The vital art of talking to strangers(economist.com)
economist.com
The vital art of talking to strangers
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2021/07/10/the-vital-art-of-talking-to-strangers
284 comments
https://archive.is/DFIdE
I grew up as a very lonely child so I struggle a lot with talking to strangers, usually the idea way more than the practice. Knowing that I’ll have to call a stranger on the phone or go to a social event full of unknown people stresses me out to the point of often thinking of many ways of how I’d like to get out of them. In social situations I struggle to let go and have to put enormous amounts of energy to act
‘normal’, yet most people don’t even pick up on it. I guess I’m good at pretending. Despite that I don’t hate people and I quite enjoy listening to them when a topic that even mildly interests me comes up, I’ve done a lot of work to broaden my horizons so thankfully that list of topics is quite long. I often wonder if other people are even remotely like me or if all this comes easily and naturally to them at all times.
It does have the advantage that there’s no real difficulty increase between a very difficult social event or conversation or just am average one. Or I can drink quite a lot and still seem normal. I grew up thinking that I’m defective and need to keep to myself and I had to self reflect a lot to overcome that.
Despite this, I quite understand and appreciate the need for socializing, crazy amounts more than I did as a child. I wish I could teach young me that because social situations resolve conflict and create opportunities and those create a healthier all around environment and often a better future for all those involved.
It does have the advantage that there’s no real difficulty increase between a very difficult social event or conversation or just am average one. Or I can drink quite a lot and still seem normal. I grew up thinking that I’m defective and need to keep to myself and I had to self reflect a lot to overcome that.
Despite this, I quite understand and appreciate the need for socializing, crazy amounts more than I did as a child. I wish I could teach young me that because social situations resolve conflict and create opportunities and those create a healthier all around environment and often a better future for all those involved.
> I often wonder if other people are even remotely like me or if all this comes easily and naturally to them at all times.
I can't speak for others, but yes, I am more than remotely like you. I hate the phone, and for much of my life I had an incredibly hard time talking to strangers. As I've grown older (I am quickly approaching fifty) talking to strangers has become easier. I think it's because I care less about what they think of me. Parties can still be hard, but it has become more that I'm uninterested in bothering to carry on a conversation with many folk rather than what used to be more afraid to do so.
But when visiting a local museum the other day, I decided I wanted to talk to the curator because I was fascinated by the museum and had so many questions. So I just walked over and introduced myself. We've now had a very productive email conversation going for the past few days. Even ten years ago, I would never even have thought of doing that.
I can't speak for others, but yes, I am more than remotely like you. I hate the phone, and for much of my life I had an incredibly hard time talking to strangers. As I've grown older (I am quickly approaching fifty) talking to strangers has become easier. I think it's because I care less about what they think of me. Parties can still be hard, but it has become more that I'm uninterested in bothering to carry on a conversation with many folk rather than what used to be more afraid to do so.
But when visiting a local museum the other day, I decided I wanted to talk to the curator because I was fascinated by the museum and had so many questions. So I just walked over and introduced myself. We've now had a very productive email conversation going for the past few days. Even ten years ago, I would never even have thought of doing that.
> it's because I care less about what they think of me
This is the key point. I figured the same thing out some years ago and talking on the phone has gotten a lot easier.
You are not the main character, nobody cares who you are or what you do. 99.99% of people you meet every day won't remember you at all.
Just talk, be cordial and go about your day afterwards.
This is the key point. I figured the same thing out some years ago and talking on the phone has gotten a lot easier.
You are not the main character, nobody cares who you are or what you do. 99.99% of people you meet every day won't remember you at all.
Just talk, be cordial and go about your day afterwards.
I'm fundamentally introverted, but one day I realized something that made it much easier to talk with strangers: they're strangers! So what they think about me is (usually) of no actual importance. If I make a fool of myself, no harm done!
This. I hear some people talk about how they find a trusted friend to share their personal thoughts with, and who can hold them accountable.
I take the opposite approach: I trust strangers more! Especially those who are about to leave the country (e.g. CouchSurfing meetup back in the day, hopefully BeWelcome when COVID ends).
Even if they gossip those secrets, who cares if they're half the world away?
I take the opposite approach: I trust strangers more! Especially those who are about to leave the country (e.g. CouchSurfing meetup back in the day, hopefully BeWelcome when COVID ends).
Even if they gossip those secrets, who cares if they're half the world away?
I’m the same way. I’m far more open with people I just met than with my family because the strangers won’t give me follow-up conversations the next week. To the people I do interact with daily, don’t punish me for doing the right thing by springing follow up conversations on me.
This sounds like the „textbook definition“ of social anxiety which is understandable growing up lonely—and not learning social skills which many people take for granted later in life.
Maybe you want to take a look at improving this aspect of your life so everyday tasks like calling a stranger etc. doesn’t cost you that much energy.
For me classic exposure therapy helped in that regard and reflecting on the specific situations that I was thrown into afterwards (calling someone, asking for something in the store etc.)
Maybe you want to take a look at improving this aspect of your life so everyday tasks like calling a stranger etc. doesn’t cost you that much energy.
For me classic exposure therapy helped in that regard and reflecting on the specific situations that I was thrown into afterwards (calling someone, asking for something in the store etc.)
>Knowing that I’ll have to call a stranger on the phone
It won't necessarily help the buildup of anxiety about the call itself, but I've found that I'm much more relaxed when using wireless earbuds on a phone call than when holding the phone to my ear. I'm not sure why, may be something to do with being able to freely move my hands.
It won't necessarily help the buildup of anxiety about the call itself, but I've found that I'm much more relaxed when using wireless earbuds on a phone call than when holding the phone to my ear. I'm not sure why, may be something to do with being able to freely move my hands.
I used to really overthink making a phone call. To the point that I'd avoid it if there was any way I could. Professionally though, I couldn't avoid making them, and so I moved into a very strange cycle of rehearsing everything I'd say. Not the points I wanted to make, literally running through permutations of actual conversation that might happen. This would consume huge amounts of time and effort.
Two things came of that: firstly, the conversations almost never went as I'd planned. All my effort was for nought. Secondly, it dawned on me one day that when someone called me, even when it was an unknown number, I'd take the call within a few rings and it would generally go perfectly well. I obviously didn't get several hours of sweating over permutations before I picked it up, I just picked it up.
I slowly pushed myself over to the point that I would plan the outcomes I wanted from a call but leave the detail alone. Each call became a sort of game where I raised my points and tried to get my outcomes. I got quite good at that to the point that I didn't need to pre-plan my outcomes - I obviously already knew them (since I was writing them down) and so I went on to rely on just having a normal conversation.
The final lesson I picked up on this journey, primarily from talking to other (usually more senior) people was that if the person I was talking to opened up in a friendly way and put me at ease the conversation was easier. And so I started trying that. Instead of my assuming that I was unimportant, or a distraction from someone's day and trying to be really terse out of what I considered respect for their time, I just eased back. Asked how their day was going. Asked about something I knew that was going on with them. Asked about something we shared organisationally, etc. When I took the time to be more human with them, and less mechanical and efficient, the calls always went well. Even when it wasn't something we shared an outcome over.
And so I got to the point where (during the pandemic) I talk to people all day on Zoom calls and don't give a second thought to it.
I suppose my point is that from a similar starting point I was able to break the negative thinking cycles that were causing my anxiety around calls, so hopefully others can too.
Two things came of that: firstly, the conversations almost never went as I'd planned. All my effort was for nought. Secondly, it dawned on me one day that when someone called me, even when it was an unknown number, I'd take the call within a few rings and it would generally go perfectly well. I obviously didn't get several hours of sweating over permutations before I picked it up, I just picked it up.
I slowly pushed myself over to the point that I would plan the outcomes I wanted from a call but leave the detail alone. Each call became a sort of game where I raised my points and tried to get my outcomes. I got quite good at that to the point that I didn't need to pre-plan my outcomes - I obviously already knew them (since I was writing them down) and so I went on to rely on just having a normal conversation.
The final lesson I picked up on this journey, primarily from talking to other (usually more senior) people was that if the person I was talking to opened up in a friendly way and put me at ease the conversation was easier. And so I started trying that. Instead of my assuming that I was unimportant, or a distraction from someone's day and trying to be really terse out of what I considered respect for their time, I just eased back. Asked how their day was going. Asked about something I knew that was going on with them. Asked about something we shared organisationally, etc. When I took the time to be more human with them, and less mechanical and efficient, the calls always went well. Even when it wasn't something we shared an outcome over.
And so I got to the point where (during the pandemic) I talk to people all day on Zoom calls and don't give a second thought to it.
I suppose my point is that from a similar starting point I was able to break the negative thinking cycles that were causing my anxiety around calls, so hopefully others can too.
you sounds like me. I think you're very normal if that helps.
> In social situations I struggle to let go and have to put enormous amounts of energy to act ‘normal’, yet most people don’t even pick up on it.
Have you tried having a couple of drinks? There’s a reason they call alcohol a “social lubricant”
Have you tried having a couple of drinks? There’s a reason they call alcohol a “social lubricant”
It’s a curse and a blessing. The inhibition makes it’s much easier to comfortably converse with a stranger, although the quality of discussion is likely to be trash (I can barely enunciate technical things verbally sober, and mostly sound like an idiot trying to after a few beers). The inhibition is also likely to make me discuss things that will give others a negative opinion of me (over sharing, etc.). Perhaps less of an issue when everyone in the conversation is drinking, less so otherwise.
> The inhibition is also likely to make me discuss things that will give others a negative opinion of me (over sharing, etc.).
The 'liquid courage' brings out the inner chum for too many of us. Which, I think, is simply a sign that there aren't enough people around with whom we can have the necessary deep personal conversations.
There's something of a chicken-and-egg effect that can happen here, where you need those conversations to advance and find better people, but have no decent people around because you've not had those conversations.
Maybe this is why most people would rather drown the conscience in noise, like TV, music, endless diversions. It's easier than facing the hard questions, doing the hard work of seeking others. But surely, needs exist because they can and must be met. If one opts to delay necessary attention, one will pay one in the long term. Life itself has a way of collecting its debts.
The 'liquid courage' brings out the inner chum for too many of us. Which, I think, is simply a sign that there aren't enough people around with whom we can have the necessary deep personal conversations.
There's something of a chicken-and-egg effect that can happen here, where you need those conversations to advance and find better people, but have no decent people around because you've not had those conversations.
Maybe this is why most people would rather drown the conscience in noise, like TV, music, endless diversions. It's easier than facing the hard questions, doing the hard work of seeking others. But surely, needs exist because they can and must be met. If one opts to delay necessary attention, one will pay one in the long term. Life itself has a way of collecting its debts.
Molly was the closest thing that made me feel how it would've been if I grew up different :)
Only a couple of drinks is unlikely to reduce "enormous amounts of energy" that much.
I have a hypothesis that almost all of the US's current cultural problems would be solved if once a month we all cooked and shared a meal with another randomly chosen family.
You're spot on. Anything that increases your exposure to strangers and builds trust will be a boon to society.
This is also the case with social clubs and sports leagues. Membership of these things has been in decline for decades and is now at an all-time low. Being in a bowling league or the rotary club with random members of your community did a ton to increase basic trust in society. Which in turn, makes everything else work better.
Source: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/trust-me/
This is why consuming video content, specifically streaming services with all-you-can-stream crap is so damaging. People no longer have time for shared dinners, clubs, or adult sports leagues because they'd rather binge watch a new series every week.
This is also the case with social clubs and sports leagues. Membership of these things has been in decline for decades and is now at an all-time low. Being in a bowling league or the rotary club with random members of your community did a ton to increase basic trust in society. Which in turn, makes everything else work better.
Source: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/trust-me/
This is why consuming video content, specifically streaming services with all-you-can-stream crap is so damaging. People no longer have time for shared dinners, clubs, or adult sports leagues because they'd rather binge watch a new series every week.
> Anything that increases your exposure to strangers and builds trust will be a boon to society.
It takes a few bad exposures to ruin your mental model of strangers. And I am not convinced it is entirely a bad thing.
The concept of being surrounded by strangers is a 20-21st century urban phenomenon. In an environment where people are not strangers to each other 2 things happen; 1) they can build a more accurate model of each other and most of the time this leads to deeper reciprocal trust 2) they know their behavior is kept track by others and that changes individual behavior (I know, not always for the better. I am not trying to romanticize small town conformity). To expect the same dynamics in a city is a romanticism of different sort. Not trusting strangers because you don’t know them is rational. At least not to over-extrapolate your trust to every stranger you see.
All you can stream crap is there because there is demand, because we are going crazy in our loneliness created with truncated interpersonal reciprocity of the urban life. If you removed Netflix today, it wouldn’t automatically improve our social lives, because the structure and organization of it heavily depends on the economic demands that shaped the living arrangements in the first place.
See how even tech is capriciously resisting remote work and thus an alternative, less lonely arrangement for the workers.
It takes a few bad exposures to ruin your mental model of strangers. And I am not convinced it is entirely a bad thing.
The concept of being surrounded by strangers is a 20-21st century urban phenomenon. In an environment where people are not strangers to each other 2 things happen; 1) they can build a more accurate model of each other and most of the time this leads to deeper reciprocal trust 2) they know their behavior is kept track by others and that changes individual behavior (I know, not always for the better. I am not trying to romanticize small town conformity). To expect the same dynamics in a city is a romanticism of different sort. Not trusting strangers because you don’t know them is rational. At least not to over-extrapolate your trust to every stranger you see.
All you can stream crap is there because there is demand, because we are going crazy in our loneliness created with truncated interpersonal reciprocity of the urban life. If you removed Netflix today, it wouldn’t automatically improve our social lives, because the structure and organization of it heavily depends on the economic demands that shaped the living arrangements in the first place.
See how even tech is capriciously resisting remote work and thus an alternative, less lonely arrangement for the workers.
Remote work is often more isolating and lonely for workers, I don't see how it's a "less lonely arrangement". If anything, tech's resistance of remote work is the struggle to preserve America's last community: the workplace. Friendships born in the workplace are a staple of urban life, it's one of the few places left where you can regularly and guaranteedly meet with people. Remote workers will still find themselves surrounded by strangers when they arrive at the cheap city they were incentivized to move into, but this time they'll have one less place to socialize.
You're exclusively focusing on the first generation of remote workers, which had already responded to an existing non-remote setup. A second or third generation of reliable remote work would play an entirely different strategy which would create a much different ecosystem.
Either way, it is irrelevant. The gravity of "work here"ism is much higher than the agency of the workers.
> If anything, tech's resistance of remote work is the struggle to preserve America's last community: the workplace.
That's overly charitable on several accounts. Tech, or any mega corp, can't have such an intention while being a machine that merely responds to a single ultimate parameter that is profit, in some shape or form. The fact that people could have a simulation of a community in the workplace is an externality they will tolerate, as long as HR is happy.
> Friendships born in the workplace are a staple of urban life, it's one of the few places left where you can regularly and guaranteedly meet with people.
How many of your workplace friends do you think would let you stay over for months should you find yourself homeless? Lend you $20K if need hits? Take care of you while sick? Be at your funeral? And vice versa?
Most of those folks we can make at a workplace are affiliates, acquaintances, not friends.
Either way, it is irrelevant. The gravity of "work here"ism is much higher than the agency of the workers.
> If anything, tech's resistance of remote work is the struggle to preserve America's last community: the workplace.
That's overly charitable on several accounts. Tech, or any mega corp, can't have such an intention while being a machine that merely responds to a single ultimate parameter that is profit, in some shape or form. The fact that people could have a simulation of a community in the workplace is an externality they will tolerate, as long as HR is happy.
> Friendships born in the workplace are a staple of urban life, it's one of the few places left where you can regularly and guaranteedly meet with people.
How many of your workplace friends do you think would let you stay over for months should you find yourself homeless? Lend you $20K if need hits? Take care of you while sick? Be at your funeral? And vice versa?
Most of those folks we can make at a workplace are affiliates, acquaintances, not friends.
Does a second generation remote work ecosystem/strategy suddenly restore a social community of people you consistently spend 8 hours a day collaborating with? The only difference between first and second gen workers is that second/third gen might be more likely to be born in some random place because first gen wanted low CoL. Is hanging out with highschool buddies forever because in remote world you never leave your hometown supposed to be the replacement for second/third gen remote workers?
> Tech, or any mega corp, can't have such an intention
I don't care what corporations' intentions are, I think the reality is that this is America's last community that remote work will destroy and the tech industry is struggling against it.
> Most of those folks we can make at a workplace are affiliates, acquaintances, not friends.
Most of everyone I meet won't be such close friends. The workplace is one of the few guaranteed places left for adults to consistently meet people who they didn't just grow up with. If the worst indictment of workplace friends is that most of them won't lend me $20k, well, I'll just have to live with that. I'll have to remove our social interactions from the record because they don't meet the required level of friendship.
> Tech, or any mega corp, can't have such an intention
I don't care what corporations' intentions are, I think the reality is that this is America's last community that remote work will destroy and the tech industry is struggling against it.
> Most of those folks we can make at a workplace are affiliates, acquaintances, not friends.
Most of everyone I meet won't be such close friends. The workplace is one of the few guaranteed places left for adults to consistently meet people who they didn't just grow up with. If the worst indictment of workplace friends is that most of them won't lend me $20k, well, I'll just have to live with that. I'll have to remove our social interactions from the record because they don't meet the required level of friendship.
> Is hanging out with highschool buddies forever because in remote world you never leave your hometown supposed to be the replacement for second/third gen remote workers?
That would be an example of not being surrounded by strangers. Mind you a good chunk of tech is made of immigrants from countries where a neighborhood wouldn’t be reduced to high school buddies; would include (extended) family, neighborhood with its other constituents. The default choice of not leaving the locale one is raised up in, especially if one could make the same salary remotely, wouldn’t be a stretch.
> I don't care what corporations' intentions are, I think the reality is that this is America's last community that remote work will destroy and the tech industry is struggling against it.
I do because it is an ersatz community born out of luck constrained by its makers. It is almost an in-flesh version of all-you-can-watch crap, in the sense of giving false satisfaction to real needs.
> Most of everyone I meet won't be such close friends.
It would be absurd if you did. You’d only need a few, but unlikely to make any in a city of strangers.
> If the worst indictment of workplace friends is that most of them won't lend me $20k, well, I'll just have to live with that.
Worst indictment is to make you think the sense of social interaction with those people can make up for a complete absence of real friends, an absence brought upon by the necessity of being near that workplace.
> I'll have to remove our social interactions from the record because they don't meet the required level of friendship
Again this is an absurd strawman. No one is telling you to only interact with friends. I am merely saying if you think your workplace acquaintances make real friends, you’re more likely to be deceiving yourself than not.
That would be an example of not being surrounded by strangers. Mind you a good chunk of tech is made of immigrants from countries where a neighborhood wouldn’t be reduced to high school buddies; would include (extended) family, neighborhood with its other constituents. The default choice of not leaving the locale one is raised up in, especially if one could make the same salary remotely, wouldn’t be a stretch.
> I don't care what corporations' intentions are, I think the reality is that this is America's last community that remote work will destroy and the tech industry is struggling against it.
I do because it is an ersatz community born out of luck constrained by its makers. It is almost an in-flesh version of all-you-can-watch crap, in the sense of giving false satisfaction to real needs.
> Most of everyone I meet won't be such close friends.
It would be absurd if you did. You’d only need a few, but unlikely to make any in a city of strangers.
> If the worst indictment of workplace friends is that most of them won't lend me $20k, well, I'll just have to live with that.
Worst indictment is to make you think the sense of social interaction with those people can make up for a complete absence of real friends, an absence brought upon by the necessity of being near that workplace.
> I'll have to remove our social interactions from the record because they don't meet the required level of friendship
Again this is an absurd strawman. No one is telling you to only interact with friends. I am merely saying if you think your workplace acquaintances make real friends, you’re more likely to be deceiving yourself than not.
> The default choice of not leaving the locale one is raised up in, especially if one could make the same salary remotely, wouldn’t be a stretch.
Wonderful, instead of having to go to a city where people of all kinds mix together with ambition and purpose, it's so much better for people to just stay where they grew up and stick to people who just happen to be born near them. That's a great slogan for lonely people: don't reach out of your comfort zone for people you'll love, just never move and you won't have to deal with unfamiliar people. I apologize for being so sarcastic, I thought it'd be slightly funnier than drily expressing how ridiculously dystopian I think that is.
> it is an ersatz community born out of luck
No more luck-based than randomly being born in a geographical area. At least there's a non-zero amount of choice and purpose involved in travelling to a city.
> a complete absence of real friends, an absence brought upon by the necessity of being near that workplace.
It's been necessary to be near your workplace for a very long time, even before the industrial revolution. Such a causal link doesn't match up with any history I'm aware of.
> I am merely saying if you think your workplace acquaintances make real friends, you’re more likely to be deceiving yourself than not.
