3 ms·

But if I want to be social why does it have to be people I didnt choose (i.e. co workers). Why can I WFH and socialise with my family/friends who I choose to be

But if I want to be social why does it have to be people I didnt choose (i.e. co workers). Why can I WFH and socialise with my family/friends who I choose to be with. This is basically nothing to do with remote work and more about isolation.

oytis 4mo ago
I mean, it's right there in the abstract. The study showed that people working remotely were more isolated outside of work too. Personally I enjoy working remotely and value time spent alone, but the data looks interesting
- small_model 4mo ago
  Why is more isolation negative, should be a spectrum, 98% alone and the rest socialising.
  - oytis 4mo ago
    Well, the abstract also says they were not feeling well because of that, I guess that's what matters
  - aok1425 4mo ago
    The abstract doesn't say that isolation is negative (I think). It just says WFH folks are more socially isolated. For some people, more social isolation is OK. For others, not so OK. YMMV . I personally think that more socializing is better, if it's with people who I become better by being around. The tough part is knowing who's good for me, and how I can find them.
  - ahtihn 4mo ago
    I prefer being alone but also feel worse after prolonged periods alone. Preferring something doesn't mean it's good for you.
    - small_model 4mo ago
      True, I meant forced socialisation a.k.a office. You need some socialising most days but most people get that from living with spouse/family/room mates etc i.e. people they have chosen.
aok1425 4mo ago
The abstract of the article says that folks who have remote work are more socially isolated, even after work hours. Maybe WFH allows folks to be more social with the people they want, but the abstract says that they socialise less overall, and are more socially isolated.
- small_model 4mo ago
  Most people live with a spouse , kids, room mates though, I live with my family and they are generally around so get plenty of company (too much sometimes). This is about living alone AND WFH, then yes might be good to go to the office.
  - throw-the-towel 4mo ago
    > Most people live with a spouse , kids, room mates though [citation needed]
JackFr 4mo ago
Socializing != socialization. The first is enjoying the company of friends, while the second is a sociological process of internalizing cultural norms and appropriate behavior. How to behave in a group, how to approach a stranger, how to respond to someone who irritates you, etc.
obscurette 4mo ago
Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.
- small_model 4mo ago
  Not sure about this, most people would rather interact with people the like, click with than some boomer manager who thinks it's still 1950 IBM days.
  - nozzlegear 4mo ago
    As an extrovert, I like interacting with anyone. I enjoyed interacting with my boomer manager when I worked in an office, and the middle aged women with kids or grand kids, and everyone else. They weren't my friends, but talking and interacting with them each day was enjoyable.
    - small_model 4mo ago
      I just don't like authority or people having power over me, especially someone who is could be replaced with a calendar app.
- zimpenfish 4mo ago
  > Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes; it is 100% absolutely not true for "all people". You force me to interact with people I haven't chosen and there's a reasonably high probability that I'll subsequently choose to never interact with you again.[0] > People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. My childhood was largely interaction with people I didn't choose[1] and, nope, I am absolutely not "more trusting" as a result. > Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole. Citation needed for that one. [0] There is a slim chance that the people I haven't chosen to interact with turn out to be reasonable decent people who I don't annoy and, more importantly, don't annoy me. [1] A bunch of enforced house moves and a paucity of decent locals at each new house/school.
xg15 4mo ago
No one is stopping you. The question is how easy it is to do that vs staying lonely. I think the problem is that "being social with" some group isn't always as easy as it seems. Work and family are sort of two "default" groups that you automatically have access to (even if those groups may not always be fitting or rewarding). For other social groups, you have to invest effort yourself, and that effort can be a lot: Finding communities in the first place, making contact, staying engaged, being socially fluent enough that others want to keep contact, etc etc. That's a lot of work and also requires some skill (and even luck sometimes). Not everyone may be willing or able to put in that work. (Specifically for work environments, I wonder if the "shared misery" aspect might also play a role: In a work environment, everyone knows that you're not here for fun - paradoxically, that might make some social interactions easier, because you can stop interacting without sending a negative message. In contrast, in voluntary activities, this is harder, because the basic expectation is that you want to be there. So talking about interactions that didn't work well socially might be harder.)

