Is presentation the cause of loneliness? (2017)(kaomorphism.com)
kaomorphism.com
Is presentation the cause of loneliness? (2017)
https://kaomorphism.com/2017/10/06/Is-Presentation-The-Cause-Of-Loneliness.html
94 comments
I think that these two are causes rather then requirements. The fact that in our current culture it is awkward and socially wrong to "just organise that without a social excuse" and that we need "common activities and goals" to even consider socialization is why we are lonely.
Of course common activities and goals do help. But when they are the only thing, the relationship is destined to die the moment something changes.
But people who are not lonely tend to value relationships for themselves. They organize without excuse, send each other mails for no reason about ordinary life and call each other for no reason. What they do have is values that put priority on relationship and skills to keep them. There is also mutual reciprocity to some extend with helping each other and such.
A lot of these things are low-key stigmatized in some sub-cultures. The above is wasting time, just hanging around, just being social etc. See how spending a lot of time on phone was mocked - but it was reasonable way for people who dont have common activities and goals to keep relationships. The need for at least pretend common goal and important enough topic so that we dont feel like wasting time is more of symptom then the solution. Because it prevents us to keep relationship unless it is immediately useful.
Of course common activities and goals do help. But when they are the only thing, the relationship is destined to die the moment something changes.
But people who are not lonely tend to value relationships for themselves. They organize without excuse, send each other mails for no reason about ordinary life and call each other for no reason. What they do have is values that put priority on relationship and skills to keep them. There is also mutual reciprocity to some extend with helping each other and such.
A lot of these things are low-key stigmatized in some sub-cultures. The above is wasting time, just hanging around, just being social etc. See how spending a lot of time on phone was mocked - but it was reasonable way for people who dont have common activities and goals to keep relationships. The need for at least pretend common goal and important enough topic so that we dont feel like wasting time is more of symptom then the solution. Because it prevents us to keep relationship unless it is immediately useful.
> A lot of these things are low-key stigmatized in some sub-cultures.
I would actually go further and say that it is high-key stigmatized. My take on this is it has a lot to do with how individualistic & market-oriented American culture (and to an extent 'western' culture) is. I spent the formative part of my youth both in a highly individualistic culture and a more communal culture and while both have their pros and cons the lack of authentic interaction or community is very much a feature of the existing (North American) culture, it is not a bug.
I would actually go further and say that it is high-key stigmatized. My take on this is it has a lot to do with how individualistic & market-oriented American culture (and to an extent 'western' culture) is. I spent the formative part of my youth both in a highly individualistic culture and a more communal culture and while both have their pros and cons the lack of authentic interaction or community is very much a feature of the existing (North American) culture, it is not a bug.
Relationships naturally form when people have common activities and goals.
That is part of it but I don't think it is all of it. Relationships form when people share membership in something like a "community", a larger group of people sharing common approach of "looking out for each other", of engaging in basic acceptance of each, common language, history and "values", to various extents.
This isn't saying that a relationship can't form between people not sharing a community but to an extent, such relationships have to expand to create the things that community naturally provides (making just "common interest" relationships a little fragile).
I mean, human beings began having relationships in terms of small bands deeply sharing an entire culture. The more developed human societies made those sorts of relationship more flexible but still fall what I'd vague call "deep commonality" but form such commonality in a "market place" is extremely difficult each person is going to feel a lack of the basic loyalty that "deep commonality" implied.
That is part of it but I don't think it is all of it. Relationships form when people share membership in something like a "community", a larger group of people sharing common approach of "looking out for each other", of engaging in basic acceptance of each, common language, history and "values", to various extents.
This isn't saying that a relationship can't form between people not sharing a community but to an extent, such relationships have to expand to create the things that community naturally provides (making just "common interest" relationships a little fragile).
I mean, human beings began having relationships in terms of small bands deeply sharing an entire culture. The more developed human societies made those sorts of relationship more flexible but still fall what I'd vague call "deep commonality" but form such commonality in a "market place" is extremely difficult each person is going to feel a lack of the basic loyalty that "deep commonality" implied.
I think you're on point.
I'd also add that beyond shared activities or goals, there's mutual need as a basis for relationships. My grandparents were born peasant-farmers (Ireland, the 20s). They had very strong social bonds. Yes, they had institutions like church and such. But, they also just needed favours from eachother all the time. Every day a neighbor would stop by to help with something. Move sheep, fix fences, diagnose crop problems, watch kids, loan tools.
Interesting point about "*do you want to be friends" approaches. The thing is, we do exactly this for dating. It's just as awkward, we just have a social context for it. These days, we have apps for it.
I'd also add that beyond shared activities or goals, there's mutual need as a basis for relationships. My grandparents were born peasant-farmers (Ireland, the 20s). They had very strong social bonds. Yes, they had institutions like church and such. But, they also just needed favours from eachother all the time. Every day a neighbor would stop by to help with something. Move sheep, fix fences, diagnose crop problems, watch kids, loan tools.
Interesting point about "*do you want to be friends" approaches. The thing is, we do exactly this for dating. It's just as awkward, we just have a social context for it. These days, we have apps for it.
there's a slight paradox in that modernity was half pushed by people to free themselves from all of these. independance has two edges
You hit the nail there. So many hobbies that used to be in-person have transferred to the internet.
Personally, I thought that would be enough for getting my social fix, but boy was I wrong. As I get older, I'm finding out that there is something essential about physically hanging out with a common goal, whether it's sports, hiking, boardgames, etc.
Personally, I thought that would be enough for getting my social fix, but boy was I wrong. As I get older, I'm finding out that there is something essential about physically hanging out with a common goal, whether it's sports, hiking, boardgames, etc.
and small groups or tribes had a nice common goal, using a bit of land to live together
the hyper decoupling benefits costed us that
the hyper decoupling benefits costed us that
Hmm maybe I can give some advice here. The key is to just not care whether or not people are just pretending to like you. "Just don't give a fuck" sounds really trite but I really think caring too much about other people's feelings is an anti-super power. I find what really helps me is just assuming that the other person doesn't like me, and then making a conscious decision to make the effort to make them like me. This is almost the opposite of what people say, "just be confident". I think being attractive (personality) and likable is a trainable social skill, and once you do it often enough the effort becomes effortless. Of course a mind reading device to skip the presentation stuff would also be nice.
How do you both "don't give a fuck" while also "mak[ing] the effort to make them like me"?
> How do you both "don't give a fuck" while also "mak[ing] the effort to make them like me"?
I'd say by doing the latter before the former. Make an attempt at socializing/conversation first.
If you get the vibe that the person isn't interested, you can move on to someone else, without bitterness, anger or disappointment. Just because it didn't happen with that person, doesn't mean it won't happen with the next person too.
I'd say by doing the latter before the former. Make an attempt at socializing/conversation first.
If you get the vibe that the person isn't interested, you can move on to someone else, without bitterness, anger or disappointment. Just because it didn't happen with that person, doesn't mean it won't happen with the next person too.
That’s always the problem with these forms of obliquitous advice - they are paradoxical. I’m not saying they don’t work or are necessarily to be dismissed because they seem practically impossible because they are on the surface self-limiting. I’m just saying that’s what they all share.
