Forces that fuel friendship(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Forces that fuel friendship
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/06/six-ways-make-maintain-friends/661232/
111 comments
https://archive.ph/pjtIk
So basically. Turn off the computer, delete GitHub, delete hackrank, turn off all my docker servers and swarms across the multiple library networks and then go out and talk to NPCs?
Not calling them "NPCs" is probably useful as well.
We all know "friendships" are just successfully completed quest chains.
The article says they are more like daily quests :P
Or "normies" while we are at it. A recent trend I am noticing more often on HN.
Hilarious considering hackernewsians are the normies of the online world.
That’s Reddit. On HN I sometimes find people with niche interests and expertise in all kinds of fields, which I like. It’s also relatively civilized. You don’t need to be a 4-chan edgelord to be not-normie.
HN broadly participated in the moral panic over lab leak theory being allowed to exist. This place is far more 'normie' than it likes to believe itself to be and is nowhere near as independent thinking as it pats itself on the back for being. But it does exceed Reddit in the percentage of posters who confuse their wealth for wisdom.
Reddit is just HN with lower standards of communication, puns, one word rebuttals, all that stuff is fair game there.
Being able to follow cultural norms of the local group is just about the least remarkable thing about any given group of humans. HN is not special.
Being able to follow cultural norms of the local group is just about the least remarkable thing about any given group of humans. HN is not special.
Reddit are the nerds/losers of the online-o-sphere.
Most people here also belong to other communities and code switch how they write.
It is an interesting comment in itself. Does HN ( and other online communities ) have their own peculiar jargon and it is used to identify in-group? I definitely noticed some recurring phrases, but it does not appear to be.. say.. as obvious as 4chan or imgur.
It's less jargon and more tone. Whereas a sarcastically snarky retort might fly on most forums, here it's more likely to net you downvotes. But the same content expressed without the sarcasm will be better-received.
What sort of online world are you considering here? Does it include facebook, twitter and reddit? Or do you mean the deep, niche autism-adjacent online world?
Agreed, "normies" is a fine shorthand for "people who are not concerned with the niche thing we're currently talking about", but seeing people who think of it as an actual category that they judge people by is a dangerous mental model that a lot of people on here seem to fall victim to.
We are amall group primates, it's our nature. Us vs Them. In and Out groups. Everyone is a victim of it.
Maybe your narrow-minded group believes in in- and out-groups, but not mine!
Ahh. You mean your "in-group" of people who don't believe in "in-groups".
This is tongue-in-cheek. :)
This is tongue-in-cheek. :)
There was a time I would lamented the need to be so explicit. But now, I'm just grateful the point got across. Communication seems to happen less and less reliably, with more error modes with greater negative emotional impact, and I worry that this implies the existence of some sort of inevitable drift between my brain and other people's brains. And I'm not sure if the solution is to bridge the gap, or just keep going and learn to accept inane resistance with some combination of stoicism and resigned amusement.
You will burn in sparrow-hell!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF3JLYwXUAAqDPP.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF3JLYwXUAAqDPP.jpg
Not sure how it applies, but it is funny in its own right. I mean, it's a good example of in- and out-groups, but it's not a good example of a group that denies the existence of out-groups (which is admittedly more self-referential and weird. You know, like an xkcd cartoon.)
It's also our nature to beat each other up on occasion. That doesn't mean we have to be victim of it.
Yes, absolutely. People are multidimensional. Most people may not care for your particular captivating niche interest, but some will find your excitement about it interesting and enjoy your excitement about it. And you can reciprocate that feeling towards their niche interests (almost everyone has at least one). Toss everyone who doesn't care about your thing into the same "normie" pile at your peril.
Which is ironic, because hackernewsians are the most conventional people this side of the Pentecostals.
I thought this was used typically for people “off the spectrum”.
Nah, despising an out-group is a bonding experience
https://xkcd.com/610/
https://xkcd.com/610/
yeah it’s a just way to covertly (by the videogamer crowd) call other people stupid.
Sheesh, Bethesda seems to have set staggeringly low expectations of NPCs...
pls don't delete GitHub I have stuff there
>> Turn off the computer, delete GitHub...
