WFH is only going to make this worse. A top place people spend long amounts of time with others is work. Work is in top 2 places people make new romantic partners, marriage partners, and friends.
There's nothing on the horizon to replace it as a socializing force. Even if you WFH those ~8 hours a day, 40 days of week of sitting alone can't be made up for by socializing outside of that time, something you could already do before WFH.
I'm not saying you should therefore be forced to go to the office. Rather I'm just pointing out WFH will arguably make this worse, maybe not for your specific situation, but in aggregate across the population, if WFH is the new normal then we'll need to social institutions to fix the lack of socialization opportunities that are being discarded.
WFH coincides with rapidly rising interest in urbanist views(the "Not Just Bikes" and "Strong Towns" crowd). The previous US era's low trust ceded all ground to private spaces: if you went out, it was to work, to buy something, or to participate in some structured activity like exercise. The "town squares" to idle in disappeared, hence workplaces became very central to people's lives as the only kind of commons. And the public roads defined themselves around automobile traffic, another way of making a private space, or at least the illusion of such. The previous generations accepted this as the terms of the good life; near-total control over the private domain, even where it came with negative externalities. This is the thing that is now being questioned, because for younger generations, there has been little opportunity to "get on the property ladder". They have been crowded into working from home with four roommates. When they go online, it is mediated by surveillance at every turn. And it costs too much now to go for long drives by car. Their private space sucks!
As I see it, the energy of the youth is gradually being sapped away from political movements made on private terms - blaming an other to justify further division of public space - towards the idea of revitalizing the commons, an idea which has a kind of inevitability behind it coming from this low point, since it satisfies a huge diversity of needs.
Remaking the public space is, in fact, stunningly easy: close a few roads in urban centers, near destinations, to auto traffic, and put out some seating. Times Square did this; JFK Drive as well. Both are transformed places. When the cars are cleared out and you have "eyes on the street", the perceptions of cities as fundamentally anonymous places disappear, as well. This only becomes more true as alternate modes of mobility are introduced; the huge uptake of ebikes nationwide has exceeded every expectation and has created a flywheel of demand for more urban bike infrastructure, and therefore more public space.
We are blessed with a lot of public spaces in Berlin. Not just squares but also parks, lakes and bike paths in nature.
This is where we met all summer. Grilling in the park, cycling around, swimming in lakes etc.
You meet your friends and their friends too. You bring your dates there. You have hard conversations there. You play sports together there.
It's not just about socialisation. It's a place where you can be not-home. You don't have to eat or drink alcohol or pay. You can just linger there and be left alone.
Public spaces are so incredibly important, but I don't imagine the political class as people who go to parks a lot.
>We are blessed with a lot of public spaces in Berlin.
And cursed with a terrible housing market, especially for newcomers.
>Public spaces are so incredibly important, but I don't imagine the political class as people who go to parks a lot.
So much this on both fronts. In many countries, like Austria and others I'm sure, the political class really has neglected public spaces that aren't for tourists, as they're not the users of it. Public parks have mostly been relegated as places for the "poor" and "working class" to hang out who can't afford a house in the green suburbs with a nice big garden surrounded by forests. Which is ironic since the rich kids are always driving their cars from their suburbs to the parks downtown to hang out as that's where the best parties are. :)
> And cursed with a terrible housing market, especially for newcomers.
I know! I help people settle in Berlin, and I don't know what to tell incoming students anymore. I'm not sure how they can find a place to live in a reasonable time frame.
I hear that it's worse elsewhere, but it's no consolation.
Out of curiosity where is it worse? What if it's like the "grass is greener" effect but in reverse, where people use the "it's worse elsewhere" argument to comfort themselves for their bad living conditions or other discomforts in life.
I mean, I'm sure there are cities where it's worse, but like you said, that doesn't improve the situation for those wishing to live in Berlin so it's kinda pointless to look at places that are worse instead of fighting to improve the location you live in.
I heard that it's the same or worse in other capitals. The message is not "it's not so bad", it's "housing is spiraling out of control in all major cities, what's the endgame?"
> And cursed with a terrible housing market, especially for newcomers.
That isn't exactly unique to Berlin you know. And IIRC at least the local government tried to do something about it (but was struck down in higher courts).
Yes but they get points for trying. At least they see what rampant price inflation has done to other cities and aren't cheering it on as a neo-con victory.
Contrast (any city in) Australia which is stuck in a nightmare loop of homelessness and political pressure to keep the house prices high (from homeowners) and affordable (from everyone else).
Or London, where house prices are now so high it is mostly owned by absent foreigners.
Sorry, but trying an obviously populist measure that further sinks housing availability and makes thing worse for everyone does not get you any points anywhere.
In Australia this would not be a populist move. The difference in housing situation/markets is really interesting.
The key point that Berlin seems to realise, but Australia definitely doesn't, is that the purpose of houses is for people to live in them, not make money investing in them.
Have you ever considered that public space, urbanisation are a proto form of nudging.
If not, consider that the best minds in the 50 and 60 were considering subtle form of propaganda and manipalution by intelligent and adapted design of environment.
Outside conscious detection, the human herd in urban envIronment are manipulated, nudged, and controlled the same way cattle are milked in modern factories.
Those parks you seems to worship are just existing in your environment cause someone decided that you should worship those parks in your environment.
The remaining question is: for what ?
I would guess, happy and voluntary self alienation.
Nobody question the paradoxal stupidity of feeling lonely in the most dense areas existing on the surface of earth.
How can you feel lonely when you have more than a thousand peoples surrounding you in a range smaller than 100m away from you.
It's really quite impressive to equate access to nice parks to factory farming as a bad thing while also claiming that people must be socially sated because they live in densely packed areas.
There's a lot of chatter in certain internet circles about those ideas...
But in practice, the leave-it-at-the-door delivery-or-no-touch-pickup world is not one I'd describe as higher trust and more social. Times Square? Other similar "close a few roads and have a mall" places? There's nothing there revitalizing socialization compared to the previous generation of indoor malls.
> But in practice, the leave-it-at-the-door delivery-or-no-touch-pickup world is not one I'd describe as higher trust and more social.
You’re making the point for them. Interaction with service providers shouldn’t be a primary social outlet for people (as much for the sake of the service provider as the customer); previous generations’ choices just made it one of the most important outlets since it’s one of the most convenient, especially if you’re willing to pay for it (they major driver of almost all 20th century social trends).
Even happenstance “excuse me, pardon me” type small talk to peers is worlds better than a forced corporate smile from a waiter who relies on tips to survive, because at least then, you’re forced to have some amount of empathy/introspection (since the other party isn’t being paid to be nice).
The rub of this, though, is then plenty of people only like to interact with service providers (especially as they get older) and this new world can feel isolating to them, but I don’t think that’s a measure of Gen Z or whatever’s commitment to civic socialization.
If Times Square is the only public space you can think of, you're either unimaginative or arguing in bad faith. Try Central Park maybe?
I have an axe to grind about interaction-free delivery services, but it's a different debate. Public spaces are for when you intend to see other people.
Public spaces as I've experienced them are much better than malls. For one thing they're outside. It's not easy to be outside for many city dwellers. They're also a place where you're not expected to spend money. You can bring your own food, drinks and entertainment. You can do nothing at all and not be perceived as a threat. You aren't screaming over the noise of car traffic. The silence is a revelation when you experience it for the first time.
I spent my summer in public spaces. I miss them dearly when I travel to concrete jungles and sleepy suburbias.
That only works if you're willing to be ruthless is cracking down on unapproved behaviors and activities. Most public spaces weren't destroyed by automobiles, they were destroyed by humans produced by contemporary society. A drunk masturbating in front of children in the park isn't caused by a lack of ebikes.
We must live in very different places. I patronise the public spaces everywhere I go, and what you describe is highly atypical.
Unless of course you treat public spaces like Americans treat buses. If it becomes a miserable experience only the destitute would use, those who can will avoid it, and those who can't will perpetuate it.
But where I live everyone uses public spaces. The wealthy don't retreat to private backyards.
Our public parks went downhill. People park cars on the grass, do donuts in the grass, race through the park. People drink alcohol and smoke marijuana in the park, leave their trash all over, play obnoxiously loud music...
My social life has improved massively since WFH became the norm. I eat lunch with my neighbors most days, I work from friends places/they work at mine on the reg, and it is way easier to have the energy to go out for dinner/drinks/other activities after work. I went to Chicago for a week last month to hang out with my friend and his wife and no one had to take any vacation days to make it happen. Everyone's situation is different, but I have a tough time imagining that WFH is going to lead to a reduction in socialization on balance if people are now able to control their schedules more easily.
There is a big difference between socializing with existing friends and making new friends. I can dig it up somewhere, but I recall a study that pointed to something along the lines of "serendipitous time together" as one of the biggest factors in making new friends - it highlighted why so many people make lifelong friend groups in college.
The fact is that now people, across all aspects of society (not just referring to work from home) have much less opportunity for these kinds of serendipitous interactions: we can order tons of stuff online instead of shopping at retail stores, we can order food from a bajillion places instead of going out to eat, we can stay in and watch Netflix instead of going to a movie. And while all of these conveniences, individually, may be very nice, overall they have the effect that we just have a ton fewer in-person interactions, on average, with other people.
In my experience, commuting eats into the time and energy baseline that would be needed for "serendipity". To give a concrete example, I'm not volunteering at the PTO if I am commuting ten hours per week. I'm not having meals and making friends with other parents in my neighborhood.
I think your response highlights the point I was making, and also highlights why you see polarization around this issue.
If you're talking about "volunteering at the PTO", my guess is that you are married with children. Most people who are married with children already have most of their social framework "set", and often times (at least in the US) so much of their free time revolves are child rearing and their childrens' activities such that most of their "neighborhood friends" revolve around the serendipitous encounters they have with other parents - the PTO as you mention, sports games, etc.
But for people at an earlier stage of their life and career, I think you'll find they often have a different outlook. They're often looking for a spouse, they have much more free time without kids so they're looking to meet people, etc.
For me personally, I'm also at a stage where my social connections are pretty set. But I got so many of my early workplace connections when I joined a job that had a "bootcamp" 2 month training program for new grads. I've gotten nearly every subsequent job over a couple decades from that first job, not to mention many close friends. I know I wouldn't have had those close connections if I had been solely WFH in my first job out of college.
Different people are different. You're seem to be highly socially functional. There are a lot of people who aren't, and have no friends, and whose only exposure to social interactions are at the office. These people are at much higher risk of bad outcomes like depression, suicide, etc., than someone like you. Someone like Milton from Office Space.
Now, of course, there could be people who work at an office, say, as a security guard in an industrial facility where they never see anyone, have friends who they can't see and are depressed about it, and if they can WFH watching surveillance feeds, it makes them better off. Don't doubt that this can exist, but my gut feel is that Category 1 is bigger than Category 2.
<<There are a lot of people who aren't, and have no friends, and whose only exposure to social interactions are at the office. These people are at much higher risk of bad outcomes like depression, suicide, etc.,
I wrote several versions of this response including one that touched on how quickly "we are in this together" morphed back into the usual "got mine, fuck you" during start of Covid. I hesitated several times. Ran it internally against HN rules about taking stuff at face value, but I think at the end of the whole process only one real question came back to me.
Is it really my responsibility to live somebody else's life?
It’s not your responsibility to live someone else’s life but it is the responsibility of senior decision makers to set policies that broadly benefit the populace even if they hurt some people. Is it your responsibility to heal the sick? No, but government can tax you to do so, and now maybe you can’t get the leather seats in your Audi.
<<No, but government can tax you to do so, and now maybe you can’t get the leather seats in your Audi.
You want to avoid sniping. It is typically frowned upon.
That said, believe it or not, we are not that far apart on that front. The issue I have with the argument presented is that senior decision makers do not set policies that broadly benefit the populace ( as evidenced by reality itself ).
Apart from that, why are senior decision makers even a consideration here? The recession in the article is that of the mind. It is spiritual in nature ( and that is assuming we are assuming posited argument ).
If you are going to throw suicides at me again, I will ask you a simple question.
Why are suicides are inherently a bad thing? People want to die. Why do you feel you have an obligation to stop them?
Forgive me, but you sound like someone who has never needed help from another person, or the help you received you felt you deserved.
I think you should remember that all of our lives affect each other. We have a social responsibility to pursue a society where those effects lead to happy, healthy people.
If you think you’d rather live in a survival of the fittest jungle there are plenty of countries you can move to. In the west, we consider the progress away from such things as one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments.
<<Forgive me, but you sound like someone who has never needed help from another person, or the help you received you felt you deserved.
That is not accurate. Just the other week I had to pay people do complete a task for me. The task in question I could not do on my own simply due to its nature and my lack of skill in that domain. I absolutely needed help. I fully accept I live in a society and there will be times, where my skills will simply not be enough to face every situation thrown at me.
<<We have a social responsibility to pursue a society where those effects lead to happy, healthy people.
Do we? Why is that thrown as an axiom of some sort? I am looking at the history of human race and the history of various societies is at odds with that statement.
<<If you think you’d rather live in a survival of the fittest jungle there are plenty of countries you can move to.
I am relatively certain I live in one of those countries now ( US ). I think most would argue it is considered part of 'the west'.
<<In the west, we consider the progress away from such things as one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments.
Who is we in this statement? There are entire groups in US devoted to the exact opposite position.
Then in the spirit of democratic values, I oppose the world you think we should (or do) live in. I hope a sufficient number of others will as well. I think we can and should aspire for more.
I live in nyc. My neighbors don't speak english and they're not interested in socializing with me at all. We have nothing in common culturally or otherwise, besides living in the same building.
I think you all can bond over living in the same building. A telegram group or something can help a lot, someone will need something and ask, someone will watch for porch pirates, someone will notice a stranger in the halls…
Translation tools are solid and stuff like Duolingo are pretty good for basics, and people usually appreciate others making an effort with their language. Not easy for sure, but if you're determined to improve your relationship with your neighbours it might be good to consider (I find it has an outsized impact in terms of being well socialized, a warmer atmosphere sometimes really makes a difference)
It's easy to poke holes in peoples reasons why they can't do xyz, I'm still struggling and eating shit with this as an expat after some years. It's hard, but if that's your challenge and you can convince yourself it's an option, I think it's probably an option.
People have friends? Every person I’ve been friends with outside work has either moved away or stopped hanging out with me once I got a career and a family.
