Only if your best relationships are with people you met in high school.
My best relationships right now are with my wife and my close friends in the same city as I live in. I see them a lot more than I see people from high school (which is never).
> Only if your best relationships are with people you met in high school.
Or, as in this case, with one's parents and siblings. Which seems reasonable to me: as much as I like the folks I went to high school & college with, my parents and brothers are the people I'm closest too. No doubt were I married my wife would be an exception … but at my age I've accepted that will never happen.
but at my age I've accepted that will never happen.
Being totally judgmental: As a hack, why not try and think differently about this for 2016 as in "now I am at the right age and ready to find a companion."
You don't know how old the GP is. He did say, "...at my age..." He could be 60+, in which case the likelihood of him finding a really great partner really isn't very high, unfortunately. Also he doesn't say, but kinda implies that he's always been single. Usually, people like that never get married. It's sad, but true.
Remember, as you get older, you get more set in your ways usually, so it's harder to find compatible people. It's easier when you're in your early 20s and your personalities are still developing: you can "mold into" each other.
Obviously, when you "gave up" you must have been rather young for that to have been over 30 years ago, and for kids to have resulted from it. Either that, or you're in your 90s (and your wife is several decades younger than you), or you're a vampire or something.
I was late 29 when I gave up looking. Had a date with my future wife on my 30th birthday. Married at 31 (almost 32) and kids significantly later. So I'm 62 and have a 23 year old and an 18 year old.
The author makes no mention of friends. The 90% figure comes from the frequency with which he currently sees his parents and sisters.
The title is link-bait-y, but I think there's actually some substance there: by 30, you've seen 90% of the days you'll spend in person with siblings and parents.
Articles like these make it seem really hard to avoid a scarcity mindset. I get desperate, clingy toward people and experiences since every advice columnist says "life is short!" and this may be my last chance at happiness. But meanwhile you're supposed to think otherwise with a feeling of abundance, even if that doesn't reflect reality.
I take it as a caution to continue making relationships with new people. I was involved in Scouting for 20 years, and never stopped meeting people. I now know the kids of some Scouts I first met!
the problem with clinginess is it encroaches on other peoples' feelings of abundance. that's why it's so unattractive.
the clinginess fades as you get older, after you realize most people (including yourself) are kind of "meh", and if feelings aren't reciprocated/mutual, you're running a fool's errand and wasting valuable mental energy and time (the specific resource you were so concerned about in the first place).
Conversely, articles like this remind me I'm just a dust in the wind that exists for a speck of time; a few less friends here or few more books there mean nothing in the grand scheme of things, so don't sweat it. I'm repelled and paralysed by the thought of death as much as the average guy but "fear of missing out" is not among the reasons.
This year I moved from Ohio (where I've lived all my life), where my parents and younger brother (1.5 years younger, we are very close when we were small) lived about a half hour from me, but I typically only saw them once a month or so, as my parents and younger brother are very busy and I have four children, which makes going out complicated.
Now I'm living in California, a similar distance from my older brother (10y older) who moved away when I was still in middle school. We now see each other twice a week, and my kids now have a real relationship with their cousins and my brother and his wife.
This article really made me think; I'm not super sure what my point is exactly, but thinking about things this way can be useful.
I think it is possible to say we have ongoing relationships with people we never see or talk to...even with the dead. Depends how intensely the person affected us.
Sometimes actually meeting someone again diminishes the quality of my relationship with them.
Ever since I've co founded a startup, I've been meeting ppl I've never thought I would ever meet. My pre-startup era relationships are just regular ppl who have 9-5 jobs. I am def not through 90% of my BEST relationships..hell probably not even at 5%. I've got a lot more to meet.
This article is based on if you were going to live until 90, meaning after 30 ur basically fucked..while it may be more true, I still think it's way too early. Especially if the target demographic is ppl who browse HN
I've lived outside the US for four years. I move about every two years. I have amazing friends from all around the world and I work hard to keep up with then; even meet up with them on other sides of the planet.
