[HN Gopher] The Anti-Social Century
___________________________________________________________________
The Anti-Social Century
Author : coloneltcb
Score : 96 points
Date : 2025-01-11 01:09 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com)
| nicd wrote:
| This is the issue that is top of mind for me at the moment. If
| you're frustrated by political polarization, this is one of the
| root causes! I'm very eager to hear any ideas on steps we can
| take to systematically reverse this damage to society.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Unfortunately it involves stopping staring at screens 10 hours
| a day, which is the funds supporting half of this forum's
| careers.
|
| How many people think today's children are having better lives
| than the last generation? 25% of US university students on
| antidepressants.
|
| We optimize for a big GDP number but never for a population
| happiness level.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| > How many people think today's children are having better
| lives than the last generation? 25% of US university students
| on antidepressants.
|
| Are they on anti-depressants because life has gotten worse or
| because of decreasing stigma resulting from greater
| accessibility to better-informed patients? Until the turn of
| the century, just mentioning you saw a shrink in any sincere
| capacity would get you funny looks in most parts of the
| country.
|
| > Unfortunately it involves stopping staring at screens 10
| hours a day, which is the funds supporting half of this
| forum's careers.
|
| There's an old joke where a reporter asks a bank robber why
| he robs banks. The latter's response: "Because, that's where
| the money is". The bank and bar of today is the Internet.
| It's what funds and facilitates most social ventures, even
| the ones that take place IRL.
|
| Happiness isn't a quality you can optimize for on a national
| or global scale as it's a purely individual affair.
| flenkzooz wrote:
| I'm not sure I completely agree with your last assertion
| (except according to a very rigorous definition of
| "optimize"). While people do very much differ, there are
| certain things that predictably make the majority of people
| happier. Social connectedness, for example. We may not be
| able to truly optimize for these things, but I think we can
| reliably improve human wellbeing at scale. A successful
| example from the past would be the efforts to add more
| green spaces to cities. People like parks, and they're
| happier on average when they have access to them.
| brookst wrote:
| Yeah increasing treatment of medical conditions seems like
| a very poor proxy for proving an increase in incidence.
| riehwvfbk wrote:
| > Happiness isn't a quality you can optimize for on a
| national or global scale as it's a purely individual
| affair.
|
| This right here is exactly what's wrong. People are put
| into impossible conditions and then blamed when they can't
| magically make themselves happy with the arrangement.
|
| Tell me, are animals happy to be in a zoo? Why not? Why
| can't they just make themselves happy?
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| Happiness isn't self-induced solipsism. I don't claim
| that external conditions have no effect on individual
| happiness, but rather that external conditions do not
| uniformly or systematically _determine_ an individual 's
| happiness nor can one reliably use such conditions to
| extrapolate the happiness of others. A policy that
| addresses a so-called collective need often comes at the
| cost of individual agency and thus individual happiness.
| It is therefore, necessary to recognize that the domain
| of happiness and its relevant parameters does not belong
| to an abstract blob, but solely to the individual.
|
| > Tell me, are animals happy to be in a zoo? Why not? Why
| can't they just make themselves happy?
|
| Not every animal views a zoo (or for that matter, a farm
| or a pet-owner's house) as a prison. For a significant
| population of zoo animals, life in captivity is the only
| life they know. For the most part, they are as happy and
| content as they are well-fed.
| throaway54 wrote:
| >Not every animal views a zoo (or for that matter, a farm
| or a pet-owners house) as a prison. For a significant
| population of zoo animals, life in captivity is the only
| life they know. For the most part, they are as happy and
| content, as they are well-fed.
|
| Not if they are given a space which is too small and not
| stimulating enough for them, then they just pace around
| for their whole lives.
| cess11 wrote:
| Capitalism can't reproduce itself through happy people. It
| needs enormous amounts of suffering to continue, and as a kid
| growing up you'll at some point notice this. At least you
| did, before the screens became dominant over reality.
| matrix87 wrote:
| > 25% of US university students on antidepressants.
|
| Is it because they're emotionally worse off, or is it because
| pharma is advertising them more aggressively, kickbacks, etc
| reducesuffering wrote:
| There are many studies showing US youth report feeling
| worse than previously. The CDC: "Youth in the U.S. are
| experiencing a mental health crisis."