Zen. Buddhism. Sufism. Stoicism. Minimalism. Less is more.
You have to experience it to know it. The anti-thesis of science.
Zen. Buddhism. Sufism. Stoicism. Minimalism. Less is more.
You have to experience it to know it. The anti-thesis of science.
Actually, the manifestation of science..
Science is about testing (experiencing) your hypothesis not memorizing dogma. If someone says: “gravity is a thing” then as a scientist you think through the consequences, if something doesn't align with your expectation then you design an experiment. This way you realize the truth yourself, problem is that people use the word 'science' as 'that thing that other people do to find out the truth' (where 'truth' is the thing you are supposed to believe unquestioningly since you are not a priest, sorry.. scientist).
Science is about testing (experiencing) your hypothesis not memorizing dogma. If someone says: “gravity is a thing” then as a scientist you think through the consequences, if something doesn't align with your expectation then you design an experiment. This way you realize the truth yourself, problem is that people use the word 'science' as 'that thing that other people do to find out the truth' (where 'truth' is the thing you are supposed to believe unquestioningly since you are not a priest, sorry.. scientist).
Scientists learn awful lot without checking from books, articles and talks. Each scientist tests and verifies only tiny little part of he or she considers science. And they typically assume that non cutting edge parts are correct, unless there is very strong reason to doubt that.
It does cause too much inertia in some cases and it can be hard to overturn old theories, but it also makes science overall possible.
It does cause too much inertia in some cases and it can be hard to overturn old theories, but it also makes science overall possible.
I believe the paradox you point out is taking it to the extreme. This is the parent poster's sentiment: You don't care deeply about a rejection outcome, but you care enough about a positive outcome to give it a shot and see what happens. If it happens to be the case that the receiving party rejects you, you should not care and move on easily. I think the benefit of making a good friend far outweighs the cost of rejection, so much so that we are willing to give it a few hundred shots.
For some people, the chances are so low that the chances range in thousands, not hundreds, and then they start giving up.
For some people, the chances are so low that the chances range in thousands, not hundreds, and then they start giving up.
Definitely some tension between the two. Maybe another way of saying it is that it's helpful to simultaneously work toward a specific outcome that you would enjoy or prefer, but not be attached to in a way that'd create resentment if it doesn't happen.
Doing this when it comes to investing in relationships seems to decrease the sense of pressure and increase the sense of possibility and fun.
Doing this when it comes to investing in relationships seems to decrease the sense of pressure and increase the sense of possibility and fun.
You can try to make them like you but if they don’t it’s fine too and you can move on. It’s like sports. For some people losing is the worst thing and they go crazy. Other people like playing but they are fine losing and won’t stop playing.
I have some level of social anxiety and for me rejection can be devastating for a long time. Other people I know will just move on from that rejection “no big deal”
I have some level of social anxiety and for me rejection can be devastating for a long time. Other people I know will just move on from that rejection “no big deal”
Think about it as "putting in the effort could be a net positive, if it works out, but if it doesn't it's not a big deal and it's fine to try again with someone else".
Worth the effort, but not attaching overly much weight or importance to the outcome.
Worth the effort, but not attaching overly much weight or importance to the outcome.
One can try something without investing in others' perception of its success. I often make an effort to be likeable, but if people don't like me, then that's often their problem, not mine.
Emotional distance. Talk to a doctor or criminal lawyer. An important part of the job is to work really hard without getting distracted by emotional response to the details.
> caring too much about other people's feelings is an anti-super power
How much is too much and how little is being plainly emotionally irresponsible?
> just assuming that the other person doesn't like me, and then making a conscious decision to make the effort to make them like me
How would you manage trying too much?
> I think being attractive (personality) and likable is a trainable social skill, and once you do it often enough the effort becomes effortless.
How about people that engage in social activities everyday and the social anxiety is always there?
> Of course a mind reading device to skip the presentation stuff would also be nice.
Even if you had such a device, would you be able to interpret what you read from someone else's mind?
I really think the problem is more complex than what you are advising here.
How much is too much and how little is being plainly emotionally irresponsible?
> just assuming that the other person doesn't like me, and then making a conscious decision to make the effort to make them like me
How would you manage trying too much?
> I think being attractive (personality) and likable is a trainable social skill, and once you do it often enough the effort becomes effortless.
How about people that engage in social activities everyday and the social anxiety is always there?
> Of course a mind reading device to skip the presentation stuff would also be nice.
Even if you had such a device, would you be able to interpret what you read from someone else's mind?
I really think the problem is more complex than what you are advising here.
> How much is too much and how little is being plainly emotionally irresponsible?
Don't have a definitive answer to this one, but perhaps callously I would say care more about the feelings of people who already reciprocates your attention. You are under no obligation to care about the feelings of people who don't care about yours. So when you are just starting out trying to make friends with someone, don't worry about their feelings at all, but you should feel more responsibility after you have established a trust relationship.
> How would you manage trying too much?
Just experience, even if you mess up a few times and come across as trying too hard it's ok. Really not the end of the world, people perceive that embarrassment to be more important than it is. Most people should like your effort, and for those that don't you can adjust. Sometimes those people even end up missing your effort when you stop trying.
> How about people that engage in social activities everyday and the social anxiety is always there?
It's possible that person did it too late? I know the mind is less malleable as we get into our 20s, training to operate fluently in society is typically done in middle school. I'm not a neuroscientist so I can't say with any authority, but the effort->effortless might not apply to people who start the process later in life.
> Even if you had such a device, would you be able to interpret what you read from someone else's mind?
I spend enough time thinking about my own feelings and understanding them that I think I would recognize the same in other people. I don't think other people have uniquely complex emotions and perspectives that I never experienced, but if I got a device I would probably be even more of an expert at recognizing other people's emotions. Sort of like how babies these days grow up with ipads and are more digital natives, if this device actually exists the next generation would be emotion-reading natives.
Hope my reply was useful.
Don't have a definitive answer to this one, but perhaps callously I would say care more about the feelings of people who already reciprocates your attention. You are under no obligation to care about the feelings of people who don't care about yours. So when you are just starting out trying to make friends with someone, don't worry about their feelings at all, but you should feel more responsibility after you have established a trust relationship.
> How would you manage trying too much?
Just experience, even if you mess up a few times and come across as trying too hard it's ok. Really not the end of the world, people perceive that embarrassment to be more important than it is. Most people should like your effort, and for those that don't you can adjust. Sometimes those people even end up missing your effort when you stop trying.
> How about people that engage in social activities everyday and the social anxiety is always there?
It's possible that person did it too late? I know the mind is less malleable as we get into our 20s, training to operate fluently in society is typically done in middle school. I'm not a neuroscientist so I can't say with any authority, but the effort->effortless might not apply to people who start the process later in life.
> Even if you had such a device, would you be able to interpret what you read from someone else's mind?
I spend enough time thinking about my own feelings and understanding them that I think I would recognize the same in other people. I don't think other people have uniquely complex emotions and perspectives that I never experienced, but if I got a device I would probably be even more of an expert at recognizing other people's emotions. Sort of like how babies these days grow up with ipads and are more digital natives, if this device actually exists the next generation would be emotion-reading natives.