The only people who really “give me a chance” because I’m a little weird are people I work with because I’m useful I guess? So there’s time for me to grow on them.
My social life has definitely suffered since WFH. In fact the only people I see regularly are people I used to work with by inviting them to lunch.
I'm sorry to hear that.
This is a real challenge.
Among my circles, work and otherwise, there's strong non work connections, like different circles that happen to overlap im the company. Immigrant, religious, volunteer based, etc. But it makes sense that those in a circle might miss that others are not in a circle.
During the lockdowns our house was quite popular as like an underground Libertarian hangout spot for nerdy board game players and people who liked low stakes poker. I made friends with a former Magic the Gathering world champ because of that. I guess I do have friends they’re just the kind of people who don’t do much unless invited to something.
I guess that’s how MOST people are. A lot of people just want their socializing handed to them.
>I guess that’s how MOST people are. A lot of people just want their socializing handed to them.
This was the main reason for people to go to church. The congregation gets a built-in social club, and the leaders get rich and the ability to control people's lives in various ways. Now that more and more people abandon religion, people are having to find other ways to socialize.
Well then we got sick and cockroaches invaded, and the house got dirtier and we got sicker until it all spiraled out of control. One or two people messaged us after that but nobody else has the ability to host regularly.
Hiring a housekeeper and an exterminator were in retrospect the best decisions we’ve made in the past year. It’s super important for both mental and physical health that you keep your house clean and free of pests folks!
> How could you extrapolate that seeing the same office people everyday all day is good for.yiur social life.
Because it's easier to interact with someone when we are dealing with the same project / sharing the experience of being an employee for the same company?
Yep. It's about the constant and intentionless interactions. Not something you can easily replicate outside, even in coworking spaces. Don't get me wrong - it is possible -, but if I am struggling to make the adjustments required (and I am fairly social person), I can only imagine how hard it can be for less well connected people. Make no mistake, this is only going to aggravate our "loneliness epidemic".
Absolutely. No way we are stripping 8h of daily socialization without any adversal effect on our social lives. I can feel it myself. And no, "finding other places to talk to people" is not a solution, because work time is 50% of my waking hours, and removing that social connection is terrible by itself.
There is no way 8h of work can be classed as 8h of socialization. Especially in fields that can be done WFH. The vast majority of my work hours are spent facing the screen not socializing with anyone. A more realistic number would be a couple of hours in my opinion, which is still significant.
Wait. Why are you stripping away socialization again?
Those who started WFH during the pandemic may not realize, but WFH stands for work from anywhere. You may have needed to lock yourself in your bedroom during the height of the pandemic, but those days are coming to a close. Venture out into the world.
If you have no existing friend group that wants to work alongside you, head to the coffeeshop, the bar, the park, the library. You'll soon find people to socialize with.
I think I am not making myself very clear. It's not a question of having or not friends to socialize with after work. It's about socializing DURING workhours. Even on WFH, we are still working the usual 8h. And I feel like I am losing a ton of opportunities to engage in meaningful conversations when I am alone at home or at a cafe. The question then is: how do we create environments that allow these types working hours interactions in a WFH setting?
> It's not a question of having or not friends to socialize with after work. It's about socializing DURING workhours.
You have made yourself clear. We are talking about during work hours. That is the very freedom that WFH allows. Again, WFH is short for work from anywhere.
> how do we create environments that allow these types working hours interactions in a WFH setting?
Why do you think they don't already exist? I have WFH for 20 years now and have never found much difficulty to find people to work with, save the pandemic period. And I am based in rural area. Imagine how much easier it would be to find people to work with in a city!
As I alluded to earlier, I think the pandemic being the introduction to WFH for a lot of people has skewed perceptions. They went WFH because they had to stay home alone. But those days are quickly moving behind us. You can work anywhere again now.
Venture out into the world. There are people out there. If the cafe isn't working, try another venue. You are only limited by your ingenuity.
> if all else fails, get a second job that is in front of people and also do your WFH job there
This sounds like a very convoluted workaround for something which, for some people, is solved by having an office to go into.
I think what is very clear every time this WFH topic comes up is that different people have very different strong opinions on it, which is fine. I wish people would respect each other’s opinions a bit more though.
For some people, working from an office works well from them. Personally, having worked from home for three years (2 pandemic, 1 in a remote job), I’ve found I really miss that “casual” social interaction with people at work and I don’t believe I could replace that by going into a cafe - maybe it’s a personality thing and/or a location/cultural thing but it’s very rare for me to just strike up meaningful conversation in a cafe here in London. Maybe a coworking space would be better but I still think there’s a lot of value to social interactions with your actual colleagues.
Others obviously feel differently, whether that’s because they want to live somewhere outside of a major metropolitan area, or because they don’t enjoy that kind of interaction, or whatever, and that’s also fine.
I guess the challenge is how companies reconcile the two into something that works. “Hybrid” only works if you have a decent number of people actually coming in to the office otherwise yeah, you might as well just go to a coworking space. I suspect we’ll see companies starting to align more to one model or the other as time progresses, and I think that’s fine - people can choose companies whos model works for them.
> This sounds like a very convoluted workaround for something which, for some people, is solved by having an office to go into.
Not having a defined office to go into is the apparent problem, not the solution.
> I wish people would respect each other’s opinions a bit more though.
Where does this come from? I've never seen anyone's opinion disrespected as it pertains to this conversation. In fact, the beauty of WFH is that it gives you the full freedom to form your own opinions. Want to work at home? Do it! Want to work in an office? Do it! Want to work from the middle of a field? Do it! Want to work at sea? Do it! Nobody cares. The world is your oyster.
> I guess the challenge is how companies reconcile the two into something that works.
Does matchmaking need to be a business concern? There were periods of history where transportation, housing, even shopping, was dictated by a company but we eventually move away from those in favour of personal choice. All arguably practical necessities in their time, but considered a hinderance of freedom once the landscape changed. Is matchmaking not just that again?
WFH means work from anywhere. It does not preclude working in an office. But if you are respecting of opinion, as was asserted as being important earlier, then offices will only come into being if people wish to be a part of them. That does not require a third-party middleman to be involved. Workers who want to work in offices can easily coordinate that kind of thing themselves, just as they've come to coordinate transportation, housing, and shopping.
Sorry, but this is an incredibly disingenuous take on the topic.
WFH does NOT mean 'Work From Anywhere'. The first hint is that "Anywhere" does not start with an 'H'. Many, if not most corp employees are compelled to stay within state (US) and border (EU) limits due to tax code restrictions. It's literally illegal for many to just work from outside their jurisdiction. It probably gets even more complicated for employees on a VISA.
But I digress, It's really ironical that you chide OP that you see no disrespect while simultaneously dismissing and disrespecting their opinion.
In case you truly don't get it. Working physically from the office while a vast number of their peers are at home does not make it work from office. The location isn't the factor here, it's the medium of interaction. Sitting on zoom calls all day in the office has no discernible difference than sitting at home.
What the OP and TFA posits is that the lack of real human interaction, the social cues, the energy or more informally 'the vibe' is very different when working remotely vs working in-office with everyone else there.
Again, this isn't trying to spark yet another debate on RTO/WFH/Remote preferences, but to underline that empathizing with the opposing point of view is a virtue that earns the respect you speak of.
It's just annoying how so many 'smart' people on HN keep pedantically hammering the point that you can just totally just work from the office. Sure, you're technically correct, but just comes off of as socially clueless.
I feel it tends to be the same kind of people that are surprised when the more affable, but average engineer is promoted over them, the misunderstood genius. Turns out people like to work with people they like over some opinionated rando who happens to close JIRA tickets a little bit faster than others.
> It's literally illegal for many to just work from outside their jurisdiction.
Sadly, while your amusing pedantry is technically correct in a vacuum, it completely fails within the prior context given. Did you forget to the read the comments up to this point or were you aiming to give us a good laugh?
> Working physically from the office while a vast number of their peers are at home does not make it work from office.
Agreed. Hence the idea of venturing out into the world to meet with peers. If what you are struggling to say is that nobody wants to work with you, I guess that's life. Slavery is a thing of the past. You can't force people to do things they don't want to do.
> Sitting on zoom calls all day in the office has no discernible difference than sitting at home.
If you are using Zoom (or similar) all day you're not doing WFH. WFH brings very different operating semantics and doesn't just try to duplicate the office over the internet. What you describe is work from office. Location isn't the factor here.
> but to underline that empathizing with the opposing point of view
What points of view are you referring to? All we have is reality. Trying to ascribe emotions to attempts to understand the world is bad faith participation. Granted, this may be the result of not having read the prior comments as suggested above. But replying without having read the comments is also bad faith participation.
> Turns out people like to work with people they like
Seems they don't else they would work together. WFH encourages people to work together in the flesh so if it is not happening what does that tell us? That certain individuals are best avoided? I can agree with that, although I have to wonder why that was worth pointing out if that was your goal.
I spent 5 months in a coworking and, although I did engage with people there sometimes, there is not something that "binds" us and promotes more interactions. It's not easy to develop more intimate relationships this way. I do agree that it's definitely possible, but it's not trivial at all.
It may not be easy, but there are only so many options. The natural default would be to co-work with your coworkers, but if they don't want to work with you like the OP experienced, you have to find some other community that is accepting of you. Or work on yourself to be more desirable, I suppose. You can't force people to accept you. That is not the world in which we live.
Finding other places to talk to people is a solution it's just not one you're willing to take seriously due to prioritizing work over a social life. There is a group of people that genuinely have an excuse here, but most of their jobs weren't even applicable for WFH and they're working insane hours just for minimum wage.
Oh, but I am willing. But will I get fired if I do so? Because if I am going to socialize during worktime I won't be available right away during this period.
Although I agree, nothing would make me spend ~2hs daily commuting again. My company's office is 40 minutes by subway + 25 min walking if I choose to walk to the station. It's even worse considering I work as contractor for a software factory (consulting firm, sorry not native english here) so the people I specifically work currently with are not even from my country. Plus I won't ever probably know about them 3 months from now.
I think daily about this issue but working again for a national company would mean earning 50% less of my salary probably... so tough choice.
Any advice or recommendations from other contractors/freelance workers are appreciated.
In work you have no friends, you have colleagues. Maybe 1% of them really care about you.
Even those who seems like they care about you, are so used to see you by default every day, that you never develop a way to communicate otherwise - so when you will change jobs, they will disappear.
These fake relationship in the workplace are the main reason you'll find yourself alone in your 30s.
But WFH allow me to cultivate REAL friendships with people that choose to communicate with me without being forced by "being in the same office".
Long term, this is the only way not to end up alone.
And yet work is the worst place to seek a relationship, according to hundreds of thousands of Reddit anecdotes and Psychology Today articles, because there's Power Imbalance and that means developing a healthy relationship is impossible, plus HR hates employee-employee relationships, and you can't pretend Work Spouse is the same as Home Spouse.
And yet school, university, college is also bad, because that's the time to Experiment and Fall In Love multiple times, and Date Around, and Make Friends, and if you don't do the Prescheduled Infantile Erotic Socializing like you're required, you're defective and should go back to the vat.
And yet Discord and Reddit are also bad, because if you meet someone on there and develop a romantic relationship with them, you must be a groomer, or a pedophile, or a Nazi.
And yet Tinder is bad, because it provides a short-term dopamine hit to get you addicted to swiping and looking at ads, stealing your time without actually giving you anything.
And yet dating college students after you've graduated is also bad, because everyone knows a friend of a friend whose son/daughter dated a graduate and it ended horribly with tears and fisticuffs all around.
What you should be doing is hitting people up at the library. Wait, no, I saw a reddit post about how that's cringe and disgusting. Ok, I'll try to meet people at the gym. Oh wait, no, I've seen even more Reddit posts about how horrible that is; people at the gym are trying to get healthy, not date! Ok, I'll blindly message people on Instagram. Hold on... I don't have an Instagram. How about I just go to the bar with some friends? Unfortunately, none of my friends go to bars, because they're over 40, too busy getting their degrees, or don't exist. Ok, so the solution is to go out in the street, strip down naked, and run around doing cartwheels until someone declares me a romantic interest.
And people wonder why YouTubers are some of the loneliest, most stressed people, and why the loneliest, most stressed people seem so interested in starting a YouTube channel.
And yet... most millenials and Gen X and Boomers are doing fine. So this is all a hullabaloo invented to let the zoomers/iGen know, with force, that if they don't shut up and elope, and keep the babies flowing, all the markets are going to crash all at once when the Boomers finally decide they're done being alive and hook up the helium breathing mask.
As another Zoomer, I just wanted to say how well you’ve captured the experience I’ve also had of growing confusion/discouragement when it comes to how to approach relationships — especially now that I’m out of college, and not able to draw on any of the social power of that environment. I feel like I keep running into walls of “Maybe this is the thing…” only to be flooded with reasons why it absolutely isn’t the thing.
I suppose the first answer most people would give is “stop listening to Reddit,” but that still leaves me with the question of, well, then what?
What I do, with the caveat that while I am doing this I've had mediocre results from it so far, is find where the people you'd like to meet tend to hang out, go there, and start building positive relationships. You can politely express romantic interest, so long you respect the other person's space/right to not be interested you're generally doing a positive thing, I think.
To illustrate that last point, I am hetero male. I've had gay guys tell me they thought I was cute, I told them politely I wasn't interested, but appreciated the compliment. I believe this generalizes.
As an example of the first point, I tend to like fit girls, so I go train Olympic weightlifting and do acroyoga. I also like artsy girls, so I go party at places where they tend to congregate (certain 'alternative/queer' or 'techno/EDM' nightlife venues, generally).
Also, I've gotten laid off random outfit compliments - e.g. "I like your blouse" when the girl was wearing a nice blouse and I walked by her on the street.
I think this is sad, though - work should not be the primary source of socialisation. The fact that it is (or used to be) is sad, and we should be glad that this is changing.
Great point. Personally I think this is a good thing -- I've never seen work as a great place to socialize, so I felt "left out" of that aspect of work life in the past. Now with WFH, maybe we'll see alternatives pop up more and more.
I know lot of small shop owner. They need, by definition, to be at work all day, everyday. They’re all complaining that work is the only place they can meet people, but that it’s hardly a way to have friends and so are losing them. I know also of manual labor job worker that complaint of the same thing.
Your lense is only working for job in office like environment.
You have to create most of the time the opportunities to really meet new people. Hoping to get that randomly at your job Is not the best way I think.
