8 ms·

What is it about us and society that has moved us in a continually more isolating direction instead of getting better at forming connections. Aren't we more con

What is it about us and society that has moved us in a continually more isolating direction instead of getting better at forming connections. Aren't we more connected now by many orders of magnitude than all previous generations? Are we not able to handle these quick/cheap interactions and do they cause harm instead of satisfaction? Have we replaced meaningful, non-work human interaction with apps that seem to do the opposite of what we want?

im3w1l 5y ago
Community has gone from opt out to opt in.
quacked 5y ago
That's a huge question, but I believe the answer is that in a modern first world country, time is expensive and comfort is cheap. (I am also completely ignoring any social changes that have occurred since the pandemic, because all of the pandemic-based social trends started well before it did). People used to meet up and have real hobbies because they were bored and wanted something to do with their time, not because they were principled adherents to (what I believe is) a better and more satisfying way of life. Comfort is cheap: have you ever used your phone to check your daily screen time? I float between 1.5 hours on a good day and 6 hours on a bad day. On my phone I'm reading, interacting, etc. but that's 1.5-6 hours I didn't spend playing cards or chess or talking to my friends in person, each of which requires a time and effort commitment. I don't have to commit effort or pay any money or walk anywhere to interact with the always-on stimulation box in my pocket. The same applies to streaming applications and video games. Between those three activities (browsing, social media, streaming, and video games) there are billions of lost first-world man-hours every year that could theoretically be spent interacting in person, if the people really wanted to. Time is expensive: I am at the last few years of my life before I have children and have the most advantageous combination of free time, youthly energy, and money that I will ever have. I also have dozens of hobbies, but trying to find people to do those hobbies with is very difficult because they're all so busy with their own lives. My similarly-aged acquaintances are in graduate school (learning things that they could spread across 10 years in four years due to profit constraints), or they're working 40-60 hour workweeks in technology, or they're simply drained and don't want to do anything besides sit on the couch, which I completely understand given my own stressful 50-hour-per-week white collar job. If you want a return to "in-person life", somehow time needs to become cheap. I don't see comfort ever becoming expensive again, but I do think that if people weren't so busy and stressed out they'd be able to meet in person more often.
- unboxedvariable 5y ago
  Yeah I think this strikes at at least one of the issues, which is time. Although I am less familiar with how availability of time has changed over the generations. I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless. I think one other reason could be the tendency to mistake having a question that could be looked up online for the desire for human interaction that the question maybe was supposed to lead to. That may sound like a small/isolated observation but I could be convinced that the behavior change has broader consequences for how we view people/interaction. I think there are probably many other factors at play here.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    > I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless. I'll offer insight. As someone who attends a very traditional catholic parish, where a ten child family would be considered only slightly above average, the more children you have... the more social you're going to be. The more kids you have, the larger your network. Your kids become friends with someone else's kid and then you become friends with their parents. If you have two kids with five friends each, then this is 10 parents. If you have ten kids with five friends each, then this is 50, and you now have friends of all different ages, since the kids are not all the same age. As an example, the lady with one of the most kids at our parish, is also in some ways the center of the social life. She organizes a lot of events, and even if she's not around at a particular event, one of her kids and their family (some of the older ones are married) are there and you can communicate with her through them. Also, having so many kids, you have to rely on others for help. When we go to activities where there are smaller families, we notice how little 'help' we get with our children. This makes sense. With only two kids... that's manageable by two people. On the other hand at church, everyone will hold our newborn and toddler, take care of them for a few hours while my wife and I get some nice socializing time. Large families being the norm, everyone wants to help parents with young kids because they want that help reciprocated when they have a newborn or young children again (or in the case of older couples, they feel obligated to pay it forward). In contrast, with just one or two, it's easy to evolve the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' mentality that is becoming so prevalent these days. In some ways, I think the shrinking family size has a lot to do with the loneliness many experience.
toto444 5y ago
As a dumb phone user I have noticed this paradox. Smartphones allow you to do things on your own. That completely rules out random encounters or discussions. If you have a question instead of asking someone and start a conversation you can just Google it. No need to ask your way to locals, you have Google map.
- tasogare 5y ago
  Not totally true. I'm still asking questions from time to time to people because I'm confused about place or how to do things (I'm living in a foreign country). Depending on the context some people are glad to converse instead of being on their phones. Creating long term relationships is very hard, but small talk isn't much harder than before.
  - ratww 5y ago
    > Depending on the context some people are glad to converse instead of being on their phones I believe GP's point is not that people aren't glad to converse or that small talk is hard, it's just that almost nobody approaches people to ask questions anymore because we have answers in our phone.
- unboxedvariable 5y ago
  This is interesting. I recently heard a similar example that pointed out that say for a simple query like "who won that game between so and so a few years ago", you could easily look it up online and get an answer in a few seconds. But you would be missing the back and forth of follow up questions and such that would arise if you asked a person. And that could be a whole conversation in itself. In that sense, the question of who won the game ceases to be what is interesting about the potential conversation. Like if I go look up that question and get an answer privately without sharing it with someone do I even care about the answer? Taking that further, it's almost like having the ability to look up answers completely misses that the point of asking it in the first place is to further human interaction and experience.
  - gowld 5y ago
iammisc 5y ago
