Alcohol and social bonding in humans (2018)(ft.com)
ft.com
Alcohol and social bonding in humans (2018)
https://www.ft.com/content/c5ce0834-9a64-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d
90 comments
One has to wonder why even the author states specifically that loneliness is a problem in the "western world". Isn't it a problem elsewhere and if so, why? What does it really correlate with? Longer lifespans, smaller families, peace and security, wealth?
>One has to wonder why even the author states specifically that loneliness is a problem in the "western world". Isn't it a problem elsewhere and if so, why?
Because other places have stronger social and family bonds (Africa, Asia, Latin America). Exceptions is the West and very westernized societies in Asia (e.g. Japan).
It's partly cultural (e.g. protestant cultures being more impersonal), partly because of necessity (you need more family/friend support in less developed countries), and partly because of the development model chosen (or imposed onto people) which sacrifices personal and social time and binds for productivity and consumption. Where western style productivity has not been applied (e.g. in vast expanses of global rural areas, non-factory cities, slower economies, etc), even the poor have plenty of social time. When that has been eroded and people are forced to factory work, sweatshops, or worse (mines etc), that drops closer to zero.
Quite a lot of social time was the norm in the west too, both in the pre-industrial past, and when a middle class emerged that overcame the Dickensian working conditions (e.g. sometime before WWII, up until some point in the 70s - late 80s or so. Thank neoliberalism/globalization for the changes...).
Because other places have stronger social and family bonds (Africa, Asia, Latin America). Exceptions is the West and very westernized societies in Asia (e.g. Japan).
It's partly cultural (e.g. protestant cultures being more impersonal), partly because of necessity (you need more family/friend support in less developed countries), and partly because of the development model chosen (or imposed onto people) which sacrifices personal and social time and binds for productivity and consumption. Where western style productivity has not been applied (e.g. in vast expanses of global rural areas, non-factory cities, slower economies, etc), even the poor have plenty of social time. When that has been eroded and people are forced to factory work, sweatshops, or worse (mines etc), that drops closer to zero.
Quite a lot of social time was the norm in the west too, both in the pre-industrial past, and when a middle class emerged that overcame the Dickensian working conditions (e.g. sometime before WWII, up until some point in the 70s - late 80s or so. Thank neoliberalism/globalization for the changes...).
[citation needed]
[fieldwork and reading up required from the reader]
So you made it up and then downvoted me for asking for a source? Oh well.
No, I summed up my informed observations and readings (having lived and worked in a few continents for some chunks of time), and downvoted the cliche Reddit-like "citation needed" content-less response.
If you have your own observations, or opinion, or point of view, or counter data, or some citation you'd like to share, please do so. I've written mine.
If you have your own observations, or opinion, or point of view, or counter data, or some citation you'd like to share, please do so. I've written mine.
> my informed observations and readings
I lived and worked since the mid-1990s in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, plus have a related degree. And no, I will not give you sources to contradict your "facts". That's not how science works. If you present "facts", then its on you to present the sources. And don't downvote people asking for a source. That's yet another level.
I lived and worked since the mid-1990s in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, plus have a related degree. And no, I will not give you sources to contradict your "facts". That's not how science works. If you present "facts", then its on you to present the sources. And don't downvote people asking for a source. That's yet another level.
Maybe because the author lacks access to non-western cultures and doesn’t want to make unbaked claims?
I’d personally had a hard time getting a feel for African/Eastern/etc societies.
I think one of the biggest causes of loneliness is over sharing. We as humans respond more readily to negative stimuli than positive reinforcement. Therefore if a person has two opinions, one we agree with and one we don’t, we’re not likely to be overly excited about our compatibility. As we share and learn more about people than ever before, not all the things we discover we like. The chances of ruining a friendship because of ones beliefs are greatly increased because of 1) Social Media = Larger audience 2) More sharing = more reasons to dislike someone that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.
On the bright side, your close friends are likely to be even closer than how friendships existed in the past
On the bright side, your close friends are likely to be even closer than how friendships existed in the past
Religion / ecclesiastical institutes also served that purpose. There's many meetup tools, really no reason to still depend on pubs anymore. If you need alcohol as social lubricant, take a few shots, bring a (discreet) flask.