I've met a few people on github that could become real-world friends if circumstances ever bring us to the same place or we clicked in some additional ways. But yeah, that's not really happening in a pull request ;-)
I've met a few people on github that could become real-world friends if circumstances ever bring us to the same place or we clicked in some additional ways. But yeah, that's not really happening in a pull request ;-)
The friend app from the article:
https://bumble.com/bff
https://bumble.com/bff
I understand this is for self-identifying women. I've several friends who have had success. I wonder what the conditions might need to be for platonic male friendships to form, it seems to be harder. Judging from my position as a woman who easily makes acquaintances that occasionally become friendships, and my partner who is very amicable to strangers but doesn't care to make new friends.
Is self-identification really a thing? Identity seems more of a social artifact, emerging naturally from the collective dynamic.
Yes, it is.
Someone can self-identify as a gender (among other things), alter their appearance to present as such, and a kind and empathetic society will (should) then regard them as such.
Someone can self-identify as a gender (among other things), alter their appearance to present as such, and a kind and empathetic society will (should) then regard them as such.
It sounds to me like 2 different uses of "identity". One for distinguishing an individual. The other for asserting a narrative.
That's 2 quite different uses.
That's 2 quite different uses.
When you introduce yourself, you likely give a name. This was probably a name given to you, but really it could be anything you want. People call you that name out of courtesy. You "identity" is heavily influenced by how you want to be identified
Like your username. We call you by it because it is the name you chose and present to us
Like your username. We call you by it because it is the name you chose and present to us
We use the name I specify because it's useful to do so. No courtesy. Just utility.
And if I had a distinguishing feature, that would be used to identify me too.
If I wear a big hat then I will be identified as a big-hat-wearer. When asked to distinguish me in a crowd they will say, "that guy with the big hat". Telling everybody that I actually identify as a small-hat-wearer will make zero functional difference.
That's how distinguishing features work.
And if I had a distinguishing feature, that would be used to identify me too.
If I wear a big hat then I will be identified as a big-hat-wearer. When asked to distinguish me in a crowd they will say, "that guy with the big hat". Telling everybody that I actually identify as a small-hat-wearer will make zero functional difference.
That's how distinguishing features work.
Just think of self identity as something that minimizes the KL-divergence of description of one's self given the outside + inner world.
I tried this (as a male) and let’s just say it’s not exactly the type of “friendship” I was hoping for…
Where there's a pattern there's a strategy. This is surely not the last word on the subject, and it's not meant as a how-to guide, but it's a thoughtful and well presented set of observations which people can use - if they wish - to increase their success rate at making friends. That seems like it's a good thing, worth a couple of minutes to think about.
Based on the principles in the article and some of my anecdotal life experiences: Take some adult classes or lessons.
It can be anything, as long as you are genuinely interested in it. You don't have to be "passionate" (no one goes from zero-to-passion instantly).
Drawing. Cooking. Tennis. Yoga. Video editing.
Chances are you can meet someone in the class that you vibe with and the routine of working together to make the best of the lesson is a good way to make a friend.
If you get along well, try to convert to a friendship outside of the classroom by inviting them to get a smoothie afterward.
It can be anything, as long as you are genuinely interested in it. You don't have to be "passionate" (no one goes from zero-to-passion instantly).
Drawing. Cooking. Tennis. Yoga. Video editing.
Chances are you can meet someone in the class that you vibe with and the routine of working together to make the best of the lesson is a good way to make a friend.
If you get along well, try to convert to a friendship outside of the classroom by inviting them to get a smoothie afterward.
I learned there are only 2 pillars under friendship: shared interests and trust.
I think you can solely sustain a relationship with trust, lack of common interests can freeze it but does not necessarily extinguish it.
One person whom I consider wise said "Friends are people who support your limitations" if that helps
That's a very cynical perspective that seems to encourage self isolation and an emotionally barren life. Not sure if that's wise.
I think the OP meant that friend support you in overcoming your limitations. They support you where you are weak, not they perpetuate and grow your weaknesses.
or they accept your weaknesses and support you despite them.
I hope so, the way it's worded implies the opposite.
This is how I chose to interpret it as well.
If you can't handle me at my worst you don't deserve me at my best is a cliche way of saying the opposite.
If you can't handle me at my worst you don't deserve me at my best is a cliche way of saying the opposite.
Empirically speaking, I learned from a wise old friend that a party requires 4 things : Food, music, drugs and games.
And people at parties are similar to friends.
For what that's worth.
And people at parties are similar to friends.
For what that's worth.
I would say rather that it requires any two of those. You’ll get very different types of parties depending on which two you pick.
TLDR;
- Attention
- Accumulaton
- Intention
- Ritual
- Imagination
- Grace
You're welcome.
- Attention
- Accumulaton
- Intention
- Ritual
- Imagination
- Grace
You're welcome.
yay for listicils! Didn't Hackernews require you to remove that from the title?
I think you're overusing "listicle" here. Yes, the article is structured around six discrete ideas, but it has the general structure of a traditional essay and all fits on one page. That's a far cry from a true listicle which requires you to keep clicking to see single paragraphs interspersed with ads. Just having a number in the title doesn't make it a listicle. Also, read the guideline about shallow dismissals.
I don't know if something is missing from this article or if I have a very restrictive view of friendship. For example, when I was in college, there were a few people with which I talked pretty much everyday, had lunch with them, went to class with them. However, I don't really consider them my friends. They were a bit more like "colleagues". We never saw each others outside of college, and spending time with them doesn't fill me with energy like when I spend time with my friends. There are lots of things that they don't "get" if I talk about them, not as in "understand" but as in "get" on a fundamental level.
Following the framework of the article, either "attention" was missing, or something is missing from the article. In French we have an expression, "atomes crochus", which would be equivalent to "chemistry" in English. Without that, friendship isn't really possible for me, I'll always get "stuck" only at a certain level with those people. There's no mention of chemistry at all in this article. I get that it's a bit unfair, you can't decide to have good chemistry with someone, but at least for me that's how things are.
Following the framework of the article, either "attention" was missing, or something is missing from the article. In French we have an expression, "atomes crochus", which would be equivalent to "chemistry" in English. Without that, friendship isn't really possible for me, I'll always get "stuck" only at a certain level with those people. There's no mention of chemistry at all in this article. I get that it's a bit unfair, you can't decide to have good chemistry with someone, but at least for me that's how things are.
Friendship requires a shared experience in more than one context. Since you only saw those people in one context they did not become friends.
I don't think that's true, I've made friends at school while only seeing them at school. I saw them in other contexts only after being friends with them.
I clicked expecting to see some science-based research about what results in good friendships. Instead I found an opinion based listicle. Not necessarily a bad article for provoking thought, but definitely more opinion than fact.
I recently went to cross cultural a meetup where friendship was the topic of discussion. One thing I realized is that people struggle to agree on a definition of friendship. There's an especially noticeable divide between individualist and collectivist cultures.
My own definition of a friend is "someone with whom I have shared, positive experiences". But I do find that there's a difference between fast-friends, and long lasting, deep friendships. The six things mentioned in this article are definitely good things to consider if you want to develop long lasting friendships, but they're also not fixed formulas.
I recently went to cross cultural a meetup where friendship was the topic of discussion. One thing I realized is that people struggle to agree on a definition of friendship. There's an especially noticeable divide between individualist and collectivist cultures.
My own definition of a friend is "someone with whom I have shared, positive experiences". But I do find that there's a difference between fast-friends, and long lasting, deep friendships. The six things mentioned in this article are definitely good things to consider if you want to develop long lasting friendships, but they're also not fixed formulas.
To call this a listicle is technically accurate, but does a large disservice to the experience of the author. She has conducted ~1000 interviews with friends to determine the content of the list.
While this is not a peer-reviewed work, I would bet that her dataset and experience amounts to an easily publishable qualitative sociology/psychology paper.
While this is not a peer-reviewed work, I would bet that her dataset and experience amounts to an easily publishable qualitative sociology/psychology paper.
[deleted]
1000? I think it's closer to 100 - isn't it?
> That was more than three years ago. Since then, I have done 100 interviews.
> That was more than three years ago. Since then, I have done 100 interviews.
Ah, you are correct. It's 100, I remembered incorrectly.
Up to readers to decide if my point still stands. I think it does.
Up to readers to decide if my point still stands. I think it does.
If this is considered a publishable paper then the bar for that publication must be quite low.
Agreed, I was expecting more substance from this article.
I don't think its much of a stretch to view friendship as a concrete social problem. Especially good friendships in our professional spheres which are vital to career fulfillment and health imo.
Anyway there was (sadly) nothing realistically actionable in this article for anyone seeking something even vaguely science or stat based.
I don't think its much of a stretch to view friendship as a concrete social problem. Especially good friendships in our professional spheres which are vital to career fulfillment and health imo.
Anyway there was (sadly) nothing realistically actionable in this article for anyone seeking something even vaguely science or stat based.
>> Anyway there was (sadly) nothing realistically actionable in this article for anyone seeking something even vaguely science or stat based.
Actionable to achieve what? It makes clear that there is no fixed procedure for making friends, but there certainly are a lot of suggestions.
I suspect the many linked stories have a wealth of information and examples, but they will all be anecdotes where none of them could be forced to happen if we tried.
Actionable to achieve what? It makes clear that there is no fixed procedure for making friends, but there certainly are a lot of suggestions.
I suspect the many linked stories have a wealth of information and examples, but they will all be anecdotes where none of them could be forced to happen if we tried.
Since a lot of HN followers work in tech, their work sets their expectations for life in general. So, it's frustrating when something in life cannot be deterministically distilled into a series of steps. It's probably one of the biggest blindspots we have.
> I clicked expecting to see some science-based research about what results in good friendships.
This article is one in a series. See perhaps "The Friendship Researchers Who Are Also Friends":
> This week she talks with two friends who also happen to study friendship. They met at a conference back when very few relationship scholars were focusing on the topic, and became both friends and professional collaborators. They talk about what they’ve learned from their research and how they’ve applied those lessons in their own friendship.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/04/how-frien...
The series has been going on for a number of years:
* https://www.theatlantic.com/projects/friendship-files/
This article is one in a series. See perhaps "The Friendship Researchers Who Are Also Friends":
> This week she talks with two friends who also happen to study friendship. They met at a conference back when very few relationship scholars were focusing on the topic, and became both friends and professional collaborators. They talk about what they’ve learned from their research and how they’ve applied those lessons in their own friendship.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/04/how-frien...
The series has been going on for a number of years:
* https://www.theatlantic.com/projects/friendship-files/
I thought kind of the point of the article is that there is no hard and fast formula to it. Not something that can be distilled in a series of steps. It also requires spontaneity.
> science-based research about what results in good friendships
Isn't research like this deemed totally bunk and unrepeatable. Is it really better than a thoughtful 'listicle'.
Isn't research like this deemed totally bunk and unrepeatable. Is it really better than a thoughtful 'listicle'.
I think there are only 2 questions you need to answer to decide if someone is your friend.
1. Do you trust them?
2. Do you care about them?
Ideally it should reciprocated. The hard part is getting there, usually it comes naturally as you spend more time with the other person out of your own volition. Just because you are meeting someone everyday at work does not mean they will become your friends, do you trust them? do you care about them?
Once you friends you don't need to meet often as long the trust and care is still there. You can become friends in short time as well if you decide to put the trust early into the other person and they reciprocate. Point is, there is no formula or plan to follow.
When I say friend I mean a true friend, not colleagues or acquaintances. Were these meanings mixed into "friend" word before Facebook as well?
1. Do you trust them?
2. Do you care about them?
Ideally it should reciprocated. The hard part is getting there, usually it comes naturally as you spend more time with the other person out of your own volition. Just because you are meeting someone everyday at work does not mean they will become your friends, do you trust them? do you care about them?
Once you friends you don't need to meet often as long the trust and care is still there. You can become friends in short time as well if you decide to put the trust early into the other person and they reciprocate. Point is, there is no formula or plan to follow.
When I say friend I mean a true friend, not colleagues or acquaintances. Were these meanings mixed into "friend" word before Facebook as well?
Lou Holtz [0] used to use these questions and one more as the three questions you ask leaders in general.
The other one was "Are you committed to excellence?" which he sometimes described as "Do you have high standards and do you strive to live up to them?"