People want immediate gratification, and friendship is like dating. Often, I'm the first to take initiative inviting people out... This is fine. I don't care about that. But sometimes, i'll invite someone out I don't click with 100% And this is... okay. Even if I spent money and time on that attempt, I always have a decent enough time, and finding friends requires work. People today don't want to do the work. They barely want to do it for dating but sexual desire provides an itch they need to satisfy so they ultimately figure it out (as well as parental pressure I presume). Making friends is a long process requiring strategy and continued effort. For example, we just moved to a new area. We've been going to a few events consistently (children's soccer practice, church, etc). My wife and I both make it a point to speak to as many people as possible. After a few months of doing this, we'll casually ask for a number. Usually it's something like.. "Oh, you like to do <activity X>? I love doing <activity X>... I just read a great article about <activity X>... do you want me to send it to you? CAn I have your number?" Anyway, after a few more weeks go by with some more interactions, and hopefully a few text messages back and forth, we'll casually ask for them to come over for drinks, dinner, etc. Does this sound contrived and 'social engineering'y? It absolutely is. My wife and I have spent a good few hours strategizing how to ask people to do various activities, and making lists of people to invite to various things. This is a lot of work that few are willing to do. Even mentioning it can make people think you've gone nuts. But ultimately, friendship, like marriage and dating, is work... it's a choice to put in the effort to be someone's friend.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > It absolutely is. My wife and I have spent a good few hours strategizing how to ask people to do various activities, and making lists of people to invite to various things. This is a lot of work that few are willing to do. Even mentioning it can make people think you've gone nuts. But ultimately, friendship, like marriage and dating, is work... it's a choice to put in the effort to be someone's friend. Why can't we just skip to the drinks part? Even in places like NYC where there are so many people that fear of rejection is not a factor, there is always in the back of your head the thought of "stranger danger", and the worst is the realization that the other person has that too; but the actual worst is that the both of you know that the other person knows that you know they have "stranger danger" fears. Honestly it's draining because communities which are wealthy and in which there is no "stranger danger" are the most closed ones. Kevin Hart summarized it perfectly on Joe Rogan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wQx9E4iqxM&t=85s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wQx9E4iqxM&t=85s
davesque 5y ago
Lately, I've become convinced that it's simply because so much of our lives is controlled by corporations and their priorities. Whenever I look around and try to figure out why everything looks so bleak; e.g. why does every building look the same, why is everyone's behavior so homogenous and boring, why is there so little creativity, etc.? It's because a very small number of organizations have a huge amount of influence over us. They sell us goods, services, opinions, lifestyles, and so forth. In short, they sell us our lives. And if they don't sell it to us, they at least sell it to someone who then sells it to us. Therefore, if we want less isolation and more of a human world that cares about individuals as people, we should get rid of the corporations.
- foobarian 5y ago
  Yes it will be just like the good old times! When your favorite local feudal lord forced you and your family to stay living on his property. And picked your profession for you and your descendants. Oh and going to church was mandatory, and paying tithes was required by law. I think maybe I'll take the corporations instead. :-)
  - davesque 5y ago
    It's funny how you assume I was suggesting that we should go backward in time. No, I'm just saying there's clearly something wrong with sanctifying our will to power in the form of corporations. Great, so we've figured out a way to move money very efficiently into the hands of a few people in a way that is self reinforcing and sucks the life out of everything. Check. Mustn't there be a way to move forward into the future and discover newer and better ways of structuring society in a way that is more interesting?
    - foobarian 5y ago
      I apologize if I implied that, admittedly it came off as a bit of a strawman. It's just something that's been on my mind lately in part due to issues with the current power structure. But you are right, if we managed to move from the feudal to current system, why should it not be possible to find something even better? On the other hand I figure there needs to be a relief valve for the kinds of people that enjoy being feudal lords, and the corporations provide that right now. Perhaps something even better can be devised but it needs to be done because that type of person will always exist.
agent327 5y ago
I suspect we can only handle a finite (and quite small) number of meaningful connections. The modern age has grown the number of available options from just those people within walking distance, i.e. at most a few thousand, to everyone within range of your car and your internet connection. That's billions of people, far too great a number for us to deal with. Yet here we are, talking through the magic of the internet, but we're destined to remain strangers to one another. So although the discussion may be interesting, in the end we are not actually making new friends.
aviancrane 5y ago
Human communication is only 10% the words we use. But the internet for most of its lifetime has been words-only (disregarding recent trends like TikTok). We have lost 90% of what makes our communication human. There are biological factors as well, not just things like body language. You put off pheromones which I absorb and my brain analyzes for me when I am near you. You don't get the biological aspects unless you're in person.
bartc 5y ago
I think it's because friendship-level connections are a lot easier to make when you are in uncomfortably close physical proximity with each other and/or when you need to rely on others and they need to rely on you. In upper middle class society, more and more people live alone and have access to everything they need without needing to rely on neighbors. Having 24/7 access to the Internet and communication tools gives the sensation that you have all the necessary tools at your disposal, but in reality those tools do nothing and you're just sitting at home by yourself, ignoring the people who are physically around you.
colechristensen 5y ago
There’s too much easy entertainment. People who were bored often had other people as their primary form of entertainment, now it’s much easier to turn on the tv or go to something on the internet. This has been happening for a hundred years, and younger generations increasingly lose the habits of their elders. Also architecture of our houses and cities does not favor that kind of social interaction. People sacrifice space for cost but that just makes the cost per area go up.
- gowld 5y ago
  Why does cost per area matter?