I know there's other aspects to bar culture that's more conducive to forming relationships for some people, but I also think the reason why "local" pub culture is dying is because people finally have alternative options, though no doubt many of those options are solitary activities. Though I'm not convinced loneliness is bad in itself, or social drinking is necessarily the antidote. Plenty of people getting worse in misery loves company situations.
I know there's other aspects to bar culture that's more conducive to forming relationships for some people, but I also think the reason why "local" pub culture is dying is because people finally have alternative options, though no doubt many of those options are solitary activities. Though I'm not convinced loneliness is bad in itself, or social drinking is necessarily the antidote. Plenty of people getting worse in misery loves company situations.
The author is Robin Dunbar, of Dunbar's number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Dunbar
Past threads have shown this to be a bit of a triggering topic, but this is an interesting and substantial article. We changed the title to make it less baity, in accordance with the HN guidelines. If anyone suggests a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral), we can change it again.
Past threads have shown this to be a bit of a triggering topic, but this is an interesting and substantial article. We changed the title to make it less baity, in accordance with the HN guidelines. If anyone suggests a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral), we can change it again.
> If anyone suggests a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral)
I think the important insight in the article is "how alcohol and social activities trigger the endorphin system in humans".
I object to the article's proposition that alcohol is useful, except in controlled amounts. Two or three ounces of wine is enough, not the whole bottle.
As a taxi driver, I dealt with a lot of people who had trouble with alcohol, and trouble with "social activities". I had trouble with social activities, but talking to random people in my taxi was much more useful to me than any of the drinks I've ever had.
One of my most successful interventions was for the passenger whom I'd later learn had been written off by her family as a hopeless drunk. Her family and friends cared about her, but they didn't know what to do, and had their own problems to deal with.
I didn't know that when I arrived at that passenger's apartment. She provided simple directions. I quickly realized we were going the drive-thru liquor store. I took a few minutes out of my day to detour to a fast food restaurant, spent a few extra minutes talking to her, and called back a few times over the next two days. Then I forgot about her...
After her taxi ride, her friend called one of her sons and said, "GO SOBER UP YOUR MOTHER!" She did well for two or three months, that time.
This passenger later told me she'd fallen into alcoholism because drinking "made [all her problems] go away". Prison for her 3rd DUI did not actually provide the help she needed to pull herself together.
Eventually I told her daughter that what her mother really needed was to know that she had her children's support. They stepped up to take care of her. She's doing quite well now, and is useful to her children instead of a burden.
Johann Hari's book [0] talks about how social connections are what people actually need to break their addictions.
[0] http://chasingthescream.com/
I think the important insight in the article is "how alcohol and social activities trigger the endorphin system in humans".
I object to the article's proposition that alcohol is useful, except in controlled amounts. Two or three ounces of wine is enough, not the whole bottle.
As a taxi driver, I dealt with a lot of people who had trouble with alcohol, and trouble with "social activities". I had trouble with social activities, but talking to random people in my taxi was much more useful to me than any of the drinks I've ever had.
One of my most successful interventions was for the passenger whom I'd later learn had been written off by her family as a hopeless drunk. Her family and friends cared about her, but they didn't know what to do, and had their own problems to deal with.
I didn't know that when I arrived at that passenger's apartment. She provided simple directions. I quickly realized we were going the drive-thru liquor store. I took a few minutes out of my day to detour to a fast food restaurant, spent a few extra minutes talking to her, and called back a few times over the next two days. Then I forgot about her...
After her taxi ride, her friend called one of her sons and said, "GO SOBER UP YOUR MOTHER!" She did well for two or three months, that time.
This passenger later told me she'd fallen into alcoholism because drinking "made [all her problems] go away". Prison for her 3rd DUI did not actually provide the help she needed to pull herself together.
Eventually I told her daughter that what her mother really needed was to know that she had her children's support. They stepped up to take care of her. She's doing quite well now, and is useful to her children instead of a burden.
Johann Hari's book [0] talks about how social connections are what people actually need to break their addictions.
[0] http://chasingthescream.com/
>Two or three ounces of wine is enough
Enough for what exactly? A common pour of wine is 4 - 6 oz.
Also, I'm sorry you don't like alcohol, but not all use is abuse. I wouldn't even go as far as saying occasional and mild drunkenness itself is problematic.
