How Friendships Change Over Time (2015) | Hacker News Reader

How Friendships Change Over Time (2015)

theatlantic.com

155 pointsDiabloD355 comments

Birds of a feather flock together. The truth of this old adage never hit me until my late twenties by which time I had changed places and jobs a few times. Growing up with an ill defined idea of who a friend was, I imagined I would have friends of all kinds around me who would challenge my thinking and perceptions by simply being who they are. Like some carefully assembled bouquet of exotic flowers I thought I would, of course, have a hippie friend, a nerd friend, a gothic friend, whatever, but over the years I learnt that the people I like talking to and the people whose company and conversations I enjoyed were almost exclusively a subset of the people I went to university (and later, graduate school) with. I found that people I knew from an earlier period in my life, like a neighbor or a high school friend, came to see me as being different because of the wildly different path I had taken later in life. I would like to imagine that close friends from a young age don't just fade away because you went to a different school or took a different job, but that's how it has played out consistently in my life. In brief encounters with such friends I learnt that they treated me differently and were too eager to put me down, either out of some deep insecurities, afraid of who I was or simply from an effortless nastiness that came to them. I think this (late twenties) is a time when some people become acutely perceptive of keeping score and start playing the status game etc. I uniformly avoid such idiots from my social life, when I just want to hang out without the specter of my career looming over every conversation.

  I think this (late twenties) is a time when some people 
  become acutely perceptive of keeping score and start playing 
  the status game etc

This is a weird thing I've noticed of friends who I now consider as lost to an abyss of work-is-life obsession.

I get that work and progress is enjoyable, and time seems valuable when you have a full time job but it's quiet sad to see people disappear into workaholicism.

I stopped one of my hobbies abruptly 3-4 months ago. I realized how quickly my value and purpose became interconnected with work. I think people end up in work-is-life rut because they don't have other things to occupy their time / brain when they are home so they tend to think about work all the time which makes them talk about work which makes them work and so on.

Just started back up with my old hobby and I feel almost immediately better about everything and I think its mainly because I have something else to focus time thinking about and my life feels less singular.

Try running 10kms. You'll feel better and think about stuff/work and solve bugs and lose weight and gain muscle all at the same time.

"I thought I would, of course, have a hippie friend, a nerd friend, a gothic friend, whatever, but over the years I learnt that the people I like talking to and the people whose company and conversations I enjoyed were almost exclusively a subset of the people I went to university (and later, graduate school) with."

I was having a large diversity of "friends" before university and I do now have only a narrow subset of people I went through the university that I'm still getting along with, but I think I'm looking at it very differently than you. I haven't had much of a choice before but to deal in an as much graceful manner I could with all that zoo before, and that become like a second nature to me. They called me a friend. It was an easy thing to do for me as well -- to confuse friendship with what I had. I don't think many of us realize how energy draining is the low-choice period of our younger lives. The change that happens in time in this regard is just a natural process.

Unfortunately, I seem to have had a similar experience. Perhaps it is bound to happen in this economy when a lot of people are struggling to find decent jobs on the one hand, and you have this group of people involved with Tech who are doing incredibly well...I've made the decision to always live with roommates not in the tech sector, and I made the mistake of revealing once how much I make. Instantly, my roommate's (and his friends') attitude changed after that. I've learned to never make that mistake again.

How did their attitudes change?

I am not him but in my case my friends and roommates say things like "You make enough to pay for this/that/whatever", "Why would you look for another job you make good money?" etc.

I do make good money for this area or compared to them but that doesn't mean I don't have to be responsible with it.

Reminds me of this poem, I think I read it first time on hacker news. https://allpoetry.com/Around-The-Corner

I wish I could know.. I went away to college... years away. It was hard to leave friends, but I knew I'd see and talk to them again someday. Two of my best friends, within weeks of talking to them, they passed away. Both incidents happened years apart, but both died exactly the same way. And both.. I had just recently gotten in touch with again... only to lose both just weeks afterwards.

Even sadder.. I had premonitions of "losing a best friend" and I did nothing to warn either of them, ignoring it like it was just a dream, when in reality, it was a vision.

But when I did speak to them, it was as if we picked up right where we left off. For the one friend, I hadn't spoken to him in over 4 years. The other friend? At least 6 years. I still call them my best friends because I grew up with them. Life happened and it caused us to not talk as much anymore, but like I said: When they are your best friend.. you pick up right where you left off, no matter how many years apart you were.

Both losses caused me to write what was in my heart.

One Life, Old Man ... http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com/one-life-old-man/

The Loss of a Best Friend ... http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com/loss-best-friend/

Certainly a pain that no one should ever have to endure... it is as painful as losing a family member. I cannot call them up. I cannot change what happened.

> Certainly a pain that no one should ever have to endure

And yet... almost everyone does, at one point or another, endure that sort of pain.

Perhaps it's better to not have to go through that sort of pain in your youth, but when older and you have more perspective and experience, which may help to put the pain in to a context which may help alleviate it some?

