Live data from Hacker News

The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

blogs.scientificamerican.com

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

#91
post #27
post #3

One thing I try to always do is smile and/or wave at babies/young children if they make eye contact with you. In a world where there is a lot of negativity being broadcast on the news 24/7 and click bait headlines, it is good to instill a sense of happiness in the youth of today by being friendly. Walking places a lot of people are distracted by their phones and hardly make eye contact anymore of if they do they make…

...just wait until their parents report you to the police for "smiling at kids"

We had the moral panic in the UK at the turn of the century about this.

It was a way of selling newspapers.

So now you have to have kids of your own in proximity or grandchildren in proximity to be part of the club of people allowed to speak with a child. Failing that you need a full criminal records check.

During my own childhood I was out and about all hours of day and night delivering newspapers, babysitting, doing gardening jobs, walking/cycling/hitching to get to places generally alone. We didn't have the 'p' word back then and a certain amount of being sensible was expected. Not so long ago I had a chat with my sister about who had an un-natural interest in our childhood selves in the village and neighbouring area. The list was quite a long one, my sister being exposed to by people I considered normal and vice-versa.

We even had Fred West - a notorious murderer - parked up in his van at a local spot. Being lured in to a house or a strange car was just one of those things to watch out for, plus people would give you strange gifts.

But the thing was that we - my sister and myself - were the local community. If anything did happen to us then you could guarantee that someone would call our mum to complain they had not had their paper delivered, or someone would see us enter a house to not exit. For us it would be impossible for us to travel anywhere without being observed. Hitch-hiking was also something we did, but when you know half the cars on the road then you expect a lift.

We actually interacted with the crazies fully knowing that there wasn't something quite right about them. We also told our mum about unwanted advances and strange gifts that came our way. Our mother never got the police involved. In our recent recollections there were a dozen or so where a line had been crossed or other evidence existed. Would the community have been better had there been court cases? Not really, common sense by us and the fact that it was a community worked.

Had the moral panic existed then and had we been locked away lest we meet someone that smiled at kids then we would have also lost out from the kind grown-ups that went the extra mile for us. We could get lifts into town, every school history project was done with the help of some local senior citizen, to earn money we had to do no more than walk out the door and, for every weird person there were a dozen that would be looking out for us.

Re: The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

#92
post #85

The problem is, social reciprocity is /expensive/ ... and like anything else expensive, it's been eliminated in today's society. Say what you want about Wal-Mart, but Sam Walton wanted his stores to have a more 'neighborhood' feel, so he employed greeters to stand at the front of the store to say hello to shoppers as they entered. A small gesture, but eliminated in the name of 'cost savings'. For most businesses thes…

> am Walton wanted his stores to have a more 'neighborhood' feel, so he employed greeters to stand at the front of the store to say hello to shoppers as they entered.

The reality is, alas, not quite as wholesome:

The idea of having dedicated greeters at the front door of a store may have come from an employee of the company, Lois Richard. She was working in the early 1980s as an invoice clerk at the Walmart store in Crowley, Louisiana. The Walmart store in Crowley, which had opened in 1980, was experiencing shoplifting and had a significant "inventory shrinkage" after two years. The initial idea was to have an employee standing at the door in order to try to decrease shoplifting. After a shoplifting sting conducted by the local police showed that piles of merchandise could have been taken away, Lois Richard pitched the idea the next day to her manager and it was accepted.

Having someone who visibly sees each patron when they enter and is physically present at the exit likely reduces shoplifting more than enough to pay for the position. They're basically security guards.

Re: The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

#93
post #28

Back in my day when you passed someone on the way to buy your morning paper you would say "good day sir" and tip your hat. These kids don't even read the paper anymore. And they're all like, "what is up" and "how is it hanging". What does that even mean? I'm not even convinced they're using proper grammar to say these things. And what the deal with likes on facebook. Too busy posting pictures of what they're eating t…

> I'm not even convinced they're using proper grammar to say these things.