Hope my reply was useful.
It certainly clarifies a lot. Sorry for the 20 questions.
There is no conflict about not giving a fuck and being agreeable and likable, you see most people think of "not giving a fuck" as some sort of punk rock attitude, but really "not giving a fuck" is the same as not having attachment to external judgement, it can be fun, exciting, imaginative and engaged in-the-moment freedom. It's about turning off the inner self evaluating voice like you must do for certain activities (improv for example.)
Be "Agreeable", be a good person, be a good conversationalist (by learning about a wide range of things and speaking about them with curiosity and excitement instead of to show off what you know), smile and have fun, interesting, or silly things other people can join in on, be slightly curious about the person in front of you. Don't do this for them, or to make them like you, do this because you think being awesome and connected has inherent beauty and you want to be more beautiful.
Also don't give a fuck, you see, that gives you the chance to be silly and fun, if you aren't self conscious and a few other people join you, people will have fun in spite of themselves, it's like everyone of every body type wearing string bikinis in Brazil, normalize a fun free environment and people will eventually chill and realize they don't have to cover their "imperfections" and will get outside their own heads a little bit.
Be "Agreeable", be a good person, be a good conversationalist (by learning about a wide range of things and speaking about them with curiosity and excitement instead of to show off what you know), smile and have fun, interesting, or silly things other people can join in on, be slightly curious about the person in front of you. Don't do this for them, or to make them like you, do this because you think being awesome and connected has inherent beauty and you want to be more beautiful.
Also don't give a fuck, you see, that gives you the chance to be silly and fun, if you aren't self conscious and a few other people join you, people will have fun in spite of themselves, it's like everyone of every body type wearing string bikinis in Brazil, normalize a fun free environment and people will eventually chill and realize they don't have to cover their "imperfections" and will get outside their own heads a little bit.
I think the inability to find a price here also has to do with value. To develop a relationship with someone requires that you offer value in the form of conversation, entertainment, etc.
People are most attracted to attractive people. (And by "attractive" I mean primarily personality characteristics.) Most people seem to actually have an aversion to lonely people whether conscious or subconscious. Perhaps it's an old social defense mechanism from times in our history where it was dangerous to associate with unpopular people. You were more likely to be shunned as well and less likely to be given mating opportunities.
I often go out of my way to talk to the wall flowers and shy people that no one is talking to, but I've found by and large, they are also much harder to talk to! It's much more work to stoke the conversation, and we all know there's a threshold there, below which, the conversation just isn't stable. Putting two wall flowers together has a much lower conversational success rate (which is a basic minimum hurdle to continuing any kind of social relationship) than two social people.
It's a tough nut to crack, and I don't think unknown intentions is the problem.
People are most attracted to attractive people. (And by "attractive" I mean primarily personality characteristics.) Most people seem to actually have an aversion to lonely people whether conscious or subconscious. Perhaps it's an old social defense mechanism from times in our history where it was dangerous to associate with unpopular people. You were more likely to be shunned as well and less likely to be given mating opportunities.
I often go out of my way to talk to the wall flowers and shy people that no one is talking to, but I've found by and large, they are also much harder to talk to! It's much more work to stoke the conversation, and we all know there's a threshold there, below which, the conversation just isn't stable. Putting two wall flowers together has a much lower conversational success rate (which is a basic minimum hurdle to continuing any kind of social relationship) than two social people.
It's a tough nut to crack, and I don't think unknown intentions is the problem.
> I think the inability to find a price here also has to do with value. To develop a relationship with someone requires that you offer value in the form of conversation, entertainment, etc.
I think part of the problem here is forcing everything to be viewed through the lens of market economics and trying to make every human activity a kind of market exchange. Markets are a powerful paradigm in some contexts, but they're not the end-all-be-all of human behavior.
Loneliness may be a product of marketization of social relationships, so market-thinking won't offer a path out.
I think part of the problem here is forcing everything to be viewed through the lens of market economics and trying to make every human activity a kind of market exchange. Markets are a powerful paradigm in some contexts, but they're not the end-all-be-all of human behavior.
Loneliness may be a product of marketization of social relationships, so market-thinking won't offer a path out.
This exchange triggered me:
I'm so sick of the "market" paradigm. It's seeped so deeply into every cultural value we have blinded us to many parts of life.
Everything is a market now. Every waking moment your time is on the market. Every thought you have is either contributing to "value" or worthless. Every social interaction is an exchange of value. Every relationship is "optimized." Everyone is an atomized economic actor.
This idea has completely outlived its usefulness and is like a sort of cultural grey goo that corrodes humanity from the inside out.
Sorry, rant over.
I'm so sick of the "market" paradigm. It's seeped so deeply into every cultural value we have blinded us to many parts of life.
Everything is a market now. Every waking moment your time is on the market. Every thought you have is either contributing to "value" or worthless. Every social interaction is an exchange of value. Every relationship is "optimized." Everyone is an atomized economic actor.
This idea has completely outlived its usefulness and is like a sort of cultural grey goo that corrodes humanity from the inside out.
Sorry, rant over.
> Everything is a market now. Every waking moment your time is on the market. Every thought you have is either contributing to "value" or worthless. Every social interaction is an exchange of value. Every relationship is "optimized." Everyone is an atomized economic actor.
You might want to check out The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi. I'm about 3/4 of the way through, and it's been eye-opening.
You might want to check out The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi. I'm about 3/4 of the way through, and it's been eye-opening.
I'm glad you bring up this perspective; I feel that reducing these kinds of subjects to some analogy of market forces ends up being really dehumanizing. Especially with things like loneliness and social interaction, it seems that portraying it as trades and estimates of value will sanitize the subject so much that it stops being helpful.
A similar topic (dating on Tinder becoming a market) was covered pretty well recently by The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/02/modern-da...
A similar topic (dating on Tinder becoming a market) was covered pretty well recently by The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/02/modern-da...
Does it stop being helpful though? I somewhat understand the idea of "you can't talk about humans like that", but in the end I don't buy it. If it accurately describes the situation and enables you to think about it and get ideas by transferring what we know about other markets/interactions etc, isn't that better than putting human interaction, mental health etc into a corner of "this is so special that we must not think about it in trivial terms"?
Of course, the usefulness depends on how well the market concept fits the situation, but I don't feel like rejecting the idea on principle is helpful. It's similar to the idea of "you can't put a price tag on a human life", when of course we're doing that and we need to do it.
Of course, the usefulness depends on how well the market concept fits the situation, but I don't feel like rejecting the idea on principle is helpful. It's similar to the idea of "you can't put a price tag on a human life", when of course we're doing that and we need to do it.
" If it accurately describes the situation and enables you to think about it and get ideas by transferring what we know about other markets/interactions etc, isn't that better than putting human interaction, mental health etc into a corner of "this is so special that we must not think about it in trivial terms"?"
Consider the following: It doesn't accurately describe the situation and that is what people are arguing.
Consider the following: It doesn't accurately describe the situation and that is what people are arguing.
