'Speed friending' events(abc.net.au)
abc.net.au
'Speed friending' events
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-21/finding-friends-as-an-adult-through-friend-request-events/100551648
106 comments
What is it about us and society that has moved us in a continually more isolating direction instead of getting better at forming connections. Aren't we more connected now by many orders of magnitude than all previous generations? Are we not able to handle these quick/cheap interactions and do they cause harm instead of satisfaction?
Have we replaced meaningful, non-work human interaction with apps that seem to do the opposite of what we want?
That's a huge question, but I believe the answer is that in a modern first world country, time is expensive and comfort is cheap. (I am also completely ignoring any social changes that have occurred since the pandemic, because all of the pandemic-based social trends started well before it did). People used to meet up and have real hobbies because they were bored and wanted something to do with their time, not because they were principled adherents to (what I believe is) a better and more satisfying way of life.
Comfort is cheap: have you ever used your phone to check your daily screen time? I float between 1.5 hours on a good day and 6 hours on a bad day. On my phone I'm reading, interacting, etc. but that's 1.5-6 hours I didn't spend playing cards or chess or talking to my friends in person, each of which requires a time and effort commitment. I don't have to commit effort or pay any money or walk anywhere to interact with the always-on stimulation box in my pocket. The same applies to streaming applications and video games. Between those three activities (browsing, social media, streaming, and video games) there are billions of lost first-world man-hours every year that could theoretically be spent interacting in person, if the people really wanted to.
Time is expensive: I am at the last few years of my life before I have children and have the most advantageous combination of free time, youthly energy, and money that I will ever have. I also have dozens of hobbies, but trying to find people to do those hobbies with is very difficult because they're all so busy with their own lives. My similarly-aged acquaintances are in graduate school (learning things that they could spread across 10 years in four years due to profit constraints), or they're working 40-60 hour workweeks in technology, or they're simply drained and don't want to do anything besides sit on the couch, which I completely understand given my own stressful 50-hour-per-week white collar job.
If you want a return to "in-person life", somehow time needs to become cheap. I don't see comfort ever becoming expensive again, but I do think that if people weren't so busy and stressed out they'd be able to meet in person more often.
Comfort is cheap: have you ever used your phone to check your daily screen time? I float between 1.5 hours on a good day and 6 hours on a bad day. On my phone I'm reading, interacting, etc. but that's 1.5-6 hours I didn't spend playing cards or chess or talking to my friends in person, each of which requires a time and effort commitment. I don't have to commit effort or pay any money or walk anywhere to interact with the always-on stimulation box in my pocket. The same applies to streaming applications and video games. Between those three activities (browsing, social media, streaming, and video games) there are billions of lost first-world man-hours every year that could theoretically be spent interacting in person, if the people really wanted to.
Time is expensive: I am at the last few years of my life before I have children and have the most advantageous combination of free time, youthly energy, and money that I will ever have. I also have dozens of hobbies, but trying to find people to do those hobbies with is very difficult because they're all so busy with their own lives. My similarly-aged acquaintances are in graduate school (learning things that they could spread across 10 years in four years due to profit constraints), or they're working 40-60 hour workweeks in technology, or they're simply drained and don't want to do anything besides sit on the couch, which I completely understand given my own stressful 50-hour-per-week white collar job.
If you want a return to "in-person life", somehow time needs to become cheap. I don't see comfort ever becoming expensive again, but I do think that if people weren't so busy and stressed out they'd be able to meet in person more often.
Yeah I think this strikes at at least one of the issues, which is time. Although I am less familiar with how availability of time has changed over the generations. I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless.
I think one other reason could be the tendency to mistake having a question that could be looked up online for the desire for human interaction that the question maybe was supposed to lead to. That may sound like a small/isolated observation but I could be convinced that the behavior change has broader consequences for how we view people/interaction.
I think there are probably many other factors at play here.
I think one other reason could be the tendency to mistake having a question that could be looked up online for the desire for human interaction that the question maybe was supposed to lead to. That may sound like a small/isolated observation but I could be convinced that the behavior change has broader consequences for how we view people/interaction.
I think there are probably many other factors at play here.
> I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless.
I'll offer insight. As someone who attends a very traditional catholic parish, where a ten child family would be considered only slightly above average, the more children you have... the more social you're going to be.
The more kids you have, the larger your network. Your kids become friends with someone else's kid and then you become friends with their parents. If you have two kids with five friends each, then this is 10 parents. If you have ten kids with five friends each, then this is 50, and you now have friends of all different ages, since the kids are not all the same age.
As an example, the lady with one of the most kids at our parish, is also in some ways the center of the social life. She organizes a lot of events, and even if she's not around at a particular event, one of her kids and their family (some of the older ones are married) are there and you can communicate with her through them.
Also, having so many kids, you have to rely on others for help.
When we go to activities where there are smaller families, we notice how little 'help' we get with our children. This makes sense. With only two kids... that's manageable by two people. On the other hand at church, everyone will hold our newborn and toddler, take care of them for a few hours while my wife and I get some nice socializing time. Large families being the norm, everyone wants to help parents with young kids because they want that help reciprocated when they have a newborn or young children again (or in the case of older couples, they feel obligated to pay it forward).
In contrast, with just one or two, it's easy to evolve the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' mentality that is becoming so prevalent these days. In some ways, I think the shrinking family size has a lot to do with the loneliness many experience.
I'll offer insight. As someone who attends a very traditional catholic parish, where a ten child family would be considered only slightly above average, the more children you have... the more social you're going to be.
The more kids you have, the larger your network. Your kids become friends with someone else's kid and then you become friends with their parents. If you have two kids with five friends each, then this is 10 parents. If you have ten kids with five friends each, then this is 50, and you now have friends of all different ages, since the kids are not all the same age.
As an example, the lady with one of the most kids at our parish, is also in some ways the center of the social life. She organizes a lot of events, and even if she's not around at a particular event, one of her kids and their family (some of the older ones are married) are there and you can communicate with her through them.
Also, having so many kids, you have to rely on others for help.
