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

The future of loneliness

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: The future of loneliness

#41

Post by anigbrowl »

obstinate wrote: post #16
b08aa8b0dcfce wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can hardly blame them, as past behaviour is an excellent guide to future behaviour. Oh really. What a very shallow view of things.

In what sense? Do you believe past behavior is not causally linked with present behavior?

No, I don't. I think it's well-correlated, but that correlation varies and people's estimation of it is likely subject to a severe Dunning-Kruger effect - most people likely consider themselves to be above-average judges of character.

Now, as for causality, the more social and economic opportunities you withhold from ex-felons - never allowing them to vote, continually expanding the scope declaration requirements, etc. - the more attractive an option recidivism into criminal activity becomes, in proportion to the degree to which you discount their likely future contribution to society. Put another way, if there's no benefits on offer for going and staying on the straight-and-narrow, then why bother?

The belief you're expressing is known as the 'fundamental attribution error' - a tendency to overestimate the explanatory power of inherent characteristics and discount the role of circumstances. This is no wiser than taking the view that everyone is fundamentally good and that they're mindlessly conditioned by social factors.

Re: The future of loneliness

#42

Post by alexashka »

gorachel007 wrote: post #28

Here's an interesting Forbes article about what happens when you unplug for a while; http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/02/06/feeling-... It's more of an issue of technology making us interact in ways that are less human. Check out their link on the study about cell users being less likely to display prosocial behavior.

Before there was facebook and twitter, there were televisions. It boils down to entertainment and how readily available it is vs how readily available spaces to safely interact with real people are.

If you live in a house, who are you going to go hang out with? Your 2 neighbours? Everybody else takes time to get to. Or you can sit down on the couch and just watch some TV and be entertained without going anywhere. There's never any conflict with a television - hence it is so appealing. You have no real ups, but no real downs. People are largely very risk averse (would much rather not get 2 dollars than lose a dollar)

The solution to people interacting with each other again, is TV/Internet blackouts after 6pm at least half of the week.

When the city I lived in had an electric blackout for 3 days - people came out of their homes and actually talked to one another, it was great. Then everybody went right back to their televisions...

There's no money to be made from people learning to get along with one another and simply talking, playing cards, going for walks... So, not going to happen :) More make-up, clothes, tv-shows and making sure people medicate themselves with overpriced drugs. If people learned to get along via come outside and talk method, the current economy would undergo severe restructuring.

Re: The future of loneliness

#45

Post by venomsnake »

cubano wrote: post #6

In a world of selfies and shared profiles, how can someone whom has painful memories of seeing themselves in photos ever since childhood supposed to join the party? How can someone who suffers from a pretty serious criminal record ever feel comfortable meeting new potential partners who will almost surely run a background check and discover unsavory things that really cannot be explained away? I ask these question be…

Depends on the record. While I suppose sexual assault will be dealbreaker, a burglary or drug dealing or fraud is not a big deal in the dating pool.

Re: The future of loneliness

#46

Post by obstinate »

anigbrowl wrote: post #41
obstinate wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense? Do you believe past behavior is not causally linked with present behavior?

No, I don't. I think it's well-correlated, but that correlation varies and people's estimation of it is likely subject to a severe Dunning-Kruger effect - most people likely consider themselves to be above-average judges of character. Now, as for causality, the more social and economic opportunities you withhold from ex-felons - never allowing them to vote, continually expanding the scope declaration requirements, et…

It may be fundamental attribution error. Has that been conclusively demonstrated in this particular case? If so, what proportion of the propensity to commit crime is based on circumstances? Presumably not 100%, considering psychopaths exist and are quite difficult to rehabilitate.

As far as I'm aware, there's not any conclusive data to show that rehabilitative approaches are much better for recidivism. I'm in favor of the state doing whatever it can to make a more peaceful society. But that does not extend to assuming in my personal life that treating felons as if they were not makes them equally safe to people not already known to have committed serious crimes.

Re: The future of loneliness

#47

Post by nightski »

meric wrote: post #26
cubano wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol...you are obviously not over the age of 40.

I don't know if this suggestion will work because I don't have a criminal record, but this is what I would do if I had one - taking a page from the founder of public relations - If you make it to first date try admit your criminal record then, and tell a story of your emotional life since then to show how you have evolved since then. "Tell the truth, because sooner or later the public will find out anyway. And if the…

Try doing that for a decade or two and you will find out it never works. Not only that you start to feel bitter towards a society that continuously labels you as a felon even though you served a full prison sentence and paid your debt to society (the debt they decided you owe). Eventually you realize that you don't owe anyone and just want to continue on with life. So you hide your background because it is the only thing you can do if you want to succeed in society today.

* Do not have a background myself but I have a family member who does and has been through all of this. He has a loving family, is a brilliant man, and it is very unfortunate he still can't get a job (or at least hold on to) worth anything.

Re: The future of loneliness

#48

Post by spacehome »

venomsnake wrote: post #45
cubano wrote: post #6

In a world of selfies and shared profiles, how can someone whom has painful memories of seeing themselves in photos ever since childhood supposed to join the party? How can someone who suffers from a pretty serious criminal record ever feel comfortable meeting new potential partners who will almost surely run a background check and discover unsavory things that really cannot be explained away? I ask these question be…

Depends on the record. While I suppose sexual assault will be dealbreaker, a burglary or drug dealing or fraud is not a big deal in the dating pool.

Burglary and fraud would be a big deals to me for anyone I'm considering for a long-term relationship.

Re: The future of loneliness

#49

Post by littletimmy »

obstinate wrote: post #46
anigbrowl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't. I think it's well-correlated, but that correlation varies and people's estimation of it is likely subject to a severe Dunning-Kruger effect - most people likely consider themselves to be above-average judges of character. Now, as for causality, the more social and economic opportunities you withhold from ex-felons - never allowing them to vote, continually expanding the scope declaration requirements, et…

It may be fundamental attribution error. Has that been conclusively demonstrated in this particular case? If so, what proportion of the propensity to commit crime is based on circumstances? Presumably not 100%, considering psychopaths exist and are quite difficult to rehabilitate. As far as I'm aware, there's not any conclusive data to show that rehabilitative approaches are much better for recidivism. I'm in favor o…

> I'm in favor of the state doing whatever it can to make a more peaceful society.

This sort of thinking has historically led to a lot of problems. It is also trivially false. For example, the United States would be a perfectly peaceful place if all Americans were dead. Would you implement such a solution?

Re: The future of loneliness

#50

Post by tomjen3 »

gorachel007 wrote: post #28

Here's an interesting Forbes article about what happens when you unplug for a while; http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/02/06/feeling-... It's more of an issue of technology making us interact in ways that are less human. Check out their link on the study about cell users being less likely to display prosocial behavior.

Even if you aren't sitting with a cellphone or earphones in the bus, chances are the guy/girl next to you are.
Post reply on HN