Our voice communication software isn’t even near equivalent to in-person voice communication yet, and it is rather mature technology at this point. Consider how much easier an in-person conversation with multiple people interrupting each other or even talking simultaneously goes, compared to the awkwardness of a zoom call where nobody is willing to even unmute to laugh since it draws focus away from whoever was previously talking, is inevitably poorly timed due to network delay, and in general slows everything down.
Forgive me if your comment was meant as sarcasm, but I think solving even this problem could take more than four years, and it is only a fraction of the puzzle for equivalency to in-person interactions.
> compared to the awkwardness of a zoom call where nobody is willing to even unmute to laugh since it draws focus away from whoever was previously talking
I've never noticed anyone doing that when on calls with friends. I have in meetings at work, but there people hide on mute because they don't really want to be there in the first place and are probably off aimlessly browsing the web or trying to catch up on actual work. In the scant few work meetings that are purposeful and engaging, however, I've found plenty of laughter.
An uncomfortable way to look at it, but the more freedom and convenience we acquire, the less social we end up being.
Starting with religion. I'm not religious myself, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge it as a powerful community builder. You'll get to know everyone in the community. Neighbors, business owners, friends, possible spouses. And their families and all their life events. There's no real replacement for this "forced" social bonding at scale.
Meeting friends used to require physical co-location. You'd ring their doorbell and asks if they're available to play. It would all be in-person. Now this happens occasionally but far less, a lot of this is digitized.
Early teenager years: boys live in their bedroom, gaming with a headset. Girls spent their time chatting or posting on social networks.
Later teenager years (party years). Far less in person. Some gatherings of friends at home, much less in public settings where you can meet new people.
Work: from home but even when in the office: increasingly virtualized due to outsourcing, complicated vendor models, etc.
Leisure: at home. Not just spending time on passive entertainment, also shipping shit to your door so that you don't have to go out and actually interact with people.
In the case that people do go out in the physical world, they see disengaged people. In a rush, unapproachable (always on phone).
We've become self-centered, anti-social. The old way which forced you to interact with the physical world and its people produced far healthier human beings.
The US must not be a low-trust society. You should try to live in an actual low trust society (where people can't trust institutions and instead revert to their family or clan). The US is not like that, people seem to trust other people they have never seen before because they trust things like justice or the US army or google or apple.
Other than that, it seems that things are progressing as normal. Since the times of the Enlightenment, there was this oxymoron of idealizing individual empowerment, while advocating that humans are social animals that must act collectively. Which is it? Well with today's technology and abundance people are drifting deliberately and decisively towards more individualism. Perhaps it is about ime to stop describing these things as 'problems' and realize that they are the new reality. Our politics worldwide is quite ancient , and not prepared for the next phase of individual empowerment. The places of the world that are stuck in collectivist mindsets are awfully deluded like Russia, or rigidly antiprogressive, like China.
This argument feels like an oversimplification to me.
These are only two examples of "collectivist" societies. The idea that you are either strongly individualist or China/Russia seems like a false dichotomy.
Some of the happiest societies in the world employee a model that is neither rigidly collectivist or individualist (e.g. the Nordic model).
My intuition is that the solution like probably in the middle ground at a political level, while adapting to our new digital reality.
The argument that our society must embrace full individualism or fail, feels a bit like the red-scare lite.
the nordics are probably the most individualists in europe. Look to the south for more collectivist cultures. The strong nordic state welfare actually enables people to be individualists. there s no argument about what society must do, but the evidence shows that people gravitate that way
They are collectivist in the sense that they pay very high taxes without trying to weasel themselves out of them. But yeah, they pay them so that they can actually live an individualistic life :)
> Some of the happiest societies in the world employee a model that is neither rigidly collectivist or individualist (e.g. the Nordic model).
Nordic societies are the most individualist societies on earth. Their policies are all about individual people and their wellbeing. They have no collectivist concept of a greater good that is above the individual. In Russia and China the concept of national rejuvenation is paramount above the individual. These nationalist visions are maximally collectivist. Trump is a lite version of this. The sociocultural construct of "America" and the sociolegal construct of "freedom" is supreme over the actual positive freedoms and negative freedoms of the individual. Self-described right-libertarians are often very collectivist in actual practice. You can't be anti-immigration and call yourself an individualist, it's a nationalist (and therefore collectivist) position.
> You can't be anti-immigration and call yourself an individualist, it's a nationalist (and therefore collectivist) position.
I don't neccessarily disagree with the rest of your post, but the above seems obviously false. Most anti-immigratio people are not for it because of some abstract ideas, but because they see immigrant as direct competitiors for their jobs. That was one of the biggest reasons behing Brexit votes for example.
I believe the motive is more ethnonationalist than is admitted to in polite circles. "Culture" or "jobs" is the euphemistic front, but the true reasons are fear of crime/terrorism, and fear of becoming a racial minority and the consequences that will have on their voting power and racial supremacy.
Anti-immigration that comes from fear of crime is collective guilt and collective punishment. Only a small minority of individuals will be criminals, but the entire collective is punished all the same. Anti-immigration that comes from fear of racial diversity or fear of cultural change, is also a collectivist motive, it's a more nationalistic and nativist iteration of collectivism than fear of crime.
If the earnest reason is jobs protectionism, I'd still argue that protectionism isn't individualist. It's not explicitly collectivist, but it's a suppression of individual rights for cynical reasons. At least, it's anti-individualist, if not collectivist.
> I believe the motive is more ethnonationalist than is admitted to in polite circles. "Culture" or "jobs" is the euphemistic front, but the true reasons are fear of crime/terrorism, and fear of becoming a racial minority and the consequences that will have on their voting power and racial supremacy.
In the Brexit case, it was white Eastern Europeans coming in to UK and taking over low-paying jobs. So, neither a threat of terrorism nor racial supremacy (they're all white). I guess one could be afaid of some regions losing its inherent British culture though.
> In the Brexit case, it was white Eastern Europeans coming in to UK and taking over low-paying jobs.
Perhaps true in many people's minds, but it largely seems to be the case that native Brits do not want to do those jobs. Either Brits tend to see themselves as "above that", or there is a serious shortage of workers in those areas (structural problem). Therefore, such jobs were left undone or severely delayed. The UK got what it literally asked for and is now finding out that it didn't actually want that.
Brexit was a mish mash of motives. Some of those motives were explicitly collectivist, others were anti-individualist if not collectivist.
Brexit was partly fear of Muslims, not just job competition with Eastern Europeans. You see this in the discussion around Syrian refugees from people like Nigel Farage, Douglas Murray and Sargon of Akkad. They wanted to exit the system that enabled that. This particular motive was collectivist.
In addition, Brexit was partly the typical arrogance and wounded ego you see from declining and fallen empires. The glory days are still fresh in people's minds. There's a feeling that Britain is on the decline. People couldn't accept the egalitarian terms and low status of being just another ordinary EU member state. This also is collectivist through and through.
It's deeply American to call Russia "collectivist". It's more similar to 1800s America, economically, than it is to the USSR. Oligarchs owning resource extraction for sale into capital markets.
Generally when people say "collectivist", they mean "bad guys in black hats and also I liked Ayn Rand"
Russia is collectivist not because of their economic system but because of their nationalism. National rejuvenation is prioritized above the prosperity and freedom of the individual.
That's just a narrative the ruling thugs use to explain to people while their lives continue to be shitty while the rest of the world keeps improving. Most people in Russia are brainwashed into believing that, even though they're not well off by any means on a personal level, Russia is a global superpower that can rival the US. BTW I wonder if the current absolute embarrasment of Russian Army in Ukraine will be able to speak some sense into Russian people - but, judging by what I see in the Internet, the official propaganda has already convinced Russians that their army is fighting against entire NATO forces and not just Ukrainian army (because obviously, just the Ukrainian army would be defeated in under a month).
Yeah, if anything, Russia is a hyper-individualist ultra-capitalist endstate of society - every man for himself, taking care only for himself and everything you need has to be paid for.
Even soldiers have to buy their own equipment with predatory loans from people that stole it from the army.
Calling Russia (heck or even China) "collectivist" is just repeating propaganda from expired times and show a horrifyingly poor education.
Every single highly individualistic society seems to be in population decline (more so if you factor out immigrants from “anti-progressive” Muslim or Catholic countries). Individualism seems to be a self-limiting feature of society: it’s unpleasant to raise children in highly individualistic societies, which makes such societies inherently transitory.[1]
Is societal self-obsolescence how you define “progress?” How successful can your society really be if your people don’t seem to want to raise kids in it and perpetuate it? If you have to import people from collectivist societies just to take care of your elderly?
[1] The inverse is not true—many collectivist societies are also facing population walls—but for quite different reasons.
But many collective societies are also facing similar issues of loneliness and isolation. This isn't just a western problem. We also see this same problem all across Asia: India, Japan, China, Korea. Some of these countries even had a rise in isolation before the US. I don't think it is a individualism vs collectivism issue, though I'm not going to dismiss it from the equation. I think it is that humans have just gotten comfortable as our lives have all tremendously benefited. We have little day to day problems. The problems we face now are much more abstract and existential than before, which tend to not be as motivating for adopting risky behavior.
As I noted, the inverse is not true--some collectivist societies are also declining. But the reasons are different. Some Asian societies really socialized an anti-natal mindset in the mid-20th century as a means of population control. China's one-child policy was the most brutal manifestation of that mentality. In the short run this was helpful to development. But unless they can break out of that cultural trap, in the long run it will destroy those societies.
I disagree. The issues Japan is facing look very similar to what the west is facing: loneliness. Here's a 12 year old article stating the same thing about Japanese men having no friends[0]. We see similar trends in Korea and even China. Yes, there are other contributions to the population declines. The parameters have different values, but I'm arguing that the same parameters exist. That the models are actually quite similar.
In China we are seeing the Lay Flat movement as a response to 996[1]. One could argue that the loneliness is forced upon these people because of their working hours, but I don't think that as different as you make it out to be. There definitely is a linkage to higher work hours and lower number of friends.
Both Japan and Korea have been strongly pro-natal basically forever, and both are staring into the abyss in terms of maintaining their native populations.
Both suffer from exactly the same set of problems:
(1) Massive numbers of people living in densely-packed, high-rise apartments. Population density inversely correlates to birthrates in developed countries.
(2) If you factor in Forced Fun Time and commuting, salarymen in Japan often work nearly all of their waking hours, six days per week. Korea is worse, from what I understand.
(3) The male population is deeply unfit here in Japan. This correlates strongly with low birthrates.
(4) Pay is very low. It is exceedingly difficult to raise a family on the average Japanese or Korean salary until you are in your late 30s or early 40s, by which time you don't have the energy or inclination.
(5) Whatever time, capital, and energy that remains is commonly spent on games, porn, and booze, all of which are highly profitable.
It's a downward spiral, and would take drastic action, most of which would cause significant short-term pain for the wealthiest chunk of the population. Ergo, it's not going to happen.
I think the same thing is happening all across the world: women are becoming more educated and independent and with birth control they choose to have less kids. That's also happening in the West.
How otherwise would you explain falling birth rates everywhere?
Indian is seeing falling rates and many places in the Middle East and Africa. This can't be explained by some government policy.
> This can't be explained by some government policy.
There are massive government programs to suppress the birth rate in India, the Middle East, and Africa, for development reasons. My dad spent his career working on those programs.
I'm unaware of any government intervention in say Iran or Lebanon yet the birth rate has dropped significantly there.
I do think in most of the world young people find themselves faced with unaffordable living costs and an uncertain economic future, which probably reduces the amount of kids they have, but that's not really intentional policy and it again comes back to my point that women can now choose not to have kids and even not to marry.
Yeah I find the conversations about population decline quite odd. We've seen the results of population explosion, and I don't think many agree that the results were great. But they also weren't that bad. I think people miss the point that (if you're a fellow Millennial) that when your parents were born there were less than half the number of people on the planet than there are today. I don't think rapid decline will be a good thing (just like rapid increase wasn't) but I don't think it is an existential crisis either.
But is there a significant difference between how much support very young (pre-adult) people and how much support elderly (post-retirement) people need? At some point during rapid population growth there were a lot of the former, and we managed OK. Now there's a lot of the latter, and not so many of the former.
As it is, many of the costs for elderly people seem to be about medical inventions to (arguably artificially) prolong life. I'd suspect that will become increasingly expensive, to the point that expectations around how much it's reasonable to spend on such treatment may change. As it is, COVID caused quite a significant increase in mortality among elderly populations - it was undoubtedly pretty awful for those directly involved, but society as a whole seems to have adjusted since.
> But is there a significant difference between how much support very young (pre-adult) people and how much support elderly (post-retirement) people need?
That's what I'm asking - both are very expensive. But we see supporting pre-adults as "investment" (education etc.), whereas it's hard to see it that way for the elderly - the selfish view would be that it's more like an insurance policy to give you confidence that society will still consider it important to care for the elderly when you join their ranks.
Young people are cared for in large groups via schools. They have no wealth or political power.
Old people can be very expensive, can still vote, and most will have a economic power for this specific generation.
In the past when you were a working couple with kids, you hoisted your kids into your grandparents to help raise and there was no opportunity cost. There’s no converse here.
Good luck passing legislation to reduce care for the old while they’re the largest chunk of the population.
I think the reason for it is that those conversations tend to focus on local community as it relates to society's ability to support its existing retirement model. This conversation is then repeated across multiple countries with varying degrees of intensity, urgency and political backing. In the old country ( Poland ) for example, in 2016 ruling party introduced a stipend for each kid[1]. The official results don't seem to support the approach though[2]. I guess my point is that it may be existential crisis for some communities more than others.
Naturally, it does not help that discussion of it almost invariably brings a question of overpopulation and all the baggage that brings.
America's population advantage over Europe gave it a significant edge over Europe during the 20th century. That aside, it is axiomatic that any functional culture should be able to maintain a fertility rate around the replacement rate.
Minorities can disproportionately succeed by having extreme in-group preference and solidarity, and something approaching a monopoly on some sort of highly profitable racket. They will end up in a position where they are despised, but protected. Where their in-group solidarity is called out as subversive hate, and they are attacked for this preference, pogroms ensue. I'll just out and say it, a lot of Whites are concerned their children will be treated the same way some of their medieval ancestors treated Jews.
The collectivist societies, like South Korea and Japan, are experiencing stronger and worse populations declines than highly individualistic societies.