Honestly, I think I'm on the better end of the quality vs quantity agreement (plus my sister and I never really got along either).
The fact that the author is 34 and the notion that future relationships with children weren't even mentioned is a fairly telling comment on the evolution of society.
Adults are quick to write off that kids are not part of the "real world": e.g. "When you graduate school and enter the real world, (insert something about responsibilities or work)."
I'm sure it is a combination of school, parenting, and distracting technology (iPads given to 5 year olds), among other factors, that marginalize the youth into a different world in which adults cannot interact with them, and the prospect of having a meaningful discussion with a young person is out the window.
There is also the point that the fact that the adults are writing off the children means that they are less likely to start/join a meaningful discussion with them.
I have had the joy of meeting and having meaningful and deep (Mostly philosophical) conversations with many young people (Of the age ranges of 6 -> 16), and I haven't found them to be in a 'different world' at all.
Perhaps it is lack of control of environments, and lack of adults that treat them like actual people, that produces children that are marginalized and 'in a different world'?
It is a fairly telling comment on the evolution of the author. Unless you're fond of generalizing from a sample set of 1, it gives you virtually no information on the evolution of society.
Even if you have children, you won't see them that much after their first 18 years, for the same reasons the author doesn't see his parents much.
And you certainly wont be seeing your grand-children, nephews and nieces as much as you saw your parents and siblings in the first 20 years of your life.
Except if you live in the same small town, nearby houses, etc. Heck, between school, game consoles, smartphones and whatever will be out by then, good luck seeing much of your 12 year olds and older too...
Some of my favorite people I first met by moving far away from those I loved :|
There are also lot of sad things. There was a moment of time someone picked you up and then put you down for the last time.
Many of the things have already ended. I wish the article touched on at least 1 thing that may still have 100% left and some things that have 0% left as well for some contrasting.
This article shows zero understanding of the relationships one has with their spouse and children. Those grow and build over time, and are the people you really will spend your time with in your elder years. Thinking of them, someone who is only 30 has possibly not yet even met the people you will spend the rest of your life with. There is far more to come.
Many (most?) people will divorce their first spouses and some people will never have children.
I don't disagree with your point that the article is overly simplistic with relationships (presumably because it is told from the POV of a person who is unmarried with no kids) but it also is more complicated than just assuming everyone will get married, stay married and have kids.
Your point is well taken, but divorce rates are dropping, so while we aren't living in the world of "Leave it to Beaver", neither are we in the lousy marriage climate of the 80s.
The other ugly factor is that the rate of single-parent-dom has increased enormously. So tons of kids are growing up in households with only one adult, are "latchkey kids", and aren't seeing any role models for what loving adult relationships should look like. This does not bode well for the future.
Again, this is missing the point of the article completely. Even if you do see your spouse everyday, that doesn't change the fact that you'll have seen the most of your friends, parents etc by the time you're 30 or so, unless you happen to live right next to each other...
>This article shows zero understanding of the relationships one has with their spouse and children. Those grow and build over time, and are the people you really will spend your time with in your elder years.
Zero understanding? What's there to understand? The article isn't set to examine the quality of human relationships, or their intricasies, just their quantity over time.
It's also obvious, at least for spousal relationships, that those wont slow down over time, you'll continue to see your spouse everyday -- so it's clearly a relation outside of the scope of the article, which is relations were "time together" diminishes with age.
As for the children, while you'll continue seeing them everyday for a couple of decades after having them, after they're around 18 you'll have seen the most of them you'll ever will, even if you're only 40 and have 40+ years ahead of you. And that's for the same reasons mentioned in the article. Especially if they move to another town/state, but even if not.
The more I understand of life and myself the more meaningful my relationships become. So getting older is a blessing in that regard, not a disadvantage.
