I think longevity depends completely on the volume of interaction.
I also think there's a definite split in terms of "interfacing" that cuts between Generation X and Y. Many in my generation are not online (in the online sense) except the early technology adopters. Most people under 25 are.
I think it's time to bring up Graham's essay on nerds again.
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
The [possibly perceived] inabilities cut both ways. Digitally, people find that they have much more in common with others who are like them than with people they just happen to live within 5 miles off. Traditional delineaters like gender, skin color, nationality, degree, etc. become irrelevant. That's a good thing!
Call it a diversification or robustness of orientation that just got added to humanity. The current revolutions in the ME and Northern Africa are largely accredited to social networking. Imagine 40 years from now ... how are governments going to the respective citizens of each others countries to fight each other when the respective nationals are friends with each other across borders?
I think the problem the sociologists are having is that the internet is making it possible for people who used to believe they had to spend time trying to be popular (playing social butterflies) are finding that they now can spend their energy on something that's more appealing to them.
No, I think the internet is a great thing (best invention since electricity). Just because it doesn't fit in with some established patterns or theories doesn't make it bad.
The only thing I object to is the paradigm/dogma that whatever is not in agreement with the cultural average or even the cultural ideal (in the US extroversion is the cultural ideal but the average is actually the median) is somehow pathological to the level that even the language vilifies the non-ideal is just somewhat infuriating to me.
Loneliness article in The Atlantic
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
Jacob, thanks for linking to the Graham article--I'll have to get to it later and think more about this.
The irony of my advocating real-life interaction in an online forum is not lost on me. I think it would be possible to have a similar conversation in a living room or restaurant--if it's with the same people. I haven't been to one of the ERE meetups (if there's another one in NYC, I'll definitely go), but I would think that the conversations would be about similar subjects and similar depth.
There would be the disadvantage of being unable to cite sources and other articles for discussion and contemplation, as you did with the Graham piece. But there would also be the advantage of rapid-fire exchange and getting into a conversational groove, instead of you having to wait 21 minutes for my half-assed reply. Although I suppose that could be replicated in IMs. Would the exchange result in an emotional bond or merely intellectual growth on our parts? It seems the latter is possible on the internet, but I'm not so sure about the former.
The irony of my advocating real-life interaction in an online forum is not lost on me. I think it would be possible to have a similar conversation in a living room or restaurant--if it's with the same people. I haven't been to one of the ERE meetups (if there's another one in NYC, I'll definitely go), but I would think that the conversations would be about similar subjects and similar depth.
There would be the disadvantage of being unable to cite sources and other articles for discussion and contemplation, as you did with the Graham piece. But there would also be the advantage of rapid-fire exchange and getting into a conversational groove, instead of you having to wait 21 minutes for my half-assed reply. Although I suppose that could be replicated in IMs. Would the exchange result in an emotional bond or merely intellectual growth on our parts? It seems the latter is possible on the internet, but I'm not so sure about the former.
As someone who interacts a lot with seniors, my concern about relationships becoming primarily virtual is what happens when you need physical help? Someone to check up on you during a power outage, to bring food when you're sick or grieving, and so on.
On the other hand, eventually hospitals and nursing homes will be set up technologically to make it much easier to visit via Skype or virtual reality, so elder isolation might actually improve, if you're in an institution.
And if you don't like small talk, move the conversation where you want it. If you dare to say you don't like small talk and you'd rather talk about the meaning of life or why Murakami's latest novel was 400 pages too long, you might find other people are happy to get out of the weather-chat purgatory.
On the other hand, eventually hospitals and nursing homes will be set up technologically to make it much easier to visit via Skype or virtual reality, so elder isolation might actually improve, if you're in an institution.
And if you don't like small talk, move the conversation where you want it. If you dare to say you don't like small talk and you'd rather talk about the meaning of life or why Murakami's latest novel was 400 pages too long, you might find other people are happy to get out of the weather-chat purgatory.