When we go to activities where there are smaller families, we notice how little 'help' we get with our children. This makes sense. With only two kids... that's manageable by two people. On the other hand at church, everyone will hold our newborn and toddler, take care of them for a few hours while my wife and I get some nice socializing time. Large families being the norm, everyone wants to help parents with young kids because they want that help reciprocated when they have a newborn or young children again (or in the case of older couples, they feel obligated to pay it forward).
In contrast, with just one or two, it's easy to evolve the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' mentality that is becoming so prevalent these days. In some ways, I think the shrinking family size has a lot to do with the loneliness many experience.
People however have fewer children than ever before and less demanding workdays than they were for millennia.
> I am at the last few years of my life before I have children and have the most advantageous combination of free time, youthly energy, and money that I will ever have
I had children younger than most, and have never been starved for friends. I'll think you'll find that far from being isolating, having children will immediately start making you friends.
IME, the time before children was the most isolating part.
I had children younger than most, and have never been starved for friends. I'll think you'll find that far from being isolating, having children will immediately start making you friends.
IME, the time before children was the most isolating part.
Lately, I've become convinced that it's simply because so much of our lives is controlled by corporations and their priorities. Whenever I look around and try to figure out why everything looks so bleak; e.g. why does every building look the same, why is everyone's behavior so homogenous and boring, why is there so little creativity, etc.? It's because a very small number of organizations have a huge amount of influence over us. They sell us goods, services, opinions, lifestyles, and so forth. In short, they sell us our lives. And if they don't sell it to us, they at least sell it to someone who then sells it to us. Therefore, if we want less isolation and more of a human world that cares about individuals as people, we should get rid of the corporations.
Yes it will be just like the good old times! When your favorite local feudal lord forced you and your family to stay living on his property. And picked your profession for you and your descendants. Oh and going to church was mandatory, and paying tithes was required by law.
I think maybe I'll take the corporations instead. :-)
I think maybe I'll take the corporations instead. :-)
It's funny how you assume I was suggesting that we should go backward in time. No, I'm just saying there's clearly something wrong with sanctifying our will to power in the form of corporations. Great, so we've figured out a way to move money very efficiently into the hands of a few people in a way that is self reinforcing and sucks the life out of everything. Check. Mustn't there be a way to move forward into the future and discover newer and better ways of structuring society in a way that is more interesting?
I apologize if I implied that, admittedly it came off as a bit of a strawman. It's just something that's been on my mind lately in part due to issues with the current power structure. But you are right, if we managed to move from the feudal to current system, why should it not be possible to find something even better?
On the other hand I figure there needs to be a relief valve for the kinds of people that enjoy being feudal lords, and the corporations provide that right now. Perhaps something even better can be devised but it needs to be done because that type of person will always exist.
On the other hand I figure there needs to be a relief valve for the kinds of people that enjoy being feudal lords, and the corporations provide that right now. Perhaps something even better can be devised but it needs to be done because that type of person will always exist.
> it needs to be done because that type of person will always exist.
Could be. Though I wonder if this is really true. It might do to think of a counterexample; something that people once thought would always exist but has effectively been eliminated. I'll leave that as an exercise to all the readers I guess.
Could be. Though I wonder if this is really true. It might do to think of a counterexample; something that people once thought would always exist but has effectively been eliminated. I'll leave that as an exercise to all the readers I guess.
You have more freedom now, but that doesn't mean you are free. And the lack of freedom does not mean you should go back in time to when you were less free.
The truth is that your choices are determined by your options; in the past those options were determined by your feudal lord, and now they're determined by which corporate datastreams you choose to ingest.
We are freer now to create a pool of many more options, and the competitiveness of some markets forces corporations to give better options than the monopolies of the past. But you still will be left with little choice if you passively ingest the data you receive, especially as corporations invest in AI to both identify options you will like as well as funnel you into self-feeding culture bubbles in order to make you more predictable... for their profit.
I think you have to make actions which collect as many options as possible, analyzing what you receive from corporations, and choosing to also consider which non-corporate options are available to you with your surplus of money and freedom that those in the past didn't have.
The truth is that your choices are determined by your options; in the past those options were determined by your feudal lord, and now they're determined by which corporate datastreams you choose to ingest.
We are freer now to create a pool of many more options, and the competitiveness of some markets forces corporations to give better options than the monopolies of the past. But you still will be left with little choice if you passively ingest the data you receive, especially as corporations invest in AI to both identify options you will like as well as funnel you into self-feeding culture bubbles in order to make you more predictable... for their profit.
I think you have to make actions which collect as many options as possible, analyzing what you receive from corporations, and choosing to also consider which non-corporate options are available to you with your surplus of money and freedom that those in the past didn't have.
Yes the only choices are 12th century serfdom or corporations. :-)
What difference do you make between corporations and your "local feudal lord"?
Yes because everyone knows, the only alternative to Corporation driven capitalism is Feudalism. Which is totally different than Corporations guys. Nevermind the fact that the earliest corporations and the founders of a lot of economic thought accepted by Liberals (as in Liberalism the ideology shared by both parties in the US) were in fact Nobles during Feudal times who adopted Capitalism to maintain their power.
I agree. Your choices are determined by your options, and all our options are determined by corporations. There is no free will in this system.
You have to detach from the passive ingestion of the datastream and instead figure out a way to create as many options as possible in order to have any real choice.
What options can we create that weren't determined by corporations?
You have to detach from the passive ingestion of the datastream and instead figure out a way to create as many options as possible in order to have any real choice.
What options can we create that weren't determined by corporations?
Yay and nay. Yes corporations have a lot / too much influence, but it’s possible to detach from a lot of it and do more analog things. Meetings in the context of clubs, events or hobbies is very much possible.
What corporation controls you having dinner with your neighbor, or playing soccer?
As a dumb phone user I have noticed this paradox. Smartphones allow you to do things on your own. That completely rules out random encounters or discussions. If you have a question instead of asking someone and start a conversation you can just Google it. No need to ask your way to locals, you have Google map.
