Protip you're a close friend when the positive emotional result for them after 20 minutes is the same regardless of how they answered. A bigger reason to say "fine" is they are depressive and dont trust themselves with their emotion.
Unfortunately, "I'm fine" is a strongly ingrained default reaction in some circles. I feel this largely depends on culture (e.g. the British 'stiff upper lip' ideal) and negative media influence (personally, I'm thinking of the misguided idea of 'real men don't cry').
Lately I've become more and more convinced that indeed, modern society sucks, or at the very least that I, and people like me, am not well equipped to flourish in it. I'm sure some people are though, but I suspect they are becoming the minority.
Few days ago I also read Ted Kaczynski's essay[1], and it's hard for me not to acknowledge how right he is on many points.
However, I do believe it is possible to survive all this, and that stoicism is a way. Kaczynski wrote for instance :
"It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that
threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease
stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one’s fault, unless it
is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern
individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are
IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable
to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry."
Is it not possible for the modern man to accept the drawbacks of modern life, including loneliness, just as stoically as the primitive man was accepting adversity and death? Whether adversity is man-made or "natural" should not matter for the individual. From the stoic point of view, in each case it is just an external factor.
It seems to me that as long as someone understands what is happening to him, he can make his mind at peace with it, whatever it is. Was it not after all one of the lessons of Epictetus, that what matters is not so much what happens to us, but how we react to it? That as long as we are ready for the worst, we can not really be troubled by it?
I had to google Ted Kaczinski (I'm not American), so I just want to mention here that Ted Kaczinski is a terrorist and mass murderer. No criticism on your post itself btw, I just felt it's relevant context.
In case you didn't run in to this - the violence was related to his views on modernity.
He seems to have walked the line between spree-killer style arbitrary violence and political terrorism. It's a strange situation; there was a clear political philosophy (anarcho-primitivism, roughly), but it's one too rare to have other violent supporters. What would we have called anarcho-communist violence if there had only been one person total who engaged in it?
It's a strange case all around, but definitely made stranger by his adopting a viewpoint that was obscure, but not unique.
Is there any reason to believe that primitive people did not fought each other, did not bullied each other and did not enslaved each other? When primitive dude hits smaller one or rapes primitive girl, how is it not man made?
How do we know they were stoic? How do we know they were not stressed or frustrated?
Humans tended to live in small groups of mostly related people. If you met another human outside of your group you usually tried to kill each other. It's thought that the global human diaspora resulted from these small bands of people trying to avoid each other as much as possible.
They were generally family groups that very much depended on each other constantly for survival. The social dynamics would be very different than what can readily be imagined today. Harassing someone whose existence is necessary for you all to eat tomorrow or to avoid getting eaten by wild animals is going to be quite a different situation.
Applying the fad buzzword for children being mean to each other in suburban middle schools to primitive human culture isn't exactly a valid comparison.
Given that even in good years a large portion of the population was malnourished in whatever time period you want to pick before the middle of the 20th century, the rich were always better off than the poor and rich families were better than poor ones.
Right, all those things are different ways of saying wealth.
The implication made uphtread is that the rich were best in terms of (lower) intrafamilial conflict. One might assume that wealth produced that effect, one might also assume that the rich were more dependent on social status and property for support, while the poor were more dependent on having close relations who could give aid and lacked assets to fight over, thus leading to less intrafamilial conflict than among the rich.
I have a huge extended family 20+ kids my generation and while we aren't all close and kids will beat each other up sometimes there's no bullying. Blood is blood.
"Harassing someone whose existence is necessary for you all to eat tomorrow or to avoid getting eaten by wild animals is going to be quite a different situation."
Then again, harassing someone who depends on you is entirely different.
Then again, bullying someone so that you ensure pecking order and he does what you want and is beneficial for you a bit more in situation with scarcity is different too.
Suburban middle schools kids did not invented cruelty nor mockery nor ostracization nor beating other kids up. My grand parents remembered such stories. Old books contains such stories. If anything, this get worst with bad situations - hunger or war. There is no reason to think primitive people were somehow magically honorable and noble.
