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

Faux Friendship (2009)

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#11

Post by Mithrandir »

danso wrote: post #8

( this response is not meant to be a defense of Facebook in particular; the essay in the OP is a critique of digital friendships in general ) What trite. It reminds me of the essays about growing up in the 50s, when everything was simple and everyone got along unless you happened to be black or gay. If the only way you connected to friends was to write a "10-page missive" then it's quite likely you conducted your per…

Interesting. So, in another words, how you form friendships that are meaningful to you may not be specifically valid for someone like the OP, but as they are valid for you, then the way you form those friendships is valid (if we are to assume valid means "it works" and not to compare to some standard.)

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#12

Post by drunkpotato »

keiferski wrote: post #5
drunkpotato wrote: post #3

If he had an interesting, thought-provoking point to make, I couldn't extract it through the technophobia and sweeping generalizations and general framework of data-impoverished assumptions that began the article. At the risk of committing the same sin, it does seem that this is the very essence of the out-of-touch article. The author feels greatly disconnected, or for some reason feels like other people are too grea…

Why does any criticism of technology instantly get labeled as technophobia or luddism? Is it not good to ask why technology X is in your life, and if you want it to be?

I think the burden of proof is on the author of:

> Yet what, in our brave new mediated world, is friendship becoming? The Facebook phenomenon, so sudden and forceful a distortion of social space, needs little elaboration. Having been relegated to our screens, are our friendships now anything more than a form of distraction?

to show he is not technophobic.

Similar missives have been written for each generation. So I am skeptical and don't think he met that burden in this article.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#13

Post by funthree »

jerf wrote: post #2

It is hard to see through the veils of history, but one of the things that always strikes me is that if you sit down and really try to put all the pieces together, what you find is an alien world, far more alien than most supposedly alien worlds of science fiction, especially if we're talking about going back all the way to Ancient Greece. What we think of in our bones as civilization doesn't exist then. The closest…

The closest thing that might get you there is farming communities in the Midwest... with no power, or cell phones, or cars, or houses, with dangerous wild animals still roaming about, no medical treatment, no firearms, and no prior 21st-century civilization thought patterns, and you're still only sort of glimpsing it.

Seriously? And people in the Midwest are still somehow the "ignorant ones" ... Stay classy.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#14

Post by grovulent »

drunkpotato wrote: post #3

If he had an interesting, thought-provoking point to make, I couldn't extract it through the technophobia and sweeping generalizations and general framework of data-impoverished assumptions that began the article. At the risk of committing the same sin, it does seem that this is the very essence of the out-of-touch article. The author feels greatly disconnected, or for some reason feels like other people are too grea…

I dont feel you deserve to be voted down on this comment...

I actually think your statement - while ultimately needing more argument behind it - is actually true of just about all of the analysis I read these days. It's all thoroughly atavistic - without a particularly well explained explanation as to what exactly is the value of the thing being lost.

This article is actually better than most... but it's not great. It intimates that the strength of friendship comes from the intimacy that allows for critique as well as support.

But then the author goes on to focus on the elements of social networking which are actually entirely compatible with the account of friendship that he praises - namely the drop in signalling costs associated with online social networking.

Backward looking authors such as these are usually confused in this way - they fret over the seeming 'cheapness' of online social networking - but confuse this with the corresponding superficiality of those relationships.

To dispel this confusion I like to use the following analogy. Back when were apes - we used to signal allegiance by grooming - an expensive and time consuming activity. Now imagine that we developed language within the space of generation (not true - but bear with me) - imagine what the grand parents would have thought of their grandchildren signalling to each other cheaply to one another using language. they would have thought it cheap - and insincere.

But of course - the use of language in and of itself is not constitutive of a shallow relationship. What they would be reacting to is a sudden drop in the cost of signalling - and would mistrust it because of the costs that they were used to.

The upshot is that there is nothing essential in the nature of social networking that leads to a lack of intimacy. You can't blame the tech here.

Having said that - there is a danger posed to intimacy by some of the uses being made of the tech. But it will come from the ability to trade out your established intimacy for economic reward.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#15

Post by nostrademons »

Friendship's always struck me as closely tied in with serendipity.

When I was in college, I had a wide circle of online friends in the Harry Potter fandom. I figured I'd never meet most of them, many of them were just bored high-schoolers, and a few had pretty serious mental problems. My parents were like "Why do you spend so much time talking to these people?" Hell, when I've mentioned the Harry Potter fandom as a significant life event in a past comment here, tptacek was like "Fanfiction? Seriously?"

But over the years since then, that group of friends gave me tons of emotional support through my first forays into dating and my academic difficulties in college. They gave me the advice that eventually convinced me to stay in school. Advice on, and a ready-made friends-group for, my semester abroad in New Zealand. My first software project, carried through from conception to completion. The nucleus of my social contacts while I was heads-down working on my startup after college. My job at Google. My first kiss, repeat date, and make-out session.