This is interesting. I recently heard a similar example that pointed out that say for a simple query like "who won that game between so and so a few years ago", you could easily look it up online and get an answer in a few seconds. But you would be missing the back and forth of follow up questions and such that would arise if you asked a person. And that could be a whole conversation in itself. In that sense, the question of who won the game ceases to be what is interesting about the potential conversation. Like if I go look up that question and get an answer privately without sharing it with someone do I even care about the answer? Taking that further, it's almost like having the ability to look up answers completely misses that the point of asking it in the first place is to further human interaction and experience.
Is it possible to be interested in something for a non social reason?
Not totally true. I'm still asking questions from time to time to people because I'm confused about place or how to do things (I'm living in a foreign country). Depending on the context some people are glad to converse instead of being on their phones. Creating long term relationships is very hard, but small talk isn't much harder than before.
> Depending on the context some people are glad to converse instead of being on their phones
I believe GP's point is not that people aren't glad to converse or that small talk is hard, it's just that almost nobody approaches people to ask questions anymore because we have answers in our phone.
I believe GP's point is not that people aren't glad to converse or that small talk is hard, it's just that almost nobody approaches people to ask questions anymore because we have answers in our phone.
I suspect we can only handle a finite (and quite small) number of meaningful connections. The modern age has grown the number of available options from just those people within walking distance, i.e. at most a few thousand, to everyone within range of your car and your internet connection. That's billions of people, far too great a number for us to deal with.
Yet here we are, talking through the magic of the internet, but we're destined to remain strangers to one another. So although the discussion may be interesting, in the end we are not actually making new friends.
Yet here we are, talking through the magic of the internet, but we're destined to remain strangers to one another. So although the discussion may be interesting, in the end we are not actually making new friends.
There’s too much easy entertainment. People who were bored often had other people as their primary form of entertainment, now it’s much easier to turn on the tv or go to something on the internet. This has been happening for a hundred years, and younger generations increasingly lose the habits of their elders.
Also architecture of our houses and cities does not favor that kind of social interaction. People sacrifice space for cost but that just makes the cost per area go up.
Also architecture of our houses and cities does not favor that kind of social interaction. People sacrifice space for cost but that just makes the cost per area go up.
Why does cost per area matter?
I think it's because friendship-level connections are a lot easier to make when you are in uncomfortably close physical proximity with each other and/or when you need to rely on others and they need to rely on you.
In upper middle class society, more and more people live alone and have access to everything they need without needing to rely on neighbors.
Having 24/7 access to the Internet and communication tools gives the sensation that you have all the necessary tools at your disposal, but in reality those tools do nothing and you're just sitting at home by yourself, ignoring the people who are physically around you.
In upper middle class society, more and more people live alone and have access to everything they need without needing to rely on neighbors.
Having 24/7 access to the Internet and communication tools gives the sensation that you have all the necessary tools at your disposal, but in reality those tools do nothing and you're just sitting at home by yourself, ignoring the people who are physically around you.
Human communication is only 10% the words we use. But the internet for most of its lifetime has been words-only (disregarding recent trends like TikTok). We have lost 90% of what makes our communication human.
There are biological factors as well, not just things like body language. You put off pheromones which I absorb and my brain analyzes for me when I am near you. You don't get the biological aspects unless you're in person.
There are biological factors as well, not just things like body language. You put off pheromones which I absorb and my brain analyzes for me when I am near you. You don't get the biological aspects unless you're in person.
Community has gone from opt out to opt in.
People want immediate gratification, and friendship is like dating.
Often, I'm the first to take initiative inviting people out... This is fine. I don't care about that. But sometimes, i'll invite someone out I don't click with 100%
And this is... okay. Even if I spent money and time on that attempt, I always have a decent enough time, and finding friends requires work.
People today don't want to do the work. They barely want to do it for dating but sexual desire provides an itch they need to satisfy so they ultimately figure it out (as well as parental pressure I presume).
Making friends is a long process requiring strategy and continued effort.
For example, we just moved to a new area. We've been going to a few events consistently (children's soccer practice, church, etc). My wife and I both make it a point to speak to as many people as possible. After a few months of doing this, we'll casually ask for a number. Usually it's something like.. "Oh, you like to do <activity X>? I love doing <activity X>... I just read a great article about <activity X>... do you want me to send it to you? CAn I have your number?"
Anyway, after a few more weeks go by with some more interactions, and hopefully a few text messages back and forth, we'll casually ask for them to come over for drinks, dinner, etc.
Does this sound contrived and 'social engineering'y? It absolutely is. My wife and I have spent a good few hours strategizing how to ask people to do various activities, and making lists of people to invite to various things. This is a lot of work that few are willing to do. Even mentioning it can make people think you've gone nuts. But ultimately, friendship, like marriage and dating, is work... it's a choice to put in the effort to be someone's friend.
Often, I'm the first to take initiative inviting people out... This is fine. I don't care about that. But sometimes, i'll invite someone out I don't click with 100%
And this is... okay. Even if I spent money and time on that attempt, I always have a decent enough time, and finding friends requires work.
People today don't want to do the work. They barely want to do it for dating but sexual desire provides an itch they need to satisfy so they ultimately figure it out (as well as parental pressure I presume).
Making friends is a long process requiring strategy and continued effort.
For example, we just moved to a new area. We've been going to a few events consistently (children's soccer practice, church, etc). My wife and I both make it a point to speak to as many people as possible. After a few months of doing this, we'll casually ask for a number. Usually it's something like.. "Oh, you like to do <activity X>? I love doing <activity X>... I just read a great article about <activity X>... do you want me to send it to you? CAn I have your number?"
Anyway, after a few more weeks go by with some more interactions, and hopefully a few text messages back and forth, we'll casually ask for them to come over for drinks, dinner, etc.
Does this sound contrived and 'social engineering'y? It absolutely is. My wife and I have spent a good few hours strategizing how to ask people to do various activities, and making lists of people to invite to various things. This is a lot of work that few are willing to do. Even mentioning it can make people think you've gone nuts. But ultimately, friendship, like marriage and dating, is work... it's a choice to put in the effort to be someone's friend.
> But ultimately, friendship, like marriage and dating, is work... it's a choice to put in the effort to be someone's friend.