They're not collectivist societies. South Korea in particular is effectively more American than America. From shopping-mall centric kpop to double eyelid surgery, no country has so thoroughly absorbed Western standards as SK has, and then some. Japan slightly less so, but not by much. Even China today is ruggedly individualistic with much less social trust than you'd find in Europe or the US. If anything funnily enough as some people have pointed out, countries like Britain now look like Japan did 20 years ago, they've if anything leapfrogged us at our own game.
I've traveled a lot, in particular Asia and I would struggle to name one country that actually deserves to be called collectivist.
I think the real issue is that "collectivist" and "individualist" are very crude terms that attempt to summarize a whole litany of cultural nuances.
My son just started 2nd grade here in Japan after being born and raised in the US (spouse is Japanese). It's really clear that here, children are socialized to think of the group to which they belong before themselves when contemplating their actions. Stated differently, people are socialized to identify strongly with the groups to which they belong.
Does this mean the society is "collectivist"? I don't really know. I do observe that many of the social activities involved in group cohesion here are viewed as somewhat burdensome obligations. I believe it was de Tocqueville who first observed the seemingly novel and unique way in which Americans viewed social association:
"When citizens can associate only in certain cases, they regard association as a rare and singular process, and they hardly think of it.
When you allow them to associate freely in everything, they end up seeing in association the universal and, so to speak, unique means that men can use to attain the various ends that they propose. Each new need immediately awakens the idea of association. The art of association then becomes, as I said above, the mother science; everyone studies it and applies it."
that is a very good point. I think what Japan really is and what you observe in the culture correctly is conformism. And paradoxically, it's the atomized nature and individualism that enables it.
A generalization that's often made about East-Asian countries is that they have weak civil societies and strong states and it's the latter I think that leads people in the West too easily to think of them as collectivist. But it's really the lack of spontaneous association (I like the Tocqueville quote) and the passivity that enable that situation.
The US in that sense is much more collectivist than we generally think, and one case for this in my opinion is the surprising energy that they can quickly gather to rally people behind a cause ,for example militarily. Americans are very quickly to mobilize and pursue quite abstract collective goals.
I would argue Japan and Korea at least maintain a degree of collectivism- in areas such as extended family living arrangements, support for local business and agriculture, and (ostensible) income and educational equality etc, but its actually all window dressing when your economy is thoroughly modernized on a western model. The economy is life and death- the thing that tells young people you have to move to Tokyo and join the rat race. Though in Japan at least I have seen encouraging trends of people opting out.
I've always thought Chaebols seemed like a kind of marriage between collectivism and capitalism. I certainly don't consider it American-style when it comes to capitalism.
As for shopping malls and other hardcore evidence of "Americanism", from what I've read the US still leads the world in retail shopping space by an embarrassing amount if anything.
As for K-pop, this is one I don't understand. How is it different from western boy/girl bands or for that matter J-pop, other than being export-oriented it seems.
Their success is a collective goal. They are created and maintained by the govt as well as supported by the public as a way of mainlining control over the economy versus foreign companies. The more collectivist countries and the more collectivist-oriented policies in mixed economies certainly do strive for the same things with the same tactics. So I obviously am not saying large US companies are devoid of collectivism or don't owe any success to it. But they are a smaller factor here.
Personally I suspect giant US companies arise out of courtroom victories more than any other factor. I'm not sure where to categorize that exactly. Maybe Beurocratism. At least it has a kind of impartiality to it, though also tending to benefit the market leader the most in its own way.
Are they, if you factor out immigration? As far as I know, in Europe, the recent-ish immigrants are propping up birth rates, but they adapt to the average in two or three generations.
Which societies are even still growing? I thought that even developing countries were falling off in birthrates. I assume the world in 2100 will be mostly Amish people and Israelis at this rate (and the oceans will be a couple meters higher too).
Birth rates dropped to below replacement rate in the 70s near universally among developed countries, far before many of them became increasingly more individualistic.
American culture and attitude seeping into most of those countries kicked into overdrive the 21st century, but birthrates were already low by then.
It's just nature's way of filtering out people who like sex but don't want kids.
Prior to birth control, having a genetic predisposition toward liking sex was enough. In the future, most people will also have a genetic or cultural disposition towards wanting kids.
Exactly this. A couple of centuries from now, people will laugh about that time people thought that the population will collapse.
Most likely, there is an enormous selection pressure right now for any genes that predispose people (and in particular women) to want to have (many) kids. If those genes are as common as I believe, they should be dominant within about 10 generations (counting from approximately 1970).
And that selection pressure hasn't existed for the entire history of life? I don't think genetics have nearly as much to do with it because we are not living in a "state of nature" where genetics are the dominant factor in reproductive fitness. Even Richard Dawkins recognized this many decades ago when he coined the term "meme" to refer to the units of cultural lineage that clearly influence evolutionary fitness by altering the behavior of the people who hold them.
edit: I mean, you're not wrong, but I'd posit that there is enormous selection pressure for memes that promote fertility.
> And that selection pressure hasn't existed for the entire history of life?
Not at all. For most of evolutionary time, organisms didn't even have any kind of cognitive capacity at all (being single celled organisms). Even after brains started to develop, mating behavior was primarily instinctual. And even up until this day in humans, the sexual drive may easily overpower any desire to prevent pregnancy if people (and women in particular) doesn't have access to birth control.
Arguably, the sexual drive may have been so strong that there may have been a selection pressure favoring INHIBATION of reproductive behavior (K selection).
Especially so in females, as under some conditions, having fewer offspring and investing more in each may provide a higher number of surviving offspring than giving birth to more, but with less investment in each. Without birth control, even K-selection strategies ended up with 5 or so offspring per woman, on average, with about 2-3 surviving children on average.
With child survival rates near 100%, K-selection strategies are now strongly disfavored compared to r-selection strategies, even without birth control. (So r-selection has probably been selected for at some level for the past 150 years or so in the West). Birth control simply multiplies this effect.
> because we are not living in a "state of nature"
This, I'm sure, is a fallacy. The rate of genetic adaptation is directly linked to the strength of selection pressures, where "selection pressures" are not just survival rates, but rather the number of surviving offspring.
To quote wikipedia: "Contrary to popular belief, not only are humans still evolving, their evolution since the dawn of agriculture is faster than ever before"
> "meme" to refer to the units of cultural lineage that clearly influence evolutionary fitness by altering the behavior of the people who hold them.
Memes (as coined by Dawkins, not the pop culture use) are their own replicators. They code for the replication of thoughts and ideas.
Memes are not very tightly coupled to the physical fleshbags they inhabit. Like regular viruses, they often pass from host to host laterally, even though some forms are often transferred to children.
But there is no reason to think that this has limited genetic evolution (meaning adaptation, not necessarily "improvement"). This is basically orthogonal to whatever the memes are doing. (Though there is an interaction term where genes and memes form part of the natural environment of each other as replicators).
Genes may not be the dominant factor in reproductive fitness right now, but unlike for memes, the relative frequency of genes depend directly on reproductive fitness, meaning whatever variance DOES ALREADY exist in the genome for reproductive fitness are under a massive selection pressure right now.
For many, if not most memes, reproductive the reproductive fitness of the hosts has little impact on the ability of the meme to replicate. For some memes (or meme-plexes) like religions, one _could_ argue that they attach themselves strongly enough to families that they are inherited in a way similar to genes.
However, I would argue that memes can lose this power much more quickly than genes can. Just consider how quickly Christianity have been losing power over most Western linages lately.
Meanwhile, genes will continue to build up momentum for as long as the selection pressure remains. Currently, that pressure is for women to WANT to have children. While cultural effects may come and go, any genes coding directly for that will be reinforced. If these genes already exist, this will take a few hundred years. If mutations are needed, it could take 10x longer.
Eventually, though, if the selection pressure persists, having babies will have the same pull on female brains as sugar, sex or serotonin-inducing social affirmation.
At some point, though, REAL overpopulation is likely to be a limiting factor. Real, as in famine or disease will place a hard cap and re-introduce child mortality rates of 50%+.
> Memes are not very tightly coupled to the physical fleshbags they inhabit.
Which is why the most successful memes are those which induce an artificial coupling, e.g. religious beliefs that infuse culture so thoroughly that they are passed from parent to offspring essentially by default. All the major world religions do this to some extent, and it's on vivid display in the more cult-like sects.
> Currently, that pressure is for women to WANT to have children. While cultural effects may come and go, any genes coding directly for that will be reinforced.
Perhaps the fundamental disagreement here is about whether or not the extent to which a woman "wants" children is encoded primarily in genes. I have trouble believing that, on the whole, genes have anything more than a marginal influence on birth rates in the presence of freely available contraception. I could be wrong. But there's probably a reason why at least one major religion forbids the use of contraception. That looks a lot like a meme that has taken matters into its own hands, genes be damned.
I believe desire to procreate is just as much caused by environmental factors.
In particular, living in cities vs living in the country. If the organism sees "resources and space and hard to come by" (like, say, living in NYC), it will put the fertility program "on hold" until it finds sees "there is an abundance of space and resources" (for example, living in a bucolic countryside with ample food around).
The drop in birth rate since the industrial era has nothing to do with genes, and everything to do with urbanization, at least from where I'm standing. :)
Not at all. I'm merely assuming that there is a non-zero genetic component.
> The drop in birth rate since the industrial era has nothing to do with genes, and everything to do with urbanization, at least from where I'm standing. :)
I completely agree. Well, urbanization and other, related environmental factors (even farmers have fewer kids than before).
When you change environment for any species, there is a possibility that reproduction rates go down, sometimes radically. For instance, if you put cheetahs in a zoo, you're not likely to get many cubs. From a reproductive perspective, a zoo is a very hostile environment for a cheetah, even if they are guaranteed enough food, a qualified vet and have no risk of being killed by lions.
Still, over time (and unless the population goes to zero), when facing an environmental change that is hostile in the short term, the species will adapt to the new environment. When this adaptation only requires a change in relative frequency of already existing genes in the genepool, this can go very quickly. (Which is perhaps the greatest benefit of sexual reproduction.) If it requires a string of mutation, it can take a very long time.
Maybe in some places Muslims and Morons will prevent collapse. Just maybe, though, as many factors can prevent that.
In other places, like China and Japan, I don't find it likely at all that Muslims or Mormons will be allowed to do so.
Still, given enough time, genes will adapt to the new pressures of female choice and birth control. That could be a few hundred years (at most) for genes already present in the gene pool, or a few thousand if mutations are needed.
A quote from a prof in college (that he perhaps wouldn’t say today for fear that it might be misinterpreted):
“You don’t understand evolution unless you understand how contraception could cause overpopulation.”
I do wonder if this falling population in developed countries trend will last more than 1-2 more generations. We’d better have the rockets ready to go by 2100.
Wouldn't it be far easier to colonize Earth ocean floors than to colonize Mars? Both are seem similarly hopeless, but ocean floors seem easier, just because of transportation difficulties alone.
Taking it to its logical conclusion, it’s nature’s way of filtering out people who either (a) have good short term but poor long term planning, or (b) have good impulse control.
> having a genetic predisposition toward liking sex was enough
Maybe re-read that a few times. Is it reasonable to believe that a significant portion of the population would not like sex? Is there any possible evolutionarily-sound explanation for that?
> You should try to live in an actual low trust society (where people can't trust institutions and instead revert to their family or clan).
I live in the US but grew up in a society closer to low trust. Lots of pros and cons to both, but I think one thing you are overlooking is that there are things a family/clan provide that are not replaceable by institutions or other things.
No institution will provide the same moral support when a loved one passes away that family/clan does. No institution will blindly stand up for you, no questions asked. There are downsides to these types of societies, but there is a lot of value to these types of bonds/relationships. Less about trust, more about care. You are never emotionally isolated (even if you really want to be). You're always interconnected.
> No institution will blindly stand up for you, no questions asked.
which i think is good - blindly standing up for someone, and unfettered loyalty, is not a sign of a good, rational democracy.
Families do that, but even then, only to an extend. Your position should be defensible by a fair institution, but only if your position is _actually_ something defensible as agreed to by society at large.
I believe this is why the U.S. has such a large gang culture in ubran areas. Everybody wants to feel like they belong to something, and if they don't get that through family, then they turn to their local street for that.
In Europe, it's the football hooligans. They're quite large groups (thousands of people in every major city) that spend time together and fight together (against police and other hooligan groups). It's like US gangs, but without making money aspect and luckily mostly without guns.
> The US is not like that, people seem to trust other people they have never seen before because they trust things like justice or the US army or google or apple.
I'm not sure what you mean by "trust", beyond small interactions like say...taking a photo with a phone for them or helping them with the door. I can say, confidently, the vast majority of American's do not trust strangers. FUD permeates every news outlet and as economics get more desperate (most live in economic long tail) opportunists are rightly feared and seen everywhere. Litigation is unusually high in the US. US society has even begun to socially monetize the predictable nature of humanity with baited porch pirate prizes and hazard-trapped bike theft, etc.
Those ‘small’ interactions maybe benign for you but where I grew up there was non 0% chance they’d take the phone and run away if I asked them to take photo. I don’t think you truly appreciate how much trust your country has.
Some families have been trained to choose not to ask someone for any reason. There is also the common experience that someone will say no or ignore your request for photo-taking in the US (as well as there being a nonzero chance they run with it). The underlying issue is it's more about trust in risk management. Who wants to get a possible $1000 ticket and probation for a 200$ phone? There are much easier ways to snag a phone (bars, resorts, pickpocketing, etc). A thief certainly isn't going to do it at somewhere like Disneyland or Mount Rushmore, where there's a zero chance that you'll get away if there's an incident. Is it really about trust in the people? Not in the way the article describes.
I don't know enough about the Eiffel Tower, since I was focusing on the US, where I have decades of experiences.
Disneyland has active cameras over every visible square inch of the part (including along the floors, dark corners, under the trash cans, et al). The Disneyland agents acting as tourists also roam the park and monitor suspicious activity. Anaheim's Disneyland is easily the most monitored public space on the planet. Pickpockets can still move about, but they don't tend to take phones from people in the open and then run with them. My comments were in the context of existing overt trust, not the gamut of every possible criminal activity. Pickpocketing, confidence schemes, violence, etc notwithstanding. The movie, "Welcome to the Giftshop", which is partly about Banksy, makes note of how Disneyland is harder to do something overt than the manned wall between Israel and Palestine.
