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

31–40 of 150 posts

Re: The end of neighbours

#31

Post by prestadige »

coldtea wrote: post #27
prestadige wrote: post #14

Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious cruelty, were always based on mutual need , not on acting out some supposedly gene-based pantomime. I daresay when the next drought or plague comes along I will get to know my neighbours and we'll pull together for mutual support.

> Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious cruelty, were always based on mutual need To counter your easy dismissal I'd say modern individuals, rife as they are with selfiness, consumerism, lack of empathy and of time to connect to their neighborhood, are mostly basing their circles on career paths and personal interests, and other people being their cultural split image.

How is my dismissal 'easy'? I haven't heard it from anyone else and it acknowledges an unpleasant truth. What I dismiss are sentimental media ideas about 'community' which are all too common.

What both arbitrary socialising and consumerism have in common is that they are focused on selves whereas truly important activity primarily relates to abstract ideas. It is ideas that create the solutions to local problems.

Btw, none of this is inconsistent with a smile and a nod to people you see about you in daily life! And mingling with new people if one feels lonely.

Re: The end of neighbours

#32

Post by cylinder »

aedocw wrote: post #17
prestadige wrote: post #14

Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious cruelty, were always based on mutual need , not on acting out some supposedly gene-based pantomime. I daresay when the next drought or plague comes along I will get to know my neighbours and we'll pull together for mutual support.

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 because modern communication has extended our reach far beyond our own street.

I've never really been comfortable getting to know my neighbors. I feel like they see and hear too much about my private life as it is, it's actually awkward for me to see my neighbors.

Re: The end of neighbours

#33

Post by [deleted] »

clarkmoody wrote: post #26

The article seems to dog on the suburbs as a big part of the problem. Is there any breakdown of the polling that shows that people in denser areas know their neighbors any better? Controlling for occupation / income level would highlight differences in neighborliness against population density.

[deleted]

Re: The end of neighbours

#34

Post by AnthonyMouse »

clarkmoody wrote: post #22

Since we're living around like-minded individuals but subjected to top-down centralized lawmaking, there is a large disconnect between what's happening in our backyard, in the state capital, and in Washington. Often the City Council office is out of touch with one part of the city or another, imposing rules on all that about half disagree with. The federal system in America is supposed to emphasize differences in the…

I still think one of the causes of the federal over-expansion was to make Senators popularly elected rather than appointed by state legislatures.

The point of the Senate was to create a check by the states on federal power. Now it's just an incentive for lower population states to expand the federal government since they have disproportionate representation in directing who the expansion benefits.

Re: The end of neighbours

#35

Post by lutusp »

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. It may be that some unexamined factor C causes people to (B) meet and gossip, and (A) live longer as well. Meaning before we change our lifestyle with the expectation of a longer life, we should first do some actual science.

Re: The end of neighbours

#36

Post by na8ur »

prestadige wrote: post #24
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?

I wish my neighbours well, but for me socialising is a distraction from work and family. Those are my contribution to the (wider) community. Besides, I have trouble enough keeping up with relatives and schoolmates without introducing new, geographically-oriented relationships.

I agree with coldtea. Our consumerison is why it we get isolated. What is intresting, tendencys in DE show that people go back in the cities for shopping (it's more socializing). http://www.presseportal.de/pm/8664/2804458/innenstadt-bleibt... Maybe when our kids getting in adolescence find that this is the way to be diffrent than us. Good Practise: Start greeting people when you are in your neighbourhood. That's what I did. I got very fast in contact with above-, below my floor and people around in that block. We had big times (even with the very old folks!). Friendliness and courage (to do so) is the key to start a relationship. The cause of the problem is our missing culture (even neighbourhood parties) to get connectd. g start flash-mobs!

Re: The end of neighbours

#37

Post by lutusp »

aedocw wrote: post #17
prestadige wrote: post #14

Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious cruelty, were always based on mutual need , not on acting out some supposedly gene-based pantomime. I daresay when the next drought or plague comes along I will get to know my neighbours and we'll pull together for mutual support.

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?

> Why not start getting to know them today, before you "need" them?

Maybe they're completely boring. Maybe the person under discussion prefers being alone unless and until the entire neighborhood is going up in smoke. It's not as though large groups of people are what nature has in mind, regardless of environmental and biological changes -- evolution doesn't work that way.

About 1/2 of Americans are now single. Is this a disease, or a result of personal preferences, by people who tried the alternatives and then made the least objectionable choice?

Re: The end of neighbours

#38

Post by lutusp »

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…

> why is it considered so inherently important to spend time with your neighbors?

It's propaganda disseminated by unhappy single women. :) I said it that way because not all single women are unhappy -- some prefer being alone, just as some men do. Recent statistics tell us that almost 1/2 of Americans are single, and they're about to become an absolute majority.

Re: The end of neighbours

#39

Post by nsainsbury »

Houshalter wrote: post #12
bdkoepke wrote: post #3

Ugh, seems like another article that derives causation from correlation. Specifically: "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." Perhaps the reason that people with a large group of friends live much longer is that people who are in better health tend to have more act…

I assume the researchers were smart enough to think of that. Don't judge a study based on a one sentence description from a journalist.

The average quality of papers from the field of psychology is abysmal. It pays to be sceptical here.

Re: The end of neighbours

#40

Post by clarkmoody »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #34
clarkmoody wrote: post #22

Since we're living around like-minded individuals but subjected to top-down centralized lawmaking, there is a large disconnect between what's happening in our backyard, in the state capital, and in Washington. Often the City Council office is out of touch with one part of the city or another, imposing rules on all that about half disagree with. The federal system in America is supposed to emphasize differences in the…

I still think one of the causes of the federal over-expansion was to make Senators popularly elected rather than appointed by state legislatures. The point of the Senate was to create a check by the states on federal power. Now it's just an incentive for lower population states to expand the federal government since they have disproportionate representation in directing who the expansion benefits.

Absolutely agree. Repeal the 17th is at the top of my restore-America wish-list.
Post reply on HN