But see, that’s just not the case historically speaking. Why has it become so much more effort in recent times?
But see, that’s just not the case historically speaking. Why has it become so much more effort in recent times?
I don't think it was more effort in the past, it's just we (especially for the middle class up) made everything else much more effortless (in the service economy), so this eventually bubbled up to the list of "hard" things.
I know we are talking far away from something that can be proven with data, but I can't imagine that friendship ever wasn't a function of time an effort.
Well, at least personally, it was easy to make and maintain friendships in school where I was seeing the same people over and over again, naturally and spontaneously. It was a function of time, but that time came effortlessly and automatically.
Except it always was. We belong to a very close knit catholic parish, and it takes constant effort to keep it up. I'm a part of the men's club, and we're always doing work -- like actual work -- to make sure the social aspects of the parish work and people can meet friends. We work to encourage friend making, dating, etc. For example, the men regularly wake up before the first mass (so we're talking before 7 AM) to get breakfast ready. That's work. It means getting up early on a saturday morning to foster the kind of social environment we want.
This is not a new thing. In fact, it was more prominent in the past. Knights of Columbus councils like the one i'm in are smaller than ever. Growing up, our knights of columbus was huge, and the guys there again did actual work to keep the community going.
That's group friendship. My parents kept a few friends individually and again... this is also work. My mother would regularly cook large elaborate meals for the sole purpose of having people over... even friends she didn't like. She'd complain about her friend for hours and hours and hours (mainly about political differences) but still invite them over, because to her it's better to have friends than to cut someone out, and anyway... she could barely cut out her friends from her life, much less her family. These days, people cut people off because they aren't on the same page politically, don't have the same taste, etc. Some people literally won't meet up with friends because they have a better thing to do... it's so individualistic as to be toxic.
This is not to say my mother was a pushover by any means. My parents did cut out people from their lives, including family, but it had to be for egregious reasons. For example, my dad's sister and her husband were cut out because they enslaved my parents, but unless someone's going to go to that level of depravity, I don't think my parents could cut someone out of their life.
This is not a new thing. In fact, it was more prominent in the past. Knights of Columbus councils like the one i'm in are smaller than ever. Growing up, our knights of columbus was huge, and the guys there again did actual work to keep the community going.
That's group friendship. My parents kept a few friends individually and again... this is also work. My mother would regularly cook large elaborate meals for the sole purpose of having people over... even friends she didn't like. She'd complain about her friend for hours and hours and hours (mainly about political differences) but still invite them over, because to her it's better to have friends than to cut someone out, and anyway... she could barely cut out her friends from her life, much less her family. These days, people cut people off because they aren't on the same page politically, don't have the same taste, etc. Some people literally won't meet up with friends because they have a better thing to do... it's so individualistic as to be toxic.
This is not to say my mother was a pushover by any means. My parents did cut out people from their lives, including family, but it had to be for egregious reasons. For example, my dad's sister and her husband were cut out because they enslaved my parents, but unless someone's going to go to that level of depravity, I don't think my parents could cut someone out of their life.
Literally enslaved? What do you mean by enslaved?
Yes. Sponsored to work in this country by his sister. The brother in law owned a few restaurants. My dad was made to work by family pressure. It was reported he was making x amount to the government to keep him here but he never saw the money. He 'worked' for a few years like this
He was driven to various Indian restaurant locations in southern California. Forced to work more than eight hours a day, then driven back to sisters house.
When he married my mother and she immigrated she saw what was going on and ran away and took my dad. We don't talk about the sister any more. I didn't realize my father had two sisters until much later in life.
The scary thing is how open this was. If you're familiar with fancy Indian restaurants in orange, la and Riverside county you'll likely have eaten there. Sister and brother in law were otherwise respectable doctors (including one in public health believe it or not) and otherwise beyond reproach...
There was no hope getting the wages back. My mom and dad started from nothing after several years in the country.
Frankly this sort of slavery is very common, especially among south Asians and is rarely discussed. My parents know a few other full on slaves who were never released to their knowledge. You might ask... Shouldn't we help them... Well we could certainly help them in america, but brother in law is a high caste indian so he would punish the family in India.
There's nothing we could do. This is something the state department and ice need to solve.
He was driven to various Indian restaurant locations in southern California. Forced to work more than eight hours a day, then driven back to sisters house.
When he married my mother and she immigrated she saw what was going on and ran away and took my dad. We don't talk about the sister any more. I didn't realize my father had two sisters until much later in life.
The scary thing is how open this was. If you're familiar with fancy Indian restaurants in orange, la and Riverside county you'll likely have eaten there. Sister and brother in law were otherwise respectable doctors (including one in public health believe it or not) and otherwise beyond reproach...
There was no hope getting the wages back. My mom and dad started from nothing after several years in the country.
Frankly this sort of slavery is very common, especially among south Asians and is rarely discussed. My parents know a few other full on slaves who were never released to their knowledge. You might ask... Shouldn't we help them... Well we could certainly help them in america, but brother in law is a high caste indian so he would punish the family in India.
There's nothing we could do. This is something the state department and ice need to solve.
Dam that's brutal, to think that slavery can still happen here and now via essentially blackmail.
> It absolutely is. My wife and I have spent a good few hours strategizing how to ask people to do various activities, and making lists of people to invite to various things. This is a lot of work that few are willing to do. Even mentioning it can make people think you've gone nuts. But ultimately, friendship, like marriage and dating, is work... it's a choice to put in the effort to be someone's friend.
Why can't we just skip to the drinks part?
Even in places like NYC where there are so many people that fear of rejection is not a factor, there is always in the back of your head the thought of "stranger danger", and the worst is the realization that the other person has that too; but the actual worst is that the both of you know that the other person knows that you know they have "stranger danger" fears.
Honestly it's draining because communities which are wealthy and in which there is no "stranger danger" are the most closed ones.
Kevin Hart summarized it perfectly on Joe Rogan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wQx9E4iqxM&t=85s
Why can't we just skip to the drinks part?
