The Social Recession: By the Numbers

https://novum.substack.com/p/social-recession-by-the-numbers

by antonomon • 4 years ago

248 333 4 years ago

novum.substack.com

antonomon5• 4 years ago

Less friends, relationships on the decline, delayed adulthood, trust at an all-time low, and many diseases of despair. The prognosis is not great.

1270018080• 4 years ago

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?

willnonya• 4 years ago

Which empire are you imagining is in decline?

antonomon5• 4 years ago

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.

nonrandomstring2• 4 years ago

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).

seydor7• 4 years ago

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.

rayiner8• 4 years ago

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.

BlargMcLarg• 4 years ago

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.

seydor7• 4 years ago

in population decline

So? It's not the most populous groups that dominate, quite the contrary. The world had half the population just 50 years ago.

Der_Einzige• 4 years ago

The collectivist societies, like South Korea and Japan, are experiencing stronger and worse populations declines than highly individualistic societies.

godelski6• 4 years ago

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.

peanut_merchant• 4 years ago

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.

woooooo• 4 years ago

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"

seydor7• 4 years ago

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

hackerlight4• 4 years ago

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.

Supermancho4• 4 years ago

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.

e9• 4 years ago

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.

seydor7• 4 years ago

Litigation is unusually high in the US.

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

badpun9• 4 years ago

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.

hotpotamus6• 4 years ago

The US having the highest rate of private gun ownership in the world doesn't really make it seem like a high trust society though, does it?

Test01292• 4 years ago

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.

brnaftr361• 4 years ago

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.

hahdhdkdbdjs• 4 years ago

> presented with numbers about declining trust
proceeds to distrust the numbers

thanks.

seydor7• 4 years ago

declining trust does not mean "Low trust".

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_socie...

paulpauper2• 4 years ago

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)

This is the definition of trust unless I am missing something. Trusting your family or clan is social trust.

BigRedDog1669• 4 years ago

Low trust society means low trust between people publicly (in society). Family trust is private and isn't what is being talked about with this label.

seydor7• 4 years ago

trust in public things. or as it says here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_socie...

"the ability of various peoples to organize effectively for commercial purposes without relying on blood ties or government intervention"

Ozzie_osman• 4 years ago

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.

rabuse3• 4 years ago

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.

chii• 4 years ago

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.

britch• 4 years ago

I think it's framed as a "problem" because it is associated with high rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide.

It doesn't seem like people like how things are going all that much

nathias• 4 years ago

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).

errantmind2• 4 years ago

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.

juunpp2• 4 years ago

The best part isn't even "sitting on their phones", but walking on their phones past other humans.

hotpotamus6• 4 years ago

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.

trashtester5• 4 years ago

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.

godelski6• 4 years ago

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.

errantmind2• 4 years ago

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

Dracophoenix• 4 years ago

Any type of relationship is inherently risky.

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.

achenet4• 4 years ago

Upvoted, but wanted to add a little comment to thank you for writing that, your analysis is spot on and has helped be see the world more clearly.

harry8• 4 years ago

People made this very argument about tv.

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!

flyingfences• 4 years ago

People made this very argument about tv.

And they were right then, too. I despise the television.

cowpig• 4 years ago

I wonder how much of this can be explained by social media? Feels like a feeling of impending doom with climate change could also be a factor.

Also, I'd really like to see this trend in a broader context. How much did these kinds of indicators dip during, say, the great depression?

trgn2• 4 years ago

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

DiggyJohnson• 4 years ago

I genuinely fail to see how social media does not fit perfectly into the description of mass media commoditization in modernity.

robocat• 4 years ago

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.

tchock23• 4 years ago

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.

Gigachad2• 4 years ago

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.

c1ccccc12• 4 years ago

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.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-tri...

quickthrower2• 4 years ago

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?

bergenty3• 4 years ago

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.

gernb5• 4 years ago

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.

jackcosgrove5• 4 years ago

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.

readthenotes1• 4 years ago

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!

rafaelero12• 4 years ago

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.

mistermann2• 4 years ago

We young people have been detaching from the old ways of living without really building a new narrative.

