15 ms·

The Screen and the Job have displaced almost everything else is our lives. Loneliness is just a primary symptom. The Screen, whether it’s TV, computer, or phon

by dexwiz 7y ago

The Screen and the Job have displaced almost everything else is our lives. Loneliness is just a primary symptom. The Screen, whether it’s TV, computer, or phone, has supplanted almost all social interactions. This manifests itself in things like SitComs on TV (just a bunch of friends or family hanging out) or Social Media on phones. It’s very easy to fill the social needs of right now with a Screen. But under even a minuscule amount of self reflection these are revealed as hollow substitutes for real human interaction. The Job has completely taken over as a driving force in evaluating choices. The average person has to consider all options in the light of both the current employer and the specter of tomorrow’s. Moving across the country for a high paying job? Great! Moving to be closer to friends? That’s a career killer. No wonder we are lonely. We make choices in the short term that optimize happiness, often at the expense of our relationships. Ghosting is not just for dates now. Then turn around and make choices in the long term that optimize employability at the expense of all else.

arvinsim 7y ago
> The Job has completely taken over as a driving force in evaluating choices. Not to mention most of our time. People nowadays spend far more time at work than ever.
- magashna 7y ago
  Than ever? Surely Americans in the industrial revolution worked longer.
- mox1 7y ago
  You think that today in 2019, we spend more time at "work" than at any other time in history? That's just false. Over the 20th century here, work hours have slashed in half. Henry Ford introduced the 5 day work week in 1926, prior to that it was 6. You think the average farmer in the late 1800's worked 40-50 hours? What about the average coal miner, or factory worker?
  - JackFr 7y ago
    And less of our time at work is spent actually working.
    - LandR 7y ago
      This might sound good in theory, but time spent at work not working can be soul destroying.
  - arcadeparade 7y ago
    You're not thinking on a long enough timescale. Hunter gatherers only worked 10 hours a week :)
    - Balero 7y ago
      They only hunter/gathered for that long. How much time was spent in meetings, how much time preparing food, fixing clothes, patrolling territory, scouting things out, making home improvements etc. If the modern person only worked for food, then I think a few hours a week would suffice.
      - intuitionist 7y ago
        ah yes, meetings, that famous bane of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle
        badpun 7y ago
        I wonder if they have a scrum master, who tells everyone what to do, but no one has ever seen him hunting.
  - dexwiz 7y ago
    Physically you are right. Mentally, maybe not. If you are in an information based job like writing or programming, then it’s very easy to carry your job around in your head. I may only program for a few hours a day, but the problems definitely come home with me. It takes a considerable amount of self awareness to both realize this and stop it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dahfizz 7y ago
  > People nowadays spend far more time at work than ever. Do you have anything supporting this claim? The facts say otherwise: https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours It's easy and fun to be pessimistic, but to claim that people today work more than ever is ludicrous.
- lm28469 7y ago
  > People nowadays spend far more time at work than ever. A few generations ago kids worked at 10, there were no weekly limit, no weekends, no vacations, no security, no form of compensation if you get injured/die while working, no pension, no sick leave &c. In first world countries we never worked so little for so much comfort. > By the act of 1892 one day in the week, not necessarily Sunday, had to be given for entire absence from work, in addition to eight recognized annual holidays > Children may not be employed in industrial work before 12 years, and then only 8 hours a day at work > The first attempt to secure legislation regulating factory employment related to the hours of labour, which were very long - from twelve to thirteen hours a day. > Boys of 13 may be employed in certain work underground, but under 16 may not be employed more than 8 hours in the 24 from bank to bank. A law of 1905 provided for miners a 9 hours' day and in 1907 an 8 hours' day from the foot of the entrance gallery back to the same point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    I don't think it's particularly helpful to compare the present day to the late 19th century. The fact that things used to be worse does not excuse the fact that things also used to be better; living standards for the average American have regressed in many ways since the 1970s, which should be a cause of urgent concern.
    - jlawson 7y ago
      lm28469 was responding to the previous poster's specific claim that we now work longer hours "than ever".
    - brighter2morrow 7y ago
      >living standards for the average American have regressed in many ways since the 1970s, With women's entry into the workforce plus the 1964 Hart-Cellar Act's lifting of immigration quotas the workforce more than doubled in the 70s. At that rate how was work compensation ever supposed to keep up? I'm not saying the trade-off wasn't worth it, but you can't 2-3x the labor pool and then pretend we don't know why wages decreased while competition for scare resources increased.
