Hacker News Reader

Agree but with a different solution: the focus on partners is unsustainable and doesn't address a lot of the deeper rooted issues that caused their lack of socialization. It also creates a codependency, which can result in an unhealthy relationship or really devastating outcomes when the relationship ends. It basically "fixes" the problem for society but leaves individuals incredibly vulnerable.

Ideally, you would instead focus on getting them to join communities and groups. Which can be challenging, and it's also something the average person should do more. This will give them a proper support system to then take next steps on finding partners, and likely have better results from those attempts when their support system is greater than 1.

Younger people recognize this importance of community, they're joining discords they're going to meetups, they're desperately trying to connect with others but without a systemic encouragement of these groups and communities most of them struggle - the convenience of "everything online and text-based" is just too great.

Additionally, by focusing on communities over partners, you also help the average person which iirc tends to have a small friend group of around 3 people, and not at all the varied support groups we need as humans. I reckon also these friends aren't all that profound, but rather a coworker you don't mind biking with, a neighbor who likes the same sports you do, etc. This is likely also why polarization is increasing, if you don't have communities to turn to and talk things out/solve problems together, it's very easy to just start believing the most extreme takes online.

> Unironically get them partners

So how do you practically do that? Is there a state run harem for the young men you mention to get a partner? Maybe I just lack imagination but money to spend on outside activities seemed like an OK approach. What do you have in mind?

You don’t need to be that creative to think of ways to do this without getting into “owed sex” trap.

First thing I could think of in sixty seconds: State money can sponsor singles nights with a few free drinks for every person attending courtesy of the government. Pays for responsible security and all the appropriate safety and security.

That’s just a minute thinking, I’m sure a few hours or days work could do much better. And it’s infinitely better than just giving them money directly which will likely not drive the sort of interpersonal behaviour changes they hope to sponsor since money can go directly into the things these people are already doing with their time.

while weird at first, I am reminded on the agencies focused on matching people with jobs. It's a bit similar I think! Reminds me a bit of the movie "the lobster"

Threats another great idea that would be better at achieving their desired goals than just giving them individually money… heavy subsidies for relationship matchmaking services (with appropriate performance metrics and tracking of results) specifically excluding dating sites in order to foster face to face interactions.

It’s got a bias a little bit off the “isolated and not engaging” demographic they are aiming at since people who engage the services of these people tend to be trying to engage… but by heavily subsidising it they may be able to expand the audience for the services and get more of target demographic to make use of the subsidised services.

It's also not all that different from dating apps. We currently rely on an external third party to show us our matches, we just assume they're providing us with a complete picture of who is around so it feels less "invasive". Creating similar, but maybe more structured isn't all that far fetched.

Churches, especially culty ones, have been arranging social events for young adults for ages. It’s easier to expand by getting your membership to have children with each other than by recruiting.

Just because their motives are self centered doesn’t mean that they haven’t dialed in aspects of human nature that can be leveraged for a greater cause.

It's not just money - in the article it says "The measure also offers education, job and health support," and "It also includes an allowance for cultural experiences for teenagers."

Well, the first step would be to get both men and women disconnected from virtual stimuli like porn and social media. Satisfying ones sexual and emotional needs through the screen doesn't seem like a good thing if the goal is to make young men and women get together.

So you want to ban porn sites and outlaw Hackernews or what concrete examples do you have in mind for "disconnecting from virtual stimuli like porn and social media"

I did not say anything like that.

Then what are you saying? Give some specific examples.

It sure sounds like it.

I roll my eyes any time someone tries to scapegoat porn.

This is a very bad faith characterisation of the comment you're replying to.

Since 127 refuses to elaborate, what do you think they meant, that doesn't imply banning porn and hackernews?

It appears your idea is bias towards and directed more at men. You can't put the "porn genie" into the bottle, as VPN exists. And if they want to go beyond the screen, in South Korea, paying for sex is easy to do and find.

In regards to women, such stimuli is more diffuse, and even harder to disconnect. Women take in TV dramas, "light" sex fantasy books, sexually suggestive social media (that stays below a certain threshold), have a wider array of social networks and interactions, have easier access to sex toys (even innocent looking items), easier access to hidden or one off sexual encounters...

It's arguably not a matter that young men and women can't get together. It's more a matter of expectations, female hypergamy, materialism, social bullying, etc... Those young men are seeking to avoid being uncomfortable and social interactions they don't like or do well in. The overall mindset needs to change, to allow those men to interact with a greater choice of women and to do so more comfortably. Until then, they will just continue to socially withdrawal, VPN porn, or pay for play (including hidden as "massages" and "haircuts").

Smoking wasn't banned. It went away through awareness campaigns, higher taxes and banning it in restaurants. Things like that. Smokers didn't go to jail for smoking. Selling cigarettes wasn't banned.

Singapore has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Development_Network, although I'm not sure how successful hikikomori will be at these events...

Singapore's is pretty unsuccessful - back when it was called SDU, it was jokingly referenced as "Single, Desperate, and Ugly", and these were well educated women. I doubt hikikomori would place well.

here's your government issued BigTittyGirlfriendGPT, and a tenga and/or bad-dragon

This is the key question. "Get them partners" implies passivity on the part of the person who's being "got" a partner, and what about the person who's being "got"? This approach feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of human desire, and essentially a call for something akin to arranged marriages. I absolutely recognise the problem, but this seems like a terrible solution.