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-youth/mental-health/mental-
| healt...
|
| Increased pharma pushing is an easy scapegoat, but it would
| have to be making these youth more depressed before they
| were ever taking antidepressants.
|
| Social media and phones have been disconnecting real
| interactions and pushing people onto fake digital
| "connections." Then when people are more lonely than ever,
| we're now pushing them "AI bot connections" to help
| loneliness, purely because VC's see $ in it, basically
| giving desperate people soda to help their hunger.
| dinkumthinkum wrote:
| I think social media even promotes this hyper therapy and
| medication seeking behavior. My guess it probably even
| creates a kind of Overton window sort of thing for
| physicians, big pharma notwithstanding. It's very easy for
| people to get prescriptions for these drugs and a lot of
| doctors seem to think "patients reports depression so I
| prescribed SSRI" or whatever is popular.
| dinkumthinkum wrote:
| I totally agree with you but there is a lot of tech that is
| not social media related. But, that fact probably doesn't
| change your quantitative observation.
| MathMonkeyMan wrote:
| The article recommends seeking out interactions with others
| even when (especially when) we would avoid it.
|
| I don't know how to make that a movement, but I'll be more
| mindful of it.
| hansonkin wrote:
| I've been working on a project to solve the social connection
| problem using a new approach. In a post third space society, I
| want to make it easier for people to connect with others nearby
| in small groups around shared hobbies and activities. Having a
| small group size makes it easier to host at someone's place and
| it's also cheaper than going out.
|
| I did a soft launch earlier this week by posting on NYC
| subreddits to get early feedback and test out my hypothesis .
| The reaction has been very positive with many comments saying
| they like the concept. Obviously there's a long way to go to
| really nail down the product market fit and build a sustainable
| business around it but the early feedback makes me feel like
| there is really something there.
| vaginicola wrote:
| Could help me find your reddit posts? I'm interested in
| learning more, but am having trouble locating them through
| search...
|
| I share your enthusiasm for making it easier for people to
| connect in person, focused around shared interests (incl.
| established online social networks). I'm sincerely concerned
| about the potential outcomes of our current and growing
| social isolation.
|
| That said, I believe that "third spaces" are still essential.
| Effective third spaces can provide safe, neutral ground for
| those who are unacquainted to get to know one another on
| their own terms. I think that the thought of inviting a
| strangers into your personal space is pretty uncomfortable to
| many people. I also think people want to get out of their
| cave every now and then--especially with the rise of work-
| from-home.
|
| I think the failure of traditional third spaces (cafes, bars,
| social clubs, libraries, etc.) has more to do with them being
| unable to adapt to the needs of modern society &
| socialization.
|
| My thought is that there needs to be a new type of third
| space which meets those needs. Perhaps something like WeWork,
| but geared towards the third space? Something that can adapt
| to and support the diverse interest/hobbies/networks that
| have come about due to the internet. Something that tics all
| of the "Great Good Place"
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place) boxes and more. I
| have some ideas, but need to develop them further.
| hansonkin wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/astoria/comments/1hvw7m5/i_created
| _...
|
| I agree that third spaces are very valuable but the reality
| is that they are declining in the current market and the
| trend doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. I think
| some venues will figure out how to make it work in the
| modern market but ultimately there will be fewer of these
| places in general.
|
| And you're right about people being uncomfortable with
| strangers in their home but most people will meet in public
| first before having people over. This is a pattern I've
| seen a lot in NYC where a community will have public events
| to attract newcomers. Once these people are vetted, they
| are invited into a private Whatsapp or Discord. Once
| accepted into the private chat, people will organize
| private events which sometimes takes place at someone's
| home. In a way, my platform hopes to formalize this pattern
| and make it more accessible for individuals so it's less
| dependent on having formal organizers/hosts. This pattern
| still requires public spaces but I think it's a bit more
| flexible.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Hmm, what happens to the people that refuse to use
| WhatsApp/Discord ?