Rushmore National Memorial is a difficult place to commit crimes in for other reasons. First, there are very few roads that come in and go out. The walkway up, that is commonly traveled, is lengthy, not very densely populated, and requires going through the giftshop. It's remote in a practical way, making it a very simple place to lockdown (just like Disneyland). Second, it's got enough federal employees to quickly act and they tend to do so with wide authority. Any sort of overt activity at the park, would be far more risky than going down the road to one of the bordering tourist trap towns 10 minutes away in multiple directions.
That kind of trust, trust in institutions. people litigate and trust that teh state will resolve things, and they also trust that the law will prevail. Not trust in the sense of safety , that only happens in very homogeneous/cohesive societies
There are countries in which, if you let in a contractor crew to your house to do any kind of work, you have to watch them like a hawk because they're likely to steal from you if you're not looking. Businesses will routinely take advantage of you not being careful and cheat you. etc. US and western Countries in general have little to no of that, and that enables a lot of trust. In Germany, it's even common for Internet shops to send goods to custmers before receiving payment (the customer can pay up to two weeks after getting e.g. their new iPhone or laptop). Think of how much scams that would generate in many third world countries.
I don't know that it follows that it's a deliberate shift towards individualism, or if society is effectively pidgeonholing people into these behaviors.
And I m not sure about declining trust either (despite what people say). people are much less likely to solve interpersonal differences face-to-face rather than through a public impersonal institution , it's just that institutions change , now we have large private-sector agents running our lives , and too many of them are in the tech sector
This is not what an oxymoron is (that would be something like individualist community). There is no direct contradiction between individualism and our social aspect, we have always been social and we invented societies and institutions to make space for individual freedom. When these institutions and societies collapse the individual swallowed by larger structures.
People have these kinds of simplistic notions and then argue against pulic spaces, but those are required for individualism to be possible in the first place and once they are privatized and accepted there will be no individuals just googlers/metaers/amazoners people subsumed into a larger hierarchical community (neofeudalism).
I'm not sure you have the correct definition of a low trust society. If the US was a low trust society due to it's gun ownership Mad Max would be more than a movie. In fact, Mad Max is a perfect example of a low trust society. All but the most degenerate Americans believe murder is wrong... so I'm not sure what kind of point you're making about guns. That alone is a shared ethical value. An important one, too!
America is very high trust. It still has something that resembles a democracy, private property rights, businesses, etc. All of this signal that Americans can have shared ethical values - a fundamental point of high(er) trust societies. None of these would be possible if people fundamentally didn't trust each other. Despite what the media portrays Americans as almost none of it is true.
Do people in low trust societies see murder as acceptable? That seems unlikely to me. I suppose one problem even with the discussion is that killing another human is sometimes acceptable; murder is by definition the unlawful killing of a person as defined by that society.
Nevertheless, doesn't the US have the highest murder rate in the developed world? Again, it does not sound like something I'd associate with high trust.
A couple questions occur to me as well - how does gun ownership correlate with high and low trust society (by your definition). And I'm sure this exists on a spectrum and societies will change over time, so which way would you think the US is trending?
How you treat the "other" is the measure of a low trust society. Murder is wrong and not tolerated within the clan, but violence towards the "other" is ignored and in some cases encouraged.
Yes, there are hate crimes in America but they make the news and promoted to the FBI. This helps build trust.
Gun ownership correlates to a desire to defend yourself from out-groups. You expect people to behave according to the set of ethics you and your countrymen follow. A gun is a tool to provide oneself a way to insure their own life. You can have a high trust society. That doesn't mean that crime doesn't happen, nor does it mean the (theoretically benevolent) police can respond in time to save you. High trust does not imply victimhood. A high trust society is generally cohesive and has a shared set of moral and ethical values that allow for kinship and constructive work. High trust societies with firearms are generally safe - as America is.
Gun deaths have trended down dramatically since the 60s (source: FBI) and with all but a few unfortunate locations in the US you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than shot. Ignoring suicide, the US is a very safe place much to chagrin of the yellow journalists. This sounds exactly like a high trust society to me. If it was low trust, every street corner would be dangerous. Chicago, for example, is a microcosm of a low trust society. Most of Africa is low trust. Afghanistan is low trust. Clan-based warfare is a sign of low trust. China, for example, is a (somewhat) high trust society yet has incredibly restrictive firearms laws.
> And I'm sure this exists on a spectrum and societies will change over time, so which way would you think the US is trending?
According to the actual FBI data released in the last several years gun deaths continue to decline from record highs 60 years ago. The vast majority of murders are gang related (a cultural problem), and the vast, vast majority of remaining data is taken up by suicides. As far as I can tell not only is the US a high trust society in general (I can open a business anywhere, I can buy a home anywhere, I can generally expect someone to be kind to me), it's also safe despite it's gun ownership. The anti-gunners always seem to ignore cultural differences in countries. For example, comparing Sweden or Finland to the US. These are still culturally homogeneous. The US is a veritable melting pot of 10,000 different cultures. This has a dramatic effect that people avoid talking about because it is politically incorrect. In this sense the US can be viewed as a lower-tier of high trust due to the lack of cultural homogeneity. Though I would still argue on fundamentals the US itself is very high trust, albeit somewhat awkward and very self-deprecating.
I think your issue trying to resolve high trust is stemming from the media portrayal of the US. As someone who spends every waking moment here, and many moments outside of metros, I just don't see what horrors the media reports. If it does exist, it's somewhere else (and I honestly can't be bothered to worry about it).
> According to the actual FBI data released in the last several years gun deaths continue to decline from record highs 60 years ago.
That isn't exactly my understanding, at least over the last couple years - didn't 2020 bring a sharp rise in homicides (along with gun ownership)? Perhaps I'm just a bit sensitive since I tend to hear gunshots at night every so often and a police officer just gunned a man down in his car for nothing more than eating a burger in my neighborhood just a few weeks ago. Last I heard he was still on life support.
But overall I have to say that my experience of living in the US just feels like being trapped in a box with lurking predators everywhere. Everywhere you go, there's some scam or hidden fee (which doesn't really feel that different from a bribe now that I think about it) that someone is just waiting to spring on you. God forbid if you need some kind of healthcare - no one can tell you what anything will cost, but they will bill you something, probably a lot. I get that that might not meet the definition of low trust, but it doesn't feel like high trust either.
> If the US was a low trust society due to it's gun ownership...
I think you have the causality backward here
> America is very high trust...
We're as polarized as ever, virtually no one approves of our leadership, and everyone thinks corporations or "the media" or "the deep state" or some faceless billionaire is behind the scenes pulling the strings.
So no, there's no trust in this country. You've confused trust with apathy and defeat.
We have such an absence of '3rd space' areas, otherwise called 'community spaces' that literally the language seems to be missing, and we can nary fathom it into the analysis!
I would have imagined that the entire discussion would have been about that. I'm originally from a small town where it's almost entirely a '3rd space' - even the homes.
Sitting with my grandmother for lunch, literally random people would walk in to 'say hi' - or not really 'hi' but rather to talk/pass on something 'really important' such as the cousin of the shop keeper who passed on, and that's his family at the funeral parlour - because of course you ought to know. etc..
There is a great intellectual in personal freedom in being able to leave the community, at the same time, civil society has not created a replacement; frankly it's obvious and sad.
Perhaps even more perverse are generations of people who have never known what was, and have no frame of reference for it.
Our leaders don't give it a thought and many would be leaders who might otherwise speak for traditional communities either lack the communication skills, are caught up in other bad ideas, or are pushed aside as relics in favour of some ideological meme.
I think this is a first order cultural issue, like healthcare and social assistance. I'm not sure we have even the language to address it, as usually the most academic individuals want to talk about the most progressive ideas and 'change' of some kind. Perhaps there is hope, in that often we just find a 'new way' to describe some otherwise traditional concept. 'Organic gardens' being a good example of that; in my hometown, many people have 'organic gardens' - because they've just always had 'gardens', and really never did use a chemicals, ergo, they were hip before it was hip. Perhaps the term '3rd Space' can substitute in a similar manner to describe what we've understood since the dawn of time in social terms, i.e. 'the community'.
When I was a 10 or something we used to gather together and watch tv with neighbours kids, we used to borrow things from our neighbours! My mother and other kids mothers used to sit and have tea and chitchat and spend time together. It was to the point that we could go to our friends house anytime and maybe even sit and have lunch with them (no invitation or preparation was needed).
Comparing that with today small town that I live it feels more like people are living in in isolation cells rather than a community.
Yes, 'Families' are a fairly foundational artifact of the '3rd space' concept.
It's a bit of a sensitive social issue which relates to 'someone at home', obviously almost always the mother. I have no doubt whatsoever that women having the chance to work, contribute etc. is very material progress, at the same time, I have no doubt that 'homemakers' add tremendous value. The former we measure in terms of productivity, GDP etc. the later, again, it's 'externalized' from our data and language, and kind of 'shamed' a bit in some circles so we just don't talk about it.
In 2022 I kind of just assume the world is fairly gender-less in most respects so I'm always shocked to see this kind of data which shows substantial numbers of women (relative to men) preferring to stay at home. It's still about 50% [1]. I've seen other, more nuanced data that puts it a bit more subtly: men mostly prefer to work full time (but definitely not all), women substantially prefer to work part time with almost equal cohorts wanting full time work vs. stay at home full time. I think the 'part time' concept rings interesting, because it may feel aspirational or 'best of both worlds' for at least some people (men included) who kind of want to spend time with young children, but not be 'locked in the home'.
And finally, we are living a lot longer and so ratio of families with children is smaller, which affects the numbers.
> In 2022 I kind of just assume the world is fairly gender-less in most respects so I'm always shocked to see this kind of data
It is almost as if humans have gender/sex related predispositions and are not a tabula rasa for the society to scribe on, as the far left would like to claim..
I would suggest the Blueprint by Robert Plomin, a fascinating read.
> We have such an absence of '3rd space' areas, otherwise called 'community spaces'
From my perspective the spaces are numerous. It is people wanting to use them that is absent. Everywhere you go the question from those running them is the same: How can we attract more people here?
The problem may actually be that we have too many third space areas, which has spread them all too thin. Nobody wants to go to a third space to sit alone.
'3rd space' is a conceptual 'space', not a physical space. It just means places shared by a local community wherein there are material social connections: aka 'Bowling Club', 'Ladies Auxiliary of the local veterans association', the 'Church', the 'greasy diner'.
Notably a lot of restaurants/cafes used to be '3rd spaces' - but they've often been replaced with corporatized chains. Starbucks, funny enough effectively 'brands' their cafes as '3rd spaces' with the comfy chairs etc. but they are in reality, not really 3rd spaces. Just the 'feeling and appearance' of it.
In my local suburban Starbucks there are little 'cheerful sticky notes' ostensibly written by community members, alas, they are not. They are mostly the same handwriting; the little bits of 'cheer' were handed down to the manager from corporate HQ, to be 'passed off as' community notes, so as to substitute for the sentiment of the local folks, who obviously can't be trusted to be 'on brand'. I find that a deeply cynical form of 'marketing'.
> It just means places shared by a local community wherein there are material social connections: aka 'Bowling Club', 'Ladies Auxiliary of the local veterans association', the 'Church', the 'greasy diner'.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Those groups are all trying to figure out how to attract people. Such groups are found all over the place, with a small group of people desperately trying to make something of them, but are all struggling to establish a community.
The outcome I see over and over again is that the dedicated few end up taking the club/organization/group on as a job and plan one or two events each year that brings out the larger community. And it works for one night only, but then people go back to living their lives and the dedicated few get back to work to make it happen again next year.
The problem is that these people don't really want a job. The hard work is just the only avenue they see to support their dream of building the community they want to exist in. But it's a struggle because there is so much competition for one's time.
I posit that there are too many third spaces that have spread too thin and as they become thin it becomes less likely that anyone else wants to become a member of their community. Nobody wants to sit alone. If the bowling club, ladies auxiliary, church, etc. came together there would be a better chance of a community starting to build, but that would mean letting go of competing interests and in a world that has become accustomed to never ending choice that is a hard pill to swallow.
Maybe that's what people say. Their actions show other preferences though - most people choose to mindlessly either channel-surf their TV or scroll their phones in free time. Unfortunately, human brain is inherently lazy and will usually go for the easiest option, especially when one is tired (e.g. in the evening after work). I don't see community spaces ever coming back to become a thing again.
It's possible you don't have experiences with community spaces?
My father is getting up there in terms of age, and hangs out with his buddies every single day after 'work time' (most of them don't work). They go to each others garage, hang out, have a beer, watch you tube, talk about nothing.
If your buds were all within walking distance you might find yourself in the same position, as I gather would most people.
Go to a country where modern culture has not taken over and you see the same.
> Their actions show other preferences though - most people choose to mindlessly either channel-surf their TV or scroll their phones in free time.
We're talking about third spaces. People will definitely sit alone in their first space quite happily. They will not sit alone at the bowling alley or at church, however. These communities require a sufficient population of members to be compelling.
> I don't see community spaces ever coming back to become a thing again.
Or perhaps the once-a-year events I spoke of earlier are simply the evolution of third spaces? The people absolutely come out to them, and there are many throughout the year so an individual is never short of a community event to involve themselves in. In that sense the community spaces have never gone away. You no longer find the specificity like "I'm in a bowling club. That's what I do." it is more like "I am going to the bowing event this week, the church event next week, the ladies auxiliary the next night..."
> We're talking about third spaces. People will definitely sit alone in their first space quite happily. They will not sit alone at the bowling alley or at church, however. These communities require a sufficient population of members to be compelling.
My point was - if there was indeed a need to create such spaces, they'd be there in spades. But, reality is, people are just happy to sit alone in their houses now, so the community spaces don't get created. It was already observed in villages in Poland in the 1970s. Before that time, people were meeting each other in the evenings, as there was nothing better to do. After roughly 1970, most people got TV, and in the evenings streets became empty and you could see a TV glow through each house's window. Now, with Internet and social media, it's even worse.
That was also my point. There are too many groups spreading themselves too thin. If those groups all trying to do their own thing came together, there would be a greater chance of finding the community that they seek, but at the cost of it not being geared towards their particular interest.
> Those groups are all trying to figure out how to attract people.
I guess because they are all far removed from the needs of younger generations. The church for obvious reasons, greasy diner because people want healthy food options. Bowling still seems kind of popular but mostly with families.
