How Social Isolation Is Killing Us (nymag.com) 297
schwit1 quotes a report from The New York Times: Social isolation is a growing epidemic (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source) -- one that's increasingly recognized as having dire physical, mental and emotional consequences. Since the 1980s, the percentage of American adults who say they're lonely has
doubled from 20 percent to 40 percent. About one-third of Americans older than 65 now
live alone, and half of those over 85 do. People in
poorer health -- especially those with mood disorders like anxiety and
depression -- are more likely to feel lonely. Those
without a college education are the least likely to have someone they can talk to about important personal matters. A wave of new research suggests social separation is bad for us. Individuals with less social connection have disrupted
sleep patterns, altered
immune systems, more inflammation and higher levels of
stress hormones. One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent. Another analysis that pooled data from 70 studies and 3.4 million people found that socially isolated individuals had a 30 percent higher risk of dying in the next seven years, and that this effect was largest in middle age. Loneliness can
accelerate cognitive decline in older adults, and isolated individuals are twice as likely to die prematurely as those with more robust social interactions. These effects start early:
Socially isolated children have significantly poorer health 20 years later, even after controlling for other factors. All told, loneliness is as important a risk factor for early death as
obesity and smoking.
Not everyone is the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not everyone is the same (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are lonely when you are alone, you are in bad company.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are lonely when you are alone, you are in bad company.
When I drink Alone , I prefer to be By Myself . . .
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone.
Well, if someone's friends suddenly leave without warning, I'm sure one could get nonplussed: perplexed and not knowing how to react.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonplussed has two meanings. I tripped on this last week.
Re: (Score:2)
What dictionary is that? Merriam-Webster and Oxford English both only list the original meaning of nonplussed, not the American misunderstanding. Has it become widespread enough now that it's listed in dictionaries?
Will we also find entries in this dictionary for "CPU" and "Hard disk" that says "North American informal: computer enclosure"?
Re:Not everyone is the same (Score:5, Interesting)
There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone.
I think this is true. The trick is really knowing if this is really you.
Let me give an analogy. A few years ago I was driving home from Christmas dinner at my sister's house when suddenly I couldn't unclench my hands from the steering wheel. I went to the emergency room, they did a blood test and my blood sugar was over 600. "You're diabetic," the doctor said, and she gave me a shot of insulin. Suddenly, I felt better than I had in twenty years. The things is, I had been feeling like crap for years, but I didn't know it. I thought I felt normal, but that's because "normal" is how you feel every day.
After that experience I've come to doubt self-reports of well-being. I look at people who sincerely believe they are happy, but they don't look like happy to me. They seem miserable. Resentful. Sour-tempered. On a good day they might manage smug. Now maybe the problem is I don't have access to their rich inner lives, which they must keep bottled up like they're in a thermos. But it's just possible that they're deceived by the extraordinary human capacity to get used to feeling like crap.
You don't have to believe the notion that social connection leads to greater levels of human health and happiness -- although it seems at least plausible given that this is true for practically every other primate species. And even in you believe it is true for most people, that doesn't necessarily mean that applies to you. Maybe you're a special case.
But it seems to me rational to approach life as an experiment. You might think you are as happy as happy can be, but why take it for granted this is your best version of "normal"? And of course experiments force you to sharpen a lot of fuzzy concepts, like "social connection" or "isolation". I am an introvert. It doesn't mean I'm shy, or socially awkward, or misanthropic. It doesn't mean I don't need social connections. It just means I need different things from those connections than an extrovert would.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd also add that social isolation may indeed be a side effect of other conditions.
After all, people who are constantly miserable or sickly do not tend to make more friends over time...
Furthermore there is the modern twist. Many people with niche or unpopular opinions are getting more exposure through the internet than ever before. They are perhaps naturally shunned or isolated.
Worse yet are the people that are not on facebook missing all the opinions and interactions of those that are. Sometimes that
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
An introvert is someone who is on a spectrum of needing less social contact than the average, but no functioning person can get by with no social contact at all. Look at what happens to people in enforced isolation. It's considered a form of torture.