I didn't say that workplace acquaintances make real friends. I did say that workplaces are reliable communities that you can discover new people and make real friends in. Also, workplace acquaintances are good sources of socialization on their own when it comes to loneliness. I don't have to deceive myself to find great social value in such a professional and ambitious melting pot of people from all over the world. Should I be happy to be relieved of that opportunity? For what, the opportunity to never leave my birthplace (assuming I'm "second gen")?
> especially if one could make the same salary remotely
Okay you were the one telling me that corporations are solely focused on profits.
Wonderful, instead of having to go to a city where people of all kinds mix together with ambition and purpose, it's so much better for people to just stay where they grew up and stick to people who just happen to be born near them. That's a great slogan for lonely people: don't reach out of your comfort zone for people you'll love, just never move and you won't have to deal with unfamiliar people. I apologize for being so sarcastic, I thought it'd be slightly funnier than drily expressing how ridiculously dystopian I think that is.
> it is an ersatz community born out of luck
No more luck-based than randomly being born in a geographical area. At least there's a non-zero amount of choice and purpose involved in travelling to a city.
> a complete absence of real friends, an absence brought upon by the necessity of being near that workplace.
It's been necessary to be near your workplace for a very long time, even before the industrial revolution. Such a causal link doesn't match up with any history I'm aware of.
> I am merely saying if you think your workplace acquaintances make real friends, you’re more likely to be deceiving yourself than not.
I didn't say that workplace acquaintances make real friends. I did say that workplaces are reliable communities that you can discover new people and make real friends in. Also, workplace acquaintances are good sources of socialization on their own when it comes to loneliness. I don't have to deceive myself to find great social value in such a professional and ambitious melting pot of people from all over the world. Should I be happy to be relieved of that opportunity? For what, the opportunity to never leave my birthplace (assuming I'm "second gen")?
> especially if one could make the same salary remotely
Okay you were the one telling me that corporations are solely focused on profits.
> Wonderful, instead of having to go to a city where people of all kinds mix together with ambition and purpose, it's so much better for people to just stay where they grew up and stick to people who just happen to be born near them. That's a great slogan for lonely people: don't reach out of your comfort zone for people you'll love, just never move and you won't have to deal with unfamiliar people. I apologize for being so sarcastic, I thought it'd be slightly funnier than drily expressing how ridiculously dystopian I think that is.
I think it is more dystopic, nay, tragic, when people are made to believe where mixture of ambitious strangers will somehow lead to love too. I don't blame you for such beliefs in an era of romantic comedies or other romanticizations of "single strong individual" where they feel entitled to such outcomes and it magically happens. But this combined with your other remark about "socializing needs" makes me believe you don't discern between different types of love.
Seems like you're focused on consummatory (eros in its wider philosophical sense) love if you formulate people as fulfilling your needs, or love as something you can stumble upon. Philia (brotherly) and agapic love are completely different than eros, and among other things arise from either reciprocal investment on each other's growth or selfless giving. They are built out of investment, not happenstance. That is the love of parents that make most of us into human beings out of nothing. Or the nice people in our non-stranger neighborhood that interacted with us and thought us manners etc. Think of many Mr. Rogers' in real life. I am not saying such neighborhoods is the norm anymore, and therefore don't blame you for your relational nihilism, but I am lucky enough to come from a place where traces of such love was still immanent.
> No more luck-based than randomly being born in a geographical area.
Randomness is irrelevant, that place is what grows you into a human being and once you're at the age to move on, it is no longer random. This again implicitly contains the notion that the universe owes us the optimal configuration of a birthplace, because we are special.
> I did say that workplaces are reliable communities that you can discover new people and make real friends in.
You've admitted that people you meet in such places hardly make into friends that can fulfill the criteria I laid out. Also again notice the "eros" language, you think you "discover" such people, no investment or transformation is required from you, you just stumble upon them like mushrooms in a forest.
> workplace acquaintances are good sources of socialization on their own when it comes to loneliness.
Just like internet can be a "good" outlet for sexual frustration, but also a hindrance to actual needs of intimacy. That is precisely what I am talking about when I say eros. You don't just have "socialization needs", you don't even just have needs for "having friends", you also have deep needs for being a real friend for people.
> Okay you were the one telling me that corporations are solely focused on profits.
Yes, and that is different than flesh-and-bone people being focused on making a living, especially with depressed wages since 70s. I am not saying there aren't people who are entirely driven by money, but that is not the majority. All the while profit is a definitional property of a for-profit-corporation.
The bottom line of our dialogue is that, we are internet strangers that are somewhat talking through each other because we don't have reciprocal models of each other (other than a minimal, "HN denizen" one), we don't have an established reciprocity on helping each other grow. I think you're not arguing in best faith because you're lonely and the secondary benefits of someone responding back to you might be alleviating some of your admitted loneliness, and "fulfilling your social needs".
I think it is more dystopic, nay, tragic, when people are made to believe where mixture of ambitious strangers will somehow lead to love too. I don't blame you for such beliefs in an era of romantic comedies or other romanticizations of "single strong individual" where they feel entitled to such outcomes and it magically happens. But this combined with your other remark about "socializing needs" makes me believe you don't discern between different types of love.
Seems like you're focused on consummatory (eros in its wider philosophical sense) love if you formulate people as fulfilling your needs, or love as something you can stumble upon. Philia (brotherly) and agapic love are completely different than eros, and among other things arise from either reciprocal investment on each other's growth or selfless giving. They are built out of investment, not happenstance. That is the love of parents that make most of us into human beings out of nothing. Or the nice people in our non-stranger neighborhood that interacted with us and thought us manners etc. Think of many Mr. Rogers' in real life. I am not saying such neighborhoods is the norm anymore, and therefore don't blame you for your relational nihilism, but I am lucky enough to come from a place where traces of such love was still immanent.
> No more luck-based than randomly being born in a geographical area.
Randomness is irrelevant, that place is what grows you into a human being and once you're at the age to move on, it is no longer random. This again implicitly contains the notion that the universe owes us the optimal configuration of a birthplace, because we are special.
> I did say that workplaces are reliable communities that you can discover new people and make real friends in.
You've admitted that people you meet in such places hardly make into friends that can fulfill the criteria I laid out. Also again notice the "eros" language, you think you "discover" such people, no investment or transformation is required from you, you just stumble upon them like mushrooms in a forest.
> workplace acquaintances are good sources of socialization on their own when it comes to loneliness.
Just like internet can be a "good" outlet for sexual frustration, but also a hindrance to actual needs of intimacy. That is precisely what I am talking about when I say eros. You don't just have "socialization needs", you don't even just have needs for "having friends", you also have deep needs for being a real friend for people.
> Okay you were the one telling me that corporations are solely focused on profits.
Yes, and that is different than flesh-and-bone people being focused on making a living, especially with depressed wages since 70s. I am not saying there aren't people who are entirely driven by money, but that is not the majority. All the while profit is a definitional property of a for-profit-corporation.
The bottom line of our dialogue is that, we are internet strangers that are somewhat talking through each other because we don't have reciprocal models of each other (other than a minimal, "HN denizen" one), we don't have an established reciprocity on helping each other grow. I think you're not arguing in best faith because you're lonely and the secondary benefits of someone responding back to you might be alleviating some of your admitted loneliness, and "fulfilling your social needs".
> This is why consuming video content, specifically streaming services with all-you-can-stream crap is so damaging. People no longer have time for shared dinners, clubs, or adult sports leagues because they'd rather binge watch a new series every week.
In my experience it’s not that people would rather watch videos than see their friends or do their hobbies, it’s that they’re working jobs which consume their lives to the point that watching Netflix is pretty much all they have the energy for. And before you know it, you don’t have any hobbies anymore so you watch more Netflix and the circle continues.
In my experience it’s not that people would rather watch videos than see their friends or do their hobbies, it’s that they’re working jobs which consume their lives to the point that watching Netflix is pretty much all they have the energy for. And before you know it, you don’t have any hobbies anymore so you watch more Netflix and the circle continues.
...and it gets increasingly hard to coordinate with your friends because they're also all watching Netflix and can't be bothered to make time.
I think there are other issues driving the decreasing social activity - Netflix seems to have replaced existing TV practices, I don't think it vastly extended them.
IMO, access is one of the biggest hidden issues. Everything is designed to require a car, which increases the cost/time/stress of doing anything, and decreases the number of available people to interact with. Neighborhoods built before WW2 are much more interactive and walkable, but we keep pumping out convoluted suburban layouts instead.
Over time, peoples' dopamine system starts weighing the hassle as greater than the potential reward, and they become less socially active. If more people lived within a 5-10 minute walk of these activities, membership would go back up.
IMO, access is one of the biggest hidden issues. Everything is designed to require a car, which increases the cost/time/stress of doing anything, and decreases the number of available people to interact with. Neighborhoods built before WW2 are much more interactive and walkable, but we keep pumping out convoluted suburban layouts instead.
Over time, peoples' dopamine system starts weighing the hassle as greater than the potential reward, and they become less socially active. If more people lived within a 5-10 minute walk of these activities, membership would go back up.
This already assumes people are good and get along and are high trust.
What if I’m in a crew am a nice talker and get to scope things out for my crew as we chit chat?
It’s the same thing that did in the lonely hearts clubs. Swindlers came in to the rescue and take advantage of a lonely set of people. In this case people who are open and inviting and trusting of random strangers.
What if I’m in a crew am a nice talker and get to scope things out for my crew as we chit chat?
It’s the same thing that did in the lonely hearts clubs. Swindlers came in to the rescue and take advantage of a lonely set of people. In this case people who are open and inviting and trusting of random strangers.
> This already assumes people are good and get along and are high trust.
It does assume most people are good, but that is something I believe deeply in my bones. (A simple logical argument is this: if people were on average harmful, we would all choose to be hermits. Since we don't, it implies that in aggregate our human interactions are a net benefit to us personally.)
It does assumes that people can choose whether or not to get along and that most people will choose to do that when placed in an interaction with strangers. I think that's a safe assumption for probably like 90% of groups of people.
It does not assume high trust. You only need to trust your dinner companions enough to not poison you or attack you, which is not a very high bar.
> It’s the same thing that did in the lonely hearts clubs. Swindlers came in to the rescue and take advantage of a lonely set of people.
I think the stakes a low enough to not make the situation much of a honeypot for bad actors. There's little to gain beyond a meal and my hypothetical "game" would require all participants to sometimes be the cooks.
It does assume most people are good, but that is something I believe deeply in my bones. (A simple logical argument is this: if people were on average harmful, we would all choose to be hermits. Since we don't, it implies that in aggregate our human interactions are a net benefit to us personally.)
It does assumes that people can choose whether or not to get along and that most people will choose to do that when placed in an interaction with strangers. I think that's a safe assumption for probably like 90% of groups of people.
It does not assume high trust. You only need to trust your dinner companions enough to not poison you or attack you, which is not a very high bar.
> It’s the same thing that did in the lonely hearts clubs. Swindlers came in to the rescue and take advantage of a lonely set of people.
I think the stakes a low enough to not make the situation much of a honeypot for bad actors. There's little to gain beyond a meal and my hypothetical "game" would require all participants to sometimes be the cooks.
The problem is that it only takes a small percent to ruin it for all. If one in 10 people is awful, and you have 10 meetings with an even random distribution, then everyone will have a story about how they got swindled.
But the other 9 uniting against the 1’s craziness might actually be more effective than having 10/10 good people.
“We just need an alien invasion to unite humanity.”
“We just need an alien invasion to unite humanity.”
We seriously need to kick that bad habit as a species. Not only is it a widely exploited bug but it is a death spiral - you need a new scapegoat or the unity collapses.
Only if you let that one person define your entire experience as "ruined".
> It does assume most people are good, but that is something I believe deeply in my bones.
I do too (although I'd say "fundamentally decent" rather than "good", because "good" is a spectrum. Nobody is 100% bad or 100% good.)
I'm reminded of something I taught my children: most people are good, only a small percentage aren't. The trouble is that you can't tell which is which by looking -- so be both cautious and open with people.
I do too (although I'd say "fundamentally decent" rather than "good", because "good" is a spectrum. Nobody is 100% bad or 100% good.)
I'm reminded of something I taught my children: most people are good, only a small percentage aren't. The trouble is that you can't tell which is which by looking -- so be both cautious and open with people.
That sounds like fun.
Although I hope you are ready to meet lots of Christians and a few alcoholics every year. Just remember that the 90% doesn't like talking about their jobs. Hope you know the latest sportsball news...
That being said, there's usually other commonalities to discuss.
Although I hope you are ready to meet lots of Christians and a few alcoholics every year. Just remember that the 90% doesn't like talking about their jobs. Hope you know the latest sportsball news...
That being said, there's usually other commonalities to discuss.
I've met lots and lots of Christians and a decent number of alcoholics. Most are very nice folks, just like all the non-Christians and non-alcoholics.
People can be very nice and polite while saying horrible things. I've heard plenty along the lines of "I'll be your friend, but I'm going to miss you after we die since you're going to burn in hell." Said with the kindest, gentlest tone you've ever heard.
I don't think most things are intrinsically objectively horrible or not. The speaker's context and intentions and the framework you use to interpret end up saying much more than the words themselves.
[deleted]
I think the alcoholics depend on what time of the night you catch them.
Depends on if this proposed program is voluntary or involuntary. I suspect the folks to self-select to sit down with a random family to cook and share a meal may not identify with the demographics you point out.
Certainly the Mormons won’t show up, nor JWs with their watchtower pamphlets./s If there’s one thing Christians love, it’s inviting strangers to dinner. It’s biblical. They will also pray for you and thank God for the good food and company. Some find this “do good always” attitude horrifying, but probably because they’ve never been exposed to good Christians. Remember, most humans are good, even the Christians!
> Although I hope you are ready to meet lots of Christians and a few alcoholics every year.
Always good to lump the Christians in with the alcoholics.
Always good to lump the Christians in with the alcoholics.
No offense to the christians. I was just trying to think of groups that compose more than 10% of the population.
They're just jealous that christians have more fun.
I do believe the modern (us) conservative evangelical "back to basics" movement started in the 30s/40s as a response to rampant alcoholism from the great depression. Church of christ and similar denominations. They take a (claimed) "hyper" literal approach over a few key issues, like alcohol, sex, drugs, taxes, tithing, homosexuality.. Recent history was the 90s abstinence movement.. And in the last 7 or so years these have been the churches taking the brunt of the exodus and have been largely deflated, with churches across the nation dying due to lack of new young people.
I would wager good money that most modern conservative US Christian families have a male alcoholic relative not too far removed.
The alcoholics and Christians go together.
I would wager good money that most modern conservative US Christian families have a male alcoholic relative not too far removed.
The alcoholics and Christians go together.
> I would wager good money that most modern conservative US Christian families have a male alcoholic relative not too far removed.
I think that has more to do with the pervasiveness of Christianity and alcoholism independent of each other.
I think that has more to do with the pervasiveness of Christianity and alcoholism independent of each other.
Or reverse causation, even... I've known more people turned alcoholic to cope with their christian family than people turned christian to cope with their alcoholic family.
Sad to see so many cynical replies. When I was at RPI, we had a club that organized dinner parties much like you describe. You can check it out here: https://thedinnerpartycollective.com/about
This is wonderful. I have been studying communities and food as a way to rebuild trust...this sums it all up nicely. I have been looking to start up a local "potluck" type idea --note: not my idea, many people do this already.
I just thought a little rough organizing might be nice.
I just thought a little rough organizing might be nice.
Earlier on I had hopes that Facebook would implement "random friends" or "guest friends" in order to make the social graph denser and more diverse, thus making the world a better place. Not the direction things went I guess...
You can gain the acquaintance of quite a few strangers by joining groups.
My town has a general discussion Facebook page. I don't know that any of the people would recognize me on the street, but there are quite a few names I recognize now. This has been really handy since I didn't grow up here, and in small town America that often means people just won't get to know you because you "don't belong".
Also my wife is involved in several interest based groups. Mainly related to sewing and thrifting and such.
I don't know that it makes the world a better place, but it certainly can expose you to people you wouldn't otherwise ever have interacted with.
My town has a general discussion Facebook page. I don't know that any of the people would recognize me on the street, but there are quite a few names I recognize now. This has been really handy since I didn't grow up here, and in small town America that often means people just won't get to know you because you "don't belong".
Also my wife is involved in several interest based groups. Mainly related to sewing and thrifting and such.
I don't know that it makes the world a better place, but it certainly can expose you to people you wouldn't otherwise ever have interacted with.
We used to call this going to church. When literally everyone of all political stripes attended the same churches, going to a church potluck was basically being paired randomly.
However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable.
We are reaping the rewards.
I realized yesterday reading about cornel west, that even though I disagree with his politics, I see from his Christianity we have the same concerns, and values. I can't honestly say that about other people
However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable.
We are reaping the rewards.
I realized yesterday reading about cornel west, that even though I disagree with his politics, I see from his Christianity we have the same concerns, and values. I can't honestly say that about other people
This is a rosy view of religion, although I accept that is your experience and perspective, and thank you for sharing it.
To me, church attendance is about making the in/out group very clear. You may feel close to different political views based on your single church or flavor of Christianity, but that's still a pretty limited group.
I think church membership has become undesirable because 1) fewer people believe in the supernatural and 2) the stated positions of many major religions on issues of abortion and inclusion.
To me, church attendance is about making the in/out group very clear. You may feel close to different political views based on your single church or flavor of Christianity, but that's still a pretty limited group.
I think church membership has become undesirable because 1) fewer people believe in the supernatural and 2) the stated positions of many major religions on issues of abortion and inclusion.
It's not about religion per se, but about a common religion which has rituals that make people meet each other more, piercing their bubble of like-mindedness (smaller than the religion).
It's like going to a supermarket makes you see people more varied than your family circle and your chosen TV show characters. (It does not nudge you to talk to these people, though.)
It's like going to a supermarket makes you see people more varied than your family circle and your chosen TV show characters. (It does not nudge you to talk to these people, though.)
I am not a religious person or church goer, but are the perspectives really that different? To me, it looks like a church is a self selected group of geographically proximate people who tend to look alike and dress alike. You don't usually see much ethnic diversity in a church photo.
It's more diverse than sitting at home, but I think exposure to a few TV shows has more diversity of thought, ethnicity, sexuality, etc., compared to going to church.
I'm not saying its bad for people to get together and talk. I see that church was an important mechanism for this in the past. However, I can't get past the negatives (supernatural belief, child abuse, kowtowing to authority, shame, ostracism) to believe it will continue to be a net positive.
What we need is more of what I think the Unitarians are after - non denominational community.
It's more diverse than sitting at home, but I think exposure to a few TV shows has more diversity of thought, ethnicity, sexuality, etc., compared to going to church.
I'm not saying its bad for people to get together and talk. I see that church was an important mechanism for this in the past. However, I can't get past the negatives (supernatural belief, child abuse, kowtowing to authority, shame, ostracism) to believe it will continue to be a net positive.
What we need is more of what I think the Unitarians are after - non denominational community.
The Catholic Church is probably the single most ethnically diverse organization on the face of the earth.
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-popu...
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-popu...
Right, but the context here is in people attending their local church. Your point is like saying that America is so diverse - it is, but how much do the different ethnicities actually interact?
Catholic churches are the most integrated denomination. And Catholics are the group most likely to intermarry between ethnicities. Speaking of my own family, my brother and I are both married to women of different ethnicities (and differing ethnicities at that).
Sources:
[1] https://www.jbhe.com/2018/07/americas-churches-are-becoming-...
[2] http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/the-ties-that-may-no...
> The only exceptions were Catholics. Catholics were almost twice as likely to be in an intermarriage and Catholics who attended services more frequently were slightly more likely to be in an intermarriage, the researchers found.
It's more than just your local parish though. When I visited Hungary, it was amazing to go to a church where I didn't speak the language, but still be able to feel totally 'at home', because it was a church, and they were saying mass. Even though it was in Hungarian, I understood exactly what was going on. Then when I visited India, which couldn't be further from Hungary, I had the same experience.
Sources:
[1] https://www.jbhe.com/2018/07/americas-churches-are-becoming-...
[2] http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/the-ties-that-may-no...
> The only exceptions were Catholics. Catholics were almost twice as likely to be in an intermarriage and Catholics who attended services more frequently were slightly more likely to be in an intermarriage, the researchers found.
It's more than just your local parish though. When I visited Hungary, it was amazing to go to a church where I didn't speak the language, but still be able to feel totally 'at home', because it was a church, and they were saying mass. Even though it was in Hungarian, I understood exactly what was going on. Then when I visited India, which couldn't be further from Hungary, I had the same experience.
The takeaway from those articles seems to be that even the most integrated churches are still trailing average neighborhood integration numbers (which are broadly considered problematic). There has been progress, but there is still a ways to go:
> Despite progress in church integration, congregations remain far more segregated than the society in general. Dr. Dougherty, an associate professor of sociology at Baylor University, states that “congregations are looking more like their neighborhoods racially and ethnically, but they still lag behind. The average congregation was eight times less diverse racially than its neighborhood in 1998 and four times less diverse in 2012.”
