6 ms·

I've personally noticed that my own value of autonomy has often contributed to a reduction in social activity and community integration. I used to be very selec

I've personally noticed that my own value of autonomy has often contributed to a reduction in social activity and community integration. I used to be very selective of what I did with others. If I had an invite from friends and the activity didn't seem immediately interesting to me, I'd decline. I've since learned to say yes more (but not always) to invites and particularly consider ones that are more outside my comfort zone. This does however require a sacrifice of my individualism that is so heavily prized in western culture.

JohnFen 2y ago
> If I had an invite from friends and the activity didn't seem immediately interesting to me, I'd decline. I have seen many (usually younger) people make this mistake. The mistake is thinking that the point of the activity is the activity itself. It isn't. The point is the genuine social engagement. (Edited to add:) > I've since learned to say yes more Years ago, I learned to change my default answer to things from "no" to "yes". It has been a key to my career success. But, more than that, I have lived a more interesting life than most as a result of that. Making "yes" your default instead of "no" increases the chances that something bad will happen, this is true, but it also increases the chances that something good will happen. Personally, I've found that on the whole, the riskier path is the better path. But I'm quite certain that not everyone will feel the same.
- sameoldtune 2y ago
  Was just talking with a friend about this. The reason older people tend to play repetitive card games isn’t because they are captivating, it is just a thin excuse to spend a few relaxing hours together. After a few months of hesitation I’ve gotten some of my friends into playing simple games like euchre and hearts and the quality of our time together has gone up significantly.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Reminds me of a scene from a favorite book-series, where the protagonist is visiting with a recently-retired/convalescent former boss. > “So,” Illyan said at last. “What do a couple of retired officers and gentlemen do on a country weekend?” > [...] “Tradition is, you take the local beer from the village—there’s a woman there who home-brews it, extraordinary stuff—and hang the bottles over the side of the boat to stay cold. When the beer gets too warm to drink, it’s too hot to fish.” > “What season is that?” > “Never, as far as I could tell.” > “Let us by all means observe tradition,” said Illyan gravely. -- Memory by Lois McMaster Bujold
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    IDK that hasn't been my experience. When I've gotten together with people to play euchre it's always people who are super competitive about it, get annoyed if you misplay a hand, and don't talk about anything except how good or bad their last hand was.
    - 317070 2y ago
      Exactly! High quality social time, interaction with real other people. A great excuse to get together.
    - seec 2y ago
      That's my experience as well. In my opinion, "social" board games are always an excuse for the people who propose it to "dominate" others in an activity they don't do as often and don't care about much. They call it socializing but it is always a type of problematic socialisation because it always ends up hypercompetitive and solely focused on the game. We know humans can't truly multi-task and this is true for games too, so what happens is that as the game progresses everyone is increasingly focused on its strategy and no real conversation about anything else happens. I think it is actually a crutch for people that are not that interesting to begin with and prefer to retort to this sort of activity (passive-agressive competitiveness built-in) instead of cultivating something interesting to talk about with other peoples. I'm all for socialisation by talking or doing shared activities with a common goal, but games and to an extent sports are really more trouble than they are worth most of the time...
      - sameoldtune 2y ago
        Sounds to me like you are maybe the competitive one. It could be that you are friends with board-gaming sociopaths but in my life I have met only one person who I think would propose a board game just because they could win at it.
- alisonatwork 2y ago
  Interestingly, I've gone the opposite way in my old age. I realize now how very short life is and how it's absolutely not worth wasting what little free time I have on activities that don't interest me. This goes even moreso in the workplace, where saying yes often leads you into taking on more responsibilities for no extra pay or recognition, unless you simultaneously try to wangle the added work into a schmoozing opportunity, which cuts even more into the time you could have been spending doing something you actually wanted to do if you'd said no.
  - zamfi 2y ago
    I suspect people come from different baselines here, which for some means saying "yes" more often, and for others saying "no". But I think the parent's point is to "say yes" more broadly than just when the activity interests you; e.g., if the people are good, interesting people and there will be interesting conversation, the activity may just be an excuse to get together, and not its focus -- and it's too easy to evaluate just the activity alone in response to an invitation.
  - fire_lake 2y ago
    This assumes you know what is worth doing in advance and I think we rarely do.
  - kredd 2y ago
