Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

#41
Whenever I watch Jane Goodall documentaries (the lady who lived with chimps), I'm reminded of how barely removed we are from the primates. They have social groups and favorites too, along with awkward and sometimes murderous behaviors towards outsiders.

Theory of mind is a fascinating thing, and we aren't born with that ability, and even through adulthood we can't always easily understand someone else's mental state. At the end of the day we're still communicating through a very limited subset of our thoughts (verbally, through writing, or even rich media like videos and games). But most of the time our communications in real life never even get to THAT limited subset, instead just hovering around the surface discussing weather and sports and whatnot. It's hard to really get to know someone else.

I think the internet has allowed new forms of interaction that were previously difficult to find (deep discussions on a niche topics, pseudonymously) -- for better or worse, as we've come to see.

But fundamentally we're still the same social apes whose population exploded after agriculture and industrialization, but whose evolution has not fundamentally changed since before the stone age. Our brains have very limited output bandwidth compared to its input processing abilities.

------------

Slight segue here, but part of the reason I'm excited about AI and technologies like Neuralink is because they present possibilities by which consciousness might exceed our biological/neurological limitations. Even current LLMs have (I would argue) superior reasoning and moral ability compared to most non-expert humans, and a much broader theory of mind (if not necessarily deeper, but even that's debatable) that can encompass characters from so many walks of life, both real/historical and imagined. Very few writers, much less average people, have such an extensive understanding of different personalities and behaviors. One of the uses I hope LLMs come to encompass is psychotherapy, an infinitely patient yet hyper-trained therapist for every troubled human.

And if we can really start to export "brain stuff" for external observation and processing, sure, that's the end of privacy (but let's face it: it's already dead), but way more exciting to me is the possibility that we can then really start to study and maybe even inhabit the mindspace of other individuals unfettered by the limits of verbal/written communication. It's like loading their consciousness into your host as a VM, or at least dual-booting into it. It'd be a whole new level of empathy (and probably manipulation and abuse), and probably the start of commodified consciousnesses that you can rent to truly roleplay someone else for a few days/decades/whatever. It's a tired sci-fi trope, but who knows, we might begin to actually breach its frontiers in our lifetimes. That's pretty exciting/terrifying to me... not only the end of awkwardness, but the potential start of a true Borg-like hive mind. (Yeah, I'm a collectivist at heart, and that seems like a wonderful goal to me.)

There will always be individuals who don't want to be, eh, "assimilated". But even that in and of itself is something that we will probably begin to understand better with these technologies... why some organisms are more community-minded and others more individualistic. We might be able to map out a "tree of thoughts", similar to how we have a "tree of life" that documents evolution between species. We can trace certain thought patterns back to biological origins, predict how they're likely going to evolve in given habitats/situations, and probably chemically guide them toward a desired outcome. It would be the end of even the illusion of agency.

For a system like that to make sense, you'd probably have to not believe in free will to begin with (I don't), but it would mean a fundamental upset in how we perceive other organisms, with the consciousness-to-consciousness barrier broken. If we could apply the same systems to other species (animals, sea jellies, siphonophores...) at a neuronal level, we might even discover novel thought techniques that primates and mammals never evolved, opening up entire new modalities of consciousness. If you think talking to teenagers is awkward, what about singing with siphonophores? Comedy with dolphins?

It's all really fascinating to me, but anyway... this is just a sci-fi rant by this point, lol. I'll shut up now.

Re: Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

#42
If you're socially misfit, it really helps to have a peer group. Speaking of myself, the high school geek is perfectly comfortable in an engineering company, for example. Doesn't provide all one's social needs, but at least a sense of having peers, of belonging somewhere.

But aside from that, 30 years ago, say, for a misfit it was either "make an effort" or "stay lonely and bored and single". With so much online interaction these days, I think all but the naturally social (not the majority of the population!) have less incentive to even bother.

And now the office social life is being replaced, to some extent, by working at home. So yes, technology has everything to do with this.

Re: Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

#43

It’s only awkward in certain cultures. Travel more and you’ll see places where there isn’t such widespread social disturbances.

It could be also the density and speed of the place. In big cities, it seems like everyone is already in a rush or in the middle of something, so folks may be scared to "interrupt" or disturb strangers, even if it would make their day. In smaller towns, that kind of vibe may not exist as much.