Re: Not everyone is the same (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone.
You should look up the meaning of that word. Unless you really meant, "either happy or at least puzzled and confused," that is.
Re: (Score:2)
My mother lived alone for decades after my father died. She was very social and very happy. She did meals on wheels, tutored at a disadvantaged school, worked, played piano for people at a nursing home, active in the church, worked at a job etc. She was neither lonely or unhappy living alone, she loved it. She did this until 90. Totally agree with parent, this social science approach where everyone is the same is just wrong.
Re:Not everyone is the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Extrovert vs. Introvert. This article does not account for differences in personality. It may only indicate that lonely extroverts die from lack of stimulation.
No, the article attempts to pull lots of separate studies together in one over arching thesis. While the result may well be valid for a population of humans, there are undoubtably subsets of people where the assumptions don't hold true. TFA doesn't really speak to this.
So if you're happy sitting here by yourself typing away, go for it.
But ask yourself, are you really happy?
(If not, please send $49.99 in three easy payments to the address at the bottom of your screen - we're here to help.)
Re: (Score:3)
So if you're happy sitting here by yourself typing away, go for it.
But that's the thing, the OP isn't sitting here "by themselves," they are with all of our thoughts, including yours. Just because someone isn't staring at your face at the same moment in time doesn't mean they aren't interacting with you. Humans have been interacting over distance and time for thousands of years [wikipedia.org]. Now that communication and artificial memory has become cheap, there are a lot more of us who can afford to engage.
Re: (Score:2)
Introversion is not a disorder.
But inability to read despite having an ability to write is.
My post specifically said "anyone", without qualifiers.
Maybe for extroverts, but introverts are happier alone, in general.
You also failed to read what I quoted? This wasn't about "happier", but "really happy". Nobody is, on an ongoing basis, unless there's something wrong. Whether an inrovert, extrovert, clown, redhead or naked canasta player.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to hear you are not really happy, or even happy. And no, nobody else gets your "joke" because the original really was a joke itself.
I'm mildly happy that I'm not really happy. And it wasn't a joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you listen to what the media are saying:
(b) you have not bought into their story: you are a complete failure from their perspective. or
(a) you have bought into their story: you are a complete failure in real life . or
(c) You don't listen to the media: you may or may not be a complete failure.
So: if you listen to the media, you are doomed if not, at
Re: (Score:3)
For several decades now, the media has been constantly telling people, directly or indirectly, that they are a complete failure if they don't meet some arbitrary, ideal life.
Turn off the television. I've done that 20+ years ago. I selectively watch TV content on Hulu and Netflix.
You aren't good looking enough. You aren't rich enough. Your house isn't nice enough. You clothes aren't nice enough. You don't have enough friends. You don't have the right friends.
The siren call of the American Dream. Give it up and left a modest lifestyle. If you try to keep up with the Joneses, you will never win. Ignore the Joneses, enjoy life.
Re: (Score:2)
Paywalled Sources (Score:3)
(Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source)
If there is an "alternate source", why use the pay-walled sources?
Re: (Score:2)
Only old lonely losers use the free source, you'll get depressed hanging out with them
Re: (Score:3)
Only old lonely losers use the free source, you'll get depressed hanging out with them
I know... I've got to get with the program and be a more dedicated consumer...
Re: (Score:2)
Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus it's hard to stay in one place for any length of time. You gotta move to where the work is. And to be blunt, I live in the cheap tech worker apartments, and that means lots and lots of folks here on work visas. They're nice people, but they're not my people.
I'd be a hell of a lot less isolated if the economy would stabilize, but I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enriching, or infuriating.
Re: (Score:2)
If I have to fall back on inflation (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right about the monetary system being used to balance things, but it's just a temporary patch on a broken system. People have come to expect (reasonable I'd say) improved quality of life. This generation is on track to the be first one American history to be worse off overall.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to fall back on nflation to make your debt affordable, you are most likely a government.
Re:Money (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional communities naturally meet many 'basic needs' for emotional support. In the traditional Amish society in the US major depression is almost unknown, as it is in the equally traditional Kaluli tribe of New Guinea. In these societies individual concerns are group concerns and vise-versa. You know that if you have a problem other people will help you and you are expected to help out when others need support. We know we are meant to do these things but it's not a 'built in feature' of modern society in the same way.
http://www.clinical-depression... [clinical-d...sion.co.uk]
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Inflation is good for the economy because it reduces the relative percentage of the GDP that must be devoted to debt service.
Not everyone borrows as much as they can. Ignoring significant parts of the economy while making blanket claims about the economy is not good for the economy.
What people like yourself don't understand is that the vast majority of money that exists in bank deposit accounts was not created by the government. It was created by banks, with debts credited as assets on the bank's balance sheet. All of that money that was created all came with a future interest obligation.
Quite simply, if you do not inflation not only do people get poorer, but everyone defaults on their debts.
Unless they don't owe enough debt for that to be relevant.
The government always controls the money supply. It does this by adjudicating debts only in the currency that it has the sole legal right to create and regulate. It does this by levying taxes. And, in a more complex system impossible for libertardians to understand, sovereign governments coordinate with one another to adjust exchange rates for mutually beneficial ends.
I see use of the term, "libertardians" here. Real classy that.
The huge problem with your entire post is that it treats debt as if there was only one side, the borrower. There however is also the lender. And everything about inflation that is good for the borrower is equally bad for the lender. That's because lending is a trade and inflation is directly adjusting the relative costs and benefits of the trade in a zero sum game.
That leads to two flaws in your argument. First, we still have lending despite this bias in favor of borrowers. What happens is lenders increase their interest rates (the costs of the loan) and the supposed advantages of inflation for the borrower go away.
Second, why should we favor the borrower over the lender? I'll note here that borrowers tend to be a lot less competent and disciplined than lenders. Encouraging them to borrow more doesn't seem a sane thing to do and there have been problems with excessive debt in every recession the US (to give a country I know a lot about) has had.
What's really going on here is that country-level governments tend to both have control of their money supply and borrow a lot. So inflation, particularly an increasing rate of inflation helps cut the cost of the debt they imprudently acquired as well as the liabilities they have promised. And due to the immense propaganda mechanisms at their control, they get to spin that as inflation being a good thing without significant opposition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to be under the delusion that governments are run by sane, competent, well intentioned people. This is contrary to experience.
I am not arguing for libertarianism - libertarians are obviously selfish, foolish, and inexperienced. I am pointing out that you can not rely on governments. Even if they are well intentioned and sane (they may not be either: see present situation in Gambia), they ma
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, the cost of food, shelter, clothing, and transportation is going up like crazy, while electronics go down.
* Summer of 2007, I bought a 50 inch TV (1366x768 resolution) for $3500 Canadian. Today, 48-to-50 inch TVs (1920x1080 resolution) can be had for $350. That's a 90% drop in price.
* Stuff you really need, like food, shelter, clothing, and transportation has been constatnly increasing. I remember my first car, a new 1974 Ford Maverick 4-door. It cost $4,070 including taxes. Nowadays a compact 4-sea
It's buyouts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I too had to retire several years earlier than planned when work dried up after the Crash. But then I found that my services were more needed than ever, recast as a small business. Now I'm an IT country doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Cultural sickness. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much to be sociable you need a large group of people.
In the past this was based either around your extended family, region, race, religion, or national heritage. This was not always a good thing either at the micro or macro level, but it did represent a support network for some (but not all) members of a societal group.
Nowadays much of this has been lost, due to globalization, electronics, hetereogenized neighborhoods (especially new builds as evidenced in the US.) Neighborhoods for better or worse are often no longer established families and friends. As people have spread out, that previous sense of community has slowly dissolved. While there just as many people available today, fewer of them are willing to interact with people outside of their social norms, and since those social norms are spread more thinly across the local region, it becomes less likely that a particular person has an immediate support network to overcome that isolation.
As a personal example: When I was a kid, there were a half dozen kids around my age all living with a block or so of me. While there was a concern of child predators and abductions, by and large people still let their kids go outside, and kids by and large still snuck off to go have fun with friends (my parents were however one of the 'shut in' types, up until I was around 10 or so, at which point I was allowed to bike to school (mostly because my mom had better things to do than actually bother to take me to school or pick me up on time.) In addition to this there was at least one empty field per block (1/4 to 1/2 mile square) which usually lead to a congregation point for the kids. Fast forward 10-20 years and all those fields have been fenced in or built over. Most parents are more concerned about the appearance of their children's safety in regards to allowing them out in the neighborhood, and kids by and large would rather play videogames/watch tv/on a computer than go outside and do stuff, whether hanging out with friends, terrorizing neighbors, or finding field replacements to hang out in.
Re:Cultural sickness. (Score:5, Insightful)
>all those fields have been fenced in
It's really sad how fear of lawsuits has forced property owners to fence in fields that would otherwise serve as open space for kids to play in urban areas. I so often see a nice field of grass fenced in with nothing on it, that no one can use. The property owner probably doesn't care if kids play on his land, he's just worried about a lawsuit if those kids get hurt on that land.
Same thing with school athletic fields. When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s the fields were open to the public. There was usually a gate with some posts to keep vehicles out, but us kids could go in and play ball or do whatever on the field when school was out. Now it's all locked down because the school is afraid of lawsuits.
Paranoia has made life less fun for kids. :(
Re:Cultural sickness. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1. Social Isolation: Rural areas have some of the most friendly and talkative people. Try going up to anyone in New York and ask how their day was. Just because there's 10 people in front of you, doesn't mean you're having social interactions. I personally have never felt more alone than in a crowded room with people partying and "having a great time".
2. Discrimina
Re: (Score:3)
>all those fields have been fenced in
It's really sad how fear of lawsuits has forced property owners to fence in fields that would otherwise serve as open space for kids to play in urban areas. I so often see a nice field of grass fenced in with nothing on it, that no one can use. The property owner probably doesn't care if kids play on his land, he's just worried about a lawsuit if those kids get hurt on that land.
Same thing with school athletic fields. When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s the fields were open to the public. There was usually a gate with some posts to keep vehicles out, but us kids could go in and play ball or do whatever on the field when school was out. Now it's all locked down because the school is afraid of lawsuits.
Paranoia has made life less fun for kids. :(
It's no better as an adult. Take a look at how much you spend every month on mandated expenses defined as "insurance".
Thank the fucking legal community for this liability arms race, where lawyers and insurance companies get obscenely rich off the paranoia that keeps humans from actually enjoying life.
It truly is one of the more disgusting facets of capitalism, and it shows no signs of slowing down.
Re:Cultural sickness. (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't underestimate the car. In the not too distant past, you would live close to work, and most likely not too far from where you were born, in a community you'd consider to be yours. Now you can live a vast distance from work. Your coworkers are people from other communities as well, so there is no bond there, and you don't spend enough time at home to build meaningful bonds in your local community either.
hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
This benefits whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm trying to figure out what bullshit rip-off "service" sponsored this article.
If you can't figure it out (Score:2)
it's not isolation, its Isolationism (Score:2)
text my 62 year old mother, it might be 30 seconds to 2 days to get a response, people older than that are terrified to use email or other modern communication methods. My wife grandmother 10 years ago would spend HOURS on end on the phone, talking to the same 2 people about absolutely nothing, every single day ... but wouldn't go out to any events or gatherings, course now she cant remember her ass from her foot...
Its not because you are doing something wrong, its because THEY absolutely refuse to get off
Except lonliness is easy to avoid... (Score:2)
I can see where this is coming from. The lack of interaction has a strange thickness to it. An empty house can feel like you're stranded on a deserted island. For those still of working age it's avoidable, though (without getting hitched):
1. Live in an apartment building. Not a complex where everyone has their own door to the outside, but a huge, elevator building with dozens of apartments per floor. As these tend to be cheaper (or luxury buildings) it is a bit of a win-win. Having an interior space s
Re: (Score:3)
An empty house can feel like you're stranded on a deserted island.
One man's Gilligan's Island is another man's Fantasy Island.
One of the best days of my life was when I was 18 and got keys to my first and completely empty condo. All I had the first day was a table lamp, a sleeping bag and a book. It was heaven.
Going to a cabin to get away from people is still wonderful.
Re: (Score:2)
An empty house can feel like you're stranded on a deserted island.
One man's Gilligan's Island is another man's Fantasy Island.
"De UPS truck! De UPS truck!"
Social isolation isn't a cause. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alone vs being lonely (Score:4, Insightful)
on the plus side (Score:2)
Eh (Score:2)
Hell is other people.
It Is a real Issue (Score:2)
One additional symptom (Score:5, Interesting)
That is denial.
Denial that social isolation is harming. Look, even in this thread there are so many people who are saying that they are happy alone.
More importantly, many magazines for women are pushing never ending message (never supported scientifically), that older women, after divorce are just better off.
Increase in mortality by an average of 30% would normally be declared an epidemic health hazard, on par with smoking and obesity.
Another fascinating fact is that probably a fifth of adults in USA are (or were) on antidepressants. Other studies have shown that having a partner, or a friend, to whom you can talk to, drastically reduces depression risk.
Finally, the ultimate statistical fact. In USA average life expectancy is 79.3 years (source: wiki). Costa Rica has life expectancy of 79.6 yrs, and Albania has 77.8, while Costa Rica spends one tenth of US healthcare spendings and Albania spends one thirtieth of US healthcare spendings?
Perhaps there is something wrong with US? Also, it is so difficult not to be suspicious that many purely american phenomena are known to the number crunchers, yet are allowed to stay the way the are intentionally.
Re: (Score:3)
Escort services covered by health insurance now (Score:2)
Loneliness? No, lack of warning (Score:3)
Has society created a life worth living? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many aspects we can look at that created this mess, but one that seems to be overlooked here is the concept that people don't want to grow old anymore. Sadly, many find they can't afford to. Think the average Millennial is looking forward to retirement when they can barely afford to make ends meet? What's the point of growing old when you're going to be forced to blow your entire retirement nest egg on some major health issue that will inevitably crop up?
The constant threat of liability leading to lawsuits forces most of us to waste our incomes on countless forms of insurance. The social media lifestyles of the narcissistic elite are held high on an entertainment pedestal, and I wonder how watching that shit doesn't ultimately feed depression. Life is hard these days because it isn't getting any cheaper, and that chasm between the 99% and the 1% sure as hell isn't getting smaller, so don't assume Greed who helped create this mess is going to suddenly find compassion.
As if all that wasn't bad enough, here comes automation and AI to help shrink the human worth down to nothing.
It's sickening. Literally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you fail to get filthily rich, it's your own failing. You're either lazy, or dumb, or doing something wrong.
Stop blaming the society.
Well, I'm just going to assume for a moment that I'm not talking to a billionaire, so I guess by your own definition you're also one of those humans who's lazy, dumb, and doing it wrong.
Enjoy that hypocrisy of yours. I'm sure that along with a healthy dose of narcissism will magically make you "filthy rich" all by itself.
7 Billion people, and we're still lonely. (Score:2)
The day when you start caring, is the day when it actually matters. I did - but no one else did.
Article on isolation ... behind a paywall ... (Score:2)
... you can see the irony in that, right?
Science marches on. Us...not so much (Score:2)
"One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent...."
If all this is true, we Slashdotters are an endangered species. And I'd have to say the proportion who stroke is a lot closer to 100% than 32%.
