A Japanese hikikomori released a game after 6 years of development [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
A Japanese hikikomori released a game after 6 years of development [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJBv_hvvbBg
155 comments
Never mind human interaction, but I couldn't imagine living without getting a breath of fresh air once in a while - a (real, not simulated) walk or bicycle ride through a park, a forest, by a lake or the sea, a hike in the mountains etc.
All it takes is for other things to overpower this feeling. There are some days when I have a hard time leaving the house. What I feel then is that there are people outside, and their presence and stare and their perfectly friendly greetings feel like a performance in front of a huge audience. I also have a burning feeling inside, like what I have in my eyes when staring into the summer sun. I can bare it for some seconds, but it's really unpleasant, and while it's happening, I can't think about much else than to just flee from it. These strong, acute feelings make it hard to appreciate the subtle joys of the outside world, so I stay inside.
I have a good therapist so these are not huge issues anymore, but I wanted to share the experience. That it really is just a question of incentives.
I have a good therapist so these are not huge issues anymore, but I wanted to share the experience. That it really is just a question of incentives.
you could just open the window to get fresh air, and simulate, via treadmill, the hiking!
Great idea if you want to get someone very depressed.
Humans do need to go outside and touch grass from time to time.
We had very strict Covid restrictions in my country (France) back when it started. Going outside for anything other than walking the dog was complicated, you had to sign a form that said that it was an absolute emergency. Yet, some of my friends told me that those few months were among the best of their life. Some of us really don't need to go outside to feel fulfillment, just the confort of their home.
I spent two years not going outside during this time and I honestly wish it never ended. It was absolutely the best time.
humans are already becoming more and more depressed. Makes little difference at this point.
I don't think you can simulate an experience, in a way that it ends up being profound. Reality is always more complex than our understanding, because understanding works by selecting, limiting information. So what these simulations often end up with is an incomplete, hollow imitation of the real thing, often missing a key ingredient yet to be identified. The efforts in human nutrition is a good example of this, always discovering something that was crucially missing from diets.
Simulations work for some, though. But they don't work for others, and this is what I wanted to hopefully make a bit more understandable.
Simulations work for some, though. But they don't work for others, and this is what I wanted to hopefully make a bit more understandable.
You don't get fresh air in cities. It's different to deeply breathe in air on a trail surrounded by trees with no cars in sight than to stand on the balcony and breathe in the contaminated air of even smaller cities.
I used to only go out to do grocery shopping, but then I started exercising by cycling, and now, when I don't get out near the woods for three days, I get a real crisis. After breathing in fresh air for 30 mins or so I feel much, much better.
I used to only go out to do grocery shopping, but then I started exercising by cycling, and now, when I don't get out near the woods for three days, I get a real crisis. After breathing in fresh air for 30 mins or so I feel much, much better.
Some of us vastly prefer being indoors to out. In most places on Earth, I find being outdoors to be intolerable at any time of day/season.
Part of it is my general disdain for humidity, bright light, and temperature excursions. I hate being too cold or too hot, and the sun is almost always far too bright for me. I can’t imagine wanting to go outdoors or preferring it to being indoors, with the single exception of the mojave desert at night in the summer.
I wish I could live deep underground, or in space.
Part of it is my general disdain for humidity, bright light, and temperature excursions. I hate being too cold or too hot, and the sun is almost always far too bright for me. I can’t imagine wanting to go outdoors or preferring it to being indoors, with the single exception of the mojave desert at night in the summer.
I wish I could live deep underground, or in space.
If you are a participant in society, then you aren't a shut in. Nothing of significance happen. No promotion, no falling in love, no completion of a project, no failure but also no success either. That is a shut-in.
To be a shut-in is the inability to access the full spectrum of what life has to offer.
Beside, as anyone familiar with using the internet, there may be so much entertainment, and yet there's nothing on the internet either.
To be a shut-in is the inability to access the full spectrum of what life has to offer.
Beside, as anyone familiar with using the internet, there may be so much entertainment, and yet there's nothing on the internet either.
Can't say I overly agree with that, I work full time from home but pretty common for me to not leave my residence for 10 to 15 days at a time, and usually only to purchase groceries or small things to repair or maintain where I live. This is my life for the last 6 or 7 years now.
I have no family to speak of, and I don't have any acquaintances outside of work. And I've never met any of my colleagues face to face. Many of whom have never seen a photograph of me. Most of our interactions are in Mattermost chats, emails, or work items. Most people only know me as ASCII codes rendered on a screen to form words.
If that doesn't qualify me as a shut in, what does?
>To be a shut-in is the inability to access the full spectrum of what life has to offer.
My response to that would be to ask why such things would be appealing in the first place. Why should one that finds no reward in dealing with other people at all, aspire to being promoted or falling in love? Both of which inherently require dealing with other people.
I have no family to speak of, and I don't have any acquaintances outside of work. And I've never met any of my colleagues face to face. Many of whom have never seen a photograph of me. Most of our interactions are in Mattermost chats, emails, or work items. Most people only know me as ASCII codes rendered on a screen to form words.
If that doesn't qualify me as a shut in, what does?
>To be a shut-in is the inability to access the full spectrum of what life has to offer.
My response to that would be to ask why such things would be appealing in the first place. Why should one that finds no reward in dealing with other people at all, aspire to being promoted or falling in love? Both of which inherently require dealing with other people.
My response to that would be to ask why such things would be appealing in the first place. Why should one that finds no reward in dealing with other people at all, aspire to being promoted or falling in love? Both of which inherently require dealing with other people.
A good question. I define that with: nothing happens. Life becomes static. Events don't happen.
That's what I meant by being a shut-in. To be fair, a shut-in to having a life is a range rather than a binary thing.
My response to that would be to ask why such things would be appealing in the first place. Why should one that finds no reward in dealing with other people at all, aspire to being promoted or falling in love? Both of which inherently require dealing with other people.
I don't know. I was OK with not meeting people in real life. Then I started meeting people, and started to find a new dimension in life. I found that I have certain social talent that I didn't know I have.
One thing to take into consideration is that people changes and their preferences changes. They are not static.
Anyway, it's not so much about having photos or being able to see someone's face. It's about something happening. It's kinda hard to define.
Again, no failure, but no success either. No exhilaration, and no happiness. Life is static. Nothing happens. Sadness may happens, but hopefully good things should outweigh that.
A good question. I define that with: nothing happens. Life becomes static. Events don't happen.
That's what I meant by being a shut-in. To be fair, a shut-in to having a life is a range rather than a binary thing.
My response to that would be to ask why such things would be appealing in the first place. Why should one that finds no reward in dealing with other people at all, aspire to being promoted or falling in love? Both of which inherently require dealing with other people.
I don't know. I was OK with not meeting people in real life. Then I started meeting people, and started to find a new dimension in life. I found that I have certain social talent that I didn't know I have.