The context here is whether churches are a good way for people of diverse backgrounds to engage and interact. I contend that they have unnecessary elements that make them worse than a non-religious community event (supernatural beliefs, explicit conformity of dress and thought, protecting predators, etc.)
> Despite progress in church integration, congregations remain far more segregated than the society in general. Dr. Dougherty, an associate professor of sociology at Baylor University, states that “congregations are looking more like their neighborhoods racially and ethnically, but they still lag behind. The average congregation was eight times less diverse racially than its neighborhood in 1998 and four times less diverse in 2012.”
The context here is whether churches are a good way for people of diverse backgrounds to engage and interact. I contend that they have unnecessary elements that make them worse than a non-religious community event (supernatural beliefs, explicit conformity of dress and thought, protecting predators, etc.)
I grew up in an Ahmedi congregation in suburban Cleveland. It was about 50% African-American and 50% post-60s Pakistani or Indian immigrants with the odd old-time immigrant family (mine) who intermarried or white converts. (My great grandfather famously had Elijah Muhammad to dinner on one of his visits to Cleveland.)
Later as I grew up I realized just how unusual that sort of integration was among any congregation, not just Christian or Islamic. When I read Vivek Bald’s book Bengali Harlem: The Lost Histories of South Asian America, I realized that actually this was the norm in the 20s-60s for South Asian immigrants of all backgrounds.
This has led to some befuddlement amongst others. A black City Councilperson in New Orleans egged a crowd on to call my cousin from Islamabad names based on his origin for trying to set up a tiny house village for homeless people in a residential neighborhood in Eastern New Orleans. I roared back at him that it pained me to see someone that looked like my grandmother beating up on my cousin, mentioned that my congregation met in a formerly AME church and kept the pews for years and shame on him for assuming we are all carpetbaggers. He turned to me and said “You are presumed to be what you look like.” I’ve never been happier to see someone lose an election.
Later as I grew up I realized just how unusual that sort of integration was among any congregation, not just Christian or Islamic. When I read Vivek Bald’s book Bengali Harlem: The Lost Histories of South Asian America, I realized that actually this was the norm in the 20s-60s for South Asian immigrants of all backgrounds.
This has led to some befuddlement amongst others. A black City Councilperson in New Orleans egged a crowd on to call my cousin from Islamabad names based on his origin for trying to set up a tiny house village for homeless people in a residential neighborhood in Eastern New Orleans. I roared back at him that it pained me to see someone that looked like my grandmother beating up on my cousin, mentioned that my congregation met in a formerly AME church and kept the pews for years and shame on him for assuming we are all carpetbaggers. He turned to me and said “You are presumed to be what you look like.” I’ve never been happier to see someone lose an election.
Yeah I grew up in a Catholic church that was probably 30% vietnamese, 30% hispanic, and 40% white / everyone else. I guess my views are heavily influenced by that.
in the southwest US there is plenty of interaction between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in Catholic churches
> To me, it looks like a church is a self selected group of geographically proximate people who tend to look alike and dress alike. You don't usually see much ethnic diversity in a church photo.
I agree any given local church in the US is unlikely to have a ton of ethnic diversity. And, for obvious reasons, it will have almost no religious diversity.
They do tend to have a decent amount of professional and socioeconomic diversity, though, which is also valuable.
I agree any given local church in the US is unlikely to have a ton of ethnic diversity. And, for obvious reasons, it will have almost no religious diversity.
They do tend to have a decent amount of professional and socioeconomic diversity, though, which is also valuable.
The church I went in as kid was pretty tight socially and people in it were wery like minded. And by all I heard or read about, it is pretty much standard.
> To me, church attendance is about making the in/out group very clear. You may feel close to different political views based on your single church or flavor of Christianity, but that's still a pretty limited group.
It's not really though. I mean, being Catholic (and honestly, I know so little about Protestantism that I don't really feel qualified to speak to it), there are a lot of politics in the church.
In 'the Big Sort', the author Bill Bishop talks about how Americans are dividing themselves up by geography, religion (or lack thereof), jobs, education, etc. It's like we're splitting in to two different worlds.
I've noticed it at church too. Frankly, the left-leaning Catholics have all left. We chock it up to things like abortion and sexual ethics but I don't buy it. Many right-leaning Catholics have severe disagreements with church preaching, especially on the topics of aid to foreigners, the responsibility of society with regards to health care, views on death penalty's usefulness, etc. The only difference to me, is that conservatives tend to value authority and order more, and thus remain catholic even when the church preaches things they don't like.
> 2) the stated positions of many major religions on issues of abortion and inclusion.
I guess, but man you should see my conservative friends after the priest gives a homily on immigration. If they left the church because of this, I'd accuse them of idolatry -- placing their views on immigration as more important than God. I accuse my leftist friends who leave because of abortion of the same. Independent of the religious and spiritual aspects, it seems to me to be abandoning your community, that has supported you for many years, simply because of one issue we disagree on. That's like leaving your wife because you can't agree on which style of house to buy -- at some point you need to compromise.
It's weird because my left-leaning friend's parents are often still Catholic and have the same view as my family does on remaining part of the church even if what they preach is hard. Whereas my younger friends all left.
The sad thing though is that I feel there is a lot of missed out opportunities for shared understanding. Despite classifying these parents as 'left-leaning' and myself being more 'right-leaning', I'd consider these people to be intelligent, thoughtful, and friends. Whereas with my own generation, if you label yourself a leftist, all of a sudden right-wingers are supposed to hate you, and vice versa. It just seems dehumanizing.
I'd rather chat about politics in a friendly manner with a shared set of concerns over a doughnut on Sunday morning, than in an angry social media screed. But it seems like my generation prefers the latter. And frankly, from my perspective, it feels like my left-leaning friends simply left while we stayed behind to talk.
It's not really though. I mean, being Catholic (and honestly, I know so little about Protestantism that I don't really feel qualified to speak to it), there are a lot of politics in the church.
In 'the Big Sort', the author Bill Bishop talks about how Americans are dividing themselves up by geography, religion (or lack thereof), jobs, education, etc. It's like we're splitting in to two different worlds.
I've noticed it at church too. Frankly, the left-leaning Catholics have all left. We chock it up to things like abortion and sexual ethics but I don't buy it. Many right-leaning Catholics have severe disagreements with church preaching, especially on the topics of aid to foreigners, the responsibility of society with regards to health care, views on death penalty's usefulness, etc. The only difference to me, is that conservatives tend to value authority and order more, and thus remain catholic even when the church preaches things they don't like.
> 2) the stated positions of many major religions on issues of abortion and inclusion.
I guess, but man you should see my conservative friends after the priest gives a homily on immigration. If they left the church because of this, I'd accuse them of idolatry -- placing their views on immigration as more important than God. I accuse my leftist friends who leave because of abortion of the same. Independent of the religious and spiritual aspects, it seems to me to be abandoning your community, that has supported you for many years, simply because of one issue we disagree on. That's like leaving your wife because you can't agree on which style of house to buy -- at some point you need to compromise.
It's weird because my left-leaning friend's parents are often still Catholic and have the same view as my family does on remaining part of the church even if what they preach is hard. Whereas my younger friends all left.
The sad thing though is that I feel there is a lot of missed out opportunities for shared understanding. Despite classifying these parents as 'left-leaning' and myself being more 'right-leaning', I'd consider these people to be intelligent, thoughtful, and friends. Whereas with my own generation, if you label yourself a leftist, all of a sudden right-wingers are supposed to hate you, and vice versa. It just seems dehumanizing.
I'd rather chat about politics in a friendly manner with a shared set of concerns over a doughnut on Sunday morning, than in an angry social media screed. But it seems like my generation prefers the latter. And frankly, from my perspective, it feels like my left-leaning friends simply left while we stayed behind to talk.
For the people who left the church because they found some of the teachings abhorrent, I would assume they were rejecting the church's authority, not rejecting God. From their perspective it may be the church who split with God, and they are trying to stay on the path by getting away from the church.
This is coming from an areligious atheist, so I must acknowledge my lack of experience with this even though I've read about it and given it some thought.
This is coming from an areligious atheist, so I must acknowledge my lack of experience with this even though I've read about it and given it some thought.
> For the people who left the church because they found some of the teachings abhorrent, I would assume they were rejecting the church's authority, not rejecting God.
If every conservative that rejected the church's authority decided to stay at home from church, the church would be empty.
I get you don't like the church... like I really understand this viewpoint. But why reject the church goers? The pope, the bishops, the priests, sure I can see not liking them. But if you show up and talk to the church members, the ones who you grew up with, etc, what exactly is wrong with that?
Man I can't tell you how annoyed we've been with our priest, our bishops, and yes the pope. I've gone through periods of extreme doubt. I still show up for the community. Always have, and likely always will. Just stick around.
If every conservative that rejected the church's authority decided to stay at home from church, the church would be empty.
I get you don't like the church... like I really understand this viewpoint. But why reject the church goers? The pope, the bishops, the priests, sure I can see not liking them. But if you show up and talk to the church members, the ones who you grew up with, etc, what exactly is wrong with that?
Man I can't tell you how annoyed we've been with our priest, our bishops, and yes the pope. I've gone through periods of extreme doubt. I still show up for the community. Always have, and likely always will. Just stick around.
> I still show up for the community. Always have, and likely always will. Just stick around.
Why would I choose to do this somewhere that the leadership rejects me and tells me I will burn in hell? I know that many individuals within the church may not agree, but plenty will, and culture is set from the top. It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _don't_ have religious ties.
Why would I choose to do this somewhere that the leadership rejects me and tells me I will burn in hell? I know that many individuals within the church may not agree, but plenty will, and culture is set from the top. It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _don't_ have religious ties.
Sorry to have to say this but anyone who tells you you’re going to hell isn’t a Christian. I left the church over similar feelings so I identify. But for the record and the benefit of anyone else who might need to hear this, you’re not going to hell.
The biblical Jesus (he’s the Christ in Christian) hung out with sailors, prostitutes and a tax collector. The fact that xtians tell people they’re going to hell in that person’s name is a disgrace. It’s not the biblical antichrist but it’s sure anti everything Jesus said and did.
If anyone reads these words and feels pain, feel free to reach out. You’re incredibly loved, at least by me and I’ll have your back no matter what.
The biblical Jesus (he’s the Christ in Christian) hung out with sailors, prostitutes and a tax collector. The fact that xtians tell people they’re going to hell in that person’s name is a disgrace. It’s not the biblical antichrist but it’s sure anti everything Jesus said and did.
If anyone reads these words and feels pain, feel free to reach out. You’re incredibly loved, at least by me and I’ll have your back no matter what.
> Sorry to have to say this but anyone who tells you you’re going to hell isn’t a Christian. I left the church over similar feelings so I identify. But for the record and the benefit of anyone else who might need to hear this, you’re not going to hell.
What did Christ say about sin and repentance?
Matthew 11:20-24: Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
> The biblical Jesus (he’s the Christ in Christian) hung out with sailors, prostitutes and a tax collector. The fact that xtians tell people they’re going to hell in that person’s name is a disgrace. It’s not the biblical antichrist but it’s sure anti everything Jesus said and did.
What did Christ say about about his role in judgement?
John 12:47-49: If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
> If anyone reads these words and feels pain, feel free to reach out. You’re incredibly loved, at least by me and I’ll have your back no matter what.
What did Paul say about pain?
2 Corinthians 7:10: For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
Make sure the gospel you're preaching is of the Word and not of man. Many churches misrepresent the truth, but many others aren't willing to speak it.
What did Christ say about sin and repentance?
Matthew 11:20-24: Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
> The biblical Jesus (he’s the Christ in Christian) hung out with sailors, prostitutes and a tax collector. The fact that xtians tell people they’re going to hell in that person’s name is a disgrace. It’s not the biblical antichrist but it’s sure anti everything Jesus said and did.
What did Christ say about about his role in judgement?
John 12:47-49: If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
> If anyone reads these words and feels pain, feel free to reach out. You’re incredibly loved, at least by me and I’ll have your back no matter what.
What did Paul say about pain?
2 Corinthians 7:10: For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
Make sure the gospel you're preaching is of the Word and not of man. Many churches misrepresent the truth, but many others aren't willing to speak it.
I realize you're probably a true believer, but for a lot of people there is no truth. The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people. I don't believe in your religion or any other, but even assuming it's true, the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
These are distinct issues:
> for a lot of people there is no truth
> I don't believe in your religion or any other
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
Briefly:
> for a lot of people there is no truth
A lot of people don't think clearly and have been misled. Do you and I exist in some form? Are we having a conversation? There: two truths. Dismissing truth as unknowable is a kind of, shall we say, cognitive off-ramp one may use when uninterested in working harder to find it. It's also a rhetorical trick used by some to shut down conversations they don't want others to have.
> I don't believe in your religion or any other
Framing philosophy as a matter of religion is a common way to dismiss a line of inquiry before it begins. It's also a rhetorical trick, a form of tribalism, a way to "other" those whom one disagrees with.
The modern distinction between religious and irreligious matters is ultimately a contrivance. The question of the nature of reality knows no such distinction.
What matters is not what label we apply to a philosophy; what matters is whether it is true. In this sense, everyone has a religion, whether or not they label it so. In modern terms, one may call it a worldview.
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
That is your subjective evaluation: "poor at best." How do you know this? What research have you done into the texts available? Have you studied the original languages and ancient texts? How do these texts compare with other ancient documents, ones whose authenticity is not commonly questioned in the field? Is it legitimate to boil down an entire field of research, practiced over thousands of years, to three dismissive words?
> for a lot of people there is no truth
> I don't believe in your religion or any other
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
Briefly:
> for a lot of people there is no truth
A lot of people don't think clearly and have been misled. Do you and I exist in some form? Are we having a conversation? There: two truths. Dismissing truth as unknowable is a kind of, shall we say, cognitive off-ramp one may use when uninterested in working harder to find it. It's also a rhetorical trick used by some to shut down conversations they don't want others to have.
> I don't believe in your religion or any other
Framing philosophy as a matter of religion is a common way to dismiss a line of inquiry before it begins. It's also a rhetorical trick, a form of tribalism, a way to "other" those whom one disagrees with.
The modern distinction between religious and irreligious matters is ultimately a contrivance. The question of the nature of reality knows no such distinction.
What matters is not what label we apply to a philosophy; what matters is whether it is true. In this sense, everyone has a religion, whether or not they label it so. In modern terms, one may call it a worldview.
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
That is your subjective evaluation: "poor at best." How do you know this? What research have you done into the texts available? Have you studied the original languages and ancient texts? How do these texts compare with other ancient documents, ones whose authenticity is not commonly questioned in the field? Is it legitimate to boil down an entire field of research, practiced over thousands of years, to three dismissive words?
No man can tell anyone how God will judge him. You seek forgiveness of sin through Christ and try to live accordingly. If your church is telling you you will go to hell (or guaranteeing you will not) you should find another church. That's not the same as condemning sin and trying to guide people away from it though.
What did Christ say about eternal judgement?
John 12:47-49: "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak."
John 12:47-49: "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak."
> Why would I choose to do this somewhere that the leadership rejects me and tells me I will burn in hell?
Because of the people in the church? Because of the fact that 'the leadership' is just the guy preaching, whereas the actual community is run by everyday people (well in my experience it is).
> It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _don't_ have religious ties.
Well that's exactly it. People say there are myriad options and then don't participate, because they don't have time. Whereas in a church, you have to go. It's an obligation. Which makes it easier for people of all backgrounds to show up.
Because of the people in the church? Because of the fact that 'the leadership' is just the guy preaching, whereas the actual community is run by everyday people (well in my experience it is).
> It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _don't_ have religious ties.
Well that's exactly it. People say there are myriad options and then don't participate, because they don't have time. Whereas in a church, you have to go. It's an obligation. Which makes it easier for people of all backgrounds to show up.
You seem to be simultaneously arguing that it's ok to ignore the religious trappings and just treat the church as a social club, but also that the church is better than just any social club because of the religious trappings.
You've summed up my position pretty well.
If you're not religiously inclined, then you can treat the church as a social club and ignore the religious trappings. It would behoove you to keep your atheism to yourself though, because the church is better than just any social club because of the religious nature. While some number of public doubters can be tolerated without negatively impacting the group, if it gets to be too large a number then the main benefit of community and fellowship would go away.
I am making a position without reference to the truth value of the religious claims because I'm not going to get into a debate on HN over whether Christanity / theism is right or wrong. I personally think that even if you are a committed atheist, church probably is a good idea anyway. If you're a western committed atheist, some denomination of Christianity is probably best
If you're not religiously inclined, then you can treat the church as a social club and ignore the religious trappings. It would behoove you to keep your atheism to yourself though, because the church is better than just any social club because of the religious nature. While some number of public doubters can be tolerated without negatively impacting the group, if it gets to be too large a number then the main benefit of community and fellowship would go away.
I am making a position without reference to the truth value of the religious claims because I'm not going to get into a debate on HN over whether Christanity / theism is right or wrong. I personally think that even if you are a committed atheist, church probably is a good idea anyway. If you're a western committed atheist, some denomination of Christianity is probably best
In my experience, good & satisfying relationships are rooted in trust, loyalty, and respect. I don't really see how hiding your atheism in a community exclusively for believers is anything but a massive betrayal of trust. And how is this worth spending 2 - 3 hours, likely a majority of church time, in a sermon or religious discussion you are utterly unengaged in?
Either you build a friendship on lies, or you spend most of your bonding time unengaged.
I think it's certainly possible to build a substantial relationship with a religious person when you aren't religious yourself, but I'd imagine that in such a scenario, each of you would at least respect each other enough to be honest about your core beliefs.
I can appreciate that if you still believe in their god, there's still a lot of faith and "religious trappings" you can earnestly share. For atheists and the nonreligious, IMHO this seems like terrible advice.
Either you build a friendship on lies, or you spend most of your bonding time unengaged.
I think it's certainly possible to build a substantial relationship with a religious person when you aren't religious yourself, but I'd imagine that in such a scenario, each of you would at least respect each other enough to be honest about your core beliefs.
I can appreciate that if you still believe in their god, there's still a lot of faith and "religious trappings" you can earnestly share. For atheists and the nonreligious, IMHO this seems like terrible advice.
I believe if you're honest with yourself and follow the secular lines of reasoning you will arrive at deism pretty easily
I think atheists are just people who refuse to accept the natural conclusions.
So I don't see any need to hide your atheism really. We're all prone to folly, pride and irrationality and inconclusive thinking.
Honestly, if an atheist came to my Church and was open about it, that's fine with me. I confess doubt all the time too... It's not like I'm perfect. If the number of times my atheist friends have sincerely prayed before a big exam are any indication, I'd think most atheists have periods of extreme fervor.
But, when I've been more of an atheist, I've still found amazing value in religion, so I guess I'm probably just weird.
I think atheists are just people who refuse to accept the natural conclusions.
So I don't see any need to hide your atheism really. We're all prone to folly, pride and irrationality and inconclusive thinking.
Honestly, if an atheist came to my Church and was open about it, that's fine with me. I confess doubt all the time too... It's not like I'm perfect. If the number of times my atheist friends have sincerely prayed before a big exam are any indication, I'd think most atheists have periods of extreme fervor.
But, when I've been more of an atheist, I've still found amazing value in religion, so I guess I'm probably just weird.
I don't think you have to reject the churchgoers to reject the church. Some of the people I feel closest to are devoutly religious. When we eat together I pray with them as a matter of respecting their tradition and participating in the culture, and it is an enjoyable thing to do.
The church has gone out of its way to be unwelcoming to many people, and I just don't want to be part of it. I've been to one church service where the preacher spent a large fraction of the sermon vitriolically condemning atheists. I'm not going to argue with him, but I'm also not going back for more.
I'm not trying to mess up anyone else's tradition, but if churches are shrinking and losing power I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
The church has gone out of its way to be unwelcoming to many people, and I just don't want to be part of it. I've been to one church service where the preacher spent a large fraction of the sermon vitriolically condemning atheists. I'm not going to argue with him, but I'm also not going back for more.
I'm not trying to mess up anyone else's tradition, but if churches are shrinking and losing power I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
I'm an ex-Catholic and am likely one of the left leaning people you're talking about. I left the church because frankly, the actions of the church and its policies are so far from Jesus' teachings that I could no longer reconcile a belief in Christ with mother church.
> We chock it up to things like abortion and sexual ethics but I don't buy it.
Homophobia != sexual ethics.
After my goodbye confession with a good priest I'm still friends with, I never thought I'd have to say these words again. But here we go. Outright homophobia is not about sexual ethics, it's about hatred and closed mindedness. Can you point out a section a single section in the gospels that indicates that this is okay? Can you point out a single statement that Jesus made that implies there is anything wrong with being gay?? I can't, yet mother church won't cut the homophobia.
Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.' But they sure like to harass scared, pregnant women and/or people who have had abortions with their shitty propaganda. Can you show me one thing in the gospels that suggest that is okay??
You can't because it's not. None of this is okay. Jesus would not have approved of much of anything. Crap, you don't even have to read too far into Matthew to realize that Jesus would not have been accepting of any of this.
Catholics are supposed to worship a dude who stopped a woman from being stoned with the words 'let he without sin cast the first stone.' And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it. Has the church sinned?? Hundreds of thousands of abused children point to the fact that yeah, the church has sinned.
Who is the Catholic church to cast stones, particularly when the dude we're supposed to follow was really against casting stones? And why should I stick around something so actively disrespectful? Frankly, I'd rather find a community of people who think love is the solution rather than find a community who preaches love unless you fall into one of about 15,000 boxes.....
Edit - Here's another example that really gets my goat. My own archdiocese excommunicated a woman who was ordained as a priest. I know her, in fact, my Mom used to work with her. I even went out on a couple of dates with one of her daughters and she is an absolutely wonderful person. But mother church excommunicated her because she was ordained as a priest? Why can't she be part of the community that she helped build? She worked within Catholic churches for decades, hence her work with my Mom. She was removed from the community and the priest in her own parish read the most disgusting letter about her. Do you know why???
Her calling is not legitimate. Only a man's calling can be legitimate.
Let's assume that God in God's wisdom subscribes to the Harvard Business Review. If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions. But oh no, the Catholics know God. They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population.
I'm sorry but I can't even write this shit with a straight face. How is a woman's calling totally irrelevant to a point of excommunication when men can fuck children and just get moved to a new parish (for the 17th time)?
Serious question.
> We chock it up to things like abortion and sexual ethics but I don't buy it.
Homophobia != sexual ethics.
After my goodbye confession with a good priest I'm still friends with, I never thought I'd have to say these words again. But here we go. Outright homophobia is not about sexual ethics, it's about hatred and closed mindedness. Can you point out a section a single section in the gospels that indicates that this is okay? Can you point out a single statement that Jesus made that implies there is anything wrong with being gay?? I can't, yet mother church won't cut the homophobia.
Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.' But they sure like to harass scared, pregnant women and/or people who have had abortions with their shitty propaganda. Can you show me one thing in the gospels that suggest that is okay??
You can't because it's not. None of this is okay. Jesus would not have approved of much of anything. Crap, you don't even have to read too far into Matthew to realize that Jesus would not have been accepting of any of this.
Catholics are supposed to worship a dude who stopped a woman from being stoned with the words 'let he without sin cast the first stone.' And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it. Has the church sinned?? Hundreds of thousands of abused children point to the fact that yeah, the church has sinned.
Who is the Catholic church to cast stones, particularly when the dude we're supposed to follow was really against casting stones? And why should I stick around something so actively disrespectful? Frankly, I'd rather find a community of people who think love is the solution rather than find a community who preaches love unless you fall into one of about 15,000 boxes.....
Edit - Here's another example that really gets my goat. My own archdiocese excommunicated a woman who was ordained as a priest. I know her, in fact, my Mom used to work with her. I even went out on a couple of dates with one of her daughters and she is an absolutely wonderful person. But mother church excommunicated her because she was ordained as a priest? Why can't she be part of the community that she helped build? She worked within Catholic churches for decades, hence her work with my Mom. She was removed from the community and the priest in her own parish read the most disgusting letter about her. Do you know why???
Her calling is not legitimate. Only a man's calling can be legitimate.
Let's assume that God in God's wisdom subscribes to the Harvard Business Review. If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions. But oh no, the Catholics know God. They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population.
I'm sorry but I can't even write this shit with a straight face. How is a woman's calling totally irrelevant to a point of excommunication when men can fuck children and just get moved to a new parish (for the 17th time)?
Serious question.
I appreciate your candor. You seem to have pretty set views, but I think they're caricatures. In particular, while pro-life work that is most visible is someone praying at a planned parenthood (and of course, the ones that harass are typically not even Catholic, since it's not just catholics in this 'movement'), the bulk of pro-life work is exceptionally boring things like collecting bottles, diapers, baby clothes, putting together mum and baby classes, etc. No one talks about this because it's not polarizing. Or take the issue of 'homophobia'. No doubt many Catholics will say insensitive things, but almost anything about the potential of homosexual acts being wrong is today conflated with homophobia. And you ask for Christ's statement on sexual orientation, but they are abundant in the gospels. You seem familiar with them, so let's start:
Matthew 19:5: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?".
As you yourself said, Christ was certainly not afraid of breaking social norms of his day. Heterosexuality was a major norm at the time. Don't you think Christ would have said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? Oh yeah, and sometimes a man will leave his father and dad and be united to his husband, because that's the same thing'. The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes, as does Christ's strictifying of existing Jewish sexual ethics, rather than loosening (in his ban on divorce).
The second thing that I see is a lack of understanding of repentance. Christ preventing the prostitute's punishment was because she had repented of her sin, not because sin is irrelevant. The same is true of the female priest. Should she repent, I'm sure she'd be welcomed back (otherwise your Gospel passage would be quite relevant). The priests who corrupted children... well this is a very long story and I know of no lay Catholics who really support the church's handling on this. But the existence of sinners doesn't take away from the utility of church. However I'll point out that the reason that happened was that the church bought too much into the mercy rhetoric that you seem to want it to buy into further. A lot of justification for moving priests was based on the assumption that (1) they had repented, (2) the church should be merciful, and (3) based on psychological understandings of sex in the 60s and 70s which were more radical than today, pedophilia was a condition that could be cured.
Anyway, I'm guessing this will fall on deaf ears and that there is an impenetrable barrier that will keep either of us from convincing the other. So to end, I'll just wish you the best. I mean that. Thanks for the response.
Matthew 19:5: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?".
As you yourself said, Christ was certainly not afraid of breaking social norms of his day. Heterosexuality was a major norm at the time. Don't you think Christ would have said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? Oh yeah, and sometimes a man will leave his father and dad and be united to his husband, because that's the same thing'. The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes, as does Christ's strictifying of existing Jewish sexual ethics, rather than loosening (in his ban on divorce).
The second thing that I see is a lack of understanding of repentance. Christ preventing the prostitute's punishment was because she had repented of her sin, not because sin is irrelevant. The same is true of the female priest. Should she repent, I'm sure she'd be welcomed back (otherwise your Gospel passage would be quite relevant). The priests who corrupted children... well this is a very long story and I know of no lay Catholics who really support the church's handling on this. But the existence of sinners doesn't take away from the utility of church. However I'll point out that the reason that happened was that the church bought too much into the mercy rhetoric that you seem to want it to buy into further. A lot of justification for moving priests was based on the assumption that (1) they had repented, (2) the church should be merciful, and (3) based on psychological understandings of sex in the 60s and 70s which were more radical than today, pedophilia was a condition that could be cured.
Anyway, I'm guessing this will fall on deaf ears and that there is an impenetrable barrier that will keep either of us from convincing the other. So to end, I'll just wish you the best. I mean that. Thanks for the response.
> Heterosexuality was a major norm at the time.
Inaccurate - the Greeks, for example, had institutionalized pederasty disguised as building bonds between generations. The Romans had... problematic beliefs about heterosexual sex as well.
> The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes
It speaks volumes about how incomplete the historical record is, but very little else. Did the person who wrote this passage ever even meet Christ? I'm under the impression that Chris-as-singular-historical-figure is accepted based on lighter evidence than we require for other historical figures. And that the Bible was mostly written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed. That's not much of a basis for strict interpretation based on what isn't present, nearly 2000 years later.
Inaccurate - the Greeks, for example, had institutionalized pederasty disguised as building bonds between generations. The Romans had... problematic beliefs about heterosexual sex as well.
> The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes
It speaks volumes about how incomplete the historical record is, but very little else. Did the person who wrote this passage ever even meet Christ? I'm under the impression that Chris-as-singular-historical-figure is accepted based on lighter evidence than we require for other historical figures. And that the Bible was mostly written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed. That's not much of a basis for strict interpretation based on what isn't present, nearly 2000 years later.
> I'm under the impression that Chris-as-singular-historical-figure is accepted based on lighter evidence than we require for other historical figures.
You're under a false impression, and are spreading a myth [0][1]. In fact, your claim is exactly backwards: Certain laypeople (you seem to be among them) demand more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than for other famous people of antiquity.
> And that the Bible was mostly written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed.
First, this is complete nonsense, given that ~77% of the Bible is the Old Testament, whose books have been dated to centuries BCE [1].
Second, if we charitably reinterpret your comment as referring to the New Testament, it is also false. The Book of Revelation is generally accepted by traditional scholarship to have been written during the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE) [1]. A handful (3-4) of other books are dated to 110 CE at most.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
You're under a false impression, and are spreading a myth [0][1]. In fact, your claim is exactly backwards: Certain laypeople (you seem to be among them) demand more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than for other famous people of antiquity.
> And that the Bible was mostly written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed.
First, this is complete nonsense, given that ~77% of the Bible is the Old Testament, whose books have been dated to centuries BCE [1].
Second, if we charitably reinterpret your comment as referring to the New Testament, it is also false. The Book of Revelation is generally accepted by traditional scholarship to have been written during the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE) [1]. A handful (3-4) of other books are dated to 110 CE at most.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
My understanding is based on the wikipedia article called "Historical Jesus", which confusingly is different than the "Historicity of Jesus". Also, a book I read a long time ago, called "Who Wrote the Bible".
I'm not purporting to be a biblical scholar, but it's clear to me that the evidence for Jesus is not as strong as, say, the evidence for Julius Caesar.
The fact that there is no direct evidence points to at least some haziness about the character. The same could be said for a number of other historical figures. It's pretty clear there are limitations to the evidence, from Wikipedia:
"The historical Jesus scholarship is bound by the following limitations:
- There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus; all existing sources are documentary.
- The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles.
- All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.
- The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.[33] The authenticity and reliability of these sources have been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[34]"
So it seems that no writings about him survive from his life, by or about him. There is no physical evidence of his existence. Most of the evidence was written by early Christians, and few of the events they write about are universally accepted. And given the propensity of religious followers to exaggerate, I don't personally put a lot of stock in much of the motivated reasoning exhibited.
His is a resume with some holes in it. Smarter and better informed people disagree with me, but I'm just processing the evidence as I see it.
I'm not purporting to be a biblical scholar, but it's clear to me that the evidence for Jesus is not as strong as, say, the evidence for Julius Caesar.
The fact that there is no direct evidence points to at least some haziness about the character. The same could be said for a number of other historical figures. It's pretty clear there are limitations to the evidence, from Wikipedia:
"The historical Jesus scholarship is bound by the following limitations:
- There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus; all existing sources are documentary.
- The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles.
- All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.
- The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.[33] The authenticity and reliability of these sources have been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[34]"
So it seems that no writings about him survive from his life, by or about him. There is no physical evidence of his existence. Most of the evidence was written by early Christians, and few of the events they write about are universally accepted. And given the propensity of religious followers to exaggerate, I don't personally put a lot of stock in much of the motivated reasoning exhibited.
His is a resume with some holes in it. Smarter and better informed people disagree with me, but I'm just processing the evidence as I see it.
What do you mean by "physical evidence"? As Bart D. Ehrman (a non-Christian New Testament scholar) explains:
The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place.
Who was the most important Jewish figure in Palestine for the entire first century (who wasn’t, say, the actual king)? There’s no doubt. Flavius Josephus. Highly placed aristocrat, military leader, political figure, eventually made a court historian by the Roman emperor himself, and our principal source of information for the Jewish people and history at the time. And how much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? None.
So too, who is (by far) the best known Jewish cultural figure outside of Palestine in the first century? Again, not much competition: Philo of Alexandria, brilliant philosopher, massively prolific author, political activist, known even at the highest levels of government in Rome itself. How much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? Again, none. The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. "These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information," Ehrman says. "But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases."
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
Regarding the apocryphal texts, they're called apocryphal for a reason, and do not form part of the Biblical canon.
The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place.
Who was the most important Jewish figure in Palestine for the entire first century (who wasn’t, say, the actual king)? There’s no doubt. Flavius Josephus. Highly placed aristocrat, military leader, political figure, eventually made a court historian by the Roman emperor himself, and our principal source of information for the Jewish people and history at the time. And how much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? None.
So too, who is (by far) the best known Jewish cultural figure outside of Palestine in the first century? Again, not much competition: Philo of Alexandria, brilliant philosopher, massively prolific author, political activist, known even at the highest levels of government in Rome itself. How much archaeological evidence do we have of his existence? Again, none. The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.
The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. "These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information," Ehrman says. "But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases."
Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.
Regarding the apocryphal texts, they're called apocryphal for a reason, and do not form part of the Biblical canon.
Dude, you started this out by calling my views caricatures and end it with wishing me the best?? The cognitive dissonance is very very strong in you.
I’m not going to reply to anything this disrespectful. Fake people aren’t worth my time.
Edit - A great Jesuit priest and mentor once said to be very careful with people who start with an insult, move on to a bible quote and end with good wishes. I understand his position. Frankly, it’s a shame you couldn’t be more respectful - we could have learned from each other’s theology.
I’m not going to reply to anything this disrespectful. Fake people aren’t worth my time.
Edit - A great Jesuit priest and mentor once said to be very careful with people who start with an insult, move on to a bible quote and end with good wishes. I understand his position. Frankly, it’s a shame you couldn’t be more respectful - we could have learned from each other’s theology.
Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I wish him ill. Calling his view caricatures says nothing of his character.
Your comment was indeed full of caricatures:
> Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.'
> And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it.
> Only a man's calling can be legitimate.
> If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions.
> They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population.
> Or take the church's silly little pro life movement. Do you notice that it's directed against women? Pro lifers never take out billboards that say 'Men, don't have sex with women when they're drunk. That is called rape.'
> And here we are, stoning the gay, stoning the activists and stoning reproductive rights without so much as a thought about it.
> Only a man's calling can be legitimate.
> If God had an organization with a really serious sexual abuse crisis and if God read the HBR, God might decide it makes sense to bring some women into leadership positions.
> They had a direct line to God when they were abusing all those kids or ethnically cleansing Canada of its indigenous population.
It's religion not politics that makes church-attendance undesirable for most non-church-goers. Having said that, I agree that we are missing something that modern secular society is missing something that used to take place in churches.
I'm not so convinced as you that the religious aspect is required to make it work. Shared purpose maybe, but there are lots of ways of creating that. In another comment you mentioned "might as well be a community centre", which I think is interesting because community centres are one of the other places I've this sense of well... community.
One thing that churches have other than religion which I think often gets overlooked is money (in particular they generally own the building they use). I've seen more than one excellent community centre closed down because they ran out of funding and couldn't afford to keep paying the rent. I would love to see a concerted effort at government funded secular churches designed to serve a parish-sized community.
I'm not so convinced as you that the religious aspect is required to make it work. Shared purpose maybe, but there are lots of ways of creating that. In another comment you mentioned "might as well be a community centre", which I think is interesting because community centres are one of the other places I've this sense of well... community.
One thing that churches have other than religion which I think often gets overlooked is money (in particular they generally own the building they use). I've seen more than one excellent community centre closed down because they ran out of funding and couldn't afford to keep paying the rent. I would love to see a concerted effort at government funded secular churches designed to serve a parish-sized community.
I doubt I'd participate in a secular community center, so I'd be interested in seeing this as an outside observer. But honestly, I doubt it'd work. Without any common values, it'll be hard to get a diverse set of people.
In my experience, when secular people start this, it ends up being a club for other secular people 'like them'. In America the starkest examples of this are when these community clubs founded by whites end up being essentially white only, or black-only if founded by a black. Not due to any racism on part of the founder but simply that, without an explicit shared value system, no one quite knows what to believe except those 'already in the know'.
I notice this with my own in-laws, who are white WASPy types. I am a Catholic obviously, and not white. Sometimes, they'll talk in ways that make me feel out of place and that I can't relate to. On the other hand, when white Catholics talk about Catholicism, I feel we're on the same wave length.
> I would love to see a concerted effort at government funded secular churches designed to serve a parish-sized community.
I think it's sad we have to replace grassroots decentralized community efforts with centralized government funded ones in this day and age. It's like we've regressed.
That's my observation. I'd be interested in seeing this thing come around, and i'll continue to watch from the sidelines with interest. Maybe I'll even show up after church.
In my experience, when secular people start this, it ends up being a club for other secular people 'like them'. In America the starkest examples of this are when these community clubs founded by whites end up being essentially white only, or black-only if founded by a black. Not due to any racism on part of the founder but simply that, without an explicit shared value system, no one quite knows what to believe except those 'already in the know'.
I notice this with my own in-laws, who are white WASPy types. I am a Catholic obviously, and not white. Sometimes, they'll talk in ways that make me feel out of place and that I can't relate to. On the other hand, when white Catholics talk about Catholicism, I feel we're on the same wave length.
> I would love to see a concerted effort at government funded secular churches designed to serve a parish-sized community.
I think it's sad we have to replace grassroots decentralized community efforts with centralized government funded ones in this day and age. It's like we've regressed.
That's my observation. I'd be interested in seeing this thing come around, and i'll continue to watch from the sidelines with interest. Maybe I'll even show up after church.
> Without any common values, it'll be hard to get a diverse set of people.
The fundamental premise of the United States is that a body of people can have shared values without shared religion.
A supernatural deity is not required to believe that all people are created equal and deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The fundamental premise of the United States is that a body of people can have shared values without shared religion.
A supernatural deity is not required to believe that all people are created equal and deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The fundamental premise was not an absence of religion. Most of the founders and certainly all of the original colonists were religious. The premise was no state-endorsed or mandated religion.
There's a big difference between living in the same country as people I don't share deep values with and actively seeking out their company.
I sincerely doubt most hn readers are seeking active companionship with someone from rural Alabama.
Of course I have shared values with almost every american. That small set of values is just not enough for deep friendship even if it's enough for civic patriotism.
I sincerely doubt most hn readers are seeking active companionship with someone from rural Alabama.
Of course I have shared values with almost every american. That small set of values is just not enough for deep friendship even if it's enough for civic patriotism.
You have gone to very different churches than I grew up in. The secular groups I was in at public school, college, and then as an adult were all MUCH more accepting and diverse than the churches I was in as a kid, and the private school I went to for the first 9 years of my education.
"If you stay Catholic you're going to hell" was a memorable thing one of my teachers told one of my classmates...
They really didn't like me much when I started asking questions they didn't have answers for other than "you just have to have faith," either.
"If you stay Catholic you're going to hell" was a memorable thing one of my teachers told one of my classmates...
They really didn't like me much when I started asking questions they didn't have answers for other than "you just have to have faith," either.
No doubt. If it were not for one teacher who was clearly trained in Catholic apologetics in middle school, I don't think i would have remained Catholic. The church does a terrible job of catechesis, which is a shame, since it's spent a lot of time thinking about it.
> When literally everyone of all political stripes attended the same churches
The mere act of belonging to any given religion pre-selected certain ideas about how the world works and should work. Hardly "all political stripes".
The mere act of belonging to any given religion pre-selected certain ideas about how the world works and should work. Hardly "all political stripes".
Okay but if everyone attended church, as it used to be in this country, then by definition, essentially all political stripes of any import would be represented in them, and people would have to confront people who disagree with them physically.
It sounds a lot like what you're saying is "only christians matter", or worse "everyone should either be christian or pretend to be", because I can't see that working any other way. If jews go to temple and christians go to church, and muslims go to mosques, then they don't have to be exposed to each other's opinions. If jews and muslims pretend to be christian and go to church then they can't expose any opinions that go against christian worldview.
I think this is a valid criticism, but seeing as that we've replaced church with ... nothing, I still find it difficult to imagine that my vision of society would be worse than the one we're living in.
The truth is that despite decades of trying, the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status have utterly failed.
For most people, church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them and be of widely different socioeconomic status and yet still be acquaintances.
Our neighborhoods are segregated by socioeconomic class and increasingly, by profession. Our 'clubs' are non-existent, and where they do exist, cater to special interests and hobbies.
We need something that works, not something that is perfect. I still maintain that church, temple, mosque, etc is the best thing.
The truth is that despite decades of trying, the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status have utterly failed.
For most people, church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them and be of widely different socioeconomic status and yet still be acquaintances.
Our neighborhoods are segregated by socioeconomic class and increasingly, by profession. Our 'clubs' are non-existent, and where they do exist, cater to special interests and hobbies.
We need something that works, not something that is perfect. I still maintain that church, temple, mosque, etc is the best thing.
Church attendance isn't about "unifying interest" or socioeconomic status? The unified interest is obvious: salvation through christ, and churches tend to serve a relatively small community which is likely to be of very similar socioeconomic status. That's not even to mention the abject racism that led to black christians having to set up their own churches (which white people often subsequently burnt down).