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| A social crutch I really like is games. I'm terrible at
| talking to people, but I love playing competitive but
| social games. Stuff like chess boards, card games could go
| a long way.
| loganc2342 wrote:
| Your project seems very cool and like a great way to tackle
| the problem. Although between apps similar to yours and
| dating apps like Tinder, I can't help but feel a little
| uneasy that more and more frequently, people only meet by
| first filtering out dozens or hundreds, if not thousands of
| other people through an app.
|
| I suppose theoretically it should lead to more connections
| based on interests and commonalities, as opposed to
| superficial characteristics (at least in the case your app,
| going off of your Reddit post; Tinder is a bit of a different
| story). I do feel like something is lost in the process,
| though. There are many people who have good friends that they
| have very little in common with.
| hansonkin wrote:
| Really love your comment about filtering people. It's
| something I thought a lot about when designing the user
| experience. A few hypotheses I want to test with my
| approach are:
|
| 1) Swipe based interfaces inherently cause users to see
| other people as more disposable. I'm trying to have my app
| be centered around plans, which is a mix between a
| traditional event with a set time and location and a social
| media post.
|
| 2) Paradox of choice. I'm testing whether providing people
| with fewer good options will make it easier to commit to
| something instead of having endless choices.
|
| 3) Friend dates are awkward. When people meet through
| traditional friend making apps, the first meeting is
| usually dinner, coffee, etc. I think people become pickier
| when this is the common mode of meeting because if you
| don't really click at the meeting, it's a waste of time. My
| theory is that when the meetings are more focused on doing
| an activity you already like, even if you don't completely
| click with the group you meet with, it can still be an
| enjoyable time. I'm hoping this makes people more open to
| getting out there more.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| I've used a website like this a decade / decade and a
| half ago, and it was pretty great (even despite heavily
| leaning two generations older than me due to the
| demographics of that location).
| ajb wrote:
| Good vision, but why is it an app? In general "We want to
| install an app on your phone" is a no from many people unless
| there's a compelling reason. Not to mention the whole cross
| platform issue.
| com2kid wrote:
| I ran a company for 3 years working on this, let me know if
| you want to chat! I've moved on but I'm always happy to talk
| about solving this problem.
| hansonkin wrote:
| Yes definitely! How can I reach out to you?
| com2kid wrote:
| devlin . bentley @ gmail.com or if you have xmpp
| devlinb@thawd.net
|
| I'm also on discord as com2kid
| jasdi wrote:
| Read the UN report on the Attention Economy. Everything is
| connected to Attention being over fished by platforms.
|
| The human pool of Attention is slow growing and finite (the
| limit being number of minutes in a day*people). Yet Content
| keeps exploding to infinity.
|
| Just like inflation devalues money, content inflation devalues
| individual Attention.
|
| In traditional economics, more money chasing the same goods =
| inflation. In the Attention Economy, more content chasing the
| same attention = engagement inflation (harder to get noticed,
| costs more to be seen).
|
| The real winners - Platforms, since they act like central banks
| controlling both supply (content) and demand (attention via
| algorithm).
|
| The Attention Economy behaves like a manipulated market where
| demand is fixed but distorted, and supply keeps increasing,
| benefiting the gatekeepers (platforms) while exhausting the
| participants (creators, advertisers, businesses, users).
|
| History teaches us where the story goes.
| yesco wrote:
| > History teaches us where the story goes.
|
| Does it? When else has this happened before? Or do you just
| mean manipulated markets specifically?
| robwwilliams wrote:
| > Just like inflation devalues money, content inflation
| devalues individual Attention.
|
| In some sense perhaps, but I now value my attention more
| since there is so much more competing for attention. Out with
| Twitter/X, in with Hacker News; out with daily papers, in
| with long news: Aeon and Atlantic and Foreign Affairs. And
| zero broadcast TV.