One thing to take into consideration is that people changes and their preferences changes. They are not static.
Anyway, it's not so much about having photos or being able to see someone's face. It's about something happening. It's kinda hard to define.
Again, no failure, but no success either. No exhilaration, and no happiness. Life is static. Nothing happens. Sadness may happens, but hopefully good things should outweigh that.
>Again, no failure, but no success either. No exhilaration, and no happiness.
It's worth keeping in mind that the only useful judge of success/failure and happiness/despair is you and you alone.
This means your experience and what you consider success and happiness are only valid insofar as you are concerned. They cannot and should not be applied (nor forced, for that matter) upon anyone else.
It's worth keeping in mind that the only useful judge of success/failure and happiness/despair is you and you alone.
This means your experience and what you consider success and happiness are only valid insofar as you are concerned. They cannot and should not be applied (nor forced, for that matter) upon anyone else.
I feel it's what we've evolved to be tbh, regardless of what we've logically concluded.
This is not a valid argument.
The same argument has been used to oppress people since time immemorial, whether they were brown skinned, homosexuals, neurodivergent, Jews, or various other arguments for being “not as we were evolved to be”. (You have targeted one form of neurodivergent people here).
If you ignore the eyeblink of the last 100 years, then we have hundreds of thousands of years of brutal rape, war, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, enslavement, and I’m sure we could think of a few others…
It would be very hard to argue that this is not “what we’re evolved to be”, since we so lustfully pursued these endeavors for literally 100 times as long as we have recorded history.
This argument is basically the same exact sentiment as “because that is Gods will” or “because that is the way it’s always been done” dressed up in a patina of science by including the word “evolved” in it.
The same argument has been used to oppress people since time immemorial, whether they were brown skinned, homosexuals, neurodivergent, Jews, or various other arguments for being “not as we were evolved to be”. (You have targeted one form of neurodivergent people here).
If you ignore the eyeblink of the last 100 years, then we have hundreds of thousands of years of brutal rape, war, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, enslavement, and I’m sure we could think of a few others…
It would be very hard to argue that this is not “what we’re evolved to be”, since we so lustfully pursued these endeavors for literally 100 times as long as we have recorded history.
This argument is basically the same exact sentiment as “because that is Gods will” or “because that is the way it’s always been done” dressed up in a patina of science by including the word “evolved” in it.
That's your definition of the term. Most people have a broader spectrum they'd classify as shut-in, which you can discover by clicking on the provided wiki article.
Personally I think your definition doesn't actually work, tbh. Where do you draw the line for "no participation in society"? Wouldn't that mean any interaction? Now they can't even order through a web portal, can't comment on social media like reddit etc. You'd need to create an incredibly controlled environment to make that viable, which would remove the self-imposed aspect of it.
Even the article you're commenting on has a hikikomori releasing a game project after several years. He wouldn't be one according to your definition either, even though everyone that knows about him IRL would absolutely call him one.
Personally I think your definition doesn't actually work, tbh. Where do you draw the line for "no participation in society"? Wouldn't that mean any interaction? Now they can't even order through a web portal, can't comment on social media like reddit etc. You'd need to create an incredibly controlled environment to make that viable, which would remove the self-imposed aspect of it.
Even the article you're commenting on has a hikikomori releasing a game project after several years. He wouldn't be one according to your definition either, even though everyone that knows about him IRL would absolutely call him one.
Nah. I define the hikikomori by necessarily the state of despair. That obviously came through the participation in society.
For the record, a hikikomori makes a video game? Wow. I wish I can do that. It's a matter of effort, of putting a foot in one another. The thing is, developing a video game and releasing it to the public is inherently a social activity, unless you write the code only for yourself.
Things are happening. Playing video games which is what creates despair for me. Nothing happens outside of that video game. Don't get me wrong, playing video is a lot of fun, but it isn't beneficial when there's too much of it.
For the record, a hikikomori makes a video game? Wow. I wish I can do that. It's a matter of effort, of putting a foot in one another. The thing is, developing a video game and releasing it to the public is inherently a social activity, unless you write the code only for yourself.
Things are happening. Playing video games which is what creates despair for me. Nothing happens outside of that video game. Don't get me wrong, playing video is a lot of fun, but it isn't beneficial when there's too much of it.
From reading your other comments in this thread I think you're just equating your experience as a hikikomori to be what it means to be a shut-in.
The currently accepted definition is however merely:
* spending most of the day and nearly every day confined to home,
* marked and persistent avoidance of social situations, and social relationships,
* social withdrawal symptoms causing significant functional impairment,
* duration of exceeding six months,
* no apparent physical or mental etiology to account for the social withdrawal symptoms.
Under these criteria (quoted straight from the linked Wiki article), a person working from home office with no contact can also become a social recluse, even if it's certainly a different experience then what you've experienced
The currently accepted definition is however merely:
* spending most of the day and nearly every day confined to home,
* marked and persistent avoidance of social situations, and social relationships,
* social withdrawal symptoms causing significant functional impairment,
* duration of exceeding six months,
* no apparent physical or mental etiology to account for the social withdrawal symptoms.
Under these criteria (quoted straight from the linked Wiki article), a person working from home office with no contact can also become a social recluse, even if it's certainly a different experience then what you've experienced
>there may be so much entertainment, and yet there's nothing on the internet either.
There's plenty on the internet. There may have been more outside, but cultural shifts are decreasing that. So the Internet is becoming surprisingly (and depressively) more competitive.
There's plenty on the internet. There may have been more outside, but cultural shifts are decreasing that. So the Internet is becoming surprisingly (and depressively) more competitive.
By any objective measure, there's more books and more video games than you can ever play within your limited lifespan. That is what I meant by there's always something to do but yet nothing.
I partially solved that by actually just learning the science as opposed to watching more educational science video. There's only so much edutainment that you can tolerate.
I partially solved that by actually just learning the science as opposed to watching more educational science video. There's only so much edutainment that you can tolerate.
> That is, assuming you're introverted enough that zero human interaction doesn't affect your mental health.
This is never true. It might even feel this way for years but one day it will become unbearable.
This is never true. It might even feel this way for years but one day it will become unbearable.
To be honest if I were to become a hermit, I would go live in middle of a forest. Then one can be alone AND enjoy fresh air & nature with no people around. At this point lots of rural places have adequate internet connection for remote work & any entertainment needs.
Cities are kind of pointless if you don't enjoy participating in live activities with other people. Just worse housing at higher price.
Cities are kind of pointless if you don't enjoy participating in live activities with other people. Just worse housing at higher price.
Cities provide all the services that a hermit needs in order to live a comfortable life. The forest does not.
Not with that attitude. We have survived for millenia with most humans never seeing a city.
Most humans have historically lived in some kind of community - be it a city, a town, or a village, the point is the same: a community can provide more services that a single person living in the forest can't.