oytis 4mo ago

I mean, it's right there in the abstract. The study showed that people working remotely were more isolated outside of work too. Personally I enjoy working remotely and value time spent alone, but the data looks interesting

small_model 4mo ago
Why is more isolation negative, should be a spectrum, 98% alone and the rest socialising.
- oytis 4mo ago
  Well, the abstract also says they were not feeling well because of that, I guess that's what matters
- aok1425 4mo ago
  The abstract doesn't say that isolation is negative (I think). It just says WFH folks are more socially isolated. For some people, more social isolation is OK. For others, not so OK. YMMV . I personally think that more socializing is better, if it's with people who I become better by being around. The tough part is knowing who's good for me, and how I can find them.
- ahtihn 4mo ago
  I prefer being alone but also feel worse after prolonged periods alone. Preferring something doesn't mean it's good for you.
  - small_model 4mo ago
    True, I meant forced socialisation a.k.a office. You need some socialising most days but most people get that from living with spouse/family/room mates etc i.e. people they have chosen.

aok1425 4mo ago

The abstract of the article says that folks who have remote work are more socially isolated, even after work hours. Maybe WFH allows folks to be more social with the people they want, but the abstract says that they socialise less overall, and are more socially isolated.

small_model 4mo ago
Most people live with a spouse , kids, room mates though, I live with my family and they are generally around so get plenty of company (too much sometimes). This is about living alone AND WFH, then yes might be good to go to the office.
- throw-the-towel 4mo ago
  > Most people live with a spouse , kids, room mates though [citation needed]

JackFr 4mo ago

Socializing != socialization. The first is enjoying the company of friends, while the second is a sociological process of internalizing cultural norms and appropriate behavior. How to behave in a group, how to approach a stranger, how to respond to someone who irritates you, etc.

obscurette 4mo ago

Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.

small_model 4mo ago
Not sure about this, most people would rather interact with people the like, click with than some boomer manager who thinks it's still 1950 IBM days.
- nozzlegear 4mo ago
  As an extrovert, I like interacting with anyone. I enjoyed interacting with my boomer manager when I worked in an office, and the middle aged women with kids or grand kids, and everyone else. They weren't my friends, but talking and interacting with them each day was enjoyable.
  - small_model 4mo ago
    I just don't like authority or people having power over me, especially someone who is could be replaced with a calendar app.
zimpenfish 4mo ago
> Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes; it is 100% absolutely not true for "all people". You force me to interact with people I haven't chosen and there's a reasonably high probability that I'll subsequently choose to never interact with you again.[0] > People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. My childhood was largely interaction with people I didn't choose[1] and, nope, I am absolutely not "more trusting" as a result. > Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole. Citation needed for that one. [0] There is a slim chance that the people I haven't chosen to interact with turn out to be reasonable decent people who I don't annoy and, more importantly, don't annoy me. [1] A bunch of enforced house moves and a paucity of decent locals at each new house/school.

xg15 4mo ago

No one is stopping you. The question is how easy it is to do that vs staying lonely. I think the problem is that "being social with" some group isn't always as easy as it seems. Work and family are sort of two "default" groups that you automatically have access to (even if those groups may not always be fitting or rewarding). For other social groups, you have to invest effort yourself, and that effort can be a lot: Finding communities in the first place, making contact, staying engaged, being socially fluent enough that others want to keep contact, etc etc. That's a lot of work and also requires some skill (and even luck sometimes). Not everyone may be willing or able to put in that work. (Specifically for work environments, I wonder if the "shared misery" aspect might also play a role: In a work environment, everyone knows that you're not here for fun - paradoxically, that might make some social interactions easier, because you can stop interacting without sending a negative message. In contrast, in voluntary activities, this is harder, because the basic expectation is that you want to be there. So talking about interactions that didn't work well socially might be harder.)