5 ms·

I don’t follow. Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socializa

by donatj 6y ago

I don’t follow. Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socialization? I genuinely feel the opposite. Relying on your few off hours to satisfy your innate human need for socialization places an unhealthy demand on your off hours, not to mention an unfair demand on your friends and family. I am now forced to spend 8 hours a day in my home office not speaking to anyone other than Slack and the occasional Zoom and the loneliness is somehow my fault for not having an active enough social life to counteract this? What about rest and reflection? This is an infuriating argument. Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals.

singemonkey 6y ago
> loneliness is somehow my fault I mean, yes. Who else are you going to blame for YOUR loneliness? If you're that lonely, talk to your many friends and arrange some co-working or something?
WJW 6y ago
> Humans were never intended Humans were never "intended" to catch deadly respiratory viruses either, but here we are. For that matter, neither were humans "intended" to work on computers. The situation is what it is and it seems naive to expect no changes to our lifestyle when the external circumstances have changed so drastically.
- donatj 6y ago
  I’m not arguing that we should go back into the office. I’m arguing it’s ok to lament the loss of socialization while working, how you spend most of your time. There’s a pandemic, and I am lonely. I think the comment I was replying to blaming that on me not having good enough friends and family is both pointed and hurtful. I have a wonderful support system, and I am still lonely, particularly during the work day. > Humans were never "intended" to catch deadly respiratory viruses Strictly semantically speaking, I think billions of years of history disagree. I understand the point you’re trying to make, but respiratory diseases were here long before us, they’re a fact of the environment we were born into. There is no intent in that one way or the other.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    My thoughts as well regarding "no intent", if we assume an atheistic world view. Sometimes when people use language like that, I can't tell if they really mean intent, or just use it as shorthand for evolutionary fit.
- bachmeier 6y ago
  > Humans were never "intended" to catch deadly respiratory viruses Important point on the wording: Humans were never intended to spread deadly viruses to the vulnerable population. Almost all of the people complaining about measures to prevent the spread are in low-risk groups and do not have anyone close to them in a high-risk group/relying on having a working medical system.
- wolco2 6y ago
  Yes they were and our bodies developed immune responses over time to combat this.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
toyg 6y ago
> Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone Humans were also never intended to be forced to somehow "produce money" with other humans. "Being a social animal" for millennia meant finding your role in a relatively small group of people who shared your basic values about survival and mores, and that you could observe and befriend (or fight) over a literal lifetime, while carrying out tasks that were directly linked to your survival. That differs significantly from industrialized societies. People you work with don't necessary share anything with you. Socialization has become rote and fake. Your tasks are often meaningless to you. This creates a feeling of alienation and powerlessness in a lot of people. For them, staying at home meant reconnecting with tasks that carry actual meaning (improving their home, looking after their loved ones, etc). Their socialization might have actually increased. Obviously, if you found the pre-covid arrangement meaningful and life-fulfilling, now you're unhappy that it was taken away from you.
- donatj 6y ago
  Then and now it all comes down to just “people near you”. You didn’t choose your village mates, you were born into it. You have more flexibility now, but you’re still just working with people you didn’t choose. Finding your role in a relatively small group of people describes most of my experience working in offices. You share the time and experiences doing some thing you have to do, not something you want to do. Locating sustenance or making copies, it’s same same. It’s an activity you do because you have to, not because you chose to. Additionally, you have things in common by socializing, not the reverse.
  - toyg 6y ago
    But "back then" you would likely get to know them much more than you do your work colleagues. Note I'm not saying it was better, but it was definitely closer than the average work relationship today. You'd likely know their children and their relatives, share festivities etc. You can do that with workmates now but it's entirely optional, whereas before it effectively wasn't. And you would do it over decades. > Locating sustenance or making copies, it’s same same Your belly going hungry is a direct incentive in ways that "maybe in three months I'll get a salary increase if I do this well" simply is not, imho. > you have things in common by socializing, not the reverse. See, that's the difference between tribe life and modern life: now you don't even know if you have anything in common unless you actively socialize. In a tribe, commonality was immediate and from birth, socialization was a given, and you had to take active steps to be alone. Now it's effectively the opposite: you are alone unless you take steps not to be. Which has its pros and cons.
Nursie 6y ago
Because you're there to work. Because you'll change employer, maybe frequently, and most of your relationships with colleagues will fall away when you do, where relationships with friends are lifelong. WFH allows me to see more of my partner and my real friends in my local area, removing wasted commuting time into the bargain.
- donatj 6y ago
  > Because you're there to work. That’s such a weird accusation. No I’m not. I get paid to work, and I do good work, but I am not there to work. My goal in life is not “to work”. That sounds absolutely miserable.
  - 1986 6y ago
