10 ms·

The end of neighbours

153 points by dfritsch 12y ago

CamperBob2 12y ago
This article contains lots of definitive-sounding statements that not only lack the ring of objective truth that they're presented with, but would be considered offensive in other contexts. People are different, and those differences should, when possible, be respected. Some people are homosexual, some are members of racial minorities, some are members of unpopular cultures and religions... and some are natural hermits.
bdkoepke 12y ago
Ugh, seems like another article that derives causation from correlation. Specifically: "We have evolved for it, to the extent that those surrounded by a tight-knit group of friends who regularly gather to eat—and, crucially, gossip—live an average of 15 years longer than loners." Perhaps the reason that people with a large group of friends live much longer is that people who are in better health tend to have more active social lives. If you have some sort of disorder or are extremely obese could it be that you're less likely to be able to spend time with lots of other people?
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Yep. Give me five minutes, a pen, and some paper, and I can jot down a list of at least fifty potential confounding variables. I trust that someone, somewhere has strong and well-structured data, hinting at a causal relationship and a direction of causality. If so, I'd like to read that source. Now, I'm not naive. I know that it would be damned near impossible to structure a longitudinal test that a) identifies all the significant variables, b) isolates the most appropriate ones, and c) controls for the least appropriate ones. But absent that sort of test, I'd like to read the tests that we have. There may indeed be a connection between socialization and multi-factor health outcomes. Maybe even a causal link. I'm certainly willing to consider that. But let's avoid blanket arguments such as 'We've evolved to be social creatures, therefore, we need friends as much as food and water.' There are a lot of interesting ideas in this article, and the article weakens those ideas when it relies on folksy generalizations.
- Swizec 12y ago
  Even simpler than that. Healthy people are more attractive and more attractive people are more successful[1], which in turn makes them more successful socially because people like to associate with people who are more successful than themselves for various reasons[2]. [1] https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=attractive%20people%20more%20successful%20socially https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox
  - bdkoepke 12y ago
    Yeah your probably right, the halo effect probably plays a roll as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  I assume the researchers were smart enough to think of that. Don't judge a study based on a one sentence description from a journalist.
  - nsainsbury 12y ago
    The average quality of papers from the field of psychology is abysmal. It pays to be sceptical here.
  - bdkoepke 12y ago
    I was commenting more on the way that the journalist portrayed the research than the research itself. Another example: "But, however powerful the economic and social forces behind the disappearing neighbour—and however positive many of its results—according to reams of new research, the transformation is also poisoning our politics and, quite literally, killing us." These are the kinds of articles that cause people to have an anti-science attitude. "One week coffee is good for me and the next week it causes cancer". It also makes it very difficult to address these kinds of problems because you have one side where people are running around like chicken little and another side that may actually agree that the issues is a problem but they have much more moderate solutions than the majority.
archagon 12y ago
Related: the previous HN discussion on "human-scale" cities. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090190
free2rhyme214 12y ago
And what is the solution? Everyone here has instant communication and if you have even a small social life, such as many who work hard all the time for their dreams, you can still see friends once a week and family once a month or every other month. It's not a great idea to compare today to yesteryear because back then they didn't have facebook, twitter, iPhones, Skype, Google hangouts, the internet etc.
- im_a_lawyer 12y ago
  Stop subsidizing this: http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/14-1024x819.jpg http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/...
wehadfun 12y ago
Nieghbors have caused so many problems that people don't want them. Google "HOA hell" for more info.
- bmj 12y ago
  What people don't want is the inconvenience of dealing with people who don't operate exactly like they do. As far as I'm concerned, this is a feature of living in community, not a bug. I realize there are differences between living next to a drug dealer and living next to a person who likes to put 50 plastic pink flamingos in their front yard, but I suspect most of the "HOA hell" stories involve the latter circumstance rather than the former.
- guyzero 12y ago
  Neighbours and HOAs are two completely different things. I'm not sure what your point is in conflating them.
  - legohead 12y ago
    they are different "things" but still related. HOAs tell you what you can and cannot do. who created those rules? the people of the neighborhood at some point in time. I want to paint my house green -- NOPE, neighbors #3, 5, 16, and 20 think green is stupid, and since nobody else had anything to say about it at the rules meeting, I can't do it. when I moved to into my house we were thrown right between two feuding houses. and as it turns out, the disagreement in place affected us as well (about children playing outside). we ended up leading the fight at the HOA meetings while others, who had voiced their support to us directly and said they would show up, didn't show up. long story short, old lady got sent to the hospital over the stress of the situation, and we won. but there's a happy ending -- we became good friends with old lady, she has married and moved on :)
shimshim 12y ago
what if you truly don't care to know your neighbors? personally, i could care less and would most rather live miles away from everyone.
- afafsd 12y ago
  How much less could you care, exactly?
  - shimshim 12y ago
    since its obvious i care some, i suppose i could care 1/64th less
- bdunbar 12y ago
  I'd argue that if one _does_ have neighbors it's in your best interests to at least be on a first-name basis with them.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    Akrasia is an unique human trait that is acting against one's better judgment. Of course theoretically it would benefit me to know my neighbors, I don't. And I won't, I'm reluctant talking to people when it's possible to avoid. And given that none of my neighbors ever wanted to know anything about me - it seems they don't want it too.
prestadige 12y ago
Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious cruelty, were always based on mutual need, not on acting out some supposedly gene-based pantomime. I daresay when the next drought or plague comes along I will get to know my neighbours and we'll pull together for mutual support.
- aedocw 12y ago
  Honest question - why would you wait until the next draught or plague to get to know your neighbors well? Why not start getting to know them today, before you "need" them?
  - prestadige 12y ago
    I wish my neighbours well, but for me socialising is a distraction from work and family. Those are my contribution to the (wider) community. Besides, I have trouble enough keeping up with relatives and schoolmates without introducing new, geographically-oriented relationships.
    - na8ur 12y ago
      I agree with coldtea. Our consumerison is why it we get isolated. What is intresting, tendencys in DE show that people go back in the cities for shopping (it's more socializing). http://www.presseportal.de/pm/8664/2804458/innenstadt-bleibt-trend-nur-jeder-fuenfte-kunde-kauft-kleidung-ausschliesslich-online/rss http://www.presseportal.de/pm/8664/2804458/innenstadt-bleibt... Maybe when our kids getting in adolescence find that this is the way to be diffrent than us. Good Practise: Start greeting people when you are in your neighbourhood. That's what I did. I got very fast in contact with above-, below my floor and people around in that block. We had big times (even with the very old folks!). Friendliness and courage (to do so) is the key to start a relationship. The cause of the problem is our missing culture (even neighbourhood parties) to get connectd. g start flash-mobs!