| intended wrote:
| Aren't there many countries which are happily anti social?
|
| In any case - approaching this as if it is damage, will end up
| putting you in opposition to choices people are making.
|
| You can be incredibly alone in a crowd of people. You can be
| empty when people are singing your praises.
|
| Meaning - is different simple social interaction. People can
| find their comfort zone of personal interaction is much smaller
| than others.
|
| TLDR: Treating it like a problem, results in bad suggestions.
| Treating it like a choice, suggests that one look at the
| options available to people.
|
| It may turn out that people aren't hanging out at bars, but at
| home. Frankly, why wouldn't people stay at home, if home is
| where they have put their time and effort into setting up.
|
| If you want a good place to find solutions, look to boredom and
| monotony.
|
| Do note - polarization started well before the personal
| computer showed up in the geological record.
| bruce343434 wrote:
| > polarization started well before the personal computer
| showed up in the geological record.
|
| What do you mean?
| HPsquared wrote:
| The Reformation is one famous example.
| jfengel wrote:
| Reformation was itself really about long-standing
| conflicts between countries/nationalities. Few people
| really care whether they are saved through faith alone or
| not, just as East and West weren't really having wars
| over whether "filioque" belongs in the Nicene Creed.
|
| The Internet does give ordinary people the opportunity to
| be mean to each other on a daily basis rather than having
| wars. I'm genuinely not sure that's an improvement, since
| at least people would think twice before going into
| combat. The level of desiring to harass each other seems
| roughly constant.
| chrisbrandow wrote:
| I think the primary point is that until the 20th century,
| most people did not ever have a choice. Communal living was
| the only primary successful strategy for survival, so we are
| fairly hardwired for that environment. In that environment
| occasional solitude was probably a benefit.
|
| It's like the physical exercise which until the 20th century
| was just a part of everyone's life. We sought relief from it
| whenever possible, but that wasn't often possible. But in
| modern life we can go weeks without much physical exertion.
| And we know the consequences of that.
| nicd wrote:
| I'm not sure which happy, anti-social countries you are
| referring to.
|
| "It may turn out that people aren't hanging out at bars, but
| at home." I understand that entertaining at home has been in
| decline over the last few decades, and is at or near an all
| time low. Putnam discusses this in Bowling Alone, and all
| research I've seen lines up with that.
|
| My belief is that most people agree that the decline of
| community is a problem (I'll cite the Surgeon General's
| report, for example). I'm open to reconsidering my position
| if you have sources for the opposing viewpoint.
| bostik wrote:
| > _Aren't there many countries which are happily anti
| social?_
|
| Yes: Finland. Purportedly the happiest country on the planet.
| A bilingual nation who will merrily shut up in two languages
| simultaneously. Whose complete lack of small-talk is
| legendary.
|
| Hell is other people.
|
| Ob-disclosure: I'm a Finn.
| tmnvix wrote:
| I'm sure people will disagree on the significance, but I think
| it seems obvious that a society that encourages (and in some
| cases requires) its members to isolate themselves in mobile
| metal boxes is going to be more antisocial than one that
| doesn't.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| I think cars are a symptom of a philosophy, not the root
| cause.
| pesus wrote:
| I'd say they're both, and it feeds into itself.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Fair
| pesus wrote:
| I'm with you on this one, and I think my time living in a
| fairly walkable city vs. previously living in a non-walkable
| suburb really underscored this point for me personally.
|
| I'm failing at finding it via google, but I also recall a
| study that showed drivers tended to view other drivers/cars
| on the road not as a person in control of a vehicle, but
| rather an inanimate object, which I think further supports
| your point. If anyone has a link to the study, I'd be
| grateful.
| dinkumthinkum wrote:
| I feel like there is a political side that loves and thinks
| it clever to Shane car ownership or blame everything on cars
| because because of sone socialist nonsense or something.