"small groups of mostly related people" still bully and harass each other which is case of grandparents childhood. Why would hunter-gatherers not? Especially since victim leaving his group makes him vulnerable to all those other tribes that would "tried to kill" you (plus your old)?
I am guessing that it's both the ones who won the fights and those who avoided them survived. When these groups meet in (fairly) modern society it's not that hard to imagine what happens to the latter group.
This article about loneliness made me think about this Kaczynski quote, which is why I added it here. I'm pretty sure primitive men had their fair share of violence, both physical and psychological, but I do suspect the concept of loneliness that is described is this article was much more rare back then.
> Is it not possible for the modern man to accept the drawbacks of modern life, including loneliness, just as stoically as the primitive man was accepting adversity and death?
Primitive men weren't stoic. We attribute that quality to them because we now understand how common diseases work and why they were so prominent in that time. That understanding -part of the advantages of modern life- has forever changed our perspective on the subject.
For primitive men, life was probably terrifying and a constant struggle. When someone in the tribe got sick, they didn't say "oh well, that's life! What can you do?". They'd attribute it to some supernatural force that was clearly angry at them for something they did. That's why they created various superstitions and rituals, as a way to combat the things they could not understand and control. That's not exactly being stoic.
That being said, I do believe that some people are not equipped to deal with modern life, and that a larger degree of solitude is part of that life.
I'm lucky in the sense that, for me, being alone does not have an emotional tax. I enjoy being alone as much as I enjoy being in good company (and because you cannot always count on the company to be good, i'd say I enjoy it even more). I'm not saying I like to be alone sometimes. I really enjoy being alone for extended periods of time and could imagine living the rest of my life alone to some degree (I do like the rhythm of modern cities). But I understand the frustration of those who cannot endure solitude or get a feeling of loneliness from it.
I wouldn't say modern society sucks, though. It has a lot going for it, but it's obviously not perfect.
For primitive men, life was probably terrifying and a constant struggle
Yes, but the Stoics weren't "primitive" really. I may be getting the timeline mixed up slightly but they were part of a civilisation that invented steam engines but never bothered to develop them because they had slavery to provide manual labour! They are far closer to us than they were to cavemen in every meaningful way.
Update: Epictetus died in 135 AD. Vitruvius died in 15 AD and was writing about steam engines... So the Stoics were a century into what could have been the Age of Steam, which would be 1870 in our timeline!
Off topic, but this stack exchange post convinced me that the Roman's didn't have the metallurgical skills to truly enter the age of steam[0]. They didn't have the ability to mine enough iron nor the ability to cast (and definitely not mill) it precisely enough for proper steam engine parts.
They weren't that many either. Most of their greek / roman peers were still in the dark about common ailments and diseases, and resorted to all kinds of superstitions to treat them and fight them.
What I'm getting at is that this view of the primitive man as a stoic figure in tune with nature is severely distorted by our current worldview and knowledge. There was nothing "stoic" about the majority of them lived their lives.
More broadly, I'm trying to make the point that Kaczynski was a nutcase with a severe misconception of the human condition.
It’s also possible to live differently. I played the stoic for decades until the isolation of being a business owner living in a city pushed me over the brink.
I’ve struggled with loneliness my entire life - and adult life has been worse than childhood. I started boarding school at six - and while I was homesick for some time, the camaraderie of other inmates, uh, students, was the only thing that kept me mildly sane - I had people to look out for and protect, and similarly people looked out for and protected me.
As an adult, I’ve unwittingly repeatedly chosen lonely paths - moving frequently for several years before settling down and starting a business. I spent my days surrounded by people with nobody to relate to - I can be friendly with employees and clients, but I can’t be friends. I can’t confide about what worries me.
Either way, I broke - I spent most of 2016 having anxiety attacks that’d see me vomit for weeks on end, to the extent that I ended up hospitalised several times with severe dehydration and hypoglycaemia. I passed on the reins and left.
I now live on the edge of a village in the middle of nowhere north wales. I have drinks or go for walks with with my 93 and 84 year old neighbours most days. I’ve made friends with all sorts, just by saying hello to folks as they walk past the cottage.