We need new community spaces that match the needs of new generations. I'm not sure I have the answer for what they are, but maybe a place that does good food and has areas for hosting whatever events and workshops people want to put on?
Or maker/hacker/art spaces?
Besides that, we need to reorganize our society so that people have some free time and financial security while working a reasonable number of hours, even for entry level and low skill jobs.
If everyone is stressing about their financials and has no spare money/time to enjoy life, find friends, and pursue hobbies, then I'm afraid we live in a kind of low-level dystopia and no amount of "3rd spaces" will fix that.
That's probably the need right there. The younger generations are off spending their time carting their kids around from sports league to dance class to who knows what. They don't have time for anything else. In the age of "my kids must do everything to outcompete the other kids", that becomes one's life.
You see a short window between leaving college (which brings its own community) and starting a family where the young ones join these communities, but it is indeed short lived once family starts to overwhelm them.
Those children activities do provide a community of sorts for the parents, but it's also a little more insular as unless you have kids that are involved you're not really welcome into those communities and likely would feel out of place even if you were welcomed not having what everyone else is bonding over.
I wonder how much of the lack of close friends is due to people moving more frequently. After college most of my close friends did a stint in various cities making it very difficult to maintain a relationship with them. I’d be curious to see a graph of reported close friendships against mobility.
Along with low density car based transport. Used to live in the suburbs a few years ago and had very few social interactions because there was way too much friction. Easier to just play video games or watch TV. Now I live in a high rise and have a few friends in the same building. Social events are spontaneous, I'll get a message like "Hey we are having a party now, come down to level 5" so I end up spending a lot of time with friends and building social groups.
I like this explanation and the one in the parent comment quite a bit. Rather than a grand thesis about internet / social media [0] / polarization that one's likely to see in a think-piece, it's the little things about how we've chosen to structure our society. These things that seem like trivial inconveniences [1], like just making some new friends when yours have moved away, or if you live the suburbs just taking that 20 minute drive whenever you want to see someone, end up having a disproportionate impact on our behaviour. After all, we evolved in an environment where one was pretty much automatically embedded in a community, with very little effort required to socialize other than following the social norms of the tribe.
One other thing I'd also point to is network effects. If lots of people are all finding it easier to be online all the time rather than be social, then for any given person, that results in a reduced number of potential friends.
[0] I would actually put some blame on social media for being a poor substitute for socialization, but just good enough that it makes people less likely to dig themselves out of being isolated. But blaming the internet in general, including things like blogs makes as little sense as blaming books.
That sounds pretty cool. Although is it common for people to make friends in the same building and hang out? Or are you super social compared to average? I am guessing you just chat to people in corridors?
It kinda depends. For the first year I lived here I didn't know anyone else in the building but one existing friend moved in after me and then the owners corp set up some community events like a gardening club for the shared garden area that help. You do talk to people a bit in the corridors but honestly the vast majority of the time you enter or exit there will be no one in them and you might see a particular person leave at the same time as you once every few months.
Even when I didn't know others in the building. My central location is right next to the main public transport hub which made it super easy for my existing friends to get in, and not worry about how they are getting home after drinking because its a 5 minute walk to the train station.
Anecdotally, this is relatively common. You have a lot of incidental social contact with other residents unless you go out of your way to avoid it. I've met some pretty interesting people this way.
Having lived in apartments a lot, you one makes friends in those. I found it a lot easier to make friends in suburbs after meeting people in local bars.
Wow, if there are bars, your suburbs are quite different to the ones here! One of the primary reasons I refuse to live in anything that looks even a little bit like a suburb is because I want to have a choice of bars (I’d settle for one…) to walk to.
I'm curious about this too. I moved 7000 miles from my home town without much thought. It was just exciting. I've been here 20 years. I can still contact my close friends from home but we connect only once every year or 2. I'm severely torn between my current country of residence and the fact that, counting the years, I'll only see my parents a few more times before they pass away given I only see them once every year to 2 as I live so far away.
It often crosses my mind, I fully love the experiences I've had and the friends I made abroad but if I could do it over, I sometimes think, knowing what I know, I'd not choose to do it again. Sure, I'd give up those experiences and those friends but I'd have different experiences and different friends. My sister, who stayed put, clearly, by nearly anyone's definition, has had a full life of friends and family and achievements etc..., and she has none of the tradeoffs have having left loved ones behind and having to choose between them.
Geographical mobility has declined as social trust has declined, so the correlation is the inverse of what you're describing.
If anything the lack of social trust has made people more attached to their families and less willing to make a move. At least that's one explanation of the known mobility data.
I see the collapse of authority as mostly a product of more information at our fingertips. The authorities were always lying double-dealers; we just had less of a clue of the extent of it.
In that way, I see the collapse of institutional trust as a good thing. Not because I'm an anarchist or iconoclast, but because systems built upon illusions are less stable than systems built upon truths.
We are in the process of a shift from an unstable equilibrium to a stable equilibrium. That shift is shaking a lot of people loose from society's safety nets, but ultimately will lead to a better place. It had to be done.
> Not because I’m an anarchist or iconoclast, but because systems built upon illusions are less stable than systems built upon truths.
be careful with that one. if you dig far enough there may not be enough truths upon which to build something cohesive. if you believe the individual in a secular society already creates illusions for themselves in order to get by (e.g. purpose/meaning), maybe similar illusions are necessary for even the smallest of social systems.
Maybe rephrase as "systems built upon unnecessary illusions" is better.
Finding forbidden love across religious or ethnic lines is a triumph of the truth of our shared humanity over the illusion of group differences. Finding meaning in the face of heat death, well that's an illusion we all have to play along with.
I think it's far easier to strip away illusions that suck than it is to build a worldview from scratch. Thankfully the former seems to be our modus operandi so most people never have to try the second option.
forgive me if i’m overstating things you already know, but these are lesser explored concepts for me. property/ownership is an illusion. rights (human/animal/etc) are an illusion. the clean division between child and adult (legally responsible for their actions, granted voting power), or between unborn human and legal citizen with above rights, is an illusion.
achieving coherence across these illusions is what authority does. this authority creates a new illusion — the rule of law — to enforce coherence across individual variations along these illusions of rights/etc. some structure (courts, penal system, representative democracy, …) appear as apparatus to better define/protect the base illusions.
but which of these illusions are “necessary”? can a society flourish without believing in property? can it flourish if it doesn’t believe that humans are exceptional when it comes to the issue of rights? can it flourish if it doesn’t believe rule of law is the way to define these illusions?
these illusions are necessary to today’s state-based societies. some of them were considered unnecessary as recently as when the West was being settled, and many are outright contradictory to tribal or nomadic lifestyles of the past.
if societies built upon fewer “unnecessary illusions” are to be better, more stable, then where does that put us? initially it seems at odds with historical developments, though the illusions i highlighted probably exaggerate that.
The emergence of a shared global culture, especially online, and especially spoken in one language, is momentous historically. After thousands of years of separation by geography, which produced cultural differentiation and foreignness, we are now starting to come together with one culture and one language. This is a stable equilibrium because it's global rather than local.
That's the view from the cockpit. My view from the ground also suggests it's not catastrophic. I'm an early digital native. Twenty-five years after access to the internet, I now have a spouse whom I met online and two children. I work remotely and spend most of my waking time online. I have no friends outside family, which could be better but it's not catastrophic as shown by my ability to create a family and carve out some life for myself. I've adapted.
Maybe I am just an optimist. Really the status quo ante was untenable and we must move forward and make the best of what we have.
Man you really haven't visited much of the internet, it's communitarianism land. We all agree on fluffy cats and rick rolls but that's no culture, once you start digging it's the wild west, if not the crusades
And if anything most of it is extremely US centric. I think you're in a bubble inside of a bubble and are completely oblivious to most of what's outside of these bubbles, and that's a feature of internet as we built it, a personalised content distributor that mostly show you what you want to be shown
The collapse of old systems isn't creating a new more global and encompassing system, it's creating very highly individualistic groups/tribes mentality, as, if not more, fragmented than before
> I work remotely and spend most of my waking time online. I have no friends outside family
If this is the future you're trying to sell us... how bleak
There is no shared global culture forming online. It’s deeply fractured multicultures that have very little in common with each other. You assume everyone is in your bubble but everyone has their own bubble and the cultures are in direct opposition.
There is a large online community that participates in English across many nationalities, but there are also many vibrant online communities that do not use English and are compromised of a smaller subset of nationalities. It seems like these are really hidden away from monolingual English speakers.
For those who speak English or want to learn it is a great opportunity to reach across national identities, but , at the same time, I don't really foresee the other communities disappearing.
It's always peculiar to encounter a Westerner who is suddenly woke to how they of all countries are being lied to by their governments.
Two questions:
1. What are the sources of information that convinced you that your authorities were always lying double-dealers?
2. What prevents you, living in a democracy, from using your freedom of political speech to convey the above to others and convince them to vote for authorities who are not always lying or for laws that punish lying? (Since you are not an anarchist, you must assume non-lying authorities are possible)
1. The fallout from the Iraq War. As to why Vietnam or Watergate did not do the same, well I wasn't alive then and children are credulous.
2. It's not about choosing the right authority. It's about first, creating a trusting culture backed by truths so the trust is well-placed, and second, about designing institutions that are fail-safe given what I now know about the nature of power and the people it attracts.
Thanks, this is reasonable. Sometimes people respond in ways that make it clear they are pushing someone's agenda or conspiracy theorizing.
Yes, the problem with power is that even in many democracies it seems too easily convertible to money and attracts greedy people.
I suspect such greed is a psychological pathology, but in addition to treating it the system could somehow make power inconvenient and unprofitable to attract "irrational" people who are crazy in the right way to want to actually make things better rather than turn a profit. This does probably sound quite un-American and I don't know how it could be implemented.
I am somewhat hazy on the politics of the Iraq war but I'll look it up.
I'm not the person you replied to, but just wanted to add something to help answer Q2. Communicating information to a large fraction of the populace is generally pretty hard because there are so many memes competing for attention, and true information doesn't necessarily spread faster than false information. Even so, it's pretty much common knowledge that the Iraq war was based on a falsehood, so communication does work well enough at least some of the time. Okay, so suppose we now collectively know that most politicians are liars and will have no issue with lying when it's convenient for them and they expect to get away with it. I think it's very common to find people who think this in western countries, actually.
Now how do we vote in such a way as to make sure we elect non-liars? Being a liar is not always visible, but maybe we can determine it by looking at whether the candidate lied while holding previous offices, and whether or not they get caught in any lies while on the campaign trail. We may also be able to make some judgment of a person's honesty based on how they make arguments, i.e. how they use statistics, and how often they omit relevant information that would look bad for them.
So suppose that everyone could perfectly identify who was a liar and who was honest. Would the electorate then vote only for honest politicians? Nope. A voter finds other things valuable in a politician besides just honesty, for example agreement on policy issues, or allocating tax money in a way that benefits the voter. Even if the candidate for party A is found out to be a no-good stinking liar, that still might not be enough to induce a party A voter to vote for the party B candidate instead. After all, party B is terrible. And there can be no party C that adopts the policy stances of party A but is staffed by honest politicians. Because of vote splitting in first-past-the-post electoral systems, two parties tend to dominate with outsiders having no chance of getting elected, even if the electorate prefers the outsiders. This is why we'd ideally want to use a more sane electoral system like score voting.
Your answer is nuanced, but the original comment said something along the lines of "authorities have been always lying" which is a blanket statement that reminded me of some conspiracy theorists I talked with so I had to ask a couple of questions that could reveal that. You offered "most politicians are liars", it is a better description but still not quite useful-- I'd go as far as to say "all humans are liars" is true as well because there's probably not a single human that hadn't lied at some point; the key is what the lies are and what's the intent. "Many politicians act in bad faith" could be a more useful statement.
> and true information doesn't necessarily spread faster than false information
It definitely doesn't. I believe there're studies that shown it to be demonstrably the case. What spreads well is a story, and a story is always a subjective and selective interpretation of facts, and as any good journalist will tell you two different interpretations of the same factual info can prompt two diametrically opposing opinions (even if they never technically lie, they can intentionally or not omit/deemphasize parts of the story, choose what to report and so on).
> systems built upon illusions are less stable than systems built upon truths
I strongly disagree with that. The most stable societies historically have been built around a religious center, which is by definition not an objective rational truth. We are yet to see a very large group of people co-exist in an environment based on truths. So far we are witnessing quite the opposite: truth itself has acquired a new definition ("alternative facts", "my truth", etc).
Edit: for people who downvote this comment. Do you have an example of a stable society based on truths? Other than a speculation that this time humanity will succeed, and people will finally value truth over comfort.
I actually upvoted you, but to answer your question - any sports team. It's an environment where you can't get away with "muh opinion is da truth :DDD" type bikeshedding you find when discussing large political issues (eg abortion, immigration, etc). You can try to lie, but if something doesn't work, it becomes obvious.
I think also any team of programmers would qualify - at the end of the day, you can empirically verifiy claims.
On a broader level, you could argue that since modern society is basically built on the laws of physics - our bureacracy and infrastructure is only possible because Maxwell's Equations are "true" in the sense that they accurately predict things about reality [0] - we are living in a system built on truth, and when we communicate on Hacker News, that is only possible because of all those before us who have sought out and shared true things about the universe.
[0] - you can probably use a definition of "truth" different than "accurately models reality", but it's the one I use, and I think most people will accept it as good enough.
- I help people in a mental health support group, (not a counseller, just informal). I see people aged below 25 going to therapists for advice that used to be given by friends in earlier era, some of the advice I saw was really common sense stuff. Indirectly it might be supportive of the statement that friendships are declining.
- I wonder how much of increase in youngsters' mental health issues numbers is due to better reporting of data and better awareness of mental health issues in young people.
- Friendships among young people are less confrontational and more supportive now. People want to say nice things even if they see oddities; people want to be politically correct. Previous generation used to get more honest feedback. For example, if someone doesnt want to socialize, now friends label the person as introvert and encourage acceptance of introversion vs previously friends used to encourage being social. I see the positive of 'acceptance of whatever you are' mindset, at the same time I think 'motivating to do something different' has reduced. I see positive/negative of both approaches.
It’s acceptance of people as they are but then ostracizing them from the community.
We’re not including people who are different anymore than we did in the past. We’re just “accepting” them with words and not actions.
