4 ms·
This seems like the most realistic take. They are not voluntarily reclusive but rather ostracized/excluded for being failures/losers relative to the social stan
by yobbo 4y ago
This seems like the most realistic take. They are not voluntarily reclusive but rather ostracized/excluded for being failures/losers relative to the social standards of their societies.
Subsidies don't seem so bad. (If done right, they'll have to figure that out.) Even if they don't solve the whole problem immediately.
- 5e92cb50239222b 4y agoAs long as we're sharing anecdotes... I won't speak for everybody, but I definitely am "voluntarily reclusive", so this measure would do absolutely nothing if I lived in South Korea. Zero fucks given about what the society thinks: I work remotely, live a comfortable life, and have no desire to see anyone. It's just how my brain is hardwired and has been that way forever, no amount of money would fix it (even if I wanted to).
- soared 4y agoSoftwired! I was the same for many many years but changed as I grew older. The mindset you have is not bad in any way, I enjoyed my life then just the same as I do now. The brain changes over time, so subsidies or other solutions could still have an impact.
- dageshi 4y agoI would say the main issue is that these people have very bad self esteem problems coupled with being introverts and the modern online worlds ability to endlessly distract you. In the past, pre-internet most of these people couldn't live like this, they'd be forced out of their homes from boredom, but with the internet that's just no longer true. The only way to fix it is to fix peoples self esteem, but these are likely the last people in the world who'd willingly go to something like therapy, I can't imagine subsidies are really going to help.