Facebook Is Making Us Miserable
blogs.hbr.org
blogs.hbr.org
........
I've noticed that by cutting out HN, I am happier and feel more positive about my business.
The key is to recognize the patterns (news, prog-lang, running business, scaling) in HN quickly before we become HN-addicts. Once you learn the patterns, HN becomes an average place (e.g.: re-hash of news).
It's cheaper and easier than ever to acquire a minimal sustaining reward-drip of novelty and even 'social' strokes via the free net. If savings, family, or public support are enough to keep someone fed, sheltered, and online… then perhaps their willingness to seek and accept a paid job has gone down.
Even if this is not the case for most unemployed, at the margin, there are likely to be some people who, without Facebook/Farmville/YouTube/WorldOfWarcraft/etc., would feel so bored and isolated they'd take on drudge work. Because these diversions are available, they don't.
What if 'gamification' and long-term unemployment/underemployment are connected?
http://thecashflowisking.com/2011/04/30/1000000-applicants-f...
If you want to talk about scarcity of jobs, look at JOLTS data or even traditional BLS timeseries.
Talking about how one particular employer rejected a lot of applicants tells you virtually nothing.
This is McDonalds. I'm having trouble thinking of employment for which more people are qualified if at least (1) able-bodied and (2) have at least a middle-school education. There is virtually nothing beyond those requirements that needs to be taken into consideration. If 938000 applicants were rejected, I can only assume that the majority of the rejections were for reasons other than lack of qualification.
When the boss says "someone pooped in the urinal", a McDonald's employee needs to say "yes sir" and go put on gloves. They also need to show up to work on time, take the 6AM shift when asked to, etc. Not all people are willing to do this.
According to many sociologists, a large number of lower class Americans lack conscientiousness. Go read this dead-tree book, for example (sorry, online sources are hard to find):
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-Marriage/...
The focus of the book is on why poor single women choose to become single mothers, but it gives a great look into the work habits of the lower classes as well.
Another guy came in, an overweight, sweaty, hillbilly-looking man in ratty jeans and a flannel shirt so worn out that there were obvious holes in the armpits, and I got the sense that hygiene was as important to him as fashion.
Then there's the women who come in with their son's resume (and occasionally even their sons) and try to get them a job.
I'd like to say 'For every talented, worthwhile individual we saw ten of these', but in three years of working there, I don't recall having spoken to a single person that made me think 'Hey, we should hire this guy', but I saw one person after another like this, people so unqualified for the job that I couldn't help but wonder if they really wanted to be employed at all, or if their parents or girlfriends were just tired of them lazing around the house and smoking pot and were forcing them to pretend to make an attempt.
My manager at EB used to manage a McDonald's, and he became one of those people who refuses to leave the drive-thru until he's gone through everything he ordered to make sure it's what he asked for. The reason? He's had to do hiring. The kids that are too blasted out of their minds to accomplish anything? The ones that stand there like idiots until you give them specific, detailed, step-by-step instructions which they immediately forget? The ones that don't actually understand what's happening, never really know how to do their jobs, and never take action on their own? Those, he said, were the best applicants he got. He hired these people because everyone else who applied was incapable of doing simple tasks even when instructed. These people were the cream of the crop.
So when McDonald's says they hired 6.2% of the people who applied to them, I also have a hard time believing them. I can't help but think, 'Really? That many? They must be desperate.'
The next level, for me anyway, is to focus on creating stuff and making a business that contributes to the person who agrees with the above statement, rather than working to create the crap that sustains those who don't.
How could such a perspective be integrated into gamification? In other words where the objective of the game is to make something that doesn't just rake in high profits and make one rich, but sustains and exemplifies an integrated, engaging existence on all levels?
The reason this hits the HBR crowd particularly hard is because it adds another, ubiquitous front to the battle of positive image. It used to be, you only had to be an assertive, bright, shining star when you were around people or talking on the phone. Then you could go home, pour yourself a belt of Glenlivet, and be miserable for a while to blow off steam. Now you have to keep it up ALL of the time, on a medium that's everywhere and never stops. It hits hard, particularly when you're a hard charger whose career depends on being perceived as relentlessly successful and upbeat.
Why?
Maybe the author was trying to avoid being labeled "too extreme". And granted, there are probably a few people out there who are dependent on it for their livelihood somehow. For everyone else, "quitting facebook" is a very realistic alternative. I've done it, so have many of my friends, and life goes on, with improved well being.
Once you realize you're being used and abused, it's time to move on.
Disclosure: I've always been nervous around parrots.
Back on topic: I've got my students using the Pomodoro Method in workshop time, no sms, fbook, anything while the timer is ticking.
Very helpful, and a nice compromise that stops short of "quitting facebook".
I'll stop my inflammatory rant because I'm going to assume you're a reasonably smart cookie because you're here. But really?
*for a 6 month personal experiment I deactivated my FB account and defriended, 2% of current friends per reactivation (17 times each under an hour) and could argue that I still have a top 5% social life.
Perhaps this is a sign that Path are onto something - for people like me at least. (I had been very skeptical before)
I have since recently gone back to Facebook and moved cities (countries) so I'm trying to use it just for events/to my advantage, if such a thing is possible.
