4 ms·

I really struggle with this; to this day I haven't found a good resolution. I'd say by analogy you could also say: "You don't have to pursue people romanticall

I really struggle with this; to this day I haven't found a good resolution. I'd say by analogy you could also say: "You don't have to pursue people romantically." It's really, really true: you don't. No one will blame you for keeping to yourself. In many settings it may even be better (example: a club, where the club organizers find the drama caused by romantic entanglements annoying). But there's a problem behind this problem, which is: while it's not necessary, if I act is if I don't 'need' to do it all (again: strictly true), that also causes problems. Basically I have an impulse towards sex, and towards being social, which exists in a hard to measure but much-more-than-zero state. The social impulse in particular needs attention daily. So - put that way - I kind of do have to engage. Because I work remotely I spend too long away from other people in my opinion to not engage socially whatsoever, during work hours. Like I said, I struggle with this. But my middle-of-the-road position is that, while any individual act of engagement (like a comment) is expendable, the general behavior of seeking community on the Internet is something which I can accurately treat like a need (especially in the sense that, if I haven't done it in hours, it's time to do it).

toast0 4y ago
Oh, but this isn't even about that kind of engagement. It's just saying you don't need to comment in threads about your employer. I'll go one step further and say you shouldn't. Better not to find out you said the wrong thing as a company representative. And maybe it's good practice for seeing threads and not saying anything.
theamk 4y ago
But you don't have to engage on every topic, for example about your employer (as Xe mentions). If something topic is not pleasant -- walk by, and satisfy your social impulse in some other way. Go to Hacker News and leave some comments under topics you find interesting. Go to your local Reddit and discuss how badly your town services work. Find a forum for your favorite series and start a --flamewar-- heated discussion about motivations of one of the main characters. In the age of internet, the possibilities for communications are endless. (In-person/private communications is harder, but that's not what the post was about)
autoexec 4y ago
> I really struggle with this; to this day I haven't found a good resolution. For me, if somebody has posted something that's factually wrong and it's not much trouble I'll try to post a correction. There's little harm in that and maybe my correction gets corrected and I learn something new! The trick is knowing when to walk away so you're not caught up in bad faith arguments against facts, and you're not letting people who are just argumentative or 'fact/reality resistant' rope you into an emotional investment over internet bickering. Especially when it comes to "attacks" on your work or your employer. Don't take anything personally. I know you can't always change people's minds with evidence (although I think sometimes too much is made of the backfire effect), but even if you fail to convince the person you respond to it's nice to not leave actually false information uncorrected for everyone else who comes across the discussion. Leaving lies and disinformation around unchallenged seems like a bad idea too. I just try not to let it eat up too much time or emotional energy.
somenameforme 4y ago
I think the whole point of this is about maximizing your own enjoyment of things or as the article somewhat oddly puts it, avoiding "psychic damage." In online "discussions" some people get extremely riled up when they can't convince the other guy they're wrong. Many seem to lack the empathy/introspection to understand that you'll never be able to convince him that he's wrong anymore than he'll be able to convince you that you're wrong. Those sort of folks would generally make their lives a whole lot more enjoyable if they didn't get involved in the first place. But if you enjoy it and it's not interfering with other things you view as more relevant? Then obviously there's no reason to avoid it. And that extrapolates to more or less everything in life.
fullmoon 4y ago
I’m surprised that so many people can tickle their social itch over the internet. There is nothing about the dynamics involved that I’d consider social. Interaction is mostly with total strangers, almost always in text form (no subtext, no facial expression, no body language). Comments are written at people, not to people — to illicit support for one’s position or condemnation of the opposing one. Social networks : Being social = Sock : Loving spouse
- qwery 4y ago
  On the other hand, the interaction is mostly with total strangers and is almost always in text form. Most of the time you don't even have to see their faces! (also I don't understand why there wouldn't be subtext)
  - fullmoon 4y ago
    Do you mean this one? Please explain, I don’t understand what you’ve meant with the first part of your response. The subtext that’s missing is how something is said: The sarcastic tone, sing-song intonation, the short pause, the smirk, the small sentence that turns into a little rant, curtness, an abrupt ending, the barely suppressed yawns, crossed arms, smiling eyes. I think most importantly, a direct, face-to-face, breathed air-to-breathed air conversation is vulnerable, you’re communicating much more than you ever could in textual form, and you immediately get feedback how what you’ve said is perceived, you might try a different approach, and say something you’ve never intended to do whilst in the flow.
- em-bee 4y ago
  because that's the place where i can find people who actually share my interests. as nice as the neighbors are, i really don't care to discuss weather or local politics or whatever. on the other hand, i made a number of friends online over shared interests. of course, one doesn't preclude the other, but both forms can be fulfilling if done well. but finding local friends is just so much harder, especially in the last three years.
- paganel 4y ago
  It's mostly because on the Internet you can self-select (sort of) your topic of discussion and your "social" circles. In real life it would be difficult to have a "fight" and a discussion over public transportation or some random history subject, because, presumably, your friends from real life are not that interested in those subjects. But if you are interested in those subjects you most probably frequent places on the internet that discuss them, hence the fights and the discussions.