im3w1l 5y ago

Community has gone from opt out to opt in.

quacked 5y ago

That's a huge question, but I believe the answer is that in a modern first world country, time is expensive and comfort is cheap. (I am also completely ignoring any social changes that have occurred since the pandemic, because all of the pandemic-based social trends started well before it did). People used to meet up and have real hobbies because they were bored and wanted something to do with their time, not because they were principled adherents to (what I believe is) a better and more satisfying way of life. Comfort is cheap: have you ever used your phone to check your daily screen time? I float between 1.5 hours on a good day and 6 hours on a bad day. On my phone I'm reading, interacting, etc. but that's 1.5-6 hours I didn't spend playing cards or chess or talking to my friends in person, each of which requires a time and effort commitment. I don't have to commit effort or pay any money or walk anywhere to interact with the always-on stimulation box in my pocket. The same applies to streaming applications and video games. Between those three activities (browsing, social media, streaming, and video games) there are billions of lost first-world man-hours every year that could theoretically be spent interacting in person, if the people really wanted to. Time is expensive: I am at the last few years of my life before I have children and have the most advantageous combination of free time, youthly energy, and money that I will ever have. I also have dozens of hobbies, but trying to find people to do those hobbies with is very difficult because they're all so busy with their own lives. My similarly-aged acquaintances are in graduate school (learning things that they could spread across 10 years in four years due to profit constraints), or they're working 40-60 hour workweeks in technology, or they're simply drained and don't want to do anything besides sit on the couch, which I completely understand given my own stressful 50-hour-per-week white collar job. If you want a return to "in-person life", somehow time needs to become cheap. I don't see comfort ever becoming expensive again, but I do think that if people weren't so busy and stressed out they'd be able to meet in person more often.