> In a set of interviews he did in 1994 with middle-aged Americans about their friendships, Rawlins wrote that, “an almost tangible irony permeated these adults discussions of close or ‘real’ friendship.” They defined friendship as “being there” for each other, but reported that they rarely had time to spend with their most valued friends...

To what degree does friendship have to do with quantity of time spent, as "being there" suggests, versus quality of time spent?

Anecdotally, it seems that people can share deliberately quality time, as determined by some arbitrary and subjective metric, and remain fulfilling friends with each other. It also seems that many conflate quality of time with quantity because spending lots of time with someone (or someones) will yield some moments of that formative quality.

Does this observation break down after the social 20s, when people start families and move away? Have you found that raw amount of time spent with someone matters more or less as you grow older?

I think its a case-by-case thing. I have friends I hang out with all the time and yet I would never expect to e.g. take me to the ER room at 3am in the morning. And others who I see once a month and can reliably expect them to. At some point, you have a fuzzy mental ranking of all your relationships along certain attributes. So the first friend ranks high on "fun" but low on "dependable", while for the second one it is opposite.

As someone who recently needed such assistance, you might be surprised by who will gladly render that support when you actually need it.

Honestly, I was really surprised how little of it is new knowledge.

That's not criticism, but maybe the realization that there isn't much more knowledge to gain about friendships, if science knows exactly the same stuff as someone who is in a totally different department.

I think maybe it becomes interesting when combined with other relationships like colleagues. If you spend the prime time of your day with someone for 10 years, you also expect them to be dependable to some degree. However in a mostly formal relationship people can get quite surprised about how little they actually can count on their coworkers when sh*t hits the fan. And at the same time many people may spend more time, energy and money into their coworkers than into their dependable friends.

I've read that "friends are the new families", taking on roles that were traditionally reserved for families such as lending money or sharing the burdens of childcare.

In which area of this planet? I wish friends and I would support each other in final struggles, but it's a huge taboo in my country in central Europe.

Living Australia, I had seen money change owners among friends literally dozens of times. Not huge sums ($500-$3,000), but big enough to matter in mid-20s. It felt normal at the time, though in retrospect I can see that most of our families were poor and we had nowhere else to turn save for other young professionals. I'm not sure if that was due to co-dependence or friendship, nor if there is much difference between the two.

"a huge taboo in my country in central Europe" ... I wonder which country that is. I'm Czech, currently spending lots of time in Poland, acquianted with Slovak and Hungarian culture, and haven't seen this being a "huge taboo".

For me Central Europe is Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourgh, Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Austria, and maybe I may add Italy or Denmark. All the countries you mention I would call Eastern Europe, and from my Eastern European friends I hear the same opennness about money and friends.

Just out of curiousity. If you call these countries Central Europe, what's Eastern Europe for you? (I'm aware that there's more than one truth to most of these vague terms)

Those countries are conventionally considered part of Western Europe in countries such as the US, France and the UK

At least the German speaking countries explicitly call themselves Zentraleuropa (Central Europe) in German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa

I thought "central Europe" was mostly a label used in some post-communistic countries to feel less Eastern.

This "central Europe" thing is very funny indeed. I've lived in the Netherlands - they think of themselves as "Western Europe". In the UK everyone knows Europe is split into West and East by the Iron curtain.

For me as a Czech, Eastern Europe is everything East of Slovakia - Ukraine, Romania, Belarus. But try asking a Romanian - they'll tell you Romania is Central Europe! When you ask them what is Eastern Europe then, you'll learn it's Ukraine and Russia.

The thing is, Europe is has a lot of countries. Except for the Eastern part, where Russia covers 1/3 of the continent. Geographically it would make sense to consider Romania as a part of Central Europe, however culturally or geopolitically few Romanians would disagree that Romania is part of Eastern Europe. Even our manuals say that Romania is part of South-Eastern Europe ;)

Ah and in my circles Russia, despite maybe even publicly being considered European (is it?) is considered Asian. There even the political distinctions are completely ignored it seems.

Hehe, I'm quite sure though, that none of my Shanghai friends would consider themselves Central European, at least.

In no way shape or form are Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark or even Italy considered Central Europe.

You could maybe consider them the Central Europe of Western Europe, if you want to stretch some definitions :)

Central Europe is basically Germany, Poland and the former Habsburg Empire.

Really, never heard that before. In my circles even part of Germany is secretly considered Eastern Europe. Maybe it's more political than geographical. Don't know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_midpoint_of_Europ...

(Europe != European Union)

I wouldn't call it vague. East border of Europe is Ural mountains. I'd say Czech or Poland are in the center. Check the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

From India here, lending money to friends in times of urgency is quite common and is not considered as a taboo. In fact, some of my friends jumped to help me in need. Also I feel it considerably strengthens the friendship.

Is it really that common for people in India to live so close to the edge without savings that they regularly need help?