      - prestadige 12y ago
ashwinaj 12y ago
I don't think the point of the article is to go and become "pinky swear" friends of your neighbors (which seems to me that most comments here are alluding to). I just don't get the aversion of neighbors in the Western world. Sure there are annoying neighbors, but if everyone claims that their neighbor is annoying (with whatever criteria that may be) isn't there something wrong with you? Having an active social life is not the same as having meaningful relationships with people (NOT activity partners: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7632094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7632094).
futuravenir 12y ago
I believe that if we start helping each other in close proximity, we increase our self-confidence and neighborhood security all while building social capital. I am working on an open-source hyperlocal Craigslist-style solution to the neighborhood dilemma with JoatU : http://github.com/joatuapp http://github.com/joatuapp
- mikeytown2 12y ago
  https://nextdoor.com/ https://nextdoor.com/ seems to filling that niche pretty well in my neighborhood; almost all my co-workers who own a house use it as well.
  - futuravenir 12y ago
    It's definitely a step in the right direction and fulfills the neighborhood aspect. I have a different idea in mind for what I'm building; I want to see a participative economy built from the ground up.
    - mikeytown2 12y ago
      Something like http://timebanks.org/ http://timebanks.org/?
      - futuravenir 12y ago
        Yes, but with a democratically generated currency to collaboratively benefit the community.
npsimons 12y ago
To me, this seems to ring true - growing up I knew our neighbours (and so did my parents), but now I can't name any of my neighbours. The problem seems to me to be one of a disconnect, or different priorities: I have hobbies, things I love to do, and as far as I know (because I don't know my neighbours), my neighbours don't share in those interests. Given a choice between spending time with people I have nothing in common with (besides geographical location) and pursuing my preferred activities, I choose the latter. This is also why I don't know many of my co-workers very well.
clarkmoody 12y ago
Since we're living around like-minded individuals but subjected to top-down centralized lawmaking, there is a large disconnect between what's happening in our backyard, in the state capital, and in Washington. Often the City Council office is out of touch with one part of the city or another, imposing rules on all that about half disagree with. The federal system in America is supposed to emphasize differences in the states, and to some extent it still does. But Washington has been taking more power away from the states for the last ~100 years or so. This leads to large Washington-imposed mandates forced upon the states and upon the people, which leads to hostility. Perhaps it's time to embrace the burbclave model from Snow Crash?
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  I still think one of the causes of the federal over-expansion was to make Senators popularly elected rather than appointed by state legislatures. The point of the Senate was to create a check by the states on federal power. Now it's just an incentive for lower population states to expand the federal government since they have disproportionate representation in directing who the expansion benefits.
  - clarkmoody 12y ago
    Absolutely agree. Repeal the 17th is at the top of my restore-America wish-list.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    I think there are a few other reasons: 1. National businesses in many cases (though not all) want uniform regulations to ease doing business. So they lobby for federal preemption of state regulations. For example, car manufacturers don't want to have to meet 50 separate safety codes in order to sell cars nationwide, so they successfully lobbied for a federal code with express state preemption. Advocates of tort reform often have similar motivations: a key proposal of tort reform is to federalize product liability, because manufacturers dislike the current system where litigation will always end up being initiated in the most plaintiff-friendly county of the most plaintiff-friendly state. 2. The last time state vs. federal power came to the point of an outright test of strength, the federal government won. And what's worse for the states, its victory has in retrospect been very popular, which has done quite a bit to boost the popularity of federalization and stigmatize the slogan "states' rights". JFK sent troops to Alabama in 1963, removed the governor's control over the state national guard, and imposed federal law by force; and nowadays most people think he did the right thing. 3. People move around a lot, which makes it increasingly impractical to deal with things like social security or Medicare at the state level, when you might be born in one state, work in three others, and retire in a fifth. (This one is becoming a problem in Europe, too, and will probably lead to some kind of EU-standardized "portable pension" scheme in the medium-term future. An EU-wide health card has already been created, though its terms are not yet standardized.)
smokey_the_bear 12y ago
I wonder how many of the people commenting on this thread have families. I grew up on a cul-de-sac where we knew everyone. Then I lived in a series of apartments through my 20s and had no neighborly contact. But we bought a house in a family friendly neighborhood to start our family, and we have fantastic neighbors. Block parties, babysitting exchanges, toddler brunches, active mailing list, etc. Perhaps people just seek out the community when they need it.
design-of-homes 12y ago
A UK perspective: over the past decade there has been an enormous growth in the buy-to-let market and the UK is now overun by the worst type of property owner: the buy-to-let (buy-to-rent) landlord or "property investor". They treat housing as a pure profit-making exercise. When more and more homes in your area get bought by property investors and buy-to-let landlords it can have a detrimental effect (I've seen it happen to my street). The neighbourhood feels more anonymous as people come and go more frequently. Neither the absentee landlord or the tenants have a commitment to the area. If buy-to-let comes to dominate a neighbourhood, can you ever build a community around such a neighbourhood? Buy-to-let is rampant in the UK. Other European countries sensibly restrict it's growth or they enact strict tenancy laws to deter the worst type of buy-to-let landord (UK laws are weighted in favour of landlords). In the UK, we've lost any sense that housing has a social component. I write a blog about housing in the UK and wrote about this topic five years ago. Depressingly, the situation is even worse today. http://designofhomes.co.uk/016-damaging-effects-of-buy-to-let.html http://designofhomes.co.uk/016-damaging-effects-of-buy-to-le...
- kghose 12y ago
  In suburbs of Boston this is a very common thing. They are "all cash buyers" and often beat out regular folk who want to buy a home via a mortgage.
  - jseliger 12y ago
    In suburbs of Boston this is a very common thing. They are "all cash buyers" and often beat out regular folk who want to buy a home via a mortgage. Boston's extensive housing development limits enable this behavior; in a functioning market we'd see supply rise to meet demand. See Yglesias's The Rent is Too Damn High (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO) for more.
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      > in a functioning market we'd see supply rise to meet demand So, tear down existing buildings to build higher, dig more basements, or subdivide existing properties? Because you can't assume there's always free land to build new buildings on. Even if you assume the city is in the middle of a desert and there's essentially infinite room to grow horizontally, eventually you lose the reason people came to the city in the first place: The city itself, which you aren't really living in if you're commuting from a neighborhood more than an hour away from the city proper, or the city before it added on a dozen outlying regions.
clarkmoody 12y ago
