Twitter and Emptiness | Hacker News Reader

Twitter and Emptiness

tommaxwell.co

32 pointstommaxwell18 comments

Every time I read something like this, one particular article from Pointless Waste of Time (now Cracked) comes to my mind [1]. In his very cynical and somewhat angry way, David Wong describes why current iteration of social media interactions model doesn't work too well.

I am very much advising to read the whole article, but his main points are:

1. Text is not a good medium

2. Internet relationships are too sterile (this works both ways, your 'friends' are more sterile and your annoyances are filtered too easily)

3. In the end we feel worth less

[1] http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-...

I noticed this a lot last night at a nightclub. It was 11:30pm and people were on their smart phones smiling, it was for extended periods of time and they werent typing so almost definitely wasnt SMS messages. Even in a packed pub/club people find solitude.

Indeed. Well put.

A few months ago I quit Twitter after being a fairly heavy user (24k tweets in ~4yrs). I found one of my now-best IRL friends on Twitter, and a lot of other people I care/d about.

But more and more, it seemed to create an emptiness in me. Or more to the point, it brought the existing emptiness to the surface. There's a kind of desperation there, with everyone clamouring to be less lonely.

It also occupied too much of my thought process. I'd find myself subconsciously rephrasing thoughts into 140 character chunks. It was weird.

I'm still half tempted to go back, and try and to see if I can maintain the relationships without the downsides. I'm not too confident though.

The article makes me wonder what would make someone want to be around a social group "all the time, or even on a frequent basis".

When I was a child of course I wanted to hang around with my friends as much as possible: there were activities which necessitated being in the same place and they were so fun that there never seemed enough time for them. e.g. trading Star Wars cards and playing videogames (no XboxLive in those days, we had to use a 'multi-tap' and splitscreen!). We were all about the "all the time" and "frequent basis".

In adult life the equivalent seems to be those people who are always getting me out to play soccer or jam with them. Still activities that necessitate being in the same place and, for some, still activities that they love so much that there's virtually no such thing as spending 'too much time' on them.

But I don't think that's it. I think that when you meet up with the same people a lot, doing things the group broadly enjoys, whether you really like ALL of them as individuals or not, you build a camaraderie and that's what makes you come back and hang out "all the time" and "on a frequent basis".

It also applies to reddit.

Thanks, Doogie Howser.

"More than ever, I just wanted to be alone. Alone with my thoughts, alone with my computer, alone with my hobbies."

That sounds neither sad nor crazy or anything else people might tell you. It's quite normal. You maybe an introvert. Which is not what most people think it is.

This maybe the best article on the subject and most popular Atlantic Monthly article ever in terms of reader response: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/03/caring-f...

If that rings true, Welcome! You are far from alone. But we'll leave you alone, because we're the same way most of the time.

The way I define it these days: there are two types of people, those that "recharge" when they're with others for when they're alone (extroverts), and those that recharge when they're alone for when they're with others (introverts).

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

And some do both. To limited extents. As in, I can take this much recharge from people and this much from my alone time. It's really a matter of numbers, although the numbers are variable over time.

It varies person to person, but I find that some people are more "extroverted" in certain contexts and subjects which interest them, while others are more "introverted" in topics which don't hold their interests as much.

That is, IMO, the nature of introversion. It is a myth than introverts cannot or hate social situations. While everyone is different, I can speak only for myself. Small talk is the bane of existence. If one has nothing of essence to say, one should shut up. Otherwise, I will find a way to politely (or not) move away to something of interest.

I can hold a conversation about software development topic X for probably hours with plenty of energy, yet another conversation about the weather for two minutes drains me more than the former.

Couldn't agree more, I wish more people understood that aloneness doesn't mean sadness.

Me too. The problem is that extroverts are seen as the norm in most societies and since introverts, while usually contributing a lot more, are not as well viewed.

It's the high school popularity contest over and over again (especially in the US).

The tables have and are still changing however. Those extroverts need their Facebook, Twitter, whatever to survive.

We build those systems for them.

Who's in control now?

A bit presumptuous to suggest only introverts built those (or are capable of doing it)

Yes, it is, although most developers I've met I would say are introverts. Of course, that's just anecdotal. :)

"introverts, while usually contributing a lot more"

I need some factual data confirming that.

It's not a fact, it's my opinion. AFAIK, there is no definition of "introvert" or "extrovert" by which to divide people up. But you certainly don't build software standing and talking by the water cooler. That's my experience in the industry anyway. (Unless your build process is running while you stand and talk by the water cooler).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com