Throw $100K cash every 5 years to a woman who stays married to her partner. Or possibly increase it every 5 years she's married to the same partner. Throw in an extra $100K every 5 years per child until child is 20.

Suddenly, you'll see a lot of women wanting to get married, stay married and have children.

Most problems can be solved with money. Most whining is because old men don't want to spend money to solve the problem.

I do agree that incentivizing marriage, would likely do more. Though not sure in what way would be best. Helping to make women more comfortable with staying home and raising children, might increase birth rates, but to what extent is unknown.

It might already be too late, unless something wildly drastic is done. Materialism has taken a strong hold in many societies, where significant numbers of people rather live a certain lifestyle than be burdened with raising kids.

You also forgot that their women are unapologetically not interested in the average Korean man. Because of the insane requirements put on women who marry (take care of both sets of parents and husband), most are simply refusing to date or settle down.

Their nightclubs frequently ban foreigners, ostensibly due to "risk of crime or violence" but absolutely in practice because they know that foreigners do quite well, too well in most clubs.

90% of South Korean women have plastic surgery, but less than 5% of South Korean men do the same. Due to this, South Korean women now outclass South Korean men in attractiveness. The solution is simple; ban cosmetic surgery. Then there will be more average South Korean women to settle down with the average South Korean men.

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

The Wikipedia page appears to have been edited 1 day ago to say that 91% of women age 30-39 have had plastic surgery, though the cited source says 31%.

The source itself: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111220/south-korea-plas...

Not to mention that most "plastic" surgery in South Korea is the double eyelid surgery [1][2]

[1] https://med.stanford.edu/cosmeticsurgery/aestheticservices/f...

[2] https://uweb.berkeley.edu/2022/01/23/true-beauty-the-economi...

That remains a massive discrepancy.

This seems to define attraction between two people as some sort of "match how hot out of 10" game. I'd suggest that that's a overly simplistic understanding of how attraction and dating works.

One of the girls in my poly pod (I am both poly and lesbian), I'll call her 'Y', is South Korean and bisexual, and has repeatedly stated she'd rather die alone than to be stuck with an average Korean man. It seems like family pressure is the only reason left for South Korean women to give into the absolute shit deal that marriage is for them.

I would reword the suggestion a bit.

"Give them a supportive social circle where making small failures are acceptable"

I was a shut-in for a few years and lack of money is one of the biggest obstacles to get out of that situation. You want to take a welding class? You need money. You want to take an online class? You need money. Keeping friends and getting a partner without money is extremely hard as you need money to do most social things.

Despite that, I think a straight up cash allowance is the wrong approach. Only thing that helped me was getting a job so maybe some kind of jobs program would be better, in my opinion. It will help some people improve their lives so if a similar program were to be implemented where I live I wouldn't oppose but it will allow others to dig their roots even deeper into misery.

There are many accounts of people roughly defined as “NEET” having what's roughly defined as “relationships”. It doesn't change much, and doesn't automatically make life easier.

See, for example, this recent DIY audiovisual feast (with DIY machine translation that is good enough): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIh6HjUrm9Q

You can't simply "give them partners", because what's fueling many of the things that you described at the top is materialism, female hypergamy, cultural/social pressures, inbreeding/purity ideology (pure blood), xenophobia, etc...

Presenting a female partner won't take away her expectations (including expensive wedding fantasies and high class lifestyle), her family's expectations, expected social duties, etc...

And I will shed light on the elephant in the room, that many who have not lived in South Korea don't know about, but paying for sex is cheap and easy to find everywhere. Many such men would rather pay for sex, than be burdened with all the duties and expectations that a female partner would bring.

A significant percentage of South Korea's problem is their own xenophobia and Korean ethnic nationalism (pure blood ideology). Which goes to extremes, and is even bias against other Asians, who don't look Korean enough or are proven not to have Korean blood. Where with other countries, they can offset low birth rates, marriage partners, and their tax base with immigration, South Korea won't.

Consequently, until the mind set changes, South Korea is steadily heading towards massive population reduction. Until only a small number of the "purest" are left, and a significant number like it that way.

They don't really go into the terms of the allowance, but if use it or lose it encouraged some just to go to the movies and eat at a cafeteria a few times a week from now on, it would probably have a better effect for a lot less money than most of the attempts at social programs I have seen.

Whether it is used is probably also a helpful metric.

IMO this will lead to an increase in hikikomori. Wait for it.

> IMO as tech people we are partly to blame for this.

This was happening way before tech was taking off. This trend was already booming in the 1990s. Robert Putnam wrote his book about social capital decline before the year 2000 - way before the social media and tech explosion.

Tech is hardly the cause. Capitalism is to blame. Capitalism. Say it with me, capitalism. The further we atomize people - the more capitalism thrives. (No unions, no broader labor movements, etc.)

Tech is speeding the atomization, no question.

You seem to be knowing a thing or two about this. Do you see movements among those men similar to what's happening in western societies with "incel" movements and the like, i.e. radicalization online?