"what happens when you need physical help?"
Obviously you post it to facebook:
http://mashable.com/2009/09/07/trapped-girls-facebook/
Obviously you post it to facebook:
http://mashable.com/2009/09/07/trapped-girls-facebook/
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15974
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Also this: http://prometheussociety.com/?page_id=33
It has many interesting observations and conclusions. It's mainly study of very high quantitative IQs, but aside from that I think the conclusions have greater implications in terms of unusual/extreme "mentalities" (for lack of a better word). For example, I think one has a potential to feel much more alone as an intelligent INTJ than as an intelligent ESTJ.
I think many here (the typical ERE-phyte: smart INTJs) are affected by at least some of the problems described in that article. Given the NT predilection for developing mental systems which to a large degree can add substantial intellectual power (nothing helps one to look/act smart than having already thought about a given question in advance), this can seriously increase such problems [of being not-normal but having to live with normal people].
(Note that the IQs are old scale, so when they say 180, it's really 150... or about 3 sdevs. In other words, the numbers are really high but not superhumanly high as a first impression would suggest.)
Uh oh ... eh? So going back to the original question on how one can tell when one has retreated too much? I don't think facebook is a particular problem in this regard. One could easily imagine the extrovert problem of desperately hanging out in a bar trying to talk to everybody (see TV show: Cheers).
ERE might actually be because it does give you immense freedom to not have to deal with things like jobs which does force substantial interaction and adherence to various bureacrazies (I spell that with a z) on most people (unless you work in a light house).
I think this is a hard problem. Namely, what happens if you adopt beliefs that are so different from everybody else that you become unrelatable. It's not just a one-sided problem, because relatively speaking, they are unrelatable too.
Here's a quote from the genius page:
"Perhaps men of genius are the only true men. In all the history of the race there have been only a few thousand real men. And the rest of us–what are we? Teachable animals. Without the help of the real man, we should have found out almost nothing at all. Almost all the ideas with which we are familiar could never have occurred to minds like ours. Plant the seeds there and they will grow; but our minds could never spontaneously have generated them." ---Aldous Huxley.
Again, this doesn't have anything to do with the genius problem as much as it has to do with the problem of living in a world where "normal" by rational means would be considered insane and you have to deal with the problem of being considered crazy by "normal" people because they're the crazy ones. What you're asking is essentially to which degree you can allow yourself to be crazy in order to still fit in or at least relate.
I'm not sure I have an answer for that.
(I would say, though, that I've long given up on making any further attempts to store a repository of exchangeable gossip or fake an interest in sports.)
It has many interesting observations and conclusions. It's mainly study of very high quantitative IQs, but aside from that I think the conclusions have greater implications in terms of unusual/extreme "mentalities" (for lack of a better word). For example, I think one has a potential to feel much more alone as an intelligent INTJ than as an intelligent ESTJ.
I think many here (the typical ERE-phyte: smart INTJs) are affected by at least some of the problems described in that article. Given the NT predilection for developing mental systems which to a large degree can add substantial intellectual power (nothing helps one to look/act smart than having already thought about a given question in advance), this can seriously increase such problems [of being not-normal but having to live with normal people].
(Note that the IQs are old scale, so when they say 180, it's really 150... or about 3 sdevs. In other words, the numbers are really high but not superhumanly high as a first impression would suggest.)
Uh oh ... eh? So going back to the original question on how one can tell when one has retreated too much? I don't think facebook is a particular problem in this regard. One could easily imagine the extrovert problem of desperately hanging out in a bar trying to talk to everybody (see TV show: Cheers).
ERE might actually be because it does give you immense freedom to not have to deal with things like jobs which does force substantial interaction and adherence to various bureacrazies (I spell that with a z) on most people (unless you work in a light house).
I think this is a hard problem. Namely, what happens if you adopt beliefs that are so different from everybody else that you become unrelatable. It's not just a one-sided problem, because relatively speaking, they are unrelatable too.