Even in places like NYC where there are so many people that fear of rejection is not a factor, there is always in the back of your head the thought of "stranger danger", and the worst is the realization that the other person has that too; but the actual worst is that the both of you know that the other person knows that you know they have "stranger danger" fears.
Honestly it's draining because communities which are wealthy and in which there is no "stranger danger" are the most closed ones.
Kevin Hart summarized it perfectly on Joe Rogan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wQx9E4iqxM&t=85s
> Why can't we just skip to the drinks part?
Well if COVID didn't exist, I would have invited everyone we knew to a large baptism party, but given that we can't do that and are basically resolved to socializing in our homes, we can only invite one family over at a time. Thus, we have to prioritize, and frankly, the ones we believe are most likely to turn into friends get priority.
Well if COVID didn't exist, I would have invited everyone we knew to a large baptism party, but given that we can't do that and are basically resolved to socializing in our homes, we can only invite one family over at a time. Thus, we have to prioritize, and frankly, the ones we believe are most likely to turn into friends get priority.
I bet you’d love this article: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pfibDHFZ3waBo6pAc/intentiona...
Thank you for linking this, I had a great experience reading it and discovering the same problem that the author had. I didn't even consider it was possible to directly and intentionally have an emotionally vulnerable conversation! I love when I have them, but I always thought of them as 'happy accidents' that just occur sometimes.
It's never even popped into my head that these are avenues in a conversation that you can take with intention.
It's never even popped into my head that these are avenues in a conversation that you can take with intention.
In my experience the best way to have a vulnerable conversation is just to put yourself out there. And have a back up. Once in a while, I'll say something and clearly it's not desired, so it's always nice to fall back to 'Hey did you want some more cookies / can I get you another beer?'.
Haha thanks. Yes... there's a benefit to being a socially awkward kid raised in a culture of close friendship in that my parents taught me in very clear terms how to make friends, that I use to this day (to apparently much greater success than 'normal' kids I know).
I especially liked the article's details on maintaining friendships. Being a good friend is like having a marriage. We have this couple we're friends with. The husband and I get along and my wife and his wife get along (and of course, we all get along with each other). But his wife and my wife fought for a bit (And I mean really fought), and we had a 'falling out', but then I took the initiative to reach out to the husband, and for a while, we'd clandestinely go out with each other, until we both decided it was time to get the wive's to reconnect and everyone to make up (which they eventually did). It was hard emotional work... but it's all worth it. I think a lot of people drop friends they don't like. I notice a lot of people today do it over differences in politics, which I frankly find unfathomable.
I especially liked the article's details on maintaining friendships. Being a good friend is like having a marriage. We have this couple we're friends with. The husband and I get along and my wife and his wife get along (and of course, we all get along with each other). But his wife and my wife fought for a bit (And I mean really fought), and we had a 'falling out', but then I took the initiative to reach out to the husband, and for a while, we'd clandestinely go out with each other, until we both decided it was time to get the wive's to reconnect and everyone to make up (which they eventually did). It was hard emotional work... but it's all worth it. I think a lot of people drop friends they don't like. I notice a lot of people today do it over differences in politics, which I frankly find unfathomable.
So how do you handle political differences?
I can definitely feel closer with people if we’re on the same page politically.
And it’s really jarring to have so many things in common and then discover they’re promoting the destruction of western values …
I could definitely use some advice.
On the other hand back when politics wasn’t as in your daily life I really didn’t care about disagreements.
I can definitely feel closer with people if we’re on the same page politically.
And it’s really jarring to have so many things in common and then discover they’re promoting the destruction of western values …
I could definitely use some advice.
On the other hand back when politics wasn’t as in your daily life I really didn’t care about disagreements.
I suggest learning more about these western values, where they came from, why, and how long they have been around. I think you will be surprised and find a very enjoyable rabbit hole. One spoiler: most things people consider an inseparable part of their culture (any culture, not just western) are a few generations old at best, and are usually borrowed from another culture.
> And it’s really jarring to have so many things in common and then discover they’re promoting the destruction of western values …
I dunno who your friends or acquaintances are, but if your view of them is that they want to destroy western values and your way of living, then that's a problem on you, not them. Most likely, they don't want to hurt you or your way of life... they just want to be able to live theirs, so I would suggest not approaching this is a problem of 'my friend basically wants to destroy my country'.
I mean on the other hand, if you're surrounded by people who literally want to destroy your country, well then I'd suggest moving, I guess. I don't honestly believe there's many parts of america, other than certain cult compounds, that would share that view though. More likely, you are the one reading ill intent into other's politics.
I dunno who your friends or acquaintances are, but if your view of them is that they want to destroy western values and your way of living, then that's a problem on you, not them. Most likely, they don't want to hurt you or your way of life... they just want to be able to live theirs, so I would suggest not approaching this is a problem of 'my friend basically wants to destroy my country'.
I mean on the other hand, if you're surrounded by people who literally want to destroy your country, well then I'd suggest moving, I guess. I don't honestly believe there's many parts of america, other than certain cult compounds, that would share that view though. More likely, you are the one reading ill intent into other's politics.
That sounds like an artificial and planned way to make friends.
True friendships just happen.
True friendships just happen.
I have a friend who's still waiting for his 'true love' to fall into his lap. I have lots of other friends who are happily married now with kids who chose to be deliberate.
I've always wanted a "friending" site. Basically a dating site, but to make friends.
I work from home, have a couple of online friends that share the same interests as me, but none of my real-world friends do.
I tried a couple of these apps, but I always felt the "friend" had ulterior motives. One friend I connected to, tried to sell me on investments, another I'm fairly certain was trying to hook up as if this were Tinder and not a professionals networking app (same swiping mechanic though)
Maybe it is impossible.
I work from home, have a couple of online friends that share the same interests as me, but none of my real-world friends do.
I tried a couple of these apps, but I always felt the "friend" had ulterior motives. One friend I connected to, tried to sell me on investments, another I'm fairly certain was trying to hook up as if this were Tinder and not a professionals networking app (same swiping mechanic though)
Maybe it is impossible.
This is Meetup.com. (Or was before the pandemic; most groups I've looked at still haven't resumed, and who knows when the hysteria will ever subside.)