I don't disagree that in many cases substance abuse happens because of external problems and unless those are fixed relapse becomes almost inevitable. Sometimes that has nothing to do with connecting to others; there is a reason the opioid crisis is hitting rural areas that have been hit very hard economically.
Enough for what exactly? A common pour of wine is 4 - 6 oz.
Also, I'm sorry you don't like alcohol, but not all use is abuse. I wouldn't even go as far as saying occasional and mild drunkenness itself is problematic.
I don't disagree that in many cases substance abuse happens because of external problems and unless those are fixed relapse becomes almost inevitable. Sometimes that has nothing to do with connecting to others; there is a reason the opioid crisis is hitting rural areas that have been hit very hard economically.
> Enough for what exactly? A common pour of wine is 4 - 6 oz.
2-3 ounces of wine is enough to "trigger the endorphin system in humans" to facilitate social interactions, for people whose endorphin systems aren't already overloaded with pain signals.
People for whom 2-3 ounces is not enough can refresh their endorphin system using the drug mentioned in the article.
2-3 ounces of wine is enough to "trigger the endorphin system in humans" to facilitate social interactions, for people whose endorphin systems aren't already overloaded with pain signals.
People for whom 2-3 ounces is not enough can refresh their endorphin system using the drug mentioned in the article.
Is nobody going to mention that the "research" that lead to this article was funded by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) and it's conclusions might be biased toward portraying alcohol consumption in a favourable light?
Drink more beer/wine/etc in pubs if you want to bond with people.
Yes, alcohol can be a social lubricant, but there is no shortage of evidence that social bonding can/does occur without it.
Drink more beer/wine/etc in pubs if you want to bond with people.
Yes, alcohol can be a social lubricant, but there is no shortage of evidence that social bonding can/does occur without it.
Is getting the "connectedness index" up from 5.9 to 6.6 significant?
The "article in the British Medical Journal" is here.[1] The "Whitehall study" has been tracking a group of British civil servants since the 1980s. The alcohol effect seems to be slightly above the noise level. But the level of alcohol consumption at which things start to get worse is quite low. "Alcohol consumption >14 units/week was associated with an increased risk of dementia in a linear fashion". 14 units a week is about one glass of wine a day.[2]
Also, in this study alcohol consumption is self-reported, so it's probably low.
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k2927
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_alcohol
The "article in the British Medical Journal" is here.[1] The "Whitehall study" has been tracking a group of British civil servants since the 1980s. The alcohol effect seems to be slightly above the noise level. But the level of alcohol consumption at which things start to get worse is quite low. "Alcohol consumption >14 units/week was associated with an increased risk of dementia in a linear fashion". 14 units a week is about one glass of wine a day.[2]
Also, in this study alcohol consumption is self-reported, so it's probably low.
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k2927
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_alcohol
The group with the highest rate of dementia was those who abstained from alcohol completely though.
Did they control for the recovering alcoholic abstainers?
Taking Devil's Advocate on the article because of alcohol.
You can't just instruct an alcoholic not to overdo alcohol. Bonding over a beer is fine if you are able to control your consumption (or you don't care,) but don't push it on people who you know don't drink or have drank in the past but have since quit.
As Artie Lange likes to joke “People who don’t have the disease say, ‘Artie, you can have one drink, one beer, one five-dollar bet. If I put down a five-dollar bet on roulette in a casino, half an hour later, it’s beer, vodka, weed. By 11:30, I’m doing blow off a stripper’s ass... By 8 a.m. I’m running guns to Cuba.”
You can't just instruct an alcoholic not to overdo alcohol. Bonding over a beer is fine if you are able to control your consumption (or you don't care,) but don't push it on people who you know don't drink or have drank in the past but have since quit.
As Artie Lange likes to joke “People who don’t have the disease say, ‘Artie, you can have one drink, one beer, one five-dollar bet. If I put down a five-dollar bet on roulette in a casino, half an hour later, it’s beer, vodka, weed. By 11:30, I’m doing blow off a stripper’s ass... By 8 a.m. I’m running guns to Cuba.”
I spent 25 years in bar and restaurant with almost half that time actually behind a bar. Alcohol does indeed grease the social skids. Sometimes positively and sometimes not so much. It all depends on who is doing the imbibing and the chemistry between the various parties. Bartenders are very much attuned to these dynamics...