I find the article too subjective. After 30 I am finally able (financially) to travel around and meet interesting people, travelling increases probability of meeting more people and forming interesting relationships.
Am I the only one who finds this bit of social conditioning (relationships with other people) as hugely overblown in terms of what's important in life?
Only in a culture that's so far fallen into degeneracy could something as tripe as that be considered (near or THE) ultimate purpose of life?
What about technology, scientific progress, our guided evolution as a species and so on?
We're far too obsessed about "relationships" with other walking-dead sacks of meat instead of what really matters, our legacy and the future. Which is why we find ourselves in this sad state of affairs today.
Endlessly bombarded and distracted by cheap entertainment (social networking, sex, porn, consumerism, money) and all too happy to leave the important bits in the hands of who exactly? People who have turned academia into a filthy whore that is constantly being pimped out to the highest bidder.
We have become the plebeians while mega corporations and elite government groups are free to write history and dictate how we will evolve.
I'm not saying we should live life as automatons, but this article is the perfect example of someone who's completely missing the picture. It would be great if we had a stabilizing factor to counteract this sort of bullshit but alas it's pretty much non-existent these days.
Nonsense. If you don't like relationships that's fine, but calling humans "walking dead sacks of meat" is just misanthropic rhetoric. Talk about this being a particularly "degenerate age" is typical of cults. Most people find social life to be a crucial source of meaning and enjoyment, and view technology as a means to that end. If you have another set of preferences again that's alright but why frame it as everyone else being wrong and call a basic facet of human existence "tripe"?
Because I'm not taking anything for granted. I don't see wasting my time playing cards with friends from highschool as being a basic facet of human existence.
Or spending unnecessary time with my parents.
Or moving back to the city I was born in order to pursue that, instead of living in a city where I can make the biggest difference.
My post simply posits the question of re-examining what we've been indoctrinated with. Look at any ancient advanced civilization and you'll see that during their ascension they were not operating with "social life" high up in their list of priorities in life. It was only when same civilizations came crashing down that "relationships" and social-obsession increased a lot in perceived importance.
Disagree. Civilization exists because of social impulses built into the human animal. The ascension of any civilization was fueled by institutions, cultural norms, guilds and churches and 100 kinds of socialization.
I use the word social in a very specific, narrow way, as I have explained.
Institutions, guilds and churches have nothing to do with "relationships" as exhibited in the article OP linked to,
since they are explicitly furthering the same goals I talked about as being of paramount importance.
Do you understand the meaning of 'relationship'? You can't be a member of an intimate social construct without one. Marriage, religion, even politics is all about that.
That wasn't an 'article' so much as an infographic. There was little philosophizing present. That's all been introduced in this thread.
"Look at any ancient advanced civilization and you'll see that during their ascension they were not operating with "social life" high up in their list of priorities in life. It was only when same civilizations came crashing down that these priorities became important"
This is as unscientific as it can get. From someone who supposedly care more about science than the rest of us, it presents you as someone with a delusion, not an ideology as you claim.
That's a huge claim. Do you have any anthropological or historical evidence to reference?
If you don't care about your parents or your high school buddies, that's not really an indictment of social life; maybe you just need new friends.
Even during the European enlightenment, companionship was hugely important to lots of thinkers. Some historians trace the whole era's intellectual climate to the rise of social
coffee shops.
That's not the same as playing cards with high school buddies but social life is vast and wide. This right here is social life, indeed you're complaining about social media on a social media site.
Most people put their relationships with others very high on their priority list of what is important in life. Sure, improving the world is also important, but dismissing relationships with others to achieve that goal is missing a very major point in life.
IMHO, at the end of the day, how we interact with fellow man matters incomparably more than things like "technology, scientific progress, our guided evolution as a species". If we discard the social component, we risk truly becoming the "walking-dead sacks of meat" that you mention.
No offense intended -- just my opinion. Happy New Year to you and the HN community!
> What about technology, scientific progress, our guided evolution as a species and so on?