| People have been very social up until 2000 perhaps even later
| and so-called "metal boxes" have been a big part of American
| life for a long time. There have even been times when cars
| were an integral part of socializing in many circles. I get
| it "America sucks and ancient cities on the Continent are
| superior" or whatever , but isn't this kind an f a cliche
| take at this point?
| bdangubic wrote:
| until people realize that "social" media is the root of most
| evil plauging society currently nothing will change. and people
| will not disconnect from "social" media because of pure
| addiction.
|
| my life is drastically different today since I've ditched ALL
| social media. unlike other addictions, this came without
| withdrawals (10-20 minutes on HN helps :) )
| dinkumthinkum wrote:
| I think you're more on point than anyone else. Social media
| not working but affects connections but it hinders
| connections in both platonic and romantic relationship for so
| many reasons.
| mitchbob wrote:
| https://archive.ph/xrfDj
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Gift link shared by author on social:
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/02/america...
| CapstanRoller wrote:
| >most Americans don't seem to be reacting to the biological cue
| to spend more time with other people.
|
| Once you have been sufficiently traumatized, this "biological
| cue" (if it even exists) goes away pretty fast and rarely
| returns.
|
| The USA is the land of trauma, multifaceted and pervasive, and
| telling people to touch grass or go to their local bar won't stop
| it nor heal the damage.
|
| Note: the word "trauma" appears nowhere in this article, nor does
| the word "capitalism". The author does expend a lot of words to
| tediously lecture about phones, screen time, and the giant houses
| we all supposedly inhabit.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > The USA is the land of trauma, multifaceted and pervasive,
| and telling people to touch grass or go to their local bar
| won't stop it nor heal the damage.
|
| You might find something resonates in this essay [0]
|
| I don't think it's unique to US America. It's well documented
| via writers like de Toqueville and Putnam, but the same
| phenomena are there in the UK, in Australia, and elsewhere.
|
| Technology lets us see ourselves, and we are quite sickened by
| how we treat one another.
|
| [0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/radical-disbelief-and-its-
| ca...
| everdrive wrote:
| There's another side to this coin: the exultation of and
| obsession with trauma. There is an unstated and unnamed
| assumption in modern American culture: that you have
| experienced trauma, and more importantly that trauma is what
| has constructed your personality.
|
| This view has _some_ merit, but has been taken in uncritically
| as a fundamental assumption of life. Forcing yourself to
| imagine traumas, or constantly revisit legitimate traumas is
| deeply unhealthy. There was a time when no one could talk about
| their psychological issues, but now the pendulum has swung too
| far in the opposite direction: we has been discussing our
| trauma to a greater and greater degree for the past 30 years,
| but mental health outcomes are only getting worse. I'm
| undecided if this is casual, but there is no evidence it's
| _helping_.
| logicchains wrote:
| >There is an unstated and unnamed assumption in modern
| American culture: that you have experienced trauma, and more
| importantly that trauma is what has constructed your
| personality
|
| This is not "American culture", it's American leftism. Almost
| no conservative American thinks like that. And it's dying out
| by itself because American liberals aren't having enough
| children and views/values are partially heritable.
| zfg wrote:
| > _Almost no conservative American thinks like that._
|
| Of course they do. Victimhood is a common driver of all
| politics.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| That's exactly right. Leftists are victims of the past,
| conservatives are victims of the future. Conserving the
| past to protect it against the future is, in general, the
| guiding sentiment.
| standardUser wrote:
| Religion is what is dying out in the US, despite being
| "partially heritable", and with it a framework for
| recontextualizing trauma.
|
| And since we're talking about trauma, it's important to
| remember that suicide rates in the US are highest among
| middle-aged white men.
| eddyfromtheblok wrote:
| since this article is US focused, 66% of households own pets.
| People would rather hang out with their pets. People bring their
| dogs to shop and people used to bring them to bars in the late
| 2010s.
| juresotosek wrote:
| Very concerning
| hnthrow90348765 wrote:
| If you ever want this back, the solution is simple: less work
| hours for the same pay. I suspect that societal health isn't a
| priority of capitalism though.
| HPsquared wrote:
| If everyone just (on average) worked less, rent would be lower.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| And houses would be proportionally fewer, smaller, and and in
| need for repair.
|
| That is unless we assume builders and maintenance people are
| exempt from working less
| HPsquared wrote:
| And that would be okay!