Wonderful article. Lots of interesting observations and studies cited.
The last paragraph -
> So, if you want to know the secret of a long and happy life, money is not the right answer. Get rid of the takeaway in front of the telly, and bin the hasty sandwich at your desk — the important thing is to take time out with people you know and talk to them over a beer or two, even that bottle of Prosecco if you really must. There’s nothing quite like a convivial evening wrapped around a pint to give you health, happiness and a sense of wellbeing.
The last paragraph -
> So, if you want to know the secret of a long and happy life, money is not the right answer. Get rid of the takeaway in front of the telly, and bin the hasty sandwich at your desk — the important thing is to take time out with people you know and talk to them over a beer or two, even that bottle of Prosecco if you really must. There’s nothing quite like a convivial evening wrapped around a pint to give you health, happiness and a sense of wellbeing.
Discovered later in life that being lit is about the only time I really feel like a normal human being (socially and emotionally). And certainly people seem to enjoy conversing with me far more when we're both drinking.
Is that awful? I guess, but lots of things in life are.
Is that awful? I guess, but lots of things in life are.
>the important thing is to take time out with people you know and talk to them over a beer or two
This is superficial because it does not last nor does it change your experience of life profoundly. It only useful to find comfort in a way you see the world, this is why people you know is a requirement. Strangers will destroy your fantasies in many ways.
>There’s nothing quite like a convivial evening wrapped around a pint to give you health, happiness and a sense of wellbeing.
If your sense of well-being is when 5 people confirm your opinions - this simply means you are still in your 20es.
This is superficial because it does not last nor does it change your experience of life profoundly. It only useful to find comfort in a way you see the world, this is why people you know is a requirement. Strangers will destroy your fantasies in many ways.
>There’s nothing quite like a convivial evening wrapped around a pint to give you health, happiness and a sense of wellbeing.
If your sense of well-being is when 5 people confirm your opinions - this simply means you are still in your 20es.
I dont know..
Personally I dont really enjoy talking to other people. People used to tell me to join the gym to meet people, get out for a coffee and a drink and all that stuff, so I did, but truth is that I dont really enjoy it. I think it is a hassle and boring to talk to people. Sorry..
I used to think there was something wrong with me, since I had such a hard time fitting in, but then I realized that I am just different and I dont need all that socializing. Life got much better after that realization.
I used to like drinking also for the sake of getting drunk, but that urge faded also for some reason. The socializing made me want to drink probably.
Personally I dont really enjoy talking to other people. People used to tell me to join the gym to meet people, get out for a coffee and a drink and all that stuff, so I did, but truth is that I dont really enjoy it. I think it is a hassle and boring to talk to people. Sorry..
I used to think there was something wrong with me, since I had such a hard time fitting in, but then I realized that I am just different and I dont need all that socializing. Life got much better after that realization.
I used to like drinking also for the sake of getting drunk, but that urge faded also for some reason. The socializing made me want to drink probably.
The horrible thing about that last paragraph is that doing the thing - talking to folks over a beer or two - requires money. Not lots of money, but some money. It requires transportation and, if you don't have it, you shouldn't have the beer. And so on.
If there is a population of folks that have trouble affording food every month, that sort of simple happiness isn't available. Money - to a point - is part of the answer.
If there is a population of folks that have trouble affording food every month, that sort of simple happiness isn't available. Money - to a point - is part of the answer.
I once felt the same way. And maybe in the future I will come around to that way of thinking again.
The problem is not money, per se in my view. I'm coming to believe now though that humans have a baseline of social health in the same way that there is a baseline of physical health - and that baseline health is rather reasonable and flexible. Money correlates somewhat with social health.
If someone heart pounds and they get dizzy whenever they stand up, then something is clearly wrong and they should see a doctor. Normally healthy humans should be able to stand and walk around at least.
Likewise, if someone cannot afford (their society's equivalent of) a pint of beer with friends, it means that something has gone wrong: being able to socialize with friends is the baseline, however socializing is defined in that society. A person unable to afford to socialize is a socially ill person.
There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with being poor just as there is nothing morally wrong with being ill. But it is not baseline. Moving the baseline expectation from "pint of beer" to "playing musical instruments" or "telling entertaining tales" or "making costumes" or "listening warmly" will still mean that some people will still be unable to afford to socialize.