- testvox 7y ago
  Don't we spend less time at work than ever? Makes more sense to me that loneliness would be caused by too much free time rather than not enough.
- ghostcluster 7y ago
  > People nowadays spend far more time at work than ever. Average hours worked has gone down steadily over the last two centuries: > 1830 69.1 hours per week > 1880 60.7 > 1929 50.6 > 1988 42.4 > As the twentieth century ended there was nothing resembling a shorter hours “movement.” The length of the workweek continues to fall for most groups — but at a glacial pace. Some Americans complain about a lack of free time but the vast majority seem content with an average workweek of roughly forty hours — channeling almost all of their growing wages into higher incomes rather than increased leisure time. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  People nowadays know less about history than ever.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- twoheadedboy 7y ago
  I find it pretty concerning whenever I see someone's github page with tons of green squares on the bottom and top row. Why do people work so much on the weekends?
bilbo0s 7y ago
It's also interesting that nowadays when people lose their jobs, it triggers an almost existential crisis in them. It's kind of sad to watch. I wish people could understand that they are more than their job. It's so ingrained in us though. One of the first things people asks each other is, "What do you do?" It encourages a definition of self that is centered on one's job. If it weren't real life, I'd think I was watching a dystopian film at most social gatherings. :(
- defterGoose 7y ago
  I feel you brotha. he said via a social network
- heavyirondba 7y ago
  I'm pretty certain that existential crisis isn't because of who they'd be without their job, except in status obsessed high-income brackets. For most folks that existential crisis is driven 100% by the realization that they have little in the way of a safety-net, and all it takes is several turns of bad luck to end up in a poverty trap that isn't easy to climb out of. Remember, most Americans make what, 65k or so as a household? And are in massive debt to all of the things they needed to even be able to make that money (college education, car, house, etc).
  - JackFr 7y ago
    > For most folks that existential crisis is driven 100% by the realization that they have little in the way of a safety-net, and all it takes is several turns of bad luck to end up in a poverty trap that isn't easy to climb out of. I think that's more US specific.
- orcdork 7y ago
  "it triggers an almost existential crisis in them. It's kind of sad to watch." Said the person (probably) working in an industry that's blooming, without a hint of irony.
- JackFr 7y ago
  Modern culture has stripped life of intrinsic meaning. The values promoted by the culture are that we are hedonic production/consumption machines, and that our value comes from either what we are able to produce, or what we are able to consume.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ikeyany 7y ago
> The Job has completely taken over as a driving force in evaluating choices. The average person has to consider all options in the light of both the current employer and the specter of tomorrow’s. How is this different than what the majority of civilization had to do throughout history? People have always clung to their profession as their identity. Hell, people used to name themselves after their profession. If that is the problem, then push for fewer hours worked per week.
- freehunter 7y ago
  Back in the days when people named themselves after their job, there was no difference between career and personal life. You didn’t work 8-5 and then completely disconnect, you worked whenever the job needed done as many hours as it took. Loneliness only sets in when you have nothing else to do and you’re all alone. If you’re swinging a hammer at a hot forge for 16 hours a day loneliness is a secondary concern.
  - kinos 7y ago
    Back when people had up to 6 months of time off a year?[1] [1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
    - freehunter 7y ago
      If modern people had half the year they could consider free time, no one would be lonely.
      - jdietrich 7y ago
        Retirees and the unemployed report high levels of loneliness.
        imesh 7y ago
        Well yeah, all their friends and family are working.
piercebot 7y ago
>The Screen, whether it’s TV, computer, or phone, has supplanted almost all social interactions. I think social (cooperative) gaming might be an exception to this. I'm not about to argue that it's _better_ than real-life social interaction, but hanging out and communicating with the same individuals every evening while working on shared goals as your avatars inhabit the screen can combat loneliness for many individuals without (and with!) alternatives[0]. These interactions can even lead to real-life communities and relationships. So again, not a perfect substitute, but certainly not as much a detractor as sitcoms or (I would argue) social media. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/disability-47064773 https://www.bbc.com/news/disability-47064773
- asauce 7y ago