I actually think we survived in communities/cities for longer. We lost our rough traits (ie: lots of hair, thick skin, etc...) compared to the rest of apes. So we must have been inside homes for a very long time.
That only really applies to cold climates at best.
Here's the theatrical trailer of Ten Canoes (2006) by Rolf de Heer with modern actors, many of whom are a generation or less from living traditionally without permanent homes, long houses or anything westerners would consider as "inside", retelling a story from their oral history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH_MY8FJuYo
Here's the theatrical trailer of Ten Canoes (2006) by Rolf de Heer with modern actors, many of whom are a generation or less from living traditionally without permanent homes, long houses or anything westerners would consider as "inside", retelling a story from their oral history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH_MY8FJuYo
Survive, yes. But survive in comfort? Perhaps not.
You can get delivery in some parts of the Balinese forest. Internet is Okay.
This is not a neat thing at all.
May I ask what makes you think this way?
In this society someone like me that is solitary for the most part can contribute to others, and be compensated for my contributions without having the issue of having to deal with other people directly.
It's not appealing to everyone, but having the option is helpful to those averse to direct interaction. I don't see much downside in having it open.
In this society someone like me that is solitary for the most part can contribute to others, and be compensated for my contributions without having the issue of having to deal with other people directly.
It's not appealing to everyone, but having the option is helpful to those averse to direct interaction. I don't see much downside in having it open.
>"Having the option is helpful to those averse to direct interaction"
Perhaps it's more worth your while to examine why you're so opposed to interacting with other people. It is undeniably unhealthy to isolate one to such a degree as you're describing perpetually. (And this is coming from a deeply introverted person—I scored in the 5th percentile for extraversion when I took the Big 5/OCEAN assessment. But even I feel the effects of isolation before too long.)
Perhaps it's more worth your while to examine why you're so opposed to interacting with other people. It is undeniably unhealthy to isolate one to such a degree as you're describing perpetually. (And this is coming from a deeply introverted person—I scored in the 5th percentile for extraversion when I took the Big 5/OCEAN assessment. But even I feel the effects of isolation before too long.)
For me?
Part of it is just finding interaction with other's to be exhausting. My parents forced to go out and about rather often in my youth, usually under threat of violence. Even after they stopped have any real power over my I was dragging myself to outings that I utterly loathed doing. To this day I cannot look at a golf course without my stomach becoming unsettled.
Some of it is irrational fear but all emotion is irrational. Some of it is lingering anger from the agency I lacked for so long.
Whether it's unhealthy or not, ultimately I think matters little. At the end of the day I'm the only that it affects. And I think the tradeoff of having my silence is worth that cost, and I find no real impetus to change that.
Part of it is just finding interaction with other's to be exhausting. My parents forced to go out and about rather often in my youth, usually under threat of violence. Even after they stopped have any real power over my I was dragging myself to outings that I utterly loathed doing. To this day I cannot look at a golf course without my stomach becoming unsettled.
Some of it is irrational fear but all emotion is irrational. Some of it is lingering anger from the agency I lacked for so long.
Whether it's unhealthy or not, ultimately I think matters little. At the end of the day I'm the only that it affects. And I think the tradeoff of having my silence is worth that cost, and I find no real impetus to change that.
>I don't see much downside in having it open.
on the contrary, that feels like the step right before the good ol' dystopian VR reality that many sci-fi literature dive into . I don't see much upside to that happening.
on the contrary, that feels like the step right before the good ol' dystopian VR reality that many sci-fi literature dive into . I don't see much upside to that happening.
I can't foresee something like Ready Player One happening on a large scale though.
My preference for not interaction with anyone is the exception, not the norm. For what you fear to come to pass, the the opposite would have to become true. Why would people in general shift their preference towards isolationism?
My preference for not interaction with anyone is the exception, not the norm. For what you fear to come to pass, the the opposite would have to become true. Why would people in general shift their preference towards isolationism?
>Why would people in general shift their preference towards isolationism?
Because it's convinient. It's always because it's convinient. We've had so many issues in society happen because the alternative is more convinient.
And yes, isolation is convinient. No worries about interpersonal insecurities, no worries about troublesome encounters, entertainment can be tailored to your tastes instead of as a compromise of the group, and minimum social pressure to do what you are not comfortable with.
I can ask the contrary, why wouldn't people shift towards isolationism if they otherwise had their own automomy and comfortable living.
Because it's convinient. It's always because it's convinient. We've had so many issues in society happen because the alternative is more convinient.
And yes, isolation is convinient. No worries about interpersonal insecurities, no worries about troublesome encounters, entertainment can be tailored to your tastes instead of as a compromise of the group, and minimum social pressure to do what you are not comfortable with.
I can ask the contrary, why wouldn't people shift towards isolationism if they otherwise had their own automomy and comfortable living.
I would surmise that the answer would lie in just how comfortable people can make themselves without any other sort of interaction. My first instinct would be to say that there are many that wouldn't, if the migration into large and expensive metropolis's such as New York, London, Paris, or Tokyo are of any indication.
For the ambitious, it's quite unlikely for one to strike greatness without support from others. Anyone is capable of anything, but no one is capable of everything. That ability to connect and network with others so that their skills and resources can be utilized to achieve feats that would otherwise be impossible alone. And I doubt that those without any sort of ambition are the majority.
Plus we saw major advances towards that sort of reality during the Pandemic, and yet those changes haven't had quite the staying power in society as some had predicted. More and more people are congregating again in various ways.
Hence why I say that I doubt that we'd see some dystopian reality where people are going to be plugged into VR all the time.
For the ambitious, it's quite unlikely for one to strike greatness without support from others. Anyone is capable of anything, but no one is capable of everything. That ability to connect and network with others so that their skills and resources can be utilized to achieve feats that would otherwise be impossible alone. And I doubt that those without any sort of ambition are the majority.
Plus we saw major advances towards that sort of reality during the Pandemic, and yet those changes haven't had quite the staying power in society as some had predicted. More and more people are congregating again in various ways.
Hence why I say that I doubt that we'd see some dystopian reality where people are going to be plugged into VR all the time.
Slippery slope fallacy. Shall we ban TV and radio as well because they replace real-life interactions?
No, there is such thing as social TV and radio. Just check out bars.
The VR future tailoring to your imagination is where things really start to go dystopian. It's not exactly a slippery slope since that's what the GP mentioned.
The VR future tailoring to your imagination is where things really start to go dystopian. It's not exactly a slippery slope since that's what the GP mentioned.
>I don't see much downside in having it open.
The downside is that unlike in a society where that isn't an option people aren't forced to socialize and then they adapt. Having everything catered to shut-ins normalizes pathologies, something common across a lot of modern internet subcultures.