The olden days where "everybody" went to church every week still had tons of social problems.
The olden days where "everybody" went to church every week still had tons of social problems.
Salvation through christ is -- from a secular perspective -- such a nebulous interest, it might as well be a community club.
>the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status
Unfortunately, I don't think what you are describing ever existed. Every "get-together-group" I can think of has some kind of common interest, even if its something as simple as drinking coffee or reading books. I think your attachment to the church has a lot more to do with your emotions than thinking rationally. The way I see it, the cat is out of the bag with regards to organized religion. It is well known that there have been many corrupt religious organizations and heinous acts committed in the name of religion. To make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine.
>Church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them
Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests? Also, was the point of the article to only talk to people without shared interests? Isn't one of the first things you do when you get to know someone is try to find a common interest?
Unfortunately, I don't think what you are describing ever existed. Every "get-together-group" I can think of has some kind of common interest, even if its something as simple as drinking coffee or reading books. I think your attachment to the church has a lot more to do with your emotions than thinking rationally. The way I see it, the cat is out of the bag with regards to organized religion. It is well known that there have been many corrupt religious organizations and heinous acts committed in the name of religion. To make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine.
>Church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them
Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests? Also, was the point of the article to only talk to people without shared interests? Isn't one of the first things you do when you get to know someone is try to find a common interest?
> Io make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine.
What? I never made that argument. You're putting words in my mouth and calling me asinine. Please actually respond to what I wrote.
> Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests?
Nature of reality is more than an interest in my view. If you can't agree on reality, then no amount of shared interests can cover that gap.
As for the bible, history of the church, and community development... I guess those could be shared interests. But if you've ever met many Catholics, few are interested in the bible, even fewer in church history. We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that! But other than super uppity social clubs, I've never really seen a dinner group achieve the success of the church, so i'm forced to conclude the religious aspect has something to do with it.
What? I never made that argument. You're putting words in my mouth and calling me asinine. Please actually respond to what I wrote.
> Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests?
Nature of reality is more than an interest in my view. If you can't agree on reality, then no amount of shared interests can cover that gap.
As for the bible, history of the church, and community development... I guess those could be shared interests. But if you've ever met many Catholics, few are interested in the bible, even fewer in church history. We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that! But other than super uppity social clubs, I've never really seen a dinner group achieve the success of the church, so i'm forced to conclude the religious aspect has something to do with it.
>We do like drinking and eating together though, so we got that!
Regardless of the details of your argument, or whether my paraphrase of your original comment was accurate, it is an infeasible solution to suggest that everyone needs to go to church in order to address the loneliness, social anxiety, and tribalism. Your comments all have a condescending, passive aggressive tone and you are trying all kinds of dirty tactics to manipulate the debate to your favor. I doubt you have any real interest in more people going to church. Based on your comments, your goal is to argue and put blame on others. I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has really learned from this discussion (flamewar) and I regret engaging in it.
Regardless of the details of your argument, or whether my paraphrase of your original comment was accurate, it is an infeasible solution to suggest that everyone needs to go to church in order to address the loneliness, social anxiety, and tribalism. Your comments all have a condescending, passive aggressive tone and you are trying all kinds of dirty tactics to manipulate the debate to your favor. I doubt you have any real interest in more people going to church. Based on your comments, your goal is to argue and put blame on others. I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has really learned from this discussion (flamewar) and I regret engaging in it.
This is a more apt description of your own comments, not least because you misattributed a completely fictitious "argument" to the GP. Perhaps your anger is clouding your ability to understand the GP's comments, which have been very respectful.
You realize that political battles between catholics, protestants, puritans, etc have historically been far more partisan and violent than what we see happening today. Church attendance is absolutely not a panacea for social cohesion with a country.
The United States was basically created because of religious splits in Europe and an unwillingness to agree. Constitutional freedom of religion, something baked into the founding tenants of the country, exists solely because religious people clearly can't get along.
To see a Catholic espouse church and faith as a social solution in the US is some next level irony.
To see a Catholic espouse church and faith as a social solution in the US is some next level irony.
Totally. As a devout Anti-theist I really wish I could join some kind of secular group that was identical to a church but without the religion. Go every Sunday with my family, socialize with the folks, have potlucks and events, help people out when they need it, etc. We need to bring back this sense of community.
Isn't the problem though that this doesn't work without a fiction that we all believe to be non-fiction?
You need to create a fiction that is believed in more than any individual differences but it doesn't work if we know it is fiction. The group will not be able to put aside differences for very long without it.
There is very clever aspect to what the church has done that is very hard to replicate.
I really think team sports are the closest you can get. This guy putting the ball over the goal line is the most important thing in the world and you can gel 90,000 drunk people to watch it without it becoming complete chaos. It is the same process at work.
You need to create a fiction that is believed in more than any individual differences but it doesn't work if we know it is fiction. The group will not be able to put aside differences for very long without it.
There is very clever aspect to what the church has done that is very hard to replicate.
I really think team sports are the closest you can get. This guy putting the ball over the goal line is the most important thing in the world and you can gel 90,000 drunk people to watch it without it becoming complete chaos. It is the same process at work.
Why "fiction"?
You could take a look at Unitarian Universalism or fraternal organizations.
> However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable.
I personally stopped going to church because of the politics coming from the pulpit. The last sermon I heard was the preacher saying Barack Obama was “demonic” because his weak foreign policy made it harder to spread Christianity throughout the world, therefore forestalling the end times. Of course it wasn’t just that one sermon: the homophobia, the sexism, the anti-science attitudes had all been bothering me for years before I finally quit.
I personally stopped going to church because of the politics coming from the pulpit. The last sermon I heard was the preacher saying Barack Obama was “demonic” because his weak foreign policy made it harder to spread Christianity throughout the world, therefore forestalling the end times. Of course it wasn’t just that one sermon: the homophobia, the sexism, the anti-science attitudes had all been bothering me for years before I finally quit.
> When literally everyone of all political stripes attended the same churches
"It is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning" -MLK
"It is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning" -MLK
I think church is great for mixing up people who differ professionally and socioeconomically. But at least in the US it has also very much deepened the racial and (obviously) religious lines between people.
> But at least in the US it has also very much deepened the racial and (obviously) religious lines between people.
Not clear at all. Catholics for example are the most likely group to marry interracially.
Religiously, I don't see the christian sects as very divided, despite their many differences. There seems to be a large set of common ground.
Even amongst religions, there is a lot of good will. I can't think of any widespread religious riot in the US (I could totally be wrong though).
Not clear at all. Catholics for example are the most likely group to marry interracially.
Religiously, I don't see the christian sects as very divided, despite their many differences. There seems to be a large set of common ground.
Even amongst religions, there is a lot of good will. I can't think of any widespread religious riot in the US (I could totally be wrong though).
> Not clear at all. Catholics for example are the most likely group to marry interracially.
Catholicism is an outlier here:
About half of people who attend church once a year or never said they had dated interracially; just 27 percent of respondents who attend weekly or more reported dating a person of another race, according to a study using data from the 2007 Baylor Religion Survey.
http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/the-ties-that-may-no...
> Religiously, I don't see the christian sects as very divided, despite their many differences.
It matters less how you personally see this than it does how church-goers in aggregate feel and behave. Certainly, growing up in the South, it was abundantly clear that there were black churches and white churches and that the two very rarely mixed.
The KKK is an explicitly anti-Black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, pro-Protestant Christianity organization. Its self-stated reason for existence is to push down members of other religions and races. You can argue that these members aren't "real Christians", but they are sure as hell going to church and their fellow church-goers think they are.
*> I can't think of any widespread religious riot in the US (I could totally be wrong though).
It has a Wikipedia category:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religiously_motivated...
Catholicism is an outlier here:
About half of people who attend church once a year or never said they had dated interracially; just 27 percent of respondents who attend weekly or more reported dating a person of another race, according to a study using data from the 2007 Baylor Religion Survey.
http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/the-ties-that-may-no...
> Religiously, I don't see the christian sects as very divided, despite their many differences.
It matters less how you personally see this than it does how church-goers in aggregate feel and behave. Certainly, growing up in the South, it was abundantly clear that there were black churches and white churches and that the two very rarely mixed.
The KKK is an explicitly anti-Black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, pro-Protestant Christianity organization. Its self-stated reason for existence is to push down members of other religions and races. You can argue that these members aren't "real Christians", but they are sure as hell going to church and their fellow church-goers think they are.
*> I can't think of any widespread religious riot in the US (I could totally be wrong though).
It has a Wikipedia category:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religiously_motivated...
Honestly thanks for the info on the riots. The KKK is so obvious that I'm embarrassed it didn't cross my mind.
I will be the first to admit I have zero understanding of protestantism other than that most seem nice. They're like Muslims to me except they believe in Jesus which seems nice.
I will be the first to admit I have zero understanding of protestantism other than that most seem nice. They're like Muslims to me except they believe in Jesus which seems nice.
Plenty of people still go to church but attendance is declining as the popularity of the churches morals, biases and lessons fall out of favor. One could probably argue that as the larger Christian sects have become associated with politics that decline has accelerated. It does not make sense for people who don't believe in god or hold different views on what is moral or not to attend . With that said I am sure you are quite right that having something in common such as church attendance, etc. leads to community building but only as far as between those already in the same community, Catholicism, southern Baptist, etc. I do think that people would be well served to get involved in large organized groups but optimally ones that are not bent on separating people into us and them. I don't think that a decline in church attendance is in any way the driver of societies ills as church attendance was sky high in the 40's and 50's and did not go so great for everyone. My personal opinion is that social media, echo chambers and the ability to isolate oneself by having most of ones superficial needs met via technology is the cause.
> We used to call this going to church.
Elementary school was the same. Military service with enforced conscription is also similar.
Elementary school was the same. Military service with enforced conscription is also similar.
> However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable.
This comment appears to be a dog whistle, so please do correct me if I'm totally wrong here. But this reads like "Democrats / the left have demonized belonging to a church / Christianity," which is a common right wing talking point. Is that what you're saying here?
This comment appears to be a dog whistle, so please do correct me if I'm totally wrong here. But this reads like "Democrats / the left have demonized belonging to a church / Christianity," which is a common right wing talking point. Is that what you're saying here?
There is no need to violate the principle of charity or HN norms. Whether or not the gp meant Democrats, do you really think that atheists, agnosts, members of all other religions, scientists, artists, spiritualists, conspiracy theorists, and rationalists of all stripes form a monolithic political faction?
I don't mean just the democrats no. It seems to me to be a large faction of people, including certain elements of the 'alt-right'.
But yes, you're right in that I perceive the left as having demonized belonging to a church. This explains the growing disconnect between the democratic party and minorities, and why the GOP has started to make gains with them. The democratic party ignores religion at its own peril.
It's especially weird since the democratic party used to be really into religion.
This is hardly a 'right wing talking point'. My own parents left the democratic party because of this, well before they had ever tuned in to Fox, Limbaugh, or whatever. Labeling something as a 'right wing talking point' is just a democratic dog whistle to ignore real phenomena.
But yes, you're right in that I perceive the left as having demonized belonging to a church. This explains the growing disconnect between the democratic party and minorities, and why the GOP has started to make gains with them. The democratic party ignores religion at its own peril.
It's especially weird since the democratic party used to be really into religion.
This is hardly a 'right wing talking point'. My own parents left the democratic party because of this, well before they had ever tuned in to Fox, Limbaugh, or whatever. Labeling something as a 'right wing talking point' is just a democratic dog whistle to ignore real phenomena.
Yeah, I too long for the days past when the US had less cultural problems/conflicts due to high church attendance numbers.
I know right? What happened to the good old days when the big mainstream church organizations like the SBC were fighting the good fight against evils such as interracial marriage and civil rights?
Don't forget delightful religious advocacy fraternal organizations like the KKK.
> I know right? What happened to the good old days when the big mainstream church organizations like the SBC were fighting the good fight against evils such as interracial marriage and civil rights?
You're just picking and choosing. In reality, religious organizations, like the Catholic church for example, were fighting the opposite fight. Perez v Sharp in California was orchestrated by the church: http://ccgaction.org/node/1011
Of course, if we encourage community involvement, there will be good organizations and bad ones. For example, we provide 501(c)3 status to both Planned Parenthood as well as a pro-life organization.
You're just picking and choosing. In reality, religious organizations, like the Catholic church for example, were fighting the opposite fight. Perez v Sharp in California was orchestrated by the church: http://ccgaction.org/node/1011
Of course, if we encourage community involvement, there will be good organizations and bad ones. For example, we provide 501(c)3 status to both Planned Parenthood as well as a pro-life organization.
Good for them, seriously, but I don't think it takes a lot of "picking and choosing" to point out how influential "christian" churches were in the fight to preserve America's white supremist hierarchy.
The SBC was and remains the largest christian organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.
The SBC was and remains the largest christian organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.
> The SBC was and remains the largest christian organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.
The Catholic church is by far the largest christian organization in the united states.
SBC is a distant second:
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/top-10-largest...
The Catholic church is by far the largest christian organization in the united states.
SBC is a distant second:
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/top-10-largest...
Ok, allow me to amend my statement:
The SBC was and remains the largest protestant organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.
If you dismiss such things as mere "picking and choosing", you're unlikely to to be able to understand viewpoints to which you're inclined to disagree.
The SBC was and remains the largest protestant organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.
If you dismiss such things as mere "picking and choosing", you're unlikely to to be able to understand viewpoints to which you're inclined to disagree.
> If you dismiss such things as mere "picking and choosing", you're unlikely to to be able to understand viewpoints to which you're inclined to disagree.
You said the SBC was the largest Christian denomination. Then, when that was false, you changed it to 'largest Protestant organization'.
I mean, you can restrict things down to anything to prove a point. Did you know my McDonalds down the block has the highest sales revenue of any McDonalds in inner NE portland between the hours of 5 and 7PM? It's just crazy that we're blessed with such a prestigious example of fine business in my area.
You said the SBC was the largest Christian denomination. Then, when that was false, you changed it to 'largest Protestant organization'.
I mean, you can restrict things down to anything to prove a point. Did you know my McDonalds down the block has the highest sales revenue of any McDonalds in inner NE portland between the hours of 5 and 7PM? It's just crazy that we're blessed with such a prestigious example of fine business in my area.
Right, I acknowledge your correction, so I responded with an amended statement, with emphasis on the part that I'd gotten wrong. Let me know if you'd like something more, like a written apology or something.
If your argument mainly focuses on whether the SBC is the first or second largest American religious organization, then I guess you win. Congratulations!
It pains me to point out something so obvious, but the SBC was only one of the large mainstream Christian denominations to actively support slavery, and to later actively oppose civil rights for non-whites. But if you're able to dismiss the entire tortured and complicated historical relationship between American Christianity and racial oppression with a handy comparison to a neighborhood restaurant, then I guess you win again.
If your argument mainly focuses on whether the SBC is the first or second largest American religious organization, then I guess you win. Congratulations!
It pains me to point out something so obvious, but the SBC was only one of the large mainstream Christian denominations to actively support slavery, and to later actively oppose civil rights for non-whites. But if you're able to dismiss the entire tortured and complicated historical relationship between American Christianity and racial oppression with a handy comparison to a neighborhood restaurant, then I guess you win again.
SBC is not only not the first largest, it's a different order of magnitude.
And my point was that it's a mixed bag. While a lot of support for slavery was nominally Christian, so was a lot of opposition.
For example, the Battle Hymn of the Republic is just that -- a hymn -- and its words on slavery are absolutely brutal. You can say 'christianity was a force for slavery' but you can't say that while not also acknowledging christianity was behind abolition as well.
And my point was that it's a mixed bag. While a lot of support for slavery was nominally Christian, so was a lot of opposition.
For example, the Battle Hymn of the Republic is just that -- a hymn -- and its words on slavery are absolutely brutal. You can say 'christianity was a force for slavery' but you can't say that while not also acknowledging christianity was behind abolition as well.
"Yeah but you weren't just wrong. You were wrong by a lot!"
:)
> my point was that it's a mixed bag. While a lot of support for slavery was nominally Christian, so was a lot of opposition.
Ok, but that's not what you said. You objected, without qualification, to the notion that large mainstream christian denominations supported white supremacy. IIRC, you said such talk was "picking and choosing".
Now, if the new location of your goalposts is their true permanent home, I'm happy to report that we agree with each other!
:)
> my point was that it's a mixed bag. While a lot of support for slavery was nominally Christian, so was a lot of opposition.
Ok, but that's not what you said. You objected, without qualification, to the notion that large mainstream christian denominations supported white supremacy. IIRC, you said such talk was "picking and choosing".
Now, if the new location of your goalposts is their true permanent home, I'm happy to report that we agree with each other!
And these two sets of people killed each other in the process of settling their diffences. It not unity by any meaningful sense.
And I mean, this even comletely ignores blacks who form their own groups definitely not united all that much with above.
And I mean, this even comletely ignores blacks who form their own groups definitely not united all that much with above.
[deleted]
wavefunction(2)
"At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation." It's difficult for me to justify buying into the idea of Christian social life as the source of American unity when 10 years ago participating would have seen me bombarded with the reasons why my homosexuality would see me burn in hell for all eternity, or when 200 years ago it would have seen me bombarded with all the point of scripture that justified my being treated as property. This is as someone whose grandfather was a deacon; I can't imagine what people whose families don't have a church tradition at all must think of this suggestion.
I do think that the segregation of social life is at the heart of much of this country's ills. However, perhaps that has more to do with things like, say, Bill and Sally's frankly hysterical fear of sharing a street with the Freemans. How to reduce social division in America in the long-term: ban private schools, fund public schools at the national level, and do it quickly, utterly, and irrevocably. I don't know if you would end up with a single, continental American nation, but the part left still known as "The United States of America" would be profoundly united.
Even if you disagree, you must understand that the notion that everyone must attend church for America to achieve some measure of unity is about as radical. The focus must be on the bringing together of disparate communities, secularly.
I do think that the segregation of social life is at the heart of much of this country's ills. However, perhaps that has more to do with things like, say, Bill and Sally's frankly hysterical fear of sharing a street with the Freemans. How to reduce social division in America in the long-term: ban private schools, fund public schools at the national level, and do it quickly, utterly, and irrevocably. I don't know if you would end up with a single, continental American nation, but the part left still known as "The United States of America" would be profoundly united.
Even if you disagree, you must understand that the notion that everyone must attend church for America to achieve some measure of unity is about as radical. The focus must be on the bringing together of disparate communities, secularly.
> The focus must be on the bringing together of disparate communities, secularly.
Except the 'United' states of America has never been about that kind of community. That's more of the fraternite of the French revolution than the spirit of America.
American unity has been due to the result of multiple different organizations and factions all participating in a common undertaking, rather than one centralized organization doing the planning and execution (as would be the case if we 'nationalized' education and did away with private schooling).
My view of America as one in which everyone can belong to different organizations, but still work together is the historical norm.
In de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America', written at the founding of the USA, de Tocqueville (an outside french observer) writes:
> Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types—religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. > > Americans combine to give fetes, found seminaries, build churches, distribute books, and send missionaries to the antipodes. Hospitals, prisons, and schools take shape in that way... In every case, at the head of any new undertaking, where in France you would find the government or in England some territorial magnate, in the United States you are sure to find an association.
By asking the government to 'fund public schools at the national level' you are making America like France or England rather than what it historically has been, which is highly decentralized and disjointed, but still unified.
This in my opinion is the great disconnect between 'progressives' and 'conservatives' (for lack of better terms). There's a certain type of person that, when they see a problem, immediately asks how government can be leveraged to solve it. Whereas, for me, personally, and others I know, my response would be ... how could I get my local church men's club to help out. Because I can't control the government, and by the time I lobby and campaign, the problem will still have affected a bunch of other people. Whereas it's pretty easy to gather a group of guys to fix it.
One obvious example of this is -- as you mentioned -- schools. Before public schools were a thing, catholic communities all across the country pooled together parish money to start affordable schools, with great academic results. In response, the government started the public school system so people wouldn't have to deal with the church. That's fine and dandy, but we need to accept the fact that private organizations worked better than the government to immediately provide the service of education.
The same is true of hospitals. Go to any US city of any import, and you'll be sure to find a Catholic hospital. Where is the government if it's so useful. Even in Europe, where the healthcare systems are nationalized, half the hospitals used to be ones run by the Church. It remains to be seen how these nationalized healthcare systems will play out over the long-term (thousands of years), but we know how it works when the Church runs them... they stay around for a long time.
Except the 'United' states of America has never been about that kind of community. That's more of the fraternite of the French revolution than the spirit of America.
American unity has been due to the result of multiple different organizations and factions all participating in a common undertaking, rather than one centralized organization doing the planning and execution (as would be the case if we 'nationalized' education and did away with private schooling).
