Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

Entertainment has entered a tyranny of choice. I see it personally. I can watch nearly every show and movie that was ever created but I still flip through Netflix and RT endlessly, often times choosing not to watch anything. When I was younger I would just watch Seinfeld re-runs, with commercials and all. Am I more "entertained" today than I was when I was growing up? I'm not convinced.

The weirdest thing is I don't remember what I used to talk to my friends about when I was in high school. We didn't have much shared media to talk about (e.g. periodic TV shows people obsess about today). None of us so much picked up a newspaper at the time so current events were out. None of us had that many specific interests and the interests we had weren't shared. But somehow we spent hours talking about something. I wish I could be a fly on the wall of my prom table to just take in what was discussed.

View on HN

Not only entertainment suffers from a tyranny of choice, but also sex and relationships.

I heard in an interview that 50 years ago, people used to basically used to fall in love with heir neighbours and coworkers. Modern dating means browsing hundreds of other people in your city like they're products on a store shelf, always with the feeling there might be someone better just a couple swipes away.

And that lack of initial investment also makes it harder to bridge gaps, as would normally happen. In the context of OLD, it also puts emphasis on very specific strengths whereas others are not visible until meeting up or spending more time.

I see this explanation of the grind of online dating a lot, and I think it misses a more fundamental point: people fundamentally are pretty terrible at talking to strangers. Without conversational skills, a vast majority of online dating conversations simply fizzle out; often times simply due to disinterest, but I think almost always due to a lack of ability to hold a conversation and be both interesting and interested.

I find there's actually a lot of success to be had online dating, if you just know how to talk to people and learn about them! It seems like such a tautology but I think it really is that simple.

If it were just a matter of people being terrible at talking to strangers, you'd see the same issues that affect straight dating apps affect gay dating ones. They don't. (That also applies to the comment you're replying to).

Any explanation of the shittiness of straight dating apps has to center gender norms and roles.

I won't claim to speak for an entire community, but among my many queer friends this seems to be a common thru line! Of course like anything social there's never one clear explanation to any phenomenon.

Dating apps don't want you to have a successful relationship because then they lose you as a customer. They want you to at most have a short fling and come back. But having no success and scrolling endlessly is also fine by them.

I’m good at conversation and getting to know people and I had no success with online dating (as opposed to acceptable success with serendipitous dating). I always thought it was because it’s hard to integrate them into your life. They’ve come from out of nowhere, your friend circles don’t overlap, and your daily paths don’t cross. It’s extra effort to make that stuff happen after the fact, and even then it doesn’t feel real somehow. I suppose it depends on certain aspects of your personality, and what makes you feel close to people.

For every relationship I ever had, I had the opportunity to observe them, get to know them in person, maybe flirt, sometimes be friends. Sometimes for weeks. Sometimes for years, without any express intent. With online dating you’re both saying upfront that you’re evaluating each other as dating material, knowing only the fluff they wrote about themselves, or I take it with this generation only what they look like. All that will probably always feel too weird for me.

That's definitely true! It's so much easier to date in person from a logistical standpoint, and I think your comment also hints at what I think is kind of a paradox: in today's social spaces, being a kind and conscientious individual often means giving strangers their space, especially in places that used to be centers of socialization; gyms, coffee shops, parks etc. But by doing this, your opportunities for organic relationships dry up significantly, especially if you're not consistent about being in those spaces. So often times people feel forced into online dating as one of the few "sanctioned" spaces where it's still considered okay to flirt with strangers.

> So often times people feel forced into online dating as one of the few "sanctioned" spaces where it's still considered okay to flirt with strangers.

This has been the story of my life. I think there is a certain type of person - physical attractiveness is part of it, but charisma is even bigger – who can "get away with" flirting in unsanctioned spaces. It's a combination of being confident enough to break taboo, perceptive enough to read subtle interest cues, and being attractive enough for those interest cues to be non-zero.

I've tried to be that person from time to time, but it almost always breaks down on one of those axes, thus consigning most of my dating efforts to the soul-crushing grind of dating sites/apps.

See I think there are no "unsanctioned places" except for maybe a mosque or a funeral.

I think the real unwritten rule is, don't flirt with someone unless you're reasonably confident that they'd like to be flirted with. Some people might be able to figure that out in a matter of minutes, and others might need to get to know someone over the course of weeks or months in a casual group setting to figure it out.

