Men in America: Lonely, Ashamed and Deprived of Play

[Ego]

This morning at the post-cycling philosophy salon, two different friends mentioned this same essay discussing the causes of mass shootings in America. One is pro-gun. The other, pro-gun control. They both agreed that this captured some core truth.

https://byrslf.co/thoughts-on-the-vegas ... af397cee2c

We can argue about guns elsewhere.

The documentary mentioned in the story, The Mask You Live In, touches on why so many boys in our society become mentally unstable adults.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc45-ptHMxo

From an early age, we have an unhealthy ideal of masculinity that we try to live up to. Part of that ideal tells us that Real men do everything on their own. Real men don’t cry. Real men express anger through violence.

The byproduct is isolation. Most men spend the majority of their adult lives without deeper friendships, or any real sense of community. Not to mention a complete inability to release anger or sadness in a healthy way.

It reminded me of what Chad and Tyler said in the sports thread about the transformative effects of football.

[Jean]

I completly agree. American society is very excluding, and not fiting seems to cause a lot of stigma, in comparison to what it is in Switzerland.

[SustainableHappiness]

Although my data is anecdotal, the years of 22-25 have shown themselves to be the key years for my peer group that I am aware of, both friends and enemies, for this behaviour you talked to fully manifesting itself in substance abuse, pornography addiction, video game addiction and all the associated mental health implications. Although the first 3 things I mentioned may have always been there, 22-25 is when they really start gripping the man involved.

I've not seen this problem as prevalent in the women of my peer group (they have a whole other set of challenges) and am not surprised to see documentaries like this coming out. 5 years later and the few I am/was friends with have either taken their own lives, gone to rehab and become addiction counselors/mentors or limited their social interaction where possible and I fear are going deeper into depression/anxiety + associated behaviours.

The worst part is, unless the guy is a really good friend, most guys don't want to talk about any of this as you and the video mentioned, and therefore personal outreach is usually shrugged off or ignored.

Isolation leads to escaping a lonely reality for the virtual. It sucks we have so many accepted outlets now.

[BRUTE]

watching the trailer for that Mask movie, it feels exactly like the opposite of the problem. in brute's opinion, the decline/outlawing of masculinity starting from the 1960/70s forward is the cause for the increase in human male loneliness and craziness.

that article references Stand By Me. in that story, the boys walk away from home, have fights with bullies, travel through dangerous woods and nearly get run over by trains. brute forgets if they ever actually make it to the body. today? playdates. running is banned from recess.

aggression is an inherent part of masculinity, and it has been thwarted and squashed since a young age in human males in this country by well-meaning female teachers and parents.

boys must fight. boys must bleed. boys must fall down. the same is true for men.

there's been a war on masculinity in the west for 50 years. this is what happens when humans try to suppress 1/2 of the human spirit in their children and their adults.

[edit]

In the 1960’s, there was one school shooting.
In the 1980’s, there were 27.
In the 1990’s, there were 58.
In the past decade, there have been over 120.

hmmm. brute wonders what changed.

[Campitor]

I remember a documentary series called "The Human Animal" by Desmond Morris. It was very interesting and in 1 segment Morris noted that the societies with the most violent sports in Europe tended to have the least amount of violent crime. I think all humans need a healthy outlet for their aggression.

I also think the loss of a shared culture and etiquette contributes to the isolated explosions of violence. Most humans have a certain expectation on how the world should be and how they want to interact with it. When these expectations are disrupted by an opposing action, conflict arises. For example, in my part of the US there is very little traffic enforcement in the city and on the adjoining highways. This lack of enforcements leads to great disparities in driving habits, i.e., some people driving 30 miles over the speed limit and road raging at those only going 20 miles over the speed limit, etc.

These driving disparities almost always results in a lot of middle-finger posturing or an escalation that increases the chances of an accident (tail gaiting, aggressive breaking, racing to cut each other off, etc.). If there was aggressive enforcement of the traffic rules, everyone would conform their behavior to the shared expectation which would result in better behavior and a corresponding drop in frustration and aggression.

