Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Loneliness Epidemic

melmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 337 posts

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#281

Post by throwaway3627 »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #209
bluntfang wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the creepy part is going to a public place and sexualizing it by explicitly seeking out "pretty girl"s and buying them drinks. Going out and seek genuine connections with people instead of buying "pretty girl"s drinks is not creepy.

You don't go in a bar for a deep conversation, you have the library and local groups of interests for that. A bar is just for relaxing and socialization, you can talk anything you want as long as you find someone to listen (or ignore) you.

Libraries, at least in the US, are mostly silence zones apart from information/checkout areas. There are still a few independent bookstores left, and those are good. College is still the preferred and most popular setting to meet a quality spouse. Online should be considered one of many tools as an adjunct to IRL, but not the primary source.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#282

Post by throwaway3627 »

kodz4 wrote: post #16

Ants don't meet at the bar at the end of the day to chill with each other. It isn't necessary. And their society isn't unraveling. The more connected the human ant hill gets the more we will behave like ants. Disconnected because we don't need to be as connected. Connected because that is the only way to survive. Those that can't handle the change...wont. This is a process of societal metamorphosis whose tracks have…

Two ants walk into a bar...

Maybe they do and we just don't know it? (anthropocentrism)

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#283

Post by d1zzy »

watwut wrote: post #206
cosmodisk wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you described here is essentially 'survivorship bias'. Also,just because someone married away into a cosy suburb with 2 kids and a nice hubby,it doesn't mean they aren't lonely. There are millions of people out there who would kill for a chance to have someone outside that "perfect" life just to talk openly with... All those "desperate housewives" don't get created without reason.

Suburbs and 2 kids are both isolating. Especially when kids are small.

It depends on where you coming from.

I agree that for someone that had a very active social life before having kids and moving to the suburbs would likely see a drop in that activity when suddenly having to take care of small kids in a suburban situation.

However, for someone that before having kids they already don't have any friends/family close by (imagine a fresh middle-aged, childless, immigrant couple moving in an area where there are very few other people from their own country), having kids would force a lot more opportunities to interact with other people (doctors, caretakers, teachers, other parents, etc) and ultimately speed up integration. Sure, none of those relationships may become a deep friendship connection but it's a lot better than having no human interaction.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#284

Post by opportune »

Existenceblinks wrote: post #238
DisruptiveDave wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make more money -> buy bigger house with more land = more physical separation from others. Make more money -> spend more time at work -> buy more "things" -> attach happiness to those things = set up for discontentment.

Yes, the problem is that people are incapable of "making enough money" - Enough for buying satisfied house and land AND a nice secondary room in the middle of city. So they support two main life styles. Need a peaceful time, go to house surrounding by nature. Need a party, city life, back in town. - Enough money for commuting between places as you want - Enough money for buying whatever objects. Get bored, go shoppin…

Also usually the richer you get, the richer your social circle gets. I remember reading once that almost nobody on facebook has more friends than any of their friends (meaning, each user on facebook with n friends has at least one friend with >n friends). The same is almost certainly true for wealth, or income.

A mid-career software engineer at FAANG might have a greater income than every single person they grew up with. But they probably know middle managers making even more, as well as ex-colleagues who hit it big with a startup. Those middle managers know many people making more than them, all the way up the food chain. Those colleagues at the startups probably know people who had more equity, VCs, etc. with even more money. And this continues on and on.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#285

Post by dondawest »

zwkrt wrote: post #151
LordFast wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Anecdotally, this checks out. All of my middle/lower-middle class friends from high school have long been married and raising families, almost in all cases raising them with their extended families. Most of my professional tech friends are barely getting started in their late 30s, and everyone who's started had basically put their career into a slower gear first. I made a similar choice a couple of years…

You have assumed the role of the loser, as per https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... It feels nice down here, join us!

No way man, I bet if we found out the specifics we’d both deem him “clueless” on the GP hierarchy.

Unless he literally works in a warehouse or in a position that is pure “worker bee,” $100 says if we knew the actual job title this guy held we’d deem him “clueless.” (Not that he actually IS clueless, who knows, I’m just using that word in the gervais principle sense of it).

“I made a similar choice a couple of years ago to downgrade my career into a slower-paced, less stressful scenario with less money” is quintessential “clueless” reasoning.

