Live data from Hacker News

The end of neighbours

macleans.ca

1–10 of 150 posts

Re: The end of neighbours

#2
This article contains lots of definitive-sounding statements that not only lack the ring of objective truth that they're presented with, but would be considered offensive in other contexts. People are different, and those differences should, when possible, be respected. Some people are homosexual, some are members of racial minorities, some are members of unpopular cultures and religions... and some are natural hermits.

Re: The end of neighbours

#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 active social lives. If you have some sort of disorder or are extremely obese could it be that you're less likely to be able to spend time with lots of other people?

Re: The end of neighbours

#5
And what is the solution? Everyone here has instant communication and if you have even a small social life, such as many who work hard all the time for their dreams, you can still see friends once a week and family once a month or every other month.

It's not a great idea to compare today to yesteryear because back then they didn't have facebook, twitter, iPhones, Skype, Google hangouts, the internet etc.

Re: The end of neighbours

#7
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…

Yep. Give me five minutes, a pen, and some paper, and I can jot down a list of at least fifty potential confounding variables. I trust that someone, somewhere has strong and well-structured data, hinting at a causal relationship and a direction of causality. If so, I'd like to read that source.

Now, I'm not naive. I know that it would be damned near impossible to structure a longitudinal test that a) identifies all the significant variables, b) isolates the most appropriate ones, and c) controls for the least appropriate ones. But absent that sort of test, I'd like to read the tests that we have.

There may indeed be a connection between socialization and multi-factor health outcomes. Maybe even a causal link. I'm certainly willing to consider that. But let's avoid blanket arguments such as 'We've evolved to be social creatures, therefore, we need friends as much as food and water.' There are a lot of interesting ideas in this article, and the article weakens those ideas when it relies on folksy generalizations.

Re: The end of neighbours

#8
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…

Even simpler than that. Healthy people are more attractive and more attractive people are more successful[1], which in turn makes them more successful socially because people like to associate with people who are more successful than themselves for various reasons[2].

[1] https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox

Post reply on HN