Re: Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

#44

There’s a reason humans and alcohol have a multi-thousand year history.

I was about to say something about animals that consume alcohol and looked it up[0]. It seems that elephants and monkeys do preferentially, which does seem to back that social angle.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_anima...

Re: Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

#45
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed

I don't have citation, but I concur with the GP, I grew up in the east, and it is far easier to socialize and also form deep friendships because everything is said out in the open and not hidden behind layers of decorum. Here is an example and a demonstration. As an example people are allowed to comment on someone being too heavy or too thin with them present. Here is the demonstration: Now as soon as I gave an examp…

Years of watching anime, though, has led me to believe a certain eastern culture is basically celebrating awkwardness. ;)

Re: Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

#46
What is “awkwardness?” Maybe I’ve never felt it. Maybe I always do.

Is it the condition of not knowing for absolute certain what to do next? Is it the condition of having done something in a social setting and feeling a reaction that suggests what I did was a transgression of an unwritten rule?

Re: Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

#48
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of this passive aggressive hyper enthusiastic sarcasm is palpable. The basic fact is that asynchrony forum posts request different social rules than live face to face conversation.

Perhaps, but "citation needed" is always just an attempt to shut down those who don't fit the 'decorum'. It adds nothing to the conversation and is not good faith forum participation. There is no quote taken that could be cited, and there never is. The request is impossible to fulfill. Of course, that's the point. This anti-social "unless your words come from someone I respect, I don't want to talk to you" behaviour…

It has nothing to do with decorum. It is simply a way to point out that someone’s assertion is unwarranted by presented evidence (often none) and aggressive.

It’s far better faith to ask for some evidence than to rebuttal with “No, you’re wrong”, which is equally dumb.

If you can’t support a claim, you shouldn’t assert it as a fact.

Re: Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

#49

I remember reading a book that stated human socialization evolved when the primary interactions were between family groups and small tribal communities. Everyone knew everyone. Socialization with outsiders was formalized and much more time-consuming and awkward. In the modern era, we are constantly interacting with strangers or people we barely know. Some gregarious people are very good at this, but otherwise it can…

From my opinion I'll add two things.

We're expected to interact with people cold. Know nothing about them and have no shared experiences.

We have a culture of fear of strangers.

A lot of this is due to fear mongering by the media and suburbanization.

So you don't live in a small community where everyone knows everyone. You don't live in a dense city where you rub shoulders with lots and lots of strangers who are all okay. You live in a suburb where you never have a detailed interaction with strangers. And the media tries to drive home that those people are dangerous.

One thing that's declined in the US is churches, clubs, neighborhood bars. Which were good ways for people to meet each other in a high trust environment.

Re: Ask HN: Have humans always found socialising so challenging?

#50
Possibly, although it may be relative like others have noted. Maybe people were awkward in the Radio Era, and just sat around at home listening to other people "supposedly" having fun in the Roaring Twenties. "That seems like so much fun, yet I could never do that." However, in the modern era, other reasons might be:

Cell Phones - In every situation now, there's an excuse in your pocket to avoid everybody and not interact. To scan your finger up and up through images, while avoiding those around you. To tap on the endless hallway rather than talking.

TVs - They're in many public businesses related to socialization, and in pretty much every household. It wants you to look at the screen. Its easier to look at the screen than talk. The TV does not actively dismiss you, reject you openly in a bar, or sneer at your lack of the latest fashion / tech gadget. It shows you images that are better than your life every day, it doesn't need to reject you to make you know it's part of a better social desirability class.

Achievement Pressure - The whole world's gone gamified and you can feel bad when you drop out in the operating room. Week late, week early. Didn't walk soon enough. Didn't speak first word quickly enough. Not a math prodigy before kindergarten. You're being left behind by the 10x children, the AP class children, the children that started with advantages. Your paycheck's not what all the websites say your supposed to be getting. $50B?? My paycheck has 50k on it... Your family's not like the family on TV. You, your spouse, your children, your parents, have all those horrible issues the drug commercials tell you to worry about. Not nearly as hot as the movie people. Does my voice sound that way?

Post reply on HN