    Don't take it as a personal accusation - it's great, and lucky for you, that you get that kind of energy from your work and from your relationship with your colleagues. I've had jobs and colleagues like that too. But fundamentally, your employer - the other party in your most basic work relationship (between you and the company that employs you) - does see you as being "there to work". And the moment you switch jobs, or get moved into another business unit, or get laid off, those social relationships with your (now-former) coworkers aren't automatically there during the work day. If you want to preserve them, guess what? You're looking at using those off hours. I understand your argument a bit better if you're treating socialization like caffeine or something - a purely functional hit of dopamine that gets you through the day. But I think that's maybe a fundamental disagreement on the premise of social life.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    If you weren’t paid and wouldn’t work, would you still go to the same office, and would they allow you there? If not, you are probably there to work.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      Conversely: If you were paid and work there, but every time you did something that looked like socialising someone would come over and tell you to stop, reminding you that you are there to solely to work, would you stay there? If you'd leave, you are probably not there solely to work.
smichel17 6y ago
Why do you assume that GP thinks people should spend the majority of their waking hours in the office?
throwaway99283 6y ago
> Humans were never intended intended... by whom? > we’re social animals Yes, and we've been working in our homes (with workshops in them) for the majority of recorded history.
silly-silly 6y ago
> Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals. I am not a social animal, I think you'll find the 'non social humans' to be a larger group than you imagine. Just because we have 'do' doesn't mean we all are.
- jacob019 6y ago
  I also enjoy time alone a little too much. I don't care to make much of an effort to socialize. Sometimes I wish I cared more, but meh. Still, I am a social animal. I live in a city, with other animals. I make sounds that other animals understand, and I can understand them too. I wear my emotional state on my face and I can perceive the emotional state of others by looking at them. I rely on my community to meet my basic needs, trading my services for food, shelter, and other things that please me. I am a human, a social animal.
  - silly-silly 6y ago
    I guess this all depends on what we call 'social' in this sense. If we take such a broad definition that interaction is the basis of defining a 'social animal' there is nothing on the planet that isnt a social thing. Which is why I simplified the definition down to "requiring socialization to thrive" which clearly is not the case for us as a species. No x is an island.
tubularhells 6y ago
Office socialisation is hell for me. I'm probably autistic, but I would prefer socialising with people with whom I share a common interest. My coworkers are not those people. We collaborate, not comingle.
- chad_strategic 6y ago
  Agreed. I like to get work done and not procrastinate. Pre-Covid I would go to meet ups or play basketball to socialize. Besides I don't necessary trust people at work, so I don't see a much need to be socializing.
kuzimoto 6y ago
Seems a little dangerous to completely rely on work for socialization. In my opinion most work relationship are pretty shallow and not meaningful long-term. When you leave a company, your entire social circle is going to be up-ended. > Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socialization? I think because the primary goal is to work. Socialization is a plus, but it will never be your main focus, as mentioned above you will not build meaningful relationships (I mean, not entire impossible, just not as likely). > Relying on your few off hours to satisfy your innate human need for socialization places an unhealthy demand on your off hours, not to mention an unfair demand on your friends and family. I don't think it's an unfair demand to want to spend time with friends and family (that is the point of them). Anyone that is thinking that is probably not someone you want to be spending time with... > Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals. I think this is what wife/kids are for. I can't speak for others, but it works for me! 99.9% of my time out of work is with them, and have never felt lonely. Not everyone is in that position I suppose, but then friends would have to fill that gap.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  I only need superficial socialization most of the time though. It's kind of silly to think everyone needs deeply engaging social time for 99% of their life. My close friends are all busy and successful we talk and see each other every couple of weeks and months but I rather like the superficial socialization to fill the gap and liked being able to go home to escape all of it if I wanted.
matwood 6y ago
> Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socialization? Work socialization is fine, but I'd cautious making it your primary source. What happens when you change jobs? It can also make it hard to remain professional at work. > Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals. Maybe, but I and many others seem perfectly fine with less and/or different social interaction. Personally, I'm more of a few, but deeper friendship person than many shallow relationships person. I'm perfectly happy being home with my wife and dogs.
bcrosby95 6y ago
It's fine and healthy to be social at work. But I'm not sure if it's healthy to hang all of your life's needs on work. The bonds you form from work are usually temporary and conditional upon continuing to perform well at work. This can add a lot of pressure: you can lose your coworkers and your "friends" in one fell swoop. The bonds I form outside of work are simply because we enjoy eachother's company. Or a shared hobby. Something that doesn't require me to be at the top of my performance. As long as I don't do something ridiculously inappropriate, they will still be my friends.

by donatj 6y ago

singemonkey 6y ago

> loneliness is somehow my fault I mean, yes. Who else are you going to blame for YOUR loneliness? If you're that lonely, talk to your many friends and arrange some co-working or something?

