13 ms·

Networks of Low-Stakes, Casual Friendships

191 points by gk1 8y ago

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
To what extent does this apply to online casual friendships? E.g. 'Friends' that one has never met in real life, on IRC, Facebook etc.
- hateful 8y ago
  I would say that just because it's online, doesn't make it any different than someone you only talk to at the "water cooler" or friends of friends you only see at parties. "We don't use the expression IRL. We say AFK. [...] We don't like that expression. We say AFK - Away From Keyboard. We think that the internet is for real." - Peter Sunde
- Aromasin 8y ago
  Casey Neistat had an interesting take on this in one of his recent videos. He described it as completely fulfilling in all of the components of friendship and community, but without the intimacy, which I think is quite apt. I do believe wholly that casual friendships are almost indistinguishable online as they are in person; however close friendships and relationships on the other hand require an element of intimacy that cannot be fulfilled.
finnh 8y ago
Interesting article - all of the referenced studies are about the real world, and the benefits of those interactions I definitely agree with - and yet the author leads with an anecdote about a tweet leading to a job. I'm less convinced that the claimed benefits of casual networks (feeling connected, for example) accrue to purely online casual relationships.
hhs 8y ago
The author writes: "A study from 2018 found that people formed a “casual” friendship after spending 30 hours together." Of note, when you click on that "study", it's actually a paper on two studies. The first study's methodology relies on participants using Amazon's Mechanical Turk via survey collection, and these participants "were given $.65 for survey completion". Then, the second study's methodology relies on "a Midwest public university, [where] participants were recruited from public speaking courses. To be eligible, participants had to have enrolled in their first semester of school that fall (i.e., freshman, transfer) and have moved to the city within 2 weeks prior to the start of class." There's no mention of incentives for the second study. I wish the NYT article talked more about the details of these studies and their possible limitations, for instance, with generalizing. Still, I think this is an interesting question. I wonder if there's meta-analysis research done in this area.
- hammock 8y ago
  Almost the entire body of social science is based on generalizations from limited studies.
  - mathattack 8y ago
    Limited studies with small sample sizes. :-)
  - stefan_ 8y ago
    Generalizations from limited studies performed exclusively on bored university students, typically of social science.
- chocolatebunny 8y ago
  well said. I feel like doing an overnight trip with someone (like a camping trip or a roadtrip) generates strong bonds with people you would otherwise not know that well. But it only takes a few months to a year of little to no contact for friendships to disintegrate.
gumby 8y ago
The 1973 Strength of Weak Ties paper briefly mentioned in the article is actually the Ur-reference on this topic, and is insightful: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jure/pub/papers/granovetter73ties.pdf https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jure/pub/papers/granovetter73ties.pd...
ryanmarsh 8y ago
Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. The social sciences are a dumpster fire.
- asveikau 8y ago
  > Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. Can you explain very specifically what you are talking about? Because otherwise, I will be honest, I see unspecified complaints of social political inconvenience and my initial read is just to assume that you have some problem with women or minorities.
  - kortilla 8y ago
    Or maybe a problem with men.
  - nordsieck 8y ago
    >> Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. >> The social sciences are a dumpster fire. > Can you explain very specifically what you are talking about? IQ is probably the single most trustworthy finding in psychology/sociology. In a field where even core studies don't tend to get replicated (this is changing slowly and grudgingly), it has survived decades of replication and attacks. Given the political self identification of the professors in the field (over 99% progressive), it seems reasonable to assume that the political beliefs of the faculty contribute to the skepticism that the field, and academia more broadly, have of IQ.
    - asveikau 8y ago
      I am not steeped in this concept, but it strikes me that IQ can be totally replicable of the same biases, year after year. Meanwhile, what are you going to do with that information? I'd be a little disappointed to see it suggested that you can reduce an individual human to a number and make decisions affecting people's lives. Have you not had life experiences where the person with the highest test scores, most amount of praise, recognition, money, earning power, etc., is actually a comparatively ill-equipped human for some task? This intuition should make us skeptical of drawing too many conclusions from such metrics.
viburnum 8y ago
Hey, congratulations to all you winners in life, with great personalities and good looks, enjoy all your success.
- oarabbus_ 8y ago
  This seems oddly insincere
- davesque 8y ago
  Is this an indirect response to something in the article? Serious question.
- mring33621 8y ago
  Thanks, Vibranium!
unseenbastiat 8y ago
Buy cheap Viagra Cialis erectile dysfunction pills online: http://goatse.info/ http://goatse.info/
closetohome 8y ago
5 Easy Ways to Stress Out an Introvert: You won't believe #3!
muckrakerz 8y ago
"How to Gleefully Use People for Personal Gain" - could have been the title. I'm often astounded at how socially unaware the millennial are.
awaythrow9 8y ago
So, people are rediscovering small-talk and being generally friendly to people you encounter? Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out which kind of world the writers of these pieces live in. Do people in urban America only talk to each other through apps or something? Also, of course the thread had to devolve into something about the IQ of black people; never change, HN.
tyre 8y ago
I eat dinner at the same restaurant almost every Sunday night. I know the waitstaff, the maître d', and the people at the bar. They know about my life and I know about theirs. I have a similar relationship with people at a wine bar near my house. We don't see each other outside this context, except for the occasional serendipitous run-ins. They are nice, casual friendships that tie me closer to my community. That kind of community feels less and less common with our AirPods in, heads in our phones, taking Lyft instead of public transit, etc.
- war1025 8y ago
  This is exactly how I feel about the different coffee shops I frequent. I think it's also the sort of relationships that churches, social clubs, etc. provide. These all fit under the broad umbrella of Third Places [1]. Third Places are critical to the social fabric of a community, and I think they are largely overlooks and underappreciated by people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
  - cubecul 8y ago
    I think you'd really enjoy this podcast episode on libraries! https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/palaces-for-the-people/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/palaces-for-the-peopl...
  - HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
    For the longest time, Overwatch was one of those third places for me. Now my third place is more or less at home with my siblings.
    - balfirevic 8y ago
      Wait, what is your first place then?
    - war1025 8y ago
      Home is the "First Place" in this framework. Work is the "Second Place". I saw an article recently that kind of missed what "Third Place" was, in my opinion. It basically said "Third Place" was just taking time for yourself. The real point of "Third Places", in my understanding, is that they are neither home nor work. At home, connections you build are with family. At work, connections you build are with coworkers. At third places, the connections you build are with the broader community. It's where you build the disparate connections that weave together the "social fabric" of a place.
hardwaresofton 8y ago
I think this is one of the biggest things that separates introverts and extroverts. Extroverts expend the energy to maintain these weaker relationships, and more willingly participate in the social cues/situations/events that keep them going. The willingness to small talk and sometimes feign interest which can actually jump start a meaningful longterm relationship -- for example let's say someone's child is doing some sport and being busy running them around comes up in small talk -- I find extroverts remember facts like these and use them to deepen or at least keep distanced but mindful relationships whereas introverts wouldn't to start with. The word "friend" itself takes on different meanings to different groups of people -- especially after the rise of FB -- 1000s of "friends" on a social network is very different from 100s of "friends" you've only met once which is also very different from the ~5 "friends" you see on a daily basis, and much different from 0/1/2 "best" friends who you think you'd do anything for. I also think it's weird that everyone has to learn these (and other lesson) themselves in their 20s/30s/40s/whenever -- why is there not a compendium of reasonable/decent ways to approach intrapersonal relationships and society in society today? Like a farmer's almanac for human interaction. [EDIT] - I also think that this is the key difference between sales and engineering orgs. Not that all engineers are introverts or all sales people are extroverts but this choice of expenditure of energy feels crucial to me.
- cubecul 8y ago
  I think this is more tied to how much people like socializing, not their intro/extroversion. From my understanding, intro/extroversion is how people like to process information. Introverts like to think through things. Extroverts like to talk it out. These are correlated with other behaviors, but those behaviors aren't the definition of intro/extroversion itself. I only say this because I know plenty of introverts that do exactly what the parent comment is saying and love it.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    > From my understanding, intro/extroversion is how people like to process information. Introverts like to think through things. Extroverts like to talk it out. I have never heard that as the primary definition of intro/extroversion. The difference is really about how you "recharge". Introverts recharge by spending time alone, while extroverts recharge by spending time with others. Thus, introverts may be fine in social situations, BUT if they don't get adequate "alone time" they will get exhausted. Thus, this really is tied to introversion/extroversion when it comes to keeping up with "weak" networks. I may like to socialize, but as an introvert, that costs me energy, so I am picky about where I "spend" it, and oftentimes I will forgo the chance to socialize with folks I don't know that well because, for me, it's not worth the energy.
algaeontoast 8y ago
As a millennial I really hate this trend. For instance, most housing groups on facebook now are mostly filled with people just posting about themselves and expect others to come to them with housing options that work. Instead of actually just going through listings to find something that would work for them... It's the most bizarre entitled way to try to flip a sellers market into a buyers market...
- ashelmire 8y ago
  ...it sounds like you're complaining about the people who are trying to make money from a relationship being the ones to put the work in. If you're renting or selling, it's up to you to put in the legwork.
  - losteric 8y ago
    Housing groups are usually for people looking to rent a property together, not owners selling/renting. Some people view that relationship as "you need me so come to me" - in my experience, those are the worst people to live with. I rather like that Facebook lets people act naturally. The people that reply to those lazy posts are usually poor planners desperately seeking a flatmate... so neither group engages with my ads :D
- icebraining 8y ago
  You're witnessing long-overdue movements in the direction of the Intention Economy [1] (a riff on the Attention Economy). In fact, the base concepts are not new - it's how companies do their buying, using RFPs. Now that we have computers, why should people have to schlep over listings filled with irrelevant stuff? But the real problem seems this tendency to use Facebook for everything, when it's really not the best option for anything. Better platforms can provide filtered options automatically, reducing the work for both parties. I really hope FB starts losing its grasp on the web. [1] https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/intention-economy https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/intention-economy
- benchaney 8y ago
  The smart thing to do is to approach it from both sides. Of course, only people's postings are visible to you. You wouldn't know if they read 100 listings and reached out to several of them.
quailandquasar 8y ago
Hopefully this hasn't been pointed out already... Often times introverted people are brimming (if not full) of empathy, and compassion. The joy they give is the joy they receive. That reward system is personal, internal, and can even be sullied by outside observance. These people (whom you might have known, or know now) really don't need compliments. In fact, compliments border on uncomfortable. They probably give anonymously. They put themselves in peoples shoes and embody their difficulty. Their reward is to help because that effort returns to them in an unspoken and even unnoticed joy. Having friends, or a social network is definitely a way to create opportunities. But for some people, that isn't necessarily worth the engagement. A very empathetic person might not want to loosely couple themselves in a social network with anyone else if they feel like they won't be able to offer their finest. It'd be unfair. They don't need those connections to find joy. They generate their own in compassion.
mirimir 8y ago
Back in the day, we called this "networking". Back before Eternal September, so mainly via telephone. I used to spend hours at a time on the phone, seeking information. Basically cycles of cold calling people, getting referrals, and cold calling them. I found jobs that way. Also preprints. And copies of EPA documents that were under review, or buried for political reasons. I tracked down authors, and got background.