And if that seven year mortality stat is right, it might be wise to dump any shares you have in Kleenex and Vaseline before the inevitable crash.
Because isolation is fun (Score:3)
Let's forget about individuals who are too physically or mentally ill to socialize for a moment. These elderly single have been married for many decades and know their years are numbered in any case. Would all of them be THAT eager to give up independence and restrict their habits to accommodate a new person they just met? Even if it means sticking around for a few years longer?
Let's not glamorize traditional hypersocial society either. It's not fun having people ring your doorbell without warning or never ending stream of social commitment that leaves little time for personal interests. Failure to adequately separate self from family and neighbors makes it difficult to succeed in ways not traditional for these groups or resist bad influences. How many join gangs because all cousins are in gangs?
We mostly live the way we do by choice. A lot will feel lonely on holidays, but would be miserable if made to experience all consequences of lifestyle of their coworkers who are having a big home gathering.
I Need Companionship (Score:3)
But the law won't let me rent it by the hour.
Slashdot much? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure you're going for the funny mod, and I hope you get it, but you're on the edge of insight, too. Superficial network-mediated social relationships are no substitute for the real thing, and human beings are extremely social animals. My joke on the topic (from many years ago) is that too much computer usage is not good for your mental health.
Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.
Could technology help solve these problems rather than make them worse? I think so, but it would require different economic models than are currently being used. In the worst-case example of Facebook, the primary metric driving their "success" has nothing to do with improving your social life or helping you find real friends (not to be confused with whatever Facebook means by their increasingly bizarre use of that word). Facebook just wants you to waste as much time as possible on their website.
Re: (Score:2)
I am dead serious. This is the most connected age in human history. Everybody has as much isolation and interaction as they want. My sister has 1500 facebook friends and is rarely off line. I confine my online activities to reddit, /. etc. Some people are still isolated but these are people who rarely go on line, and they were going to be isolated in any era.
Re: (Score:2)
MichaelSmith: You're me! :D
Re: (Score:2)
I think I feel sorry for your sister, but for you I recommend reading The Shallows . Or maybe you could just clarify what you think "connection" means?
I really did think you were going for the funny mod, but as things stand, I guess I'm supposed to hope you didn't get it?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a study is needed to investigate how well online contact can substitute for physical contact?
Re:Slashdot much? (Score:4, Interesting)
My sister has 1500 facebook friends
And how many actual, real-life friends does she have? That is, people she's actually met once or twice face to face? How many does she actually do stuff with on any kind of regular or semi-regular basis? Would she still be 'friends' with them if her internet connection went down for a few years?
Facebook friends aren't friends, they're just people who clicked on a link. It's like claiming that "I'm the Ruler Of The Entire Universe", as long as you count my chair as "the entire universe".
Personally I think Facebook has done more to separate and isolate people that it's done to bring them together. Oh sure, it can foster communication, but that's not the same thing by any means.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure you're going for the funny mod, and I hope you get it, but you're on the edge of insight, too. Superficial network-mediated social relationships are no substitute for the real thing, and human beings are extremely social animals.
Mostly. But one of th emost amusing things to me at least, is that there is a sort of shaming going on - that if you are not someone with a lot of friends, that if you enjoy yourself some solitude, there is something wrong with you. That being a private person is bad. Somehow. "Gotta watch out for those quiet ons, you know!"
I have a lot of demands on my time. And people - including friends - are like a loud background noise that can be sressful after a while, and with no doubt tires me out. It really keep
Re:Slashdot much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I think I mostly agree with you, but I also think the 'social quality' of Slashdot has declined substantially over the years. Not just limited to Slashdot, but when we first started this computer-supported social-networking stuff it was mostly as support for face-to-face social gatherings. In those days the hub nodes were called BBSes, and most of the major ones sponsored periodic gatherings or at least occasional parties. Getting fuzzy from so long ago, but I think there were weekly Lep Lunches and monthly meetings of the Dull Men's Club, and a variety of other meetings of various kinds... This was back in Austin in the '80s...
