But if I want to be social why does it have to be people I didnt choose (i.e. co workers). Why can I WFH and socialise with my family/friends who I choose to be with. This is basically nothing to do with remote work and more about isolation.
That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes; it is 100% absolutely not true for "all people". You force me to interact with people I haven't chosen and there's a reasonably high probability that I'll subsequently choose to never interact with you again.[0]
> People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc.
My childhood was largely interaction with people I didn't choose[1] and, nope, I am absolutely not "more trusting" as a result.
> Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.
Citation needed for that one.
[0] There is a slim chance that the people I haven't chosen to interact with turn out to be reasonable decent people who I don't annoy and, more importantly, don't annoy me.
[1] A bunch of enforced house moves and a paucity of decent locals at each new house/school.
It's true for some of us introverted people as well, especially given that without some "reason" to get together, some of us might never interact with another person ever.
Sure, it's very easy to just "not feel like it" and stay home alone for a week at a time. But I've found that this is usually a reaction to being forced into some situation I don't particularly enjoy, like being compressed like a sardine twice a day on my way to a noisy office where I can't get anything done.
Working from home has actually made me much more social. I'm not drained and annoyed with people at the end of the workday, so I have energy to attend social activities. And, paradoxically, I'm even somewhat closer to people at work: now that I don't have to hear them all day long, I'm much more open to actually interacting with them when I do see them.
Current reality? Of course its more on the (social)media level. Significant proportions of the society in many countries seem to be living in alternate realities.
Real life echo chambers reinforce that as well if you only interact with people with similar lifestyles and worldviews.
> That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes
I would certainly see that’s the case for the overwhelming majority people (certainly not for everyone, though)
I'm not sure that's a truism. But we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Certainly the reverse (anti-echo chambers?) isn't true (which casts doubt on the original statement, for me): cf current US Republicans politicians who constantly interact with people that have different lifestyles and worldviews[0] without it having the slightest effect on their own worldview.
See also: anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and, extreme[1] religious people; all of whom cannot fail to mix with people of opposing views nearly every day without it changing their minds.
[0] As a small example, they mingle, have lunch, holiday, serve on committees with, etc., their Democrat colleagues all the time and yet not a shred of sanity rubs off on them.
[1] The more culty end of the spectrum; you know the ones.
I had a manager once go thorough one of my slack conversations and go line by line with how I could rephrase things with softer corporate jargon.
There's books on leadership, books like crucial conversations, books on managing up. The industry is obsessed with staff engineers now and there's on that and the differentiator in that role is getting people to do things.
If you really don't deal with that, let me know where I can send a resume I'd love to work with normal people.
The other completely normal expectation is that you will limit general chit chat, unless you are at unusually slacky workplace.
The first is enjoying the company of friends, while the second is a sociological process of internalizing cultural norms and appropriate behavior. How to behave in a group, how to approach a stranger, how to respond to someone who irritates you, etc.
I think the problem is that "being social with" some group isn't always as easy as it seems. Work and family are sort of two "default" groups that you automatically have access to (even if those groups may not always be fitting or rewarding).
For other social groups, you have to invest effort yourself, and that effort can be a lot: Finding communities in the first place, making contact, staying engaged, being socially fluent enough that others want to keep contact, etc etc.
That's a lot of work and also requires some skill (and even luck sometimes). Not everyone may be willing or able to put in that work.
(Specifically for work environments, I wonder if the "shared misery" aspect might also play a role: In a work environment, everyone knows that you're not here for fun - paradoxically, that might make some social interactions easier, because you can stop interacting without sending a negative message. In contrast, in voluntary activities, this is harder, because the basic expectation is that you want to be there. So talking about interactions that didn't work well socially might be harder.)
Maybe WFH allows folks to be more social with the people they want, but the abstract says that they socialise less overall, and are more socially isolated.
[citation needed]
Personally I enjoy working remotely and value time spent alone, but the data looks interesting
For some people, more social isolation is OK. For others, not so OK. YMMV .
I personally think that more socializing is better, if it's with people who I become better by being around. The tough part is knowing who's good for me, and how I can find them.
Preferring something doesn't mean it's good for you.