I am sorry to say, but I think people who believe flirting is not allowed probably have not put in the effort to be able to read social cues, don't have an aptitude for it, or never learned to flirt in a non-offputting way.

This is because learning comes from failing and getting better. And young people can not do this easily because there is a lot of stigma associated with being the "creep" who flirts badly or when not wanted.

How much of that is real and how much of it is in young people's heads?

I think people have been dealing with rejection forever. Everyone has to start out awkward, and most people get over it.

Maybe that is one place where technology hurts us. Maybe 30 years ago, a young person would have tried and struck out, and then they would have gotten over it and tried again. Whereas maybe today people try and fail, and then they can retreat into video games and online communities, which offer a superficial sense of success or belonging without the same risk of direct rejection.

I think the important bit here that maybe I didn't make clear is that, at least in the context of men flirting with women, sometimes women are kind and polite without actually being comfortable (social conditioning), which many men incorrectly take as a sign of interest.

I agree that if you're charming and fun, flirting with strangers is pretty straightforward, and I especially agree with the point about getting to know people over a longer period of time before trying to gauge potential interest. Worst case, you get a cute friend!

> the context of men flirting with women, sometimes women are kind and polite without actually being comfortable (social conditioning), which many men incorrectly take as a sign of interest.

That's totally true! But that's one thing about flirting, it can be very light and non-committal.

If she is being extra friendly, smiling a lot, and giving you a little extra eye contact, you can do the same and see how she responds. If she gives you a positive feedback, take it one step farther. If she gives you negative feedback, just forget about it no harm done.

Maybe she was smiling at you in the first place because she also doesn't know if she wants to flirt with you and she's testing the waters.

I think where people get into trouble is they see someone go from 0 to 1, and they jump straight to step 7 which comes off as aggressive and off-putting.

Years ago my Dad wanted to try online dating and I strongly discouraged it.

"Dad, you're old (in his 60s), and short (5'5")"

You're going to be filtered out of everyone's automated search.

But my Dad is funny and can talk to anyone. I kept telling him, OkCupid isn't your scene! Meetup.com is!

Unfortunately, he didn't listen to me

> if you just know how to talk to people and learn about them!

dating is a two way street. If the other party just gives one line answers and does nothing to try to move a conversation forward, then it just becomes a job interview. You can't just magically get someone to open up when they refuse.

It doesn't help that, at least from a guy's perspective, it seems about 80% of women are really just trying to get instagram followers.

Dating also becomes a problem once you finally meet. You will never be more interesting than the smartphone in front of the other person. That person has the entire world in their hand. You can't possibly compete with TikTok or Tinder. You go to the restroom and the other person will go swiping on Tinder.

I really do believe humanity is doomed. Like really, actually, doomed. The internet is too much for our monkey brain.

> 80% of women are really just trying to get instagram followers.

These days they aren't even trying for of subscribers or ig followers, they just straight up put their cashapp in their bio. I have friends who have done that and made 100s of $ before their accounts got banned. And some didn't even get banned.

It's also true that a lot of people are on there but not realy to date. Like just to get compliments/validation. Not all girls either, just guys it doesn't work as well. Instead, a lot of us are on there just to look at/rate girls. At parties these days you will sometimes see a group of guys looking around somebody's phone "rating" girls on tinder.

> I heard in an interview that 50 years ago, people used to basically used to fall in love with heir neighbours and coworkers.

Dating coworkers is now forbidden in many companies, especially if there are differences in hierarchy. In some countries it becomes a possible legal liability for the one in the higher position.

Some large organizations that require traveling even forbid dating the “local population” when deployed abroad.

Podcasts changed the game for me on this. Now there are entire days where I never turn the TV on. A bonus is that I can get basic chores done while listening or workout. It really freed me from the couch potato routine. A bonus is that many of them are educational and released weekly, so "binge" isn't really an option. There are certainly "junk food" podcasts that I listen to but the ratio of informative to junk compared to video content(movies, tv shows, etc) is way better. Though I will say YouTube has some excellent channels for learning.