    Good point. Everything boils down to moderation though, right? My usual attitude is, if I have nothing to do — say yes. If I already have plans, invite my friends, but still do it even if they decline. It’s just my simple way of signalling that I like my friends, and I am happy to spend time with them. Workplace is a different game though, as it will always depend on company, politics and your ambitions.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > it's absolutely not worth wasting what little free time I have on activities that don't interest me. Well, my perspective is that the point is spending valuable free time with my friends, which I value and is good for everybody. What we're spending that time _doing_ is a secondary consideration. > in the workplace, where saying yes often leads you into taking on more responsibilities for no extra pay or recognition Of course! By saying "I changed my default answer from 'no' to 'yes'", I don't mean I say yes to everything (and I wasn't talking primarily about in the workplace). I mean it in the form of a shift in mental stance. In the workplace, that means my default stance to something that involves additional work is "ok, how could I make that happen?". It may very well be that I can't. Or, more likely, it may be that I can if I deprioritize something else. The stance difference is that instead of just rejecting it automatically, I spend a moment weighing the factors and am able to present the tradeoffs involved so that we can make a better determination as to if it's a good idea or not.
- nradov 2y ago
  There's also a weird mistake among young people in thinking of Republicans versus Democrats as enemies to be shunned rather than the "loyal opposition" who just happen to have a different perspective. Becoming a political tribalist cuts out about half your social opportunities.
  - diputsmonro 2y ago
    I respect that viewpoint and would be happy to adopt it in different times. But it's not as simple as political tribalism. For example - Several of my close friends are trans. For the last decade or so, Republicans have been viciously attacking trans people and several states are actively taking away their rights. The entire right wing media ecosystem uses every chance they can to demonize trans people in the new culture war. After years of these horrible attacks, we're seeing hate crimes against trans people rise. At least two of my friends have been assaulted in the last year or so. How can I fault them for having a gut reaction to not engage with Republicans? And if someone is still happy to call themselves a Republican after all this hate, I think that reflects something about their character. Obviously if I were to vote for Republicans who want to hurt my trans friends (which is almost all of them), I could never look them in the eyes again. Similarly, I can't have much respect for those who do. The life and safety of my friends and family is the most important thing to me. I am happy to engage in good faith dialogue with conservatives on these topics, but frankly, if I'm out and doing something I enjoy, I'd generally rather not spoil my time talking to someone who is statistically likely to be a hateful bigot.
    - djom 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - diputsmonro 2y ago
        I don't want to get into a giant political debate here, but I would urge you to follow the spirit of this post and actually talk to some trans people, in person, to get their perspective before voting for people who demonize them and take their rights away. All of those are rooted in transphobia. The entire point of those bathroom bills to "protect women" is built upon the foundational idea that trans people are dangerous predators who want to assault people. It's a bigoted idea not supported by the data, which is built out of fear, and - appropriate to this whole post - a lack of understanding from never having actually talked to a trans person.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Usually, though, the activity at least needs to happen, otherwise the point of getting together goes out the window. I used to host both movie nights and poker nights at my house for (different groups of) friends. These both slowly fizzled out and largely stopped, because people lost interest in doing anything besides scrolling their phones. Like we'd make popcorn, turn the lights down, start the movie, and within 5 minutes, everyone would be scrolling their Instagrams rather than watching the movie. Even before the opening credits were done, people were all tuned out. And these were movies everyone agreed to! Same for the card games. People would miss their turn and just not engage with the game because they were on their phones. Asking people to leave their phones at the door or turn them off would be socially unacceptable. So, yea, default to "yes" but please do actually show up and engage, too!
bunderbunder 2y ago
If compromise with others is starting to be seen as an affront to one's own sense of identity, it's no wonder people are reporting such a poor sense of well-being nowadays. I grew up before the terminally online era, and I'm not sure we ever saw taking turns doing each other's favorite activity as a sacrifice of our individualism. It was just part of what it means to form meaningful social bonds with other people. Heck, most the time we agreed to spend time together before choosing an activity, because that's where our priorities lied.
- michaelt 2y ago
  I agree with you, but there was certainly some pressure in that direction. You were probably told that if all your friends were doing drugs (or jumping off a cliff) you should think for yourself. And you were probably told it was bad to be a sheep and just follow the crowd. And you probably saw some "real fans" of bands/comics/whatever being scornful towards "phoneys" who were just "pretending". And you might have been given the impression that picking up some new hobby because a cute member of the opposite sex is into it was somehow insincere or cringe-worthy. And if some of the activities were expensive by your family's standards, you might have been asked if you really wanted to do whatever. I can imagine how a person who over-thought this sort of stuff could have ended up thinking they shouldn't, say, go to a baseball game if they don't like baseball.
  - bunderbunder 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - loa_in_ 2y ago
    I think you just wrote down a post mortem of my life's failure

