>On the other hand, what kind of wimpy ambition do you have if it won't survive having kids? Do you have so little to spare?"
It's a disingenuous argument. He acknowledges "attention is a zero-sum game" and that having kids has lowered his ambitions. Therefore, it's not a question of what is there "to spare" (implying leftover time/energy), it is a question of "how much are you willing to give up" to make room for the new priority.
It's not a question of ambition being strong or wimpy, it's a question of your tolerance for lowering your ambition.
Yeah, that didn't really track with me either. If attention (and therefore ambition?) is a zero-sum game, diverting attention from $SOME_THING to your kids implies diverting ambition as well. Either you divert less attention to your kids, and are still able to fulfill your prior ambitions, or you divert more, and you aren't. Or somewhere in between. It's not that your ambition is wimpy, just that it's finite.
I do better when I'm busy. Calling attention/ambition zero-sum doesn't add up for me. I don't really consider it finite either. We can usually find a way to push past our previous limits.
It's a disingenuous argument. He acknowledges "attention is a zero-sum game" and that having kids has lowered his ambitions. Therefore, it's not a question of what is there "to spare" (implying leftover time/energy), it is a question of "how much are you willing to give up" to make room for the new priority.
It's not a question of ambition being strong or wimpy, it's a question of your tolerance for lowering your ambition.