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

The end of neighbours

macleans.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 150 posts

Re: The end of neighbours

#121

Post by samscully »

l33tbro wrote: post #91

I was moving furniture last night. In the rain. Pissing down. Had one friend with me hauling stuff from van to doorstep. My 'neighbour', who I've never met, simply stood on his doorstep (our houses touch one another) and didn't even say 'hi', let alone ask if we needed a hand. Was I pissed at this? I thought it was a little rude. But on reflection, I don't really care too much. In fact, I prefer it this way. I like c…

I have seen people in my neighbourhood (Bermondsey in London, UK) struggling with luggage twice, luggage that was clearly far too much for them to carry on their own. Both times I offered to help them take it from the train station to wherever they were going. The first time the man accepted my help, the second time the woman politely declined.

Even the first time I detected an uneasiness, partly because we were strangers of course, but also I got the sense that the man was very wary of putting on me at all. Perhaps because people like not having obligations towards their neighbours it feels wrong to accept help and thus set up an expectation of reciprocisity. Maybe this then leads to not offering help because it is assumed it will be refused?

London is a particularly atomised place of course, back home I think I would have got a very different response.

Re: The end of neighbours

#122

Post by galfarragem »

Few days ago I wrote a comment praising HN community (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956) but unfortunately now I have to make the opposite:

This comments page shows us the dark side of HN community.

There are comments here that completely depressed me and revealed not an introverted but an anti-social personality among some HN users. I am/was also anti-social but I make/made some effort to get out from there. I'm not judging anyone but this side of HN is not a bright one.

edit: I knew that I would be downvoted but I consider that I'm doing the right thing speaking about this.

Re: The end of neighbours

#123

Post by collyw »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #60
design-of-homes wrote: post #25

A UK perspective: over the past decade there has been an enormous growth in the buy-to-let market and the UK is now overun by the worst type of property owner: the buy-to-let (buy-to-rent) landlord or "property investor". They treat housing as a pure profit-making exercise. When more and more homes in your area get bought by property investors and buy-to-let landlords it can have a detrimental effect (I've seen it ha…

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the flexibility to move easily if they get a new job/partner or have a change in circumstances? That's what happens if every home must be owner-occupied and there isn't a liquid rental market. I moved to China a few years ago. I am glad that I was able to let my flat (to responsible tenants who have paid the rent on time for >3 years) and that I was able to rent an apartm…

I don't think he is suggesting that. The fact is that many people under 40 are priced out of the market. 20 years ago, a graduate could easily buy a flat or house, rates of owner occupation were higher, and we still had the option to rent. This tended to suit people at the start of their careers, when they were more likely to move for work. After a certain age, you start wanting to settle somewhere.

Re: The end of neighbours

#124

Post by collyw »

cletus wrote: post #69
design-of-homes wrote: post #25

A UK perspective: over the past decade there has been an enormous growth in the buy-to-let market and the UK is now overun by the worst type of property owner: the buy-to-let (buy-to-rent) landlord or "property investor". They treat housing as a pure profit-making exercise. When more and more homes in your area get bought by property investors and buy-to-let landlords it can have a detrimental effect (I've seen it ha…

In Australia, investment residential property is seen as almost an inalienable right and a cultural norm. I've lived in the UK and opinions there vary a lot. In London, it doesn't really have a negative connotation that I can recall. In rural parts, it tends to be viewed very negatively. I seem to remember reading a story about anger against "Londoners" driving up local property prices (with weekend homes) resulting…

>Weekend homes are a different beast of course but the anger comes from basically the same place: the perception that "outsiders" are making housing unaffordable for "locals".

So in parts of England, Cornwall for example, the house prices are over ten times the average local wage (due to Londoners buying them up as holiday homes). I don't see how that can be viewed as a positive thing.

Re: The end of neighbours

#125

Post by collyw »

cylinder wrote: post #32
aedocw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question - why would you wait until the next draught or plague to get to know your neighbors well? Why not start getting to know them today, before you "need" them?

Honest question - why is it considered so inherently important to spend time with your neighbors? I don't understand why I'm supposed to have a natural connection to certain individuals just because we chose to live in the same area. If my social circle consists of people who don't happen to live on my street, is that so bad? We don't really need to worry about having someone to come check up on us from next door bec…

You really don't see the benefit in being social be to the people around you? It doesn't have to have an intimate relationship.