  A bunch of my college/highschool friends will still hop on the ps4 a couple nights each week. I live 100 kms away from most of them, however we can still catch up and have fun playing games. Its definitely not the same as real life interactions, but it allows me to interact with people that I normally wouldn't see without visiting them.
- dysoco 7y ago
  I moved to a city where I'm pretty much alone so I could go to college. My favorite time of the day is when I play Counter-Strike with my old buddies at night. Not so much because of the game but just because I get to voice chat and have a good laugh for a while.
tempsy 7y ago
At least in SF it feels like there is a grey area between work and friend relationships. I don't necessarily think relationships that start at work can't be meaningful, though there's certainly a much greater chance a work relationship is transactional even if you fool yourself into thinking they could be a friend.
- hollerith 7y ago
  Whether the relationship is transactional (or tainted by money or some such) doesn't bother me as much as the fact that my putting time and effort into friendships in the workplace gives someone who already has a lot of power over me even more power over me: namely, my getting fired would suddenly make it very difficult for me to continue most of those friendships.
gordaco 7y ago
All of this is 100% correct. In particular: the amount of choices that have become "career killers" and therefore unacceptable is terrifying. Choose a degree that appeals to you, where you will learn what you like, instead of one which acts as a stepping stone for a higher paying job? Even in countries with sane tuition prices (read: not the US) plenty of people will blame you, and that decision in particular, for any financial problem for all your life. Become pregnant, and/or plan to work fewer hours for some time to take care of your kids or any older relative? How brave of you. Here's your prize in the form of reduced pay for the next 10 years or so. Decline that managing position because you like your current job better and you know you won't enjoy being a manager? Cue the disapproval stares from people close to you. Stay in your job for 15 years because you like the people, the work itself or some particular perk? When you finally leave, your next job will pay less than if you had hopped around each 2 years. That's if someone wants to hire you. Sure, every decision counts and very often there is a tradeoff between trying to find happiness and trying to find a job that sustains you. However, lately the tension between those two is so high that any small decision towards living the life you want to live may very well end in financial misery for the rest of your life. This is not hyperbole; I know people who fucked up mildly once, fifteen years ago, and are still paying the price. And I'm one of the lucky ones... I haven't fallen through the cracks. Yet.
- gordaco 7y ago
  I just found something very indicative of the current times: in Ask A Manager (a blog about work where the owner answers questions from her readers) someone is afraid that not working during the evenings or the weekends is going to hurt their job prospects. The article has been published today. https://www.askamanager.org/2019/07/can-you-advance-professionally-without-giving-up-your-evenings-and-weekends.html https://www.askamanager.org/2019/07/can-you-advance-professi...
- devtul 7y ago
  Seems to be more a problem of expectations than anything else, people are too focused on being successful than being happy, on having it all. I would gleefully take a pay cut to have a 35h work week _if my wage still allows me to eat out once 3x a week_, but I will work 40h + commute and feel always exhausted until I get there. See how easy is to fall on that trap.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
> The average person has to consider all options in the light of both the current employer and the specter of tomorrow’s. Moving across the country for a high paying job? Great! Moving to be closer to friends? That’s a career killer. The median person lives just 18 miles away from their mom. 57% of Americans have never lived outside their home state. A third have never lived outside their hometown. The more I read about it, I’m convinced “loneliness” is an upper middle class problem.
- calcifer 7y ago
  > The more I read about it, I’m convinced “loneliness” is an upper middle class problem. Which makes it all the more suitable for a discussion on HN, wouldn't you say?
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    I'm definitely lower middle class, I make 34k a year...
    - calcifer 7y ago
      Not sure how accurate this [1] is, but 34k USD puts you in the top ~0.88% richest people on the planet. If that's true, you are not "lower" anything... [1] http://www.globalrichlist.com/ http://www.globalrichlist.com/
      - filoleg 7y ago
        Everything is relative in the context, so your global stats aren't especially helpful. 34k USD a year can lend you either an extremely comfy king-like life in Thailand or poverty level existence in San Francisco. Saying to someone from the latter situation that they are in ~0.88% richest people on the planet is neither helpful nor relevant.
        fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        That "comfy existence" in Thailand is also relative, you get to live in a house with air conditioning and indoor plumbing, just like in the west. Wages are lower so you can hire people to do things for you but an iPhone costs the same. People seem to actually believe that 5 thousand a year gives you a middle class lifestyle in the third world. The cost of eating only rice and beans and living in a tin shack with dirt floors is pretty much the same everywhere.
tempsy 7y ago
I don't think that can explain everything. As far as I understand, cultures where family is highly valued (Latin America, some parts Asia) say they are happier despite being relatively less well off than richer countries.
buboard 7y ago
> The Screen and the Job have displaced The screen and the Job have no volition of their own. It's humans themselves that choose to spend more time with them instead of interacting with nearby humans. And this is happening despite the fact that we 're no longer in the industrial age, and people don't need to live near the factory where they work. The Job provides people with enough money to frequently escape from nearby people (travel, or "experiences"), money to move in upscale tiny apartments where they can be alone in a crowd, or to move in comfy suburbs where they can be alone physically. It seems highly-paid people choose those, and it is lower class people that keep socializing with their neighbours. I presume many of those people do not idolize their relationships with other humans as the most precious thing in the world. They weigh them against the freedoms afforded by money and technology and act accordingly.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I think many people value being disentangled from other peoples' problems. They move to the suburbs so that they don't have to have roommates or people in the next door apartment - so that they have some space. Then they find out that they have no community - they're isolated and lonely. As you say, we're doing it to ourselves.
- barberousse 7y ago
  As a software engineer who comes from the lower class (the West side ghetto of Chicago, in fact), let me tell you right now that lower class people socializing with their neighbors doesn't mean those interactions are at all inclusive of different approaches to life. Yeah, you get more socializing and connections, but those interactions tend to be constrained by forces like homophobia, racism, etc. Just because they're socializing doesn't mean they are also re-enforcing a world where everyone can feel accepted. It strikes me as naive to think the working class are this miasma of authentic relations, they socialize better because the set of considered opinions is virtually uncontested.
  - buboard 7y ago
    1. nobody said the do or that they should "be inclusive" 2. miasma is a negative word (means repulsive) I agree however, it is actually one of the reasons that more well-off people tend to socialize less: other people are not always "wonderful"
agumonkey 7y ago
TV when it was a single screen in house could still serve as social gathering time. As a kid, having my own TV meant countless hours of video games and my own movies too. I enjoyed it more than I abused it. Are smarphone/tablet TVs worse or the same ? One difference, the kind of entertainment you had on TV wasn't that much thinking or discussing. It has different effects I suppose. Also TV had a different ethos (if I may). One last thing, about my first point. Having a single TV meant disagreements about who decides what to watch. This led to having more TVs.. and now more screens too. Technology is the mirror of our own social bonds.. we need it but we also need to deal with the issues. It gives a weird form of peace of mind not to have to deal with others.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >As a kid, having my own TV meant countless hours of video games and my own movies too. I enjoyed it more than I abused it. For me int he early 90s was "Hey Aaron/Jimmy/Dani it's raining outside so we can't go ride bikes, wanna play a game?" and then either taking turns or playing a two player game and talking the entire time. Then early 95 when more than one or two of us had computers in the homes it was similar, if it was nice out we were outside, if not we were on IRC and/or a MUD and moving into the later 90s bla-dinging each other on AIM while in a MUD or in Ultima or Everquest with each other if it was too late to go out or bad weather. Now it's 3 people sitting in a room with a tv going, and all three have their phones out, occasionally sending each other memes and not talking.
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    I agree that it's weirder nowadays. But maybe we just enjoyed cultural inertia because we were born just before 24/7 multi screen entertainment became the norm. I too find that it just takes too much space in our daily lives. Back in the days tech was one part of our life, and it was small scope entertainment, now it's the centralized hub for everything and it sucks your mind. Playing evil's advocate a bit just to poke my own bias.
mikorym 7y ago
I am the type to rejoice in cynicism. But, I have to say that I don't see the screen phenomenon as necessarily a bad thing—time spent in contemplation is time spent alone. I am a person too that likes to spend time outdoors, so maybe what I am saying is that there is a fine line between lonely and alone. You can only be anti-social in the presence of other people. Otherwise you are simply alone.

