Hacker News Reader

Comment by supakeen | Hacker News Reader

It's easy to point out that this is caused by 'the internet' or 'modern technology' replacing the need for human interaction. We feel less alone but are more selective about our friends, live in smaller echo chambers.

In meatspace there's this thing where you want people to like you if you meet them, possibly enforced by the fact that someone might punch you if you rile them up. On the internet we select our own groups and then with group dynamics we try to be the 'cool kid' which results in maybe racist in-jokes or maybe in radicalization.

I really have no idea how to even begin solving this and if this has to be solved at all. It seems everyone's stance is hardening and we're drawing starker 'us vs them' lines or just aren't interested in others' plights as we can just select the small subset of people that fit with our current mindset.

View on HN

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment:

Is there any hard data that proves that people are becoming increasingly tribal?

Perhaps the number of radicals is the same like it was 20 years ago, but the internet and social media now give those radicals a voice. Because of this it feels like we are becoming increasingly tribal, when in reality we're not.

Similar to how the crime rates are going down, but most folks think that it's getting worse.

For us who spend a large portion of our time on internet, it certainly feels like everything is crashing down.

The number of radicals might be the same, but the internet gives these existing radicals a much easier way to establish communities than before. As far as I know it's an accepted fact within social psychology that groupthink causes radicals to become more radical, which could suggest that even if the number of radicals is the same, these same radicals might become more extreme.

In the past without electronics there were multiple large groups radical enought to be violent, organize loud disturbing marches, attacked those organizing marches and so on.

I am not sure things were calmer back then.

I definitely doubt things were calmer in general, because as you say, there are a bunch of examples of the opposite. However, an interesting point is that the groups in question, in the past, were somewhat restricted to their geographical location, and were in many cases dependend on organized leadership. As I see it, these two points are less of a challenge now.

I believe there is data that shows that online interactions lead to more extreme opinion. You’re seeing this now with racist groups... it’s easy to talk about this stuff and absorb the propaganda in the privacy of your own home, while in public it’s harder to speak of it or interact with the true believers.

That makes sense to me as well, simply along the lines of the concept of "Skin in the game". With the internet, the amount of risk you take to "be yourself" is small to nil, where in the real world there can be immediate and large consequences to you and your family.

In meat space, where are the places to meet? Where are the weekly town celebrations, or the courtyard everyone retires to? Everything is locked up by money.

Starbucks is not locked up by money. On my recent trip to the US, I encountered quite a few (homeless) people in there who came to charge their phones and they got ice water for free.

Starbucks is a very interesting part of this.

It’s success in the 90’s and early 2000’s was largely due to it being a “third place” — the place where people would gather outside of home or the office. It was very social. Very much like the way the corner bar used to serve the same function in decades past.

But then Starbucks decided it didn’t want people hanging around in the stores so much, in order to make room for more merchandise and to increase churn. They were reconfigured to make people go in, spend their money, and then just go. Or worse — use the drive-thru.

I actually met the person responsible for the furniture at Starbucks stores. This was right about when the stores got rid of comfy, squishy chairs and went to those tall, spindly metal backless stools. I asked her how anyone was supposed to sit comfortably on those things for a long period of time. She didn’t have an answer, and then the corporate PR guy stepped in.

She was a small person of Asian descent and, IMO, had designed Starbucks’ furniture for herself and her circle, which fit nicely into Starbucks’ density goals. To me, it seemed like it never occurred to her that people of statistically average size, or even fat people, should be made comfortable in the stores.

If you were a frequent visitor of Starbucks in the 00’s, you’ll remember it was right about then that the coffee chain went from being a neighborhood fixture to just another corporate outpost.

>She was a small person of Asian descent and, IMO, had designed Starbucks’ furniture for herself and her circle, which fit nicely into Starbucks’ density goals. To me, it seemed like it never occurred to her that people of statistically average size, or even fat people, should be made comfortable in the stores.

Could you elaborate more on why you believe this? Seems a little out there to me.

Indeed. Also where are the times and opportunities to meet? Cities have become poorly walkable aka very hostile to pedestrian. The only encouraged social interaction is with shop/cafe' employees - and they are not allowed to have any meaningful conversation with customers.

The core issue IMO is resilience to rejection and the work required for friendships.

Not everyone wants to be your friend, and it's easier to learn that from the internet, not only because of hate, but even casual twitter dunks.

When you do find someone you click with, it's work on both sides, and if both sides don't put in some work, it deteriorates.

The easy way out is a lot of shallow interactions that require little work where no one really gets to know you. Rejection doesn't sting as much because you can just go change a username.

Personally I think this article gets it wrong: people are already radicalized and seem lonely because they don't find any other radicals to hang out with. People who turn to angry politics just to fill the shallow social interaction checkbox are probably a small percentage of lonely people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com