WJW 6y ago

> Humans were never intended Humans were never "intended" to catch deadly respiratory viruses either, but here we are. For that matter, neither were humans "intended" to work on computers. The situation is what it is and it seems naive to expect no changes to our lifestyle when the external circumstances have changed so drastically.

donatj 6y ago
I’m not arguing that we should go back into the office. I’m arguing it’s ok to lament the loss of socialization while working, how you spend most of your time. There’s a pandemic, and I am lonely. I think the comment I was replying to blaming that on me not having good enough friends and family is both pointed and hurtful. I have a wonderful support system, and I am still lonely, particularly during the work day. > Humans were never "intended" to catch deadly respiratory viruses Strictly semantically speaking, I think billions of years of history disagree. I understand the point you’re trying to make, but respiratory diseases were here long before us, they’re a fact of the environment we were born into. There is no intent in that one way or the other.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  My thoughts as well regarding "no intent", if we assume an atheistic world view. Sometimes when people use language like that, I can't tell if they really mean intent, or just use it as shorthand for evolutionary fit.
bachmeier 6y ago
> Humans were never "intended" to catch deadly respiratory viruses Important point on the wording: Humans were never intended to spread deadly viruses to the vulnerable population. Almost all of the people complaining about measures to prevent the spread are in low-risk groups and do not have anyone close to them in a high-risk group/relying on having a working medical system.
wolco2 6y ago
Yes they were and our bodies developed immune responses over time to combat this.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

toyg 6y ago

> Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone Humans were also never intended to be forced to somehow "produce money" with other humans. "Being a social animal" for millennia meant finding your role in a relatively small group of people who shared your basic values about survival and mores, and that you could observe and befriend (or fight) over a literal lifetime, while carrying out tasks that were directly linked to your survival. That differs significantly from industrialized societies. People you work with don't necessary share anything with you. Socialization has become rote and fake. Your tasks are often meaningless to you. This creates a feeling of alienation and powerlessness in a lot of people. For them, staying at home meant reconnecting with tasks that carry actual meaning (improving their home, looking after their loved ones, etc). Their socialization might have actually increased. Obviously, if you found the pre-covid arrangement meaningful and life-fulfilling, now you're unhappy that it was taken away from you.

donatj 6y ago
Then and now it all comes down to just “people near you”. You didn’t choose your village mates, you were born into it. You have more flexibility now, but you’re still just working with people you didn’t choose. Finding your role in a relatively small group of people describes most of my experience working in offices. You share the time and experiences doing some thing you have to do, not something you want to do. Locating sustenance or making copies, it’s same same. It’s an activity you do because you have to, not because you chose to. Additionally, you have things in common by socializing, not the reverse.
- toyg 6y ago
  But "back then" you would likely get to know them much more than you do your work colleagues. Note I'm not saying it was better, but it was definitely closer than the average work relationship today. You'd likely know their children and their relatives, share festivities etc. You can do that with workmates now but it's entirely optional, whereas before it effectively wasn't. And you would do it over decades. > Locating sustenance or making copies, it’s same same Your belly going hungry is a direct incentive in ways that "maybe in three months I'll get a salary increase if I do this well" simply is not, imho. > you have things in common by socializing, not the reverse. See, that's the difference between tribe life and modern life: now you don't even know if you have anything in common unless you actively socialize. In a tribe, commonality was immediate and from birth, socialization was a given, and you had to take active steps to be alone. Now it's effectively the opposite: you are alone unless you take steps not to be. Which has its pros and cons.