toast0 4y ago

Oh, but this isn't even about that kind of engagement. It's just saying you don't need to comment in threads about your employer. I'll go one step further and say you shouldn't. Better not to find out you said the wrong thing as a company representative. And maybe it's good practice for seeing threads and not saying anything.

theamk 4y ago

But you don't have to engage on every topic, for example about your employer (as Xe mentions). If something topic is not pleasant -- walk by, and satisfy your social impulse in some other way. Go to Hacker News and leave some comments under topics you find interesting. Go to your local Reddit and discuss how badly your town services work. Find a forum for your favorite series and start a --flamewar-- heated discussion about motivations of one of the main characters. In the age of internet, the possibilities for communications are endless. (In-person/private communications is harder, but that's not what the post was about)

autoexec 4y ago

> I really struggle with this; to this day I haven't found a good resolution. For me, if somebody has posted something that's factually wrong and it's not much trouble I'll try to post a correction. There's little harm in that and maybe my correction gets corrected and I learn something new! The trick is knowing when to walk away so you're not caught up in bad faith arguments against facts, and you're not letting people who are just argumentative or 'fact/reality resistant' rope you into an emotional investment over internet bickering. Especially when it comes to "attacks" on your work or your employer. Don't take anything personally. I know you can't always change people's minds with evidence (although I think sometimes too much is made of the backfire effect), but even if you fail to convince the person you respond to it's nice to not leave actually false information uncorrected for everyone else who comes across the discussion. Leaving lies and disinformation around unchallenged seems like a bad idea too. I just try not to let it eat up too much time or emotional energy.

somenameforme 4y ago

I think the whole point of this is about maximizing your own enjoyment of things or as the article somewhat oddly puts it, avoiding "psychic damage." In online "discussions" some people get extremely riled up when they can't convince the other guy they're wrong. Many seem to lack the empathy/introspection to understand that you'll never be able to convince him that he's wrong anymore than he'll be able to convince you that you're wrong. Those sort of folks would generally make their lives a whole lot more enjoyable if they didn't get involved in the first place. But if you enjoy it and it's not interfering with other things you view as more relevant? Then obviously there's no reason to avoid it. And that extrapolates to more or less everything in life.

fullmoon 4y ago

I’m surprised that so many people can tickle their social itch over the internet. There is nothing about the dynamics involved that I’d consider social. Interaction is mostly with total strangers, almost always in text form (no subtext, no facial expression, no body language). Comments are written at people, not to people — to illicit support for one’s position or condemnation of the opposing one. Social networks : Being social = Sock : Loving spouse

qwery 4y ago
On the other hand, the interaction is mostly with total strangers and is almost always in text form. Most of the time you don't even have to see their faces! (also I don't understand why there wouldn't be subtext)
- fullmoon 4y ago
  Do you mean this one? Please explain, I don’t understand what you’ve meant with the first part of your response. The subtext that’s missing is how something is said: The sarcastic tone, sing-song intonation, the short pause, the smirk, the small sentence that turns into a little rant, curtness, an abrupt ending, the barely suppressed yawns, crossed arms, smiling eyes. I think most importantly, a direct, face-to-face, breathed air-to-breathed air conversation is vulnerable, you’re communicating much more than you ever could in textual form, and you immediately get feedback how what you’ve said is perceived, you might try a different approach, and say something you’ve never intended to do whilst in the flow.
em-bee 4y ago
because that's the place where i can find people who actually share my interests. as nice as the neighbors are, i really don't care to discuss weather or local politics or whatever. on the other hand, i made a number of friends online over shared interests. of course, one doesn't preclude the other, but both forms can be fulfilling if done well. but finding local friends is just so much harder, especially in the last three years.
paganel 4y ago
It's mostly because on the Internet you can self-select (sort of) your topic of discussion and your "social" circles. In real life it would be difficult to have a "fight" and a discussion over public transportation or some random history subject, because, presumably, your friends from real life are not that interested in those subjects. But if you are interested in those subjects you most probably frequent places on the internet that discuss them, hence the fights and the discussions.