My financial future is uncertain - but as I write this I am so happy it brings tears to my eyes.
We’ve really forgotten what’s important - and there’s a story about a chap called Midas that we could all do to learn a thing or two from.
Thanks for this, the first half of the comment perfectly sums up my last few years.
I've moved out of London to try and live a more comfortable and less hectic life in a smaller city, now I find I'm so alone I want to move back to the city just to be with my friends.
I'd love to be in the middle of nowhere, or anywhere else in the world, but the "friends" problem is always so understated. I _need_ friends(hip), or I don't function. Even as an "antisocial" person, as my friends like to say, friendship is the most important thing in life.
Funnily, the fact that I'm being productive while a big part of myself is just a huge hole is impressive in itself.
I found that it's like a furnace that still burns hot from your momentum, but when you stop throwing in fuel (social interaction, feeling that you belong), the creative and productive juices do dry up and you end up, maybe literally, dehydrated; and I fondly remember getting my best ideas and impulses after good times spent with friends.
thanks for sharing; i was a (catholic) boarding school lad from age 6 until university
deeply envious envious of the place you've chose to live
where i've had so many excellent days out (snowdonia mostly)--bunk at pen-y-pass YHA, snowdon horseshoe, glyders traverse, etc), then finish each day with a litre mug of tea at Pete's in Llanberis
you were not impressed at the time, but now that you've done it (Crib Goch) you have only fond memories of the experience and look forward to having another go some day, i'm guessing? :-)
is Pete's still there? I haven't been to Llanberis in maybe 5 years; it would be depressing to find it closed (and eg, a mini-Marks & Spencers in its place) on my next trip
I learned from Zen Buddhism the same idea that you share here. Indeed, if we treat other people like other act of god, i.e. as things that don't act but just are, a lot of stress, anger, and sadness will vanish [1]. Zen and Stoicism are similar in their promotion of acceptance. I happen to feel more drawn to Zen because of their comprehensive guide towards how to achieve this acceptance.
Actually this is the central tenet[0] of Buddhism. Zen is only one tradition[1] of its teaching. If you'd like to read the closest we have to "original" material on Buddhist philosophy (translated directly to modern English from written Pali[2]), check out https://accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/
I have a theory about stoicism in the past vs. stoicism in the present. Keep in mind that I say this all from a very North American point of view (born in Iran, but grew up in Canada).
In the past, there was no guard against disease. If it came, you were done for. There were some limited options available when it came to medicine, but by and large, if you got a disease, that was it. It was out of your hands, and even if you wanted to, you couldn't do anything.
In the present, there are a lot of solutions that can be solved with enough access to capital. It's possible now, not impossible as it was prior, to cure yourself of certain ailments, if only you live in the right place, have the right amount of money (or social security), etc. To a certain degree, living in a particular place and access to capital can be a matter of personal choice. A lot of the time, not enough to get you the treatment you need, but enough to give you the sense of having some measure of control.
Having a measure of control but being powerless is new to modern life.
That's what I think, at least. What does HN think?
---
Industrial Society and it's Future really hit home for me a month ago when I first came across it. I feel you.
Stoicism addresses deeply rooted human tendencies. I don't think, if we are being honest, we have any more real control. We are less likely to die but we have merely stretched our individual timeline slightly in the scheme of things. It (access to modern medicine) should not change ones philosophy much IMO.
Chasing a good place to live, die and fulfill personal needs is hedonistic in nature. You would have to buy into the reincarnation thing to defer that to another incarnation and accept your lot in life as it is.
There is value in acceptance but it's for the ones that are better off than others. There's nothing just in death by a preventable disease when a cure is outside if ones ability to obtain it.
Silicon valley stoicism emerged due to people loosing track of their worth, mindlessly running after profit. We should stride for goals (personal and shared), not take solace in a philosophy of existential stagnation.
It's pretty bleak and depressing but IMO it's not ones philosophy that changes, but the interpretation of it and resulting actions that it inspires.
In other words economic prosperity is a variable factor that will influence ones actions no matter what their philosophy is. By changing the variable you will change the product it gives. Dismissing it is ignorant until it's proven that it doesn't influence your sum-of-life-happiness.