[BRUTE]

These driving disparities almost always results in a lot of middle-finger posturing or an escalation that increases the chances of an accident (tail gaiting, aggressive breaking, racing to cut each other off, etc.). If there was aggressive enforcement of the traffic rules, everyone would conform their behavior to the shared expectation which would result in better behavior and a corresponding drop in frustration and aggression.

brute is quite sure the exact opposite would happen. suppression is exactly the problem. desired vs. allowed behavior would drift even further apart. overregulation doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse.

[Campitor]

I agree with you 100%. But I would argue that the avenues of forced human interactions, like operating a 2 ton vehicle at speed on a shared road, require a definition of what is acceptable and what behaviors can be expected with the goal of maintaining peace and safety. If I'm driving the speed limit and traveling in the slow lane, why should I have to suffer the honks and tailgating of a someone going 30+ MPH over the speed limit when the passing lane is open/available? If I'm trying to pass in the passing lane, why should I suffer someone driving 10 to 20 MPH under the speed limit when they could move into the slow/travel lane? There is a certain expectation of behavior which isn't being realized because people don't conform to the shared rules required to make society run with the least amount of friction. Aggressive traffic enforcement would inform people that the existing rules aren't fiction and must be followed to avoid accidents and the free-for-all driving that has taken hold in a significant way in my part of the US of A. In my part of the Northeast stops signs are frequently ignored, red lights are transgressed, and driving on the wrong side of the road is tolerated. This wild west of driving isn't conducive to a peaceful or safe society.

The US is losing it's cohesion and therefore it's becoming more and more of a societal desert especially for men since we have always been viewed as the disposable sex; men lead all the negative metrics in society (death on the job, life expectancy, etc.) yet we're only looked at as oppressors or at the very least judged as oafish by so many. One of the guiding principles at the beginning of the American Republic was the concept of enlightened self interest which now has been replaced by self interest devoid of any enlightenment whatsoever. So now what is a man supposed to do when every interaction may be viewed negatively since the social rulebook has been tossed out? It's a social free for all where only those with the most sophisticated sense of social IQ can survive and thrive in the big cities where social opportunity is the greatest.

[Ego]

So now what is a man supposed to do ....? It's a social free for all where only those with the most sophisticated sense of social IQ can survive and thrive in the big cities where social opportunity is the greatest.

Is social-IQ a learned skill? Would it make sense to relocate to the place where social opportunity is the greatest?

[BRUTE]

agreed on all the non-speed-limit stuff. human males have become superfluous to society starting in the 60s, except for their productive capabilities. recently, it has become en vogue to rub this in their faces. surprisingly, human males are not amused. brute doesn't long for the magical 60s when all humans lived in perfect black-and-white harmony. but there does seem to exist a problem in the now. some humans want to go back. in brute's opinion, this is neither desirable nor possible. but where else to go? brute hasn't a clue.

Aggressive traffic enforcement would inform people that the existing rules aren't fiction and must be followed to avoid accidents and the free-for-all driving that has taken hold in a significant way in my part of the US of A. In my part of the Northeast stops signs are frequently ignored, red lights are transgressed, and driving on the wrong side of the road is tolerated. This wild west of driving isn't conducive to a peaceful or safe society.

the problem with that is, speed limits are a fiction. if humans obeyed the speed limits, there would be even more gridlock than already exists. the ones doing 85-90mpg in a 55 are the rational ones. everyone at 55mph would simply not work.

stop signs are mostly BS, red lights mostly not (in brute's opinion). driving on the wrong side of the road is a whole other category than speeding.

[Campitor]

the problem with that is, speed limits are a fiction. if humans obeyed the speed limits, there would be even more gridlock than already exists. the ones doing 85-90mpg in a 55 are the rational ones. everyone at 55mph would simply not work.

Is there a reason why you believe this? The research I've read states that differences in speed (more than 5mph) causes excessive breaking which in turn leads to a traffic jam wave that builds up behind the driver doing the hard breaking. I just want to know if you have any research that shows the opposite which might change my opinion.

[Campitor]

So now what is a man supposed to do ....? It's a social free for all where only those with the most sophisticated sense of social IQ can survive and thrive in the big cities where social opportunity is the greatest.

Is social-IQ a learned skill? Would it make sense to relocate to the place where social opportunity is the greatest?