Here's a quote from the genius page:
"Perhaps men of genius are the only true men. In all the history of the race there have been only a few thousand real men. And the rest of us–what are we? Teachable animals. Without the help of the real man, we should have found out almost nothing at all. Almost all the ideas with which we are familiar could never have occurred to minds like ours. Plant the seeds there and they will grow; but our minds could never spontaneously have generated them." ---Aldous Huxley.
Again, this doesn't have anything to do with the genius problem as much as it has to do with the problem of living in a world where "normal" by rational means would be considered insane and you have to deal with the problem of being considered crazy by "normal" people because they're the crazy ones. What you're asking is essentially to which degree you can allow yourself to be crazy in order to still fit in or at least relate.
I'm not sure I have an answer for that.
(I would say, though, that I've long given up on making any further attempts to store a repository of exchangeable gossip or fake an interest in sports.)
Jacob's arguments, that valid online relationships exist, are logical and I have experienced some myself. This forum being a broader example. However, I have yet to experience this on Facebook, but that is probably because I fall in the Gen X (not under 25) demographic which treats Facebook differenly than the new generation. It's not as incorporated into my life.
I find these two comments/quotes interesting:
"The [possibly perceived] inabilities cut both ways. Digitally, people find that they have much more in common with others who are like them than with people they just happen to live within 5 miles off. Traditional delineaters like gender, skin color, nationality, degree, etc. become irrelevant."
Being someone who hasn't traveled outsdie the U.S. much, I still find the idea of "world citizen" to be a positive movement. Many in the U.S. wouldn't and a large portion of those would be screaming for my head just because I suggested it wasn't a terrible idea. Hopefully, Facebook can be part of that.
"Perhaps men of genius are the only true men. In all the history of the race there have been only a few thousand real men. And the rest of us–what are we? Teachable animals. Without the help of the real man, we should have found out almost nothing at all. Almost all the ideas with which we are familiar could never have occurred to minds like ours. Plant the seeds there and they will grow; but our minds could never spontaneously have generated them." ---Aldous Huxley.
I definitely have had the same idea. I even wonder if some people can even be classified as human...I'm not kidding when I say that.
I find these two comments/quotes interesting:
"The [possibly perceived] inabilities cut both ways. Digitally, people find that they have much more in common with others who are like them than with people they just happen to live within 5 miles off. Traditional delineaters like gender, skin color, nationality, degree, etc. become irrelevant."
Being someone who hasn't traveled outsdie the U.S. much, I still find the idea of "world citizen" to be a positive movement. Many in the U.S. wouldn't and a large portion of those would be screaming for my head just because I suggested it wasn't a terrible idea. Hopefully, Facebook can be part of that.
"Perhaps men of genius are the only true men. In all the history of the race there have been only a few thousand real men. And the rest of us–what are we? Teachable animals. Without the help of the real man, we should have found out almost nothing at all. Almost all the ideas with which we are familiar could never have occurred to minds like ours. Plant the seeds there and they will grow; but our minds could never spontaneously have generated them." ---Aldous Huxley.
I definitely have had the same idea. I even wonder if some people can even be classified as human...I'm not kidding when I say that.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6853
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
“Traditional delineaters like gender, skin color, nationality, degree, etc. become irrelevant."
Some of the best conversations I’ve had in years have been online for this reason. There is still self-segregating (we’ve all come to this forum) but it’s not based on appearance or social group. Let’s face it, how many of the 20-30 something men on this board would start a conversation with someone like me? I'm a 45yo woman usually with a bunch of kids in tow. I don't necessarily look like a typical mom (I'm more suited to Sturgis than Stepford) but you'd still make assumptions about me.
I don't like the assumption here and in the article that people are having online conversations in lieu of face-to-face interaction. Most of the time I’m reading/posting from my phone because I’m sitting in my car waiting to pick up one of my kids, or (like yesterday) sitting in a doctor’s office. I wasn’t avoiding a "regular" conversation, I was seeking out a meaningful one that I couldn’t get where I was.