Do you just ignore the people you work with as well for similar reasons?

OK, one reason off the top of my head. Say something suspicions is going on outside your flat. Someone that could be checking out your house wanting to break in. A friendly neighbor may go up and ask in a non threatening way if you were expecting to see John in just now, and could he take a message for you. Ignore your neighbor to the point he doesn't even know your name, and guess what. He won't give a shit. Which scenario is more likely to get your place broken into?

Re: The end of neighbours

#126

Post by chippy »

galfarragem wrote: post #122

Few days ago I wrote a comment praising HN community ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956 ) but unfortunately now I have to make the opposite: This comments page shows us the dark side of HN community. There are comments here that completely depressed me and revealed not an introverted but an anti-social personality among some HN users. I am/was also anti-social but I make/made some effort to get out from th…

The actual article describes some of the reasons why. The comments reflect that yes, the article does describe the actions. I suggest that it is not "a dark side" of the HN community - rather a frank discussion about life, the good and the bad.

Re: The end of neighbours

#127

Post by rahimnathwani »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #116
Sophistifunk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where the hell else will rental properties come from?

I think we would be better off with more businesses and less private landlords in the UK. The current situation doesn't work very well for many tenants.

How would fewer private landlords help?

Re: The end of neighbours

#128

Post by mathattack »

Is this that different than Bowling Alone? http://bowlingalone.com/

I've spent the past 5 years in the same apartment. I've had immediate neighbors on both sides switch at least 4 times. After getting to know the first two, we stopped bothering. And now it's our turn to move. It's very different from where I grew up, where somebody moving from the block was very big news, and only happened every few years.

The main difference is that this connection has moved on-line. My high school's reunions have gone downhill because everyone can communicate on Facebook. I have connections of classmates and shared hobbyists across the country facilitated by technology. Yes we are losing place-based connections in much of the country, but is that really such a bad thing if it's replaced elsewhere?

Re: The end of neighbours

#129

Post by igonvalue »

cynicalkane wrote: post #79
rahimnathwani wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the flexibility to move easily if they get a new job/partner or have a change in circumstances? That's what happens if every home must be owner-occupied and there isn't a liquid rental market. I moved to China a few years ago. I am glad that I was able to let my flat (to responsible tenants who have paid the rent on time for >3 years) and that I was able to rent an apartm…

The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

In the US, the government already heavily subsidizes home ownership via the mortgage-interest tax deduction[0]. From Wikipedia, it seems that similar programs exist worldwide as well[1]

[0] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/14/154344781/why-does... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deductio...

Re: The end of neighbours

#130

Post by lutusp »

groby_b wrote: post #96
lutusp wrote: post #35

A quote from the article: "We have evolved for it, to the extent that those surrounded by a tight-knit group of friends who regularly gather to eat—and, crucially, gossip—live an average of 15 years longer than loners." A = alive 15 years longer than the average. B = meets friends and gossips. The claim, made by a psychologist (of course), fails to take into account the fact that correlation doesn't equal causation.…

And before we roll out Internet tropes about correlation and causation, maybe we should first read the underlying studies. The article fails horribly by not quoting any of them, but here's a good starting point: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402200381.html Or, if you want a list from the guy who did the initial investigations into the phenomenon, start here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/478/Jame…

> I'm far from an expert on the topic, but from what I read, a causal relationship is at the least very strongly implied.

Scientists don't imply cause-effect relationships, they demonstrate them, using evidence, to the exclusion of alternatives. Then they offer an explanation -- a theory about the evidence. These properties are rarely present in psychological studies, especially the explanation requirement.

Here's an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who believes he has cured the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the patient until he's all better. My cure always works -- it's perfectly reliable, even though it sometimes takes a week. So, where's my Nobel Prize? I've met the same evidence requirement the linked article does, and the latter is being described as science.

> ... the guy who did the initial investigations into the phenomenon ...

It's not a phenomenon, it's an observation, one without any effort to explain it or demonstrate a cause-effect relationship.

> And before we roll out Internet tropes about correlation and causation, maybe we should first read the underlying studies.

After reading the original work, one is left with the same impression the linked article provides -- a description without an explanation, and no effort to meet the evidence required to move from a correlation to a cause-effect relationship.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman

Post reply on HN