It enables a sort of Peter Pan like existence in which people stay perpetual kids without ever having to take on the obligations of adulthood. And it's becoming so common that in countries like SK who are at the front of this people have replaced starting families and having sex with adopting dogs and cats. In an entire society like this who takes care of them and delivers their packages when they're all 60 years old is a frightening question. (and a very real one in the near future)
If it was an odd-ball thing it wouldn't matter, but social isolation and delaying or ignoring responsibilities of adult social life are now mainstream issues.
The downside is that unlike in a society where that isn't an option people aren't forced to socialize and then they adapt. Having everything catered to shut-ins normalizes pathologies, something common across a lot of modern internet subcultures.
It enables a sort of Peter Pan like existence in which people stay perpetual kids without ever having to take on the obligations of adulthood. And it's becoming so common that in countries like SK who are at the front of this people have replaced starting families and having sex with adopting dogs and cats. In an entire society like this who takes care of them and delivers their packages when they're all 60 years old is a frightening question. (and a very real one in the near future)
If it was an odd-ball thing it wouldn't matter, but social isolation and delaying or ignoring responsibilities of adult social life are now mainstream issues.
That does assume thought that adaptation is the only outcome though. But requires at least two conditions to be met; that the individual in question can adapt, and that society would accept them. What happens when one or both conditions are unfulfilled?
On the obligation of adulthood, do you mean to say that starting a family is an obligation? If so then I wonder if perhaps people choosing not to do so may not be a bad thing. My parents married because that's what you're supposed to do as an adult, and it was something I know my mother regretted later in life. Some people start families and rise to the challenge but it's tragically common that they utterly fail as well.
600,000. That's the number of unique cases the various Child Protective Agencies in the US contends with each year. The US CDC estimates that 1 in 3 women will experience violence committed to them by an intimate partner, and 1 in 7 men will experience the same. Unhappy partnerships aren't exactly rare.
I suppose that does beg the question if it's better to have fewer families with a higher portion that are stable, or more families in general even if it means a higher proportion of them will be broken or unstable.
On the obligation of adulthood, do you mean to say that starting a family is an obligation? If so then I wonder if perhaps people choosing not to do so may not be a bad thing. My parents married because that's what you're supposed to do as an adult, and it was something I know my mother regretted later in life. Some people start families and rise to the challenge but it's tragically common that they utterly fail as well.
600,000. That's the number of unique cases the various Child Protective Agencies in the US contends with each year. The US CDC estimates that 1 in 3 women will experience violence committed to them by an intimate partner, and 1 in 7 men will experience the same. Unhappy partnerships aren't exactly rare.
I suppose that does beg the question if it's better to have fewer families with a higher portion that are stable, or more families in general even if it means a higher proportion of them will be broken or unstable.
Agreed. I've seen enough miserable and dysfunctional families (which by far are the majority of families) for me to just clock out from the notion of marriage.
Life is short and I've got shit to do and places to be, I ain't got no time for that concentrated bullshit.
Life is short and I've got shit to do and places to be, I ain't got no time for that concentrated bullshit.
> are forced to socialize and then they adapt.
Do they? Or are they just suffering silently?
Do they? Or are they just suffering silently?
Perhaps a pun on NEET which whilst not the same thing as a hikikomori is undoubtedly an adjacent concept.
That seems anything but “neat”
> A neat thing about today's society is that you can be a participant and contributor entirely without ever stepping outside your room
You can be solely because others don't even have the option.
You can be solely because others don't even have the option.
I think it’s horrifying, instead of neat. We are social animals that need contact with each other. No amount of textual, voice, or video communication can replace real human interaction in person.
> That is, assuming you're introverted enough that zero human interaction doesn't affect your mental health.
There are zero people who fit this description, sorry. Anyone who claims not to be affected by loneliness is lying.
> That is, assuming you're introverted enough that zero human interaction doesn't affect your mental health.
There are zero people who fit this description, sorry. Anyone who claims not to be affected by loneliness is lying.
I hate dealing with people and find solitude to be absolute bliss.
The less I have to interact with another human the better, buying drinks from a vending machine is far better than dealing with a cashier at the convenience store.
The less I have to interact with another human the better, buying drinks from a vending machine is far better than dealing with a cashier at the convenience store.
>"A neat thing"
That's not the word I would use lol
That's not the word I would use lol
"neat"
Except shut-ins rarely procreate, and just that will be a huge hit on their average contribution to society. It's cool if an individual finds their niche, but as a generational trend it seems highly problematic to me.
> Except shut-ins rarely procreate,
Do they mentor others and pass skills on though?
I've travelled in Japan and met childless swordmakers and glass blowers who have apprentices and former students who have their own aprentices.
You're aware not all things are due to nepotism I assume?
Do they mentor others and pass skills on though?
I've travelled in Japan and met childless swordmakers and glass blowers who have apprentices and former students who have their own aprentices.
You're aware not all things are due to nepotism I assume?
I do not agree that breeding should be equated with contributing to society.
As cynical as this will sound, breeding is contributing to society in the sense that you provide productivity to it. Ensuring your retirement, in essence.
In many (western inspired) parts of the world, the retirement scheme depends on productivity being increased for every generation. This because every generation that retires is larger than the previous generation that retired. The population growth drives the need for an increase in productivity.
You can increase the productivity by either increase the size of the working population, or make the working population more productive per individual. Up until recently we actually did both. That's why our elderly now can enjoy VERY comfortable retirements compared to two generations ago.
For us, those who are now working, it doesn't look great. We're not having children and it's getting hard to squeeze more productivity out of us.
Here according to the latest projections, I'm not supposed to retire until I'm 69. And this is with today's data. I fully expect it to increase further. Those that were born in 2015 or later are expected to work until they are 71, according to today's data.
The problem is that I don't think that on average we can work until we hit 70. My father's generation was quite broken right about around 65 when they retired.
In many (western inspired) parts of the world, the retirement scheme depends on productivity being increased for every generation. This because every generation that retires is larger than the previous generation that retired. The population growth drives the need for an increase in productivity.
You can increase the productivity by either increase the size of the working population, or make the working population more productive per individual. Up until recently we actually did both. That's why our elderly now can enjoy VERY comfortable retirements compared to two generations ago.
For us, those who are now working, it doesn't look great. We're not having children and it's getting hard to squeeze more productivity out of us.
Here according to the latest projections, I'm not supposed to retire until I'm 69. And this is with today's data. I fully expect it to increase further. Those that were born in 2015 or later are expected to work until they are 71, according to today's data.
The problem is that I don't think that on average we can work until we hit 70. My father's generation was quite broken right about around 65 when they retired.
It should be fairly obvious that any system that depends on endless growth is an unsustainable pyramid scheme. Not the kind of thing we should be basing society on.
I'm not blind to this very, almost blindingly, obvious problem. I've posted comments on the subject before, where I've strongly supported the idea of a decreased population.
I just don't see a way to decrease the population levels in a way that doesn't lead to a collapse of our way of life.
I just don't see a way to decrease the population levels in a way that doesn't lead to a collapse of our way of life.