unboxedvariable 5y ago
Yeah I think this strikes at at least one of the issues, which is time. Although I am less familiar with how availability of time has changed over the generations. I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless. I think one other reason could be the tendency to mistake having a question that could be looked up online for the desire for human interaction that the question maybe was supposed to lead to. That may sound like a small/isolated observation but I could be convinced that the behavior change has broader consequences for how we view people/interaction. I think there are probably many other factors at play here.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless. I'll offer insight. As someone who attends a very traditional catholic parish, where a ten child family would be considered only slightly above average, the more children you have... the more social you're going to be. The more kids you have, the larger your network. Your kids become friends with someone else's kid and then you become friends with their parents. If you have two kids with five friends each, then this is 10 parents. If you have ten kids with five friends each, then this is 50, and you now have friends of all different ages, since the kids are not all the same age. As an example, the lady with one of the most kids at our parish, is also in some ways the center of the social life. She organizes a lot of events, and even if she's not around at a particular event, one of her kids and their family (some of the older ones are married) are there and you can communicate with her through them. Also, having so many kids, you have to rely on others for help. When we go to activities where there are smaller families, we notice how little 'help' we get with our children. This makes sense. With only two kids... that's manageable by two people. On the other hand at church, everyone will hold our newborn and toddler, take care of them for a few hours while my wife and I get some nice socializing time. Large families being the norm, everyone wants to help parents with young kids because they want that help reciprocated when they have a newborn or young children again (or in the case of older couples, they feel obligated to pay it forward). In contrast, with just one or two, it's easy to evolve the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' mentality that is becoming so prevalent these days. In some ways, I think the shrinking family size has a lot to do with the loneliness many experience.

toto444 5y ago

As a dumb phone user I have noticed this paradox. Smartphones allow you to do things on your own. That completely rules out random encounters or discussions. If you have a question instead of asking someone and start a conversation you can just Google it. No need to ask your way to locals, you have Google map.

tasogare 5y ago
Not totally true. I'm still asking questions from time to time to people because I'm confused about place or how to do things (I'm living in a foreign country). Depending on the context some people are glad to converse instead of being on their phones. Creating long term relationships is very hard, but small talk isn't much harder than before.
- ratww 5y ago
  > Depending on the context some people are glad to converse instead of being on their phones I believe GP's point is not that people aren't glad to converse or that small talk is hard, it's just that almost nobody approaches people to ask questions anymore because we have answers in our phone.
unboxedvariable 5y ago
This is interesting. I recently heard a similar example that pointed out that say for a simple query like "who won that game between so and so a few years ago", you could easily look it up online and get an answer in a few seconds. But you would be missing the back and forth of follow up questions and such that would arise if you asked a person. And that could be a whole conversation in itself. In that sense, the question of who won the game ceases to be what is interesting about the potential conversation. Like if I go look up that question and get an answer privately without sharing it with someone do I even care about the answer? Taking that further, it's almost like having the ability to look up answers completely misses that the point of asking it in the first place is to further human interaction and experience.
- gowld 5y ago

iammisc 5y ago

People want immediate gratification, and friendship is like dating. Often, I'm the first to take initiative inviting people out... This is fine. I don't care about that. But sometimes, i'll invite someone out I don't click with 100% And this is... okay. Even if I spent money and time on that attempt, I always have a decent enough time, and finding friends requires work. People today don't want to do the work. They barely want to do it for dating but sexual desire provides an itch they need to satisfy so they ultimately figure it out (as well as parental pressure I presume). Making friends is a long process requiring strategy and continued effort. For example, we just moved to a new area. We've been going to a few events consistently (children's soccer practice, church, etc). My wife and I both make it a point to speak to as many people as possible. After a few months of doing this, we'll casually ask for a number. Usually it's something like.. "Oh, you like to do <activity X>? I love doing <activity X>... I just read a great article about <activity X>... do you want me to send it to you? CAn I have your number?" Anyway, after a few more weeks go by with some more interactions, and hopefully a few text messages back and forth, we'll casually ask for them to come over for drinks, dinner, etc. Does this sound contrived and 'social engineering'y? It absolutely is. My wife and I have spent a good few hours strategizing how to ask people to do various activities, and making lists of people to invite to various things. This is a lot of work that few are willing to do. Even mentioning it can make people think you've gone nuts. But ultimately, friendship, like marriage and dating, is work... it's a choice to put in the effort to be someone's friend.