by dexwiz 7y ago

arvinsim 7y ago

> The Job has completely taken over as a driving force in evaluating choices. Not to mention most of our time. People nowadays spend far more time at work than ever.

magashna 7y ago
Than ever? Surely Americans in the industrial revolution worked longer.
mox1 7y ago
You think that today in 2019, we spend more time at "work" than at any other time in history? That's just false. Over the 20th century here, work hours have slashed in half. Henry Ford introduced the 5 day work week in 1926, prior to that it was 6. You think the average farmer in the late 1800's worked 40-50 hours? What about the average coal miner, or factory worker?
- JackFr 7y ago
  And less of our time at work is spent actually working.
  - LandR 7y ago
    This might sound good in theory, but time spent at work not working can be soul destroying.
- arcadeparade 7y ago
  You're not thinking on a long enough timescale. Hunter gatherers only worked 10 hours a week :)
  - Balero 7y ago
    They only hunter/gathered for that long. How much time was spent in meetings, how much time preparing food, fixing clothes, patrolling territory, scouting things out, making home improvements etc. If the modern person only worked for food, then I think a few hours a week would suffice.
    - intuitionist 7y ago
      ah yes, meetings, that famous bane of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle
      - badpun 7y ago
        I wonder if they have a scrum master, who tells everyone what to do, but no one has ever seen him hunting.
- dexwiz 7y ago
  Physically you are right. Mentally, maybe not. If you are in an information based job like writing or programming, then it’s very easy to carry your job around in your head. I may only program for a few hours a day, but the problems definitely come home with me. It takes a considerable amount of self awareness to both realize this and stop it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dahfizz 7y ago
> People nowadays spend far more time at work than ever. Do you have anything supporting this claim? The facts say otherwise: https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours It's easy and fun to be pessimistic, but to claim that people today work more than ever is ludicrous.
lm28469 7y ago
> People nowadays spend far more time at work than ever. A few generations ago kids worked at 10, there were no weekly limit, no weekends, no vacations, no security, no form of compensation if you get injured/die while working, no pension, no sick leave &c. In first world countries we never worked so little for so much comfort. > By the act of 1892 one day in the week, not necessarily Sunday, had to be given for entire absence from work, in addition to eight recognized annual holidays > Children may not be employed in industrial work before 12 years, and then only 8 hours a day at work > The first attempt to secure legislation regulating factory employment related to the hours of labour, which were very long - from twelve to thirteen hours a day. > Boys of 13 may be employed in certain work underground, but under 16 may not be employed more than 8 hours in the 24 from bank to bank. A law of 1905 provided for miners a 9 hours' day and in 1907 an 8 hours' day from the foot of the entrance gallery back to the same point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law
- jdietrich 7y ago
  I don't think it's particularly helpful to compare the present day to the late 19th century. The fact that things used to be worse does not excuse the fact that things also used to be better; living standards for the average American have regressed in many ways since the 1970s, which should be a cause of urgent concern.
  - jlawson 7y ago
    lm28469 was responding to the previous poster's specific claim that we now work longer hours "than ever".
  - brighter2morrow 7y ago
    >living standards for the average American have regressed in many ways since the 1970s, With women's entry into the workforce plus the 1964 Hart-Cellar Act's lifting of immigration quotas the workforce more than doubled in the 70s. At that rate how was work compensation ever supposed to keep up? I'm not saying the trade-off wasn't worth it, but you can't 2-3x the labor pool and then pretend we don't know why wages decreased while competition for scare resources increased.
testvox 7y ago
Don't we spend less time at work than ever? Makes more sense to me that loneliness would be caused by too much free time rather than not enough.
ghostcluster 7y ago
> People nowadays spend far more time at work than ever. Average hours worked has gone down steadily over the last two centuries: > 1830 69.1 hours per week > 1880 60.7 > 1929 50.6 > 1988 42.4 > As the twentieth century ended there was nothing resembling a shorter hours “movement.” The length of the workweek continues to fall for most groups — but at a glacial pace. Some Americans complain about a lack of free time but the vast majority seem content with an average workweek of roughly forty hours — channeling almost all of their growing wages into higher incomes rather than increased leisure time. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/
BurningFrog 7y ago
People nowadays know less about history than ever.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
twoheadedboy 7y ago
I find it pretty concerning whenever I see someone's github page with tons of green squares on the bottom and top row. Why do people work so much on the weekends?