The article seems to dog on the suburbs as a big part of the problem. Is there any breakdown of the polling that shows that people in denser areas know their neighbors any better? Controlling for occupation / income level would highlight differences in neighborliness against population density.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Systemic33 12y ago
  I would hazard a guess that its more common in apartments to be socially distant. Because you are far more likely to get annoyed by the neighbour being noisy, you don't have any windows to interact through with them (eg. waving) and most important (imo) of all: you can't just talk in the hallway/stairway the same way you do in a garden or across a fence. And actually entering someones quarters is probably a lot more socially taxing than just stading in their garden. What do you reckon?
  - clarkmoody 12y ago
    I don't really know what to expect, that's why I'd like to see details in the polling. On the one hand, living in a denser part of the city, you might walk around more and see people on your way. But many people just plug in headphones and look at their phone while walking. On the other hand, your points stand out as to why living in multi-family homes might be taxing on community-building.
onedev 12y ago
https://nextdoor.com/ https://nextdoor.com/ is trying to help bring back that sense of community that this article talks about us losing. I think if something like this can help us get a cursory relationship with our neighbors, then that could potentially develop into something deeper and more meaningful and facilitate more offline interaction as well.
- johnvschmitt 12y ago
  My neighborhood uses NextDoor.com and it does work. We share info on nearby construction, crime, and trade recommendations for local services, trade local gardening/landscaping tips, pest-management, etc. Having civil exchanges over those "transactional" issues is the first step in knowing them, establishing trust, & then digging deeper when you cross paths.
- ajaymehta 12y ago
  +1 for Nextdoor. I've moved around the Bay Area several times in the last few years, and every new Nextdoor community I've joined has been very active and helpful.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  looks like it could be beautiful, but I'd really prefer being able to at least browse some of what's being talked about in my neighborhood before signing up.
  - onedev 12y ago
    The premise is that each neighborhood and the conversation contained within it is completely private to the neighbors. Since every neighbor is completely verified, you can be 100% sure the person you're talking to is who they say they are. That's why you need to sign up in order to use the service.
giardini 12y ago
This happens in condominiums. Condominiums were originally intended to be owner-occupied dwellings. Once the owner moves out without selling and rents the unit, things go awry. That's why, as written, most condo agreements are very burdensome upon owners who try to rent (high deposits for rental, long leases required, background checks to condo owners' association, etc). This can be corrected in the case of condominiums by adding a clause to the condominium agreement mandating that owners occupy the unit and disallowing rentals. Perhaps, in the case of a neighborhood association, the same restriction could be applied (but not likely at any time other than the creation of the neighborhood).
lutusp 12y ago
A quote from the article: "We have evolved for it, to the extent that those surrounded by a tight-knit group of friends who regularly gather to eat—and, crucially, gossip—live an average of 15 years longer than loners." A = alive 15 years longer than the average. B = meets friends and gossips. The claim, made by a psychologist (of course), fails to take into account the fact that correlation doesn't equal causation. It may be that some unexamined factor C causes people to (B) meet and gossip, and (A) live longer as well. Meaning before we change our lifestyle with the expectation of a longer life, we should first do some actual science.
- groby_b 12y ago
  And before we roll out Internet tropes about correlation and causation, maybe we should first read the underlying studies. The article fails horribly by not quoting any of them, but here's a good starting point: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402200381.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402200381.html Or, if you want a list from the guy who did the initial investigations into the phenomenon, start here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/478/James_S_House http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/478/James_S_Hous... I'm far from an expert on the topic, but from what I read, a causal relationship is at the least very strongly implied.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > I'm far from an expert on the topic, but from what I read, a causal relationship is at the least very strongly implied. Scientists don't imply cause-effect relationships, they demonstrate them, using evidence, to the exclusion of alternatives. Then they offer an explanation -- a theory about the evidence. These properties are rarely present in psychological studies, especially the explanation requirement. Here's an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who believes he has cured the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the patient until he's all better. My cure always works -- it's perfectly reliable, even though it sometimes takes a week. So, where's my Nobel Prize? I've met the same evidence requirement the linked article does, and the latter is being described as science. > ... the guy who did the initial investigations into the phenomenon ... It's not a phenomenon, it's an observation, one without any effort to explain it or demonstrate a cause-effect relationship. > And before we roll out Internet tropes about correlation and causation, maybe we should first read the underlying studies. After reading the original work, one is left with the same impression the linked article provides -- a description without an explanation, and no effort to meet the evidence required to move from a correlation to a cause-effect relationship. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman
scoofy 12y ago
Good to see they finally point the finger at what is fairly certainly the culprit: the automobile. When i lived in NYC, i knew most of my neighbors. Why? because we literally bumped into each other coming in and out of the building. When you have a common destination (subway, bus, market, etc), it's nice to have someone to chat with, but when your commute is in an automobile, you never get a chance to ask. Living room, garage, automobile, parking lot, destination. With automobiles, there is no opportunity to, say, bump into your neighbor and ask, and then follow up with quickly knocking on your neighbor's door to see if they are still interested in joining you. Without those quick opportunities, relationships cannot form. Without relationships forming, it's culturally awkward to ask directly. The single occupancy automobile, and the decentralized suburbia that formed around it are very probably central to many of the ills detailed in the article.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  Unfortunately, you cannot now fix it by removing the automobile. Now, even when you bump into people, you don't have a conversation, because they're on their headphones or texting on their phone or whatever. Nobody's available to talk to, even if you would be willing to do so.
  - scoofy 12y ago
    Yes, you can. If everyone is walking to a centralized transit location, then those that would like to know each other will easily identify themselves. Catch the bus at 8AM? You'll soon learn who else is walking that route. Headphones or not, human interaction isn't that awkward. Even if you never talk in that context, it only takes one out-of-context interaction to end that. At a coffee shop: "hey, don't we walk the same route from the metro every day?" or "Didn't i see you at the farmers market on Thursday?" To know people locally, you need to live locally. If getting dinner involves a commute, then you're never going to meet people. It takes more than one or two instances to get past the earbuds. Remove the automobile and immediately you're seeing the same people dozens of times a week.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
Systemic33 12y ago