The problem is not money, per se in my view. I'm coming to believe now though that humans have a baseline of social health in the same way that there is a baseline of physical health - and that baseline health is rather reasonable and flexible. Money correlates somewhat with social health.
If someone heart pounds and they get dizzy whenever they stand up, then something is clearly wrong and they should see a doctor. Normally healthy humans should be able to stand and walk around at least.
Likewise, if someone cannot afford (their society's equivalent of) a pint of beer with friends, it means that something has gone wrong: being able to socialize with friends is the baseline, however socializing is defined in that society. A person unable to afford to socialize is a socially ill person.
There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with being poor just as there is nothing morally wrong with being ill. But it is not baseline. Moving the baseline expectation from "pint of beer" to "playing musical instruments" or "telling entertaining tales" or "making costumes" or "listening warmly" will still mean that some people will still be unable to afford to socialize.
Alcohol's track record in my life thus far:
Relationships created: 0
Relationships destroyed or severely damaged: 2
To clarify, I was not the one affected by alcohol in those 2 cases. So thanks, but no thanks.
Relationships created: 0
Relationships destroyed or severely damaged: 2
To clarify, I was not the one affected by alcohol in those 2 cases. So thanks, but no thanks.
Yeah, I feel like I have to justify why I am not participating in "doing drugs", when people wonder why I wont have a drink. Very tiring and kind of helped me to avoid drinking just out of spite :P ..
That weird "must be something wrong with you" attitude is pretty unique to alcohol, I would say.
That weird "must be something wrong with you" attitude is pretty unique to alcohol, I would say.
Perhaps that explains why people who drink moderately enjoy better outcomes: they're not being penalized by others for not drinking.
Alcohol's track record in my life thus far:
Relationships created: 8+
Relationships destroyed or severely damaged: 1-2
Not so bad, most of our social gatherings include a lot of alcohol, though drinking at home or by yourself is really weird.
Relationships created: 8+
Relationships destroyed or severely damaged: 1-2
Not so bad, most of our social gatherings include a lot of alcohol, though drinking at home or by yourself is really weird.
Since this article refers to einkorn bread as "grimly tasteless, rather soggy flatbread," I just wanted to say that einkorn sourdough is my favorite type of bread. Definitely worth trying!
I enjoy drinking, but I am tired of reading stories about how alcohol or psychoactive drugs are key to whatever.
So, we get a lot of "alcohol is bad" or "alcohol is good (in moderation)" from different scientists. What am I, a non-scientist, to believe? For my "null hypothesis", which I hold to unless and until a scientific consensus demonstrates otherwise, is that conditions similar to my ancestors' lifestyle is what is most likely to be what I am adapted for. I'm pretty sure my ancestors were occasional drinkers of alcohol.
Of course, it would depend on my particular ancestors. If my dad or mom died of cirrhosis of the liver, I would choose differently.
Of course, it would depend on my particular ancestors. If my dad or mom died of cirrhosis of the liver, I would choose differently.
As someone who considers himself a scientist, though definitely not in the medical field, this is my take:
Alcohol (i.e. ethanol) is essentially a poison, but so are many other things that we regularly consume. Our bodies have evolved to handle small to moderate amounts of these naturally occurring poisons, so small to moderate amounts aren't really a problem.
It has been shown that there are side benefits to alcohol and/or other compounds commonly found in alcoholic drinks. From the articles I've seen, I believe these benefits to be real, but I'm less convinced that they are significant in the context of safe amounts of alcohol. It's all a trade off. I think this is why it remains controversial; there is not a clear answer.
So, it's almost certainly safe to consume small amounts of alcohol, but you are probably not losing anything if you don't. Consuming large amounts of alcohol, of course, is known to be bad.
Alcohol (i.e. ethanol) is essentially a poison, but so are many other things that we regularly consume. Our bodies have evolved to handle small to moderate amounts of these naturally occurring poisons, so small to moderate amounts aren't really a problem.
It has been shown that there are side benefits to alcohol and/or other compounds commonly found in alcoholic drinks. From the articles I've seen, I believe these benefits to be real, but I'm less convinced that they are significant in the context of safe amounts of alcohol. It's all a trade off. I think this is why it remains controversial; there is not a clear answer.