Short-sightedly, increasing the (young) population is increasing productivity as you said, but when thinking a tiny bit deeper about it, we're already consuming each year twice the resources Earth can provide us, so continuing on this "econo-societal runaway" is completely bonkers.
The population should imperatively shrink, it should already be at most half of the current size.
With this completely different viewpoint, the real contributors to society wellness are those who have less (or no) children.
The population should imperatively shrink, it should already be at most half of the current size.
With this completely different viewpoint, the real contributors to society wellness are those who have less (or no) children.
I absolutely agree with you. 100%.
The problem is how we can make this transition from a large population to a smaller one with as little suffering as possible.
As I said, here we are expected to work into our 70s on average already, which just will not be possible. At some point there won't be enough resources to care for those who can't produce. We need a substantial increase in productivity per individual for society to keep working while the population numbers are decreasing, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
The problem is how we can make this transition from a large population to a smaller one with as little suffering as possible.
As I said, here we are expected to work into our 70s on average already, which just will not be possible. At some point there won't be enough resources to care for those who can't produce. We need a substantial increase in productivity per individual for society to keep working while the population numbers are decreasing, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
Yeah... the consensus is that the more we wait before reducing willingly the population, the more it will happen suddenly and violently (wars, famines) at the snap point (or at snap points, plural).
Not pretty thoughts, but just mechanistically unavoidable...
I'd say, let's reduce our comfort, let's do it now, yeah we'll be poorer and all. Still better than the alternative.
The point is to go out of our way to remain (and become more) altruistic and united at a global scale... in order to spread evenly the diminishing resources.
If everybody gets poor in a similar way, it will reduce anger and unrest. Or avoid wars, if that's a country that would have felt wronged otherwise.
Not pretty thoughts, but just mechanistically unavoidable...
I'd say, let's reduce our comfort, let's do it now, yeah we'll be poorer and all. Still better than the alternative.
The point is to go out of our way to remain (and become more) altruistic and united at a global scale... in order to spread evenly the diminishing resources.
If everybody gets poor in a similar way, it will reduce anger and unrest. Or avoid wars, if that's a country that would have felt wronged otherwise.
We are not consuming more resources than the Earth can provide. The idea that our population is too big is subjective and arbitrary.
The Earth can easily support 2-10x as many humans as presently live on it.
Our way of life, however, is quite wasteful and inefficient.
The Earth can easily support 2-10x as many humans as presently live on it.
Our way of life, however, is quite wasteful and inefficient.
(First, "We are not consuming more resources than the Earth can provide", is a false statement, as right now every year we (the whole Humanity) consume more than what the Earth can regenerate. It's an established fact. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day)
Nah, it's both, not either, of these elements of the solution.
Only lowering our way or life (in your scenario, lowering it at an unimaginable level), while being twice as many, is unacceptable, as we'll deal with absence or regression of medicine (too costly in energy or resources), drastic reduction or extinction of research and exploration, and end of the "global village" concept because of too expensive communication and transport. Education is at stake too.
And only reducing how many we are is as unacceptable, as it implies too much lives lost too suddenly, of course.
It must be a combination of both.
So, the point I raised stays true, we need (also) to reduce the population. But not only.
Right now I'm thinking I found the right way to explain the problem: even if you (and me, and a handful of other groups of humans) would agree to live like ancestral tribes, it would still not be the case of a lot, the vast majority, of people. And they would be much, much angrier of this plan, than of some alternative plan, e.g. to reduce the population and get altogether to a moderately poor level of life (not as drastically poor as if we keep on procreating. Say, way poorer than US citizens, but still wealthier than the average inhabitant of a Third World country).
And how to deal with social unrest is crucial, in how we'll solve the equation.
Nah, it's both, not either, of these elements of the solution.
Only lowering our way or life (in your scenario, lowering it at an unimaginable level), while being twice as many, is unacceptable, as we'll deal with absence or regression of medicine (too costly in energy or resources), drastic reduction or extinction of research and exploration, and end of the "global village" concept because of too expensive communication and transport. Education is at stake too.
And only reducing how many we are is as unacceptable, as it implies too much lives lost too suddenly, of course.
It must be a combination of both.
So, the point I raised stays true, we need (also) to reduce the population. But not only.
Right now I'm thinking I found the right way to explain the problem: even if you (and me, and a handful of other groups of humans) would agree to live like ancestral tribes, it would still not be the case of a lot, the vast majority, of people. And they would be much, much angrier of this plan, than of some alternative plan, e.g. to reduce the population and get altogether to a moderately poor level of life (not as drastically poor as if we keep on procreating. Say, way poorer than US citizens, but still wealthier than the average inhabitant of a Third World country).
And how to deal with social unrest is crucial, in how we'll solve the equation.
[deleted]
I don't think that lack of productivity as a society is what drives our suffering. There is enough stuff.
The work you are talking about, that we are supposed to do well in our 70s, is just a means to determine how we distribute our stuff, not a means to create more stuff.
The work you are talking about, that we are supposed to do well in our 70s, is just a means to determine how we distribute our stuff, not a means to create more stuff.
> As cynical as this will sound, breeding is contributing to society in the
> sense that you provide productivity to it. Ensuring your retirement, in
> essence.
I believe death does this. Breeding does not.
I believe death does this. Breeding does not.
Good work HN, your inability to read and think strikes again!
I think if you and your significant other have good genes, it can be beneficial for society, humankind, if you procreate.
More change to get healthy, smart kids when might achieve great things.
More change to get healthy, smart kids when might achieve great things.
It's been a long time that Humans don't solve problems through natural Evolution anymore...
Thanks to medicine, the burden of ailments on individuals has become negligible, and moreover the speed at which our culture and technology evolves is incomparable to the speed of genetic selection.
Education has arguably way more impact on the success of an individual than their genes.
Thanks to medicine, the burden of ailments on individuals has become negligible, and moreover the speed at which our culture and technology evolves is incomparable to the speed of genetic selection.
Education has arguably way more impact on the success of an individual than their genes.
Then you won't have a society pretty soon.
That scenario is realistically impossible with the current size of the world population and the fact the majority will always try to procreate.
> a generational trend it seems highly problematic to me.
why is it problematic? Procreation is not the be all and end all of one's purpose in life.
why is it problematic? Procreation is not the be all and end all of one's purpose in life.
TIL shut-ins could remain true to the lifestyle, procreating without ever physically meeting, as long as they live within ~24h shipping distance of each other. (compare "A Boy and His Dog", 1975)
(for those not into the whole recombination thing, I haven't heard anything about human cloning yet, but there was a high-level equine competition recently in which six of the competitors shared their genotype)
(for those not into the whole recombination thing, I haven't heard anything about human cloning yet, but there was a high-level equine competition recently in which six of the competitors shared their genotype)
>Except shut-ins rarely procreate, and just that will be a huge hit on their average contribution to society.
it's already decreasing in first world countries, so this isn't a problem limited to shut-ins.
it's already decreasing in first world countries, so this isn't a problem limited to shut-ins.
