4 ms·

What is your evidence that it has been like that for a long time? If anything in the past people were a lot more immobile which means it would be easier for the

What is your evidence that it has been like that for a long time? If anything in the past people were a lot more immobile which means it would be easier for them to eventually make new friends over time. Considering the evolutionary argument, what happens is the opposite of what one would expect - when people are getting old they are more in need of friends for practical reasons - failing physical condition. So if there is an evolutionary reason, it's probably a paradox. It may be true however that people seek more alone time as they get older - our brains become less excitable, less craving of novel environments and people and information etc. That's a behavior that's related to aging however, not evolution.

jamesrcole 8y ago
You're the one who originally claimed it's changed in the last 40 years, so it's on you to back that up. Re: evolutionary argument. That's not what one would expect. That's simply your assumption based on a simplistic notion of what an evolutionary explanation would involve. Re: your final paragraph, that shows you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. If you read my comments you'll notice I've said "biological or evolutionary", and aging is most definitely biological. Anyway, you're wrong to assume that has nothing to do with evolution!
- zerostar07 8y ago
  i can point you to the absense of literature talking about this lack of post-young-age friendships. For example, while the grecoroman philosophers and the stoics wrote extensively and in detail about friendship , they don't seem to mention any problems finding friends even though they were past their prime when they wrote their stuff. Society was also a lot more gender-segregated in the past, gender roles were separate, which means marriage did not disrupt the social life of men (primarily) as abruptly as it does now. I have no time to research the subject but it 's reasonable to assume that all that, combined with immobility and slower pace of life contributed to someone gaining more friends as time goes by instead of losing them. Perhaps it would help your argument if you provided counterarguments to others instead of just dismissing them. Pretending to speak from authority weakens your position.
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    You still haven't provided any evidence that it's changed in the last 40 years, and clearly the philosophers you cite are completely irrelevant to that claim. Re: counterarguments - or how about you don't make confident assertions about topics you're clearly lacking a solid grounding in (for example, your comment shows you don't understand that evolution operates on the level of genes rather than individuals) -- where you must know you're lacking that grounding -- and go and learn a bit more about it yourself rather than demanding that others provide you that education? I'm sure you wouldn't behave in this sort of way if it was some other topic, like something to do with computing.
    - zerostar07 8y ago
      you are evidently unable to form a counterargument, so i can up make one for you: It is possible that evolution might have made it so that older people do not have friends, so they die sooner and thus consume less resources from prime-age people. The older people are past their child-making age, so they can't affect future evolution in their favour. It's odd however that people did not complain about this until the latter half of the 20th century , or that men did not escape this fate (since men can have children even at old age). i do not back this up with any evidence though, since you 'd dismiss it as irrelevant anyway.
      - jamesrcole 8y ago
        As I've already pointed out, you do not understand that evolution works on the level of genes not individuals. You're reiterating that ignorance here. Other parts of your really basic lack of understand of it is also demonstrated by your latest comment: - thinking that evolution works as if it had intention and foresight. - thinking that being past child-making age can't affect "future evolution in their favour" (this is a variation on the misunderstanding that evolution operates on individuals rather than genes). There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about a topic, but there is with being so and acting like you know what you're taking about.
        8y ago

jamesrcole 8y ago

You're the one who originally claimed it's changed in the last 40 years, so it's on you to back that up. Re: evolutionary argument. That's not what one would expect. That's simply your assumption based on a simplistic notion of what an evolutionary explanation would involve. Re: your final paragraph, that shows you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. If you read my comments you'll notice I've said "biological or evolutionary", and aging is most definitely biological. Anyway, you're wrong to assume that has nothing to do with evolution!

zerostar07 8y ago
i can point you to the absense of literature talking about this lack of post-young-age friendships. For example, while the grecoroman philosophers and the stoics wrote extensively and in detail about friendship , they don't seem to mention any problems finding friends even though they were past their prime when they wrote their stuff. Society was also a lot more gender-segregated in the past, gender roles were separate, which means marriage did not disrupt the social life of men (primarily) as abruptly as it does now. I have no time to research the subject but it 's reasonable to assume that all that, combined with immobility and slower pace of life contributed to someone gaining more friends as time goes by instead of losing them. Perhaps it would help your argument if you provided counterarguments to others instead of just dismissing them. Pretending to speak from authority weakens your position.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  You still haven't provided any evidence that it's changed in the last 40 years, and clearly the philosophers you cite are completely irrelevant to that claim. Re: counterarguments - or how about you don't make confident assertions about topics you're clearly lacking a solid grounding in (for example, your comment shows you don't understand that evolution operates on the level of genes rather than individuals) -- where you must know you're lacking that grounding -- and go and learn a bit more about it yourself rather than demanding that others provide you that education? I'm sure you wouldn't behave in this sort of way if it was some other topic, like something to do with computing.
  - zerostar07 8y ago
    you are evidently unable to form a counterargument, so i can up make one for you: It is possible that evolution might have made it so that older people do not have friends, so they die sooner and thus consume less resources from prime-age people. The older people are past their child-making age, so they can't affect future evolution in their favour. It's odd however that people did not complain about this until the latter half of the 20th century , or that men did not escape this fate (since men can have children even at old age). i do not back this up with any evidence though, since you 'd dismiss it as irrelevant anyway.
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      As I've already pointed out, you do not understand that evolution works on the level of genes not individuals. You're reiterating that ignorance here. Other parts of your really basic lack of understand of it is also demonstrated by your latest comment: - thinking that evolution works as if it had intention and foresight. - thinking that being past child-making age can't affect "future evolution in their favour" (this is a variation on the misunderstanding that evolution operates on individuals rather than genes). There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about a topic, but there is with being so and acting like you know what you're taking about.
      - 8y ago