George Hotz, are we living in a simulation (6 minutes)

https://youtu.be/_SpptYg_0Rs

soared• 4 years ago

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.

rafaelero12• 4 years ago

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.

colinsane4• 4 years ago

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.

williamtrask3• 4 years ago

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.

williamcotton• 4 years ago

You’re in a long line of youths suspect of the old fashioned ways. It always has and always will sound patronizing and unhelpful!

Ancalagon3• 4 years ago

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.

rafaelero12• 4 years ago

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.

debacle• 4 years ago

Look at the reddit front page and tell me it isn't enabling much of these behaviors.

mistermann2• 4 years ago

I thinks it's fascinating how it evades significant study, attention, and curiosity.

seydor7• 4 years ago

Look at russia and see a society that is trying to disable those behaviors

cr4nberry3• 4 years ago

Look at the reddit front page

I'd rather jump off a bridge tbh

jesuscript5• 4 years ago

Here’s a wild question:

Are we not all friends here on HN? Or am I so depraved and desperate? Have I socially died and don’t even know it, friends?

We’re all friends right? Right? What the fuck is going on.

dgfitz• 4 years ago

I don’t consider anyone on HN a friend if that means anything.

jesuscript5• 4 years ago

Maybe that’s the intangible the linked post is not addressing. What does friendship even mean to the people they tracked?

Being able to talk to people who are willing to spend time talking back is a basis for friendship, at least in my book.

Friendship doesn’t always have to be so serious.

conductr• 4 years ago

Me either but I can see how it serves the purpose of a friend and for some people it could support increased isolation

A4ET8a8uTh06• 4 years ago

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 ).

In short, only you can answer that question.

jesuscript5• 4 years ago

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.

OrangeMonkey2• 4 years ago

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.

I'm rooting for you man.

paganel• 4 years ago

barely concealed contempt.

Maybe I'm looking at this through rose-tinted glasses, but I see that feeling as decreasing here on HN.

ctoth• 4 years ago

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.

thakoppno• 4 years ago

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.

godelski6• 4 years ago

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.

kelseyfrog• 4 years ago

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.

civilized• 4 years ago

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.

pochekailov2• 4 years ago

Would you go to a pub with me?

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.

jesuscript5• 4 years ago

Half the things you listed would destroy the fragile friendship. Think of ways of preserving it, however weak the bond.

I’ll read your posts on HN and upvote you, how’s that, and thoughtfully reply.

api2• 4 years ago

Would you go to a pub with me?

My answer to that one is yes for most people on this site. :)

gernb5• 4 years ago

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.

simonsarris• 4 years ago

My friend we're in the pub right now

nomdep• 4 years ago

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

Ancalagon3• 4 years ago

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.

reader_x• 4 years ago

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.

mancerayder• 4 years ago

Nope, we're not friends.

Your notion of friendship is slightly odd... But. That brings me to:

Why isn't there more of a concerted attempt at local HN meetups?

Ask HN, Show HN, how about Meetup HN: (some city)

h0p3• 4 years ago

I'll be your friend (https://philosopher.life/#Friendship), nomad (https://philosopher.life/#Find%20The%20Others). HMU (https://philosopher.life/#Contact%20h0p3) anytime. `/salute`.

paulpauper2• 4 years ago

I think there are some key factors:

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.

Ancalagon3• 4 years ago

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.

thewebcount• 4 years ago

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!

doliveira• 4 years ago

About #3, I don't think it's more enjoyable, it's just more comfortable.

Much like physical exercise, social interactions are a biological necessity. People aren't just choosing to be lonely.

cr4nberry3• 4 years ago

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

antonomon5• 4 years ago

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.

hexatin3• 4 years ago

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.

cr4nberry3• 4 years ago

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

jackcosgrove5• 4 years ago

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.

pmichaud• 4 years ago

What signs do you see that we’re headed toward a new, stable equilibrium, instead of just catastrophically destabilizing?

jackcosgrove5• 4 years ago

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.

throwaway2903• 4 years ago

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)

jackcosgrove5• 4 years ago

I will answer in good faith, cautiously.