So, it's almost certainly safe to consume small amounts of alcohol, but you are probably not losing anything if you don't. Consuming large amounts of alcohol, of course, is known to be bad.
All sounds reasonable, but:
1) a small amount of a poison, like a fever, can be a net positive if it does more damage to pathogens than to you, and
2) if the social benefits of moderate amounts of alcohol are significant, given that we know the medical benefits of social ties are significant, alcohol could be a net bonus
This is hackernews, where random commenters from the internet can dig up evidence that anything you might enjoy consuming is bad for you. About the only thing people can agree is good for you is fasting.
Not anymore, currently top comment on article on IF:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21888639
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21888639
As libertarian as this site leans otherwise, its strange to pull up threads supporting banning alcohol, drugs, etc.(not this one, but a thread on LSD a few days back)
I'm not one to judge anyone for what they dont do and certainly don't buy into any of the miracle cure stuff, and respect people's decisions on what they ingrst, but most threads seem to have an overwhelmingly negative response to anything regarding alcohol or drugs.
I'm not one to judge anyone for what they dont do and certainly don't buy into any of the miracle cure stuff, and respect people's decisions on what they ingrst, but most threads seem to have an overwhelmingly negative response to anything regarding alcohol or drugs.
My philosophy is that if there is a great debate between two choices that never seems to be resolved, it probably doesn't matter much and do what ever is easier/makes you more happy.
Probably, but I feel I should point out the other possibility, which is that there is the true option, and the option that people _want_ to be true. But since, in the case of alcohol, there is great disagreement about which option people want to be true even, that's probably not the case here.
Given the fact that many Europeans drank beer, ale and what have you as a main source of water (the other primary source being food). I'm not surprised if it turns out that it's not too big of a deal. As long as the drinks are as low alcohol content as the ales and beers of the past, then it's all good. Hell even children drank small light beer in the past.
Not saying it isn't poison, just that the body can deal with it in small amounts.
Not saying it isn't poison, just that the body can deal with it in small amounts.
Alcohol is toxic, so it's always bad, even in moderation. But apparently it correlates with some beneficial effects, so it's a tradeoff.
Most good things in life don't come free of drawbacks.
Most good things in life don't come free of drawbacks.
Everything is toxic.
Drink too much water and you'll get potentially fatal water poisoning. Breath too much - hyperventilaton can cause really nasty things
This is always the first reaction when someone brings up toxicity of alcohol in a pub, including the Paracelsus quotation. But it misses the point: alcohol is very toxic in the small amounts consumed while drinking "in moderation", water isn't. There is a good reason why we usually avoid some substances.
https://www.fatherly.com/news/global-study-finds-that-no-amo...
https://www.fatherly.com/news/global-study-finds-that-no-amo...
Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist.
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.
—Paracelsus
—Paracelsus
The conclusion i'd draw is that alcohol is complex and has good and bad aspects. Some scientists study the good parts, other the bad
If alcohol consumption is crucial to human bonding, how does the author explain friendship and bonding in communities where alcohol is not consumed?
I have never consumed alcohol - historically for religious reasons, but now due to personal convictions - so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
I am of the opinion that it’s much easier to fall into addiction and/or abuse of the drink if it’s available as an option. I am not at all condoning prohibition here; that never worked anywhere it was attempted, and never will. Rather, I am looking at this from a personal level.
I am definitely open to hearing reasonable arguments for drinking, other than the social aspect, which was covered (poorly, imo) by this article.
I have never consumed alcohol - historically for religious reasons, but now due to personal convictions - so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
I am of the opinion that it’s much easier to fall into addiction and/or abuse of the drink if it’s available as an option. I am not at all condoning prohibition here; that never worked anywhere it was attempted, and never will. Rather, I am looking at this from a personal level.
I am definitely open to hearing reasonable arguments for drinking, other than the social aspect, which was covered (poorly, imo) by this article.
Well,it's all about your culture's relationship with it. In NYC, it can be difficult to socialize at times without alcohol because it's very ingrained in the young professional community. In Istanbul, where it isn't, perhaps it's difficult to socialize as a coffee abstainer.
In neither case is it really that difficult to abstain and still socialize, but presuming you don't have a problem and can drink moderately, I can see why the benefits outweigh the negatives.