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I agree, as long as folks realize there is no free lunch.
| riehwvfbk wrote:
| I take it you haven't been to Silicon Valley, the tech
| capital of the world. It's a place where everyone is hyper
| competitive and works as much as they physically can, and
| then some. And those are the slackers, the ones who truly
| want to get ahead optimize their sleep schedule to need
| only a few hours. It's also a place where poorly built and
| maintained budget housing from the 1960s sells for several
| million USD.
|
| Or you know, Japan. They are such slackers that they have a
| special word for death by overwork (karoshi). I hear they
| live in giant mansions.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I don't know what point you are getting at. Can you say
| it plainly?
|
| My point is simply that if everyone works less, society
| will have proportionally less material stuff.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| He's saying that, in the places where people _do_ work
| harder, they don 't actually have more/larger/better
| houses. Rather, the work just becomes part of a zero-sum
| competition that bids up the price of the (fixed)
| quantity/quality of houses.
|
| This partially contradicts your point.
|
| What I would add (to reconcile the two points), is that
| one kind of work is not fungible with another kind of
| work. Yes, people work very hard in Silicon Valley -- but
| they are not working hard at building houses. If they
| were, there'd be a lot of supply, and the price would
| fall.
|
| Overall, this is perhaps a comment about the
| (mis-)allocation of work in society.
| blargey wrote:
| As a vague platitude yes, total output has to be reduced
| by some amount if labor input is reduced. When actually
| thinking of concrete impacts on society, though, the
| quantity and quality of many kinds of societal outputs do
| not scale linearly with overall work-hours, nevermind
| that relative allocation of work-hours across different
| fields and disciplines would be scaled in nonlinear ways
| (see also: complaints about make-work and "bullshit
| jobs"). And housing in particular is almost universally
| bottlenecked by the supply of land and limitations in
| organization/planning of cities and towns rather than any
| shortage of construction labor.
|
| Given all that, "houses would be proportionally fewer,
| smaller, and and in need for repair...unless we assume
| builders and maintenance people are exempt from working
| less" is not actually self-evident, and is more likely to
| be taken as an attempt to paint an exaggerated picture
| for rhetorical purposes.
| chaostheory wrote:
| [delayed]
| rcpt wrote:
| > In 2023, 74 percent of all restaurant traffic came from "off
| premises" customers--that is, from takeout and delivery--up from
| 61 percent before COVID
|
| Sounds like people are just eating out more?
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/239410/us-food-service-a...
| geremiiah wrote:
| It's not that I want to stay at home. It's just that I find it
| impossible to have a fulfilling social life. I don't know why
| these articles always seem to assume that these home bound people
| have good social opportunities.
| nicd wrote:
| Very fair, and worth addressing. May I ask- what are the main
| barriers preventing you from socializing? Could intentionally
| designed apps or social structures reduce those barriers? What
| do you think would be most helpful?
| germinalphrase wrote:
| For many people, it's probably no deeper than the question,
| "where would I go?".
| geremiiah wrote:
| 1. I would go out alone to some events, but most of the time
| I would end up not speaking to anyone because people were not
| approachable. Everyone else is typically in groups and closed
| off to outside interactions. There were some exceptions but
| that was the norm.
|
| 2. I'd search for some hobby/interest groups that would fit
| my interests, but nothing really fits. Either there are no
| meetups for such interests or there are meetups but the
| demographic at those meetup is not the demographic that I am
| interested in meeting.
|
| 3. Out of desperation I tried to be open minded and joined
| some hobby groups and did some sports that were really out of
| character for me. Here I did meet some interesting people,
| but I did not make a good impression because I was so
| obviously out of place.
|
| 4. Eventually my Friday nights consisted of going for a swim
| at 21:00-22:00 or going to the library of the nearest
| university so that I could feel some kind of social warmth
| sitting in a hall with all the other people.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| 1. I think you would be surprised how much people are
| friendly in a socializing event if you just showed up and
| said hey I'm new, can I join in this conversation. Then
| just listen 80% of the time and maybe ask a question or
| two. Then do it again with a follow up of what you listened
| to. Just keep at it.
|
| 2. What are your interests, precisely? And what do you mean
| the demographic you are interested in meeting-- what is
| that demographic, precisely?