I don't really see that argument, it looks more like "you shouldn't think of humans in those terms".
Not "this doesn't work, look, that model has no predictive power", just "it's not okay to think like that". To me, that's mostly just closing your eyes and wishing really hard that human reality isn't profane and cannot be (roughly) described by (relatively) simple models.
I see similar reactions in discussions about free will (or lack thereof) where some people seem to be insulted by the idea that humans aren't special and fundamentally different from animals, not just (much) smarter versions with opposable thumbs.
Not "this doesn't work, look, that model has no predictive power", just "it's not okay to think like that". To me, that's mostly just closing your eyes and wishing really hard that human reality isn't profane and cannot be (roughly) described by (relatively) simple models.
I see similar reactions in discussions about free will (or lack thereof) where some people seem to be insulted by the idea that humans aren't special and fundamentally different from animals, not just (much) smarter versions with opposable thumbs.
If the person you are speaking with don't think about the people in such terms, don't treat them as such and socializes primary with people who don't treat him in such a way, then that person is not closing eyes from anything. His interactions with others are not like you described.
Instead, that person is expressing moral, ethical or emotional base for his own behavior and thinking when he objects with "you shouldn't think of humans in those terms". One does not have to be able to make full fledged philosophical theory about own behavior and behavior of chosen acquaintances in order to know that what you say does not match his experience.
And this is the case where your believes influence your experience and outcomes. And more importantly, the prevalent believe in community you are in heavily influences peoples experience and outcome. Whether you are able to express them neatly or not, whether you are able to perform well in debate or not.
Instead, that person is expressing moral, ethical or emotional base for his own behavior and thinking when he objects with "you shouldn't think of humans in those terms". One does not have to be able to make full fledged philosophical theory about own behavior and behavior of chosen acquaintances in order to know that what you say does not match his experience.
And this is the case where your believes influence your experience and outcomes. And more importantly, the prevalent believe in community you are in heavily influences peoples experience and outcome. Whether you are able to express them neatly or not, whether you are able to perform well in debate or not.
> If the person you are speaking with don't think about the people in such terms, don't treat them as such and socializes primary with people who don't treat him in such a way, then that person is not closing eyes from anything.
My experience is: they don't think about people and their interaction at all. If you ask them why something is happening etc, i.e. get them thinking about it, they'll start to come up with explanations that sound a lot like that.
Which is fine, btw. Nobody has to think about anything if they're happy and doing well, questioning things might change that. If you're in a good place, you don't need to move. But thinking isn't really a choice, and neither are beliefs, mental models and experiences. Blaming those that weren't blessed with an intuitive access to relationships sounds a lot like blaming the poor for not being born rich or telling a depressed person to "just stop being sad".
My experience is: they don't think about people and their interaction at all. If you ask them why something is happening etc, i.e. get them thinking about it, they'll start to come up with explanations that sound a lot like that.
Which is fine, btw. Nobody has to think about anything if they're happy and doing well, questioning things might change that. If you're in a good place, you don't need to move. But thinking isn't really a choice, and neither are beliefs, mental models and experiences. Blaming those that weren't blessed with an intuitive access to relationships sounds a lot like blaming the poor for not being born rich or telling a depressed person to "just stop being sad".
I admit I may have had the tone of "you shouldn't think of humans on those terms," but I emphasize that the point I wanted to make was precisely that the reductionist economic perspective fails to describe how loneliness works. Friendship (and relationships in general) do not align with this sort of model.
To me, attributing these messy interpersonal connections to markets is somewhat handwave-y; it's an unfalsifiable just-so story to explain the behavior, and I think it does more harm than good to think about it on these terms. Again, I would direct you to the Atlantic article I linked above about Tinder. It makes a stronger case than I could that viewing relationships in this way ends up backfiring.
To me, attributing these messy interpersonal connections to markets is somewhat handwave-y; it's an unfalsifiable just-so story to explain the behavior, and I think it does more harm than good to think about it on these terms. Again, I would direct you to the Atlantic article I linked above about Tinder. It makes a stronger case than I could that viewing relationships in this way ends up backfiring.
I don't really see how friendships and relationships in general don't align with that sort of model. Can you reduce them to purely mathematical transaction values? Of course not. Are they totally unlike any other markets where two people "trade" and both feel they get something of value? For voluntary relationships (i.e. it's different for your immediate family than for random people you meet): I don't think so. A market-model-based explanation doesn't deny that there's some non-trivial background, it just seeks to analyze how things happen, and it does an okay job in most cases.
The Atlantic article (which I'm obviously not the target audience for, I find them hard to read with all their side stories and presenting n=1 anecdotes as meaningful) seems to not argue about the idea that they are markets, but rather that we shouldn't consider them as markets when we are engaged in it, i.e. if you're having a good time with A, you shouldn't wonder whether you could have had a slightly better time if you had met with B. Don't treat your friendships as you might buying a cell phone. Even business relationships have shifted in that direction, in my experience, it's a pretty recent thing to "shop around" and switch providers because you might save a few bucks.
That's a different issue though, I don't believe that's happening because economists or sociologists use market-models to analyze relationships. Tinder and the commoditization of dating, like-count-fetishizing etc are not a thing because somebody said "hey, you know how car sales work? we should manage our relationships that way". Rather, it's how humans work on a very low level and these technologies and trends are just exposing that by giving people a way to visibly act on it. This isn't new, and pointing it out doesn't cause it, neither will it vanish if we just don't mention it and pretend it's not real.
The Atlantic article (which I'm obviously not the target audience for, I find them hard to read with all their side stories and presenting n=1 anecdotes as meaningful) seems to not argue about the idea that they are markets, but rather that we shouldn't consider them as markets when we are engaged in it, i.e. if you're having a good time with A, you shouldn't wonder whether you could have had a slightly better time if you had met with B. Don't treat your friendships as you might buying a cell phone. Even business relationships have shifted in that direction, in my experience, it's a pretty recent thing to "shop around" and switch providers because you might save a few bucks.
That's a different issue though, I don't believe that's happening because economists or sociologists use market-models to analyze relationships. Tinder and the commoditization of dating, like-count-fetishizing etc are not a thing because somebody said "hey, you know how car sales work? we should manage our relationships that way". Rather, it's how humans work on a very low level and these technologies and trends are just exposing that by giving people a way to visibly act on it. This isn't new, and pointing it out doesn't cause it, neither will it vanish if we just don't mention it and pretend it's not real.
"I don't really see how friendships and relationships in general don't align with that sort of model. Can you reduce them to purely mathematical transaction values? Of course not."
This is why you cannot use a mathematical model to model behavior that cannot be mathematically reduced. I'm extremely confused how you can claim there's any accuracy in thinking something as a testable model on something that cannot be tested as a model.
This is why you cannot use a mathematical model to model behavior that cannot be mathematically reduced. I'm extremely confused how you can claim there's any accuracy in thinking something as a testable model on something that cannot be tested as a model.
You cannot reduce any decisions on any markets, at some point you're going "huh, I guess free will or the universe or randomness? idk", but that doesn't make the models useless. They can be tested. Take Tinder, make predictions how people behave differently if e.g. you change the gender balance, test it.
My point about "you cannot reduce it" isn't about the model, but about relationships themselves. You can't just go "look, here's the fact sheet" because it's way too complex and we don't know all the variables etc pp, but overall, in larger numbers, you can very much use models to predict general behavior. Not on an individual level, but very much so on a group level. Much like in any market, where you will always have outliers that act totally different than what your models predict, but you'll also have the bulk that behaves the way your model predicts. If they don't, your model isn't good. That's not the case for models looking at relationships as markets though.
My point about "you cannot reduce it" isn't about the model, but about relationships themselves. You can't just go "look, here's the fact sheet" because it's way too complex and we don't know all the variables etc pp, but overall, in larger numbers, you can very much use models to predict general behavior. Not on an individual level, but very much so on a group level. Much like in any market, where you will always have outliers that act totally different than what your models predict, but you'll also have the bulk that behaves the way your model predicts. If they don't, your model isn't good. That's not the case for models looking at relationships as markets though.
What people mean when they say "you can't talk about humans like that" is usually that a.) they don't think it works like that b.) it goes against their personal values when dealing with other people.
And to put in personal observation: the same community and people who tend to talk about about relationships in transnational way, is the community that also constantly deals and writes about loneliness.
The community where people generally think that "this is not ok way to talk about humans", is a community where loneliness is less acute problem. Even if they dont have full fledged philosophy of why it is so and could not win the "who is going to destroy who with arguments" game, it leads them toward strategies and behaviors that make average person less lonely.
And to put in personal observation: the same community and people who tend to talk about about relationships in transnational way, is the community that also constantly deals and writes about loneliness.
The community where people generally think that "this is not ok way to talk about humans", is a community where loneliness is less acute problem. Even if they dont have full fledged philosophy of why it is so and could not win the "who is going to destroy who with arguments" game, it leads them toward strategies and behaviors that make average person less lonely.
> it goes against their personal values when dealing with other people
It's my impression as well that this is the main motive behind those reactions. I don't see why though. It's as if thinking about humans as actors in a model, or thinking about them as meat robots that aren't blessed with free will etc automatically makes you a Bond villain that want's to enslave humanity. I don't see how that follows. Understanding humans better, their behavior, reactions, emotions etc enables you to understand them, help them, make them happy, support them etc.
Re relatedness to loneliness: possibly. My personal observation is that most people who self-identify as lonely lean heavily towards intellectualism and wanting to understand things instead of emotionality and being happy with intuition. Naturally, they'd think (and write) about what they don't understand.
I don't believe you can turn that around though. Similarly to learning to read a language forces you to read a language (short of closing your eyes or looking away, you cannot escape recognizing and interpreting the characters and words that are in front of you), you can't just say "oh, so because I understand the world to function this way, I'm lonely? Cool, I'll just pick a different mental model of the world".
It's my impression as well that this is the main motive behind those reactions. I don't see why though. It's as if thinking about humans as actors in a model, or thinking about them as meat robots that aren't blessed with free will etc automatically makes you a Bond villain that want's to enslave humanity. I don't see how that follows. Understanding humans better, their behavior, reactions, emotions etc enables you to understand them, help them, make them happy, support them etc.
Re relatedness to loneliness: possibly. My personal observation is that most people who self-identify as lonely lean heavily towards intellectualism and wanting to understand things instead of emotionality and being happy with intuition. Naturally, they'd think (and write) about what they don't understand.
I don't believe you can turn that around though. Similarly to learning to read a language forces you to read a language (short of closing your eyes or looking away, you cannot escape recognizing and interpreting the characters and words that are in front of you), you can't just say "oh, so because I understand the world to function this way, I'm lonely? Cool, I'll just pick a different mental model of the world".
It is that thinking about humans as meat robots that aren't blessed with free will makes you unable to understand them, help them, make them happy, support them etc.
> My personal observation is that most people who self-identify as lonely lean heavily towards intellectualism and wanting to understand things instead of emotionality and being happy with intuition.
They are emotional too. Pretty common phenomenon about contemporary people who lean heavily towards intellectualism is that they rationalize and explain away their feelings and emotions based decisions.
What you call being happy with intuition is sometimes taking into account complexities that can not be neatly simplified.
For example, the honest truth is that they did something out of anger, fear, wish to show up, but they will go out of their way to frame action as thought out and logical. Their opinion may be actually subjective, based on sympathies and feelings, but they will spend hours constructing elaborate arguments for why the feeling was actually objective.
This makes it harder to reason about other people too and harder to understand complex reasons behind why others do what they do.
> My personal observation is that most people who self-identify as lonely lean heavily towards intellectualism and wanting to understand things instead of emotionality and being happy with intuition.
They are emotional too. Pretty common phenomenon about contemporary people who lean heavily towards intellectualism is that they rationalize and explain away their feelings and emotions based decisions.
What you call being happy with intuition is sometimes taking into account complexities that can not be neatly simplified.
For example, the honest truth is that they did something out of anger, fear, wish to show up, but they will go out of their way to frame action as thought out and logical. Their opinion may be actually subjective, based on sympathies and feelings, but they will spend hours constructing elaborate arguments for why the feeling was actually objective.
This makes it harder to reason about other people too and harder to understand complex reasons behind why others do what they do.
> This makes it harder to reason about other people too and harder to understand complex reasons behind why others do what they do.
You've literally just reasoned about their behavior in a humans-arent-special way, and understanding that people do things for reasons other than what they say (or even think themselves), and that those reasons are usually pretty basic enables you to react to their actions and opinions differently.
That's another thing I've noticed: almost everybody starts to think about humans in that way once they start thinking about humans and human behavior. That's similar with the "does human life have a value" idea, where even those that shriek at the thought and claim that you it's immeasurable will usually agree that you should put children (and women) into the life-boats first (which, of course, isn't possible if it's immeasurable). To me, it just looks like they don't want to acknowledge their thoughts and intuitions, like somebody not accepting their personal desires and rationalizing it with increasingly strange explanations instead of just saying "I want ice cream". I don't believe that's a healthy approach.
You've literally just reasoned about their behavior in a humans-arent-special way, and understanding that people do things for reasons other than what they say (or even think themselves), and that those reasons are usually pretty basic enables you to react to their actions and opinions differently.
That's another thing I've noticed: almost everybody starts to think about humans in that way once they start thinking about humans and human behavior. That's similar with the "does human life have a value" idea, where even those that shriek at the thought and claim that you it's immeasurable will usually agree that you should put children (and women) into the life-boats first (which, of course, isn't possible if it's immeasurable). To me, it just looks like they don't want to acknowledge their thoughts and intuitions, like somebody not accepting their personal desires and rationalizing it with increasingly strange explanations instead of just saying "I want ice cream". I don't believe that's a healthy approach.
> You've literally just reasoned about their behavior in a humans-arent-special way
This is simply not true. What I wrote has literally nothing to do with whether humans are special or not.
It is literally you who will flip and frame pretty much any verbal explanation of anything that way.
This is simply not true. What I wrote has literally nothing to do with whether humans are special or not.