In neither case is it really that difficult to abstain and still socialize, but presuming you don't have a problem and can drink moderately, I can see why the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Also a non-drinker, and yeah, it really sucks to not drink in the professional American world. Not only does it make me the buzzkill, I honestly hate being around drunk people. Being drunk is really only fun when everyone's doing it together, like the adult version of campfire songs, making it hard to be the odd man out.
You really should not use "Drunk" to mean some one that has had one or two drinks - it shows your huge (presumably unconscious bias) from your upbringing.
For what it's worth, this isn't true for me. Whether I'm drunk or sober, I find it easier than most to socialize, with either friends or strangers. When the company I'm with is drinking, _they're_ better at being social too: having the social energy be more two-sided leads on average to evenings that are more fun.
> it really sucks to not drink in the professional American world.
Can you tell us more about this? Genuinely curious.
Can you tell us more about this? Genuinely curious.
If Pepsi was heavily regulated in how they advertise, as the Alcohol Industry is in most parts of the world, then you would be reading about how Pepsi helps social bonding too. Marketing depts these days have hundred different ways of filling people's heads with garbage.
Social drinking has been around far longer than tv commercials and adtech.
So have all sorts of things, both good and bad. Just because something has been around a long time doesn’t mean it should be assumed to contribute positively. The so-called “oldest profession” has been around far longer than almost anything too.
My point was that the assertion in the post I responded to, that the positive view of alcohol is a product of marketing, cannot be correct, because people have been enjoying alcohol long before propaganda was so easily and commonly disseminated in the form of advertisement.
I'm not making the judgement you mention.
I'm not making the judgement you mention.
> If alcohol consumption is crucial to human bonding
That's not his argument. The argument is that it enhances social bonding.
That's not his argument. The argument is that it enhances social bonding.
> I am definitely open to hearing reasonable arguments for drinking, other than the social aspect, which was covered (poorly, imo) by this article.
Well, I can only say that drinking is a lot of fun. It probably provided me some of the best times of my life. Now, fun, happiness, pleasure, joy, are really hard to quantify and compare. In retrospective, I am under the strong impression that my life would be less fun, pleasurable and less joyful without it, though I might be just as happy (or maybe a little bit less, but still quite happy).
Some people fall pray to it from addiction, others seek its pleasures too much and end up with collateral health issues or in accidents due to impairment. I never suffered from it, so it was really just all good fun.
So ya, it's fun. That's all.
P.S.: The fun is partly due to the effects, but also a lot of it is due to the social interactions it creates, as well as being able to get into mixology and craft beers, spirits and all that and geek out on it.
Well, I can only say that drinking is a lot of fun. It probably provided me some of the best times of my life. Now, fun, happiness, pleasure, joy, are really hard to quantify and compare. In retrospective, I am under the strong impression that my life would be less fun, pleasurable and less joyful without it, though I might be just as happy (or maybe a little bit less, but still quite happy).
Some people fall pray to it from addiction, others seek its pleasures too much and end up with collateral health issues or in accidents due to impairment. I never suffered from it, so it was really just all good fun.
So ya, it's fun. That's all.
P.S.: The fun is partly due to the effects, but also a lot of it is due to the social interactions it creates, as well as being able to get into mixology and craft beers, spirits and all that and geek out on it.
Alcohol lowers your inhibition and sometimes make you do irrational things. But doing irrational things is exactly what people want to do. That's why tens of years after the fact you'll hear people tell stories about crazy things they did in the past. Because it is a social currency. The explanation lies somewhere in game theory, in that having a reputation for irrationality is the rational thing to do, sometimes.
I don't think the article implies that non drinkers can't also bond. Surely you can. You're just missing a lot of opportunities, in the same way that one doesn't have to golf to be a successful CEO but it sure doesn't hurt. And if you're the sort of person who has an addictive personality it's surely worth missing.
It is late here, and I lack the citations at hand (and this thread will have moved on by the time I find them) -- but I once read an intriguing article that suggests that the core aspect to make alcohol drinking functional (in a social, not health way) is a set of rules around its consumption, regardless of what those rules are. The article started with an example of people drinking to what folks in the United States would call excess in the Peruvian highlands, but there was a rule that one could not pour one's own drink but had it had it offered, that it had to be at a drinking event, and a few others. Though folks drank quite excessively at these events, they were well-spaced, did not pursue alcohol outside them, etc.