191 points by gk1 8y ago

To what extent does this apply to online casual friendships? E.g. 'Friends' that one has never met in real life, on IRC, Facebook etc.

hateful 8y ago
I would say that just because it's online, doesn't make it any different than someone you only talk to at the "water cooler" or friends of friends you only see at parties. "We don't use the expression IRL. We say AFK. [...] We don't like that expression. We say AFK - Away From Keyboard. We think that the internet is for real." - Peter Sunde
Aromasin 8y ago
Casey Neistat had an interesting take on this in one of his recent videos. He described it as completely fulfilling in all of the components of friendship and community, but without the intimacy, which I think is quite apt. I do believe wholly that casual friendships are almost indistinguishable online as they are in person; however close friendships and relationships on the other hand require an element of intimacy that cannot be fulfilled.

finnh 8y ago

Interesting article - all of the referenced studies are about the real world, and the benefits of those interactions I definitely agree with - and yet the author leads with an anecdote about a tweet leading to a job. I'm less convinced that the claimed benefits of casual networks (feeling connected, for example) accrue to purely online casual relationships.

hhs 8y ago

The author writes: "A study from 2018 found that people formed a “casual” friendship after spending 30 hours together." Of note, when you click on that "study", it's actually a paper on two studies. The first study's methodology relies on participants using Amazon's Mechanical Turk via survey collection, and these participants "were given $.65 for survey completion". Then, the second study's methodology relies on "a Midwest public university, [where] participants were recruited from public speaking courses. To be eligible, participants had to have enrolled in their first semester of school that fall (i.e., freshman, transfer) and have moved to the city within 2 weeks prior to the start of class." There's no mention of incentives for the second study. I wish the NYT article talked more about the details of these studies and their possible limitations, for instance, with generalizing. Still, I think this is an interesting question. I wonder if there's meta-analysis research done in this area.

hammock 8y ago
Almost the entire body of social science is based on generalizations from limited studies.
- mathattack 8y ago
  Limited studies with small sample sizes. :-)
- stefan_ 8y ago
  Generalizations from limited studies performed exclusively on bored university students, typically of social science.
chocolatebunny 8y ago
well said. I feel like doing an overnight trip with someone (like a camping trip or a roadtrip) generates strong bonds with people you would otherwise not know that well. But it only takes a few months to a year of little to no contact for friendships to disintegrate.

gumby 8y ago

The 1973 Strength of Weak Ties paper briefly mentioned in the article is actually the Ur-reference on this topic, and is insightful: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jure/pub/papers/granovetter73ties.pdf https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jure/pub/papers/granovetter73ties.pd...

ryanmarsh 8y ago

Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. The social sciences are a dumpster fire.

asveikau 8y ago
> Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. Can you explain very specifically what you are talking about? Because otherwise, I will be honest, I see unspecified complaints of social political inconvenience and my initial read is just to assume that you have some problem with women or minorities.
- kortilla 8y ago
  Or maybe a problem with men.
- nordsieck 8y ago
  >> Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient. >> The social sciences are a dumpster fire. > Can you explain very specifically what you are talking about? IQ is probably the single most trustworthy finding in psychology/sociology. In a field where even core studies don't tend to get replicated (this is changing slowly and grudgingly), it has survived decades of replication and attacks. Given the political self identification of the professors in the field (over 99% progressive), it seems reasonable to assume that the political beliefs of the faculty contribute to the skepticism that the field, and academia more broadly, have of IQ.
  - asveikau 8y ago
    I am not steeped in this concept, but it strikes me that IQ can be totally replicable of the same biases, year after year. Meanwhile, what are you going to do with that information? I'd be a little disappointed to see it suggested that you can reduce an individual human to a number and make decisions affecting people's lives. Have you not had life experiences where the person with the highest test scores, most amount of praise, recognition, money, earning power, etc., is actually a comparatively ill-equipped human for some task? This intuition should make us skeptical of drawing too many conclusions from such metrics.

viburnum 8y ago

Hey, congratulations to all you winners in life, with great personalities and good looks, enjoy all your success.

oarabbus_ 8y ago
This seems oddly insincere
davesque 8y ago
Is this an indirect response to something in the article? Serious question.
mring33621 8y ago
Thanks, Vibranium!

unseenbastiat 8y ago

Buy cheap Viagra Cialis erectile dysfunction pills online: http://goatse.info/ http://goatse.info/

closetohome 8y ago

5 Easy Ways to Stress Out an Introvert: You won't believe #3!

muckrakerz 8y ago

"How to Gleefully Use People for Personal Gain" - could have been the title. I'm often astounded at how socially unaware the millennial are.

awaythrow9 8y ago

So, people are rediscovering small-talk and being generally friendly to people you encounter? Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out which kind of world the writers of these pieces live in. Do people in urban America only talk to each other through apps or something? Also, of course the thread had to devolve into something about the IQ of black people; never change, HN.

tyre 8y ago

I eat dinner at the same restaurant almost every Sunday night. I know the waitstaff, the maître d', and the people at the bar. They know about my life and I know about theirs. I have a similar relationship with people at a wine bar near my house. We don't see each other outside this context, except for the occasional serendipitous run-ins. They are nice, casual friendships that tie me closer to my community. That kind of community feels less and less common with our AirPods in, heads in our phones, taking Lyft instead of public transit, etc.

war1025 8y ago
This is exactly how I feel about the different coffee shops I frequent. I think it's also the sort of relationships that churches, social clubs, etc. provide. These all fit under the broad umbrella of Third Places [1]. Third Places are critical to the social fabric of a community, and I think they are largely overlooks and underappreciated by people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
- cubecul 8y ago
  I think you'd really enjoy this podcast episode on libraries! https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/palaces-for-the-people/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/palaces-for-the-peopl...
- HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
  For the longest time, Overwatch was one of those third places for me. Now my third place is more or less at home with my siblings.
  - balfirevic 8y ago
    Wait, what is your first place then?
  - war1025 8y ago
    Home is the "First Place" in this framework. Work is the "Second Place". I saw an article recently that kind of missed what "Third Place" was, in my opinion. It basically said "Third Place" was just taking time for yourself. The real point of "Third Places", in my understanding, is that they are neither home nor work. At home, connections you build are with family. At work, connections you build are with coworkers. At third places, the connections you build are with the broader community. It's where you build the disparate connections that weave together the "social fabric" of a place.

hardwaresofton 8y ago

I think this is one of the biggest things that separates introverts and extroverts. Extroverts expend the energy to maintain these weaker relationships, and more willingly participate in the social cues/situations/events that keep them going. The willingness to small talk and sometimes feign interest which can actually jump start a meaningful longterm relationship -- for example let's say someone's child is doing some sport and being busy running them around comes up in small talk -- I find extroverts remember facts like these and use them to deepen or at least keep distanced but mindful relationships whereas introverts wouldn't to start with. The word "friend" itself takes on different meanings to different groups of people -- especially after the rise of FB -- 1000s of "friends" on a social network is very different from 100s of "friends" you've only met once which is also very different from the ~5 "friends" you see on a daily basis, and much different from 0/1/2 "best" friends who you think you'd do anything for. I also think it's weird that everyone has to learn these (and other lesson) themselves in their 20s/30s/40s/whenever -- why is there not a compendium of reasonable/decent ways to approach intrapersonal relationships and society in society today? Like a farmer's almanac for human interaction. [EDIT] - I also think that this is the key difference between sales and engineering orgs. Not that all engineers are introverts or all sales people are extroverts but this choice of expenditure of energy feels crucial to me.

cubecul 8y ago
I think this is more tied to how much people like socializing, not their intro/extroversion. From my understanding, intro/extroversion is how people like to process information. Introverts like to think through things. Extroverts like to talk it out. These are correlated with other behaviors, but those behaviors aren't the definition of intro/extroversion itself. I only say this because I know plenty of introverts that do exactly what the parent comment is saying and love it.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  > From my understanding, intro/extroversion is how people like to process information. Introverts like to think through things. Extroverts like to talk it out. I have never heard that as the primary definition of intro/extroversion. The difference is really about how you "recharge". Introverts recharge by spending time alone, while extroverts recharge by spending time with others. Thus, introverts may be fine in social situations, BUT if they don't get adequate "alone time" they will get exhausted. Thus, this really is tied to introversion/extroversion when it comes to keeping up with "weak" networks. I may like to socialize, but as an introvert, that costs me energy, so I am picky about where I "spend" it, and oftentimes I will forgo the chance to socialize with folks I don't know that well because, for me, it's not worth the energy.

algaeontoast 8y ago

As a millennial I really hate this trend. For instance, most housing groups on facebook now are mostly filled with people just posting about themselves and expect others to come to them with housing options that work. Instead of actually just going through listings to find something that would work for them... It's the most bizarre entitled way to try to flip a sellers market into a buyers market...

ashelmire 8y ago
...it sounds like you're complaining about the people who are trying to make money from a relationship being the ones to put the work in. If you're renting or selling, it's up to you to put in the legwork.
- losteric 8y ago
  Housing groups are usually for people looking to rent a property together, not owners selling/renting. Some people view that relationship as "you need me so come to me" - in my experience, those are the worst people to live with. I rather like that Facebook lets people act naturally. The people that reply to those lazy posts are usually poor planners desperately seeking a flatmate... so neither group engages with my ads :D
icebraining 8y ago
You're witnessing long-overdue movements in the direction of the Intention Economy [1] (a riff on the Attention Economy). In fact, the base concepts are not new - it's how companies do their buying, using RFPs. Now that we have computers, why should people have to schlep over listings filled with irrelevant stuff? But the real problem seems this tendency to use Facebook for everything, when it's really not the best option for anything. Better platforms can provide filtered options automatically, reducing the work for both parties. I really hope FB starts losing its grasp on the web. [1] https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/intention-economy https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/intention-economy
benchaney 8y ago
The smart thing to do is to approach it from both sides. Of course, only people's postings are visible to you. You wouldn't know if they read 100 listings and reached out to several of them.

quailandquasar 8y ago

Hopefully this hasn't been pointed out already... Often times introverted people are brimming (if not full) of empathy, and compassion. The joy they give is the joy they receive. That reward system is personal, internal, and can even be sullied by outside observance. These people (whom you might have known, or know now) really don't need compliments. In fact, compliments border on uncomfortable. They probably give anonymously. They put themselves in peoples shoes and embody their difficulty. Their reward is to help because that effort returns to them in an unspoken and even unnoticed joy. Having friends, or a social network is definitely a way to create opportunities. But for some people, that isn't necessarily worth the engagement. A very empathetic person might not want to loosely couple themselves in a social network with anyone else if they feel like they won't be able to offer their finest. It'd be unfair. They don't need those connections to find joy. They generate their own in compassion.

mirimir 8y ago

Back in the day, we called this "networking". Back before Eternal September, so mainly via telephone. I used to spend hours at a time on the phone, seeking information. Basically cycles of cold calling people, getting referrals, and cold calling them. I found jobs that way. Also preprints. And copies of EPA documents that were under review, or buried for political reasons. I tracked down authors, and got background.