My view of America as one in which everyone can belong to different organizations, but still work together is the historical norm.
In de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America', written at the founding of the USA, de Tocqueville (an outside french observer) writes:
> Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types—religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. > > Americans combine to give fetes, found seminaries, build churches, distribute books, and send missionaries to the antipodes. Hospitals, prisons, and schools take shape in that way... In every case, at the head of any new undertaking, where in France you would find the government or in England some territorial magnate, in the United States you are sure to find an association.
By asking the government to 'fund public schools at the national level' you are making America like France or England rather than what it historically has been, which is highly decentralized and disjointed, but still unified.
This in my opinion is the great disconnect between 'progressives' and 'conservatives' (for lack of better terms). There's a certain type of person that, when they see a problem, immediately asks how government can be leveraged to solve it. Whereas, for me, personally, and others I know, my response would be ... how could I get my local church men's club to help out. Because I can't control the government, and by the time I lobby and campaign, the problem will still have affected a bunch of other people. Whereas it's pretty easy to gather a group of guys to fix it.
One obvious example of this is -- as you mentioned -- schools. Before public schools were a thing, catholic communities all across the country pooled together parish money to start affordable schools, with great academic results. In response, the government started the public school system so people wouldn't have to deal with the church. That's fine and dandy, but we need to accept the fact that private organizations worked better than the government to immediately provide the service of education.
The same is true of hospitals. Go to any US city of any import, and you'll be sure to find a Catholic hospital. Where is the government if it's so useful. Even in Europe, where the healthcare systems are nationalized, half the hospitals used to be ones run by the Church. It remains to be seen how these nationalized healthcare systems will play out over the long-term (thousands of years), but we know how it works when the Church runs them... they stay around for a long time.
> That's fine and dandy, but we need to accept the fact that private organizations worked better than the government to immediately provide the service of education.
There's much wrong with what you have posted here and elsewhere, but I'll just focus on this one. There are numerous studies looking at private vs public schools, and public schools are just as good as private if you get rid of confounding factors (private school students tend to come from wealthier families, for instance).
There are many, many sources for this, here's a good start:
https://www.upworthy.com/public-versus-private-school-a-stud...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2019/07/03/why-w...
https://www.hepg.org/hel-home/issues/31_1/helarticle/turning...
There's much wrong with what you have posted here and elsewhere, but I'll just focus on this one. There are numerous studies looking at private vs public schools, and public schools are just as good as private if you get rid of confounding factors (private school students tend to come from wealthier families, for instance).
There are many, many sources for this, here's a good start:
https://www.upworthy.com/public-versus-private-school-a-stud...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2019/07/03/why-w...
https://www.hepg.org/hel-home/issues/31_1/helarticle/turning...
You are arguing something completely different. I pointed out that before public schools, there were large networks of private schools. Public schooling started as a response to the success of catholic schools.
I am not arguing for superiority of one over the other.
I'm just pointing out that decentralized, distributed decision making led to people's educational needs being met before government got with the program.
Also, your articles are on public v generic private. Catholic schools are outliers in the private school space. They tend to be significantly cheaper, have a different set of outcomes, and tend to be more socioeconomically representative of society at large.
I am not arguing for superiority of one over the other.
I'm just pointing out that decentralized, distributed decision making led to people's educational needs being met before government got with the program.
Also, your articles are on public v generic private. Catholic schools are outliers in the private school space. They tend to be significantly cheaper, have a different set of outcomes, and tend to be more socioeconomically representative of society at large.
> How to reduce social division in America in the long-term: ban private schools, fund public schools at the national level, and do it quickly, utterly, and irrevocably.
We tried this to tame the savages [1], and I don't think people really look back kindly or positively on that choice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_Indian_sch...
We tried this to tame the savages [1], and I don't think people really look back kindly or positively on that choice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_Indian_sch...
yeah, and please talk about social issues and that you have a partner of the same sex! just like in family meals that's going to go down super well! /s
I think you're overstating this based on the internet. Sure, there are aggressively intolerant folks and maybe too many for this to work.
But the vast majority of folks aren’t going to get into a flame war over diner while staring into someone’s face. They might say crude things but they’ll probably also learn something.
I think the only thing that makes this idea really questionable is the proliferation of firearms in American culture
But the vast majority of folks aren’t going to get into a flame war over diner while staring into someone’s face. They might say crude things but they’ll probably also learn something.
I think the only thing that makes this idea really questionable is the proliferation of firearms in American culture
I have at least 3 friends who were kicked out of their homes as teenagers for coming out to their parents. It's far more common than you'd think.
It's a little bit different when it's outside the family, though. Inside the family, a homophobic parent might feel emasculated, or like a failure, if their kid turns out to be gay. But when meeting an adult gay couple at a social function, or working with a gay colleague, the same person will probably at least remain cordial, if not explicitly supportive.
don't search for "angry public" on youtube, it may change your perception of the world.
99% of my problems in the world are related to the random public, not my family.
99% of my problems in the world are related to the random public, not my family.
I mean, you're basically self-manufacturing bias and then claiming the bias reflects reality.
If you search for "red heads" on YouTube you'll end up thinking everyone is a ginger.
If you search for "red heads" on YouTube you'll end up thinking everyone is a ginger.
[deleted]
Food for thought: Maybe there's something wrong with your family if you can't share a meal together in peace.
Like families, societies need shared values. If a third of the population is religious extremist, another third believes in freedom and liberalism and the rest in Communism, fascism, or something even different, there is no common ground. I'm a tolerant person but I can't sit with people who preach that we should be treated differently depending on what race or gender we are. Or that gays shouldn't be able to get married. Diversity is good, but under a common denominator. Unchecked multiculturalism breaks nations apart. Smart people get divorces when they realize their partner is a disgusting swine who abuses them. Free societies need to do the same with groups promoting ideologies incompatible to their core values.
Like families, societies need shared values. If a third of the population is religious extremist, another third believes in freedom and liberalism and the rest in Communism, fascism, or something even different, there is no common ground. I'm a tolerant person but I can't sit with people who preach that we should be treated differently depending on what race or gender we are. Or that gays shouldn't be able to get married. Diversity is good, but under a common denominator. Unchecked multiculturalism breaks nations apart. Smart people get divorces when they realize their partner is a disgusting swine who abuses them. Free societies need to do the same with groups promoting ideologies incompatible to their core values.
A big part of why I think my hypothesis would work is that I believe we have these shared values in the US.
The problem is that these shared values have been obscured by disagreement on how to attain them, and by focusing on group identities that mark us all as "Other" to someone else.
The problem is that these shared values have been obscured by disagreement on how to attain them, and by focusing on group identities that mark us all as "Other" to someone else.
I like your idea. At worst, you'd find out sooner or later if these shared values are a myth. Getting to know others is never a mistake.
I met plenty of different strangers from around the world through Hospitality Club (the concept later copied by CouchSurfing) and never had a bad experience. Many of my friends and family thought it was dangerous inviting strangers into your home. And maybe today it is, I'm not sure. But back then practically everyone signed up there had the same open-minded spirit, they wanted to learn about people in other countries and further intercultural understanding and friendship. I've met lots of people from very different walks of life, people I might have never otherwise talked to. This is positive diversity, when there's a shared value and people can unite around it and trust each other.
To give a negative example many people in Western societies, in their strive to not be racist, have bought into the false belief that all cultures are equal, that you're assigned one by birth and that you're not allowed to criticize the culture of "other" people. Which ironically in itself is a racist idea. This in turn has lead to political movements that consider it taboo discussing certain problems connected with topics like religion, culture and ethnicity. And it's given birth to the kind of laissez-faire multiculturalism where problems never get addressed and crime, mistrust and conflict are rampant. Because people either get divided among identity lines like you mention, or unchecked immigration gives these societies the death blow (the Western European model).
I met plenty of different strangers from around the world through Hospitality Club (the concept later copied by CouchSurfing) and never had a bad experience. Many of my friends and family thought it was dangerous inviting strangers into your home. And maybe today it is, I'm not sure. But back then practically everyone signed up there had the same open-minded spirit, they wanted to learn about people in other countries and further intercultural understanding and friendship. I've met lots of people from very different walks of life, people I might have never otherwise talked to. This is positive diversity, when there's a shared value and people can unite around it and trust each other.
To give a negative example many people in Western societies, in their strive to not be racist, have bought into the false belief that all cultures are equal, that you're assigned one by birth and that you're not allowed to criticize the culture of "other" people. Which ironically in itself is a racist idea. This in turn has lead to political movements that consider it taboo discussing certain problems connected with topics like religion, culture and ethnicity. And it's given birth to the kind of laissez-faire multiculturalism where problems never get addressed and crime, mistrust and conflict are rampant. Because people either get divided among identity lines like you mention, or unchecked immigration gives these societies the death blow (the Western European model).
In the early 20th century, “multiculturalism” meant northern, southern and eastern white Europeans living together. In the documentary Australia in Colour, vintage TV advertisements portray immigrant ships containing northern and eastern white europeans as being “good for Australia” — a point of controversy at the time. Tellingly, what modern Australians would consider actually multicultural, e.g. integrating with E.Asians or Australian Aboriginals, was utterly unthinkable.
Yet in Australia and the United States today, the zeitgeist is that we’ve “always been multicultural”. This is clearly only superficially true: multiculturalism was only recently redefined to mean the integration of non-white europeans into predominantly white european societies. In the documentary, they explain following World War II, it was feared that Australia would grow weaker than its Asian competitors oweing to Australia’s low population, which many in government thought made them susceptible to capture by aggressor nations. This, AFAICT, was the real impetus for the Australian government becoming increasingly accepting of Asian immigrants.
And more recently, during the pandemic, the Australian housing sector has been calling for more immigration. Apparently, immigration powers much of the Australian housing sector [1]:
> A fall in migrants during the pandemic is causing a sharp drop in housing demand, with the sector urging the government to create a migration plan and extend HomeBuilder incentives.
Modern multiculturalism seems to be primarily based on economic and militaristic concerns, and is in no way based on a desire for social cohesion. See also: One Billion Americans [2]. Some say the US should strive to increase its population size to one billion for more or less the exact same reasons modern day multiculturalism came about. These people were never concerned with social cohesion: they’re entirely concerned with militaristic and economic might.
[1]: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/lack-of-incoming-migrants-during...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans
Yet in Australia and the United States today, the zeitgeist is that we’ve “always been multicultural”. This is clearly only superficially true: multiculturalism was only recently redefined to mean the integration of non-white europeans into predominantly white european societies. In the documentary, they explain following World War II, it was feared that Australia would grow weaker than its Asian competitors oweing to Australia’s low population, which many in government thought made them susceptible to capture by aggressor nations. This, AFAICT, was the real impetus for the Australian government becoming increasingly accepting of Asian immigrants.
And more recently, during the pandemic, the Australian housing sector has been calling for more immigration. Apparently, immigration powers much of the Australian housing sector [1]:
> A fall in migrants during the pandemic is causing a sharp drop in housing demand, with the sector urging the government to create a migration plan and extend HomeBuilder incentives.
Modern multiculturalism seems to be primarily based on economic and militaristic concerns, and is in no way based on a desire for social cohesion. See also: One Billion Americans [2]. Some say the US should strive to increase its population size to one billion for more or less the exact same reasons modern day multiculturalism came about. These people were never concerned with social cohesion: they’re entirely concerned with militaristic and economic might.
[1]: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/lack-of-incoming-migrants-during...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans
just clarifying I wasn't talking about my family, but yeah, I do think that some families have something wrong: bigot/religious extremist members is one of those problems.
Ha, I thought of trying to build an app for this, even if just to get neighbors to share a meal. No one feels like cooking every day but if we could share the burden thusly it might help foster a sense of community.
Your hypothesis is based on some utopian assumptions. I can't tell you how many people whose views or mannerisms I hate, and who I can't stand being around. Forcing me to eat with anyone, let alone strangers, would only make me dislike them more and cause tension. My utopian solution is for people to have more space and be farther apart, rather than everybody crammed up in cities.
> I can't tell you how many people whose views or mannerisms I hate, and who I can't stand being around. Forcing me to eat with anyone, let alone strangers, would only make me dislike them more and cause tension.
I think you are either an unusual outlier or are very much underestimating how well you can get along with people different from you when sharing a meal with them in person.
People are not who they appear to be online.
I think you are either an unusual outlier or are very much underestimating how well you can get along with people different from you when sharing a meal with them in person.
People are not who they appear to be online.
I can get along well if I have to, but I was responding to a comment that talked about these forced dinners being good for society. I get drained enough getting along when in day to day life, which is minimal because I have built a life where I can be very secluded and avoid social interaction unless I want it. Now stick me in these forced dinners and I'll lose a lot of mental health, just like working in an office is a significant and constant drain on my well-being (hence why the pandemic and lockdowns have been the best times of my life, by far).
You never spend dinner with people who spent that time being condescending or insulting something close to you?
You can get along with them easily. But then it ends and you are happy it ended and never want to be there again.
Because getting along with them requires you swallowing all above, pretending it is ok. Acvepting situation in which they talk and you are silent or submissive.
You can get along with them easily. But then it ends and you are happy it ended and never want to be there again.
Because getting along with them requires you swallowing all above, pretending it is ok. Acvepting situation in which they talk and you are silent or submissive.
> You never spend dinner with people who spent that time being condescending or insulting something close to you?
Oh, sure.
I've probably also inadvertently been the one who was condescending or insulting before too. People are fallible and some fraction of them are pretty shitty.
But my experience is that the fraction is low enough that it's worth rolling the dice to find new connections with the larger fraction of people that are generally pretty good. I can take an insult or a boring conversation.
> Acvepting situation in which they talk and you are silent or submissive.
I think human interaction is a lot more varied than a binary choice between arguing or rolling over.
Oh, sure.
I've probably also inadvertently been the one who was condescending or insulting before too. People are fallible and some fraction of them are pretty shitty.
But my experience is that the fraction is low enough that it's worth rolling the dice to find new connections with the larger fraction of people that are generally pretty good. I can take an insult or a boring conversation.
> Acvepting situation in which they talk and you are silent or submissive.
I think human interaction is a lot more varied than a binary choice between arguing or rolling over.
We’re all different and if this is who you are/how you’re most comfortable, congratulations on figuring yourself out. My experience is different than yours - people are tremendously interesting, especially over a meal.
I’m not sure that anyone involved in this is making utopian assumptions. Rather, we’re all different and just know ourselves. I’m likely as ‘correct’ as you are - we’ve both figured out how we’re happiest around others! That’s a net win for us.
I’m not sure that anyone involved in this is making utopian assumptions. Rather, we’re all different and just know ourselves. I’m likely as ‘correct’ as you are - we’ve both figured out how we’re happiest around others! That’s a net win for us.
I don't quite see how people being interesting relates to the thread. I said that forced dinners with strangers is bad, in response to a comment that said it's good. You then responded saying people are interesting. My comment about utopianism isn't that I think it's utopian to believe people are interesting, it's that I think it's utopian to believe that forcing strangers to interact is necessarily constructive.
As to your point itself, I would say I find most people painfully uninteresting. I once read that humans are generally interested in people or objects, and I'm much more interested in objects. This has naturally developed into life choices that minimize my interaction with people (besides loved ones) like working in software and having interests I can pursue by myself (rock climbing, studying languages, lifting weights). My mid-term life goal is to buy a remote-ish house in a low-population density state with multiple acres and work remotely so I can ideally go days without seeing another human. My dream would be to own and live in the middle of a forest or on a mountain so I could go weeks or months without seeing another human (again, besides my loved ones). If you're the opposite, then I agree we're just different and I hope you're able to achieve your version of an ideal lifestyle.
As to your point itself, I would say I find most people painfully uninteresting. I once read that humans are generally interested in people or objects, and I'm much more interested in objects. This has naturally developed into life choices that minimize my interaction with people (besides loved ones) like working in software and having interests I can pursue by myself (rock climbing, studying languages, lifting weights). My mid-term life goal is to buy a remote-ish house in a low-population density state with multiple acres and work remotely so I can ideally go days without seeing another human. My dream would be to own and live in the middle of a forest or on a mountain so I could go weeks or months without seeing another human (again, besides my loved ones). If you're the opposite, then I agree we're just different and I hope you're able to achieve your version of an ideal lifestyle.
There's a startup doing this :-)
http://www.makeamericadinneragain.com/.
They were profiled on NPR a while ago I recall.
They were profiled on NPR a while ago I recall.
There should be an app like table-for-six to let strangers come together to have lunch, not for dating but just having a meal together.
Yet my tolerance for casual racism is low, and depending where you are in the country, that’s definitely on the menu.
Unless you have had food poisoning from a potluck, or had a schizophrenic neighbor joke about putting ground glass in their chili at said potluck (it definitely had some kind of grit).
No, I don't think forcing sociality is the right solution, though I am on board with encouraging community events generally.
No, I don't think forcing sociality is the right solution, though I am on board with encouraging community events generally.
That's what the draft was great for.
Terrible idea. Families don't want to talk to single, middle aged guys like me. I don't need any new enemies, thank you very much.
if forced, be prepared for a lot of murders on those nights.
We will sort out our differences one way or another!
I can talk to strangers for hours with confidence and honest interest in what they have to say, but only as long as the stranger and I have a pretext to be talking.
Sit me and a stranger down in a room and tell us we have to talk about our opinions on package management, the best BBQ recepies or the latest Marvel film and I'm happy.
It's the small talk crap that I can't deal with. When I'm in a line at a supermarket, I neither want to talk to my fellow shoppers or the checkout person. I don't want friendly banter from the person selling me beer at the pub. I can't be bothered with trying to turn a pleasantry, exchanged while holding a lift door, into a fleeting relationship.
Sit me and a stranger down in a room and tell us we have to talk about our opinions on package management, the best BBQ recepies or the latest Marvel film and I'm happy.
It's the small talk crap that I can't deal with. When I'm in a line at a supermarket, I neither want to talk to my fellow shoppers or the checkout person. I don't want friendly banter from the person selling me beer at the pub. I can't be bothered with trying to turn a pleasantry, exchanged while holding a lift door, into a fleeting relationship.
For awhile Sweden had Call a Random Swede https://www.theswedishnumber.com/ where if you called the number, you would literally be paired with a random Swede to talk about whatever you want.
Here they call the number in the British television show QI: https://youtu.be/zUrYRdIxYp8
In the US that would end up in a lot of unwanted phone sex
Is that much different than chat rooms or Omegle?
That. Is awesome. Sorry I missed it!
You can say you don't enjoy interacting with strangers, but I realize you should realize that you're taking the time to comment on an anonymous social platform.
Even if you're just reading the comments, you're listening to what strangers have to say
Even if you're just reading the comments, you're listening to what strangers have to say
The difference is choosing to engage or closing the web page.
Plus, I have no problem talking with programmers about their jobs and hobbies.
Compare that to talking to a program manager who's hobbies are comic book related... I'm not sure what to talk about with them... Maybe virtue vs hedonist philosophy? (They do comic books, they are clearly hedonists)
Plus, I have no problem talking with programmers about their jobs and hobbies.
Compare that to talking to a program manager who's hobbies are comic book related... I'm not sure what to talk about with them... Maybe virtue vs hedonist philosophy? (They do comic books, they are clearly hedonists)
> They do comic books, they are clearly hedonists
Are comics significantly more hedonistic than other media? (I'm genuinely asking; I've never been interested in comics but I've also never heard that they were all that different from other entertainment media.)
Are comics significantly more hedonistic than other media? (I'm genuinely asking; I've never been interested in comics but I've also never heard that they were all that different from other entertainment media.)
I think it is more a funny poke at the moral panic surrounding comic books in the 50s?
It could be argued that HN, news, and Reddit are less hedonist because they provide education.
Although, my long term plan is to eliminate those in favor of non fiction books and personal projects.
The best "pro comic book" argument I've heard is that science fiction can help you consider potential futures of humanity. This can reduce being surprised by biotechnology and AI events. This could help humanity vote better and make more ethical software. (or so the argument goes)
Although, my long term plan is to eliminate those in favor of non fiction books and personal projects.
The best "pro comic book" argument I've heard is that science fiction can help you consider potential futures of humanity. This can reduce being surprised by biotechnology and AI events. This could help humanity vote better and make more ethical software. (or so the argument goes)
It could be argued, but I think its a pretty weak argument.
HN, Reddit, news, comics, manga, TV: its all a dopamine drip. The specifics can be impactful: a movie that changes your perspective, a great article on HN that helps you accomplish a goal better/faster/stronger. But usually you are just slamming your preferred dopamine drip. SciFi books or comics don't "help humanity vote better", they are enjoyed, the same way some people enjoy reading Reddit and HN.
HN, Reddit, news, comics, manga, TV: its all a dopamine drip. The specifics can be impactful: a movie that changes your perspective, a great article on HN that helps you accomplish a goal better/faster/stronger. But usually you are just slamming your preferred dopamine drip. SciFi books or comics don't "help humanity vote better", they are enjoyed, the same way some people enjoy reading Reddit and HN.
