disavowed some of what he wrote in the book regarding marriage/partner relationships.  By then he had long since  reconnected with his daughter and made his peace with her mother.  By the time he died in 2006, he had been married for many years to a wife he loved and cared about, and apparently She felt the same way about him.

So no, Harry Browne was not against marriage, relationships, or children.

Perhaps he did change his views (like I said....weak-hearted sellout); you indicated that he said this happened as he became "older and wiser." The funny thing is that at least seven of my co-workers and acquaintances who were laughing at me and saying "you'll change your mind eventually" (this was about eight or eight and a half years ago...my philosophy back then was the same as it is now: "I may live alone and die alone but by God at least I'll die unencumbered and happy" ) have now been married and divorced (one to two different women and he's paying child support to both and alimony to the second) and as THEY got "older and wiser" and looked over what had happened in their lives they admitted that I had been right all along (marriage and relationships are a scam and children are a waste of money and a way to destroy a previously peaceful existence); two of them now presently as against marriage as I was then.

One even confided that after looking at what he got taken for in divorce court that he would have been better off just soliciting paid girls from Craigslist and Backpage a few times a week.....his ex got basically everything (house, the newer car, the kids, plus she had cleaned out the two joint checking accounts the day before she filed...hell, she even took his ATVs--that she didn't even like to ride!--just out of pure spite) of value and he got stuck with most of the unsecured debts (to be fair, he had co-signed for them...but her income was nearly what he made so she should have had to pay at least 40 or 45% of those).

Older and wiser works in both directions. I'm sure if those late 20s to early 40s guys (their ages now) could go back in time almost ten years and meet with their younger selves they would probably want to knock some sense into them.

What was your parents' relationship like and how was your childhood?

Those experiences often shape the way a person views relationships as an adult.

You seem a bit defensive about your commitment to remain unencumbered by a relationship.  If it it making you as happy as you say it is, I'm surprised you care that much about decisions others make to pursue love, even if they fail repeatedly.

If being alone really fulfills you, then I would say congratulations on having discovered that about yourself at a relatively young age. 

I would, however, consider keeping an open mind about the unexplored frontiers of life that may not be of interest to you right now.  The experience of loving another person can be quite exciting and fulfilling, even though it is also filled with risk.

There may also be little D1984s in some other dimension right now with convictions just as strong as yours, except that their primary conviction right now is to figure out how to get you to help create them.

If children do ever come along, though, don't underestimate how destructive they can be.  To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, it takes a child to raze a village.

Here is a pretty good interview from CBC that discusses the singledom situation (20 minutes).

A couple of points from the interview:
- Being single is one of the most despised sexual minorities one can be
- There are more single people than married people
- If one thinks that being single could be fine, then that can strengthen a relationship since it takes some pressure off
- Most people assume that single people cannot be happy

I do enjoy the single life, but it does feel like I'm missing out on something.  I sometimes wonder if I have too much freedom and would be happier with more obligations/structure in my life. 

Everyone is bound to be a little defensive now and then against the feeling of being "left out" of what a majority of society engages in.  To my mind, marraige and children is just a continution of the popularity contest played back in middle/high school.  Although from my understanding, a lot of people have children so they can achieve indirect immortality if you believe that kind of reason triumphs the mindless "breeding motivation".  Hah!