You can't always predict what good things will result from a relationship with someone. One of the things that I hated about the startup scene was that everyone wants something - they'll take you out for coffee to pitch their new startup that needs a technical cofounder, but as soon as you make it clear that you're not ready to do that at this time, you never hear from them again. I never expected that I would get a job at Google from someone in the Harry Potter fandom - after all, she wasn't even a CS major, I'd met her in person all of once, and our conversations consisted mostly of squeeing over Harry/Luna and nothing technical. But when I started looking for jobs and asked who was hiring, she was like "I know this guy, I can vouch for him", and I'd say it's worked out pretty well for everyone involved.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#16

Post by sjp3 »

grovulent wrote: post #10

So I've actually gone ahead and built and app for Google+ to help people curate more substantive relationships on the platform - so that in principle online social networking doesn't have to be about being superficial. http://puttheeffortin.com The idea is that it's just a matter of better managing the relationships and expending energy in a more efficient way - on those relationships that yield the most value. I've…

Assess the strength of your relationships on Google+ in terms of how often people are commenting, sharing and plussing your public posts and vice versa. See at a glance where you need to apply more energy in your G+ relationships and identify those who aren't reciprocating as much as you would like.

How does this make social networking less superficial?

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#17

Post by grovulent »

sjp3 wrote: post #16
grovulent wrote: post #10

So I've actually gone ahead and built and app for Google+ to help people curate more substantive relationships on the platform - so that in principle online social networking doesn't have to be about being superficial. http://puttheeffortin.com The idea is that it's just a matter of better managing the relationships and expending energy in a more efficient way - on those relationships that yield the most value. I've…

Assess the strength of your relationships on Google+ in terms of how often people are commenting, sharing and plussing your public posts and vice versa. See at a glance where you need to apply more energy in your G+ relationships and identify those who aren't reciprocating as much as you would like. How does this make social networking less superficial?

I think I'd need to know what aspect of it particularly makes you say that to answer you adequately...

But the problem I have on G+ is that it's hard to remember people that are willing to engage - the ones with whom you've actually had a substantive conversation. Of course - the mere numbers doesn't capture this - and I'm not pretending that it does. I've got more features planned to build upon this basis - but it gives you a starting point and at least jogs your memory about who it is that might deserve more of your time.

The intuition behind it is similar to when you keep calling that mate of yours to go for a beer but he keeps palming you off and not returning your calls. Eventually you'll come to conclude that they aren't willing to put in much effort and you'll start expending energy elsewhere.

It's relatively easy to keep track of this economy in our offline worlds because the number of people was not very high. But it's much harder to track online - our brains just aren't designed to do it. That's why we end up frittering away our time with whatever flashes up on the screen next. An app like mine is about helping us focus our attention on the places it is most deserved.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#18

Post by chunky1994 »

drunkpotato wrote: post #12
keiferski wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does any criticism of technology instantly get labeled as technophobia or luddism? Is it not good to ask why technology X is in your life, and if you want it to be?

I think the burden of proof is on the author of: > Yet what, in our brave new mediated world, is friendship becoming? The Facebook phenomenon, so sudden and forceful a distortion of social space, needs little elaboration. Having been relegated to our screens, are our friendships now anything more than a form of distraction? to show he is not technophobic. Similar missives have been written for each generation. So I a…

Even if he is technophobic, I think he's illustrated his point clearly and with force. What makes you skeptical of his point of view?

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#19

Post by rshm »

jerf wrote: post #2

It is hard to see through the veils of history, but one of the things that always strikes me is that if you sit down and really try to put all the pieces together, what you find is an alien world, far more alien than most supposedly alien worlds of science fiction, especially if we're talking about going back all the way to Ancient Greece. What we think of in our bones as civilization doesn't exist then. The closest…

I think the core of the article is human intimacy. The cause of this intimacy is not always the fear and economics of survival. I like to think along - "Friend is your need answered". One has different needs, some professional, some emotional and some relating to fear. Facebook and other media does not replace but blurs distinctions and level of intimacy required with a new generalized publish and subscribe model.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#20

Post by chunky1994 »

drunkpotato wrote: post #3

If he had an interesting, thought-provoking point to make, I couldn't extract it through the technophobia and sweeping generalizations and general framework of data-impoverished assumptions that began the article. At the risk of committing the same sin, it does seem that this is the very essence of the out-of-touch article. The author feels greatly disconnected, or for some reason feels like other people are too grea…

His general framework of data impoverished assumption? His assumptions in the first two paragraphs are quite evident, and any later assumptions are supported by data which he provides later on.

I find no sweeping generalizations on his part, he deals with modern society as a whole and maybe that requires him to make general comments.

Which parts of the article are you specifically referring to in your comment?

Post reply on HN