It is literally you who will flip and frame pretty much any verbal explanation of anything that way.
I agree the commodification of social relations definitely results in bad outcomes for mental health. Terms like the "sexual marketplace" are particularly abhorrent.
[deleted]
Yes. The market lens is deeply distorting, frequently obscuring more than it illuminates.
You can try to shove anything involving scarcity into the economic analysis framework. And doing so might tell you something interesting! But it frequently will say nothing about other major aspects.
Taking a strictly biological view of relationship formation is just as valid. And doing so might tell you something interesting! But...
For some reason, a lot of folks get econ brain worms and start discounting other modes of analysis. It is really too bad; economic analysis has a lot of non-obvious insight, but ends up frequently being blinkered.
You can try to shove anything involving scarcity into the economic analysis framework. And doing so might tell you something interesting! But it frequently will say nothing about other major aspects.
Taking a strictly biological view of relationship formation is just as valid. And doing so might tell you something interesting! But...
For some reason, a lot of folks get econ brain worms and start discounting other modes of analysis. It is really too bad; economic analysis has a lot of non-obvious insight, but ends up frequently being blinkered.
> Taking a strictly biological view of relationship formation is just as valid.
What would that look like?
What would that look like?
From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other [1]
[1] Richard Dawkins - Selfish Gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)
[1] Richard Dawkins - Selfish Gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)
Wouldn't that still fit nicely in a market concept? Considering it as a market with options (in this case: different degrees of relatedness?) where every actor tries to optimize their success works well with the valuation of options being defined by an external metric.
Perhaps where the market thought model breaks down is that in a marketplace, the value of the product offered is compared against the price and the transaction goes forward or does not. Friendship requires some sustained investment and so might be modelled more like a chemical reaction: high activation energy to gain new friends with comparatively lesser energy going into the interaction once the friendship has been established. With this model, it makes sense that individuals would seek to maintain existing friendship instead of acquiring new ones because the energy expenditure is much lower in the former than the latter.
"I often go out of my way to talk to the wall flowers and shy people that no one is talking to, but I've found by and large, they are also much harder to talk to!"
Conversational ability comes with practice, and those people probably just haven't gotten enough practice yet.
Also, some people are just naturally reserved, and it takes a while for them to warm up to you and start talking more freely.
Conversational ability comes with practice, and those people probably just haven't gotten enough practice yet.
Also, some people are just naturally reserved, and it takes a while for them to warm up to you and start talking more freely.
Parent comment seemed to connect the topic of loneliness to wall flowers and shy people, implying they are lonely. Parent then explained that trying to engage with them is difficult, which may explain why they are lonely.
You have offered explanations for why they are difficult to engage with. This seems to miss the point. If they are lonely because they are difficult to engage with, excuses are not relevant or compassionate. What might be a solution?
You have offered explanations for why they are difficult to engage with. This seems to miss the point. If they are lonely because they are difficult to engage with, excuses are not relevant or compassionate. What might be a solution?
I find many "wallflowers" have deep passions that they'll love to talk about if they think they are being taken seriously. But many of those same people often haven't cultivated the ability to chat about non-passionate topics (small talk) -- and it takes purposeful effort to build up the small talk muscles and do it well and not everybody takes the time to do it.
A source of loneliness can be not readily finding other people who share the same deep, unique, passions and that can turn into a vicious cycle that feeds the loneliness monster.
A source of loneliness can be not readily finding other people who share the same deep, unique, passions and that can turn into a vicious cycle that feeds the loneliness monster.
I think there are more "primary" characteristics like kindness or say dependability that we often miss in these kinds of conversations (sic.). Yes there's conversation, entertainment and prowess in bed?, but there are also more basic values that a person cannot help bit bring to a relationship.
As someone who can switch on and off, honestly I’m a wallflower much of the time just because I’m not in the mood. Or I’m tired. Or I’m there out of social obligation.
You’ll find me nigh impossible to engage in conversation. Because I’m actively trying not to.
But find me in a social mood and I’m the life of the party. It really depends.
You’ll find me nigh impossible to engage in conversation. Because I’m actively trying not to.
But find me in a social mood and I’m the life of the party. It really depends.
I wonder why some people think that relationships are transactions. I also associate such thinking with lower empathy and stronger sociopathy tendencies.
Not sure why everyone is hammering me on that one, since I don't think of relationships as transactional and I was just continuing the language of the analogy presented in the article.
Conversations however, which are almost ubiquitously a prerequisite for friendship and connection, ARE heavily transactional on a fundamental level.
I do think that it is important to consider what you look like to other people though. Are you offering them positivity, wit, humor, etc.?
Conversations however, which are almost ubiquitously a prerequisite for friendship and connection, ARE heavily transactional on a fundamental level.
I do think that it is important to consider what you look like to other people though. Are you offering them positivity, wit, humor, etc.?
Relationships are inherently transactions. Literally the defining act is transferring things between people, be those ideas, items, emotions, actions, etc.
Perhaps you mean that some people view relationships as zero-sum, that in any interaction someone is gaining at the other's expense. That is rather obviously incorrect, yet as a strategy serves social parasites well (so long as they remain a minority).
Perhaps you mean that some people view relationships as zero-sum, that in any interaction someone is gaining at the other's expense. That is rather obviously incorrect, yet as a strategy serves social parasites well (so long as they remain a minority).
Judith Butler has spent a good portion of her career exploring this concept from a non tech third wave feminist view point, and I have found her work to be incredibly insightful and applicable to many discussions outside of feminism as well.
As a man, I have caught myself "performing" for other people on a regular basis. Wearing a suit to formal occasions. Shaking hands with a firm handshake. Laughing at jokes that I wouldn't laugh at in private. Are these things "me"? By outlining both mentally and on paper which behaviors I do for myself and which I do for other people I have unraveled a good portion of my character. Many of the behaviors I have decided to keep, despite knowing that they are a performance for others - the difference now being that I can feel confident that my performance is rooted in active decision and authenticity with how I want the world to perceive me, rather than a simple need to please others. This is an ongoing process.
As a man, I have caught myself "performing" for other people on a regular basis. Wearing a suit to formal occasions. Shaking hands with a firm handshake. Laughing at jokes that I wouldn't laugh at in private. Are these things "me"? By outlining both mentally and on paper which behaviors I do for myself and which I do for other people I have unraveled a good portion of my character. Many of the behaviors I have decided to keep, despite knowing that they are a performance for others - the difference now being that I can feel confident that my performance is rooted in active decision and authenticity with how I want the world to perceive me, rather than a simple need to please others. This is an ongoing process.
What's the boundary between "performing" and "behaving in a socially expected way"?
In my opinion the difference is that "behaving in a socially expected way" is following norms so that no bad attention is drawn to you or to prevent others from having negative experiences from your behavior, and "performing" is the constant feedback cycle of emulating behaviors and traits that you think will draw positive attention and create good experiences with others.
A good example is that most things people do to be polite are considered "behaving in a socially expected way" while interactions like a young adolescent male lowering their voice when talking to somebody they are attracted to is "performing".