JohnFen 2y ago

> If I had an invite from friends and the activity didn't seem immediately interesting to me, I'd decline. I have seen many (usually younger) people make this mistake. The mistake is thinking that the point of the activity is the activity itself. It isn't. The point is the genuine social engagement. (Edited to add:) > I've since learned to say yes more Years ago, I learned to change my default answer to things from "no" to "yes". It has been a key to my career success. But, more than that, I have lived a more interesting life than most as a result of that. Making "yes" your default instead of "no" increases the chances that something bad will happen, this is true, but it also increases the chances that something good will happen. Personally, I've found that on the whole, the riskier path is the better path. But I'm quite certain that not everyone will feel the same.

sameoldtune 2y ago
Was just talking with a friend about this. The reason older people tend to play repetitive card games isn’t because they are captivating, it is just a thin excuse to spend a few relaxing hours together. After a few months of hesitation I’ve gotten some of my friends into playing simple games like euchre and hearts and the quality of our time together has gone up significantly.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Reminds me of a scene from a favorite book-series, where the protagonist is visiting with a recently-retired/convalescent former boss. > “So,” Illyan said at last. “What do a couple of retired officers and gentlemen do on a country weekend?” > [...] “Tradition is, you take the local beer from the village—there’s a woman there who home-brews it, extraordinary stuff—and hang the bottles over the side of the boat to stay cold. When the beer gets too warm to drink, it’s too hot to fish.” > “What season is that?” > “Never, as far as I could tell.” > “Let us by all means observe tradition,” said Illyan gravely. -- Memory by Lois McMaster Bujold
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  IDK that hasn't been my experience. When I've gotten together with people to play euchre it's always people who are super competitive about it, get annoyed if you misplay a hand, and don't talk about anything except how good or bad their last hand was.
  - 317070 2y ago
    Exactly! High quality social time, interaction with real other people. A great excuse to get together.
  - seec 2y ago
    That's my experience as well. In my opinion, "social" board games are always an excuse for the people who propose it to "dominate" others in an activity they don't do as often and don't care about much. They call it socializing but it is always a type of problematic socialisation because it always ends up hypercompetitive and solely focused on the game. We know humans can't truly multi-task and this is true for games too, so what happens is that as the game progresses everyone is increasingly focused on its strategy and no real conversation about anything else happens. I think it is actually a crutch for people that are not that interesting to begin with and prefer to retort to this sort of activity (passive-agressive competitiveness built-in) instead of cultivating something interesting to talk about with other peoples. I'm all for socialisation by talking or doing shared activities with a common goal, but games and to an extent sports are really more trouble than they are worth most of the time...
    - sameoldtune 2y ago
      Sounds to me like you are maybe the competitive one. It could be that you are friends with board-gaming sociopaths but in my life I have met only one person who I think would propose a board game just because they could win at it.
alisonatwork 2y ago
Interestingly, I've gone the opposite way in my old age. I realize now how very short life is and how it's absolutely not worth wasting what little free time I have on activities that don't interest me. This goes even moreso in the workplace, where saying yes often leads you into taking on more responsibilities for no extra pay or recognition, unless you simultaneously try to wangle the added work into a schmoozing opportunity, which cuts even more into the time you could have been spending doing something you actually wanted to do if you'd said no.
- zamfi 2y ago
  I suspect people come from different baselines here, which for some means saying "yes" more often, and for others saying "no". But I think the parent's point is to "say yes" more broadly than just when the activity interests you; e.g., if the people are good, interesting people and there will be interesting conversation, the activity may just be an excuse to get together, and not its focus -- and it's too easy to evaluate just the activity alone in response to an invitation.
- fire_lake 2y ago
  This assumes you know what is worth doing in advance and I think we rarely do.
- kredd 2y ago
  Good point. Everything boils down to moderation though, right? My usual attitude is, if I have nothing to do — say yes. If I already have plans, invite my friends, but still do it even if they decline. It’s just my simple way of signalling that I like my friends, and I am happy to spend time with them. Workplace is a different game though, as it will always depend on company, politics and your ambitions.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > it's absolutely not worth wasting what little free time I have on activities that don't interest me. Well, my perspective is that the point is spending valuable free time with my friends, which I value and is good for everybody. What we're spending that time _doing_ is a secondary consideration. > in the workplace, where saying yes often leads you into taking on more responsibilities for no extra pay or recognition Of course! By saying "I changed my default answer from 'no' to 'yes'", I don't mean I say yes to everything (and I wasn't talking primarily about in the workplace). I mean it in the form of a shift in mental stance. In the workplace, that means my default stance to something that involves additional work is "ok, how could I make that happen?". It may very well be that I can't. Or, more likely, it may be that I can if I deprioritize something else. The stance difference is that instead of just rejecting it automatically, I spend a moment weighing the factors and am able to present the tradeoffs involved so that we can make a better determination as to if it's a good idea or not.
nradov 2y ago
There's also a weird mistake among young people in thinking of Republicans versus Democrats as enemies to be shunned rather than the "loyal opposition" who just happen to have a different perspective. Becoming a political tribalist cuts out about half your social opportunities.
- diputsmonro 2y ago
  I respect that viewpoint and would be happy to adopt it in different times. But it's not as simple as political tribalism. For example - Several of my close friends are trans. For the last decade or so, Republicans have been viciously attacking trans people and several states are actively taking away their rights. The entire right wing media ecosystem uses every chance they can to demonize trans people in the new culture war. After years of these horrible attacks, we're seeing hate crimes against trans people rise. At least two of my friends have been assaulted in the last year or so. How can I fault them for having a gut reaction to not engage with Republicans? And if someone is still happy to call themselves a Republican after all this hate, I think that reflects something about their character. Obviously if I were to vote for Republicans who want to hurt my trans friends (which is almost all of them), I could never look them in the eyes again. Similarly, I can't have much respect for those who do. The life and safety of my friends and family is the most important thing to me. I am happy to engage in good faith dialogue with conservatives on these topics, but frankly, if I'm out and doing something I enjoy, I'd generally rather not spoil my time talking to someone who is statistically likely to be a hateful bigot.
  - djom 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - diputsmonro 2y ago
      I don't want to get into a giant political debate here, but I would urge you to follow the spirit of this post and actually talk to some trans people, in person, to get their perspective before voting for people who demonize them and take their rights away. All of those are rooted in transphobia. The entire point of those bathroom bills to "protect women" is built upon the foundational idea that trans people are dangerous predators who want to assault people. It's a bigoted idea not supported by the data, which is built out of fear, and - appropriate to this whole post - a lack of understanding from never having actually talked to a trans person.
ryandrake 2y ago
Usually, though, the activity at least needs to happen, otherwise the point of getting together goes out the window. I used to host both movie nights and poker nights at my house for (different groups of) friends. These both slowly fizzled out and largely stopped, because people lost interest in doing anything besides scrolling their phones. Like we'd make popcorn, turn the lights down, start the movie, and within 5 minutes, everyone would be scrolling their Instagrams rather than watching the movie. Even before the opening credits were done, people were all tuned out. And these were movies everyone agreed to! Same for the card games. People would miss their turn and just not engage with the game because they were on their phones. Asking people to leave their phones at the door or turn them off would be socially unacceptable. So, yea, default to "yes" but please do actually show up and engage, too!

bunderbunder 2y ago

If compromise with others is starting to be seen as an affront to one's own sense of identity, it's no wonder people are reporting such a poor sense of well-being nowadays. I grew up before the terminally online era, and I'm not sure we ever saw taking turns doing each other's favorite activity as a sacrifice of our individualism. It was just part of what it means to form meaningful social bonds with other people. Heck, most the time we agreed to spend time together before choosing an activity, because that's where our priorities lied.

michaelt 2y ago
I agree with you, but there was certainly some pressure in that direction. You were probably told that if all your friends were doing drugs (or jumping off a cliff) you should think for yourself. And you were probably told it was bad to be a sheep and just follow the crowd. And you probably saw some "real fans" of bands/comics/whatever being scornful towards "phoneys" who were just "pretending". And you might have been given the impression that picking up some new hobby because a cute member of the opposite sex is into it was somehow insincere or cringe-worthy. And if some of the activities were expensive by your family's standards, you might have been asked if you really wanted to do whatever. I can imagine how a person who over-thought this sort of stuff could have ended up thinking they shouldn't, say, go to a baseball game if they don't like baseball.
- bunderbunder 2y ago
  [flagged]
- loa_in_ 2y ago
  I think you just wrote down a post mortem of my life's failure