bilbo0s 7y ago

It's also interesting that nowadays when people lose their jobs, it triggers an almost existential crisis in them. It's kind of sad to watch. I wish people could understand that they are more than their job. It's so ingrained in us though. One of the first things people asks each other is, "What do you do?" It encourages a definition of self that is centered on one's job. If it weren't real life, I'd think I was watching a dystopian film at most social gatherings. :(

defterGoose 7y ago
I feel you brotha. he said via a social network
heavyirondba 7y ago
I'm pretty certain that existential crisis isn't because of who they'd be without their job, except in status obsessed high-income brackets. For most folks that existential crisis is driven 100% by the realization that they have little in the way of a safety-net, and all it takes is several turns of bad luck to end up in a poverty trap that isn't easy to climb out of. Remember, most Americans make what, 65k or so as a household? And are in massive debt to all of the things they needed to even be able to make that money (college education, car, house, etc).
- JackFr 7y ago
  > For most folks that existential crisis is driven 100% by the realization that they have little in the way of a safety-net, and all it takes is several turns of bad luck to end up in a poverty trap that isn't easy to climb out of. I think that's more US specific.
orcdork 7y ago
"it triggers an almost existential crisis in them. It's kind of sad to watch." Said the person (probably) working in an industry that's blooming, without a hint of irony.
JackFr 7y ago
Modern culture has stripped life of intrinsic meaning. The values promoted by the culture are that we are hedonic production/consumption machines, and that our value comes from either what we are able to produce, or what we are able to consume.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ikeyany 7y ago

> The Job has completely taken over as a driving force in evaluating choices. The average person has to consider all options in the light of both the current employer and the specter of tomorrow’s. How is this different than what the majority of civilization had to do throughout history? People have always clung to their profession as their identity. Hell, people used to name themselves after their profession. If that is the problem, then push for fewer hours worked per week.

freehunter 7y ago
Back in the days when people named themselves after their job, there was no difference between career and personal life. You didn’t work 8-5 and then completely disconnect, you worked whenever the job needed done as many hours as it took. Loneliness only sets in when you have nothing else to do and you’re all alone. If you’re swinging a hammer at a hot forge for 16 hours a day loneliness is a secondary concern.
- kinos 7y ago
  Back when people had up to 6 months of time off a year?[1] [1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
  - freehunter 7y ago
    If modern people had half the year they could consider free time, no one would be lonely.
    - jdietrich 7y ago
      Retirees and the unemployed report high levels of loneliness.
      - imesh 7y ago
        Well yeah, all their friends and family are working.

piercebot 7y ago

>The Screen, whether it’s TV, computer, or phone, has supplanted almost all social interactions. I think social (cooperative) gaming might be an exception to this. I'm not about to argue that it's _better_ than real-life social interaction, but hanging out and communicating with the same individuals every evening while working on shared goals as your avatars inhabit the screen can combat loneliness for many individuals without (and with!) alternatives[0]. These interactions can even lead to real-life communities and relationships. So again, not a perfect substitute, but certainly not as much a detractor as sitcoms or (I would argue) social media. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/disability-47064773 https://www.bbc.com/news/disability-47064773

asauce 7y ago
A bunch of my college/highschool friends will still hop on the ps4 a couple nights each week. I live 100 kms away from most of them, however we can still catch up and have fun playing games. Its definitely not the same as real life interactions, but it allows me to interact with people that I normally wouldn't see without visiting them.
dysoco 7y ago
I moved to a city where I'm pretty much alone so I could go to college. My favorite time of the day is when I play Counter-Strike with my old buddies at night. Not so much because of the game but just because I get to voice chat and have a good laugh for a while.

tempsy 7y ago

At least in SF it feels like there is a grey area between work and friend relationships. I don't necessarily think relationships that start at work can't be meaningful, though there's certainly a much greater chance a work relationship is transactional even if you fool yourself into thinking they could be a friend.

hollerith 7y ago
Whether the relationship is transactional (or tainted by money or some such) doesn't bother me as much as the fact that my putting time and effort into friendships in the workplace gives someone who already has a lot of power over me even more power over me: namely, my getting fired would suddenly make it very difficult for me to continue most of those friendships.

gordaco 7y ago

All of this is 100% correct. In particular: the amount of choices that have become "career killers" and therefore unacceptable is terrifying. Choose a degree that appeals to you, where you will learn what you like, instead of one which acts as a stepping stone for a higher paying job? Even in countries with sane tuition prices (read: not the US) plenty of people will blame you, and that decision in particular, for any financial problem for all your life. Become pregnant, and/or plan to work fewer hours for some time to take care of your kids or any older relative? How brave of you. Here's your prize in the form of reduced pay for the next 10 years or so. Decline that managing position because you like your current job better and you know you won't enjoy being a manager? Cue the disapproval stares from people close to you. Stay in your job for 15 years because you like the people, the work itself or some particular perk? When you finally leave, your next job will pay less than if you had hopped around each 2 years. That's if someone wants to hire you. Sure, every decision counts and very often there is a tradeoff between trying to find happiness and trying to find a job that sustains you. However, lately the tension between those two is so high that any small decision towards living the life you want to live may very well end in financial misery for the rest of your life. This is not hyperbole; I know people who fucked up mildly once, fifteen years ago, and are still paying the price. And I'm one of the lucky ones... I haven't fallen through the cracks. Yet.

gordaco 7y ago
I just found something very indicative of the current times: in Ask A Manager (a blog about work where the owner answers questions from her readers) someone is afraid that not working during the evenings or the weekends is going to hurt their job prospects. The article has been published today. https://www.askamanager.org/2019/07/can-you-advance-professionally-without-giving-up-your-evenings-and-weekends.html https://www.askamanager.org/2019/07/can-you-advance-professi...
devtul 7y ago
Seems to be more a problem of expectations than anything else, people are too focused on being successful than being happy, on having it all. I would gleefully take a pay cut to have a 35h work week _if my wage still allows me to eat out once 3x a week_, but I will work 40h + commute and feel always exhausted until I get there. See how easy is to fall on that trap.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 7y ago

> The average person has to consider all options in the light of both the current employer and the specter of tomorrow’s. Moving across the country for a high paying job? Great! Moving to be closer to friends? That’s a career killer. The median person lives just 18 miles away from their mom. 57% of Americans have never lived outside their home state. A third have never lived outside their hometown. The more I read about it, I’m convinced “loneliness” is an upper middle class problem.

calcifer 7y ago
> The more I read about it, I’m convinced “loneliness” is an upper middle class problem. Which makes it all the more suitable for a discussion on HN, wouldn't you say?
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  I'm definitely lower middle class, I make 34k a year...
  - calcifer 7y ago
    Not sure how accurate this [1] is, but 34k USD puts you in the top ~0.88% richest people on the planet. If that's true, you are not "lower" anything... [1] http://www.globalrichlist.com/ http://www.globalrichlist.com/
    - filoleg 7y ago
      Everything is relative in the context, so your global stats aren't especially helpful. 34k USD a year can lend you either an extremely comfy king-like life in Thailand or poverty level existence in San Francisco. Saying to someone from the latter situation that they are in ~0.88% richest people on the planet is neither helpful nor relevant.
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        That "comfy existence" in Thailand is also relative, you get to live in a house with air conditioning and indoor plumbing, just like in the west. Wages are lower so you can hire people to do things for you but an iPhone costs the same. People seem to actually believe that 5 thousand a year gives you a middle class lifestyle in the third world. The cost of eating only rice and beans and living in a tin shack with dirt floors is pretty much the same everywhere.

tempsy 7y ago

I don't think that can explain everything. As far as I understand, cultures where family is highly valued (Latin America, some parts Asia) say they are happier despite being relatively less well off than richer countries.

buboard 7y ago

> The Screen and the Job have displaced The screen and the Job have no volition of their own. It's humans themselves that choose to spend more time with them instead of interacting with nearby humans. And this is happening despite the fact that we 're no longer in the industrial age, and people don't need to live near the factory where they work. The Job provides people with enough money to frequently escape from nearby people (travel, or "experiences"), money to move in upscale tiny apartments where they can be alone in a crowd, or to move in comfy suburbs where they can be alone physically. It seems highly-paid people choose those, and it is lower class people that keep socializing with their neighbours. I presume many of those people do not idolize their relationships with other humans as the most precious thing in the world. They weigh them against the freedoms afforded by money and technology and act accordingly.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I think many people value being disentangled from other peoples' problems. They move to the suburbs so that they don't have to have roommates or people in the next door apartment - so that they have some space. Then they find out that they have no community - they're isolated and lonely. As you say, we're doing it to ourselves.
barberousse 7y ago
As a software engineer who comes from the lower class (the West side ghetto of Chicago, in fact), let me tell you right now that lower class people socializing with their neighbors doesn't mean those interactions are at all inclusive of different approaches to life. Yeah, you get more socializing and connections, but those interactions tend to be constrained by forces like homophobia, racism, etc. Just because they're socializing doesn't mean they are also re-enforcing a world where everyone can feel accepted. It strikes me as naive to think the working class are this miasma of authentic relations, they socialize better because the set of considered opinions is virtually uncontested.
- buboard 7y ago
  1. nobody said the do or that they should "be inclusive" 2. miasma is a negative word (means repulsive) I agree however, it is actually one of the reasons that more well-off people tend to socialize less: other people are not always "wonderful"

agumonkey 7y ago

TV when it was a single screen in house could still serve as social gathering time. As a kid, having my own TV meant countless hours of video games and my own movies too. I enjoyed it more than I abused it. Are smarphone/tablet TVs worse or the same ? One difference, the kind of entertainment you had on TV wasn't that much thinking or discussing. It has different effects I suppose. Also TV had a different ethos (if I may). One last thing, about my first point. Having a single TV meant disagreements about who decides what to watch. This led to having more TVs.. and now more screens too. Technology is the mirror of our own social bonds.. we need it but we also need to deal with the issues. It gives a weird form of peace of mind not to have to deal with others.

ryanmercer 7y ago
>As a kid, having my own TV meant countless hours of video games and my own movies too. I enjoyed it more than I abused it. For me int he early 90s was "Hey Aaron/Jimmy/Dani it's raining outside so we can't go ride bikes, wanna play a game?" and then either taking turns or playing a two player game and talking the entire time. Then early 95 when more than one or two of us had computers in the homes it was similar, if it was nice out we were outside, if not we were on IRC and/or a MUD and moving into the later 90s bla-dinging each other on AIM while in a MUD or in Ultima or Everquest with each other if it was too late to go out or bad weather. Now it's 3 people sitting in a room with a tv going, and all three have their phones out, occasionally sending each other memes and not talking.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  I agree that it's weirder nowadays. But maybe we just enjoyed cultural inertia because we were born just before 24/7 multi screen entertainment became the norm. I too find that it just takes too much space in our daily lives. Back in the days tech was one part of our life, and it was small scope entertainment, now it's the centralized hub for everything and it sucks your mind. Playing evil's advocate a bit just to poke my own bias.

mikorym 7y ago

I am the type to rejoice in cynicism. But, I have to say that I don't see the screen phenomenon as necessarily a bad thing—time spent in contemplation is time spent alone. I am a person too that likes to spend time outdoors, so maybe what I am saying is that there is a fine line between lonely and alone. You can only be anti-social in the presence of other people. Otherwise you are simply alone.