Prioritizing things like a slow pace and a lack of stress is something that “clueless” people tend to do, not “losers.” Darryl (& co) in the warehouse are stressed, dude, and they don’t have the time or inclination to prioritize things like lowering stress. They’re too busy living paycheck-to-paycheck. Toby in the office is less stressed, and I bet if you talked to the character Toby he’d say almost exactly what the guy wrote above.

I mean look what he’s doing here — sharing his emotional reasoning with the group. That’s something “clueless” people do, not “losers,” who tend to merely act on emotions rather than reflect on them and THEN act.

If this guy ACTUALLY became a “loser” and started working in an Amazon warehouse and it wasn’t part of a larger “clueless” meta-scheme to get a tax break or something, I would be literally shocked.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#286

Post by throwaway3627 »

dkarl wrote: post #120

You can see the problem here: A national culture that promotes polite restraint, and which actively fends off and forestalls the forming of relationships between strangers, is one that might as well be inviting loneliness on its population. Let's not forget there are two hazards here. Loneliness is one; the other is the suffocating tyranny of constantly attending to others' ideas and feelings, because attending to yo…

Freedoms of being alone:

- no one asking favors

- no obligations

- no emotional BS dumped on you

- no judgements

- no going along with what you don't want to do or opting-out

- no one invading/pushing your boundaries

- no meetings to keep

- fewer liabilities

- no disappointments

- no hierarchy

- more projects and work done

Disadvantages to being alone:

- more stress

- more anxiety

- less potential fun

- less sex

- less humor

- less mental stimulation

- fewer opportunities

- less productivity for big projects

To each, their own; there are many trade-offs and no simple answers. Key question "better together?"

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#287

Post by twoheadedboy »

arvinsim wrote: post #47
dexwiz wrote: post #34

The Screen and the Job have displaced almost everything else is our lives. Loneliness is just a primary symptom. The Screen, whether it’s TV, computer, or phone, has supplanted almost all social interactions. This manifests itself in things like SitComs on TV (just a bunch of friends or family hanging out) or Social Media on phones. It’s very easy to fill the social needs of right now with a Screen. But under even a…

> The Job has completely taken over as a driving force in evaluating choices. Not to mention most of our time. People nowadays spend far more time at work than ever.

I find it pretty concerning whenever I see someone's github page with tons of green squares on the bottom and top row. Why do people work so much on the weekends?

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#288

Post by Smithalicious »

kodz4 wrote: post #16

Ants don't meet at the bar at the end of the day to chill with each other. It isn't necessary. And their society isn't unraveling. The more connected the human ant hill gets the more we will behave like ants. Disconnected because we don't need to be as connected. Connected because that is the only way to survive. Those that can't handle the change...wont. This is a process of societal metamorphosis whose tracks have…

You have shown me the light. From now on I will commit to the healthier lifestyle of absolute loyalty to the Queen, communicating primarily through chemical signals and lifting many times my body weight.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#289

Post by war1025 »

dondawest wrote: post #285
zwkrt wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have assumed the role of the loser, as per https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... It feels nice down here, join us!

No way man, I bet if we found out the specifics we’d both deem him “clueless” on the GP hierarchy. Unless he literally works in a warehouse or in a position that is pure “worker bee,” $100 says if we knew the actual job title this guy held we’d deem him “clueless.” (Not that he actually IS clueless, who knows, I’m just using that word in the gervais principle sense of it). “I made a similar choice a couple of years a…

Your reading of that hierarchy is different from what I got out of it.

Clueless are people buy into the "Arbeit makt frei" idea.

In the linked article, the majority of people in the office (not even considering the warehouse) are losers.

Stanley is the quintessential "loser", and he precisely optimizes for "slower-paced, less stressful".

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the "worker bees" that are clueless. Dwight, for example, is as "worker bee" as they come. He jumps on command.

From my reading, this hierarchy has nothing to do with social status outside of work. It is precisely how you behave on the job.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#290

Post by dang »

sylk wrote: post #227
GuiA wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people take whatever jobs they can get, and their pay barely covers their housing/food/childcare/medical expenses. The caricature you are offering only really works for overpaid tech workers.

Ah yeah, I'm definitely overpaid because I don't go home and choose to work instead of spending time with my friends or skip weekends out to work more contracts. Yeah, that's right I'm over paid. Eat a bag of biscuits you assuming flesh bag. I'm giving up parts of my life to make money, and you expect me to want less than what I'm making?

Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how provocative another comment is? We're trying for something better than internet default here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN