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

Social Cooling (2017)

socialcooling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 299 posts

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#141

Post by polio »

ajross wrote: post #126
arthurofbabylon wrote: post #34

The Americans (†) who grew up with constant surveillance (social media, cameras everywhere) aim for ordinariness. The entire generation is less likely to express a non-consensus opinion than prior generations. For good reason: with everything being recorded and broadcast, personal errors are both accentuated and persist longer with no corresponding rise in upside. Bold opinions and creative ideas are simply too risky…

> The entire generation is less likely to express a non-consensus opinion than prior generations. I think that's pretty arguable, and I'd want to see actual research. Certainly kids today are wildly more likely to embrace Stuff that Pisses Off their Elders than at any time since the 60's counterculture revolution. Think gender fluidity and pronoun choice, body modification, protest culture, rejection of career paths,…

This just happens to be the consensus opinion for their group. Kids have never cared about being accepted by people 20 years older than they are; kids have always cared about being accepted by their peers. Social cooling means that dissent from their peer group is harder.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#142

Post by scoopdewoop »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #138
nathan_compton wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this but is it true? Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified. That doesn't sound like a safe opinion.

>Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified This is gonna get downvoted for sure because HNs bias, but based on current events, it's only the left that does that. Right-wingers may say hurtful words but don't seem too keen on murdering opponents for political reasons or disagreements. At least not yet.

Sit down. The right wing is actively zip-tying entire apartment complexes of poor people, even US citizens, while pointing guns in their faces. Thats violence, and exactly what the left has been ringing the alarm for for years.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#143

Post by ajross »

polio wrote: post #141
ajross wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire generation is less likely to express a non-consensus opinion than prior generations. I think that's pretty arguable, and I'd want to see actual research. Certainly kids today are wildly more likely to embrace Stuff that Pisses Off their Elders than at any time since the 60's counterculture revolution. Think gender fluidity and pronoun choice, body modification, protest culture, rejection of career paths,…

This just happens to be the consensus opinion for their group. Kids have never cared about being accepted by people 20 years older than they are; kids have always cared about being accepted by their peers. Social cooling means that dissent from their peer group is harder.

> This just happens to be the consensus opinion for their group.

That becomes non-falsifiable then. Everyone everywhere from every period in history has been part of some in-group or another with a consistent scripture/canon/creed/whatever. No one (especially nerd king HN commenters like us) is truly an independent thinker in the way you're constructing.

The claim upthread was that modern kids were afraid of consensus-breaking because of technological surveillance. And that's clearly false because they hate the surveillors with a passion and are not quiet about those opinions.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#144

Post by blargey »

KaiserPro wrote: post #30

As other people have noted, this is an old site, they also note that genz have partially learnt from our mistakes, and turned to ephemeral media, amongst other things. The rise of AR glasses will of course kneecap anonymity in "real life" But I look at the general collapse of "civility" in the USA and cant help but think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

re "behavioral sink" that wikipedia article is kind of a credulous stub that's missing the pile of criticisms of the "Universe 25" experiment (lack of reproducibility, much of the dysfunction being attributable to how the setting trapped the population in each other's scent+sight lines, akin to shoving humans in a transparent panopticon and calling it a test of urban life)

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#145

Post by blargey »

komali2 wrote: post #11

Is the self censoring of big boy and girl worlds like "murder," "suicide," "execution," "Nazi," and "genocide" on videos and posts related to this? It's been driving me crazy. Do not go quietly into that night and whatnot... Do not comply in advance. The idea of changing my speech so my words look nice next to a Toyota advertisement fills me with disgust and anger.

Euphemism and dogwhistles to continue openly discussing the same things sounds like the opposite of compliance and self-censorship.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#146

Post by blargey »

Jensson wrote: post #134
softwaredoug wrote: post #133

This site makes the wrong conclusion. People game their social scores by being provocative edgelords. There’s almost no incentive on social media to conform. And every incentive to stand out. Just look around at our political situation, you see far less conformity, and extremes in political expression. We even elected President Edgelord.

Most people don't want to get harassed and attacked at the level Trump gets so there are strong incentives to not do what he did. Saying there are no reasons not to do it is just ignorant, most people prefer peace and quiet over drama.

Joining the crowd to express approval for extremism (or equally extreme disapproval) has a much lower bar than making the "top-level" statements you refer to, though. Inflammatory content is constantly rewarded with a firehose of such "engagement", and it's coming from the vast populace that's supposedly averse to drama.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#147

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

scoopdewoop wrote: post #142
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified This is gonna get downvoted for sure because HNs bias, but based on current events, it's only the left that does that. Right-wingers may say hurtful words but don't seem too keen on murdering opponents for political reasons or disagreements. At least not yet.

Sit down. The right wing is actively zip-tying entire apartment complexes of poor people, even US citizens, while pointing guns in their faces. Thats violence, and exactly what the left has been ringing the alarm for for years.

Um. There is a notable difference between state sanctioned violence, for which, state does claim monopoly and semi-random vigilantes. I am concerned that I even have to point this out ( edit ) that the two are not quite the same.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#148

Post by radlad »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #138
nathan_compton wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this but is it true? Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified. That doesn't sound like a safe opinion.

>Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified This is gonna get downvoted for sure because HNs bias, but based on current events, it's only the left that does that. Right-wingers may say hurtful words but don't seem too keen on murdering opponents for political reasons or disagreements. At least not yet.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/#s4

> When compared to individuals associated with a right-wing ideology, individuals adhering to a left-wing ideology had 68% lower odds of engaging in violent (vs. nonviolent) radical behavior (b = −1.15, SE = 0.13, odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, P < 0.001).

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#149

Post by scoopdewoop »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #147
scoopdewoop wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sit down. The right wing is actively zip-tying entire apartment complexes of poor people, even US citizens, while pointing guns in their faces. Thats violence, and exactly what the left has been ringing the alarm for for years.

Um. There is a notable difference between state sanctioned violence, for which, state does claim monopoly and semi-random vigilantes. I am concerned that I even have to point this out ( edit ) that the two are not quite the same.

A gun in your mom's face is a gun in your mom's face. I don't think those kids will find any solace in that being state sanctioned.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#150

Post by martin-t »

nathan_compton wrote: post #137
arthurofbabylon wrote: post #34

The Americans (†) who grew up with constant surveillance (social media, cameras everywhere) aim for ordinariness. The entire generation is less likely to express a non-consensus opinion than prior generations. For good reason: with everything being recorded and broadcast, personal errors are both accentuated and persist longer with no corresponding rise in upside. Bold opinions and creative ideas are simply too risky…

People say this but is it true? Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified. That doesn't sound like a safe opinion.

Do they say it in public or private?

Because yesterday I learned that 30% of Americans think political violence may be necessary to fix the country[0], which was gathered from anonymous polls I presume, yet I see almost none of it online and certainly not in mainstream media.

And the censorship is certainly not helping.

My friend got multiple warnings and temporary bans on reddit for suggesting that:

- The only hope for democracy in Russia is a violent revolution. From what got banned and what didn't, we gather it's OK to talk about revolution, less OK about violent revolution and not allowed to talk about killing people. Well, how does reddit think revolutions work? People have to get killed or have a very high chance of being killed to give up power "voluntarily".

- That their dictator should be sentenced to death by the ICC and executed. She managed to appeal this one because she phrased it as a court ordered killing ("execution") with the caveat that the court would legalize anyone killing him (since the ICC cannot reach him to arrest him but somebody close to him might be able to do it and could use protection is he managed to escape).

So pro-tip to avoid _some_ censorship: frame it as a change of law or a legal process.

[0]: https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2025/10/02/day-1717...

Post reply on HN