As many people have already said, the article seems to jump to a conclusion rather quickly. What the author might not have taken into account is cultural changes in living habits. With that I mean how we are increasingly moving away from our parents home, and into our own little cell/room/apartment, instead of living with the parents in the house or in an attached building. And when people did move out, it would more than often be either because you moved into a dormitory (which previously were more communal) or together with a SO. That means more time spent in the neighbourhood, and more time with the middle ring as it's called in the article. It could be interesting to compare the situation in america with for example the situation in Italy, where it's more common to stay at the parents for longer.
kilroy123 12y ago
My entire adult life, I haven't known any of my neighbors, until recently. One day about 8 months ago, we got a note on the door from new neighbors. They were having a "floor party" and invited everyone on the floor to their place. Almost everyone on the floor, reluctantly went to the party expecting it to be awkward. We all ended up drunk and hanging out until 2 am. Turns out, pretty much everyone on the floor was a 20-30 something couple. Flash forward to last night, we all had dinner together on the roof, and celebrated someones birthday. I'm close friends with a few of them. Point is, someone just has to take the initiative. I'm now embarrassed I didn't do it sooner, as I'd live here for 3 years.
- onedev 12y ago
  This is pretty much the premise behind Nextdoor.com, you guys should check it out for your neighborhood!
- pge 12y ago
  To me, this is the key - someone has to take the initiative. Once you realize that everyone is in the same boat; being that person can be uncomfortable but incredibly rewarding. Invite everyone over. Someone has to do it, and everyone else will be grateful.
  - tacoman 12y ago
    I live in a newish neighbourhood. There were about 8 households that moved in within the same 2 months. One couple decided to have a get-together and put flyers in mailboxes (in January in Canada). 10 years later, some of the people I met that night have become my best friends. The folks that took the initiative are long gone, but what they did for the neighbourhood with that one leaflet has had a real impact.
  - a3n 12y ago
    > someone has to take the initiative Like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dancing+hill+guy http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dancing+hill+guy
Dewie 12y ago
Hell, I most often actively avoid bumping into the people I live with.
monksy 12y ago
When I lived in NC I never knew ANY of my neighbors. When I moved to Chicago I met all of my neighbors except for one. [That one lives above me and I'm pretty sure everyone in the building hates them.]
l33tbro 12y ago
I was moving furniture last night. In the rain. Pissing down. Had one friend with me hauling stuff from van to doorstep. My 'neighbour', who I've never met, simply stood on his doorstep (our houses touch one another) and didn't even say 'hi', let alone ask if we needed a hand. Was I pissed at this? I thought it was a little rude. But on reflection, I don't really care too much. In fact, I prefer it this way. I like choosing my friends and have a diverse cast of hand-picked co-conspirators in my life. So I enjoy that, today, I am no longer geographically obligated to make chit-chat to this uncouth guy next door. This is what this article misses. It directly correlates the old archetype of a buzzing neighbourhood with the issue of loneliness and it's health impacts. It's a false pretense that the article was written on, and it conforms to the Luddite pandering to 'the good old days before computer' that at one point it actually mocks. I'm sure if the guy next doors house was on fire, I'd help him out. But I can live with the idea of him not coming around to borrow a cup of flour.
- samscully 12y ago
  I have seen people in my neighbourhood (Bermondsey in London, UK) struggling with luggage twice, luggage that was clearly far too much for them to carry on their own. Both times I offered to help them take it from the train station to wherever they were going. The first time the man accepted my help, the second time the woman politely declined. Even the first time I detected an uneasiness, partly because we were strangers of course, but also I got the sense that the man was very wary of putting on me at all. Perhaps because people like not having obligations towards their neighbours it feels wrong to accept help and thus set up an expectation of reciprocisity. Maybe this then leads to not offering help because it is assumed it will be refused? London is a particularly atomised place of course, back home I think I would have got a very different response.
erikpukinskis 12y ago
The goal of capitalism is to systematically disconnect us from every thing we need so it can be sold back to us. Neighbor are free, so they have to go.
elwell 12y ago
After spending last week at my grandparents' North Carolina mountain house, I was encouraged to find they regularly have neighbors over for dinner. I must admit, I only know one of my neighbors' names at my apartment in LA.
bgruber 12y ago
if this bothers you, meetup is hiring: http://www.meetup.com/jobs/ http://www.meetup.com/jobs/
wbillingsley 12y ago
The article seriously misrepresents the Australian sociologist and the community response to the Queensland floods. Here's the Australian sociologist's article (you can find both quotes in the piece, but quite out of context): http://theconversation.com/do-you-know-your-neighbour-lending-a-hand-and-the-queensland-floods-4144 http://theconversation.com/do-you-know-your-neighbour-lendin... The sociologist describes the community response to the floods as "the overwhelming message that flowed from events like the floods in Queensland and Victoria last year was one of neighbours, friends and even strangers rallying to assist flooded residents in their hour of need As the waters rose, neighbours banded together to sandbag each others’ homes and move possessions to higher ground. Once they receded, information, food, homes and equipment were freely shared. Observers lauded the spirit of community that prevailed. So, why are neighbours still there when needed even if their noise, smells and habits are cause for complaint the rest of the time?" But what does Brian Bethune summarise the article as? "An Australian sociologist investigating community responses in the wake of the 2011 floods in Queensland found relations in “a precarious balance”; neighbours were hesitant to intrude even in emergencies—leading the scholar to conclude that “we are less likely than ever to know” our neighbours." Which is quite the opposite. The sociologist was investigating the contrast -- a tremendous community response in an emergency, when we're more private than ever the rest of the time. But Brian Bethune make it sound like she was bemoaning a poor community response to an emergency.
galfarragem 12y ago
Few days ago I wrote a comment praising HN community (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956) but unfortunately now I have to make the opposite: This comments page shows us the dark side of HN community. There are comments here that completely depressed me and revealed not an introverted but an anti-social personality among some HN users. I am/was also anti-social but I make/made some effort to get out from there. I'm not judging anyone but this side of HN is not a bright one. edit: I knew that I would be downvoted but I consider that I'm doing the right thing speaking about this.
- chippy 12y ago
  The actual article describes some of the reasons why. The comments reflect that yes, the article does describe the actions. I suggest that it is not "a dark side" of the HN community - rather a frank discussion about life, the good and the bad.
mathattack 12y ago
Is this that different than Bowling Alone? http://bowlingalone.com/ http://bowlingalone.com/ I've spent the past 5 years in the same apartment. I've had immediate neighbors on both sides switch at least 4 times. After getting to know the first two, we stopped bothering. And now it's our turn to move. It's very different from where I grew up, where somebody moving from the block was very big news, and only happened every few years. The main difference is that this connection has moved on-line. My high school's reunions have gone downhill because everyone can communicate on Facebook. I have connections of classmates and shared hobbyists across the country facilitated by technology. Yes we are losing place-based connections in much of the country, but is that really such a bad thing if it's replaced elsewhere?

153 points by dfritsch 12y ago

This article contains lots of definitive-sounding statements that not only lack the ring of objective truth that they're presented with, but would be considered offensive in other contexts. People are different, and those differences should, when possible, be respected. Some people are homosexual, some are members of racial minorities, some are members of unpopular cultures and religions... and some are natural hermits.

bdkoepke 12y ago

Ugh, seems like another article that derives causation from correlation. Specifically: "We have evolved for it, to the extent that those surrounded by a tight-knit group of friends who regularly gather to eat—and, crucially, gossip—live an average of 15 years longer than loners." Perhaps the reason that people with a large group of friends live much longer is that people who are in better health tend to have more active social lives. If you have some sort of disorder or are extremely obese could it be that you're less likely to be able to spend time with lots of other people?

jonnathanson 12y ago
Yep. Give me five minutes, a pen, and some paper, and I can jot down a list of at least fifty potential confounding variables. I trust that someone, somewhere has strong and well-structured data, hinting at a causal relationship and a direction of causality. If so, I'd like to read that source. Now, I'm not naive. I know that it would be damned near impossible to structure a longitudinal test that a) identifies all the significant variables, b) isolates the most appropriate ones, and c) controls for the least appropriate ones. But absent that sort of test, I'd like to read the tests that we have. There may indeed be a connection between socialization and multi-factor health outcomes. Maybe even a causal link. I'm certainly willing to consider that. But let's avoid blanket arguments such as 'We've evolved to be social creatures, therefore, we need friends as much as food and water.' There are a lot of interesting ideas in this article, and the article weakens those ideas when it relies on folksy generalizations.
Swizec 12y ago
Even simpler than that. Healthy people are more attractive and more attractive people are more successful[1], which in turn makes them more successful socially because people like to associate with people who are more successful than themselves for various reasons[2]. [1] https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=attractive%20people%20more%20successful%20socially https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox
- bdkoepke 12y ago
  Yeah your probably right, the halo effect probably plays a roll as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect.
Houshalter 12y ago
I assume the researchers were smart enough to think of that. Don't judge a study based on a one sentence description from a journalist.
- nsainsbury 12y ago
  The average quality of papers from the field of psychology is abysmal. It pays to be sceptical here.
- bdkoepke 12y ago
  I was commenting more on the way that the journalist portrayed the research than the research itself. Another example: "But, however powerful the economic and social forces behind the disappearing neighbour—and however positive many of its results—according to reams of new research, the transformation is also poisoning our politics and, quite literally, killing us." These are the kinds of articles that cause people to have an anti-science attitude. "One week coffee is good for me and the next week it causes cancer". It also makes it very difficult to address these kinds of problems because you have one side where people are running around like chicken little and another side that may actually agree that the issues is a problem but they have much more moderate solutions than the majority.

archagon 12y ago

Related: the previous HN discussion on "human-scale" cities. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090190

free2rhyme214 12y ago

And what is the solution? Everyone here has instant communication and if you have even a small social life, such as many who work hard all the time for their dreams, you can still see friends once a week and family once a month or every other month. It's not a great idea to compare today to yesteryear because back then they didn't have facebook, twitter, iPhones, Skype, Google hangouts, the internet etc.

im_a_lawyer 12y ago
Stop subsidizing this: http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/14-1024x819.jpg http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/...

wehadfun 12y ago

Nieghbors have caused so many problems that people don't want them. Google "HOA hell" for more info.

bmj 12y ago
What people don't want is the inconvenience of dealing with people who don't operate exactly like they do. As far as I'm concerned, this is a feature of living in community, not a bug. I realize there are differences between living next to a drug dealer and living next to a person who likes to put 50 plastic pink flamingos in their front yard, but I suspect most of the "HOA hell" stories involve the latter circumstance rather than the former.
guyzero 12y ago
Neighbours and HOAs are two completely different things. I'm not sure what your point is in conflating them.
- legohead 12y ago
  they are different "things" but still related. HOAs tell you what you can and cannot do. who created those rules? the people of the neighborhood at some point in time. I want to paint my house green -- NOPE, neighbors #3, 5, 16, and 20 think green is stupid, and since nobody else had anything to say about it at the rules meeting, I can't do it. when I moved to into my house we were thrown right between two feuding houses. and as it turns out, the disagreement in place affected us as well (about children playing outside). we ended up leading the fight at the HOA meetings while others, who had voiced their support to us directly and said they would show up, didn't show up. long story short, old lady got sent to the hospital over the stress of the situation, and we won. but there's a happy ending -- we became good friends with old lady, she has married and moved on :)

shimshim 12y ago

what if you truly don't care to know your neighbors? personally, i could care less and would most rather live miles away from everyone.

afafsd 12y ago
How much less could you care, exactly?
- shimshim 12y ago
  since its obvious i care some, i suppose i could care 1/64th less
bdunbar 12y ago
I'd argue that if one _does_ have neighbors it's in your best interests to at least be on a first-name basis with them.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  Akrasia is an unique human trait that is acting against one's better judgment. Of course theoretically it would benefit me to know my neighbors, I don't. And I won't, I'm reluctant talking to people when it's possible to avoid. And given that none of my neighbors ever wanted to know anything about me - it seems they don't want it too.

prestadige 12y ago

Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious cruelty, were always based on mutual need, not on acting out some supposedly gene-based pantomime. I daresay when the next drought or plague comes along I will get to know my neighbours and we'll pull together for mutual support.

aedocw 12y ago
Honest question - why would you wait until the next draught or plague to get to know your neighbors well? Why not start getting to know them today, before you "need" them?
- prestadige 12y ago
  I wish my neighbours well, but for me socialising is a distraction from work and family. Those are my contribution to the (wider) community. Besides, I have trouble enough keeping up with relatives and schoolmates without introducing new, geographically-oriented relationships.
  - na8ur 12y ago
    I agree with coldtea. Our consumerison is why it we get isolated. What is intresting, tendencys in DE show that people go back in the cities for shopping (it's more socializing). http://www.presseportal.de/pm/8664/2804458/innenstadt-bleibt-trend-nur-jeder-fuenfte-kunde-kauft-kleidung-ausschliesslich-online/rss http://www.presseportal.de/pm/8664/2804458/innenstadt-bleibt... Maybe when our kids getting in adolescence find that this is the way to be diffrent than us. Good Practise: Start greeting people when you are in your neighbourhood. That's what I did. I got very fast in contact with above-, below my floor and people around in that block. We had big times (even with the very old folks!). Friendliness and courage (to do so) is the key to start a relationship. The cause of the problem is our missing culture (even neighbourhood parties) to get connectd. g start flash-mobs!
    - prestadige 12y ago

ashwinaj 12y ago

I don't think the point of the article is to go and become "pinky swear" friends of your neighbors (which seems to me that most comments here are alluding to). I just don't get the aversion of neighbors in the Western world. Sure there are annoying neighbors, but if everyone claims that their neighbor is annoying (with whatever criteria that may be) isn't there something wrong with you? Having an active social life is not the same as having meaningful relationships with people (NOT activity partners: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7632094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7632094).

futuravenir 12y ago

I believe that if we start helping each other in close proximity, we increase our self-confidence and neighborhood security all while building social capital. I am working on an open-source hyperlocal Craigslist-style solution to the neighborhood dilemma with JoatU : http://github.com/joatuapp http://github.com/joatuapp

mikeytown2 12y ago
https://nextdoor.com/ https://nextdoor.com/ seems to filling that niche pretty well in my neighborhood; almost all my co-workers who own a house use it as well.
- futuravenir 12y ago
  It's definitely a step in the right direction and fulfills the neighborhood aspect. I have a different idea in mind for what I'm building; I want to see a participative economy built from the ground up.
  - mikeytown2 12y ago
    Something like http://timebanks.org/ http://timebanks.org/?
    - futuravenir 12y ago
      Yes, but with a democratically generated currency to collaboratively benefit the community.

npsimons 12y ago

To me, this seems to ring true - growing up I knew our neighbours (and so did my parents), but now I can't name any of my neighbours. The problem seems to me to be one of a disconnect, or different priorities: I have hobbies, things I love to do, and as far as I know (because I don't know my neighbours), my neighbours don't share in those interests. Given a choice between spending time with people I have nothing in common with (besides geographical location) and pursuing my preferred activities, I choose the latter. This is also why I don't know many of my co-workers very well.

clarkmoody 12y ago

Since we're living around like-minded individuals but subjected to top-down centralized lawmaking, there is a large disconnect between what's happening in our backyard, in the state capital, and in Washington. Often the City Council office is out of touch with one part of the city or another, imposing rules on all that about half disagree with. The federal system in America is supposed to emphasize differences in the states, and to some extent it still does. But Washington has been taking more power away from the states for the last ~100 years or so. This leads to large Washington-imposed mandates forced upon the states and upon the people, which leads to hostility. Perhaps it's time to embrace the burbclave model from Snow Crash?

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
I still think one of the causes of the federal over-expansion was to make Senators popularly elected rather than appointed by state legislatures. The point of the Senate was to create a check by the states on federal power. Now it's just an incentive for lower population states to expand the federal government since they have disproportionate representation in directing who the expansion benefits.
- clarkmoody 12y ago
  Absolutely agree. Repeal the 17th is at the top of my restore-America wish-list.
- _delirium 12y ago
  I think there are a few other reasons: 1. National businesses in many cases (though not all) want uniform regulations to ease doing business. So they lobby for federal preemption of state regulations. For example, car manufacturers don't want to have to meet 50 separate safety codes in order to sell cars nationwide, so they successfully lobbied for a federal code with express state preemption. Advocates of tort reform often have similar motivations: a key proposal of tort reform is to federalize product liability, because manufacturers dislike the current system where litigation will always end up being initiated in the most plaintiff-friendly county of the most plaintiff-friendly state. 2. The last time state vs. federal power came to the point of an outright test of strength, the federal government won. And what's worse for the states, its victory has in retrospect been very popular, which has done quite a bit to boost the popularity of federalization and stigmatize the slogan "states' rights". JFK sent troops to Alabama in 1963, removed the governor's control over the state national guard, and imposed federal law by force; and nowadays most people think he did the right thing. 3. People move around a lot, which makes it increasingly impractical to deal with things like social security or Medicare at the state level, when you might be born in one state, work in three others, and retire in a fifth. (This one is becoming a problem in Europe, too, and will probably lead to some kind of EU-standardized "portable pension" scheme in the medium-term future. An EU-wide health card has already been created, though its terms are not yet standardized.)

smokey_the_bear 12y ago

I wonder how many of the people commenting on this thread have families. I grew up on a cul-de-sac where we knew everyone. Then I lived in a series of apartments through my 20s and had no neighborly contact. But we bought a house in a family friendly neighborhood to start our family, and we have fantastic neighbors. Block parties, babysitting exchanges, toddler brunches, active mailing list, etc. Perhaps people just seek out the community when they need it.

design-of-homes 12y ago

A UK perspective: over the past decade there has been an enormous growth in the buy-to-let market and the UK is now overun by the worst type of property owner: the buy-to-let (buy-to-rent) landlord or "property investor". They treat housing as a pure profit-making exercise. When more and more homes in your area get bought by property investors and buy-to-let landlords it can have a detrimental effect (I've seen it happen to my street). The neighbourhood feels more anonymous as people come and go more frequently. Neither the absentee landlord or the tenants have a commitment to the area. If buy-to-let comes to dominate a neighbourhood, can you ever build a community around such a neighbourhood? Buy-to-let is rampant in the UK. Other European countries sensibly restrict it's growth or they enact strict tenancy laws to deter the worst type of buy-to-let landord (UK laws are weighted in favour of landlords). In the UK, we've lost any sense that housing has a social component. I write a blog about housing in the UK and wrote about this topic five years ago. Depressingly, the situation is even worse today. http://designofhomes.co.uk/016-damaging-effects-of-buy-to-let.html http://designofhomes.co.uk/016-damaging-effects-of-buy-to-le...

kghose 12y ago
In suburbs of Boston this is a very common thing. They are "all cash buyers" and often beat out regular folk who want to buy a home via a mortgage.
- jseliger 12y ago
  In suburbs of Boston this is a very common thing. They are "all cash buyers" and often beat out regular folk who want to buy a home via a mortgage. Boston's extensive housing development limits enable this behavior; in a functioning market we'd see supply rise to meet demand. See Yglesias's The Rent is Too Damn High (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO) for more.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > in a functioning market we'd see supply rise to meet demand So, tear down existing buildings to build higher, dig more basements, or subdivide existing properties? Because you can't assume there's always free land to build new buildings on. Even if you assume the city is in the middle of a desert and there's essentially infinite room to grow horizontally, eventually you lose the reason people came to the city in the first place: The city itself, which you aren't really living in if you're commuting from a neighborhood more than an hour away from the city proper, or the city before it added on a dozen outlying regions.

clarkmoody 12y ago

The article seems to dog on the suburbs as a big part of the problem. Is there any breakdown of the polling that shows that people in denser areas know their neighbors any better? Controlling for occupation / income level would highlight differences in neighborliness against population density.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Systemic33 12y ago
I would hazard a guess that its more common in apartments to be socially distant. Because you are far more likely to get annoyed by the neighbour being noisy, you don't have any windows to interact through with them (eg. waving) and most important (imo) of all: you can't just talk in the hallway/stairway the same way you do in a garden or across a fence. And actually entering someones quarters is probably a lot more socially taxing than just stading in their garden. What do you reckon?
- clarkmoody 12y ago
  I don't really know what to expect, that's why I'd like to see details in the polling. On the one hand, living in a denser part of the city, you might walk around more and see people on your way. But many people just plug in headphones and look at their phone while walking. On the other hand, your points stand out as to why living in multi-family homes might be taxing on community-building.

onedev 12y ago

https://nextdoor.com/ https://nextdoor.com/ is trying to help bring back that sense of community that this article talks about us losing. I think if something like this can help us get a cursory relationship with our neighbors, then that could potentially develop into something deeper and more meaningful and facilitate more offline interaction as well.

johnvschmitt 12y ago
My neighborhood uses NextDoor.com and it does work. We share info on nearby construction, crime, and trade recommendations for local services, trade local gardening/landscaping tips, pest-management, etc. Having civil exchanges over those "transactional" issues is the first step in knowing them, establishing trust, & then digging deeper when you cross paths.
ajaymehta 12y ago
+1 for Nextdoor. I've moved around the Bay Area several times in the last few years, and every new Nextdoor community I've joined has been very active and helpful.
lotharbot 12y ago
looks like it could be beautiful, but I'd really prefer being able to at least browse some of what's being talked about in my neighborhood before signing up.
- onedev 12y ago
  The premise is that each neighborhood and the conversation contained within it is completely private to the neighbors. Since every neighbor is completely verified, you can be 100% sure the person you're talking to is who they say they are. That's why you need to sign up in order to use the service.

giardini 12y ago

This happens in condominiums. Condominiums were originally intended to be owner-occupied dwellings. Once the owner moves out without selling and rents the unit, things go awry. That's why, as written, most condo agreements are very burdensome upon owners who try to rent (high deposits for rental, long leases required, background checks to condo owners' association, etc). This can be corrected in the case of condominiums by adding a clause to the condominium agreement mandating that owners occupy the unit and disallowing rentals. Perhaps, in the case of a neighborhood association, the same restriction could be applied (but not likely at any time other than the creation of the neighborhood).

lutusp 12y ago

A quote from the article: "We have evolved for it, to the extent that those surrounded by a tight-knit group of friends who regularly gather to eat—and, crucially, gossip—live an average of 15 years longer than loners." A = alive 15 years longer than the average. B = meets friends and gossips. The claim, made by a psychologist (of course), fails to take into account the fact that correlation doesn't equal causation. It may be that some unexamined factor C causes people to (B) meet and gossip, and (A) live longer as well. Meaning before we change our lifestyle with the expectation of a longer life, we should first do some actual science.

groby_b 12y ago
And before we roll out Internet tropes about correlation and causation, maybe we should first read the underlying studies. The article fails horribly by not quoting any of them, but here's a good starting point: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402200381.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402200381.html Or, if you want a list from the guy who did the initial investigations into the phenomenon, start here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/478/James_S_House http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/478/James_S_Hous... I'm far from an expert on the topic, but from what I read, a causal relationship is at the least very strongly implied.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > I'm far from an expert on the topic, but from what I read, a causal relationship is at the least very strongly implied. Scientists don't imply cause-effect relationships, they demonstrate them, using evidence, to the exclusion of alternatives. Then they offer an explanation -- a theory about the evidence. These properties are rarely present in psychological studies, especially the explanation requirement. Here's an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who believes he has cured the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the patient until he's all better. My cure always works -- it's perfectly reliable, even though it sometimes takes a week. So, where's my Nobel Prize? I've met the same evidence requirement the linked article does, and the latter is being described as science. > ... the guy who did the initial investigations into the phenomenon ... It's not a phenomenon, it's an observation, one without any effort to explain it or demonstrate a cause-effect relationship. > And before we roll out Internet tropes about correlation and causation, maybe we should first read the underlying studies. After reading the original work, one is left with the same impression the linked article provides -- a description without an explanation, and no effort to meet the evidence required to move from a correlation to a cause-effect relationship. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman

scoofy 12y ago

Good to see they finally point the finger at what is fairly certainly the culprit: the automobile. When i lived in NYC, i knew most of my neighbors. Why? because we literally bumped into each other coming in and out of the building. When you have a common destination (subway, bus, market, etc), it's nice to have someone to chat with, but when your commute is in an automobile, you never get a chance to ask. Living room, garage, automobile, parking lot, destination. With automobiles, there is no opportunity to, say, bump into your neighbor and ask, and then follow up with quickly knocking on your neighbor's door to see if they are still interested in joining you. Without those quick opportunities, relationships cannot form. Without relationships forming, it's culturally awkward to ask directly. The single occupancy automobile, and the decentralized suburbia that formed around it are very probably central to many of the ills detailed in the article.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
Unfortunately, you cannot now fix it by removing the automobile. Now, even when you bump into people, you don't have a conversation, because they're on their headphones or texting on their phone or whatever. Nobody's available to talk to, even if you would be willing to do so.
- scoofy 12y ago
  Yes, you can. If everyone is walking to a centralized transit location, then those that would like to know each other will easily identify themselves. Catch the bus at 8AM? You'll soon learn who else is walking that route. Headphones or not, human interaction isn't that awkward. Even if you never talk in that context, it only takes one out-of-context interaction to end that. At a coffee shop: "hey, don't we walk the same route from the metro every day?" or "Didn't i see you at the farmers market on Thursday?" To know people locally, you need to live locally. If getting dinner involves a commute, then you're never going to meet people. It takes more than one or two instances to get past the earbuds. Remove the automobile and immediately you're seeing the same people dozens of times a week.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago

Systemic33 12y ago

As many people have already said, the article seems to jump to a conclusion rather quickly. What the author might not have taken into account is cultural changes in living habits. With that I mean how we are increasingly moving away from our parents home, and into our own little cell/room/apartment, instead of living with the parents in the house or in an attached building. And when people did move out, it would more than often be either because you moved into a dormitory (which previously were more communal) or together with a SO. That means more time spent in the neighbourhood, and more time with the middle ring as it's called in the article. It could be interesting to compare the situation in america with for example the situation in Italy, where it's more common to stay at the parents for longer.