I know my friends and I (in the US) all have buffers of at minimum a few months of expenses. I guess it's not inconceivable that someone might have an emergency that requires more, but that would end up being a rather substantial of money. In my friend circle, I've never heard of someone borrowing money.

That honestly surprises me. I cannot say the same for people in Australia, a similar culture to the US. I think you might be surprised how many people outside of your friendship circle are actually living paycheck to paycheck.

It is a smart thing to try and have though.

Seems you are not much aware of outside the relatively well off friends' circle. Here is how precarious financial conditions for lot of americans is [1].

Key Quote: "47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all."

On the other hand in India it would be very obvious to borrow money considering around 80% of population live on couple of dollars a day.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secr...

It may help to remember that the average yearly wage in India is about $3000[1].

[1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-annual-salary-in-I...

I realize there are income differences, but I don't think it's terribly relevant. Even if I have low income (and concomitant low expenses), then my choice is to save money consistently when times are good and then spend extra money during some time period; or I can not maintain any savings, spend extra during some emergency by borrowing money, and then spend less afterwards to put money toward my incurred debt. Both of these financial life plans earn and spend the same amount of money, but one of these plans seems much more stressful than the other. None of the preceding is at all related to the amount of income or spending, only the timing.

Income differences are terribly relevant. How could you think otherwise? If you make more, fewer times will be emergencies. They will just be normal events.

It's certainly true that making more money will lead to an easier life (otherwise what would be the point?), but I don't think you're addressing my central argument.

Whether someone saves money prior to an emergency and then spends their savings, or they borrow for the emergency and slowly pay it back over time, the person still earns and spends identical amounts of money. The difference is the ordering of events. No matter how poor the person, if he or she is capable of repaying loans after the fact, then he or she is capable of saving money before the fact.

I've of course read the statistics that 30-50% of Americans couldn't handle an unexpected expense of some moderate magnitude, but I admit I don't really understand the psychology behind it. You're going to get to spend all the money you earn in your life either way. Why not time it to maximize happiness and/or reduce stress?

Some other commenters have correctly guessed that my income is higher than the median and for some reason think that this is a reason why I can't or shouldn't have an opinion on the matter. But this wasn't always the case. All through my twenties I was poor, but even still I always strived to have 6 months of expenses in a savings account. The only times I didn't have 6 months of expenses in cash were the times I had emergencies or a couple times I bought a cheap used car with cash.

No, they are not. What is important is how much you can buy using your average salary. Buying power is important. And the prices in India are much cheaper.

You and your friends are probably earning (a lot) more than the US median income ;)

I'm retired, so unlikely.

Then you're probably not paying rent due to owning something.

Or maybe you live a very frugal life, kudos to you, not everybody can do it (I'm myself in the frugal camp, but I don't think it's for everybody out there).

> Or maybe you live a very frugal life

It's this one.

You have to remember that India culture and western culture are so different that you can't compare them whatsoever. The meaning of friend is completely different there. People behave differently to friends and to strangers alike.

(edited typo)

There's a reason giving nontrivial loans to friends is taboo.

I've only had a few friends come to me for $500+ loans. All had already hit their family up for as much money as they could, maxed out their credit cards and overdraft, and were behind on their rent. Needless to say, I didn't think they would pay me back - or that my money would fix their financial troubles.

To be fair though, there is a difference b/w helping a friend in need of liquid capital (e.g down payment on a car) and lending money to a chronically financially irresponsible person.

We live in Germany (Berlin) & received (and will render if needed) amazing support from friends at times of need.

Then my first guess is you're expats in Berlin? ;-)

Yes but a lot of the people who helped us are Germans.

Yup, Germans give happily money to other people. But Germans don't like to ask for this.

Me and my closest friends (about 4 or 5 people) do all the time. Never had an issue.

There are a lot of 'mates' that I wouldn't lend a penny to though.

I don't know about the last part since I haven't reached that stage, but I absolutely agree with this. And this perhaps holds more true when the generational gap is too much. e.g. young people with different ideologies from their parents tend to place a lot more emphasis on their friendships than their familial ties.

Ultimately though, its all about what works best. Friendships and family is great only when the relationships are open-minded, non-judgemental, share understanding and such. It is much easier for me to express my happiness and frustrations to my friends than to my mother. But I do have friends who will talk to their parents every day and that seems to work fine for them.

Personally, I don't think it is inherently bad that this happens. Relying exclusively on familial and patrimonial ties for socializing is incredibly limiting.

Fascinating and particularly relevant to my recent life experience. I wrote earlier this year about the realisation that friendship changes, people move on.

https://reillysontour.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/away-we-go.html

Upon reflection I think that's ok. You just have to realise that's how life goes. Accept it. Embrace it. Make the best of it.

You can't really change it. But, as long as you're at peace with that, well it's fine. C'est la vie

...Which is why it's important to get in as much as you can while you're young. Unfortunately, not everyone has the foresight to socialize at that age.

3 month = 0.25 years; 0,25 years / 10 years = 1/40 :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com