Ah yes, the ongoing conundrum of trying to maintain a clearly very unsustainable quality of life while also increasing the population numbers to ensure the productivity needed to sustain the large and quickly aging parts of the population.
Fun times ahead.
Fun times ahead.
You're welcome to procreate and compensate the head count yourself if the idea of someone not siring children disturbs you so.
Climato(1)
Tbh, I never understood why the phenomenon of Hikkikomori, which is the Japanese version of NEET (people who don't work or study) has captured such a large amount of the public's imagination, with multiple fictional works made about them.
Just take a look at the World Bank's stats on what percentage of people are NEET:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.NEET.ZS
Here we can see, Japan stands at 3.1%, one of the absolute lowest, while the US is at 11%, Italy at 15%ish. It would stand to reason this would be a much more prominent I'm not sure the difference between these stats and public perception is due to different measurement criteria, or due to cultural differences about societal expectations.
Just take a look at the World Bank's stats on what percentage of people are NEET:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.NEET.ZS
Here we can see, Japan stands at 3.1%, one of the absolute lowest, while the US is at 11%, Italy at 15%ish. It would stand to reason this would be a much more prominent I'm not sure the difference between these stats and public perception is due to different measurement criteria, or due to cultural differences about societal expectations.
That's not what hikikomori are. Hikikomori shut themselves in and interact with the outside (real) world as little as possible. You don't even have to be a NEET to be a hikikomori, and there's no implication of social withdrawal with NEETs.
I think it’s because a NEET in other places, like Italy or the US, is not a shut in 99% of the times
I'm not sure that's true. There's a lot of young people (particularly boys) who sit home at their parents and do nothing but play video games and never go out:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-ame...
I'm not going to go deeper in the topic as it has been discussed to death in many places, but I do believe that there's a metric ton of young people who are disengaged from society.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-ame...
I'm not going to go deeper in the topic as it has been discussed to death in many places, but I do believe that there's a metric ton of young people who are disengaged from society.
For sure they are correlated but it's not 1:1
There's a huge difference between NEET (which basically everyone goes through periods of) and complete shut-in.
The way I see it, Japan is an Asian country, and fascination with Asian countries has a long history[0]. The other thing is that Japan has a vivid pop culture since WW2 and really ramped up its soft power effort, of which a significant aspect is the export of the Japanese culture in general [1].
The phenomenon OP is talking about is excellently captured in the "Thing, Japan" meme as well [2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Japan
[2] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thing-japan
The phenomenon OP is talking about is excellently captured in the "Thing, Japan" meme as well [2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Japan
[2] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thing-japan
definitely culture expectations. Japan is a very conformist society that expects every member to contribute. So someone more or less dropping out is a big deal, for them and their family
China is similarly an Asian country, with demanding social roles and other struggles as well. They have significantly more people and landmass, and so, opportunity for the diversity of phenomenons like this, and yet, they are much less visible than Japan's. The difference, I think, is in PR. Whatever Japan has, they turn it into pop culture, and they use that pop culture to strengthen the idea that Japan is somehow interesting. The feeling I have about China is that they rather want to project one specific image.
So I feel it's less about how the society is structured, and more about how each country positions itself.
So I feel it's less about how the society is structured, and more about how each country positions itself.
> and yet, they are much less visible than Japan's.
I feel that's by design. China's been more hostile to the West than Japan over the past decades than Japan/South korea. In some ways, the red scare never truly ended.
It is indeed PR, as you said. I'm sure it's even worse in China, but China wants to look like having a pristine image (due to the above situation). Japan is definitely closer to the western mentality where they would turn such a story into an episode of Hoarders or something of that vein if they could. There are indeed a dozen decently known anime based around the Hikkimori lifestyle.
I feel that's by design. China's been more hostile to the West than Japan over the past decades than Japan/South korea. In some ways, the red scare never truly ended.
It is indeed PR, as you said. I'm sure it's even worse in China, but China wants to look like having a pristine image (due to the above situation). Japan is definitely closer to the western mentality where they would turn such a story into an episode of Hoarders or something of that vein if they could. There are indeed a dozen decently known anime based around the Hikkimori lifestyle.
Dude's English is solid for a shut-in. Wonder if he studies online. Fun game idea, though. Basically Home Alone.
Since shut-in, he probably spends the majority of his life immersed in an English speaking environment. MattVsJapan[0] is a even more extreme example.
[0]https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCpf4BknRWAjb_oYIHoMDGVg
[0]https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCpf4BknRWAjb_oYIHoMDGVg
[deleted]
That was a refreshing video. Wishing you all the best with the game. Keep it up.
Not to hijack the thread but I always think of Grimoire and the effort that went behind it.
A single man's tribute to classic RPGs like Wizardry and Might & Magic, developed over the course of 20 years.
A single man's tribute to classic RPGs like Wizardry and Might & Magic, developed over the course of 20 years.
Link to it’s steam page:https://store.steampowered.com/app/1179890/Pull_Stay/
It’s a trip to watch, definitely not what I was expecting.
It’s a trip to watch, definitely not what I was expecting.
I warmly recommend to go see the TV documentary about this guy they made some time ago, when I saw the videogame I immediately recognised him.
So does everyone on HN just understand this Japanese word? Even the original video says (shut in).
it's pretty well known/used in english online communities, yes. especially if you go anywhere near anime.
Not to me, and I've been involved in online english communities since the late 90s.
I have heard otaku though.
I have heard otaku though.
It was a pretty popular subject on HN as recently as a few years ago. I dont know very much Japanese, but I am familiar with that one due to the other articles that explore the culture. I suspect that there's also some bias at play: the people who are commenting are ones who are already familiar with the term.
Especially online communities about computers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_the_N.H.K.
If you like anime dubs, especially the ones with the same two guys who voice the protagonists of _every_ Funimation dub, they're in the dub of NHK and it's pretty funny.
If you like anime dubs, especially the ones with the same two guys who voice the protagonists of _every_ Funimation dub, they're in the dub of NHK and it's pretty funny.
はい。
My goodness, this guy's English is fantastic! He's also super charming :)
This reminds me of the anime "Welcome to the NHK"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLsjJ8RThQ) where the protagonist is a hikkomori and works on creating a video game with his neighbor.
I just bought it -- will be interesting to watch the progress (I love Early Access games like that).
Welcome to the NHK!
oh god "NHK ni Youkoso" came out 20 years ago already... Watching it as a teenager made a lasting impression on me, especially the depictions of depression and anxiety, the animation by Gonzo, and also the trumpet in the jazzy opening. That being said, it properly did not age well, so I'll stick to my nostalgia-tinted glasses.
I watched it last year, I think it still holds pretty well. What's wrong with it?