I always liked his ending statement whenever he talked about this:
"Think of someone you respect. Now think of those questions. Odds are the answer to all three is 'yes'. Now think of someone you are having problems with and, again, think of the three questions. I would bet the answer to at least one of them is 'no'".
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Holtz
The other one was "Are you committed to excellence?" which he sometimes described as "Do you have high standards and do you strive to live up to them?"
I always liked his ending statement whenever he talked about this:
"Think of someone you respect. Now think of those questions. Odds are the answer to all three is 'yes'. Now think of someone you are having problems with and, again, think of the three questions. I would bet the answer to at least one of them is 'no'".
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Holtz
...A college coach who participated in grift and bribery, indirectly or otherwise, in a system that exploited young athletes to play a violent sport with lifelong consequences for health mentally and physically and offered no long term health care and virtually no monetary reward.
No successful NCAA coach is a moral paragon. John Calipari used to be held as the bad boy, but actually he was the most honest of the bunch.
No successful NCAA coach is a moral paragon. John Calipari used to be held as the bad boy, but actually he was the most honest of the bunch.
If those were the only criteria, making friends would be easy. People have more built-in tribalism at the very least; the article reads like a '50s science fiction novel about robots making friends.
I trust you are being genuine when you say that, but what an odd comment. The article seemed like a very profound an interesting commentary on what friendship means. I fail to see any kind of science fiction in it. The article even seems to suggest friendship can cross tribal boundaries, but it takes work.
I guess trying to explain how friendship happens seems weird to me? It's obvious enough as it's happening that being forced to spend time together (as with school) generates friendships. Maybe I'm being too critical.
Is building trust and growing genuine care for someone easy for you?
Trust is always a gamble, at extreme you are putting your life on the line and you never know if the other person will decide to betray you next time regardless of what they did in the past.
Caring about someone is even harder as it is not a conscious choice we are making, it is feeling. You can't just decide from today I care about this person so they are my friend.
My point was, how do you know someone is your friend not how to make one. There is no method to make friends, at best some tips or guidelines.
Trust is always a gamble, at extreme you are putting your life on the line and you never know if the other person will decide to betray you next time regardless of what they did in the past.
Caring about someone is even harder as it is not a conscious choice we are making, it is feeling. You can't just decide from today I care about this person so they are my friend.
My point was, how do you know someone is your friend not how to make one. There is no method to make friends, at best some tips or guidelines.
No, it certainly isn't easy to do on purpose; that's a big part of why raising kids is hard.
What if you trust someone and care about them, but don’t particularly enjoy their company? I suppose it would still be normal to call that person a “friend,” although you’d be missing a key part of what most people think of when using that word.
The cynical word for that could be "family".
A new friend could be waiting in the comments section of an article you’re reading, on the other side of a Google Doc, or in an elevator
I loved talking to strangers in a slow-operating 20-story elevator. Surprisingly, they are good and friendly listeners. You don’t want to spend five minutes with someone you rejected, do you? My current home doesn’t have an elevator, but I hope the next one will.
I loved talking to strangers in a slow-operating 20-story elevator. Surprisingly, they are good and friendly listeners. You don’t want to spend five minutes with someone you rejected, do you? My current home doesn’t have an elevator, but I hope the next one will.
As an introvert, your scenario is a nightmare to me. Please let me enjoy my elevator ride in peace.
American society at least is highly fractured these days, along all kinds of lines, and this seems to have resulted in high levels of distrust across those lines - ideological, economic, racial, gender, and probably a host of others.
This tends to push people into clusters where they all share the same ideological viewpoints, which is a depressing situation. My idea of a great party has always been one where a group of people from widely different backgrounds are put together in a big room and 'forced' to interact with each other, but these days I'm afraid that would lead to a bloodbath of some sort.
To quote from Frank Herbert, on the subject of limiting your relationships to those who share all your identitarian tick-marks, "I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections."
As far as "close deep meaningful relationships that you can rely on through thick and thin, a friend who will always come to your aid in times of trouble, and to whom you will always offer support" ... that sounds more like a military alliance between independent city-states in ancient Greece than your average human friendship. Don't expect too much, in other words.
Here's a related (novel?) concept: don't try to leverage friendships for personal economic gain, for access to a job, for growing your multi-level marketing business, etc. That's called 'networking', not 'friendship'. I suppose it has its place, humans being human, but don't confuse the two.
This tends to push people into clusters where they all share the same ideological viewpoints, which is a depressing situation. My idea of a great party has always been one where a group of people from widely different backgrounds are put together in a big room and 'forced' to interact with each other, but these days I'm afraid that would lead to a bloodbath of some sort.
To quote from Frank Herbert, on the subject of limiting your relationships to those who share all your identitarian tick-marks, "I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections."
As far as "close deep meaningful relationships that you can rely on through thick and thin, a friend who will always come to your aid in times of trouble, and to whom you will always offer support" ... that sounds more like a military alliance between independent city-states in ancient Greece than your average human friendship. Don't expect too much, in other words.
Here's a related (novel?) concept: don't try to leverage friendships for personal economic gain, for access to a job, for growing your multi-level marketing business, etc. That's called 'networking', not 'friendship'. I suppose it has its place, humans being human, but don't confuse the two.
Many good points here. Especially
> Here's a related (novel?) concept: don't try to leverage friendships for personal economic gain, for access to a job, for growing your multi-level marketing business, etc.
A little personal story - Many years back I was living with roommates and didn't have car. It would be easy way to ask for ride since office really couple of miles from home and really on the way of other guys commute. But I kinda made a point to just walk to work and consciously avoid asking for ride. Looking back I feel it really led to much better relationship than it would be if I had taken convenient route.
> Here's a related (novel?) concept: don't try to leverage friendships for personal economic gain, for access to a job, for growing your multi-level marketing business, etc.
A little personal story - Many years back I was living with roommates and didn't have car. It would be easy way to ask for ride since office really couple of miles from home and really on the way of other guys commute. But I kinda made a point to just walk to work and consciously avoid asking for ride. Looking back I feel it really led to much better relationship than it would be if I had taken convenient route.
I actually disagree with this one. I think you should ask favours of and offer favours to your friends. It's part of the enmeshing of one's life with another. If they are willing, it shows intention and trust.
There's a big difference between "hey, can you give me a ride to the store to pick up this large thing?" vs "hey can you give me a ride to work every day".
Okay, but I'm not talking about "Hey, can you give me a ride to work every day?" but "Hey, can you give me a ride to work?" every day. I think this might be a cultural difference, though, because I live with two close friends and they ask me this one often and I have no problem doing it or not based on whether I can. If it's a small deal, I might accelerate my morning routine so I can drop them off on my way to work. If I can't, I usually just say so.
I have a few different friend groups and I'm conscious of different cultural mores, though. The group where this is common has a certain low-social-distance norm.
In any case, I have lots of close friends and I usually see people lament a lack of any, so I think it's better to do what I do rather than what others do. But cultural differences are cultural differences.
I have a few different friend groups and I'm conscious of different cultural mores, though. The group where this is common has a certain low-social-distance norm.
In any case, I have lots of close friends and I usually see people lament a lack of any, so I think it's better to do what I do rather than what others do. But cultural differences are cultural differences.
> that sounds more like a military alliance between independent city-states in ancient Greece than your average human friendship
Has it occurred to you that actual humans' ideal types/levels of friendship might differ from your own? Most people want a mix, with a few very strong friendships (of the author's type) and many more weaker ones (of yours). Many are missing one or the other. Some want something different entirely. If the author's ideas about friendship don't resonate with you, consider just moving on. Deriding it as something that's very much not true friendship by anyone's definition seems like exactly the same kind of condescending clannishness you complain about (and "identitarian" is - intentionally? - a marker of which clan BTW).
Has it occurred to you that actual humans' ideal types/levels of friendship might differ from your own? Most people want a mix, with a few very strong friendships (of the author's type) and many more weaker ones (of yours). Many are missing one or the other. Some want something different entirely. If the author's ideas about friendship don't resonate with you, consider just moving on. Deriding it as something that's very much not true friendship by anyone's definition seems like exactly the same kind of condescending clannishness you complain about (and "identitarian" is - intentionally? - a marker of which clan BTW).
> "don't try to leverage friendships for personal economic gain"
Aristotle identifies three types of friendships.
1. Friendships of utility, the types you exploit for gain
2. Friendships of pleasure, the types you exploit to play basketball
3. Friendships of the good, true friendships
Aristotle identifies three types of friendships.
1. Friendships of utility, the types you exploit for gain
2. Friendships of pleasure, the types you exploit to play basketball
3. Friendships of the good, true friendships
[deleted]
In other words, business partners, beer buddies, and true friends.
I still clearly remember the feelings I had on the day when I realized many who spoke of ‘friends’ likely not had a single one.
I still clearly remember the feelings I had on the day when I realized many who spoke of ‘friends’ likely not had a single one.
I went into business with my friends because I like collaborating on economic gain with my friends.
Did I lose friends? I don’t know. I still enjoy being around them, working together, economically gaining together.
Did I lose friends? I don’t know. I still enjoy being around them, working together, economically gaining together.
If you were in a truly life-or-death situation and they were in a position to help you but only through sacrificing a large part of their business interests, would they?
That I think would be the ultimate and clearest differentiator.
Of course such a situation is very rare so usually we can only rely on more ambiguous signals.
More prosaically, would they sacrifice a small part of their business interests in exchange for some great benefit to you if you give them a promise to do the same in the future? And vice-versa?
If so, then it would seem most likely they would be more than just business partners.
That I think would be the ultimate and clearest differentiator.
Of course such a situation is very rare so usually we can only rely on more ambiguous signals.
More prosaically, would they sacrifice a small part of their business interests in exchange for some great benefit to you if you give them a promise to do the same in the future? And vice-versa?
If so, then it would seem most likely they would be more than just business partners.
> ... that sounds more like a military alliance between independent city-states in ancient Greece than your average human friendship.
It doesn't sound like your average friendship in modern atomized societies. But it seems that it was the bedrock for many societies throughout history, including close knit societies today. I've heard it argued fairly persuasively that this is why military insurgencies tend to be stronger in societies where kinship groups are fairly strong (and there's a strong possibility atomized societies wouldn't be able to follow suite).
It doesn't sound like your average friendship in modern atomized societies. But it seems that it was the bedrock for many societies throughout history, including close knit societies today. I've heard it argued fairly persuasively that this is why military insurgencies tend to be stronger in societies where kinship groups are fairly strong (and there's a strong possibility atomized societies wouldn't be able to follow suite).
Thinking about the word “fractured”, what turns merely holding different views and letting them inform each other in a friendly and fair competition into a fracture?
I suspect it comes down to fear and insecurity. When we distrust the other, being afraid that their gain is our loss and their agenda may hurt our (psychological, financial, etc.) security, we start acting erratically. Fear manifests itself as anger and contempt. We are not relaxed and watch every word they say for signs of pushing their agenda. We are torn between considering it beneath ourselves to spend effort arguing with them, and being unable to stay silent. We don’t know when are they themselves and when they represent their group.
You can truly enjoy friendship (and indeed love) if you are secure on some fundamental level, and I suspect it is a hard precondition.
I don’t know where I’m going with this. Maybe we should look into being more secure and relaxed? Pay heaps more attention to mental health, our own and our society’s? Learn to play non-zero-sum infinite games? Release some part of us from having to fight for survival if we are lucky to enjoy highest ever standards of living?
I suspect it comes down to fear and insecurity. When we distrust the other, being afraid that their gain is our loss and their agenda may hurt our (psychological, financial, etc.) security, we start acting erratically. Fear manifests itself as anger and contempt. We are not relaxed and watch every word they say for signs of pushing their agenda. We are torn between considering it beneath ourselves to spend effort arguing with them, and being unable to stay silent. We don’t know when are they themselves and when they represent their group.
You can truly enjoy friendship (and indeed love) if you are secure on some fundamental level, and I suspect it is a hard precondition.
I don’t know where I’m going with this. Maybe we should look into being more secure and relaxed? Pay heaps more attention to mental health, our own and our society’s? Learn to play non-zero-sum infinite games? Release some part of us from having to fight for survival if we are lucky to enjoy highest ever standards of living?
> don't try to leverage friendships for personal economic gain, for access to a job, for growing your multi-level marketing business, etc.
But on the other hand, do whatever you can to give your friends economic gains, access to jobs, and to grow their MLM. Do things for them without hesitation that involve little effort, loss, or risk for you, and consider about doing things for them that involve some effort, loss or risk to you.
Authoritarian structures like capitalism and religion have a goal of atomizing us all, forcing people to use them as an intermediary. Please don't think that friendship is about entertainment and work is about effort. Friendship is about mutual aid, and work is about helping the boss in order to help yourself.
Two friends get more accomplished than two people.
But on the other hand, do whatever you can to give your friends economic gains, access to jobs, and to grow their MLM. Do things for them without hesitation that involve little effort, loss, or risk for you, and consider about doing things for them that involve some effort, loss or risk to you.
Authoritarian structures like capitalism and religion have a goal of atomizing us all, forcing people to use them as an intermediary. Please don't think that friendship is about entertainment and work is about effort. Friendship is about mutual aid, and work is about helping the boss in order to help yourself.
Two friends get more accomplished than two people.
Social media advertises far more of someone's "spectrum" than it used to. So it used to be "dude/gal in a suit, polite, talk about weather"... now you know political affiliation, religion, music taste, the way they talk at length, can derive IQ, whatever crazy thing they think (and we all have SOMETHING).
Capitalism and the rich are squeezing more and more money and safety from culture, and exploits traditional values of generosity and kindness in more and granular ways, and rewards sociopathic and narcissistic behavior patterns in a nasty feedback cycle. The internet enables all of that faster at a far greater granularity and now with AI-assisted attacks.
Combine that with the fact that environmental dangers are now starting to appear more tangibly on the horizon, and people's beliefs and values and disagreements represent more perceptible danger/evil to someone.
The internet, aside from isolated successes (mostly for very isolated people), should have brought us together. You could argue facebook WAS doing that in its earlier years, but now that monetization is necessary, propaganda and dividing and conquering of the rabble to serve the elite is what pays.
We live in the greatest amount of leisure and technology ever, and yet almost everyone thinks the future will be worse. For the current 18-30 demographic, they already are living the prospect of their third economic downturn, this time replaying the 1970s stagflation, and watching the current power elite ostrich plant their heads over global warming and a host of global environmental problems.
The internet really now just functions to inform someone of how fucked up the world is and the nigh impossibility to change it proactively via politics. We will place all our faith in hopes in that which got us into this mess: technology.
Capitalism and the rich are squeezing more and more money and safety from culture, and exploits traditional values of generosity and kindness in more and granular ways, and rewards sociopathic and narcissistic behavior patterns in a nasty feedback cycle. The internet enables all of that faster at a far greater granularity and now with AI-assisted attacks.
Combine that with the fact that environmental dangers are now starting to appear more tangibly on the horizon, and people's beliefs and values and disagreements represent more perceptible danger/evil to someone.
The internet, aside from isolated successes (mostly for very isolated people), should have brought us together. You could argue facebook WAS doing that in its earlier years, but now that monetization is necessary, propaganda and dividing and conquering of the rabble to serve the elite is what pays.
We live in the greatest amount of leisure and technology ever, and yet almost everyone thinks the future will be worse. For the current 18-30 demographic, they already are living the prospect of their third economic downturn, this time replaying the 1970s stagflation, and watching the current power elite ostrich plant their heads over global warming and a host of global environmental problems.
The internet really now just functions to inform someone of how fucked up the world is and the nigh impossibility to change it proactively via politics. We will place all our faith in hopes in that which got us into this mess: technology.
I recently saw a video about the "Sex Raft".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acali
It was a social experiment involving putting a bunch of people on a raft and crossing the Atlantic. The idea was to create an environment that promotes sex and violence, instead, everyone became best friends forever, except for the experimenter who was on board, everyone hated him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acali
It was a social experiment involving putting a bunch of people on a raft and crossing the Atlantic. The idea was to create an environment that promotes sex and violence, instead, everyone became best friends forever, except for the experimenter who was on board, everyone hated him.
Your comment made me LOL :-)
Subscription wall...