Podcasts are similar to books though, you have to dig through a bit of garbage to find one that works for you. Here's my list:

- crime in sports

- Linux unplugged

- software engineering radio

- the knowledge project

- coinsec

- persona

- ten percent happier

- quanta podcast

- physics world weekly

- ologies

- darknet diaries

- stuff you should know

- the joy of why

- fall of civilizations

- smartless

- money talks

- planet money

- small town murder

- offensive security

- the journal

- programming throwdown

- timesuck

- Conan O'Brien needs a friend

- philosophize this

- against the odds

- levar Burton reads (no longer running)

- curiosity daily

- science weekly

- future of journalism

- wtf

- broken record

- idea cast

- swindled

- malicious life

- views room

- behind the bastards

- the exchange

- stuff to blow your mind

And for the "junk" I listen to just about every comedian podcast that exists: Bill Burr, Bobby Lee, Chris destefano, Stavros!, Tom Segura, (this list goes on a while...)

So are you saying it isn't TV that has ruined your sex life, it's podcasts?

>sex life

What is this "sex life" you speak of? (haha).

On a serious note they helped me learn to be content with being alone or at least not worry about "looking" for it via dating apps, and I would say not playing that game (dating apps) is what is "ruining" my sex life (or lack of).

Savage Love really improved my wife's and my relationship (physical and otherwise). I highly recommend it, but if you're not familiar with Dan Savage, be prepared for some varsity-level discussions.

I too love podcasts but I don't think the educational ones necessarily teach me much. Listening is too passive, especially if you're doing other things. If I'm not following a book or paying close attention, I'll put the book down. But its easy with well produced podcasts and audio to just continue listening while zoning out. I've listened to hours on a subject but if you were to quiz me on that subject I would be clueless. I don't think the same would be true if I had spent hours reading a book on a topic.

For sure my retention is better with text on a page. I kept a journal for a while about what I learned that day and that worked somewhat well. For the computer ones it's really just a starting point to find things I wasn't even aware of and dive deeper.

For the same reason I don't do audio books. I tried listening in the car during low overhead highway driving and quickly realized my attention faded in and out too much.

Along the same lines, I also came to theorize that books that were written to be read don't make good audio candidates. Yes, doable. But I found lectures and speeches to be better suited for listening (as it was their original and intended medium).

Thanks for taking the time to put up that list

That a discussion of diminishing sexuality led to a discussion of podcasts tells us everything we need to know.

There are - of course - plenty of podcasts about sex, sexuality, sex therapy topics…

Talking it ain't doing it. That you think that those topics bridge that gap is also indicative of why people aren't fucking.

I disagree to the degree that a whole lot of people in the world are walking around without a lot of knowledge about their own sexuality. They often don’t even understand what their gas and brakes really are - which is often not even directly connected to sexual function (but that’s a topic for sex therapy).

That said, my gut impression is that people are less sociable and less socialized than we used to be. I believe we simply spend less time around other people, and we are less adept at building relationships. It’s easier to remain sexually, socially, financially, and resource independent from other people - so we do and sexual relationships become less frequent.

You are discussing others as generalizations, and my argument is that our tendency to attach ourselves to discussions of generalizations itself is the thing that intrudes as it is the absolute opposite of having sex. Fucking is an act that takes place entirely in the concrete present. Our ability to continuously dissociate into intangible abstractions has made us lose touch with our bodies. The discussion of podcasts and identities and all these other archetypes and mediums that divorce us from our physicality are ground zero of this loss.

Perhaps, but we are not operating in a pure vacuum of naturalism and some amount of relationship building typically precedes sex. We are not merely coupling on a grassy plain by natural raw instinct. That might be a loss - but culture, sexual identity, religion have commandeered the natural sexual energies of mankind since… just about as long as we can tell.

If you are fully immersed in your raw, human sexuality - that’s great. For many, sex and sexuality is more nuanced than mere fucking.

Not sure how this plays into the back and forth, but my reasons are pretty simple. People use apps to find partners now, and I don't want to be on the apps. Of course I still meet people, and of course I'll find a partner. It just won't be through the primary mediums used by most. To me a dating app profile feels like looking for a partner by standing naked in the middle of a stadium and having everyone in the audience hold up a sign to rate you. I'll persue the people I like that I meet, and it will take longer. And I'm okay with that. Podcasts have helped me rekindle a life of my own. I believe too much TV and too much movie can give people the same feelings as too much Facebook or TikTok. You see all these sitcoms and reality shows and people's highlights and these relationships and feel like you're lacking. But TV and movies are fake, and so is most of social media. Stepping into the world of podcasts let me keep the entertainment without the depression of "why not me!?". That's my 2 cents anyway.