Don't know the demographics, but I suspect a majority of today's Slashdotters hadn't been born yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Recall also that BBSs were primarily local, for people interested in one activity in one city. Meatspace setups were considered an essential part of the process. Things began to change when Usenet was introduced: common interests, but no longer a common location.
Re:Slashdot much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.
I think part of the problem is that people get spread too thin. When you have 500 friends, you really have no friends. Exclusive time and confidentiality disappears. It's not the frequency of contact that makes friendship, it's the depth.
That said, some people function better alone. And some need a social network. Our species does so well at least in part because we differ so much. What one person can't handle, another one can.
Re:Slashdot much? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think part of the problem is that people get spread too thin. When you have 500 friends, you really have no friends. Exclusive time and confidentiality disappears. It's not the frequency of contact that makes friendship, it's the depth.
I think it quite quickly sorts into tiers anyway, because in the real world you're only one place at a time. If you hang out with group A of friends on the weekends, you're not hanging out with group B. Or for that matter how you balance friends/family/partner/self-time, obviously if you have a wife and kids you don't have the same time as when you were single but there's still a large degree of choice. I can feel it on something so trivial as when we're playing a four player online co-op game, who's first to be asked and who's just backup if the others are unavailable.
Everybody else you're really just an observer and not part of their lives. I don't want to undersell Facebook either because I understand the feeling of taking parts in your grandkids' lives without actually being physically present, but when it comes to creating real bonds of friendship and family you have to be there and really interact with them. Even when we're just alone together, like when my buddy and I go out flying our drones we each fly our own drone but it's a shared experience. If I did it and posted on my Facebook and he did it and posted on his Facebook it wouldn't be the same at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Because (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Your FICO score shows how you succeed and fail in life, pure and simple."
Obligatory Black Mirrror: "Nosedive"
Re: (Score:2)
From what you mentioned, it can be argued that financial stability is the most important of all. Your FICO score shows how you succeed and fail in life, pure and simple. Same with the car you drive. Not a BMW or Lexus? There will be tons of excuses but no real actual reason.
Focus on finances, everything else follows. Flash a BMW keyfob, there is your next wife is right there. Want a stable relationship, keep your finances good, because most breakups are over money.
Thanks for that advice. I was unaware that money is the reason for most breakups: thought that it was only my ex who was a cunt. My finances were fine until the meltdown of 2008.
However, I don't splurge on status symbols, nor on pricey vacations. Even if I had a 7 figure income, I wouldn't touch a BMW or Lexus. Previously, I had a Sebring, then 2 Saturns - a coup followed by a stationwagon after we had our kid, and now, I have a Subaru Crosstrek. While the other cars had a high maintenance, this on
Re:Because (Score:5, Informative)
A BMW is not enough, you also need to be charming, muscular and have a huge penis. But more money can always make up for your lacking qualities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I gave my wife full leeway on what she wanted to do. She wanted to work, and even after we had our kid, she started looking for jobs. My parents in law came to help w/ taking care of the kid while we were at work. That part was not an issue.
Also, what you say about homes is not applicable in the Bay Area, which is where I lived. We did buy a home in 2007 for $750k in the Cupertino school district (school district being the criteria), and had to sell months later after I lost my job. I absolutely
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Half the problem is that many, many American/Western women make terrible partners. They're self-centered, self-absorbed perpetually unhappy, and will dump you in a heartbeat for something "better". They're not your partner, they're your competitor. It's very very hard to have a real relationship with most American/Western women. And I speak from 50+ years of combined dating and marriage experience.
If anything and I mean anything goes wrong, it's going to be your fault because your job sole job in life (in h
Re: (Score:2)
Articles like this have already made me kill myself.
Who ya gonna call?
Ghost Poster!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you see the Kardashians, that is the problem, right there. No wonder you are deranged if you watch that stuff.