I think that social IQ is fluid but you need to be exposed to certain ideas in order to cultivate it. I believe most humans have the capacity (IQ) to do so but lack the necessary drive to do the research and the corresponding self evaluation/contemplation.

[7Wannabe5]

"There is a land where a man, to live, must be a man. It is a land of granite and marble and porphyry and gold--and a man's strength must be as the strength of the primeval hills. It is a land of oaks and cedars and pines--and a man's mental grace must be as the grace of the untamed trees. It is a land of far-arched and unstained skies, where the wind sweeps free and untainted, and the atmosphere is the atmosphere of those places that remain as God made them--and a man's soul must be as the unstained skies, the unburdened wind, and the untainted atmosphere. It is a land of wide mesas, of wild, rolling pastures and broad, untilled, valley meadows--and a man's freedom must be that freedom which is not bounded by the fences of a too weak and timid conventionalism.

In this land every man is--by divine right--his own king; he is his own jury, his own counsel, his own judge, and--if it must be--his own executioner. And in this land where a man, to live, must be a man, a woman, if she be not a woman, must surely perish."

- "When A Man's A Man"- Harold Bell Wright (1914)

[BRUTE]

Is there a reason why you believe this? The research I've read states that differences in speed (more than 5mph) causes excessive breaking which in turn leads to a traffic jam wave that builds up behind the driver doing the hard breaking. I just want to know if you have any research that shows the opposite which might change my opinion.

bandwidth = lanes x average speed

[jacob]

The research I've read states that differences in speed (more than 5mph) causes excessive breaking which in turn leads to a traffic jam wave that builds up behind the driver doing the hard breaking. I just want to know if you have any research that shows the opposite which might change my opinion.

There's an enormous amount of complicated research (traffic flow theory is its own field---it's where former astrophysicists go if they feel like doing something closer to home) on this using both hydrodynamics and automaton-based modelling. These simulations are used to figure out how to design on/off-ramps---how many lanes and how they connect---in order to prevent congestion. There are definitely experts on this so there's no need to speculate or opinionate.

I'm no expert but I did do a bit of work in hydro, so I know the basics and I used to be able to use "jump-condition" in a sentence. Also, I did a talk on the latter (automaton-sim, actually similar to Game of Life but with different rules) for one of those time-wasting journal clubs that some people are fond of.

Key take-away: A road will support a certain linear density of cars for a given speed. Below that density, nothing happens if someone is speeding or braking. If you think about it, cars can actually go at any speed as long as they're properly synchronized/responsive. This is why automated drivers or lidar systems are interesting. Anyone ... insofar a road is above critical density; then if someone brakes, it sends a shockwave backwards down the road. You've probably noticed this as rear-lights light up. How far this shockwave goes depends on the density. The denser, the farther. This wave travels pretty fast---over 100mph+---as you might have noticed.

What's more interesting is the rarefaction wave that travels behind it. This one travels VERY slowly. Maybe two mph. It's most easily seen when there's been a traffic accident on the free-way. The point where traffic starts free-flowing again after being backed up moves backwards at the rarefaction speed. Since it's slow you can often tell where the accident/catastrophic braking occurred even all the fire-engines and tow-trucks have cleared out.

It follows trivially that what really matters for traffic flow is to avoid exceeding critical linear density by driving too close to the car in front of you and having cars driving too close behind you. Because someone will eventually light up their brakes and if this happens---keeping in mind it probably has to happen to avoid an accident---beyond critical density, it wastes a lot of flow [due to the slow speed of the rarefaction wave].

Oh, I should also mention that the density tends to increase for a given speed over time or putting that in another way that the speed for a given density tends to increase. IOW, it takes time to build density. But the higher the density, the more shocks and the larger the shocks once any driver messes things up. Once someone messes up the flow, the road-density has to be built up slowly all over again.

Since humans only seem capable of looking slightly ahead and slightly behind them, optimizing density(speed) requires that cars communicate electronically. So there's no really much to do in terms of driving "tactically" as some manly-men and women like to do. There's a LOT to be said for driving strategically ... like keeping 3 seconds between you and the nearest car at all times (hoping that everybody does the same)... but try teaching that trick to a bunch of humans. It's unpossible!