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| I feel like these things really compound on top of each
| other. It's so much easier to go to these kinds of things
| and meet people when you have a group of likeminded friends
| to go with.
| mibes wrote:
| I think old distinction between the words "unsociable" meaning
| not wanting to socialise, and "anti-social" meaning causing
| trouble to society, is useful. I guess I'm swimming against the
| tide with this one though
| panarky wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asociality
| Barrin92 wrote:
| A lot of the observations are true but it's really funny to me to
| frame this through the "21st century" post-pandemic, lens in
| particular the part about self-optimization, "secular monks" as
| the article calls it. Immediately reminded me of Baudrillard, (
| _America_ 1989):
|
| _" The skateboarder with his Walkman, the intellectual working
| on his word- processor, the Bronx breakdancer whirling
| frantically in the Roxy, the jogger and the body-builder:
| everywhere, whether in regard to the body or the mental
| faculties, you find the same blank solitude, the same
| narcissistic refraction. This omnipresent cult of the body is
| extraordinary. It is the only object on which everyone is made to
| concentrate, not as a source of pleasure, but as an object of
| frantic concern[...] This 'into' is the key to everything. The
| point is not to be nor even to have a body, but to be into your
| own body. Into your sexuality, into your own desire. Into your
| own functions, as if they were energy differentials or video
| screens. The hedonism of the 'into': the body is a scenario and
| the curious hygienist threnody devoted to it runs through the
| innumerable fitness centres, body- building gyms, stimulation and
| simulation studios that stretch from Venice to Tupanga Canyon,
| bearing witness to a collective asexual obsession. _"
|
| He was one of the first people to point to the irony of a health
| and beauty obsessed culture that doesn't actually use their
| health or beauty for anything, because they've removed any real
| social contact from their life, just existing in isolation in
| front of a screen. This is the gym goer / instagram influencer
| who Baudrillard would have compared more to a corpse in a morgue
| than an actual person.
| trashface wrote:
| People getting tired of the status games.
| lapcat wrote:
| I recently started reading "The Art and Science of Connection" by
| Kasley Killam, who argues that social health should be considered
| the equal to physical health and mental health as three
| essential, interdependent pillars of personal health, and lack of
| social connections can be as deadly as, say, smoking cigarettes,
| to the extent that shortens your life.
| matrix87 wrote:
| > This neededness can come in several forms: social, economic, or
| communitarian. Our children and partners can depend on us for
| care or income. Our colleagues can rely on us to finish a
| project, or to commiserate about an annoying boss. Our religious
| congregations and weekend poker parties can count on us to fill a
| pew or bring the dip.
|
| I think that this point is the underlying rationale for writing
| the article. "Not enough" people are making sacrifices. It isn't
| that they're less happy, it's that the author doesn't want them
| to be happy. They'd rather rewrite the definition of happiness
|
| If all you're doing is giving, why bother? You could have a wife
| and kids, or you could do FIRE. If you go the wife and kids
| route, suddenly all of your money and time are no longer "yours"
|
| I think, if some people look at society and institutions and say
| "I'm giving more than what I'm receiving here", there's nothing
| wrong with that. Framing it as the individual's problem is dumb
| and counterproductive. Religion is on the way out, people are
| getting sick of lying to themselves
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Well yeah, of course it's not an individual problem. Reading
| your comment, though. it's very clear that you're responding
| the way that you are partially because of how difficult you
| perceive these interactions to be. That's not your fault, it's
| a consequence of how we have constructed our society. That's
| the problem. To put it a different way, while it's fine to
| choose not to walk sometimes, it wouldn't be healthy if you
| were against the idea of walking because your leg muscles had
| atrophied from constant sitting.