[META] List posts this long shouldn't be allowed, or at the very least be for exceptional circumstances only. Gratuitous use of screen space that could have been served perfectly fine with commas.

there's a little [-] icon at the end of every comment header, that's for collapsing comments (and their children) that take up too much space

Thanks, I'm very aware of that.

It's basically a few pixels on mobile.

does your app let you export subscriptions? i’d love to plop an opml into overcast

Unfortunately no, I'm using Google podcasts. And after some searching I'm learning it's the most loathed of all podcast apps, haha.

Thanks for the list of podcasts. I will check these out. And yeah, I've generally steered away from podcasts because of all the garbage. Also, I tried listening to podcasts while I run on the weekends, thinking it would be a good use of time for about 2 hours. Not so. My brain completely shuts down when I run; it's difficult to stay engaged in anything, so listening to a podcast felt like extra effort.

> Stavros!

You can just say Cum Town ;)

I love my list of podcasts, but I can't help but worry that I use it as a crutch for not having a ton of friends in my life. I remember being devastated when one of my favorites kind of abruptly ended (luckily they were just leaving the company they were at to start their own thing). I'm not saying all podcasts cause the listeners to form parasocial relationships, but I've found that ends up being the appeal for a lot of shows. Maybe it's just me, but the substitution for real relationships seems to be a huge part of why podcasts have become so popular.

If you became that fly, you’d soon wish to be squashed rather than listen to adolescent chitchat.

Fair point...

> I can watch nearly every show and movie that was ever created

I think this is an illusion. When I check some films with awards (let's say "do the right thing", not a blockbuster but a well-known film) I cannot find them in any streaming service (maybe criterion collection). I can definitely think of tons of tv shows I cannot find on dvd, let alone on streaming platforms. Not even on torrent networks.

This idea that the internet has everything is fine for some topics (like programming), but I believe it does not apply to some contents, and films are one of them.

EDIT: grammar

I recently watched a movie called 'Super Dark Times', which happens to focus on some teenage boys in the 90s.

It makes me think that the prom table would be full of nonsense, expletives, and talking about women, but isn't that what you'd normally expect?

> I don't remember what I used to talk to my friends about when I was in high school.

Gossip, mostly. Talking about your peers, who said what, how terrible teachers are for making us actually do work, commenting on style or the lack thereof, etc. Also, while there were fewer TV series, they still existed. Star Trek, B5, Knight Rider, Airwolf, etc.

I've noticed the same thing. Honestly, as much as I hate ads, I've recently discovered Pluto TV on Google TV. It feels a lot like cable used to! You can pick from "channels" and you get what you get. There's no pausing, no rewinding, and your choices are limited to what's on.

I would have laughed if someone had told me that I'd be turning it on, but I frequently do. Basically whenever I'm not sure what to watch, I flip to that and throw on one of the channels.

I watch Pluto-TV for the exact same reason: it reminds me of old school cable-TV. I turn it on and "veg out", just like when I was a teenager. I tend to watch it before I go to sleep when I'm trying to shut down anyway.

The movie, The Big Short, was on heavy rotation about a year ago. Good movie. They have an entire channel dedicated to Narcos, so I'm basically fluent in Spanish now - well, "drug dealer Spanish", at least.

> It feels a lot like cable used to!

I had to stay once in an old hotel in a small town. It had an old CRT analog tv with analog cable. It brought back memories. Like the TV tuner changing channels really fast.

Fast channel surfing is something I hadn’t been able to do since switching to a digital tvs and digital cable about a decade ago.

My HS era was pre-Internet as well. My circle of friends talked about sports, and girls. And Star Wars every now and then, and then back to sports and girls. Every once in a while nuclear annihilation would come up (Reagan 80's baby!), but eventually existential dread would dissipate until it was time to talk about college.

I am genuinely unsure, and had to google it. Is RT supposed to be the abbreviation for Rotten Tomatoes?

I don’t know, but I’m guessing it’s not Russia Today where I associate the abbreviation…

Yes. A popular way to see what shows reviewers and audiences like most.

If you Google “rt <name of movie>” you will get the rating too.

Yes, should have made that clear. Don't know if its a common abbreviation but I guess not. мне жаль

Reply on news.ycombinator.com