Bonus PS: People have actually researched whether it pays to switch lane if you're backed up and notice that the one next to you seems to be moving faster. IIRC, it doesn't (complete with mathematical proof), but I forget the argument.

We now return to your regular programming ...

[Campitor]

There's a LOT to be said for driving strategically ... like keeping 3 seconds between you and the nearest car at all times (hoping that everybody does the same)... but try teaching that trick to a bunch of humans.

Your analysis is what I've read in regards to traffic flow. Where I live, the traffic density is very high and the disparity in speeds are huge. Cars are either routinely driving 10 to 20 miles under the speed limit or 20 to 30 miles above the speed limit (posted speed limit being 65 to 75 MPH depending on the section of highway). This behavior leads to insane levels of tailgating (less than 2 meters at times) and crazy lane switches - all of this behavior causes the dreaded hard breaking which makes traffic crawl to a stop. By having frequent and aggressive traffic enforcement, it incentivizes drivers to behave more predictably thereby increasing the odds of everyone driving within a narrow band of speed which mitigates hard breaking.

Why is this important in regards to this thread some of you may ask? Because this road rage adds to the overall miasma and disconnect we all feel - especially men whose testosterone levels encourage this road raging behavior. The lack of a reasonable behavioral compass which could civilize our actions, including driving, is fragmenting society which increasingly looks at men as the root cause. We should be figuring out how to create rational systems that incentivize good behavior in order to improve the quality of life for everyone, especially men who are more prone to dangerous behavior when behind a wheel. Most people spend significant time driving so the frequency of negative encounters increases, which breeds contempt for your fellow man, which fosters alienation - ergo the lament of the OP. Its hard to be the life of the party or put the rev in a woman's engine when you're a bundle of stress and rage like some kind of transmogrified fighting dog.

Not to say that there isn't room for spirited disagreement or we should all resort to the "joy joy" mediocrity exhibited in the "Demolition Man", or that we should hang up our man-spurs in the quest for human reasonableness. There should be safe outlets for our frustrations (those of us who are introspective tend to figure this out without any outside intervention) which allows us to decompress so we can celebrate our humanity and engage our neighbors in a civil or friendly way.

[BRUTE]

Bonus PS: People have actually researched whether it pays to switch lane if you're backed up and notice that the one next to you seems to be moving faster. IIRC, it doesn't (complete with mathematical proof), but I forget the argument.

can't time the market.. uh.. traffic

to make this a little more practical: it seems obvious that a higher average leads to better throughput as long as it doesn't hit the density limit where any braking will trigger the shockwaves. in brute's experience, depending on roads and terrain, it's typically completely fine up to 90mph or so. i.e. 55mph or 65mph limits are a waste of bandwidth, whereas 100mph might be less efficient due to the shockwaves.

most "speeders" simply seem to intuit that it's fine to drive 85mph if everybody does it, and it's pretty much just as safe but much more efficient than driving 55mph.

the problem is that while most humans seem to be intuitive speeders, there are also the "law-abiding sheep" that will drive the limit simply because it is the limit, thereby causing slowdowns and deltas that lead to shockwaves.

thus raising the speed limit to a reasonable speed like 85mph on most highways would probably be safer and more efficient, or at least more efficient and pretty much as safe (maybe there's a 2% loss in safety or so).

[Campitor]

thus raising the speed limit to a reasonable speed like 85mph on most highways would probably be safer and more efficient, or at least more efficient and pretty much as safe (maybe there's a 2% loss in safety or so).

Raising the speed limit will not do any good without any kind of enforcement to incentivize adherence. In my area, there are no posted minimum speed limits so you can drive as slow as you want - I've been behind folks driving 40 MPH on a 75 MPH highway. Rules are only worth anything if they are enforced - a rule/limit without any enforcement is no rule at all. This lack of enforcement creates a "rules are for losers" attitude which only angers people who are expecting a particular bandwidth of behavior/speed. Those wishing to go 85 MPH get pissed, those wishing to go 50 MPH get pissed, those going 120 MPH get pissed. No one is happy and everyone is angry - and now they arrive at work in a service/technology based economy where human interaction is an all pervasive requirement - they treat customers/coworkers crappy who in turn treat other people crappy - and so the dominos role. At the end of the day, after having pissed everyone off, we are scratching our heads on why we are so isolated, lonely, and can't get any romance going. The cause of our loneliness and its solution is staring at us in the mirror - don't drive like a jerk, don't act like a jerk, and don't be a jerk to the ladies. Happiness ensues which also increases your ability to attract a mate.