I could see making a historical case for both basic nutrition and gut health (these can be done with a lot more specificity now days).
There are so many choices of recreational and commercialized drugs in modern times if you remove the strange treatment some substances get over others there are probably better answers for all common uses.
There are so many choices of recreational and commercialized drugs in modern times if you remove the strange treatment some substances get over others there are probably better answers for all common uses.
If you don't consider social aspects to be a reasonable argument for drinking, then there is no reasonable argument for drinking. I think the article has to be read in context of how drinking is perceived when discussed in seriousness, which is mostly with sheepish guilt. His argument is, essentially, that the social aspects are valuable enough to justify drinking within reasonable limits. I don't think he argues it's necessary for society to function, it just might be more beneficial than people generally dare to admit to themselves.
It's not crucial per se, but more like one of the lowest hanging fruit out there in getting someone to go out of their way and socialize.
I sometimes socialise with a "high on live" crowd of sober vegans. In the beginning it was a bit weird because I wanted to say "who want to get a drink" but after a while you get used to it. You just stand around and talk about random stuff. Not drinking is actually ok, but I am not going to pretend I like their food. IMHO veganism is a missed-steak.
Drugs are fun. But have nothing to do with honest friendships imho.
Drugs are very fun but, many times, can lead to a false circle of friendship. Depending on how deep you are, you end up surrounding yourself with super shady people who you would never trust/hang out with normally but the lifestyle keeps you together. Eventually, you believe that your little circle of “friends” are the normal ones and everyone else is screwed up.
This is the whole problem; not everyone agrees. I don't care if other people want to drink or use drugs, but don't want to. When it expected in a professional setting, that becomes problematic.
I'm going to guess that human tolerance of alcohol has some evolutionary advantage. In addition to being a social lubricant, which seems to be critical to the species, I can imagine it's previous value was that it let us eat not-so-fresh fruit that the other beasties couldn't.
I thought it was because beer was generally sterile but water (in any permanent human settlement) rapidly became infected with all sorts of deadly diseases? So if you drank (admittedly weaker, 1-2%) beer all the time you had a much better chance of surviving because you wouldn't die of disease. China and East Asia missed this since they got into (boiled) tea instead.
Aboriginal Australians did fine despite not really having it, for ~40,000 years or more.
Are we more tolerant of alcohol than other animals? It is a poison to us after all. There's lots of funny stories of birds eating fermented berries and acting tipsy.
What I'm wondering is whether our attitude toward alcohol poisoning is like that toward "hot" peppers and herbs. I understand that those last two repel broad groups of animals. So perhaps being tipsy is something other animals despise while we tolerate and even welcome it.
_if_ that is the case then it opens up carbohydrates to us that other animals pass up. Maybe it's even testable in a lab.
_if_ that is the case then it opens up carbohydrates to us that other animals pass up. Maybe it's even testable in a lab.
Eating firmented foods or near rotten fruit is definitely an evolutionary advantage. I have some birds that get apparently drunk off my end of season berries in my garden
And also helped reduce contamination in water which allows for larger communities to form
[deleted]
If only people bonded as well over tea.
Flagging this. As if people did not bond socially before alcohol was invented.
Fact: Tech careers attract many sketchy people and many young people. Alcohol is one of the few legal ways to quickly identify and filter out the union of those two sets, many of whom are the most disturbed individuals that have found their way in. Sadly, it doesn't work on those who abstain due to physical incapacity, religion or the truly psychotic. Just keep parroting expressions with an obsolete context like "free as in beer"... or "Alcohol and social bonding in humans" (as opposed to animals?) here on Hacker News..hah
I really want to understand what you're saying. Can you try to rephrase?
I read that as: alcohol is used to get employees to open up for "post-hiring interview" purposes, to get a better feel for their character. I've had people senior to me pry pretty hard into my own thoughts over alcohol at company events before, so that fits my experience.
I think your inbuilt cultural biases are showing here
Proximity, unplanned encounters and the privacy to confide with someone have been identified as key factors in making friends as an adult.[cite] I find it unfortunate to read about the closing of so many neighborhood pubs in England over the past decade or so.