Performance is common for many other interactions like dressing up and formalizing language for job interviews, "telephone voice", as well as matching posture and speaking style during interactions. Performance captures the potentially unfounded change in behavior to better a specific interaction. Many sitcoms often create comedic moments when performance for a specific interaction is not compatible with performance for another interaction, so when "worlds collide" (as in Seinfeld) the character has to either struggle with maintaining both performances, or choose one form of performance to stick with and ruin an interaction with some other situation.
A good example is that most things people do to be polite are considered "behaving in a socially expected way" while interactions like a young adolescent male lowering their voice when talking to somebody they are attracted to is "performing".
Performance is common for many other interactions like dressing up and formalizing language for job interviews, "telephone voice", as well as matching posture and speaking style during interactions. Performance captures the potentially unfounded change in behavior to better a specific interaction. Many sitcoms often create comedic moments when performance for a specific interaction is not compatible with performance for another interaction, so when "worlds collide" (as in Seinfeld) the character has to either struggle with maintaining both performances, or choose one form of performance to stick with and ruin an interaction with some other situation.
For me, 'performing' meant going above and beyond at social events to be the person with a witty one-liner or good observational humour.
It felt fine initially and I enjoyed the positive attention, but eventually it became a chore. No one is funny 100% of the time, and when I started thinking more about "How can i get a laugh from these people next time", that's a sign that I need to re-evaluate what I get out of this relationship.
The feeling should be "I'd like to hang out with these people with no expectations from them or from me" but that's not always there unless you have a specific level of comfort with those people.
It felt fine initially and I enjoyed the positive attention, but eventually it became a chore. No one is funny 100% of the time, and when I started thinking more about "How can i get a laugh from these people next time", that's a sign that I need to re-evaluate what I get out of this relationship.
The feeling should be "I'd like to hang out with these people with no expectations from them or from me" but that's not always there unless you have a specific level of comfort with those people.
On the other hand, if nobody in the room thinks you're cool enough to want to talk to you, the ambiguity in presentation is more a feature than a bug. You're wishing that we could read each other's minds, but only a subset of us would enjoy that knowledge. Please leave the rest of us space to indulge our illusions. They make some of us more social.
No you're thinking too much the cause of loneliness is living alone. It 100% starts and ends at how we live in modern society. Living spaces that have shared communal spaces for essential requirements like a kitchen, dining table or a Television room will end loneliness.
I have no doubt about this. The problem is, people living in these communal spaces complain about the lack of privacy or ownership. People don't know what they want even when the answer is in front of them. Humans have conflicting individualistic needs and needs for companionship as well, the dual nature of our desires actually evolved under communal living spaces so in actuality, despite the fact that you desire privacy, you're actually healthier if you give in to the alternative desire of companionship. People do need to own things but not to the extent that communal living spaces are abandoned.
What people think is that we're designed to search for this state of satisfaction even when living things aren't actually designed to ever reach this state. There is no evolutionary advantage to a creature who is perpetually content and therefore you will never be content. That being said my theory is humans are actually designed to live in communal spaces while being a bit discontent about the lack of privacy or ownership. This is the natural state of things similar to how you have endless desires to eat greasy unhealthy junk food but your desires are not evolved to be in an environment where such food is plentiful.
The alternative is to give in to your capitalistic desires and be lonely. I believe this is the worse alternative from pure anecdotal experience and from the way humans lived anthropologically in the past.
I have no doubt about this. The problem is, people living in these communal spaces complain about the lack of privacy or ownership. People don't know what they want even when the answer is in front of them. Humans have conflicting individualistic needs and needs for companionship as well, the dual nature of our desires actually evolved under communal living spaces so in actuality, despite the fact that you desire privacy, you're actually healthier if you give in to the alternative desire of companionship. People do need to own things but not to the extent that communal living spaces are abandoned.
What people think is that we're designed to search for this state of satisfaction even when living things aren't actually designed to ever reach this state. There is no evolutionary advantage to a creature who is perpetually content and therefore you will never be content. That being said my theory is humans are actually designed to live in communal spaces while being a bit discontent about the lack of privacy or ownership. This is the natural state of things similar to how you have endless desires to eat greasy unhealthy junk food but your desires are not evolved to be in an environment where such food is plentiful.
The alternative is to give in to your capitalistic desires and be lonely. I believe this is the worse alternative from pure anecdotal experience and from the way humans lived anthropologically in the past.
Whatever floats your boat.
I'm pretty lonely sometimes, and I wish I was nicer sometimes, and I wish people spoke my language more often. These things are harder when the culture is larger, as funny as it sounds.
Keeping up, is just so damn hard. Staying in requires trust, and empathy.
There's a sad paradox of our times. We both need to slow down and get to know each other, and we need to race to address the problems we all see plain as day.
Sadly, we're DISTRACTED. And the more distracted we are, the less we address the underlying issues.
</rant>
I'm pretty lonely sometimes, and I wish I was nicer sometimes, and I wish people spoke my language more often. These things are harder when the culture is larger, as funny as it sounds.
Keeping up, is just so damn hard. Staying in requires trust, and empathy.
There's a sad paradox of our times. We both need to slow down and get to know each other, and we need to race to address the problems we all see plain as day.
Sadly, we're DISTRACTED. And the more distracted we are, the less we address the underlying issues.
</rant>
My god, it's full of scroll bars. https://imgur.com/a/KcV6v5W
I've been thinking about this for a long time. About 5 years ago, me and some friends got together to build a "Dating app but for people looking for friends and activity partners".
Fortunately, we all quit before we got in too deep. It didn't seem like a problem that had any good solutions.
Today, I'm convinced that a technology solution is not the right approach. Screen addiction and various dopamine hits from social media have produced a catastrophic collapse of various IRL social institutions that traditionally facilitated opportunities to meet new people.
The most practical "if I had a magic wand..." solution that I can think of is to wave a magic wand and undo all forms of screen addictions that has destroyed our IRL social interactions.
Fortunately, we all quit before we got in too deep. It didn't seem like a problem that had any good solutions.
Today, I'm convinced that a technology solution is not the right approach. Screen addiction and various dopamine hits from social media have produced a catastrophic collapse of various IRL social institutions that traditionally facilitated opportunities to meet new people.
The most practical "if I had a magic wand..." solution that I can think of is to wave a magic wand and undo all forms of screen addictions that has destroyed our IRL social interactions.
Screen addiction and various dopamine hits from social media have produced a catastrophic collapse of various IRL social institutions that traditionally facilitated opportunities to meet new people.
The book "Bowling Alone" documented this collapse and was written between 1995-2000, well before the advent of smartphones and social media.
While I'm not convinced a technology solution is necessarily the right approach, what you're suggesting is straight up waldenponding.
The book "Bowling Alone" documented this collapse and was written between 1995-2000, well before the advent of smartphones and social media.
While I'm not convinced a technology solution is necessarily the right approach, what you're suggesting is straight up waldenponding.
> The book "Bowling Alone" documented this collapse and was written between 1995-2000, well before the advent of smartphones and social media.
Smartphones and social media may just be the latest and most extreme manifestation of technological changes that were already underway then. Before you had smartphone screens, you had television screens, etc.
Smartphones and social media may just be the latest and most extreme manifestation of technological changes that were already underway then. Before you had smartphone screens, you had television screens, etc.
A favorite book on this is Our Internal Conflicts by psychoanalyst Karen Horney.
Carl Rogers referred to congruence of the self, as we navigate to actualize ourselves against external introjections from parental / authority figures and society.
Both Rogers and Horney had concepts of an ideal self and the anxiety when we're strained by social pressures. The emotions are hard to articulate, and why bother, what's to gain in vulnerability? If we dare to say our feelings, we fear others will not regard us in a positive light. Our feelings will be hurt deeply. So, we shape ourselves based on the impressions we want the audience to see, which feels safe, but leaves us inner unease. We're not doing what we really want, we're pleasing others.
Another area to dig into is True self and false self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_and_false_self
In Social Psychology, related terms and concepts include self-monitoring, impression management (https://faculty.washington.edu/jdb/452/452_chapter_07.pdf)
> And they have good reason to: In a game theoretic way, unless they’re already inundated with social bids
Social Exchange Theory and CL-Alt covers this in greater detail: https://smashtyn.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/social-exchange-th...
Carl Rogers referred to congruence of the self, as we navigate to actualize ourselves against external introjections from parental / authority figures and society.
Both Rogers and Horney had concepts of an ideal self and the anxiety when we're strained by social pressures. The emotions are hard to articulate, and why bother, what's to gain in vulnerability? If we dare to say our feelings, we fear others will not regard us in a positive light. Our feelings will be hurt deeply. So, we shape ourselves based on the impressions we want the audience to see, which feels safe, but leaves us inner unease. We're not doing what we really want, we're pleasing others.
Another area to dig into is True self and false self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_and_false_self
In Social Psychology, related terms and concepts include self-monitoring, impression management (https://faculty.washington.edu/jdb/452/452_chapter_07.pdf)
> And they have good reason to: In a game theoretic way, unless they’re already inundated with social bids
Social Exchange Theory and CL-Alt covers this in greater detail: https://smashtyn.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/social-exchange-th...
What he mentions about people being superficially nice to allow for more selectiveness is very interesting. I think it’s hard to say that being direct from the get go about interest is ideal beyond that reason alone because friendship with people is something you build, not something you immediately just know you’ll have when you meet someone. If you don’t feign interest in the beginning you’ll miss out on all the people who you could have become good friends with only after a certain level of closeness.
While feigning interest causes people to second guess themselves, I think being direct could also do the same. If I know someone I’ve just met will tell me they don’t like me if I don’t give them a good impression I’ll be constantly trying to please them. Though I guess if you’re also trying to be highly direct things become even more complicated.
It seems like there are far more social dimensions to this than I’d first thought.
While feigning interest causes people to second guess themselves, I think being direct could also do the same. If I know someone I’ve just met will tell me they don’t like me if I don’t give them a good impression I’ll be constantly trying to please them. Though I guess if you’re also trying to be highly direct things become even more complicated.
It seems like there are far more social dimensions to this than I’d first thought.
[deleted]
I've always thought that my chosen superpower, if I could have one, would be as to tell by looking at someone what they honestly think about me.
Do they think I'm cool, weird, ugly, creepy, friendly etc.
I would never hsve to ask if someone is only pretending to like me or put up withe because they want something out of it.
Life would be so much easier, meeting people would be so much easier.
Do they think I'm cool, weird, ugly, creepy, friendly etc.
I would never hsve to ask if someone is only pretending to like me or put up withe because they want something out of it.
Life would be so much easier, meeting people would be so much easier.
I think you would be shocked by how little this power would be used.
Most of us drastically over-estimate how much other people are thinking about us.
I think 99% of the time you used this power you would find that people, know who you are, think of you as generally ok, with a slight positive association just for remembering your name, but no other significant opinions about you one way or the other.
By the time people actually develop strong opinions about you as a person, your superpower would no longer be necessary to learn what those opinions are.
Maybe a few times a year you would catch a hardcore "faker" though. So that is kind of cool.
Most of us drastically over-estimate how much other people are thinking about us.
I think 99% of the time you used this power you would find that people, know who you are, think of you as generally ok, with a slight positive association just for remembering your name, but no other significant opinions about you one way or the other.
By the time people actually develop strong opinions about you as a person, your superpower would no longer be necessary to learn what those opinions are.
Maybe a few times a year you would catch a hardcore "faker" though. So that is kind of cool.
Perhaps this person wants to use this superpower to gain a deeper understanding of their closest relationships?
I had this exercise at some point while at high school and in the psychology class. Everyone had to hang a blank paper on their backs. Then the professor asked to start chasing the other peers and write in their papers what you thought about him/her in the most honest way. Since the paper was on the back it was very difficult to see who was writing what. At the end of the exercise I was in shock. I could not believe what the people around was thinking about me. The stuff they wrote was not in line to what I was thinking of myself. It was very hard. After about 25 years I am still recalling that episode. Interesting exercise nonetheless.
I’d love being able to do that too but imagine if both of us had that same power. If we both have no prior experience with each other, it would either be wonderful (if both of us really have nothing we want to hide) or horrible (because instead of overthinking what the other person is thinking we’ll have to think about what we respectively think).
[deleted]
This is why I love dog tails. They can't help but show their authentic intentions
There is a budding sector of the economy now selling ‘authentic’ relating. Recycled cult indoctrination methods are easily repackaged as the solution to loneliness and lack of community.
Can we talk about why there are so many scrollbars on this page?
The css has "div{overflow:scroll}".
It looks like they fixed the issue.
Isn't the web a connection without presentation ? it works to an extent, I also think people have a need for deeper, thus presented connection.
It was, initially. Message boards would attract like minded people, and as the community grew, a culture of sorts would form. Still, people would set up in-person meetups, as there is that desire for deeper connection, as you mentioned.
With social networks, that went out the window. Interactions become performative, particularly among those that build up enough followers to become influences.
How many time have we seen posts like "What would you do in this situation?" with a meme image attached, or a "How's everyone doing this Monday?" type Instagram story. The poster doesn't care what the answer is, or who is answering. They just look to maximize the number of responses so their engagement score increases.
With social networks, that went out the window. Interactions become performative, particularly among those that build up enough followers to become influences.
How many time have we seen posts like "What would you do in this situation?" with a meme image attached, or a "How's everyone doing this Monday?" type Instagram story. The poster doesn't care what the answer is, or who is answering. They just look to maximize the number of responses so their engagement score increases.
No. It’s a low bandwidth communication medium which, because it is asynchronous, allows for more calculated choice of presentation (eg, Instagram).
orasis(2)
I don't think the problem is people's protective layers of presentation. We need those fictions when we're learning if we can trust someone. The problem is it's incredibly hard to form a bond with someone if you don't have a clear "why", and there's rarely that context anymore. There are a lot of people I meet Id love to be friends with, but it's awkward to just organise that without a social excuse sometimes. Especially because if the relationship goes poorly, if you have a common thing its easier to pull back, whereas if its just "want to be friends?", if you pull back it seems more personal.