3 ms·

> > Well yeah, if you lead in with that, that's pretty intense. > But you don't follow through with that thought to its natural conclusion. If I'm not going to

> > Well yeah, if you lead in with that, that's pretty intense. > But you don't follow through with that thought to its natural conclusion. If I'm not going to lead with something like this, what you're essentially saying to me is, "you should be uncomfortable around our calendar until I feel comfortable having this conversation with you." No, I'm saying that your uncomfortable-ness around this is irrational until you see some reason to believe the person will lie to you, and if you're close enough to recognize that someone is lying about wanting to hang out, then you're close enough to have that conversation. Making this about concern for other people is just a foil to avoid looking at yourself. This isn't about them: it's about your social anxiety, not theirs. > I'm curious, if I built a calendar app for my friends that reminded us every 3 or 4 days to call that person and catch up with them, would you say that's an unhealthy technological solution that's stunting the relationship? No. I think that's a great way for you to deal with forgetfulness to achieve a kind goal. The problem isn't technical solutions. The problem is that this technical solution doesn't solve the real problem, which is solvable, and instead enables it. > I don't want to get too off-topic or dismissive, but I think this is a somewhat uncritical view of how modern relationships work among most 'normal' friends. Again, "normal" isn't my goal. > We've built Tinder and designed blind dating apps to help people get around their social anxiety asking strangers for dates. And while that has worked out for some people, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it has actually empowered people to ask strangers for dates, or more importantly, to create meaningful connections. > People go to bars and drink substances designed specifically to bypass the restraint parts of their brain so they'll be less guarded with their friends. And while that works for some people, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it actually results in positive, deep relationships. While deep relationships might involve some alcohol, the reasons they are deep aren't based in drinking together from my experience. > We've built apps like Facetime so that people who lack the ability to emotionally connect to written messages can get the visual and auditory signifiers they need to feel connected to other people. Yes, and that helps bridge the gap when face to face interactions are not possible--I'd view this as a positive thing. But it also can't fully close the gap with relationships where touch is important. > We use online polls among friends to avoid conflicts around small decisions. Do we? I've never even seen this, and probably just wouldn't respond if a friend spammed me with a link to some poll site. If people do this, I'm pretty sure it would be ineffective for that goal. > We build bar-room trivia apps for people who have problems interacting with each other or picking conversation topics without 3rd-party intervention. Trivia games are a way more complicated topic that fulfills a lot of human needs. I don't think (after doing a lot of work) that I have a hard time interacting or picking conversations, but I'd still be down for trivia for a lot of reasons unrelated to this. I'm going to reiterate that a lot of the things you're attributing as solutions to social anxiety, would be better addressed by actually seeking help for social anxiety.

danShumway 7y ago
> I think that's a great way for you to deal with forgetfulness to achieve a kind goal. Surely, a much kinder goal would be to help that person deal with their anxiety around being abandoned? /s > that helps bridge the gap when face to face interactions are not possible Wouldn't those people be better served by seeking help for their inability to emotionally connect to others without visual cues? /s > But it also can't fully close the gap with relationships where touch is important. In a global society where you will almost definitely be required to maintain long-distance relationships at some point, isn't the reliance on touch for emotional connection the actual problem to solve? /s With the examples I brought up, I wasn't trying to get your opinion on specific technological solutions; I was trying to point out that many interpersonal needs are not, strictly speaking, rational. Human beings aren't rational, and in many cases we're both fine with building systems to accommodate that. > I'm going to reiterate that a lot of the things you're attributing as solutions to social anxiety, would be better addressed by actually seeking help for social anxiety. You can say this about literally any irrational human behavior. Some of the behaviors I describe above are weird to me. It is weird to me that people feel like they're abandoned if they haven't spoken to anyone else for 3 days. I don't see how that person's insecurity is fundamentally different than anyone else's insecurity about overburdening friends. And while I admit some anxieties are so severe that they can become a real problem, in general when I meet people with anxieties that are weird to me, I just try to accommodate them. I don't usually refer them to specialists. A bias towards normalcy means treating common insecurities as fundamental and essential parts of being human, while simultaneously treating less socially acceptable insecurities as problems to be solved.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Ugh. I don't think you're trying to understand my side of things any more, you're just trying to be right. All your "/s" bits are just straw man arguments which have nothing to do with what I've said. > Surely, a much kinder goal would be to help that person deal with their anxiety around being abandoned? /s Sure, it would be nice, but their anxiety is their responsibility: you're not obligated to. > Wouldn't those people be better served by seeking help for their inability to emotionally connect to others without visual cues? /s Well, these people are already emotionally connected, or they wouldn't care that they can't see the person. They'd be best served probably by being colocated with the people they care about, but that's not always possible realistically. > In a global society where you will almost definitely be required to maintain long-distance relationships at some point, isn't the reliance on touch for emotional connection the actual problem to solve? /s Perhaps, but good luck rewriting a few million years of evolution. It would be better to focus on solutions that are actually possible. > With the examples I brought up, I wasn't trying to get your opinion on specific technological solutions; I was trying to point out that many interpersonal needs are not, strictly speaking, rational. Human beings aren't rational, and in many cases we're both fine with building systems to accommodate that. Sure. But we should build systems that actually try to fix the problem, instead of enabling it. If you want to fix people's social anxiety, a good solution would be to educate people on social anxiety, create better educational materials, fund research, and make help available to people. What you're arguing for is essentially like giving a wheelchair for a person who is paralyzed by a curable, reversible disease. Sure, we have the technology and it would improve one small aspect of their life, but why would we not just encourage them to seek treatment? > > I'm going to reiterate that a lot of the things you're attributing as solutions to social anxiety, would be better addressed by actually seeking help for social anxiety. > You can say this about literally any irrational human behavior. No, you can't. That's nonsense. We don't have tools to address every irrational human behavior. We do have tools to address social anxiety for individuals who decide to work on it. > Some of the behaviors I describe above are weird to me. It is weird to me that people feel like they're abandoned if they haven't spoken to anyone else for 3 days. I don't think it's weird. I also don't care about things being weird/normal, and I'm really not sure why you're bringing it up. > I don't see how that person's insecurity is fundamentally different than anyone else's insecurity about overburdening friends. I don't see how it's fundamentally different either. It seems like both people could benefit from working on their social anxiety. > And while I admit some anxieties are so severe that they can become a real problem, in general when I meet people with anxieties that are weird to me, I just try to accommodate them. I don't usually refer them to specialists. Sure, you're not obligated to help people. > A bias towards normalcy means treating common insecurities as fundamental and essential parts of being human, while simultaneously treating less socially acceptable insecurities as problems to be solved. No, this is not what I'm saying: if anything I'm biased against normalcy because it's boring. I AM NOT saying people with social anxiety should seek help for their social anxiety because it's weird: I don't really think it's weird. I AM saying people with social anxiety should seek help for their social anxiety because it would improve their own enjoyment of their lives.