| matrix87 wrote:
| I don't think the choice between
| wife->kids->retirement->death and something else is analogous
| to choosing to walk or not walk. Walking is a natural thing
| that's intrinsic to our biology, the other thing is a product
| of culture, policy, time, etc. Other cultures have alternate
| ways of doing
|
| if you're equating that lifestyle pipeline to walking or
| participating in society, it's not really a valid point
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| >I don't think the choice... is analogous
|
| It seemed less like a wife-kids-retirement pipeline and
| more like a general aversion towards any kind of
| social/communal obligation. The former is unnecessary, I
| agree, but the article makes the case and I agree that we
| have a certain innate need for the latter kind of
| relationship.
| matrix87 wrote:
| every community wants more engagement, resources, etc
|
| not every community is worth the engagement
|
| my point isn't that community in general is bad, it's
| that communities aren't entitled to engagement unless
| they actually make it worth it for the participants. if
| the social pressure to join goes out the window and
| communities have to exist via their own merits, that's
| not a bad thing. it's a correction
| lapcat wrote:
| > It isn't that they're less happy, it's that the author
| doesn't want them to be happy. They'd rather rewrite the
| definition of happiness
|
| Where do you get that? Here are some quotes from the article:
|
| "activities at home were associated with a "strong reduction"
| in self-reported happiness."
|
| "Afterward, people filled out a questionnaire. How did they
| feel? Despite the broad assumption that the best commute is a
| silent one, the people instructed to talk with strangers
| actually reported feeling significantly more positive than
| those who'd kept to themselves."
|
| These are self reports, not another person's definition.
| matrix87 wrote:
| my point is, the end goal of writing this kind of article
| isn't increasing the net amount of happiness in the world.
| the happiness argument is just a bunch of anecdotal evidence
| that always conveniently supports the premise
|
| put differently, if enough people were getting married,
| having kids, etc, you wouldn't see this kind of article. it's
| not about making people happier, it's about pressuring people
| to do shit that's not in their self interest
| lapcat wrote:
| > if enough people were getting married, having kids, etc,
| you wouldn't see this kind of article. it's not about
| making people happier, it's about pressuring people to do
| shit that's not in their self interest
|
| This is both exceedingly cynical and completely unsupported
| by the text of the article, which talks about things like
| public spaces, TV, smartphones, and dinner parties. Where
| exactly does the article prescribe marriage and kids as the
| solution?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I made a point to improve my social skills before covid and I'm
| now I'm having an absolute field day. The number of people who
| are lonely and wish they had something to do means that when I
| ask someone to coffee, drinks, or just to hangout, chances are
| they'll say yes. I'm an active member of one of my city's discord
| servers, so there's a substantial pool to draw from. I've
| organized in person book clubs, movie nights, and group coffee
| outings, all from the same pool.
|
| More recently, I've engaged with my city's kink community which
| has no shortage of public socials. I'm at the point where I have
| to be choosy about how I want to spend my time because it's easy
| to get over booked.
|
| Maybe I have higher initiative than most, but I found the
| experience to be dependent on how much effort I put into it and
| incredibly rewarding.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| IME this is the right of it- it is harder to develop the muscle
| to take the initiative to be social. It's hard to consider but
| socializing is an active investment, not a passive one to be
| consumed easily like social media feeds. It's very easy to say
| "I signed up for a thing, but I'll flake instead because I just
| don't feel like it".
| dinkumthinkum wrote:
| Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, if you are "engaging
| [your] city's kink community," you are probably a strong
| outlier!
| scotty79 wrote:
| I'm waiting for schizoid personality label to become en vogue so
| I can claim I was ahead of the curve.
| chaostheory wrote:
| One factor for lack of dine in customers is the exorbitant tips
| and extra fees that restaurants like tacking on. It's harder for
| them to do it with take out customers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-11 23:01 UTC)