Pretty hard to measure given we have 1 playthrough, nevertheless it can still be a factor. Stating otherwise is a matter of opinion about the volatility of influence a given factor has.
Radicals would say that it's politically problematic to expect individuals to take up any slack with their own resilience/fortitude.
Telling people that they must learn to bear their suffering, rather than receive substantial support from (a possibly reorganized) system, is, of course, a very inexpensive form of wellbeing intervention.
I couldn't get past the first paragraph in Ted Kaczynski's essay.
He makes a lot of claims, with little to no evidence. You can cherry pick notions of stoicism from it (and incorrectly claim that it can be a universally applied philosophy), but what you've linked is essentially just propaganda.
I wonder how many of the people down voting you realize Ted Kaczynski is the unabomber? (I couldn't read the article since it's blocked by work firewall, so I can't comment on it).
Is the implication that people knowing that would be more or less likely to downvote?
I mean, Kaczynski was certainly not writing calm and evidence-based prose, but he's regularly cited as saying something seminal and interesting regardless. I don't think "there's no evidence, that's pure propaganda" is untrue, but it feels like a strange objection to raise for anyone aware of what the work is.
Aren't manifestos usually meant to be a position statement or propaganda, with factual debate conducted elsewhere? It's like criticizing an instruction manual for lacking compelling characters, or a holy book for not being peer-reviewed.
Probably less likely to downvote. Kaczysnki is obviously intelligent, and from what I remember of his manifesto from the last time I read it he makes some reasonable points, but I don't think his interpretation of the world is a good one. It obviously prevented him from integrating himself productively into society. You can choose to believe the things Kaczyski believes, but I don't think it gets you anything worthwhile, or you can choose to believe other things that still recognize some of the tragedies that go on in our society but allow you to engage with them in a more productive and meaningful way.
I criticize Kaczynski's philosophy because it drove him to try to kill people (and he succeeded at least once). I don't care how "seminal" and "interesting" it is. To me, his philosophy is condemned by where it led him.
(Yes, I realize that a different person could have raised the same ideas without using a bombing campaign to try to publicize them...)
I would say fooling your mind is not easy. Definition of mind is "something that seeks" to want a "mind that doesn't seek" is meaningless and absurd. Its like wanting a nose that doesn't breathe.
Sure you can come up with various philosophies like stoicism, Buddhism ect but you are merely trading one loop of seeking for another. Now you are stuck in a 'non-seeking' loop and failure to achieve 'non-seeking'.
You don't have to fully stop seeking to see benefits. I have seen many benefits to my mental health through yoga, where you practice seeing the seeking/avoidance patterns and learn to breathe into them and accept it.
The practice (IMO) isn't to break the loop as much as it is to see the loop. And to see it while it's happening/during triggers.
Just responding to this: fooling your mind is not hard. Even very rational, skeptical minds engage in self deception all the time. Our minds are so unbelievably malleable. We are all wired to be prone to biases and unexamined schemas. These just look different for rational types.
On the other hand, it is possible to achieve results by not fooling your mind, but simply by reframing one's own thoughts. This is the basis of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which works very well in helping manage negative feedback loops.
Often times our negative emotions are caused by feedback loops, therefore it stands to reason that we need a method to moderate these overactive loops. CBT is one of a few approaches that have been shown to work well for a significant number of people (nothing works 100% of course).
Guy Winch alludes to this in a TED Talk (I think TED talks are oversimplifications, but this one does present some good salient points about emotional hygiene and loneliness which I have found to be helpful in my own life)
Who is this entity that is reframing the your thoughts. Is it also not you? This is some sort of psychotic thinking to divide yourself into many parts, one part passing judgments and rulings on the other. This sort of thinking of is at the root of why we are so conflicted and full of suffering. This just perpetuates that style of thinking without examining why we are so divided in the first place.
You're treading close to nihilism here, which is a dangerous way to live. The article has a good quote:
"The great prophylactic against loneliness is feeling that you are part of something bigger than yourself – a family, a friendship group, a community, a benign universe, whatever. Even a community with little in the way of material resources finds some contentment in being in a group of people who are all in it together."