But "good day sir" lacks a verb and subject/object, so it's not even a sentence. On the other hand, "what is up" and "how is it hanging" are proper interrogative sentences, as far as grammar is concerned anyway.

Re: The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

#94
post #85

The problem is, social reciprocity is /expensive/ ... and like anything else expensive, it's been eliminated in today's society. Say what you want about Wal-Mart, but Sam Walton wanted his stores to have a more 'neighborhood' feel, so he employed greeters to stand at the front of the store to say hello to shoppers as they entered. A small gesture, but eliminated in the name of 'cost savings'. For most businesses thes…

> am Walton wanted his stores to have a more 'neighborhood' feel, so he employed greeters to stand at the front of the store to say hello to shoppers as they entered. The reality is, alas, not quite as wholesome: The idea of having dedicated greeters at the front door of a store may have come from an employee of the company, Lois Richard. She was working in the early 1980s as an invoice clerk at the Walmart store in…

So you’re saying that some social graces have a positive side effect of reducing crime? How is that not wholesome?

Re: The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

#95
post #63
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts on this were provoked on this identically, years ago. Again. And again.

Have a look at the posts you've liked, what you've submitted, etc. Are they all brand new developments? Because surely that's not the case with 95% of what's posted on HN, and that's not a bad thing. https://xkcd.com/1053/

Yes, I know what that xkcd is; it gets posted all the time too.

No, sorry, beating a dead horse still isn’t justified.

Re: The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS has a feature where you can setup certain contacts to override your 'do not disturb' settings. Check that out.

While that is certainly useful, what about local hospitals, police departments, when someone borrows someone else's phone you call you etc. IIRC iOS also has a feature which allows through someone who rings multiple times in quick-ish succession?

Android does, and I haven't had reason to disable it yet. Should that be necessary, people can leave a message. They might have to, even if they were whitelisted as I don't take my phone with me to the bathroom or to most meetings.

Re: The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

#97
post #49
post #18

It's worse than that. It is all baked into our daily tools. Even HN as a community and a forum aids in distraction. Pretty much any community that lets you form an echo chamber around yourself (all social networks, and communities including HN)commands your attention by making you interact with people who think like you. If this were done in real life it would be much different, but the online medium of it falls shor…

Could it be the information bombardment made you impenetrable to the real information? For example, since I found really important information and sources I value, no bullshit sources distract my attention. I don't watch TV, I don't visit popular news websites (including HN, made an exception today), I'm not captured by any social net service. I feel like I'm still half-blind and thus see no clear way out of the pris…

Would you be willing to share those sources?

Re: The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS has a feature where you can setup certain contacts to override your 'do not disturb' settings. Check that out.

While that is certainly useful, what about local hospitals, police departments, when someone borrows someone else's phone you call you etc. IIRC iOS also has a feature which allows through someone who rings multiple times in quick-ish succession?

If "something" happens, by the time the police are contacting you it's no longer an emergency.

Responding to an ambiguous worry of an emergency that may never even occur during your lifetime by allowing yourself to be continually interrupted by spammers (traditional call-based and new app-based) is actually a decent illustration of the overarching societal problem.

Re: The Death of Social Reciprocity in the Era of Digital Distraction

#100
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I moved to NYC, I was used to walking around with a pleasant and welcoming face, "without armor" as you say. Unfortunately, this caused me to be accosted multiple times a day by beggars, scammers, or just crazy people. After a few months, I developed the mild scowl and cold attitude required to keep them away.

Dense cities are a "product" ripe for disruption - great stimulation opportunities but simultaneously an unhealthy environment for humans. Consider: Containerized city. 0-population cities where rapid transit brings people in during active-hours only? Walkable areas being vehicles themselves, forceably removing people after N-hours and dumping them in to less-dense habitation areas?

FWIW, I haven't made the parent comment's sort of experience in either Berlin, London, or Paris. So it might be somewhat specific to New York.

And I have trouble understanding what you are actually suggesting, but it seems to be an entirely technocratic take ignoring what actually makes cities liveable, with possibly some dehumanisation of homeless people thrown in for extra discredit?

Post reply on HN