It is easier to find people that share your interests and make them friends, than to make your friends share your interests. Meetup and perhaps local Facebook groups are the way in to that.
It is easier to find people that share your interests and make them friends, than to make your friends share your interests. Meetup and perhaps local Facebook groups are the way in to that.
Meetup is great for users, for individual hosts it's way too expensive. I can't view the current pricing, but my small group closed after I got tired of paying $90/6 months for a glorified email list + calendar.
For companies that's chump change, but for a casual interest group it's too much.
Tried to migrate the core members to Facebook groups which is free, but there wasnt enough interest to keep it active. Friends with a few people still from it though.
For companies that's chump change, but for a casual interest group it's too much.
Tried to migrate the core members to Facebook groups which is free, but there wasnt enough interest to keep it active. Friends with a few people still from it though.
Meetup is key for discoverability. Both because Meetup is where people actively go to look for something, and because they may incidentally see your group/event while doing something else on Meetup. There's nothing else that gives a group local findability quite like Meetup. That's what you're really paying for, although agreed that the price is an obstacle.
Also agreed that migrating to Facebook usually doesn't work. In any group, there's a quarter or third or so who refuse to use FB, and that tends to kill your critical mass.
Also agreed that migrating to Facebook usually doesn't work. In any group, there's a quarter or third or so who refuse to use FB, and that tends to kill your critical mass.
Similarly, all the smaller groups I was part of closed down promptly after the pricing change.
It's not reasonable for small or infrequent gatherings.
It's not reasonable for small or infrequent gatherings.
Meetup events (at least the ones I've been to) seems to be coming back online (UK Brighton area). Shameless plug for Flock #10 for anyone around Shoreham - one of the reasons to like it is the "No Selling!" rule.
[0] https://www.meetup.com/en-AU/helloflock/
[0] https://www.meetup.com/en-AU/helloflock/
i feel like "traditional" events for casually connecting and meeting with others have become somehow underrated — things like attending trivia events at a local pub, pick-up sports leagues, book signings, meetup groups, local volunteering orgs, and stuff like that all exist and, post-lockdown in many cities, seem even livelier and more interesting than before, with many people just going out and talking to others with no ulterior motives or expectations of anything else but meeting interesting people
once you're at a physical event, you already have one thing in common with everyone there, which is your presence at the event, and it's really easy to strike up a conversation about something topical and then get to know someone better—the issue with a lot of these apps is that the initial conversation can be awkward or fizzle out quickly if both sides aren't completely engaged, which is often the case anyway
once you're at a physical event, you already have one thing in common with everyone there, which is your presence at the event, and it's really easy to strike up a conversation about something topical and then get to know someone better—the issue with a lot of these apps is that the initial conversation can be awkward or fizzle out quickly if both sides aren't completely engaged, which is often the case anyway
Meetup is the best app I've found for this. The group nature of most of the events steers it away from tending towards dating.
Yeah, I think these sites pop up from time to time but seemingly always get pulled and drift towards hookup sites and "dating" sites. I think AFF was one and then became what it is now. Maybe the word "adult" was psychosocially loaded with other meaning in this context and took over the original mission.
The problem with these types of sites is the cold start issue. Not enough users to make people stay engaged. After viewing few to no options, most users will move on.
Bumble tried to tackle the issue with its BFF feature, but it is still underused. Very few people on the app.
Bumble tried to tackle the issue with its BFF feature, but it is still underused. Very few people on the app.
We used to have these things called bars and churches and parks. Dating apps kind of ruined them though.
I mean, for sure. But when I drink, it is with friends or family, when I worship, it is at home, and when I go to the park, it is for the solitude of nature and escaping tech.
Not sure what apps you’re referring to, but Bumble now has a BFF option where you can swipe to make friends. You can do this with the dating version disabled too.
I've used Bumble's BFF mode for this and I really like it. It's exactly what you're describing. Fair warning that they only match boys with boys and girls with girls. Which is pretty old fashioned but it's apprently because there were too many guys using it to hit on girls.
Finding friendship as an adult is an unspoken challenge. I’ve had a little success, but it’s still much more of a challenge than I ever considered when I was younger
I recall hearing a story on public radio about a person who moves frequently between RV parks, and said that everyone there makes friends immediately because you don’t have time to feel people out.
I’ve wondered if there was something to that - I also wonder if I could do it in such a situation.
I recall hearing a story on public radio about a person who moves frequently between RV parks, and said that everyone there makes friends immediately because you don’t have time to feel people out.
I’ve wondered if there was something to that - I also wonder if I could do it in such a situation.
The best model for friendship I've heard as an adult is the "campfire model". It was explained in a Reddit comment that I can't find these days, but I will paraphrase below:
"I treat all of my friends as if I'm sitting alone in the wilderness, tending to my campfire. If they come by and want to stay for a while, that's nice, but if they have to go on I understand. Sometimes I go and visit their campfires, but then I have to leave."
It's not possible to have friends in adulthood the way they were had in youth; adults have responsibilities, families, and near-complete identities that clash against the demands of a highly-involved social group with lots of friends.
I think it's better that way. One or two close friends that you can trust for the rest of your life will be better than many new friends that have to be kept track of.
"I treat all of my friends as if I'm sitting alone in the wilderness, tending to my campfire. If they come by and want to stay for a while, that's nice, but if they have to go on I understand. Sometimes I go and visit their campfires, but then I have to leave."
It's not possible to have friends in adulthood the way they were had in youth; adults have responsibilities, families, and near-complete identities that clash against the demands of a highly-involved social group with lots of friends.
I think it's better that way. One or two close friends that you can trust for the rest of your life will be better than many new friends that have to be kept track of.
I have two thoughts here. You seem to imply that having many many shallow friends is normal... but it's not necessarily the case.
I think it's totally normal to have one or two close friends and then other more distant ones that are constantly coming and going.
Personally, yes adulthood changes things. Obviously, we're working and such. But, you also get to have way more fun as an adult than you could as a child.
> families
I don't understand why so many people find having kids an obstacle to making friends. If anything, my children have dramatically expanded my social network, since I'm now friends with their playmates parents.
Here's the second thought: I'm not sure I fully agree with the campfire model. If anything, my adult friendships are deeper and much better, and more 'involved', in that, I can call, text, interact, etc, with my friends while working via my phone, which we weren't allowed to do in grade school.
Also, since we're all adults with full lives, families, etc, the friendship is about more than just 'hey we both like <blah>', it's also about navigating through such a full life, whereas childhood friendships were about childish things.
I think it's totally normal to have one or two close friends and then other more distant ones that are constantly coming and going.
Personally, yes adulthood changes things. Obviously, we're working and such. But, you also get to have way more fun as an adult than you could as a child.
> families
I don't understand why so many people find having kids an obstacle to making friends. If anything, my children have dramatically expanded my social network, since I'm now friends with their playmates parents.
Here's the second thought: I'm not sure I fully agree with the campfire model. If anything, my adult friendships are deeper and much better, and more 'involved', in that, I can call, text, interact, etc, with my friends while working via my phone, which we weren't allowed to do in grade school.
Also, since we're all adults with full lives, families, etc, the friendship is about more than just 'hey we both like <blah>', it's also about navigating through such a full life, whereas childhood friendships were about childish things.
I do urban outdoor living, and it is similar. You can make friends almost instantly in any city on any street.
Over the past few years on HN I've periodically seen a nice exchange between people saying "if anyone is in Austin and wants to get a beer, let me know." There's normally a response or two. I wonder how many of these people actually meet up?
And is HN good (or not) for this purpose? Seems like readers/commenters here could easily have a lot in common, so why couldn't HN be used as a platform for 'speed friending.' But of course I'd probably never meet up with HN-ers in the DC area... because I like to tell myself that I'm busy.
And is HN good (or not) for this purpose? Seems like readers/commenters here could easily have a lot in common, so why couldn't HN be used as a platform for 'speed friending.' But of course I'd probably never meet up with HN-ers in the DC area... because I like to tell myself that I'm busy.
I've often thought about having a 'meet' tab in the top bar, alongside 'ask' and 'show' and 'jobs', where people could post meetups. HN has connected a lot of people over the years, both with each other and with significant opportunities. It would be nice to foster more real-world connections.
Edit: not a new idea - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1310849
Edit: not a new idea - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1310849
This sounds like it could provide a lot of value to many users, would love to see something like this! I had a service once that I tried to get a few people to use for this purpose, but having a lightweight one on the website itself would definitely be the best option imo.
Sounds good, or we could also try having an automatic thread on the 1st/14th(?) of the month, like the hiring ones.
Yes, that would be a more organic way to start.
I attended a Hacker News-adjacent meetup event at a pizza place in Osaka a few years ago. I'm not a "hacker" but it was a nice way to meet smart/lonely/bored people in a region where they are isolated enough to make meetup events really meaningful. I hope this kind of thing sees a resurgence post-COVID.
There was a HN group in Japan that met for years, but I forget where exactly they were. There was another in San Diego that met for years (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1308886 - note the response from pg!) Scott and I used to talk about randomly showing up one day.
Please do, and name the threads “Meet HN: December 2021” etc
Please, bring it on!
This is a terrific idea and I’d love to see it.
The format of a regular post wherein people could post which city (or virtual space) they’re in and up to meet in x place at y time open to replies would seem to feel the most in HN spirit.
The regularity of a post and the lack of a formalized format would go a long way to make it casual and low effort. This is important as I think the more formal meetup with PowerPoint in company office looking to hire is not something I’d like to see repeated. This could be something different.
The format of a regular post wherein people could post which city (or virtual space) they’re in and up to meet in x place at y time open to replies would seem to feel the most in HN spirit.
The regularity of a post and the lack of a formalized format would go a long way to make it casual and low effort. This is important as I think the more formal meetup with PowerPoint in company office looking to hire is not something I’d like to see repeated. This could be something different.
One thing we could do pretty easily is use IP geolocation to highlight "meetup in $place" posts for readers who are accessing HN from $place. I'm not sure if this would be extremely welcome or extremely off-putting.
I mean, I'm sure it would be both, for different users, but I'm not sure what the percentages would be.
I mean, I'm sure it would be both, for different users, but I'm not sure what the percentages would be.
Top-level posts, or comments?
It'll also be good if locations/cities couldn't be monopolised by a single large meetup. I attended a few HNLondon meetups back in 2012, but came away with nothing.
Smaller meetups might work better for actually getting to know people.
It'll also be good if locations/cities couldn't be monopolised by a single large meetup. I attended a few HNLondon meetups back in 2012, but came away with nothing.
Smaller meetups might work better for actually getting to know people.
IP geolocation gives latitude/longitude. Maybe we could sort such posts by proximity. Whether they'd be comments or top-level posts would depend on the format I suppose.
I live in the South Bay and I'm considering hosting a meetup either at my house/backyard or at a nearby park. Is there a way or preferred format for me to gauge interest or announce it? Making a top level post just for that feels a bit silly but that's the best idea I have.
That's how people used to do it and we certainly don't have any objections. The main problem is that it probably won't get off the /newest page. If you make it a text post it might make the /ask page.
I would really enjoy this
I wouldn't have thought HN would be particularly good for this purpose. That said though, we just came out of a 77 day lock-down today, so if there's anybody in south-east Melbourne...
Frankston here. Feel free to email me. I’ve been thinking of starting a group for Peninsula/south-east hackers/founders, so, please hit me up If interested.
Brisbane, sadly (for this purpose), but if you're ever up here...
Inner West / CBD Sydney here...
The problem with using HN for this is that it doesn't provide any vetting. You don't know if you share enough beliefs to even begin to become friends. You don't necessarily have a shared experience to relate over.
IMO, this is fine. You meet up, and even if interests don't collide, at least you discovered someone different than you. I might be lucky and have an easy time making friends, but usually I can easily get along even with people I have little in common.
The only thing necessary to friendship is maybe one thing in common, and chemistry. None of my friends were met through any kind of vetting process, and I'd never want to do that.
You'd think this would be important, but when I think back on my friends I met most of them randomly while happening to do something together (work, school, some other obligation) that didn't necessarily say much about our shared beliefs. I think sometimes people just need a reason to get to know each other better.
I sometimes reach out and people sometimes reach out to me.
There seems to be something missing. In one case, it’s lack of time. In another, it’s that I don’t always check my ProtonMail account.
There’s a bit of a lack of commitment thingy going on from both sides.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, just my observations.
The conversations are usually fun!
There seems to be something missing. In one case, it’s lack of time. In another, it’s that I don’t always check my ProtonMail account.
There’s a bit of a lack of commitment thingy going on from both sides.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, just my observations.
The conversations are usually fun!
Just responding to say that I'm down to meet up with anyone in Austin, check out my profile/website to see if you may be interested!
[deleted]
There were definitely a bunch of HN gatherings in the early days with great turnouts.
Down to meet up in Boston if anyone wants to grab coffee.
this just reminds me of books like 'How To Win Friends and Manipulate' ..cough.., sorry, i mean 'Influence People'
Caroline - 2 stars // Apr 02, 2010:
"This book had a profound effect on me, however, of the negative variety. It did give me pointers on how to actually break out of my shell and "win friends" but in the long term, it did way more harm than good. Not the book per se, but my choice to follow the advice given there. The book basically tells you to be agreeable to everybody, find something to honestly like about them and compliment them on it, talk about their interests only and, practically, act like a people pleaser all the time.
It might sound like a harmless, or even attractive idea in theory, but choosing to apply it in your every day life can lead to dangerous results. Case in point: after being a smiley happy person with loads of friends for about a year, the unpleasant realization began to creep in, that by being so agreeable to everybody else, I rarely ever got my way. I also sustained friendships with people who were self-centered, so talking about their interests was all we got to do together, which drained me of my energy. The worst thing still, is that by trying to find something to like about every person, I completely disregarded their glaring faults. It didn't matter that those people did have redeeming qualities - they weren't redeeming enough! I ended up with a bunch of friends I didn't really want and, because I was so preoccupied with "winning" those friendships I missed out on the chance to form relationships with good people.
I suppose, for somebody who is a better judge of character, the principles outlined in this book - could - be of some value. But that's really just me trying to find something positive (using the "principles") in a book that I am still trying to UNlearn.
If you want to win friends, you have to do it the hard way, by being yourself and risking rejection (and daring to do some rejection of your own, as well). And if you want to influence people the only fair way to do it is through honesty. All the rest is manipulation and pretending. Do not read this book, you'll only learn how to manipulate yourself & others. Do not read it out of fear of rejection & low self-esteem, there are better ways to gain some courage in approaching people. This will harm you in the long run.
Thank you for reading this review."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4865.How_to_Win_Friends_...
Caroline - 2 stars // Apr 02, 2010:
"This book had a profound effect on me, however, of the negative variety. It did give me pointers on how to actually break out of my shell and "win friends" but in the long term, it did way more harm than good. Not the book per se, but my choice to follow the advice given there. The book basically tells you to be agreeable to everybody, find something to honestly like about them and compliment them on it, talk about their interests only and, practically, act like a people pleaser all the time.
It might sound like a harmless, or even attractive idea in theory, but choosing to apply it in your every day life can lead to dangerous results. Case in point: after being a smiley happy person with loads of friends for about a year, the unpleasant realization began to creep in, that by being so agreeable to everybody else, I rarely ever got my way. I also sustained friendships with people who were self-centered, so talking about their interests was all we got to do together, which drained me of my energy. The worst thing still, is that by trying to find something to like about every person, I completely disregarded their glaring faults. It didn't matter that those people did have redeeming qualities - they weren't redeeming enough! I ended up with a bunch of friends I didn't really want and, because I was so preoccupied with "winning" those friendships I missed out on the chance to form relationships with good people.
I suppose, for somebody who is a better judge of character, the principles outlined in this book - could - be of some value. But that's really just me trying to find something positive (using the "principles") in a book that I am still trying to UNlearn.
If you want to win friends, you have to do it the hard way, by being yourself and risking rejection (and daring to do some rejection of your own, as well). And if you want to influence people the only fair way to do it is through honesty. All the rest is manipulation and pretending. Do not read this book, you'll only learn how to manipulate yourself & others. Do not read it out of fear of rejection & low self-esteem, there are better ways to gain some courage in approaching people. This will harm you in the long run.
Thank you for reading this review."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4865.How_to_Win_Friends_...
I totally can not relate to the article at all. I would never start any activity with the goal of making friends. So much so that I find the concept of 'making friends' absurd. How would one be able to make, to fabricate, friendship?
Friendship is a sentiment I'd develop towards a person I like and value. And from this feeling I become a friend to them. If the feeling is returned, I am lucky and relish the moment of this mutual positive feeling.
If I were to feel lonely I'd start an activity I like. Start playing a team sport. Be a good team mate. Friendship will eventually develop over time when the group is right.
You like intellectual challenges? Join a Chess or Go club. For Chess or for Go. Friendships will develop if the time is right.
I find it very strange to attempt to fill the void by socializing.
Friendship is a sentiment I'd develop towards a person I like and value. And from this feeling I become a friend to them. If the feeling is returned, I am lucky and relish the moment of this mutual positive feeling.
If I were to feel lonely I'd start an activity I like. Start playing a team sport. Be a good team mate. Friendship will eventually develop over time when the group is right.
You like intellectual challenges? Join a Chess or Go club. For Chess or for Go. Friendships will develop if the time is right.
I find it very strange to attempt to fill the void by socializing.
WTF friendship doesn't work like that
It does seem in our world where there is such relative fear of the other that a bit of structure would help a lot. Not sure if this is it, but I think it’s thinking along the same lines.
I think about this a lot in that how many relationships we have are based around the circumstances of mutual location - the internet being one, sometimes - but people really have trouble addressing needs of community and there aren’t many structures in place to really assist that.
I think about this a lot in that how many relationships we have are based around the circumstances of mutual location - the internet being one, sometimes - but people really have trouble addressing needs of community and there aren’t many structures in place to really assist that.