Are you sure you want to say that people who like comic books are hedonists? That’s an overly cut and dried argument and people aren’t nearly that simple. Isn’t it more charitable and accurate to suggest that people like what they like? I like running obscenely long distances. First, what business is it of yours how others spend their time? Second, what possibly qualifies you to claim people are hedonists because they like what they like??
There’s nothing wrong with recreation or having fun. Life is very short and no matter how hard you work or how much you learn, you’re going to die.
Live your life. Don’t let others call you names for being you. The converse is that when you don’t understand how others live, don’t call them hedonists. You just don’t understand because you’re you, not them.
There’s nothing wrong with recreation or having fun. Life is very short and no matter how hard you work or how much you learn, you’re going to die.
Live your life. Don’t let others call you names for being you. The converse is that when you don’t understand how others live, don’t call them hedonists. You just don’t understand because you’re you, not them.
Hedonist is the proper name for the philosophy. Maybe I read too much philosophy because I was merely saying the proper term in the dichotomy between virtue ethics and pleasure ethics.
Maybe I should stick to talking sportsball.
Maybe I should stick to talking sportsball.
Or maybe just read more about hedonism? By your definition, you’re a hedonist as well because intellectual pleasure is still pleasure.
Instead, I argue that that is a loaded term, we’re all individuals and we like what we like. It’s really nobody’s business and certainly nobody’s place to add a term (especially one with such negative pop connotations) to people who like what they like.
Instead, I argue that that is a loaded term, we’re all individuals and we like what we like. It’s really nobody’s business and certainly nobody’s place to add a term (especially one with such negative pop connotations) to people who like what they like.
Your definition of hedonism leaves a lot to be desired. There's a decent argument that even stoics are hedonists using your definition since they enjoy being stoics.
I think Mike Tyson managed to eloquently sum up the Online vs IRL interactions with strangers when he said, "Social media made you all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."
Threat of violence amd violence is not actually improvement over people talking angrily.
I don't think it's quite that black and white. In my experience, most people want there to be some divide between things you can say in public and things you can't say in public. As an example, I think most people agree that shouting racist slurs in the street is unacceptable.
There has to be some enforcement mechanism for "you can't say that in public". The government is a poor way to enforce that for a variety of reasons, but there has to be something.
In ye olden days, it was the threat of getting smacked. Banning that left a void that we've filled with canceling people. I don't think it's really an improvement. Getting hit let's you know that you've been an ass, but in a way where you have an opportunity to change your beliefs, or at the very least keep them to yourself.
Getting cancelled is permanent. You will always be "that person" and it's enshrined in public memory. Why bother changing your views if you're damned anyways? And it has a severe chilling effect, because the fear is "what if I ruin the rest of my life?" rather than "what if I wake up with a black eye?".
If I was given the choice, I'd far rather get hit. I'd rather lose some teeth than be digitally lynched.
I honestly think being cancelled is a far worse punishment than getting the crap beat out of me. In our quest to remove violence, we've managed to invent something worse, and I'm really not sure it's a good thing.
There has to be some enforcement mechanism for "you can't say that in public". The government is a poor way to enforce that for a variety of reasons, but there has to be something.
In ye olden days, it was the threat of getting smacked. Banning that left a void that we've filled with canceling people. I don't think it's really an improvement. Getting hit let's you know that you've been an ass, but in a way where you have an opportunity to change your beliefs, or at the very least keep them to yourself.
Getting cancelled is permanent. You will always be "that person" and it's enshrined in public memory. Why bother changing your views if you're damned anyways? And it has a severe chilling effect, because the fear is "what if I ruin the rest of my life?" rather than "what if I wake up with a black eye?".
If I was given the choice, I'd far rather get hit. I'd rather lose some teeth than be digitally lynched.
I honestly think being cancelled is a far worse punishment than getting the crap beat out of me. In our quest to remove violence, we've managed to invent something worse, and I'm really not sure it's a good thing.
That is not remotely worse or new - the canceling bogeyman. Just try being an unpopular minority.
The threat of violence has deeply embedded many stupid ideas in the past and still scars societies over a millenia later. Look at the undying antisemitic tropes whose origin boil down to "You can criticize Jews but not the clergy or nobility." Or the whole thing with Chinese portrayals of eunuchs. Guess who won't be starting a feud or executing you for disparaging their ancestors? The non-existent descendants of men eunuched as children!
The threat of violence has deeply embedded many stupid ideas in the past and still scars societies over a millenia later. Look at the undying antisemitic tropes whose origin boil down to "You can criticize Jews but not the clergy or nobility." Or the whole thing with Chinese portrayals of eunuchs. Guess who won't be starting a feud or executing you for disparaging their ancestors? The non-existent descendants of men eunuched as children!
Perhaps the problem with social media is that it’s not social. It’s actually oratorical media. In a physically social setting, people do the thing the article quotes: they recognize that interaction with diametrically opposing viewpoints is possible if they exercise tact to eschew controversy until having built common ground.
That isn’t possible at scale because there is no common ground at scale. And online, everything is at scale. You are definitely talking to everyone.
That isn’t possible at scale because there is no common ground at scale. And online, everything is at scale. You are definitely talking to everyone.
Totally agree.
Even without the opposition, there's a similar issue about having vulnerable conversations. I had a buddy over last night and he relayed an experience he had in NYC a few weeks ago. He was at a bar and saw this guy that just looked like he was in a bad place. He debated for a while whether or not to say anything but ultimately decided to break the ice and offer him a drink. The guy said he had to pace himself b/c he was going to be there a while. My buddy's intuition was that this guy was close to walking in front of a subway train, so he said something along the lines of 'hey I'm happy to give you your privacy but I guarantee I'm a great listener'. The guy then proceeds to say that he and his oldest son were what he called 'vocal twins'. They sounded identical to each other in timbre and phrasing and mannerisms and everything. Well, six weeks prior, his son committed suicide while away at school. Obviously devastating to him and his wife, but eventually life has to start to resume. The guy was just getting started back at work and was on a call. Meanwhile his wife had just arrived home from grocery shopping, and upon hearing him on the phone immediately starting screaming and running into the room thinking her boy was back.
Talking it through, this guy and his wife decided that he would leave for a bit...but he wasn't sure how to know when it was ok to go back if his voice was going to trigger her that much. After that, my buddy and this guy proceeded to talk for another two hours about kids and life and work and I can't imagine the guy felt worse after.
My buddy is a natural extrovert and 20 years of being a lawyer in NYC has tuned his social instrument to a level that's rather magnificent to behold. If you tried to repeat this scenario on Twitter or in a subreddit or here on HN, all of the non-verbal cues that started and sustained the (IMHO very intimate and vulnerable) conversation would be completely absent.
Even without the opposition, there's a similar issue about having vulnerable conversations. I had a buddy over last night and he relayed an experience he had in NYC a few weeks ago. He was at a bar and saw this guy that just looked like he was in a bad place. He debated for a while whether or not to say anything but ultimately decided to break the ice and offer him a drink. The guy said he had to pace himself b/c he was going to be there a while. My buddy's intuition was that this guy was close to walking in front of a subway train, so he said something along the lines of 'hey I'm happy to give you your privacy but I guarantee I'm a great listener'. The guy then proceeds to say that he and his oldest son were what he called 'vocal twins'. They sounded identical to each other in timbre and phrasing and mannerisms and everything. Well, six weeks prior, his son committed suicide while away at school. Obviously devastating to him and his wife, but eventually life has to start to resume. The guy was just getting started back at work and was on a call. Meanwhile his wife had just arrived home from grocery shopping, and upon hearing him on the phone immediately starting screaming and running into the room thinking her boy was back.
Talking it through, this guy and his wife decided that he would leave for a bit...but he wasn't sure how to know when it was ok to go back if his voice was going to trigger her that much. After that, my buddy and this guy proceeded to talk for another two hours about kids and life and work and I can't imagine the guy felt worse after.
My buddy is a natural extrovert and 20 years of being a lawyer in NYC has tuned his social instrument to a level that's rather magnificent to behold. If you tried to repeat this scenario on Twitter or in a subreddit or here on HN, all of the non-verbal cues that started and sustained the (IMHO very intimate and vulnerable) conversation would be completely absent.
From my experience these sorts of conversations come much more easily in rural diners and country grocery stores than NYC bars (or at least places where people aren't generally trying to "be" someone). And it really doesn't take much tuning of any personal social instrument, just a willingness to lay one's own instrument down and enjoy the unique sound of another's.
I'm trying and failing to imagine how one would strike up a deep conversation with a stranger at a grocery store or at a diner, except maybe one of those diners that has counter seating which resembles a bar. As for the rural part, I have no idea why it would matter.
Beautiful story. Please pass on my gratitude to your lawyer buddy for making that stranger's life better. Gosh, HN can be wonderfully soothing sometimes! :)
Brilliant story. This is the NYC that I remember.
A fascinating story. Thank you for sharing. I love these tales of human interaction. The thing I find surprising is that if you stop and interact with random people, you'll have a plethora of these kinds of stories.
That is, they sound rare, but in reality they are super common. And the only thing stopping you experiencing them is playing the odds.
That is, they sound rare, but in reality they are super common. And the only thing stopping you experiencing them is playing the odds.
It's also a smaller distance to close to find common ground in meatspace than online. In physical spaces, you gain a ton of information about social connections and interests just by who's where. If I'm at an academic conference (the regular in-person kind), odds are very high that the other attendees have similar esoteric research interests to mine. And if I see a friend talking to someone who's a stranger to me, it's likely that "stranger" is only two degrees of separation from me.
>That isn’t possible at scale because there is no common ground at scale. And online, everything is at scale. You are definitely talking to everyone.
The term for this is context collapse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_collapse
>That isn’t possible at scale because there is no common ground at scale. And online, everything is at scale. You are definitely talking to everyone.
The term for this is context collapse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_collapse
Cool! Thank you for the terminology info.
I would love to read more in this vein. I've complained that so much of Twitter is talking to the crowd by nature of yelling at people. I did not know the term oratorical.
Yes, it's a public performance more than a conversation.
One's life completely opens up when one realizes that it's possible to talk to strangers and meet friends / romantic partners anywhere, anytime, in any situation. Sure most interactions may not amount to much other than sharing a moment, but every now and then you make a friend or even romantic partner that makes it all worth it and then some. Walking outside goes from being what may have been a mere mundane chore, to endless opportunity.
I'm not a naturally social person - actually growing up I was extremely shy and lacking in confidence. But unlike many on here who seem to be content living like hermits, I was never content being shy and always had that curiosity and desire for human connection and social freedom.
So even though it was terrifying at first, I forced myself to open up and talk to people when I felt the inner urge to. It was very difficult at first - my head would be racing with thoughts like "What if I'm bothering them? What if they don't like me? What will that random person who overhears the conversation think?" and sometimes my heart would literally be pounding. But on the other hand I knew that that if I didn't do it I'd regret it for the rest of the day, and that no matter what the outcome, I'd come out a stronger, more confident, less inhibited person. Funny enough, the last two people I ended up approaching despite my heart pounding, they ended up talking my ear off, to the point where it almost seemed they wanted to talk to me more than I'd wanted to talk to them! Not everyone is this open of course, but I'm learning it's a lot more than I used to think.
I can genuinely say it's dramatically improved my quality of life. As a remote "digital nomad" solo traveler who's generally going to countries alone, it's an absolutely vital skill to have to meet people and live a more enriching life. Without this, your social circle is basically just limited to mutual friends and any in-person activities you participate in, which for me in any new city where I don't already know anyone is basically nobody.
For anyone who's wanted to be more social but hesitated due to fear of rejection or other peoples' judgement, I highly encourage you to stop living in fear of others' judgement and just live life on your own terms and go for it. It'll make you a stronger, more confident, less needy person (eg. I think too many people cling on to bad relationships because they don't think they can find better, which if they have no friends, initiative, and social skills might be true). My only regret is not doing this sooner. By not taking initiative, your social life is at the whim of other strangers who take initiative.
I'm not a naturally social person - actually growing up I was extremely shy and lacking in confidence. But unlike many on here who seem to be content living like hermits, I was never content being shy and always had that curiosity and desire for human connection and social freedom.
So even though it was terrifying at first, I forced myself to open up and talk to people when I felt the inner urge to. It was very difficult at first - my head would be racing with thoughts like "What if I'm bothering them? What if they don't like me? What will that random person who overhears the conversation think?" and sometimes my heart would literally be pounding. But on the other hand I knew that that if I didn't do it I'd regret it for the rest of the day, and that no matter what the outcome, I'd come out a stronger, more confident, less inhibited person. Funny enough, the last two people I ended up approaching despite my heart pounding, they ended up talking my ear off, to the point where it almost seemed they wanted to talk to me more than I'd wanted to talk to them! Not everyone is this open of course, but I'm learning it's a lot more than I used to think.
I can genuinely say it's dramatically improved my quality of life. As a remote "digital nomad" solo traveler who's generally going to countries alone, it's an absolutely vital skill to have to meet people and live a more enriching life. Without this, your social circle is basically just limited to mutual friends and any in-person activities you participate in, which for me in any new city where I don't already know anyone is basically nobody.
For anyone who's wanted to be more social but hesitated due to fear of rejection or other peoples' judgement, I highly encourage you to stop living in fear of others' judgement and just live life on your own terms and go for it. It'll make you a stronger, more confident, less needy person (eg. I think too many people cling on to bad relationships because they don't think they can find better, which if they have no friends, initiative, and social skills might be true). My only regret is not doing this sooner. By not taking initiative, your social life is at the whim of other strangers who take initiative.
I like your approach and I agree that it should lead to better outcomes. Sadly for the less socially adept, it’s not clear to me how to get social interactions from random strangers without having both sides of the equation be uncomfortable. My experience of trying this approach just ends with two uncomfortable people and leaves me with another social misstep to haunt me at night.
Since it sounds like you want to share your experience, would you mind sharing more details of how those first encounters went and why you even decided to talk to those people in the first place? Where do you hangout that you can just casually approach and start chatting up people?
Since it sounds like you want to share your experience, would you mind sharing more details of how those first encounters went and why you even decided to talk to those people in the first place? Where do you hangout that you can just casually approach and start chatting up people?
I wouldn't consider myself socially adept. At least if there's any adeptness at all, it's certainly not genetic or any natural skill, but from years of deliberate practice.
> both sides of the equation be uncomfortable.
Why should you feel uncomfortable? Unless you have malintentions, which doesn't seem to be the case, there's no reason to feel uncomfortable. You're simply expressing yourself, spreading positivity, and giving the stranger the opportunity to connect with you.
I'm a digital nomad who generally travels solo to countries, so I have no choice if I want to meet people since everyone is initially a stranger. A couple weeks ago when I entered the locker room of a gym a man saw that I was looking for something, and told me "the bathroom's that way". After returning I said "thanks" and went to my locker. The interaction could've easily ended there, and my old self would've left it at that, but then I decided to ask him where he's from. Turned out to be a really friendly guy. A couple days later I invited him out to watch a game with some of my friends, we partied till 5am or so and had a great time, and spoke about potentially traveling together to some nearby countries.
As a single man (who hates online dating), when I see a particularly pretty girl my type I'd like to meet who seems approachable, I approach. Sure most interactions won't amount to anything - maybe she has a boyfriend/husband, maybe she's not interested, maybe she's not in the mood, etc. That's fine. And by the way, maybe I won't even be interested anymore after talking to her because attraction is way more than just physical. It's a two way street. (and don't buy into this crap that politely approaching someone is "street harrassment". One of my best friends met his wife on a subway train). No need to come up with some elaborate pickup lines or whatever, just be direct and upfront with your intentions, and then say whatever's on your mind. If they don't want to talk to you, that's their right - you have no entitlement to the attention of some random stranger, so don't take it personally.
In any case, it's not rocket science, and there's no need to overcomplicate it. You don't have to try to fit some certain mold. Just be authentic and genuine, and most people will appreciate you for it (so long as you're not being like an a*hole or something obviously). One of my friends who is the best at this is one of the quirkiest guys I know with interests and humor that many might consider esoteric, but he's successful because he's genuine and confident in his own skin.
It's probably going to feel awkward at first. Just take it all in, and focus on the process. Every step out of the comfort zone is a win. The "outcome" itself is out of your control and subject to extreme randomness so don't focus too much on that. The more you do, the more confident you'll be and the easier it'll get, until the point where it's no longer a "thing" in your brain, just like you probably don't get nervous talking to your parents/siblings.
> Where do you hangout that you can just casually approach and start chatting up people?
Anywhere is fair game - parks, cafes, gym, street, whatever. Just be respectful.
> both sides of the equation be uncomfortable.
Why should you feel uncomfortable? Unless you have malintentions, which doesn't seem to be the case, there's no reason to feel uncomfortable. You're simply expressing yourself, spreading positivity, and giving the stranger the opportunity to connect with you.
I'm a digital nomad who generally travels solo to countries, so I have no choice if I want to meet people since everyone is initially a stranger. A couple weeks ago when I entered the locker room of a gym a man saw that I was looking for something, and told me "the bathroom's that way". After returning I said "thanks" and went to my locker. The interaction could've easily ended there, and my old self would've left it at that, but then I decided to ask him where he's from. Turned out to be a really friendly guy. A couple days later I invited him out to watch a game with some of my friends, we partied till 5am or so and had a great time, and spoke about potentially traveling together to some nearby countries.
As a single man (who hates online dating), when I see a particularly pretty girl my type I'd like to meet who seems approachable, I approach. Sure most interactions won't amount to anything - maybe she has a boyfriend/husband, maybe she's not interested, maybe she's not in the mood, etc. That's fine. And by the way, maybe I won't even be interested anymore after talking to her because attraction is way more than just physical. It's a two way street. (and don't buy into this crap that politely approaching someone is "street harrassment". One of my best friends met his wife on a subway train). No need to come up with some elaborate pickup lines or whatever, just be direct and upfront with your intentions, and then say whatever's on your mind. If they don't want to talk to you, that's their right - you have no entitlement to the attention of some random stranger, so don't take it personally.
In any case, it's not rocket science, and there's no need to overcomplicate it. You don't have to try to fit some certain mold. Just be authentic and genuine, and most people will appreciate you for it (so long as you're not being like an a*hole or something obviously). One of my friends who is the best at this is one of the quirkiest guys I know with interests and humor that many might consider esoteric, but he's successful because he's genuine and confident in his own skin.
It's probably going to feel awkward at first. Just take it all in, and focus on the process. Every step out of the comfort zone is a win. The "outcome" itself is out of your control and subject to extreme randomness so don't focus too much on that. The more you do, the more confident you'll be and the easier it'll get, until the point where it's no longer a "thing" in your brain, just like you probably don't get nervous talking to your parents/siblings.
> Where do you hangout that you can just casually approach and start chatting up people?
Anywhere is fair game - parks, cafes, gym, street, whatever. Just be respectful.
If I may share a personal anecdote, I went through a lot before I even had the courage to do this. Then one of those chance encounters with strangers led to a great friendship. So I'm commenting to verify your story.
Though I need to do it more, it is very difficult to break this old habit which I believe was developed as a necessary survival strategy in my young days. The cynic inside me believes that I was broken in an effort to keep me around, from people who otherwise had nothing positive to offer. I sometimes wonder how many other people are being held at emotional gunpoint for the same reasons...
Though I need to do it more, it is very difficult to break this old habit which I believe was developed as a necessary survival strategy in my young days. The cynic inside me believes that I was broken in an effort to keep me around, from people who otherwise had nothing positive to offer. I sometimes wonder how many other people are being held at emotional gunpoint for the same reasons...
I don't know the details of your experience, but one thing I'll say is that we tend to take less crap from other people when we've got alternatives. One should never tolerate disrespect from anyone whatsoever, but it's a hell of a lot easier when you've got other friends who treat you well, or at least you know that you can meet such people as opposed to having (extreme analogy here) some "forever alone" scarcity-like mindset.
As a related anecdote, I used to perform experiments by dressing in particular ways while going out in public. If I wore a nice blazer-type jacket and generally looked more preppy, I would definitely notice different behavior as when I might dress with with a t shirt and long sleeve over it with long sleeve shirt unbuttoned. I attribute this partly to conditioning via TV show characters etc.
For many reasons, I grew accustomed to fit into many diverse social groups.
It's not only about the way you dress, but also which "side of you" you present to others. I mean, what I've learned is that there are many "I" available in me (and everyone, please generalize at will), and too many people consider wrongly that they're "one and only" and that it's "being true to oneself" to only expose one side of themself.
This is wrong. I, you and everyone, we are all individually a multitude and using this multitude to get yourself what you want (friends, information, jobs, sex, you name it) is not only a skill, which would sound a bit too utilitarian, but also and most importantly, it is a way to acknowledge yourself and let the others know the multitude and complexity and diversity of you.
And I think it's awesome.
It's not only about the way you dress, but also which "side of you" you present to others. I mean, what I've learned is that there are many "I" available in me (and everyone, please generalize at will), and too many people consider wrongly that they're "one and only" and that it's "being true to oneself" to only expose one side of themself.
This is wrong. I, you and everyone, we are all individually a multitude and using this multitude to get yourself what you want (friends, information, jobs, sex, you name it) is not only a skill, which would sound a bit too utilitarian, but also and most importantly, it is a way to acknowledge yourself and let the others know the multitude and complexity and diversity of you.
And I think it's awesome.
I spent a day trying to smile at strangers. The result was that half of them gave me a "do I know you?" look, and the other half looked at me like I was crazy and backed away.
Not encouraging...
Not encouraging...
I think this very much depends on the circumstances. Few working-age men walk in my neighborhood, and some people seem a little uneasy seeing me walking. They don't know what to make of me.
On the other hand, if I walk a dog it is clear what I'm doing, and people are quick to share a smile. It seems like many people are uncomfortable unless your activity fits into a pattern they're familiar and comfortable with.
On the other hand, if I walk a dog it is clear what I'm doing, and people are quick to share a smile. It seems like many people are uncomfortable unless your activity fits into a pattern they're familiar and comfortable with.
I remember a teacher who cycled to work every day, along a coastal route. Because he saw the same people so often, he set himself a goal to smile at all he recognised so they'd smile back.
Last time we spoke, he was still battling one obstinate hold-out (while reminds me of an old joke - 'smiles' is actually the longest word in the english langugage because there's a mile between the s's).
Last time we spoke, he was still battling one obstinate hold-out (while reminds me of an old joke - 'smiles' is actually the longest word in the english langugage because there's a mile between the s's).
If "smiles" is the longest, how do you explain "similes"?
They must not have heard of beleaguered either.
I think that largely depends on where you are, and what the cultural norms are. I go out of my way to smile at everyone I see, and most people smile back, even if it takes them a double-take before they do. I'll never not smile at someone, because it's a known stress reliever to do so, especially when my smile elicits another's smile.
Or the tv characters dressed that way because of general perception, of course.
This one time, I visited an Apple store at an upscale mall to pick up a laptop (needed urgently, I damaged the previous one by spilling a drink on it). However, I happened to be dressed to the max because of a fancy event that I was returning from. I carried the Apple-branded bag with me while seeing if I could buy some miscellaneous clothing (T-shirts and underwear) while there.
It is ridiculous how much more attention I got from every shop attendant throughout the mall that day, compared to my usual comfortable cargo shorts and T-shirt look.
That "experiment" still makes me sad. We treat humans like garbage if they don't look rich enough.
It is ridiculous how much more attention I got from every shop attendant throughout the mall that day, compared to my usual comfortable cargo shorts and T-shirt look.
That "experiment" still makes me sad. We treat humans like garbage if they don't look rich enough.
Interesting attribution to conditioning via TV show characters. What was the difference in people's behaviours?
Similar to the Apple Store experience above, mostly but even in the way people will look at you both good/bad
Has literally anyone on this thread read the actual article? Seems pay walled to me...
I don't view it as an issue, but maybe HN should start allowing "Let's Discuss" type submissions without a link to an article? That seems like what happens in many cases anyway.
Anyways, on the topic of this article, yep it's important!
I don't view it as an issue, but maybe HN should start allowing "Let's Discuss" type submissions without a link to an article? That seems like what happens in many cases anyway.
Anyways, on the topic of this article, yep it's important!
It's not disallowed, you can post a text submission. 'Ask HN: Ever had an interesting conversation with a stranger? Recommend it?' or something.
(The body can contain URLs, so you could still link 'this made me think about it, but for x reason didn't think it was a food submission itself'. I think the reason it doesn't really happen is probably that the only value for x that really makes sense is 'the article is broader than that and I want to discuss a more focussed point within it'?)
(The body can contain URLs, so you could still link 'this made me think about it, but for x reason didn't think it was a food submission itself'. I think the reason it doesn't really happen is probably that the only value for x that really makes sense is 'the article is broader than that and I want to discuss a more focussed point within it'?)
Mate, we have subscriptions to The Economist but the comment pinned at the top is a paywall bypass. Of course we read it.
A few years ago my daughter was 3 and was going through a phase where she’d go up to any random stranger she met and ask “hello, what’s your name?” Talked to a lot of random people this way. Nobody can resist talking to an inquisitive 3 year old. I remember I was in an airport waiting for a flight to Boston and happened to talk to a guy who’s son just started college at the same college I had gone to. Which was surprising since it isn't very well known nor anywhere near Boston or where we were.
I was always torn whether the practice of a small child “talking to strangers” was dangerous but I couldn’t bring myself to discourage it.
I was always torn whether the practice of a small child “talking to strangers” was dangerous but I couldn’t bring myself to discourage it.
My kids did the same thing - turns out it let them understand what normal behaviour looks like. When someone offered one of them something weird and dangerous, they recognized that it wasn't normal.
Good point, I’ve also been a little wary, but this comment makes me feel better about letting the kids talk. Thanks.
Aside, favorite thing my kid did was say to a random old guy “hey pops, what’s your name”
Aside, favorite thing my kid did was say to a random old guy “hey pops, what’s your name”
[deleted]
Yeah, talking to strangers is not a thing in my country.
Can't say I care for it.
Can't say I care for it.
I highly doubt this is true of any country. All countries are full of humans.
Anyone making this claim has a severe sampling problem. If you personally don’t talk to people, you can be under the impression that nobody talks to people. The people that do talk to people can read signs for who wants to talk and they talk to each other.
The false impression is further reinforced if you go outside the country because as a foreigner people are more likely to talk to you, offer help, etc.
Your evidence would be stronger if you were a person who did care to talk to people but found that in a certain country nobody replied.
Anyone making this claim has a severe sampling problem. If you personally don’t talk to people, you can be under the impression that nobody talks to people. The people that do talk to people can read signs for who wants to talk and they talk to each other.
The false impression is further reinforced if you go outside the country because as a foreigner people are more likely to talk to you, offer help, etc.
Your evidence would be stronger if you were a person who did care to talk to people but found that in a certain country nobody replied.
People are people, but people interact differently depending on the country. Here in France, what we often hear about the USA is that they have very different social norm. The usual story is: someone goes to the USA, they are successful, everyone is nice with them, they have tons of friends, then suddenly something bad happens to the person, and all of their friends disappear/refuse to help. So from that I deduce that people in France in general (at least in my sphere) have less but deeper friendships. That's not a judgment of value of course, but that's one way countries can differ.
Agreed, but to be fair people rarely mean it literally when saying something doesn't exist in their country - it was probably more in the vein of that 'it's uncommon'. There certainly are differences and in some cultures it's a lot more common that people talk to random strangers as compared to others.
I grew up outside of Detroit, MI. Talking to strangers does not seem like much of a thing there. The first time I spent more than a week outside of Michigan was in Oklahoma. I would be walking down the street and people would not just say hello but ask me how I was doing and then actually listen and make conversation. At first I thought they were trying to scam me or something. When they'd approach, I would step back, take a mental inventory of my pockets, and evaluate my surroundings. Eventually I realized they were just being friendly!
People may have a different experience if they are more extroverted, but some places really are friendlier than others.
People may have a different experience if they are more extroverted, but some places really are friendlier than others.
"talking to strangers is not a thing in my country. Can't say I care for it."
What country is this and how do you ever meet new people?
Are you saying people in your country don't meet strangers at bars, parties, through participation in sports, at dance clubs, or special interest clubs?
Also, while you say you don't care for it, you do realize that you're talking to strangers right now, don't you?
What country is this and how do you ever meet new people?
Are you saying people in your country don't meet strangers at bars, parties, through participation in sports, at dance clubs, or special interest clubs?
Also, while you say you don't care for it, you do realize that you're talking to strangers right now, don't you?
Judging by his comment history it seems that he's from Croatia but Croatia doesn't fit his description so I don't know...
I'm thinking about the Tube right now...
The most important thing about learning to talk to strangers is practice. Taxi driving gave me lots of new people to talk to every day. Sometimes they weren't new. I didn't remember them, but they remembered me on account of my previous efforts to get information out of them.
[edit: if I was starting this today I'd be a ride share driver. But I've learned enough, and don't feel the need to drive people around again.]
> Here are other ways Nightingall suggests breaking a script.
I figured out where my passengers were going, "Are you going anywhere in particular, or do I get to choose?" No one hires a taxi to take them to a random location.
One lady, who was with her family, said "we can go anywhere you want." Two seconds later she said, "too late, we're going to the movies." 'DRATS! That was my chance!' Thenceforth I resolved to be prepared for when people took me up on my proposal of picking their destination.
One woman said we could go anywhere I wanted, as long as she got to the bus station by 10pm. We had plenty of time, so we went to the 5 & Diner for dessert. When I dropped her off at the station, my passenger said it was the best birthday she'd had in quite some time. (I never heard from her again.)
> If you say something generic, they will say something generic. If you say something specific, they are likely to as well.
I assumed everyone was a native Arizonan. If someone was a transplant I'd ask "Oh, did you move here from [specific city in the upper Midwest]?"
Strictly speaking, there are more people in Arizona from California than [specific city]. But California is 800 miles from Mexico to Oregon, and if they were from California they'd say, "Duh", whereas if they're from [specific city], they're usually either impressed, or they wonder how I knew.
One fellow did not have that upper-midwest vibe, but I'd had experiences where I switched it up but would've been right. He said "no, bunch of damn communists from [upper midwest city], I'm from Oklahoma."
"How'd you find your way to the desert?" IIRC that passenger was in the Army (Green Berets), and they needed an airport with a thick enough runway to support their operation (he didn't say 'in Central America', but I realized he was talking about the Iran/Contra operation). Scottsdale was their airport. He said something about Lt. Col. North getting crucified by Congress, iirc. [0]
"Do you have any food in your apartment, to go with your vodka?" She did not, I stopped the meter and took a detour to McDonald's. That passenger is doing quite well now, and no longer suffers from prison-induced PTSD.
Not all passengers got my usual script. I just got a call from a woman who I first picked up at her parents' house. The Phoenix Police officer said, "have fun with this one." She was in fight-or-flight mode, getting kicked out by her parents (who had custody of her daughter). As soon as we pulled away she broke down. She was a very expensive passenger. I hadn't heard from her for maybe 5 years (when she'd just been approved for SS disability). She found my number last week, it was nice to hear from her.
[0] "North formulated the second part of the plan, which was to divert proceeds from the arms sales to support the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua, sales which had been specifically prohibited under the Boland Amendment." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North
[edit: if I was starting this today I'd be a ride share driver. But I've learned enough, and don't feel the need to drive people around again.]
> Here are other ways Nightingall suggests breaking a script.
I figured out where my passengers were going, "Are you going anywhere in particular, or do I get to choose?" No one hires a taxi to take them to a random location.
One lady, who was with her family, said "we can go anywhere you want." Two seconds later she said, "too late, we're going to the movies." 'DRATS! That was my chance!' Thenceforth I resolved to be prepared for when people took me up on my proposal of picking their destination.
One woman said we could go anywhere I wanted, as long as she got to the bus station by 10pm. We had plenty of time, so we went to the 5 & Diner for dessert. When I dropped her off at the station, my passenger said it was the best birthday she'd had in quite some time. (I never heard from her again.)
> If you say something generic, they will say something generic. If you say something specific, they are likely to as well.
I assumed everyone was a native Arizonan. If someone was a transplant I'd ask "Oh, did you move here from [specific city in the upper Midwest]?"
Strictly speaking, there are more people in Arizona from California than [specific city]. But California is 800 miles from Mexico to Oregon, and if they were from California they'd say, "Duh", whereas if they're from [specific city], they're usually either impressed, or they wonder how I knew.
One fellow did not have that upper-midwest vibe, but I'd had experiences where I switched it up but would've been right. He said "no, bunch of damn communists from [upper midwest city], I'm from Oklahoma."
"How'd you find your way to the desert?" IIRC that passenger was in the Army (Green Berets), and they needed an airport with a thick enough runway to support their operation (he didn't say 'in Central America', but I realized he was talking about the Iran/Contra operation). Scottsdale was their airport. He said something about Lt. Col. North getting crucified by Congress, iirc. [0]
"Do you have any food in your apartment, to go with your vodka?" She did not, I stopped the meter and took a detour to McDonald's. That passenger is doing quite well now, and no longer suffers from prison-induced PTSD.
Not all passengers got my usual script. I just got a call from a woman who I first picked up at her parents' house. The Phoenix Police officer said, "have fun with this one." She was in fight-or-flight mode, getting kicked out by her parents (who had custody of her daughter). As soon as we pulled away she broke down. She was a very expensive passenger. I hadn't heard from her for maybe 5 years (when she'd just been approved for SS disability). She found my number last week, it was nice to hear from her.
[0] "North formulated the second part of the plan, which was to divert proceeds from the arms sales to support the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua, sales which had been specifically prohibited under the Boland Amendment." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North
You should be a writer or something
Thanks for your comment, it's appreciated. These anecdotes are what came to mind as I read the fine link.
I originally posted diary entries to kuro5hin.org (RIP). They started out as 'these were my passengers today'. Later I picked themes to write about... I re-posted the diaries to my own domain, https://www.TaxiWars.org/ (Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12193273 ). My comments on the Show HN picked out some of the more important pieces.
There are some other stories in my HN posts. Maybe I'll mine those for a memoir. That reminds me: Michael Crawford (not a passenger) greatly appreciated my efforts on his behalf: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19489570 . Michael was a member here, but couldn't abide by the HN rules...
I originally posted diary entries to kuro5hin.org (RIP). They started out as 'these were my passengers today'. Later I picked themes to write about... I re-posted the diaries to my own domain, https://www.TaxiWars.org/ (Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12193273 ). My comments on the Show HN picked out some of the more important pieces.
There are some other stories in my HN posts. Maybe I'll mine those for a memoir. That reminds me: Michael Crawford (not a passenger) greatly appreciated my efforts on his behalf: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19489570 . Michael was a member here, but couldn't abide by the HN rules...
So pickup artists took this to heart
This is silly, no stranger wants to be inturrupted
I dislike these kind of books, since they are designed to overcomplicate things by appealing to the mids and upper-mids needs to follow authority, defer to expertise, and use checklists and systems to try and remove any unpleasantness from interactions. "This common thing is really important! Because of science! Here is a study! Here are the health benefits! Let's also tie this into reducing climate change! I have used my big brain to give you a blueprint of how things should go! It's all good, because someone on the book jacket is wearing a lab coat!"
I honestly await titles like "The Lost Art of Petting a Kitten," and "Outdoors; the Secret Benefits of Putting Your Laundry Outside to Dry."
I'd also suggest the authors to follow the nifty trend of profanity in the titles of these self-help books. "I Don't Give a Fuck: The Vital Art of Talking to Strangers" and "Badass: The Power of Strangers" might help sales among certain demographics.
I honestly await titles like "The Lost Art of Petting a Kitten," and "Outdoors; the Secret Benefits of Putting Your Laundry Outside to Dry."
I'd also suggest the authors to follow the nifty trend of profanity in the titles of these self-help books. "I Don't Give a Fuck: The Vital Art of Talking to Strangers" and "Badass: The Power of Strangers" might help sales among certain demographics.
Delightful! I loved this comment.
This is so true it hurts. I've wasted so much time on shitty books like this.
I struggle with this a lot.
I keep thinking: "Those who are really great and relevant, they don't need to go talk to strangers, it is strangers who go and approach them"
This fuels negative thoughts about not being relevant enough so it's better to postpone any active social approach towards strangers up until I'll be relevant enough that they'd be approaching me instead.
I somehow feel that this is a consequence of teenager me being in awe of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Metallica, Guns n Roses and Aerosmith. Getting the aforementioned attitude: "If you are good enough they'll come to you and you'd not have to do anything socially...just showing your talents"
Approaching strangers would be a defeat in a sense. Admitting that you are not good or rare or relevant enough to be approached by them instead.
Maybe that's why my favorite country is Brazil and the Amazonas region to be specific
I keep thinking: "Those who are really great and relevant, they don't need to go talk to strangers, it is strangers who go and approach them"
This fuels negative thoughts about not being relevant enough so it's better to postpone any active social approach towards strangers up until I'll be relevant enough that they'd be approaching me instead.
I somehow feel that this is a consequence of teenager me being in awe of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Metallica, Guns n Roses and Aerosmith. Getting the aforementioned attitude: "If you are good enough they'll come to you and you'd not have to do anything socially...just showing your talents"
Approaching strangers would be a defeat in a sense. Admitting that you are not good or rare or relevant enough to be approached by them instead.
Maybe that's why my favorite country is Brazil and the Amazonas region to be specific
[flagged]
That’s not the message of the cartoon at all. Quite the opposite.
Haha this is totally just social anxiety. Both ends actually. The belief that the girl next to you on the train is thinking you’re cute and ignoring her and the belief that she’s gonna react like that.
A real version of that comic would probably have her thought bubble be like “I hope the meeting at five doesn’t run over. I’ve got to go pick up that camera lens from Best Buy. And what’s traffic going to be like. Should I just get it shipped? Hmm, I wonder if it’ll make it here before the weekend. But I want an excuse to get out of the meeting. Is that too much? Maybe.” or something like that. You know, the same stuff you’re thinking.
I have stranger-interactions all the time and most people are actually fairly eager for them. In fact, about the most you’ll ever see is lack of interest, which occasionally happens but will manifest as them being minimally civil.
Most people don’t want discomfort anywhere in their vicinity so they won’t confront you. Like they will barely confront you if you cause them harm, they _definitely_ won’t confront you if you’re neutral.
A real version of that comic would probably have her thought bubble be like “I hope the meeting at five doesn’t run over. I’ve got to go pick up that camera lens from Best Buy. And what’s traffic going to be like. Should I just get it shipped? Hmm, I wonder if it’ll make it here before the weekend. But I want an excuse to get out of the meeting. Is that too much? Maybe.” or something like that. You know, the same stuff you’re thinking.
I have stranger-interactions all the time and most people are actually fairly eager for them. In fact, about the most you’ll ever see is lack of interest, which occasionally happens but will manifest as them being minimally civil.
Most people don’t want discomfort anywhere in their vicinity so they won’t confront you. Like they will barely confront you if you cause them harm, they _definitely_ won’t confront you if you’re neutral.
I've noticed the same pattern - people are usually very polite if you address them - and it makes me more reluctant to strike up a conversation with nearby strangers. If they really don't want to interact with me they might not give me a clear signal, and I might be causing extended discomfort for someone even though they are acting like they want to continue the interaction.
I'm trying to get smarter about reading social signals, but for now I just try to make sure not to corner people. I will not attempt to interact with you unless I can see that you have an easy way to get away from the interaction.
Are there classes or something available for people who know they're lacking in social skills and want to get better?
I'm trying to get smarter about reading social signals, but for now I just try to make sure not to corner people. I will not attempt to interact with you unless I can see that you have an easy way to get away from the interaction.
Are there classes or something available for people who know they're lacking in social skills and want to get better?
> Are there classes or something available for people who know they're lacking in social skills and want to get better?
I've looked for something like this before, and haven't really found a good option. The main things people tend to bring up are:
1) Toastmasters. This is is adult-oriented and widely available, but is largely for people who want to improve at public speaking and "leadership".
2) Social skills training. In principle this is exactly the thing you're looking for, but the field is heavily focused on working with children and adolescents; genuine resources for adults (as opposed to self-help / content marketing fluff) seem scarce.
I've looked for something like this before, and haven't really found a good option. The main things people tend to bring up are:
1) Toastmasters. This is is adult-oriented and widely available, but is largely for people who want to improve at public speaking and "leadership".
2) Social skills training. In principle this is exactly the thing you're looking for, but the field is heavily focused on working with children and adolescents; genuine resources for adults (as opposed to self-help / content marketing fluff) seem scarce.
Improv!
I genuinely don't know. I had close friends teach me how to act like a human being.
I dont know why this was downvoted. It sounds to me completely realistic.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but that's a sad way to view the world.
I'm surprised to see this reaction from a sales person, isn't this a major part of your job?
Actually it’s not, and there’s a difference between talking to strangers for business, and talking to strangers in social situations.
This is true. The average person on the subway or in a restaurant has no real malice or ill intent toward their fellow traveler/patron, whereas the average salesperson or business associate on the job is actively looking to hoodwink you.
On this, I'd agree. Plenty of salesfolks are quite introverted outside of work.
Try disabling javascript in your browser. At least in the U.S.A., that lets me read most paywalled articles linked from HN. (Yes, cool multi-media content is lost. Parent's complaint was "can't read the article".)
Go away. Stop talking to us. We don't know you.
Cthulhu_(2)