When you're feeling the way you feel you can retreat from the world and try to treat everything with detachment and equanimity, but I think that's a losing proposition. It puts you in a passive role and makes you feel like you don't have much control of your life. It's better to take a more active role in life and find something that you value and work towards that. What it is doesn't really matter as long as you pick something that has a least some significance to you and that involves other people.
Viktor Frankl, a concentration camp survivor, would agree with your last point. He wrote Man's Search for Meaning, and one of his main points is that sometimes you can't control what happens in life, only how you choose to act while enduring it.
It's a pretty amazing book. And really brings things into sharp contrast. You might be struggling with work (and I've been in that struggle myself, it's not fun, and hard to escape from), but this man managed to to make it through one of the worst atrocities ever committed against fellow humans, and not fall to pieces as a result of it.
For the past year, I've been working on the social isolation problem. Here's the idea we're currently developing. Would love to hear folks' feedback. Would you be excited about using this?
"A social app, like Tinder but for hangouts with friends.
See what your friends want to do, and swipe right to show you’re interested. You can also join hangouts in the global feed to instantly expand your social circle. Hangouts are capped at 10 people so you can actually get to know each other. Post things you want to do, like "Hike in John Muir". When 10 people swipe right, a chat opens up so you can coordinate when to meet & who is down to go."
These ideas always ended up becoming dating apps in the past so the idea to restrict it to your existing social circle is a smart one. I would consider using it if it was well executed.
But what if I want to build one up?
I think something like a dating app (but not for dating) could work. You'd just have to do some a policing to avoid the trend towards people trying to find love, since both apparently don't work together.
Actually met my oldest friend on ICQ random chat. Lost touch with everyone from High School, University but still chat to him most days and visit when we're in the same country.
There are already apps like Meetup which help people 'meet up' with others, make new friends etc, but their purpose is not explicitly about making friends.
Ultimately, though, getting yourself to an event with other people is only part of the problem, you still need to be able to connect with the people you meet, introduce yourself, have a conversation, bond.
If you really want to create an app to tackle social isolation, maybe you could look at something that helps people improve their social skills instead, a sort of online tutor. There are definitely a lot of tricks to be learned to thrive in social situations, and while some people seem innately more equipped, I believe almost everyone can learn them to some degree.
I have approached the problem from another angle. My hypothesis is that social groups only form through continued joint experiences. The easiest way is to achieve this is go to regularly go to free events. I have build drop!in [1] for the event discovery and message your friends informally that you will be going.
Interestingly just a couple of day I wrote about the topic of loneliness in the modern age at my medium [2]
You might like to read "The Anatomy of Friendship". People are basically hardwired to like people they're physically close to and come into contact with regularly, so try to tick those two boxes.
The trouble with an app like this is that if it works and people become friends they'll probably just switch to the lowest common denominator/free platform, e.g. facebook/whatsapp to coordinate, so monetisation could be tricky. I.e. if your app is 100% efficient, people may use it once then not return.
You also have the added challenge of seeding this "two-sided" marketplace (people suggesting activities and those saying they'll attend) in every locality you want to operate in, so you'll need a compelling growth strategy. It also sinks or swims on people actually turn up for events.
Good luck - I do think Meetup sucks and could be far better, but I think you'd need a lucky break/very interesting twist to really gain traction.
One way to way too seed activities would be to let professional organizers advertise on the platform (also solves monetization). E.g. a local sports club could offer a trial training session for small groups through the platform.
Trying something new is usually slightly uncomfortable when you're the only newbie (and everyone else has to accommodate you); and in the clubs I've been a member of, those who stuck around for longer were almost always already friends with another member.
Having whole groups sign up at once gives the club a better chance at retaining them and should also provide a fun experience for everyone even if they don't decide to stay.
Great idea, I'd do it somewhat like this if i had a large enough team:
features needed to be successful:
--STack overflow/HN/Reddit style Rep or magical internet points: These things are important, look how compelling they are for people to go out of their way to do things.... If you can tap into this so people go out of their way... to leave their house and socialize. even if its superficial for internet points, its helping adn putting them in the right direction.