[BRUTE]

don't drive like a jerk, don't act like a jerk, and don't be a jerk to the ladies. Happiness ensues which also increases your ability to attract a mate.

taking a step back, being a jerk works in the current environment. that's why humans do it. incentives are aligned to reward jerkiness, not kindness.

edit: why? probably because society has splintered and social cohesion has been supplanted by other means. this has enabled scale previously hard to imagine, through globalization. the current levels of consumerism and population would likely be hard to sustain if everything had to be connected with kindness and trust.

[Campitor]

taking a step back, being a jerk works in the current environment. that's why humans do it. incentives are aligned to reward jerkiness, not kindness.

edit: why? probably because society has splintered and social cohesion has been supplanted by other means. this has enabled scale previously hard to imagine, through globalization. the current levels of consumerism and population would likely be hard to sustain if everything had to be connected with kindness and trust.

I agree with you 100%. Our reality has been divorced from the appropriate negative feedback loops as a result of our increased population density. If you were a jerk in a hunter/gatherer group of =< 100 people, you would be ostracized at best or killed at worst - you couldn't hide being a jerk or be divorced from its consequences. But in todays 400k+ population centers - you can be a jerk all day long and probably never see the victims of your jerkiness ever again.

So the short term perception is that jerkiness has paid off but in reality the long term consequences are very detrimental. If you get slapped immediately for doing something bad, you will know that it's a direct consequence of your poor behavior. But if the slap occurs 100+ days after the transgression, you will not perceive the retribution as being a direct consequence of the long forgotten act. We're all caught in a giant circle jerk of slaps since our negativity eventually swings back around to bite us in the ass. We don't realize we're the victims of our own rudeness because we can't see the tsunami of unleashed irritability was caused by our own actions reverberating out into society.

This constant frustration is training people to be angry and irritated as their default operating mode and is diminishing their tolerance to even the tiniest of infractions. So now society is one big ball of anger and incivility but somehow we don't know why we feel lonely, ashamed, and get no play... queue the man in the mirror song...

[Riggerjack]

brute is quite sure the exact opposite would happen. suppression is exactly the problem. desired vs. allowed behavior would drift even further apart. overregulation doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse.

@BRUTE and campitor,

I is fun watching you guys describe the problem around the edges like this, then avoid the obvious conclusion.

This is merely overpopulation. The combination of too many people, in to little space, spread out too far. By that, I mean, you can have the high density of a European village, and still have the good life, if you stay at a small scale. By contrast, you can have urbanish densities on flatland and spread out, and still function. Think of all those mid sized towns in farm country. But when you go for our current gold standard, urban, huge cities NYC, London, LA, SF, etc, the combination of density plus size creates these situations that separate actions from consequences enough that feedback is far less effective.

More rules enforcement won't fix this. More permissive rules will not fix this. Nobody has ever, in all of recorded history, ever fixed a city. Which begs the question of why people continue to live in them. And why you argue about more rules or more enforcement, rather than escape.

I have been commuting from the Marysville house, as we prepare it for sale. Last week, in the pre 6:00 am "rush hour" that starts around 5am and goes to around 9pm, a fellow commuter, in stop and stop, and eventually go traffic, was just laying on the horn. For at least 5 minutes. Just completely losing their shit. Screaming, hammering the steering wheel, and still with the horn. (I haven't laughed that hard in ages, but I can be a bit of a dick.) We took the next exit, we could still hear him as we sat at the light at the end of the ramp. No cops were called, none could do anything if they were. Just one more person who lost it, but used the horn, rather than a gun.

The lonely bit from the OP is everywhere, you can't move away from American culture and stay in America. But you can separate yourself from an environment that separates behavior and consequences, and the people who result from that environment.

Put enough rats in a cage, regardless of food supply, they will start eating each other. Humans are no better.