I think online interactions can increase the number of positive social interactions that people like us have.* That's a good thing. But I wonder if there is some minimum amount of contact required for contentment. I have a partner, children, and siblings that I interact with daily. Maybe that's enough? Maybe this is harder on people who don't have that and they need to make sure they have at least a couple of people in their life to interact with directly.
*Jacob, I acknowledge yours have not always been positive.
Some of the best conversations I’ve had in years have been online for this reason. There is still self-segregating (we’ve all come to this forum) but it’s not based on appearance or social group. Let’s face it, how many of the 20-30 something men on this board would start a conversation with someone like me? I'm a 45yo woman usually with a bunch of kids in tow. I don't necessarily look like a typical mom (I'm more suited to Sturgis than Stepford) but you'd still make assumptions about me.
I don't like the assumption here and in the article that people are having online conversations in lieu of face-to-face interaction. Most of the time I’m reading/posting from my phone because I’m sitting in my car waiting to pick up one of my kids, or (like yesterday) sitting in a doctor’s office. I wasn’t avoiding a "regular" conversation, I was seeking out a meaningful one that I couldn’t get where I was.
I think online interactions can increase the number of positive social interactions that people like us have.* That's a good thing. But I wonder if there is some minimum amount of contact required for contentment. I have a partner, children, and siblings that I interact with daily. Maybe that's enough? Maybe this is harder on people who don't have that and they need to make sure they have at least a couple of people in their life to interact with directly.
*Jacob, I acknowledge yours have not always been positive.
-
Freedom_2018
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:10 am
Don't write-of the 20/30s men yet 
My gf and I met when I was 33 and she was 50..and it was through an online interaction..been 5 yrs on going great.
To your point, we probably would not have connected if not for the web because the social circle I was 'supposed' to have, would not have included her. So thank you Craigslist!
However the web was only to see if we connect on some mental levels...but it was only when we met in person and spent time around each other that we realized how internally aligned we were despite differences in our external facades.
This is contrast to my previous marriage where wife and I would have made an 'ideal' couple on all the usual check-boxes.
Anyways...I digress..it was just the age thing mentioned above that got me commenting since I've found that societal expectations around age and age related relationships are so limiting...and a lot of wonderful interactions are probably not being had because of that.
My gf and I met when I was 33 and she was 50..and it was through an online interaction..been 5 yrs on going great.
To your point, we probably would not have connected if not for the web because the social circle I was 'supposed' to have, would not have included her. So thank you Craigslist!
However the web was only to see if we connect on some mental levels...but it was only when we met in person and spent time around each other that we realized how internally aligned we were despite differences in our external facades.
This is contrast to my previous marriage where wife and I would have made an 'ideal' couple on all the usual check-boxes.
Anyways...I digress..it was just the age thing mentioned above that got me commenting since I've found that societal expectations around age and age related relationships are so limiting...and a lot of wonderful interactions are probably not being had because of that.
"Casting technology as some vague, impersonal spirit of history forcing our actions is a weak excuse. We make decisions about how we use our machines, not the other way around."
I could not disagree more with this little missive from the article's author.
I suggest he reads "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains" by Nicholas Carr to try to understand how incredibly affected we are by the means and modes of technology surrounding us.
I actually chose NOT to use the self-checkout machine specifically so I can interact with a real human AND support their need for a job (a topic unto itself). In fact, I try to shop at stores that don't have self-checkout for that exact reason. F*ck efficiency...give me humanity or give me death.
Not that I always have that choice. My bank only dispenses cash through an ATM now. Who pays cash at the gas station? With ERE, we eat out less and spend even less time at a bar, chatting up the tender.
But for all that, I constantly look for ways to increase human connection. And I'm an INFP/J; go figure...
I could not disagree more with this little missive from the article's author.