Facebrick is only a necessity for attention whores, stalkers, pedophiles, and the insecure. Social networking is a fad, people. Just like pet rocks. Get over yourselves.
Downvote all you like. Don't care. Those with two brain cells to rub together will look back in five to ten years and try to remember why they thought Fartbook -- and the whole damned "social networking" phenominon -- was such a big deal.
For those that aren't old enough to remember how many times we've been through this cycle, do the research on MySpace, AOL... hell, the list is endless. Google "predecessors to Facebook", learn something about what's gone before, and for Christ's sake, get a life.
I don't care much for Facebook for my own personal enjoyment, but there's money to be made in Facebook. There are no doubt plenty of HN readers who can testify to this: huge amounts of money are being spent by companies around the world every day just to have tabs or full-blown Facebook apps developed for them. This amounts to a simple window (an iframe, really) within Facebook itself, but it is a gold mine for some of these companies, and they'll gladly pay to participate.
Again, this may all dry up within the next few years. But AOL and Myspace never got close to this kind of user base, so the fall may not be so swift.
Facebook is a social networking site. Others exist (though it is the biggest). That person who almost got hit because they weren't paying attention to their surroundings? Is that Facebook's fault, or is the person just easily distracted?
behold the power of [easy] dopamine.
so, I'll see you at the bar? ;)
1. make yourself belief that "the social network [Facebook] has taken over most aspects of our personal and professional lives, and is fast becoming the dominant communication platform of the future." and "that \"quitting\" Facebook altogether is unrealistic"
2. be miserable
Disclaimer: i've never had a Facebook or any other soc. network account (beyond Linkedin), so use the recipe at your own risk and YMMV.
Despite many good points, this is the part that reveals the article as Luddism. How, exactly, is video chat less intimate and rich than a phone call?
I know it is not fair entirely on my friends. As I am not entirely off it - and I consume but don't produce any thing over there. But I had to do something drastic as my work is more important, and I could not have waited for good social usage patterns to evolve. Mostly, I respond as a private message, if I see something which I feel compelled to comment on. Even if some friend posts on my wall, or on some occasions inquire about my silence, I try to do the same thing.
I am wondering if in Jan 2012, I should go back there or not...
PS: I do waste time on HN too. But I honestly feel, I gain something out of it as well. The quality of discussion is very high. And the kind of stuff posted is to my taste. I also use Google+ to discuss something with friends. The less number of people there actually helps, in a different way.
I wonder if he'd be still doing this if there was no Facebook.
The only reason I keep Facebook is because it's easy to contact people when I need to get a hold of someone that I met five years ago while traveling or something.
But even so, I'm beginning to question the logic behind having a million acquaintances "just in case"
My close friends are on Skype anyway, so FB seems to have less meaning with each passing day.
Same thing for the third point. Wether with Twitter or Facebook, we've had many real life impromptu meet ups we would never had before these tools because of status updates.
Social networks are tools. What matters is how you and your friends are using these. Of course, some friends only use these for self promotion or self gratification but you tend to notice and behaviors and filter out those updates that never lead to mean something.
On the other hand, if your life is miserable in the first place, I can see cases where Facebook could make your life more miserable. Again, it all depends on how your use it, your attitude and what you make of it.
It's easy to get depressed when you hear a startup like Hunch(seriously, eBay was a knight on a white horse, they got off easy) getting acquired for $80 million when you've worked your ass off on an idea or 2 for the last 5 years with little to show for it.
Sometimes it's better to just ignore positive news. It's hard to not get jealous.
From Wikipedia:
"When forced interactions exceed some threshold, social norms break down. Thus social density is considered more critical than geometric spatial density."
For me, it called attention to the fact that others were leading more interesting and dynamic lives than me. Yes, it made me more stressed. But it also brought me out of my comfort zone, and it led me to honestly ask why I wasn't getting more of what I wanted in life -- and to do something about it.
Facebook has my gratitude.
The world was full of ways to compare ourselves with others before social media came around. It isn't going away. Facebook is just the latest iteration, and also happens to be the most surface-level, un-holistic, and competitive channel yet conceived for this kind of behavior.
Once people get competitive about "happiness" and "self esteem", there's a way that they lose sight of the original "goal" in the attempt to outdo each other.
We should all explore the different available paths in life and strive to gain from others' perspective and experience, but the Facebook news feed is not a particularly good way to do it.
A lot of things strike me as vastly more surface-level and un-holistic: what kind of car you drive, how big your house is, how rich your neighbors are, how immaculate your lawn is, etc.
Regarding your final point, as it happens, a pretty sizable chunk of Facebook feed items tend to revolve things like the cars people drive, their house, and their farmville "lawn". At least that's how it was when I was using it. The more things change...
It sounds a bit like cocktail parties, neighborhood open houses, and so on.
Regardless of where it comes from, if one has concluded that such comparing and one-upmanship is not helpful and probably deleterious to well being, doesn't it make sense to opt out of things that encourage it?
> Cavemen had to work together for common goal (survival) hence people usually root for each other.
How is that any different today? People manifest survival in a totally different way today, and the human being either choses to use other people to survive (bartering) or survive on our own (live off the land).
If survival was an issue (fighting aliens for instance), we'd all be united in a way that would be unrecognizable today.
If I could figure out how to unfriend mass numbers easily, I'd do that instead.