I see this behavior a lot in my social circles and communities I’m involved in. A lot of preaching of acceptance and awareness while not including them in anything at all.
It's a strange form of biological essentialism where someone is considered perfectly as they are, and not in need of any changes, but also that person must be rejected from the group based on certain characteristics.
We don't invite Sarah to the Christmas party because she's Jewish and that goes against her beliefs and we don't want to offend her (regardless of how strict of an adherent she is), we aren't inviting Suzie either because almost everybody has kids, and she's deep down the /r/childfree rabbit hole (which is a perfectly fine worldview to have), etc.
The more time people spend passively consuming entertainment, the less time they spend doing everything else, including socializing.
Most everyone I know just sits on their phones, computers, or TVs a good portion of the day. All boredom is banished, all gaps are filled. The threshold for participation and collaboration is higher, because why risk boredom when you have guaranteed-minimum-satisfaction available.
> Most everyone I know just sits on their phones, computers, or TVs a good portion of the day. All boredom is banished,
I see this a lot too, but I disagree with the conclusion. I think more people are bored today than have been before. (How many of you browse Netflix or YouTube, jumping platforms, thinking "there's nothing to watch") But we need to recognize that engagement does not mean a lack of boredom but rather addiction. As the article points out, people are substantially more risk adverse now.
While that may be good for things like less people doing heavy drinking and such, our lives are inherently risky. If you talk to people about why they have a hard time making friends you'll find that this risk adverse nature often pops up (not the only cause, but one of many). Same with dating. Any type of relationship is inherently risky. You WILL get hurt by some of them too, but that is the price to pay for the high rewards of successful relationships (which can form online).
So I am in agreement that there is a "why risk it" aspect of people, but not about boredom. I believe we are self isolating because that's what animals do, especially depressed ones. If our lives are comfortable enough there is little incentive to take any risks. So it sounds weird, but I think a major part of the issue is that our lives have become so well off that there is fewer incentives to push ourselves out of our comfort zones[0]. But we are human too and able to find challenges for ourselves and create discomfort when there is none. This is a double edged sword that is difficult to wield, but I think it is important that we learn it. It is how we better ourselves: putting ourselves in uncomfortable positions[1].
[0] I do think this also plays a role in the (global) rise in authoritarianism, but that is too much for this comment.
[1] Even doing things like learning to code, ride a bike, or learn an instrument requires putting ourselves in uncomfortable positions. Specifically because you're never good at something when you first start. But the challenge is supposed to make us stronger.
I'd say risk aversion and boredom aversion go hand-in-hand. Why even consider taking a risk for an unknown amount of baseline satisfaction? It is a lot easier to dopamine surf social media with proven returns on time, even if those returns are meager in comparison to longer-form activities
Even if you are right, which I think you are, the part that I think we are baffled by is how everyone’s happiness could be on such an unsteady plank of risk-aversion and boredom-aversion. Happiness can’t be this tethered to that, right?
We’re all tip toeing around something. The statistics are suggesting that we have no friends, no relationships, no jobs, no kids, no marriage, and so on, which kind of defines a meaningless life.
If in the back of your mind you sort of know that, then the other statistics kick in, uptick in depression, anxiety, and loneliness.
Is the solution to fix the risk aspect, the boredom aspect, or should we stop telling people their life sucks which they indulge in via their self pity, or, is there at least one society on earth right now that’s not like this that we can look to?
Some part of me is starting to believe the answer is far simpler:
Everyone, snap the fuck out of it. Your life sucks, but it also doesn’t. We’re all going to be fine.
Meaning in life is relative. Before folks had odd hobbies that others judged worthless: reading, stamp collecting, fishing for sport, etc.
With more basic needs met I think it's fine folks may spend more time in arbitrary leisure. Even if it means less time doing meat space activities or producing fewer children.
> Everyone, snap the fuck out of it. Your life sucks, but it also doesn’t. We’re all going to be fine.
This is kinda what I was getting at before. The things that make us uniquely human are our abilities to override our natural tendencies. I figure that's what you're suggesting with this line.
To dig further into what I've said before about people being comfortable and existential concerns, I think part of the problem here is that it is harder to determine how to take action. The gap is quite large from where we are to where we need to be. In every day complications it is easy to break down a need into several tasks with clear goals. Whereas existential and abstract problems seem insurmountable and difficult to break down because of their complexities (a thing humans aren't particularly well equipped to handle through natural means). So it is easier to just lay flat. But I think part of what makes us human is being able to light that internal fire yourself, though it is not anywhere near as simple as it sounds.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Usually, when we challenge ourselves, we extrapolate from, and build previously understood models/variables or slight variations thereof in order to expand our knowledge. From this we form an expanded model that takes us even farther before. That is how we form calculated risks. These are our known unknowns. This is the kind of scenario that is conducive to challenging oneself should the potential rewards outway the potential losses.
However, there are situations where you have no ability to craft a reasonable risk model, due to ignorance or, whether one is aware of it or not, faulty information. These experiential black boxes are built on hidden or heavily abstracted variables that aren't replicable or controllable. However well-defined the goal, the actual payoff is elusive. The costs/losses can't be known until after fact if at all, by which point one may have already suffered them. One can only assess the range of opportunity costs concerning the undertaking of the decision or not. Dating and/or marriage in general — but especially in the last decade or so — fall into this category.
> You WILL get hurt by some of them too, but that is the price to pay for the high rewards of successful relationships (which can form online).
Perseverance may be a necessary condition to find a high quality relationship, but isn't a sufficient one [1]. There's a point where such a pursuit becomes self-defeating masochism. Losses don't automatically stop at 0 and we don't get our time back. "Why risk it" is a necessary question to ask, because if you can't answer it, then it isn't wise to undertake a process that can make one more poorer in time, money, self-satisfaction, and health than when one first started.
[1] That's to say nothing of whether such a relationship will continue to be a high quality one after obtaining it.
Your phone, like your tv is actually mostly quite boring and needs a bunch of flashy gimmicks to keep you watching, a la Letterman's "tonight's top 10" launch animations to try and hold your interest over how they didn't have the content for 3 jokes in a week let alone 50.
Quick edit to something different with colour and movement!
Every time I'm stuck behind someone who inexplicably stopped in the middle of a walkway to answer their phone, I just imagine to myself that it's a book and think of how engrossing the plot must be for them to pull it out and read it at the worst possible time, and at least I'm a little more amused than annoyed.
Thank you for sharing such a beautiful strategy to make what is now a common occurrence into something so meaningful.
It's like opening up to so many possibilities, even to creativity, as you can start imagining the all possible threads that create those amazing stop-inducing plots. Thank you!
My favourite so far was teenage boy bicycling with both hands and both eyes on the phone on the way to school, crossing right in front of me in an intersection.
I don't know how you can look at a graph of how many teenagers work, drive, and go out that suddenly declines after 2008 and not mention the major economic recession at the time. While I agree that there are technological changes and purely social changes that have happened, I think there's more to the economic causes of this issue that aren't usually examined by this type of commentator.
Cause capitalism can never be at fault. We must continue to grind and support our overlords. The reasons for societal collapse could never be attributed to capital - for capital is what will save us all and lead us all to nirvana. Capital is holy!
Would you listen to me ranting about evil nimbyists preventing any form of urban development and thus blocking economic growth?
Would you call me asking me to help you with an unexpected problem?
Can I stop by your place just to hang out a bit, without any particular reason?
Would you pick me up from an airport tomorrow if I ask you to?
Will I come to you if I have a wild business idea? Or will you come to me to brag about your recent promotion?
No, we are not friends. We don't even know each other. You need to spend some time with a person for at least couple of hours a day for about half a year to become friends.
> You need to spend some time with a person for at least couple of hours a day for about half a year to become friends
The only place this would happen for me is work. But that's no longer possible because all my coworkers at my new job are WFH.
It happened in school and college, after that it's only ever happened at work that I spend "a couple of hours a day for about half a year" with anyone.
Even if joined some kind of club, that would be either a couple of hours a month or at best, a couple of hours a week, not a couple of hours a day.
Another way to become friends is to experience something extraordinary together. In fact, for me this is way more effective than spending several hours a day with a colleague in the same room.
Traveling brings people closer (that could be arranged through meetups), doing intense social work (also possible through meetups)...
If it's that fragile, then is it a friendship? It's more of an acquaintance, except on HN we don't know who you are.
We probably don't know your name, so I don't even know it counts as an acquaintance, unless you're famous externally and have linked that to your HN username, or have used it as your name. And even then we know it in the same way as a roll call in a crowded lecture room or business meeting, and not as the individual.
I think classic online forums did provide scope for building up social connections, but I think the Reddit-inspired social news sites, including HN, simply do not.
I think part of the reason behind such frail friendships is that, thanks to social media, and parasocial relationships with online personalities, like YouTubers and Twitch streamers, many might feel they are participating in a social group or experiencing social situations already. The reality is that most often in the new online social world, you are a consumer of the relationship but not actually a participant.
With that safety net, someone has to first accept a level of risk they don't currently need to, and they also have to meet that same risk barrier for someone else. So people are unwittingly trading more two sided, genuine social interactions, for shallow, one sided interactions.
That is, at best, an ephemeral acquaintance. I would have no problem doing anything on that list with my actual friends. Well, except for going to a pub- all of my friends are sober. If I had a friend who went to pubs, I'd go with them though.
We arn't friends - at best everyone here are strangers attending a conference where there are 4-5 competing views and barely concealed contempt.
That said, you f'ing matter and you deserve to be friends with people. You can do it too. Just get out, talk to people in the real world, whatever just do something different from what you are doing now.
If I could take you all to the pub, I would, because you are fun to talk to and listen to. But I can’t.
I go to the pub with other people and enjoy their company, but many of them don’t find interesting the kinds of things discussed on HN. At times, that makes me feel lonely in a crowd, Which is why I also come to HN.
Yes we are friends, but if I did not also have the pub friends I would feel lonely.
Do you really consider a collection of people you've never met and mostly never talked to/messaged to be your friends? That the only thing in common required to be friends is sharing a messaging forum?
That's not even an acquaintance in my book. Friendship requires a little bit more back-and-forth. Good friends have some trust associated with them. Apologies to all the HN'ers: you're better than redditors but you're still internet strangers. Plenty of people on the internet are not ones you'd want to be friends with.
I suppose it would be nice to make friends through HN, but I don't even read the usernames anymore. And even if I did, with so many comments, I'm not sure I could remember who say what
I think it is hard to form friendships through platforms like HN. There's no direct messaging and we often forget usernames. It is a great place for public discussions and we are friendly to one another, but I don't think we're building strong bonds. If I see a coworker on HN it doesn't make me think more or less of them tbh. Though I think sharing the articles with friends and discussing them can be an aspect that helps build friendships.
I agree, it is hard to form friendships on HN. I've managed to meet some people here in other digital spaces and on average it's been a positive experience. But even so, having a contact form in bio doesn't typically result in many contacts.
For me, a friend is a person I can discuss personal topics with.
On HN, the topic is given (the article we comment on), and it is usually not personal. If it happens to be personal, it is most likely not the personal topic I would like to discuss now.
Also, if any of us died today, most likely no one else on HN would ever notice. That too is not exactly what I imagine as "friendship".
There are people on HN, who I completely 100% disagree with and likely would not want to spend time with in any other setting ( and likely vice versa ). However, the best part of HN is that me being friends, or even like minded, is not mandatory for the purpose of this site ( edit: in fact, to an extent, being able to present a different or conventionally objectionable, perspective in a compelling way is more important than same value framework ).
But you find some of these deplorable people engaging (possibly even fun and interesting), right? Interesting how varied (imho, high) our standards are for another human being.
Fun and interesting is enough for me, we don’t need to be best friends. We can be some semblance of friends. Or is that asking for too much as well?
Anyways, I agree with you. The drop in friendships can’t be fucking tracked because everyone has their own idea of what it means.
<< The drop in friendships can’t be fucking tracked because everyone has their own idea of what it means.
Exactly. And all this is before we even get to differences in languages and cultures. In the old country, word friend has very different connotations when compared to US equivalent. There it is basically reserved for the highest level of US version of the word. In US the world covers a whole range of social affinities.
<< Interesting how varied (imho, high) our standards are for another human being.
This is why being a kid has its benefits. You have X? We are best friends now. As you get older, possession of item X is a very sucky proxy for a good relationship.
I'd say we are most of us members of 3-4 distinct tribes all gathering around this oasis, if I had to put words to it. 3-4 distinct tribes with obvious intermixing.
I think we’re friends in a meaningful sense. My in—real-life friends live all over the world and we have a group thread. I don’t see that as too different.
I remember hearing some futurist a decade or so ago say how indistinguishable real-life and online life will be eventually. At the time I couldn’t believe it but your comment synthesizes it in a way.
I would be considerably more lonely, less inspired and knowledgeable without this community. That’s friendship to me.
You will get a lot of condescension for saying this - a lot of people assuming you are naive and don't understand "real" friendship. And I have to confess, my own experience having "friends" online is that many people who seem like they might be friends, end up not being.
But I do find that you can have real friends online, and it's not all that much harder or less common than having real friends in person. And the cameraderie we might have with a lot of people over HN isn't that far removed from real friendship.
My standards for friend are pretty low these days - anyone who can have an interesting, respectful conversation without becoming hateful or condescending over a difference in opinions is an awfully good candidate.
1. Lower trust society, probably made worse by increased political division.
2. Loss of social skills. People are more testy and angry or on a hair-trigger. You look at photos from 70+ years ago and people seemed friendlier , more approachable, and more gregarious. Same for online, in which people have gotten angrier and more intolerant with each election cycle. Campus guest speakers have been shouted-down when trying to give talks, such as Charles Murray. This suggests poor social skills.
3. Individual preferences. Perhaps people are choosing to withdrawal or be alone, because it's more enjoyable. Maybe the internet, smart phones, Netflix, and social media are more enjoyable than social outings. There are more ways then ever for people to do things together, such as group events which are posted and scheduled online, yet people are voluntarily choosing to be alone.
I think your #2 is spot on, and your #3 is the cause. Tech is being used as a replacement for so many aspects of our lives now: social networking, online dating, shopping, even asking for information ("just google it"), all reducing in-person interactions and replacing what were once very involved processes.