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.

c1ccccc12• 4 years ago

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.

colinsane4• 4 years ago

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.

jackcosgrove5• 4 years ago

I get it.

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.

augustuspolius2• 4 years ago

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.

achenet4• 4 years ago

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.

tjr225• 4 years ago

We all got to see what life would be life if we put our entire existence on the internet. What we built does not make the world a better place.

ilaksh• 4 years ago

Its not just the internet. The economy also plays a role.

worik• 4 years ago

"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.

analyte123• 4 years ago

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.

bradlys2• 4 years ago

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!

martin_drapeau• 4 years ago

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.

gernb5• 4 years ago

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.

vanilla_nut• 4 years ago

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.

cirgue• 4 years ago

WFH is only going to make this worse.

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.

rabuse3• 4 years ago

Mind if I ask what location this is where your neighbors are so "neighborly"?

gernb5• 4 years ago

Sounds nice. Though not as nice as collaborating with co-workers.

How do you deal with meetings? work info that's not public? etc..?

elforce002• 4 years ago

This. It seems people forgot how to socialize or that they have friends outside work. I just hope don't comeback to the office for a long time.

hn_throwaway_992• 4 years ago

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.

squokko2• 4 years ago

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.

booleandilemma• 4 years ago

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.

rafaelero12• 4 years ago

WFH is only going to make this worse.

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.

waboremo2• 4 years ago

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.

Loocid• 4 years ago

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.

randomdata11• 4 years ago

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.

lezojeda• 4 years ago

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.

asow922• 4 years ago

Do you think that coworking spaces could be a potential way to merge the WFH ethos with our inherent need to socialize?

rayiner8• 4 years ago

This Stanford university study suggests almost 90% of couples met somewhere other than work: https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/20822/way-of-meeting-part...

syntheweave• 4 years ago

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.

Mountain_Skies• 4 years ago

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.

majormajor• 4 years ago

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.

nicbou7• 4 years ago

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.

rayiner8• 4 years ago

Has there been an increase in urbanist views? In the US, big cities saw huge population losses in the last couple of years: https://www.brookings.edu/research/big-cities-saw-historic-p...

And the cities that kept growing are places that are not urbanist at all: Phoenix, Fort Worth, etc.

marze• 4 years ago

The virtual presence tech should be near equivalent to in-person interactions within four years.

hexatin3• 4 years ago

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.

andyetwork• 4 years ago

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.

t. Zoomer

tsunagatta• 4 years ago

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?

Arcanum-XIII• 4 years ago

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.

snird• 4 years ago

WFH is making it much better for me.

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.

marcus_holmes3• 4 years ago

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.

nimbius• 4 years ago

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

colinsane4• 4 years ago

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.

moneycantbuy• 4 years ago

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?

markvdb• 4 years ago

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.

lucasfcosta• 4 years ago

This piece is brilliant.

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.

dvsfish• 4 years ago

"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.

unrealp• 4 years ago

- 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.

bradlys2• 4 years ago

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 all idpol.

viridian• 4 years ago

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.

jasmer4• 4 years ago

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'.

firstSpeaker• 4 years ago

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.

jasmer4• 4 years ago

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.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/267737/record-high-women-prefer...

aspyct2• 4 years ago

I do miss the "show up and mess about" part of my childhood lives.

However, did that disappear because of the technology, or because I became an adult?

randomdata11• 4 years ago

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.

jasmer4• 4 years ago

'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'.

anovikov• 4 years ago

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.

mavu• 4 years ago

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.

fleddr2• 4 years ago

And to make matters worse, AI is coming for us. Specifically for our creativity, soon destroying any sense of remaining human meaning.

And we're on the verge of a AR/VR breakthrough, probably making the screen time issue even worse.

trh0awayman• 4 years ago

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.

fleddr2• 4 years ago

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 Social Recession: By the Numbers

Related Stories