kilroy123 12y ago

My entire adult life, I haven't known any of my neighbors, until recently. One day about 8 months ago, we got a note on the door from new neighbors. They were having a "floor party" and invited everyone on the floor to their place. Almost everyone on the floor, reluctantly went to the party expecting it to be awkward. We all ended up drunk and hanging out until 2 am. Turns out, pretty much everyone on the floor was a 20-30 something couple. Flash forward to last night, we all had dinner together on the roof, and celebrated someones birthday. I'm close friends with a few of them. Point is, someone just has to take the initiative. I'm now embarrassed I didn't do it sooner, as I'd live here for 3 years.

onedev 12y ago
This is pretty much the premise behind Nextdoor.com, you guys should check it out for your neighborhood!
pge 12y ago
To me, this is the key - someone has to take the initiative. Once you realize that everyone is in the same boat; being that person can be uncomfortable but incredibly rewarding. Invite everyone over. Someone has to do it, and everyone else will be grateful.
- tacoman 12y ago
  I live in a newish neighbourhood. There were about 8 households that moved in within the same 2 months. One couple decided to have a get-together and put flyers in mailboxes (in January in Canada). 10 years later, some of the people I met that night have become my best friends. The folks that took the initiative are long gone, but what they did for the neighbourhood with that one leaflet has had a real impact.
- a3n 12y ago
  > someone has to take the initiative Like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dancing+hill+guy http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dancing+hill+guy

Dewie 12y ago

Hell, I most often actively avoid bumping into the people I live with.

monksy 12y ago

When I lived in NC I never knew ANY of my neighbors. When I moved to Chicago I met all of my neighbors except for one. [That one lives above me and I'm pretty sure everyone in the building hates them.]

l33tbro 12y ago

I was moving furniture last night. In the rain. Pissing down. Had one friend with me hauling stuff from van to doorstep. My 'neighbour', who I've never met, simply stood on his doorstep (our houses touch one another) and didn't even say 'hi', let alone ask if we needed a hand. Was I pissed at this? I thought it was a little rude. But on reflection, I don't really care too much. In fact, I prefer it this way. I like choosing my friends and have a diverse cast of hand-picked co-conspirators in my life. So I enjoy that, today, I am no longer geographically obligated to make chit-chat to this uncouth guy next door. This is what this article misses. It directly correlates the old archetype of a buzzing neighbourhood with the issue of loneliness and it's health impacts. It's a false pretense that the article was written on, and it conforms to the Luddite pandering to 'the good old days before computer' that at one point it actually mocks. I'm sure if the guy next doors house was on fire, I'd help him out. But I can live with the idea of him not coming around to borrow a cup of flour.

samscully 12y ago
I have seen people in my neighbourhood (Bermondsey in London, UK) struggling with luggage twice, luggage that was clearly far too much for them to carry on their own. Both times I offered to help them take it from the train station to wherever they were going. The first time the man accepted my help, the second time the woman politely declined. Even the first time I detected an uneasiness, partly because we were strangers of course, but also I got the sense that the man was very wary of putting on me at all. Perhaps because people like not having obligations towards their neighbours it feels wrong to accept help and thus set up an expectation of reciprocisity. Maybe this then leads to not offering help because it is assumed it will be refused? London is a particularly atomised place of course, back home I think I would have got a very different response.

erikpukinskis 12y ago

The goal of capitalism is to systematically disconnect us from every thing we need so it can be sold back to us. Neighbor are free, so they have to go.

elwell 12y ago

After spending last week at my grandparents' North Carolina mountain house, I was encouraged to find they regularly have neighbors over for dinner. I must admit, I only know one of my neighbors' names at my apartment in LA.

bgruber 12y ago

if this bothers you, meetup is hiring: http://www.meetup.com/jobs/ http://www.meetup.com/jobs/

wbillingsley 12y ago

The article seriously misrepresents the Australian sociologist and the community response to the Queensland floods. Here's the Australian sociologist's article (you can find both quotes in the piece, but quite out of context): http://theconversation.com/do-you-know-your-neighbour-lending-a-hand-and-the-queensland-floods-4144 http://theconversation.com/do-you-know-your-neighbour-lendin... The sociologist describes the community response to the floods as "the overwhelming message that flowed from events like the floods in Queensland and Victoria last year was one of neighbours, friends and even strangers rallying to assist flooded residents in their hour of need As the waters rose, neighbours banded together to sandbag each others’ homes and move possessions to higher ground. Once they receded, information, food, homes and equipment were freely shared. Observers lauded the spirit of community that prevailed. So, why are neighbours still there when needed even if their noise, smells and habits are cause for complaint the rest of the time?" But what does Brian Bethune summarise the article as? "An Australian sociologist investigating community responses in the wake of the 2011 floods in Queensland found relations in “a precarious balance”; neighbours were hesitant to intrude even in emergencies—leading the scholar to conclude that “we are less likely than ever to know” our neighbours." Which is quite the opposite. The sociologist was investigating the contrast -- a tremendous community response in an emergency, when we're more private than ever the rest of the time. But Brian Bethune make it sound like she was bemoaning a poor community response to an emergency.

galfarragem 12y ago

Few days ago I wrote a comment praising HN community (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956) but unfortunately now I have to make the opposite: This comments page shows us the dark side of HN community. There are comments here that completely depressed me and revealed not an introverted but an anti-social personality among some HN users. I am/was also anti-social but I make/made some effort to get out from there. I'm not judging anyone but this side of HN is not a bright one. edit: I knew that I would be downvoted but I consider that I'm doing the right thing speaking about this.

chippy 12y ago
The actual article describes some of the reasons why. The comments reflect that yes, the article does describe the actions. I suggest that it is not "a dark side" of the HN community - rather a frank discussion about life, the good and the bad.

mathattack 12y ago

Is this that different than Bowling Alone? http://bowlingalone.com/ http://bowlingalone.com/ I've spent the past 5 years in the same apartment. I've had immediate neighbors on both sides switch at least 4 times. After getting to know the first two, we stopped bothering. And now it's our turn to move. It's very different from where I grew up, where somebody moving from the block was very big news, and only happened every few years. The main difference is that this connection has moved on-line. My high school's reunions have gone downhill because everyone can communicate on Facebook. I have connections of classmates and shared hobbyists across the country facilitated by technology. Yes we are losing place-based connections in much of the country, but is that really such a bad thing if it's replaced elsewhere?