I have to wonder if it’s sort of like ads. Previously, if you wanted any entertainment, you probably had to put up with ads of some sort. On TV, there were commercial breaks. In the newspaper, there were print ads, etc. Then the internet and streaming and ad blocking came along. I never liked ads, but I would begrudgingly put up with them before. (I’d mute them, not look at them, fast forward, etc. But it was impossible to get away from them.) Now I have zero tolerance for them because I have tons of media without them.
Previously, you could put up with someone who had a few quirks or was a little obnoxious because, hey, that’s part of life and there are only so many people you can interact with in a day, and some of them suck. But now, I can find the other 10 people who like whatever band I’m into, or weird sport, or whatever, and I can spend a bunch of time with them. I no longer have the patience to hear about your stupid hobby, or your horrible politics. I can just walk away, go to my computer and hang out with other like-minded people. Just like here on Hacker News!
When you hang out with people for a long time they tend to get to know you very well. This includes your weaknesses and faults and those would be common knowledge in any group you were a part of. Maybe you got made fun for it but eventually settled into the group dynamic making it a comfortable place to just be yourself.
Now we spend smaller blocks of time together, a lot of conversation is online where you can selectively present yourself favorably, social media is a selection of your best moments curated to be shared. We don’t spend time with people, so no one knows us and that creates a constant pressure to be “the image” you’ve presented. This is a recipe for anxiety, depression and having no resilience to the daily ups and downs of life.
"Putnam’s trends can be assessed more contemporaneously through a simple metric: screen time, a proxy for time spent not doing community activities in person."
No it is not. There is no reason to believe that screen time is displacing social time. It could well be displacing reading novels or watching TV.
I do a lot of socialising. I make an effort. I see other people around me doing the same thing.
Here I am at a screen. I cannot remember the last novel I read from start to finish.
Very little. This has been an ongoing process, it's called modernity. It's the evaporation of reality due to mass media and commoditization. It's a reductive process that turns actual people into widgets, the adaptation of man to machine. Human relations, since these cannot be quantitied, are transmuted into transactions that can be measured, quantitied, monetized. Affection, intimacy, loyalty thus become replqced by countable things like swipes, nft drops, car infotainment packages, yoga cruise experiences, ...
The matrix is real. Not that we are living in a computer (thats just stupid), but that we are being reduced to particiption in algorithm, mere conduits of information.
That malaise, hard to pinpoint but ongoing since 150 years, is the driver of the social recession
> Feels like a feeling of impending doom with climate change could also be a factor.
My generation in my country feared nuclear war and economic collapse (15% inflation when I was growing up). Each demographic has its own impeding doom: climate change fear is new, but I don’t think there is more fear than the past. I think people in the US from my generation had communism to worry about, and communists probably worried about the US. The big change is social media and mass media driving more fear - hard to measure the difference though - does our capacity for fear remain constant regardless of input?
Edit: and when I think of the fear in the lives of my friends, their personal situation is far more critical than any distant fear of global warming. Their kids, their job, their marriage, their parents, their friends, their status. I am interested in the demographic differences because that give good hints as to cause and effect.
I find this subject fascinating. We young people have been detaching from the old ways of living without really building a new narrative. I still think it's cringe how some subsections of society want to revive the traditional life ™. I mean, there's a reason we went away from that, so that ends up being very patronizing and unhelpful.
I guess I'm a young person? Ish? is 28 old? I'm not sure.
Anyways its arrogant to say that when "the old ways" were only replaced in like the last 15-20ish years and people got on along well-enough before that without diseases of despair.
IMHO the only reason "the old ways" went away wasn't because the new way is better, but rather we humans have rather lazy, addictive personalities and so its easier and simpler to utilize the new tech-based ways even when in the long run we are much worse off for it. I don't even know how you can say the old ways were worse though, when its only been 15-20 years and society has changed so much. The old ways were around for a very long time.
> IMHO the only reason "the old ways" went away wasn't because the new way is better, but rather we humans have rather lazy, addictive personalities and so its easier and simpler to utilize the new tech-based ways even when in the long run we are much worse off for it.
I think they are clearly better, at least in principle. Extending civil respect to LGBTs, for example, is one of the outcomes of moving away from how things were in the past. We are in general finishing the project of the individualistic society, and any institution that is holding that back (religion, traditional gender roles, etc.) is losing ground.
I am very glad for freedom for individualisn but what we haven't yet done is mend the social web so to speak. We are still all cliquing and severing into groups. Where individualism imagines a community where everyone is themselves but together, comfortable with eachothers differences, what's actually happening is everyone is free to be themselves but they are ending up alone in their immediate communities.
I don't have solutions, I am just noting that we have some loose ends to follow up to make sure we can still have comfortable communities of very different individuals.
It’s worth remembering that the “traditional life” is more or less what’s left after every previous society experimented until it fell. We are experimenting now too, and will probably fall. Some of the experiments will work but also a mean reversion will likely occur.
Such is progress when you zoom out to the century scale.
That’s a common viewpoint of current times v older times on many topics. But it’s not like the 70s people were consciously building a narrative of free love, that’s just how the culture was at the time. Largely the narrative was not assessed and applied until after the fact. We have just as much of a narrative know, we just lack the ability to look at it independently and define it.
I don't know. Competition (be it to accomplish the best career, the best body, the best public persona) seems to be at an all time high. That suggests that we don't have any narrative that binds us and promote some type of cooperation. I could be wrong, but I don't think previous generations dealt with this level of individualism.
Late 40s guy here, I agree competition (for everything) seems much more intense now at all age levels. Wasn't like this when I was younger. As a person who prefers co-operation, I'm not liking it, and since that is my strength, it feels like I'm less able to excel in this environment.
the article cites Gurri’s book, which is relevant to this. you have your own narrative, i have my own narrative; when i strive to find a shared narrative with ever larger groups the only bit i can preserve is “the status quo should be radically changed” without consensus on what it should be changed to, which simplifies to “the status quo should be toppled”, and hence the shared narrative is simply one of destruction.
the narrative of destruction isn’t universal, but the binary divide between those who share it and those who do not almost maps to progressive v conservative groupings for those who accept the labeling.
it’s the economy. increasing wealth inequality correlates with the bleak charts presented in the article. the more squeezed we are financially, the less time we have for each other and building community.
also “smart” phones. how can we expect to do anything else while our eyes are glued to the little screens we carry everywhere?
> Skepticism toward the state has evolved into more generalized distrust toward society at large, amplified by the internet.
the trust angle is presented too broadly. the article opened with how many close friends the individual has. i trust my close friends with my life. i trust my neighbors enough to leave my door unlocked at night. i trust the larger neighborhood to go on midnight walks with headphones, eat/drink at a new place knowing i won’t get sick, etc. these forms of trust are what allows for IRL friendships to form. trust in gov institutions, or any large-scale system is only relevant to IRL friendships to the same degree that connecting with someone across the country over the net is relevant.
> The healthier alternative involves rethinking internet infrastructure on pro-social ends: platforms owned by the people using them with community prerogatives in mind.
while i do believe this to be better for the individual, socially, i don’t expect this would halt the political trends. my digital life is 90% on independently-operated services like Matrix, Mastodon, git forges and good ol’ personal blogs. the more personal/supportive social norms in these areas don’t magically lead to an environment which is pro-the-status-quo politically. almost the opposite: many of the community-operated online groups doing something they feel meaningful want to bring that same meaning to the IRL, but run into massive difficulties that they attribute to the political status quo. the Nixos convention just held in France apparently handed out a “smash the state” sticker in their swag bag. naïvely pushing for stronger/community-operated online groups may just exacerbate the clash between the online social order and offline political order in the short term. not that i’m for or against that here: merely put forth as an observation.
> The healthier alternative involves rethinking internet infrastructure on pro-social ends: platforms owned by the people using them with community prerogatives in mind.
The author essentially cites a bunch of unrelated (albeit interesting) statistics, talks (sighs) about "broader cultural shifts", and then on top of all of this drops this little pseudo solution at the end. A pseudo problem followed by a pseudo solution, go figure
There are too many of these bloggers (and opinion columnists) sitting around in armchairs, recycling the same gibberish they read in the Atlantic and waving their hands in the air with respect to "broader cultural shifts"
The second one of these bloggers starts "broader cultural shift"ing is the second I put their blog in the hosts file
Why is it a psuedo problem? I deal with its effects every day. Your excessive aggression seems to be symptomatic of the anti-social, terminally online.
I agree that the blogger doesn’t give anything close to a thoughtful or meaningful solution, but I don’t agree that it’s a pseudo-problem. Anecdotally, from every person I have spoken to around my age and above my age, it seems that something is causing socialization to not work as effectively as it did in my parents’ generation, and the data appears to support this phenomenon. It may be poorly characterized, in that the blogger may be incorrect about what’s driving it or how it manifests, but I feel like it is inarguable that something is happening, and whatever we’re currently doing to deal with it is not working.
I agree with you that the solution offered was woefully inadequate. What I meant by pseudo problem wasn't necessarily the problem itself, but the framing of it.
The author cites a statistic about when students start driving, start drinking alcohol, etc. Then the author cites a statistic about "declining trust in institutions". It's easy to put a bunch of statistics like this together and imply that they indicate a lack of socialization (a common cause) or something like that, but all they really show us is a changing culture that the author (and many others) are bothered about
It's a pseudo problem (in my view) because it outlines several different (supposedly related) sub problems and then tries to tie them together as a single problem with some implicit common cause
Gotcha, in that case I’m definitely with you there; I don’t agree with how the author tries to tie all these things together and blame them on the usual suspects of “screen time,” etc. without any real basis
One slightly off-topic comment I have, however, is:
When the author talks about delayed adulthood and mentions that the percentage of 12th graders that tried alcohol declined, how is that possibly a trait of adulthood?
If anything, I'd say that not consuming alcohol demonstrates a more conscious choice that could be associated with adulthood. Also, one must consider the impact of hangovers only increases, thus increasing the correlation (I guess) between adulthood and the avoidance of alcohol.
"Tried" is probably the keyword here. Everything you said is correct, but having alcohol is something that adults, not children, typically do. Whether or not more mature adults move to alcohol avoidance is a different thing.
I think it definitely indicates a change in socialisation at the very least, and while labelling it an adult trait may be incorrect depending on who you ask, it is still relevant.
Are cross-cultural and/or cross-national couples also part of this trend? I imagine there to be a growing number of cross-cultural couples with rising mobility. Hooking into traditional social life with one partner less aware of those traditions is less trivial.
Let me also speculate that living between countries especially takes a toll on social life due to the time invested in commuting.
What do we make of online communities (i.e. gamers), sports & recreation (parents sit down with other parents to chat), startups who's cluture is team/family like (easily replaces religion), etc...
Maybe the definition of individualism should evolve a little.
If there was a graph, I bet my hat that you could see the impact of Facebook (introduction of algorithm deciding what posts you see), twitter and other "social" networks.
Is anyone talking to these friendless people one-on-one? I bet you there's a very easily spotted trend/cause that isn't explainable with anonymous surveys.
As far as I can tell, it's easier than ever before to make a close friend, for those willing. I suspect that peoples bandwidth of acceptance is narrowing with the popularization of the internet. They imagine friendship to be something other than a close bond. They've idealized it, so of course reality never matches up.
it may be a little obtuse but i find a rather interesting parallel between this social recession and the open ended presupposition of the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in the context of leninist revolutionary theory.
the party has repeatedly insisted socialism will triumph 'eventually' without much allusion to anything but historic tendency, however i wonder if US capitalisms hyper-individualism in the throughs of social recession may be the elusive driving force that fulfills the parties prophetic declaration. that, as many more find themselves shut out and alone the notion of collaborative public forum itself could prove enticing enough to walk back some of the most egregious excesses of neoliberalism in the 21st century
As someone who likes looking at charts, I hate being in the "middle" of the story on the social recession. In addition to everything listed in the article, we also have ever increasing partisanship, declines in education, climate destruction etc. Instead of everything getting .5% worse every year, it would be nice to see something dramatically change, good or bad. Some shift that actually changes things just to get this current failing society out of the way.
Is this what life is always like in declining empires? Will it just get worse every year until we have a few wars and genocides until there's enough destruction to start rebuilding?
It feels like things are a bit primed for something like that, in a way. Although it could easily not and just continue indefinitely if the public is pacified completely. Still, I think if this drip drip drip of a decline continues, then I think we might start seeing some weird fascination with war as an “outlet." A lot of fine de siecle 20th century writers talked about this same thing with regards to mass industrial society, as if they wanted WWI. When Wittgenstein was sent to the front, his response was basically, “I really needed that,” as if it was some kind of cleanse. People are built for narratives, they derive meaning from them, and a drift cannot persist indefinitely. Amid the collapse of traditional meta-narratives that once gave meaning, there are today many competing ones, none of which are truly for the now. It feels like we need a new way to live otherwise we will exhaust ourselves.
I'd recommend The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd DeMause [1]
if you aren't already aware of it. The actual child abuse part is not
apropos the technological aspects, but there's a deep (one of the most
direct and powerfully written) account of perennial sacrificial
cleansing rituals and the societal death-drive (Thanatos).
I'd really look into the validity of the book, a cursory google search reveals that's it's basically a load of shit. Also the book is narrated by Stefan Molyneux, which, I wouldn't say is a 'happy accident' when it comes to Molyneux oeuvre
My perspective is velenced by my own biases, just like yours. My function here was just to provide a countering force to your force, and let the OP atleast be presented with the opportunity to be skeptical (mirroring the discourse around this topic, no doubt). It's worth pointing out that psychohistory is not a serious field, and largely considered a pseudoscience.
I tried her this but it must be infected with some virus because an overlay popped up that made it so I couldn't read anything past the first paragraph!
As an outsider, i see trust in the U.S. and the West in general as a problem. If anything, you need a lot less trust. You are taken for a ride by foreigners - from private citizens to governments with everything in between - all too often. It only works because you are way, way too trusting to people you shouldn't trust.
We are now living in the globalised world when most people don't share Christian values. It means, trusting anyone at all apart from (with caution) closest immediate family members (and even that only because they are on your will), is simply a mistake.
There's nothing on the horizon to replace it as a socializing force. Even if you WFH those ~8 hours a day, 40 days of week of sitting alone can't be made up for by socializing outside of that time, something you could already do before WFH.
I'm not saying you should therefore be forced to go to the office. Rather I'm just pointing out WFH will arguably make this worse, maybe not for your specific situation, but in aggregate across the population, if WFH is the new normal then we'll need to social institutions to fix the lack of socialization opportunities that are being discarded.