I suggest he reads "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains" by Nicholas Carr to try to understand how incredibly affected we are by the means and modes of technology surrounding us.
I actually chose NOT to use the self-checkout machine specifically so I can interact with a real human AND support their need for a job (a topic unto itself). In fact, I try to shop at stores that don't have self-checkout for that exact reason. F*ck efficiency...give me humanity or give me death.
Not that I always have that choice. My bank only dispenses cash through an ATM now. Who pays cash at the gas station? With ERE, we eat out less and spend even less time at a bar, chatting up the tender.
But for all that, I constantly look for ways to increase human connection. And I'm an INFP/J; go figure...
Note: My wife and I met through MySpace in 2006. She worked in the restaurant on the first floor of the office building I worked in at the time; but it took me noticing her picture pop up (common interest) while listening to a favorite local band (and then snooping through her profile and noticing many connections/shared-interests before I contacted her, chatted, then met in person a month later) for us to connect in real life. Sparks flew. And 6 years later here we are. Happily married... As it turns out, our paths crossed multiple times, starting when we were 11 yrs old and my family stayed at the hotel her mom ran in Port Townsend, WA in the early 90s; then a Modest Mouse concert in '97 for which we both still have the ticket stub. But it took MySpace for us to meet...interesting. At the time, we both used it pretty much for finding out about music though. The same connection would not have happened on Facebook. Maybe on Pintrest, but I doubt it.
Neither of us use social networking at this point; we both have FB accounts, but they generally just point to our e-mail addresses so people can look us up if they need to...old friends, etc. We tired of the narcissism and extrovert-induced lifestyle comparison it bred.
For those interested: my Myspace tagline was "have fun, stay single", her favorite movie was listed as "Singles" -- the quintessential Seattle grunge-era movie and the origin of my quote, her other favorite movie was The Professional (Leon), which was also in mine; and we stated our favorite bands as Built to Spill and Modest Mouse...and happened to attend the Built to Spill show(s) together in the following weeks.
There's a line in High Fidelity about interests mattering...maybe its true. Or maybe its just that the music we like is a reflection of who we are and what we care about to a great enough extent that it can give insight to our personalities just enough to be a good indicator of possible matching.
Or maybe my wife and I are just statistical anomolies in a world rife with discontinuity.
We still love the same music and read the same books and grow more together every day...though she isn't into the developing of for-ends (as she calls them...forum-friends) as I am.
Neither of us use social networking at this point; we both have FB accounts, but they generally just point to our e-mail addresses so people can look us up if they need to...old friends, etc. We tired of the narcissism and extrovert-induced lifestyle comparison it bred.
For those interested: my Myspace tagline was "have fun, stay single", her favorite movie was listed as "Singles" -- the quintessential Seattle grunge-era movie and the origin of my quote, her other favorite movie was The Professional (Leon), which was also in mine; and we stated our favorite bands as Built to Spill and Modest Mouse...and happened to attend the Built to Spill show(s) together in the following weeks.
There's a line in High Fidelity about interests mattering...maybe its true. Or maybe its just that the music we like is a reflection of who we are and what we care about to a great enough extent that it can give insight to our personalities just enough to be a good indicator of possible matching.
Or maybe my wife and I are just statistical anomolies in a world rife with discontinuity.
We still love the same music and read the same books and grow more together every day...though she isn't into the developing of for-ends (as she calls them...forum-friends) as I am.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:47 pm
Well, I can't quite relate to some of what you INFs experience, because as extrovert I find it very easy to speak to strangers in the grocery store, on the bus, at the park, anywhere online, etc. I do think shallow interactions are worthwhile and fill an important emotional role.