GDC7 5y ago
> It absolutely is. My wife and I have spent a good few hours strategizing how to ask people to do various activities, and making lists of people to invite to various things. This is a lot of work that few are willing to do. Even mentioning it can make people think you've gone nuts. But ultimately, friendship, like marriage and dating, is work... it's a choice to put in the effort to be someone's friend. Why can't we just skip to the drinks part? Even in places like NYC where there are so many people that fear of rejection is not a factor, there is always in the back of your head the thought of "stranger danger", and the worst is the realization that the other person has that too; but the actual worst is that the both of you know that the other person knows that you know they have "stranger danger" fears. Honestly it's draining because communities which are wealthy and in which there is no "stranger danger" are the most closed ones. Kevin Hart summarized it perfectly on Joe Rogan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wQx9E4iqxM&t=85s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wQx9E4iqxM&t=85s

davesque 5y ago

Lately, I've become convinced that it's simply because so much of our lives is controlled by corporations and their priorities. Whenever I look around and try to figure out why everything looks so bleak; e.g. why does every building look the same, why is everyone's behavior so homogenous and boring, why is there so little creativity, etc.? It's because a very small number of organizations have a huge amount of influence over us. They sell us goods, services, opinions, lifestyles, and so forth. In short, they sell us our lives. And if they don't sell it to us, they at least sell it to someone who then sells it to us. Therefore, if we want less isolation and more of a human world that cares about individuals as people, we should get rid of the corporations.

foobarian 5y ago
Yes it will be just like the good old times! When your favorite local feudal lord forced you and your family to stay living on his property. And picked your profession for you and your descendants. Oh and going to church was mandatory, and paying tithes was required by law. I think maybe I'll take the corporations instead. :-)
- davesque 5y ago
  It's funny how you assume I was suggesting that we should go backward in time. No, I'm just saying there's clearly something wrong with sanctifying our will to power in the form of corporations. Great, so we've figured out a way to move money very efficiently into the hands of a few people in a way that is self reinforcing and sucks the life out of everything. Check. Mustn't there be a way to move forward into the future and discover newer and better ways of structuring society in a way that is more interesting?
  - foobarian 5y ago
    I apologize if I implied that, admittedly it came off as a bit of a strawman. It's just something that's been on my mind lately in part due to issues with the current power structure. But you are right, if we managed to move from the feudal to current system, why should it not be possible to find something even better? On the other hand I figure there needs to be a relief valve for the kinds of people that enjoy being feudal lords, and the corporations provide that right now. Perhaps something even better can be devised but it needs to be done because that type of person will always exist.

agent327 5y ago

I suspect we can only handle a finite (and quite small) number of meaningful connections. The modern age has grown the number of available options from just those people within walking distance, i.e. at most a few thousand, to everyone within range of your car and your internet connection. That's billions of people, far too great a number for us to deal with. Yet here we are, talking through the magic of the internet, but we're destined to remain strangers to one another. So although the discussion may be interesting, in the end we are not actually making new friends.

aviancrane 5y ago

Human communication is only 10% the words we use. But the internet for most of its lifetime has been words-only (disregarding recent trends like TikTok). We have lost 90% of what makes our communication human. There are biological factors as well, not just things like body language. You put off pheromones which I absorb and my brain analyzes for me when I am near you. You don't get the biological aspects unless you're in person.

bartc 5y ago

I think it's because friendship-level connections are a lot easier to make when you are in uncomfortably close physical proximity with each other and/or when you need to rely on others and they need to rely on you. In upper middle class society, more and more people live alone and have access to everything they need without needing to rely on neighbors. Having 24/7 access to the Internet and communication tools gives the sensation that you have all the necessary tools at your disposal, but in reality those tools do nothing and you're just sitting at home by yourself, ignoring the people who are physically around you.

colechristensen 5y ago

There’s too much easy entertainment. People who were bored often had other people as their primary form of entertainment, now it’s much easier to turn on the tv or go to something on the internet. This has been happening for a hundred years, and younger generations increasingly lose the habits of their elders. Also architecture of our houses and cities does not favor that kind of social interaction. People sacrifice space for cost but that just makes the cost per area go up.

gowld 5y ago
Why does cost per area matter?