3 ms·

> This is not an individual problem. It's an issue that affects the entire society. Social isolation feeds many undesirable things, such as political polarizati

> This is not an individual problem. It's an issue that affects the entire society. Social isolation feeds many undesirable things, such as political polarization and extremism. If a society wants to survive, it has to deal with the issue somehow. Agreed, and I think the best way is for people to realize that "the people I chat with at the water-cooler" are not my friends, and take action based on that. Job loss and retirement are often terribly isolating events for people for exactly the reason your specify. Work is 1/2 of their waking life and they rely on it too heavily for their social needs. Forcing the majority who prefer work from home to work from the office because a minority of people will feel lonely does not "benefit society". It hides a real problem that some people have while sacrificing the rest of us to do so. If the majority of us wanted to work in the office this would be a non-issue. GP would've simply gone to the office, found the majority of their co-workers there and been perfectly happy, while those of us who wanted WFH were happily home. Better to tackle the problem head on than sweep it under the rug.

jltsiren 4y ago
The friends you meet at work are no different from the friends you meet at dance/martial arts class. They are tied to an activity, and if you quit the activity, you are likely to lose most of them. The core problem is that remote work can easily mean 8 hours/day of social isolation. Especially because those are the hours people have the most energy to try new things. If people spend that time avoiding social contacts, they are obviously not going to make many friends. Historically, neighbors were a key source of friends, because they were the community you lived in. 20th century changed that. Today neighbors are simply people who happen to sleep near you temporarily. They are probably away from home during the day, their jobs are unrelated to yours, and they will likely relocate sooner or later. Who will form the community you will spend your time with by default, if it's no longer your neighbors or coworkers?
- Volundr 4y ago
  There is no default. There never was. This is exactly the idea I am saying we need to combat. Building lasting relationships takes time and reciprocated effort. The people who want to WFH aren't going to become "friend candidates" because they are forced into the office. The are either already "friend candidates" prepared to reciprocate advances, or they aren't interested. Remote isn't the barrier here. Physical proximity just has the potential to give someone the illusion of a connection that hasn't actually been formed. Once someone realizes this and learns to put effort into their social connections, they are far less likely to end up isolated than just hoping showing up at work will make the difference. And that is where dance/martial arts class is different. Everyone there has decided to show up. Your also a lot less likely to get laid off from book club than your job. If people want to work together in the same space 8 hours a day more power too them! Go have a good time in the office and let us WFH folks be. But if there aren't enough who want to be in the office to satisfy the office dwellers it doesn't become the WFH folk's responsibility to keep them company. If we are open to friendship, we already were.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    Defaults matter, because people take the easy default choice most of the time. If people don't meet other people by default, they will have fewer casual acquaintances and they are less likely to meet the ones who will become good friends. Then there will be fewer friends overall. > Once someone realizes this and learns to put effort into their social connections, they are far less likely to end up isolated than just hoping showing up at work will make the difference. This is fundamentally the "communism would work, if" argument. Individual people can choose to make the non-default choice. People on the average don't do that.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > People on the average don't do that. This is part of the idea I'm contesting. Remember, "65" has an office they can go to, their problem is no one else wants to. Unless you are asserting that you are a better judge of what is good for 65's co-workers then they themselves are, presumably "on average" they have found sufficient social interaction to satisfy themselves outside of the office. And if you are asserting that you know better than them and they should be forced into the office for their own good, I soundly reject that notion. Just "going with the default" of spending time with co-workers and is exactly how people end up isolated late in life or after losing their jobs. People who are struggling with isolation now should introspect on why they are struggling to make friends and address that instead of attempting to force others into being around them. That's not how friends treat friends.
      - jltsiren 4y ago
        Again, communism would work if everyone behaved like a good communist. They don't, because the default is acting in the interests of yourself and people near you rather than in the interests of the wider society. If you insist on communism, the whole society suffers, because most people take the default choice and do what's good for them. If social isolation during work is the default, people will have fewer friends, because making friends takes more effort. They may be satisfied with their situation, because they contrast the outcomes of having more friends with the effort needed to make them. But the entire society may be worse off than a society where people have more friends because working with other people is the default. Fundamentally, everything based on the idea that people should make different choices is doomed to fail. To make the society better, you must work on structural level and change the defaults.

jltsiren 4y ago

The friends you meet at work are no different from the friends you meet at dance/martial arts class. They are tied to an activity, and if you quit the activity, you are likely to lose most of them. The core problem is that remote work can easily mean 8 hours/day of social isolation. Especially because those are the hours people have the most energy to try new things. If people spend that time avoiding social contacts, they are obviously not going to make many friends. Historically, neighbors were a key source of friends, because they were the community you lived in. 20th century changed that. Today neighbors are simply people who happen to sleep near you temporarily. They are probably away from home during the day, their jobs are unrelated to yours, and they will likely relocate sooner or later. Who will form the community you will spend your time with by default, if it's no longer your neighbors or coworkers?

Volundr 4y ago
There is no default. There never was. This is exactly the idea I am saying we need to combat. Building lasting relationships takes time and reciprocated effort. The people who want to WFH aren't going to become "friend candidates" because they are forced into the office. The are either already "friend candidates" prepared to reciprocate advances, or they aren't interested. Remote isn't the barrier here. Physical proximity just has the potential to give someone the illusion of a connection that hasn't actually been formed. Once someone realizes this and learns to put effort into their social connections, they are far less likely to end up isolated than just hoping showing up at work will make the difference. And that is where dance/martial arts class is different. Everyone there has decided to show up. Your also a lot less likely to get laid off from book club than your job. If people want to work together in the same space 8 hours a day more power too them! Go have a good time in the office and let us WFH folks be. But if there aren't enough who want to be in the office to satisfy the office dwellers it doesn't become the WFH folk's responsibility to keep them company. If we are open to friendship, we already were.
- jltsiren 4y ago
  Defaults matter, because people take the easy default choice most of the time. If people don't meet other people by default, they will have fewer casual acquaintances and they are less likely to meet the ones who will become good friends. Then there will be fewer friends overall. > Once someone realizes this and learns to put effort into their social connections, they are far less likely to end up isolated than just hoping showing up at work will make the difference. This is fundamentally the "communism would work, if" argument. Individual people can choose to make the non-default choice. People on the average don't do that.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > People on the average don't do that. This is part of the idea I'm contesting. Remember, "65" has an office they can go to, their problem is no one else wants to. Unless you are asserting that you are a better judge of what is good for 65's co-workers then they themselves are, presumably "on average" they have found sufficient social interaction to satisfy themselves outside of the office. And if you are asserting that you know better than them and they should be forced into the office for their own good, I soundly reject that notion. Just "going with the default" of spending time with co-workers and is exactly how people end up isolated late in life or after losing their jobs. People who are struggling with isolation now should introspect on why they are struggling to make friends and address that instead of attempting to force others into being around them. That's not how friends treat friends.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      Again, communism would work if everyone behaved like a good communist. They don't, because the default is acting in the interests of yourself and people near you rather than in the interests of the wider society. If you insist on communism, the whole society suffers, because most people take the default choice and do what's good for them. If social isolation during work is the default, people will have fewer friends, because making friends takes more effort. They may be satisfied with their situation, because they contrast the outcomes of having more friends with the effort needed to make them. But the entire society may be worse off than a society where people have more friends because working with other people is the default. Fundamentally, everything based on the idea that people should make different choices is doomed to fail. To make the society better, you must work on structural level and change the defaults.