5 ms·

Technology amplifies this, greatly. In a non-digital era our field of view was narrow, expanding either to our immediate physical surroundings or, when we went

Technology amplifies this, greatly. In a non-digital era our field of view was narrow, expanding either to our immediate physical surroundings or, when we went beyond them, limited by what we could read in a newspaper or see on TV. When I was little, I didn't know who was the most skilled person at my hobby or how popular it was or whether beautiful people online also happened to excel at it, while my teenage hormones wreaked havoc on both my personality and looks. Every single child in the civilized world nowadays is subjected to exactly that. You may be an aspiring dancer and there will be a million like you right there on your phone. It's hard for them to formulate self-worth when that is the case. Does that mean the internet and digital advances are bad? No, it just means we were unprepared for them in a very meaningful way.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
How did the child of a random peasant family 300 years ago 'formulate self-worth'? I don't see how digital technology diminishes that in relative comparison.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  A random child peasant might be the best at sewing, strongest, wisest, or most handy in their village of 40. When compared with a pool of 40 million, that doesn't seem like much to be proud of.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Because...? Of what underlying reasons?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      There is no fundamental force of the universal that makes it so, if that's what you're asking. There is however a tremendous amount of psychology that predisposes people to seeking the admiration and respect of others. If you want a deeper reason, it is likely due to a cultural understanding that these things are actually advantageous, and some amount of deeper evolutionary biology
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        That is understood… but why do you think such a child would have received more ‘admiration and respect of others’ 300 years ago in some tiny peasant village?
        consteval 2y ago
        Because the stakes and standards were lower. So long as you did what your father did before you, and him before he, then you will get admiration and respect. You will get a family, you will have your job, you will be the shoe cobbler. Or the baker. Or the farmer. That's you, who you are, and we need you. Things are complicated today. Doing what's always been done is not enough, you need to do better. Having a job is not enough, we no longer view jobs as purpose.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        This is looking at the past with extremely rose tinted glasses, in reality life was very nasty and usually short for anyone below the lower gentry. (>90% of the population) Especially in tiny peasant villages in pretty much every country, except maybe Switzerland and some Polynesian islands.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Life being short, difficult, and full of unpleasantness is tangential to the question if human interaction was different in much smaller exposure. You dont even have to go that far into the past, you can simply talk to anyone who lived prior to the internet. pick something like skateboarding. The best skateboarder in 100 kids could shock and impress peers with tricks they had never seen. Pick a given subject, the best expert someone would be exposed to was very limited.

MichaelZuo 2y ago

How did the child of a random peasant family 300 years ago 'formulate self-worth'? I don't see how digital technology diminishes that in relative comparison.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
A random child peasant might be the best at sewing, strongest, wisest, or most handy in their village of 40. When compared with a pool of 40 million, that doesn't seem like much to be proud of.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Because...? Of what underlying reasons?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    There is no fundamental force of the universal that makes it so, if that's what you're asking. There is however a tremendous amount of psychology that predisposes people to seeking the admiration and respect of others. If you want a deeper reason, it is likely due to a cultural understanding that these things are actually advantageous, and some amount of deeper evolutionary biology
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      That is understood… but why do you think such a child would have received more ‘admiration and respect of others’ 300 years ago in some tiny peasant village?
      - consteval 2y ago
        Because the stakes and standards were lower. So long as you did what your father did before you, and him before he, then you will get admiration and respect. You will get a family, you will have your job, you will be the shoe cobbler. Or the baker. Or the farmer. That's you, who you are, and we need you. Things are complicated today. Doing what's always been done is not enough, you need to do better. Having a job is not enough, we no longer view jobs as purpose.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        This is looking at the past with extremely rose tinted glasses, in reality life was very nasty and usually short for anyone below the lower gentry. (>90% of the population) Especially in tiny peasant villages in pretty much every country, except maybe Switzerland and some Polynesian islands.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Life being short, difficult, and full of unpleasantness is tangential to the question if human interaction was different in much smaller exposure. You dont even have to go that far into the past, you can simply talk to anyone who lived prior to the internet. pick something like skateboarding. The best skateboarder in 100 kids could shock and impress peers with tricks they had never seen. Pick a given subject, the best expert someone would be exposed to was very limited.