Nursie 6y ago

Because you're there to work. Because you'll change employer, maybe frequently, and most of your relationships with colleagues will fall away when you do, where relationships with friends are lifelong. WFH allows me to see more of my partner and my real friends in my local area, removing wasted commuting time into the bargain.

donatj 6y ago
> Because you're there to work. That’s such a weird accusation. No I’m not. I get paid to work, and I do good work, but I am not there to work. My goal in life is not “to work”. That sounds absolutely miserable.
- 1986 6y ago
  Don't take it as a personal accusation - it's great, and lucky for you, that you get that kind of energy from your work and from your relationship with your colleagues. I've had jobs and colleagues like that too. But fundamentally, your employer - the other party in your most basic work relationship (between you and the company that employs you) - does see you as being "there to work". And the moment you switch jobs, or get moved into another business unit, or get laid off, those social relationships with your (now-former) coworkers aren't automatically there during the work day. If you want to preserve them, guess what? You're looking at using those off hours. I understand your argument a bit better if you're treating socialization like caffeine or something - a purely functional hit of dopamine that gets you through the day. But I think that's maybe a fundamental disagreement on the premise of social life.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  If you weren’t paid and wouldn’t work, would you still go to the same office, and would they allow you there? If not, you are probably there to work.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Conversely: If you were paid and work there, but every time you did something that looked like socialising someone would come over and tell you to stop, reminding you that you are there to solely to work, would you stay there? If you'd leave, you are probably not there solely to work.

smichel17 6y ago

Why do you assume that GP thinks people should spend the majority of their waking hours in the office?

throwaway99283 6y ago

> Humans were never intended intended... by whom? > we’re social animals Yes, and we've been working in our homes (with workshops in them) for the majority of recorded history.

silly-silly 6y ago

> Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals. I am not a social animal, I think you'll find the 'non social humans' to be a larger group than you imagine. Just because we have 'do' doesn't mean we all are.

jacob019 6y ago
I also enjoy time alone a little too much. I don't care to make much of an effort to socialize. Sometimes I wish I cared more, but meh. Still, I am a social animal. I live in a city, with other animals. I make sounds that other animals understand, and I can understand them too. I wear my emotional state on my face and I can perceive the emotional state of others by looking at them. I rely on my community to meet my basic needs, trading my services for food, shelter, and other things that please me. I am a human, a social animal.
- silly-silly 6y ago
  I guess this all depends on what we call 'social' in this sense. If we take such a broad definition that interaction is the basis of defining a 'social animal' there is nothing on the planet that isnt a social thing. Which is why I simplified the definition down to "requiring socialization to thrive" which clearly is not the case for us as a species. No x is an island.

tubularhells 6y ago

Office socialisation is hell for me. I'm probably autistic, but I would prefer socialising with people with whom I share a common interest. My coworkers are not those people. We collaborate, not comingle.

chad_strategic 6y ago
Agreed. I like to get work done and not procrastinate. Pre-Covid I would go to meet ups or play basketball to socialize. Besides I don't necessary trust people at work, so I don't see a much need to be socializing.

kuzimoto 6y ago

Seems a little dangerous to completely rely on work for socialization. In my opinion most work relationship are pretty shallow and not meaningful long-term. When you leave a company, your entire social circle is going to be up-ended. > Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socialization? I think because the primary goal is to work. Socialization is a plus, but it will never be your main focus, as mentioned above you will not build meaningful relationships (I mean, not entire impossible, just not as likely). > Relying on your few off hours to satisfy your innate human need for socialization places an unhealthy demand on your off hours, not to mention an unfair demand on your friends and family. I don't think it's an unfair demand to want to spend time with friends and family (that is the point of them). Anyone that is thinking that is probably not someone you want to be spending time with... > Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals. I think this is what wife/kids are for. I can't speak for others, but it works for me! 99.9% of my time out of work is with them, and have never felt lonely. Not everyone is in that position I suppose, but then friends would have to fill that gap.

Grimm1 6y ago
I only need superficial socialization most of the time though. It's kind of silly to think everyone needs deeply engaging social time for 99% of their life. My close friends are all busy and successful we talk and see each other every couple of weeks and months but I rather like the superficial socialization to fill the gap and liked being able to go home to escape all of it if I wanted.

matwood 6y ago

> Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socialization? Work socialization is fine, but I'd cautious making it your primary source. What happens when you change jobs? It can also make it hard to remain professional at work. > Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals. Maybe, but I and many others seem perfectly fine with less and/or different social interaction. Personally, I'm more of a few, but deeper friendship person than many shallow relationships person. I'm perfectly happy being home with my wife and dogs.

bcrosby95 6y ago

It's fine and healthy to be social at work. But I'm not sure if it's healthy to hang all of your life's needs on work. The bonds you form from work are usually temporary and conditional upon continuing to perform well at work. This can add a lot of pressure: you can lose your coworkers and your "friends" in one fell swoop. The bonds I form outside of work are simply because we enjoy eachother's company. Or a shared hobby. Something that doesn't require me to be at the top of my performance. As long as I don't do something ridiculously inappropriate, they will still be my friends.