Idk. The protagonist might be kind of an incel, but the show does not frame that as healthy. My least favorite bit is that it's kind of about two people rescuing each other from mental illness, which is sweet when it happens but very unreliable and a recipe for instant heartbreak quicker than you can say "I lived off microwave noodles for a year"
Again, I see nothing wrong with that.
The show to me is still holding up to people who don't need to insta-judge characters which do not align to their own values.
For me it's a really interesting story on an aspect of society (in this case Japanese) which is not sugar coated or "happily-ever-aftered". People have their faults and positive sides.
I love that at the end things are not better, they are just different. Characters have gone through events and come out of it different.
I just love the feeling of helplessness many of the characters have, while still trying to do something, anything. That's life for some and it's ok. The worst is not doing anything at all.
The show to me is still holding up to people who don't need to insta-judge characters which do not align to their own values.
For me it's a really interesting story on an aspect of society (in this case Japanese) which is not sugar coated or "happily-ever-aftered". People have their faults and positive sides.
I love that at the end things are not better, they are just different. Characters have gone through events and come out of it different.
I just love the feeling of helplessness many of the characters have, while still trying to do something, anything. That's life for some and it's ok. The worst is not doing anything at all.
I remember it as having quite a bit of fan service, as was typical 20 years ago. There are also warranted negative connotations about incels today that didn’t really exist at the time. Overall I don’t think it would resonate with me like it once did.
I actually just read this book a few months ago. There is a some weird stuff in the middle there, but the latter half of the book is really sweet and emotional, especially the very ending. It was one of the most interesting pieces of fiction I read in the past little while.
This but unironically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_the_N.H.K.
Was I being ironic?
Whatever it takes to ship!
Comment deleted. Thank you for the constructive comments. I’m reading, just not responding.
As someone who did this to their parents when I was 14, didn’t attend any school past that, went to university (found creative ways to get in), dropped out, still got a job and then ended up being at the top earners in my profession, I can honestly say there are lots of paths through life, though to be honest it was touch and go a few times. My parents tried a lot of things, some pushed me nearly over the edge to worse things than playing games and refusing to leave my room.
What actually helped eventually is my father spending time with me to understand why I was doing it and eventually offering to drive me to a psychiatrist twice a week when I asked for it to sort my head out, though it took 2-3 till I found one that clicked with me.
I guess I just wanted to say… don’t feel like a criminal, it’s hard being young, especially for some who are intelligent or different.
Responding to OP, a few too many parallell sub-threads.
Addiction to video games is a very different thing to using video games as a coping mechanism for severe mental health issues, which sounds to be the case here. Removing video games is just removing the coping mechanism, not solving the core issue.
This stuff requires professional help to deal with. If your kid is having issues with anxiety disorders / autism / adhd / etc, they may be in a situation where they simply cannot handle seeing a psychiatrist in-person (i.e. verbal shut-down, complete anxious breakdown from leaving the house, etc) which makes receiving a diagnosis... almost impossible. A diagnosis you need to qualify for most help offered by society.
As a parent you are completely f*cked if the place you live in does not offer the correct help in situations like this. You are forced to navigate through welfare systems that are not at all designed to handle people with these issues, and forced to expose your child to (to them) potentially mega-traumatic experiences, making treatment even harder.
This group of kids is growing larger in all western societies and most don't have systems in place to help them (yet).
Being faced with threats of prosecution as a parent in this situation sounds extremely rough... I have family that have dealt with similar issues in another country, and it is finally starting to improve after ~8 years of depression, missed education, navigating overloaded and maladapted welfare systems. Getting in contact with a psychiatrist over video call to get a diagnosis + treatment was a sloooow but eventual start to a solution. Getting a diagnosis helps to qualify for better help.
Addiction to video games is a very different thing to using video games as a coping mechanism for severe mental health issues, which sounds to be the case here. Removing video games is just removing the coping mechanism, not solving the core issue.
This stuff requires professional help to deal with. If your kid is having issues with anxiety disorders / autism / adhd / etc, they may be in a situation where they simply cannot handle seeing a psychiatrist in-person (i.e. verbal shut-down, complete anxious breakdown from leaving the house, etc) which makes receiving a diagnosis... almost impossible. A diagnosis you need to qualify for most help offered by society.
As a parent you are completely f*cked if the place you live in does not offer the correct help in situations like this. You are forced to navigate through welfare systems that are not at all designed to handle people with these issues, and forced to expose your child to (to them) potentially mega-traumatic experiences, making treatment even harder.
This group of kids is growing larger in all western societies and most don't have systems in place to help them (yet).
Being faced with threats of prosecution as a parent in this situation sounds extremely rough... I have family that have dealt with similar issues in another country, and it is finally starting to improve after ~8 years of depression, missed education, navigating overloaded and maladapted welfare systems. Getting in contact with a psychiatrist over video call to get a diagnosis + treatment was a sloooow but eventual start to a solution. Getting a diagnosis helps to qualify for better help.
Being excessively reclusive needn't be a death sentence. Have you tried to transition to home-schooling[0], which might get the law off your back? If he is interested in gaming, perhaps he could try his hand at game development, or parts of it such as music or art. Spending a couple of hours each day working (with you perhaps) on some skills and then publishing something on itch.io - say a short PICO-8 game - might help open him up a little and give him some street cred with former friends and classmates.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/home-education
[0] https://www.gov.uk/home-education
Hey, these outsiders commenting on your situation are armchair generals. Don't fret. Everybody has different problems, but we all have problems. We get dealt different hands in life and not all of 'em can be played perfectly, you just work with the cards you're dealt.
If you can't get him in to school, then this doesn't sound like truancy, it sounds like a disability. A medical diagnosis of some mental issue would get the law off of your back and make accommodations available to you and your family, at least I assume so having lived my 30-something years in a couple of other Anglosphere countries. Here they'll give you options for home learning (but still within the public system, homeschool is a different option), for part-time public-school 2 days a week, or for other accommodations to help a needy kid.
Just wanted to say it's alright, and nothing is necessarily your fault -- I've struggled with some very similar problems to the ones you have. It's going OK now though! School is working again!
If you can't get him in to school, then this doesn't sound like truancy, it sounds like a disability. A medical diagnosis of some mental issue would get the law off of your back and make accommodations available to you and your family, at least I assume so having lived my 30-something years in a couple of other Anglosphere countries. Here they'll give you options for home learning (but still within the public system, homeschool is a different option), for part-time public-school 2 days a week, or for other accommodations to help a needy kid.
Just wanted to say it's alright, and nothing is necessarily your fault -- I've struggled with some very similar problems to the ones you have. It's going OK now though! School is working again!
Are you getting professional help for your son? This might be too serious for just you to solve
Deleted.
I know nothing of the specifics so please forgive me if this sounds obvious or insulting...