danShumway 7y ago

> I think that's a great way for you to deal with forgetfulness to achieve a kind goal. Surely, a much kinder goal would be to help that person deal with their anxiety around being abandoned? /s > that helps bridge the gap when face to face interactions are not possible Wouldn't those people be better served by seeking help for their inability to emotionally connect to others without visual cues? /s > But it also can't fully close the gap with relationships where touch is important. In a global society where you will almost definitely be required to maintain long-distance relationships at some point, isn't the reliance on touch for emotional connection the actual problem to solve? /s With the examples I brought up, I wasn't trying to get your opinion on specific technological solutions; I was trying to point out that many interpersonal needs are not, strictly speaking, rational. Human beings aren't rational, and in many cases we're both fine with building systems to accommodate that. > I'm going to reiterate that a lot of the things you're attributing as solutions to social anxiety, would be better addressed by actually seeking help for social anxiety. You can say this about literally any irrational human behavior. Some of the behaviors I describe above are weird to me. It is weird to me that people feel like they're abandoned if they haven't spoken to anyone else for 3 days. I don't see how that person's insecurity is fundamentally different than anyone else's insecurity about overburdening friends. And while I admit some anxieties are so severe that they can become a real problem, in general when I meet people with anxieties that are weird to me, I just try to accommodate them. I don't usually refer them to specialists. A bias towards normalcy means treating common insecurities as fundamental and essential parts of being human, while simultaneously treating less socially acceptable insecurities as problems to be solved.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Ugh. I don't think you're trying to understand my side of things any more, you're just trying to be right. All your "/s" bits are just straw man arguments which have nothing to do with what I've said. > Surely, a much kinder goal would be to help that person deal with their anxiety around being abandoned? /s Sure, it would be nice, but their anxiety is their responsibility: you're not obligated to. > Wouldn't those people be better served by seeking help for their inability to emotionally connect to others without visual cues? /s Well, these people are already emotionally connected, or they wouldn't care that they can't see the person. They'd be best served probably by being colocated with the people they care about, but that's not always possible realistically. > In a global society where you will almost definitely be required to maintain long-distance relationships at some point, isn't the reliance on touch for emotional connection the actual problem to solve? /s Perhaps, but good luck rewriting a few million years of evolution. It would be better to focus on solutions that are actually possible. > With the examples I brought up, I wasn't trying to get your opinion on specific technological solutions; I was trying to point out that many interpersonal needs are not, strictly speaking, rational. Human beings aren't rational, and in many cases we're both fine with building systems to accommodate that. Sure. But we should build systems that actually try to fix the problem, instead of enabling it. If you want to fix people's social anxiety, a good solution would be to educate people on social anxiety, create better educational materials, fund research, and make help available to people. What you're arguing for is essentially like giving a wheelchair for a person who is paralyzed by a curable, reversible disease. Sure, we have the technology and it would improve one small aspect of their life, but why would we not just encourage them to seek treatment? > > I'm going to reiterate that a lot of the things you're attributing as solutions to social anxiety, would be better addressed by actually seeking help for social anxiety. > You can say this about literally any irrational human behavior. No, you can't. That's nonsense. We don't have tools to address every irrational human behavior. We do have tools to address social anxiety for individuals who decide to work on it. > Some of the behaviors I describe above are weird to me. It is weird to me that people feel like they're abandoned if they haven't spoken to anyone else for 3 days. I don't think it's weird. I also don't care about things being weird/normal, and I'm really not sure why you're bringing it up. > I don't see how that person's insecurity is fundamentally different than anyone else's insecurity about overburdening friends. I don't see how it's fundamentally different either. It seems like both people could benefit from working on their social anxiety. > And while I admit some anxieties are so severe that they can become a real problem, in general when I meet people with anxieties that are weird to me, I just try to accommodate them. I don't usually refer them to specialists. Sure, you're not obligated to help people. > A bias towards normalcy means treating common insecurities as fundamental and essential parts of being human, while simultaneously treating less socially acceptable insecurities as problems to be solved. No, this is not what I'm saying: if anything I'm biased against normalcy because it's boring. I AM NOT saying people with social anxiety should seek help for their social anxiety because it's weird: I don't really think it's weird. I AM saying people with social anxiety should seek help for their social anxiety because it would improve their own enjoyment of their lives.