A means to an end, that end being to enhance and prolong my relationships with those I love. Sensory pleasures are fine too, but nothing is remotely as important to me as my favorite walking sacks of meat.
> People who have turned academia into a filthy whore that is constantly being pimped out to the highest bidder.
Can you choose a better, less vulgar metaphor? It makes you look really bad, and there's nothing wrong with being a sex worker.
I'm not actually convinced by the author's point, but I do find the fact that you can comfortably fit all the days of one's life on a single page (or phone screen for that matter) to be rather depressing. I don't think it would have bothered me in the same way 20 years ago.
If you live every day in a meaningful way, does it really matter how many you have? I see a lot of people in my surroundings who are in a holding pattern waiting to start living the life they want and do the things they want to do. I get that the necessities of life often preclude achieving your goals, but I see a lot of ways in which those people could change their life to be more aligned with what they claim they want ... yet they don't, and I don't really understand why.
Don't see those remaining dots as a scarce resource, see them as an opportunity.
> I see a lot of ways in which those people could change their life to be more aligned with what they claim they want ... yet they don't, and I don't really understand why
I am this way, and I'm doing my best to work to realign my priorities to really make the most of the remaining dots. Force of habit makes it very easy to fall into a "holding pattern", and quite hard to break out of.
I appreciate the perspective of looking at those remaining dots as opportunity.
This article (I've read it before today) inspired me to start my current side project. It's an app that visualizes your google calendar. For instance, you can really understand how much parent-time you have left.
I propose that this model of time spent with people is too simplistic. Shared daily time, whether with parents or childhood friends, builds relationships in a way that is naturally resilient to later time apart. It's not impervious, of course – you have to commit to maintaining these relationships, but we have more channels through which to do this than ever before. Not seeing a family member for a few months is an entirely different thing from not communicating with them for a few months.
I've found keeping certain people I love at arms length by interacting somewhat infrequently actually makes an otherwise unbearable relationship great. Somewhat like living on the ocean or in the mountains one slowly loses the appreciation of what once was spectacular to the unseen eye.
Take with that the loss of any new gains by doing something else with your time and you will find none of the salient points have much value.
I don't like his first conclusion. I don't want to live where I grew up - I don't want to stagnate in my rural hometown. Playing it safe by staying near your family and high school friends means you take fewer chances, and you get fewer changes to make new relationships.
Is somebody really trying to quantify meaningful, long-term human relationships?
I kind of thought almost by definition that these things were more nuanced than that. Some of the thing that gives them so much meaning over the long run, in my opinion, is the variability in these relationships. Kids making good with their parents, old friends putting past qualms behind them, neighbors finally taking the time to talk to one another, etc.
The article is plain math. Their experience is irrelevant.
Unless you happen to live in a nearby house with your parents/siblings, or are able to commute every week to where they live, you're in the category the author describes, and you have seen the most you'll ever seen them by your thirties.
There no workarounds around this. Either you live nearby and you have the opportunity to see them often, or you have the most days spend with them behind you.
75 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] threadMy best relationships right now are with my wife and my close friends in the same city as I live in. I see them a lot more than I see people from high school (which is never).
Or, as in this case, with one's parents and siblings. Which seems reasonable to me: as much as I like the folks I went to high school & college with, my parents and brothers are the people I'm closest too. No doubt were I married my wife would be an exception … but at my age I've accepted that will never happen.
Being totally judgmental: As a hack, why not try and think differently about this for 2016 as in "now I am at the right age and ready to find a companion."
She is my best friend and after 30 years our relationship is getting stronger and stronger every year.
Next to my wife my kids are everything.
Remember, as you get older, you get more set in your ways usually, so it's harder to find compatible people. It's easier when you're in your early 20s and your personalities are still developing: you can "mold into" each other.
Obviously, when you "gave up" you must have been rather young for that to have been over 30 years ago, and for kids to have resulted from it. Either that, or you're in your 90s (and your wife is several decades younger than you), or you're a vampire or something.
The title is link-bait-y, but I think there's actually some substance there: by 30, you've seen 90% of the days you'll spend in person with siblings and parents.
the clinginess fades as you get older, after you realize most people (including yourself) are kind of "meh", and if feelings aren't reciprocated/mutual, you're running a fool's errand and wasting valuable mental energy and time (the specific resource you were so concerned about in the first place).
Now I'm living in California, a similar distance from my older brother (10y older) who moved away when I was still in middle school. We now see each other twice a week, and my kids now have a real relationship with their cousins and my brother and his wife.
This article really made me think; I'm not super sure what my point is exactly, but thinking about things this way can be useful.
Sometimes actually meeting someone again diminishes the quality of my relationship with them.
Google:"childhood amnesia"
Ever since I've co founded a startup, I've been meeting ppl I've never thought I would ever meet. My pre-startup era relationships are just regular ppl who have 9-5 jobs. I am def not through 90% of my BEST relationships..hell probably not even at 5%. I've got a lot more to meet.
This article is based on if you were going to live until 90, meaning after 30 ur basically fucked..while it may be more true, I still think it's way too early. Especially if the target demographic is ppl who browse HN
Honestly, I think I'm on the better end of the quality vs quantity agreement (plus my sister and I never really got along either).
Plenty of opportunity for meaningful relationships with younger generations.
I'm sure it is a combination of school, parenting, and distracting technology (iPads given to 5 year olds), among other factors, that marginalize the youth into a different world in which adults cannot interact with them, and the prospect of having a meaningful discussion with a young person is out the window.
I have had the joy of meeting and having meaningful and deep (Mostly philosophical) conversations with many young people (Of the age ranges of 6 -> 16), and I haven't found them to be in a 'different world' at all.
Perhaps it is lack of control of environments, and lack of adults that treat them like actual people, that produces children that are marginalized and 'in a different world'?
And you certainly wont be seeing your grand-children, nephews and nieces as much as you saw your parents and siblings in the first 20 years of your life.
Except if you live in the same small town, nearby houses, etc. Heck, between school, game consoles, smartphones and whatever will be out by then, good luck seeing much of your 12 year olds and older too...
There are also lot of sad things. There was a moment of time someone picked you up and then put you down for the last time.
Many of the things have already ended. I wish the article touched on at least 1 thing that may still have 100% left and some things that have 0% left as well for some contrasting.
I don't disagree with your point that the article is overly simplistic with relationships (presumably because it is told from the POV of a person who is unmarried with no kids) but it also is more complicated than just assuming everyone will get married, stay married and have kids.
Your point is well taken, but divorce rates are dropping, so while we aren't living in the world of "Leave it to Beaver", neither are we in the lousy marriage climate of the 80s.
The other comment was closer to the reasons I've read - later marriages, and/or people who do not marry in the first place.
I am 64 and in my experience interpersonal relationships keep getting better with age.
Zero understanding? What's there to understand? The article isn't set to examine the quality of human relationships, or their intricasies, just their quantity over time.
It's also obvious, at least for spousal relationships, that those wont slow down over time, you'll continue to see your spouse everyday -- so it's clearly a relation outside of the scope of the article, which is relations were "time together" diminishes with age.
As for the children, while you'll continue seeing them everyday for a couple of decades after having them, after they're around 18 you'll have seen the most of them you'll ever will, even if you're only 40 and have 40+ years ahead of you. And that's for the same reasons mentioned in the article. Especially if they move to another town/state, but even if not.
It does use the word "best" in the title.
Only in a culture that's so far fallen into degeneracy could something as tripe as that be considered (near or THE) ultimate purpose of life?
What about technology, scientific progress, our guided evolution as a species and so on?
We're far too obsessed about "relationships" with other walking-dead sacks of meat instead of what really matters, our legacy and the future. Which is why we find ourselves in this sad state of affairs today.
Endlessly bombarded and distracted by cheap entertainment (social networking, sex, porn, consumerism, money) and all too happy to leave the important bits in the hands of who exactly? People who have turned academia into a filthy whore that is constantly being pimped out to the highest bidder.
We have become the plebeians while mega corporations and elite government groups are free to write history and dictate how we will evolve.
I'm not saying we should live life as automatons, but this article is the perfect example of someone who's completely missing the picture. It would be great if we had a stabilizing factor to counteract this sort of bullshit but alas it's pretty much non-existent these days.
Or spending unnecessary time with my parents.
Or moving back to the city I was born in order to pursue that, instead of living in a city where I can make the biggest difference.
My post simply posits the question of re-examining what we've been indoctrinated with. Look at any ancient advanced civilization and you'll see that during their ascension they were not operating with "social life" high up in their list of priorities in life. It was only when same civilizations came crashing down that "relationships" and social-obsession increased a lot in perceived importance.
Institutions, guilds and churches have nothing to do with "relationships" as exhibited in the article OP linked to, since they are explicitly furthering the same goals I talked about as being of paramount importance.
Did you read the article?
That wasn't an 'article' so much as an infographic. There was little philosophizing present. That's all been introduced in this thread.
This is as unscientific as it can get. From someone who supposedly care more about science than the rest of us, it presents you as someone with a delusion, not an ideology as you claim.
If you don't care about your parents or your high school buddies, that's not really an indictment of social life; maybe you just need new friends.
Even during the European enlightenment, companionship was hugely important to lots of thinkers. Some historians trace the whole era's intellectual climate to the rise of social coffee shops.
That's not the same as playing cards with high school buddies but social life is vast and wide. This right here is social life, indeed you're complaining about social media on a social media site.
You seem to be taking that progress ('Towards what?' one is tempted to ask) has value in and of itself for granted.
Who is this legacy and future for? "Other walking-dead sacks of meat"? Our glorious transhuman descendants?
If you haven't experienced this, then it sounds like you need new friends.
No offense intended -- just my opinion. Happy New Year to you and the HN community!
A means to an end, that end being to enhance and prolong my relationships with those I love. Sensory pleasures are fine too, but nothing is remotely as important to me as my favorite walking sacks of meat.
> People who have turned academia into a filthy whore that is constantly being pimped out to the highest bidder.
Can you choose a better, less vulgar metaphor? It makes you look really bad, and there's nothing wrong with being a sex worker.
Don't see those remaining dots as a scarce resource, see them as an opportunity.
I am this way, and I'm doing my best to work to realign my priorities to really make the most of the remaining dots. Force of habit makes it very easy to fall into a "holding pattern", and quite hard to break out of.
I appreciate the perspective of looking at those remaining dots as opportunity.
Check out Tim's other articles, they are great.
Some of the favorites I have bookmarked:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/taming-mammoth-let-peoples-opi...
http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-u...
http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/11/life-is-picture-but-you-live-i...
I've found keeping certain people I love at arms length by interacting somewhat infrequently actually makes an otherwise unbearable relationship great. Somewhat like living on the ocean or in the mountains one slowly loses the appreciation of what once was spectacular to the unseen eye.
Take with that the loss of any new gains by doing something else with your time and you will find none of the salient points have much value.
I kind of thought almost by definition that these things were more nuanced than that. Some of the thing that gives them so much meaning over the long run, in my opinion, is the variability in these relationships. Kids making good with their parents, old friends putting past qualms behind them, neighbors finally taking the time to talk to one another, etc.
Unless you happen to live in a nearby house with your parents/siblings, or are able to commute every week to where they live, you're in the category the author describes, and you have seen the most you'll ever seen them by your thirties.
There no workarounds around this. Either you live nearby and you have the opportunity to see them often, or you have the most days spend with them behind you.