But this
what happens if you adopt beliefs that are so different from everybody else that you become unrelatable. It's not just a one-sided problem, because relatively speaking, they are unrelatable too.
has become a serious problem for me--I find my conversations with acquaintances have become less satisfying. That is to say, I have an arsenal of "small talk" which I use comfortably in typical social exchanges that don't have real meaning, but that doesn't bother me, the point is just to maintain those points of social contact throughout my life/day (mailman, cashier, coworker, etc) because it makes me feel socially secure. But as my habits have become more ERE-ish, I find it more difficult to conduct these exchanges, it feels "fake" where it didn't before. One by one, dropping out of mainstream culture: can't talk about car problems, traffic, don't have a license. Can't talk about iphones, android phones, don't have one. No, I don't know anything about Downton Abbey. Sometimes I read pop culture aggregate sites (Gawker Media, etc) so I can participate in these exchanges, but increasingly I can't be bothered.
Which is why the internet is so amazing, in short.
But this
what happens if you adopt beliefs that are so different from everybody else that you become unrelatable. It's not just a one-sided problem, because relatively speaking, they are unrelatable too.
has become a serious problem for me--I find my conversations with acquaintances have become less satisfying. That is to say, I have an arsenal of "small talk" which I use comfortably in typical social exchanges that don't have real meaning, but that doesn't bother me, the point is just to maintain those points of social contact throughout my life/day (mailman, cashier, coworker, etc) because it makes me feel socially secure. But as my habits have become more ERE-ish, I find it more difficult to conduct these exchanges, it feels "fake" where it didn't before. One by one, dropping out of mainstream culture: can't talk about car problems, traffic, don't have a license. Can't talk about iphones, android phones, don't have one. No, I don't know anything about Downton Abbey. Sometimes I read pop culture aggregate sites (Gawker Media, etc) so I can participate in these exchanges, but increasingly I can't be bothered.
Which is why the internet is so amazing, in short.
"I find it more difficult to conduct these exchanges, it feels "fake" where it didn't before"
Bingo - but I feel the same comes from everything from understanding Peak Oil to grokking the realities of current Neuroscience research... It becomes harder and harder to relate to the mouth-breathers of the world.
But so it goes; if you continue to try to find points of continuity, I believe you'll find that they do exist and there is a level on which you can relate to everyone.
We are all human; some just moreso than others.
Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2PlAUzAFIU
Bingo - but I feel the same comes from everything from understanding Peak Oil to grokking the realities of current Neuroscience research... It becomes harder and harder to relate to the mouth-breathers of the world.
But so it goes; if you continue to try to find points of continuity, I believe you'll find that they do exist and there is a level on which you can relate to everyone.
We are all human; some just moreso than others.
Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2PlAUzAFIU
I had to laugh at the small talk problem. I had a friend who resolved to steer all small talk to questions that were on his mind, in a good natured and somewhat irreverant way. He'd answer a weather/sports question and then ask something like, so what do you think the end result of entropy will be, complete disorder or what? What about the 2d law of thermodymamics? What do you think? Drawing a blank stare he'd say, ok, what do you think about the situation in Jordan?
A Slate piece rebutting the Atlantic article, with some retrenchment from the Atlantic author:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/cult ... ingle.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/cult ... ingle.html
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:47 pm
He'd answer a weather/sports question and then ask something like, so what do you think the end result of entropy will be, complete disorder or what? What about the 2d law of thermodymamics? What do you think? Drawing a blank stare he'd say, ok, what do you think about the situation in Jordan?
Ha! Wouldn't win me any friends, but I definitely would enjoy that--"sure, it *has* been unseasonably warm this spring, what's your take on the use of unmanned drones in civilian airspace?" "why, yes, your child IS adorable! personally, I prefer to make omelettes with duck eggs since they're higher in protein, do you like quail or chicken better..."
Ha! Wouldn't win me any friends, but I definitely would enjoy that--"sure, it *has* been unseasonably warm this spring, what's your take on the use of unmanned drones in civilian airspace?" "why, yes, your child IS adorable! personally, I prefer to make omelettes with duck eggs since they're higher in protein, do you like quail or chicken better..."
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6853
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm