4 ms·

Last night I read the "Happiness" chapter (no. 18) from Steven Pinker's fine book, Enlightenment Now, where he reviews data on loneliness in the US students (am

Last night I read the "Happiness" chapter (no. 18) from Steven Pinker's fine book, Enlightenment Now, where he reviews data on loneliness in the US students (among two dozen other graphs in the first twenty chapters). Pinker implies social critics abuse the words "epidemic" and "crisis". After reviewing the downwards-sloping graph (plotted from 1978-2011) and more data, Pinker writes: [quote] Modern life, then, has not crushed our minds and bodies, turned us into atomized machines suffering from toxic levels of emptiness and isolation, or set us drifting apart without human contact or emotion. How did this misconception arise? Partly it came out of the social critic's standard formula for sowing panic: Here's an anecdote, therefore it's a trend, therefore it's a crisis. But partly came from genuine changes in how people interact. People see each other less in traditional venues like clubs, churches, unions, fraternal organizations, and dinner parties, and more in informal gatherings via digital media. They confide in fewer distant cousins but more in co-workers. They are less likely to have large numbers of friends but also less likely to want a large number of friends. But just because social life looks different today from the way it looked in the 1950s, it does not mean that humans, that quintessentially social species, have become any less social. [/quote]

daodedickinson 7y ago
Seems like Pinker is one of the few who can remain sanguine. He's not going to be able to persuade many.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  TBH, that quote is certainly not persuading me. I don't have lots of statistical data to look into, but I will say that myself and my peer group (gen X) at least seem much lonelier, with negative consequences, than my parents and their peer group. A lot of it is that it's just so much easier to be isolated today than in the past. When my parents moved in the past, they may have hired movers, but they stilled called me, my siblings, and some of their friends to help. I just get on thumbtack to find some help and then hire movers. When my parents were coming back from a flight, one of their kids would pick them up from the airport. I just take an Uber. Part of forming strong social relationships is a need to rely on other people. It's much easier to get by today without relying on anyone, and that can have significant negative side effects.
mistermann 7y ago
> Modern life, then, has not crushed our minds and bodies It is indeed objectively correct that modern life has not crushed our minds and bodies. > Modern life has not turned us into atomized machines suffering from toxic levels of emptiness and isolation It is indeed objectively correct that modern life has not turned us into atomized machines suffering from toxic levels of emptiness and isolation (unless perhaps you include suicides from self-perceived loneliness, I assume Pinker does not include those in his analysis). > Modern life has not set us drifting apart without human contact or emotion. To me, this seems true only if you take it pedantically literally, where "without" = "absolutely none" (and even then, I wouldn't be surprised if it was not entirely true). > How did this misconception arise? Partly it came out of the social critic's standard formula for sowing panic: Here's an anecdote, therefore it's a trend, therefore it's a crisis. Really? Is there no non-hyperbolic (see 2 out of 3 of the examples provided above) way that can or has been used to describe the increased social isolation that many people are in fact feeling, regardless of the "expert" opinions of people like Steven Pinker? > But partly came from genuine changes in how people interact. People see each other less in traditional venues like clubs, churches, unions, fraternal organizations, and dinner parties, and more in informal gatherings via digital media. They confide in fewer distant cousins but more in co-workers. They are less likely to have large numbers of friends but also less likely to want a large number of friends. And yet, any feeling of social isolation is one's imagination? And only as a reaction to the fear mongering of social critics? > But just because social life looks different today from the way it looked in the 1950s, it does not mean that humans, that quintessentially social species, have become any less social. That, specifically, is objectively correct. However, the fact that humans have become less social (as Pinker himself just finished describing above) might be a sign. Hopefully he releases a revised edition so we know know what to think and how to feel. To me, this style of writing may contribute to the "backlash" against expert opinions we hear about.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  What are you trying to say? All you do is assert that a very literal interpretation of what he's saying is correct, with the implication that what he's trying to say isn't correct, but you don't actually offer any arguments against his actual positions
irrational 7y ago
Wait, people confide in coworkers? I've had some coworkers for 18 years. I'm fairly certain they don't know anything about me beyond what I'm working on currently. Why would I ever tell a coworker private information about myself?
- jniedrauer 7y ago
  > Why would I ever tell a coworker private information about myself? Because you've spent most of your waking hours with them every day for a third of your life and we're social creatures. If I didn't make friends with my coworkers, I wouldn't have friends.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  To each their own. Some people value privacy. That’s fine. But most of us spend more waking time with coworkers than with our partners or spouses, so it’s nice to open up at work.
RandomInteger4 7y ago
I like Pinker's views with regard to violence and such, but I think he has largely missed the mark on this point. Maybe I'm just trying to generalize my own situation so as not to feel alone (sort of ironic I guess).
Noos 7y ago
There's a huge difference between going to church every Sunday, and talking about church on Reddit. Internet ties are transient, anonymous, and adversarial. The idea of the meetup came into being precisely because these ties were so weak. even coworkers...you have weaker ties because too much social sharing can and will get you fired. Coworkers are under no obligation to be with you long term and have no bond apart from their employer. The reaon why people make social ties among them is because they literally have no one else; their family may live in another state, and friend networks can be absurdly hard to maintain. Pinker is just off base on this one. Part of the modern knowledge worker's idealization of college and replication of it in their workspaces is that it's one of the few times where social interaction is forced through proximity. No one, and I mean no one, has spoken rapturously about the glorious communities of online learning.

daodedickinson 7y ago

Seems like Pinker is one of the few who can remain sanguine. He's not going to be able to persuade many.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
TBH, that quote is certainly not persuading me. I don't have lots of statistical data to look into, but I will say that myself and my peer group (gen X) at least seem much lonelier, with negative consequences, than my parents and their peer group. A lot of it is that it's just so much easier to be isolated today than in the past. When my parents moved in the past, they may have hired movers, but they stilled called me, my siblings, and some of their friends to help. I just get on thumbtack to find some help and then hire movers. When my parents were coming back from a flight, one of their kids would pick them up from the airport. I just take an Uber. Part of forming strong social relationships is a need to rely on other people. It's much easier to get by today without relying on anyone, and that can have significant negative side effects.

mistermann 7y ago

> Modern life, then, has not crushed our minds and bodies It is indeed objectively correct that modern life has not crushed our minds and bodies. > Modern life has not turned us into atomized machines suffering from toxic levels of emptiness and isolation It is indeed objectively correct that modern life has not turned us into atomized machines suffering from toxic levels of emptiness and isolation (unless perhaps you include suicides from self-perceived loneliness, I assume Pinker does not include those in his analysis). > Modern life has not set us drifting apart without human contact or emotion. To me, this seems true only if you take it pedantically literally, where "without" = "absolutely none" (and even then, I wouldn't be surprised if it was not entirely true). > How did this misconception arise? Partly it came out of the social critic's standard formula for sowing panic: Here's an anecdote, therefore it's a trend, therefore it's a crisis. Really? Is there no non-hyperbolic (see 2 out of 3 of the examples provided above) way that can or has been used to describe the increased social isolation that many people are in fact feeling, regardless of the "expert" opinions of people like Steven Pinker? > But partly came from genuine changes in how people interact. People see each other less in traditional venues like clubs, churches, unions, fraternal organizations, and dinner parties, and more in informal gatherings via digital media. They confide in fewer distant cousins but more in co-workers. They are less likely to have large numbers of friends but also less likely to want a large number of friends. And yet, any feeling of social isolation is one's imagination? And only as a reaction to the fear mongering of social critics? > But just because social life looks different today from the way it looked in the 1950s, it does not mean that humans, that quintessentially social species, have become any less social. That, specifically, is objectively correct. However, the fact that humans have become less social (as Pinker himself just finished describing above) might be a sign. Hopefully he releases a revised edition so we know know what to think and how to feel. To me, this style of writing may contribute to the "backlash" against expert opinions we hear about.

Smithalicious 7y ago
What are you trying to say? All you do is assert that a very literal interpretation of what he's saying is correct, with the implication that what he's trying to say isn't correct, but you don't actually offer any arguments against his actual positions

irrational 7y ago

Wait, people confide in coworkers? I've had some coworkers for 18 years. I'm fairly certain they don't know anything about me beyond what I'm working on currently. Why would I ever tell a coworker private information about myself?

jniedrauer 7y ago
> Why would I ever tell a coworker private information about myself? Because you've spent most of your waking hours with them every day for a third of your life and we're social creatures. If I didn't make friends with my coworkers, I wouldn't have friends.
jdavis703 7y ago
To each their own. Some people value privacy. That’s fine. But most of us spend more waking time with coworkers than with our partners or spouses, so it’s nice to open up at work.

RandomInteger4 7y ago

I like Pinker's views with regard to violence and such, but I think he has largely missed the mark on this point. Maybe I'm just trying to generalize my own situation so as not to feel alone (sort of ironic I guess).

Noos 7y ago

There's a huge difference between going to church every Sunday, and talking about church on Reddit. Internet ties are transient, anonymous, and adversarial. The idea of the meetup came into being precisely because these ties were so weak. even coworkers...you have weaker ties because too much social sharing can and will get you fired. Coworkers are under no obligation to be with you long term and have no bond apart from their employer. The reaon why people make social ties among them is because they literally have no one else; their family may live in another state, and friend networks can be absurdly hard to maintain. Pinker is just off base on this one. Part of the modern knowledge worker's idealization of college and replication of it in their workspaces is that it's one of the few times where social interaction is forced through proximity. No one, and I mean no one, has spoken rapturously about the glorious communities of online learning.