The Anti-Social Century

In my experience, the variety of people on Discord is just the same as that in real life - more so, in fact, since I'm unlikely to meet many people who live in various places around the world in real life ;)

Those are good points. I usually score quite high on openness [1], though I lean more introverted overall. While focusing on courage has been helpful for me, I may have overgeneralized my own experiences. Maybe my approach isn’t something everyone can take on — it certainly didn’t come naturally to me.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

No. Hacker News is a very shifted selection of software developers.

Furries, maybe. Rest of it, not really.

Errr... no.

I'd add that some aspects are profoundly healthy.

There is a regular cuddle party event in my area that begins with an informative and interactive workshop on consent and negotiation. Being able to practice delivering "no", negotiating to find common ground, and asking for what I want has been transformative experience for me. I'm a better communicator - something that I use now in both my vanilla and non-vanilla lives.

> It's terrible terminology to be sure

It's a fairly common pattern in English: e.g. "moral - amoral - immoral", or "political - apolitical - anti-political".

> it's surprising that no one in the chain of publication for this article flagged that.

I think the choice here is deliberate: the century stands accused of being hostile to social life, ergo it is anti-social, not asocial.

The article does describe how these changes are hurting our society, e.g. increased opioid overdoses, increased political polarization; so it could be an intentional word choice to call it "anti-social".

This requires conscious choice and some discipline though. For the average person, content competes for attention on their behalf before their conscious brain kicks in. Social media uses cheap tricks like rage bait that your local book club just can't compete with. Yes, an emotionally healthy person with some free time who enjoyed books as a child (already a minority of people it seems due to many factors) may choose the book club, but the higher barrier of entry just keeps most people from ever considering it.

It's just so damn hard for any in-person activities to compete with instant gratification and addictive rage. In college in 2022, I was a member of several clubs with varying subjects and members. Every one of them struggled to get anyone to attend. The CS club hosted drone races and 3d printed model painting. The improv club had weekly themed meetings. The theater department hosted at least 1 large and 1 small show per semester and we couldn't even get people to sit in the audience. And this is college, where demands on participants' time are relatively lacking (compared to kids and a 9-5). I imagine a lot of social activities have failed to get members and then just ceased to exist as a result. Several of the clubs I was in no longer exist due to a lack of participants to take up leadership after my class graduated.

Don't even get me started on how people talk and talk about causes they admire on the internet but then never actually volunteer their time to make anything better.

I really think society has just fucked itself over by letting social media companies run rampant with our attention, feeding us lies and gossip that doesn't matter 24 hours later. I genuinely just don't know if most people can be conscious and disciplined enough to get themselves out of the trap. At the very least, it will take a few generations to develop new mores and standards and who knows what new tech will be around to ruin their lives by then. I find it hard to believe that anyone was ever hopeful about working in this industry.

Really love your comment about filtering people. It's something I thought a lot about when designing the user experience. A few hypotheses I want to test with my approach are:

1) Swipe based interfaces inherently cause users to see other people as more disposable. I'm trying to have my app be centered around plans, which is a mix between a traditional event with a set time and location and a social media post.

2) Paradox of choice. I'm testing whether providing people with fewer good options will make it easier to commit to something instead of having endless choices.

3) Friend dates are awkward. When people meet through traditional friend making apps, the first meeting is usually dinner, coffee, etc. I think people become pickier when this is the common mode of meeting because if you don't really click at the meeting, it's a waste of time. My theory is that when the meetings are more focused on doing an activity you already like, even if you don't completely click with the group you meet with, it can still be an enjoyable time. I'm hoping this makes people more open to getting out there more.

https://www.reddit.com/r/astoria/comments/1hvw7m5/i_created_...

I agree that third spaces are very valuable but the reality is that they are declining in the current market and the trend doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. I think some venues will figure out how to make it work in the modern market but ultimately there will be fewer of these places in general.

And you're right about people being uncomfortable with strangers in their home but most people will meet in public first before having people over. This is a pattern I've seen a lot in NYC where a community will have public events to attract newcomers. Once these people are vetted, they are invited into a private Whatsapp or Discord. Once accepted into the private chat, people will organize private events which sometimes takes place at someone's home. In a way, my platform hopes to formalize this pattern and make it more accessible for individuals so it's less dependent on having formal organizers/hosts. This pattern still requires public spaces but I think it's a bit more flexible.

A social crutch I really like is games. I’m terrible at talking to people, but I love playing competitive but social games. Stuff like chess boards, card games could go a long way.

Yes definitely! How can I reach out to you?

> Happiness isn't a quality you can optimize for on a national or global scale as it's a purely individual affair.

This right here is exactly what's wrong. People are put into impossible conditions and then blamed when they can't magically make themselves happy with the arrangement.

Tell me, are animals happy to be in a zoo? Why not? Why can't they just make themselves happy?

I'm not sure I completely agree with your last assertion (except according to a very rigorous definition of "optimize"). While people do very much differ, there are certain things that predictably make the majority of people happier. Social connectedness, for example. We may not be able to truly optimize for these things, but I think we can reliably improve human wellbeing at scale. A successful example from the past would be the efforts to add more green spaces to cities. People like parks, and they're happier on average when they have access to them.

Maybe an increased stigma was better? Why is that you can “optimize” unhappiness nationally but not happiness, if you discount the former I think there are some examples.

Yeah increasing treatment of medical conditions seems like a very poor proxy for proving an increase in incidence.

There are many studies showing US youth report feeling worse than previously. The CDC: "Youth in the U.S. are experiencing a mental health crisis."

https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-youth/mental-health/mental-healt...

Increased pharma pushing is an easy scapegoat, but it would have to be making these youth more depressed before they were ever taking antidepressants.

Social media and phones have been disconnecting real interactions and pushing people onto fake digital "connections." Then when people are more lonely than ever, we're now pushing them "AI bot connections" to help loneliness, purely because VC's see $ in it, basically giving desperate people soda to help their hunger.

I think social media even promotes this hyper therapy and medication seeking behavior. My guess it probably even creates a kind of Overton window sort of thing for physicians, big pharma notwithstanding. It’s very easy for people to get prescriptions for these drugs and a lot of doctors seem to think “patients reports depression so I prescribed SSRI” or whatever is popular.

Modes of production are not modes of consumption. The system doesn't change if the "plastic trivia" companies go bankrupt from everyone suddenly growing a sense of thrift.

What does any of this mean? What is capitalist reproduction? How is any of that true? Does a system in which someone has a right to your labor somehow solve this?

I'd say they're both, and it feeds into itself.

I think it’s a combination of things and car centric transportation makes our online addled communities worse.

One major issue is that affordability is down bad, many people cannot afford cars and they are stuck in environments where cars are required to do everything and as a result have turned to the internet for their social needs. Which as we know is a mirage for social interaction.

Dense areas where walking/public transit are enough to see friends are becoming more expensive as well.

It’s just compounding.

If your environment is isolating and the internet replaces easy socialization then you become isolated.

If your environment is low friction for socializing it is less likely.

[dead]

Quality over quantity, right?

The article thinks the problem is declining quantity, but I'm unconvinced. Americans have always been low on quality, since as far back as slavery and native american genocide.

If anything I think the "meditation" mentioned in the article is a really good sign.

I was thinking of Denmark, but as someone pointed out above, Finland.

I went through the surgeon generals report to better understand your point.

Hopefully this brings us closer to congruence:

1) Loneliness and being Alone are different. You can be lonely in a group of people. The Surgeon General captures this where they talk about quality of connection.

2) An underlying issue highlighted in the report, is economics. Resources can set of virtuous cycle, increasing health and time for social connection. Lack of resources decrease this.

If there is a short answer, it’s worth pointing out that causative factors are what solves problems. Forcing people into proximity, for example, wouldn’t alleviate loneliness.

Meaningful interactions, and the ability for people to afford them, is what matters.

I think "well before the personal computer showed up in the geological record" is a bit of hyperbole, but it is not a new phenomenon:

"We find that despite short-term fluctuations, partisanship or non-cooperation in the U.S. Congress has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years with no sign of abating or reversing"

"Partisanship has been attributed to a number of causes, including the stratifying wealth distribution of Americans [2]; boundary redistricting [3]; activist activity at primary elections [4]; changes in Congressional procedural rules [5]; political realignment in the American South [6]; the shift from electing moderate members to electing partisan members [7] movement by existing members towards ideological poles [8]; and an increasing political, pervasive media [9]."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

The Reformation is one famous example.

1. I think you would be surprised how much people are friendly in a socializing event if you just showed up and said hey I'm new, can I join in this conversation. Then just listen 80% of the time and maybe ask a question or two. Then do it again with a follow up of what you listened to. Just keep at it.

2. What are your interests, precisely? And what do you mean the demographic you are interested in meeting-- what is that demographic, precisely?

I feel like these things really compound on top of each other. It’s so much easier to go to these kinds of things and meet people when you have a group of likeminded friends to go with.

>2. I'd search for some hobby/interest groups that would fit my interests, but nothing really fits.

You can just start your own group in this case. That's what I did with Lisp Ireland.

I can relate with point number 2 about demographics. I've been involved in organizing and playing at local raves and parties since forever but this year I stopped completely because as I age I don't share that much with the people there. Being in my late 40s while everyone has 20 (or even less !) sucks. Some people will give me the look that I'm out of place and others will just share concerns of their age that are too far from mine. This and the booze/drug thing that is frankly not compatible with an aging body and a dad's responsibilities. So that's it, no more friday nights for me, I'm better off at home. I'm not sad though, change is good and I started shooting a few years ago and the range is now my new meet up. Kids are welcome, so I can both socialize and spend time with them and have fun, it's great.

I'm sure there are other hobbies that would suit you.

Where do you live? I'd love to go grab a beer with you.

"people were not approachable"

frankly this is just a bad mindset and not a true description of reality.

> if enough people were getting married, having kids, etc, you wouldn't see this kind of article. it's not about making people happier, it's about pressuring people to do shit that's not in their self interest

This is both exceedingly cynical and completely unsupported by the text of the article, which talks about things like public spaces, TV, smartphones, and dinner parties. Where exactly does the article prescribe marriage and kids as the solution?

> if enough people were getting married, having kids, etc, you wouldn't see this kind of article.

Having kids is pretty isolating and lonely experience in current society. Especially if one parents stays home for some time, that parents usually ends up super lonely.

And when kids grow up, they are expected to leave and move for work or family. So you need to create yet another social network for old age.

Having kids is very beneficial. Money is not an end in itself. I think the fact that the child-free subreddit exists and that there so many “sinks and dinks” on social media highlight their “fantastic” lives with no kids says a lot more about them then they think it does.

>I don’t think the choice… is analogous

It seemed less like a wife-kids-retirement pipeline and more like a general aversion towards any kind of social/communal obligation. The former is unnecessary, I agree, but the article makes the case and I agree that we have a certain innate need for the latter kind of relationship.