It might help to sit him down and have an adult conversation with him about the whole situation. Kids show a surprising amount of astuteness when necessary. The important thing is to approach the situation as a team (you with your son against the world, as opposed to you against what your son is doing). Maybe framed as "If you don't want to go out anymore, we can work together to make you comfortable and safe, but the government has rules and they're going to fight us - so we all need to put our heads together to figure out how to make this work!" Figure out what compromises he'd be happy with, and what ways there are for "enlarging the pie" so that he feels like you're on his side in the end. With greater trust between you, he might start talking more about what's going on in his head.
This might make it easier to have specialists come in to see him, because you can explain to him that you need diagnosis X from this guy to get the government off the family's back. Just whatever you do, don't trick him (lie about why someone is there to see him). Lose his trust and you lose him.
It might help to sit him down and have an adult conversation with him about the whole situation. Kids show a surprising amount of astuteness when necessary. The important thing is to approach the situation as a team (you with your son against the world, as opposed to you against what your son is doing). Maybe framed as "If you don't want to go out anymore, we can work together to make you comfortable and safe, but the government has rules and they're going to fight us - so we all need to put our heads together to figure out how to make this work!" Figure out what compromises he'd be happy with, and what ways there are for "enlarging the pie" so that he feels like you're on his side in the end. With greater trust between you, he might start talking more about what's going on in his head.
This might make it easier to have specialists come in to see him, because you can explain to him that you need diagnosis X from this guy to get the government off the family's back. Just whatever you do, don't trick him (lie about why someone is there to see him). Lose his trust and you lose him.
Unfortunately, there is little empathy on the Internet. People will take the two bits of information you offer, think they understood the whole situation with all its facets perfectly, and start to give questionable advice and mete out harsh judgement. The intent may be good, but the outcome is no better here on HN than on the more infamous platforms.
So my unasked-for advice would be to not discuss your situation with people on the Internet and as quickly as possible forget what they told you or think about you. You are the only one who really knows what is going on. So is your son, BTW. So what does he want? (Don't answer here!)
So my unasked-for advice would be to not discuss your situation with people on the Internet and as quickly as possible forget what they told you or think about you. You are the only one who really knows what is going on. So is your son, BTW. So what does he want? (Don't answer here!)
Deleted following OP.
I do feel like I had said too much on my sons situation, I initially only wanted to say that the term Hikikomori really resonated with me today.
[deleted]
Email [email protected] and they will decouple your comments from your username making them effectively anonymous
deleted
I'm probably telling you something you already know, but that really, really sounds like depression. I have experience of close family with depression and the way you describe his behaviour is very similar. Has he been seen by any kind mental health practitioner? I know the psychiatric services here in the UK are terribly stretched, but he and you sound like you need external help. Even if it takes a while for you to see a psychiatrist, your GP may be able to provide some help.
I hope you manage to find a way through this and are able to get some help. My kids are not teenagers yet, but this sort of thing is one of my big worries for the future.
I hope you manage to find a way through this and are able to get some help. My kids are not teenagers yet, but this sort of thing is one of my big worries for the future.
Totally support this comment. Try and seek professional help, for the three of you.
Deleted following OP.
[deleted]
But like, additions and anxiety treatment are not treated by enabling. When kids get to mental health hospital, they can not play games whole day. Instead, a system of rewards and punishments is created and they are forced to increasingly participate in life activities.
I do not want to criticize OP, because the mental health issues are hard and help is oftentimes next to impossible to get. For all "contact doctor", half of the time you get no help. Even hospitalization can be super hard to get unless the kid clearly suicidal.
But, the idea that taking away PlayStation or severly limiting it, that forcing the kid to push the boundaries is somehow cruel is just wrong.
I do not want to criticize OP, because the mental health issues are hard and help is oftentimes next to impossible to get. For all "contact doctor", half of the time you get no help. Even hospitalization can be super hard to get unless the kid clearly suicidal.
But, the idea that taking away PlayStation or severly limiting it, that forcing the kid to push the boundaries is somehow cruel is just wrong.
[deleted]
This suggestion is cruel and inhumane and it breaks my heart that evil parents like this still exist in 2024.
It is cruel and inhumane to attempt not to enable 2 years of zero education and playstation addiction?
I didn't say that and I'm not sure what the fallacy you just employed is called.
It's cruel and inhumane to forcibly remove someone's access to something they are personally and emotionally invested in. It's cruel and inhumane to force one's own view of a “good life” on someone who obviously disagrees.
The real challenge of parenting is to find ways to help your child without resorting to cruelty. Your fallacy is to assume that cruelty is necessary and that anyone who criticizes the cruelty must somehow be criticizing the desire to help.
It's cruel and inhumane to forcibly remove someone's access to something they are personally and emotionally invested in. It's cruel and inhumane to force one's own view of a “good life” on someone who obviously disagrees.
The real challenge of parenting is to find ways to help your child without resorting to cruelty. Your fallacy is to assume that cruelty is necessary and that anyone who criticizes the cruelty must somehow be criticizing the desire to help.
Sometimes forcing a person out of their comfort zone is the best thing that can happen to them. In fact, nearly all good things that have happened in my life have required me to exit my comfort zone, which for a long time was playing games alone at home. Sometimes it has happened voluntarily, sometimes due to government (conscription) or social pressure (going to study in another city, because that's what you are supposed to do). In all cases, the outcome was good. My social skills improved, I got education, a job, wife, children, nice travel experiences.
> t's cruel and inhumane to forcibly remove someone's access to something they are personally and emotionally invested in.
Not always. And not in this case. It is not cruel and may be necessary.
> It's cruel and inhumane to force one's own view of a “good life” on someone who obviously disagrees.
Speaking about fallacies, this framing is clearly not what is going on in that situation. In either way, the kid is growing to be entirely unable to live without caregiver of a sort, so yes, it is duty of parents to intervene regardless of kids agreement.
Not always. And not in this case. It is not cruel and may be necessary.
> It's cruel and inhumane to force one's own view of a “good life” on someone who obviously disagrees.
Speaking about fallacies, this framing is clearly not what is going on in that situation. In either way, the kid is growing to be entirely unable to live without caregiver of a sort, so yes, it is duty of parents to intervene regardless of kids agreement.
Nature. If I were you, I'd put him in the car and rent a cabin somewhere in the nature/forest/mountains for a few months.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
therockspush(2)
A neat thing about today's society is that you can be a participant and contributor entirely without ever stepping outside your room. Work a remote job or side gig (doesn't have to be "real work"), order everything from Amazon and Instacart, do check-ups online.
In an emergency (medical, natural disaster, house issue) you'll need to go outside, but otherwise everything is in your room and all interactions are virtual.
You can even get fitness equipment and artificial sunlight so you can stay healthy, and VR googles if you want to experience "outside". That is, assuming you're introverted enough that zero human interaction doesn't affect your mental health. Besides that, you have the entire internet, so it's easy to entertain yourself.