--badges, via Audible App/Duolingo App, and other big sites that have probably spent big $$$$ coming to the conclusion that these things increase engagement. Have badges for 'hung out with same person in same meetup event 6 times in a row...(having social interactions with the same people over and over again builds better connections.) also: hung out with a newb (low reputation) and a (insert great noun here warlock/mage (gender neutral)/pilot etcc.) basically a veteran socializer in same group.(sub point... people can get different avatar badges i dunno anything to make it optionally fun/kooky not so serious, adds a great common talking point when players (social players) get together in a meetup.
--these things can also be refactored to mimic Riot games 'League of Legends' game, a free to play game, that is the #1 esports game in the world, with more viewers than NBA finals. They use 'riot points' as a way to make $ so players can customize / stylize/express uniqueness in game with skins on base models... anyways point being that there oculd be points like this which allow people to 'enhance a meetup' so anyone attending gets a bunch of rep, or gets a hat, or gets a badge etc etc... maybe it costs the person activating it 10$, but its totally worth it for them cause the nerdy players coming are psyched for the __Free__ magical internet points or magical virtual hat or whatever. Also you can tie it into businesses and volunteer organizations in your local town. Like, meetup at foodbank berlin, foodbank Newyork, southside to volunteer and get XXXX extra points, or increase your volunteer badge etc.. heck put in a talent-tree a la duolingo/diablo for volunteering advancment haha (this step would require late stage company growht with lots of emplyees / communtiy mgrs and operations to avoid corruption and loopholes in this system)
At the end of each meetup have an optional form players can fill out ascribing strange nouns or adjectives to other players (green rooted dandelion, extreme fluff shark, ported slime swamp) a la heroku/gfycat slug style. They wont ever know, the exact attributions they receive but every 6 months some strange algorithm takes the inputs and generates a strange pokemon style creature or item and gives it to them.
then fractal-idea-spiral off this and include them in meetup invites with other players who have been given randomly given similar creatures. so then the commonality in that unique meetup is the strange-ass reward they receive in this game.
also see Yelp, and how they have community events, could probably snipe some ideas from that to increase peoples local engagement in this. Or, plug into yelps api and have food based events where people meetup based on local deals restaurants are having. then have sub games inside the meetup like who can take the best photo of a drink shrine, where everyone stacks their drinks/cans of sodas in an intricate pattern, or who can make the best fries shrine or some weird art construction thing like that. they are all passed into a NN-imageclassifier you have running that tries to accurately match em to ancient temple shrines as well as pictures of fries etc...make up some function to give each picture a score. whatever the challenge is. This is crazy dumb, but thats the point its some kooky dumb thing they are doing together and its fun its social. also great press cause it will generate weird headlines.
There would be lots of features/game modes in this app, the food one above...
which of them do you hate? I think the point of the game modes would be to cater to different peoples unique approaches to life. not everyone has the same perceptions/tastes.
Would you say this is a more low entry barrier meetup.com? I think its hard for women to join these kinds of things due to high prevalence of "creepers". Once its mostly men, the platform is dead.
I have been thinking about this a lot too. My solution is more low tech.Humans are designed to live in communities but modern communities are very isolating. My indian friends in America live in a close knit indian community and live next to each other. I've noticed that they don't suffer from same social isolation as other americans do.
My solution is to scale this to everyone, A housing colony with community kitchen and hangout areas. More like a less intense urban co-op. This is probably also a solution to healtcare crisis in america, healthy food + social belonging == well being.
This is accurate. I lived in a coop and it was very communal and not isolating at all. One critical thing is communal dining... this forces people to interact and connect.
I'm not sure if it has any value, but it was an attempt to lower the barrier of entry to hanging out with people, and at least it's a fun challenge to work on!
Instead of an app I think we need to rethink our living arrangements.
Where I live (Japan) living alone is the new norm. After I moved out of university dorms I've lived in little shoebox apartments with my own little kitchen, my own little bathroom and no need to cross paths with any of the other 100 people in my building at all. I see that a lot of the new apartment blocks around my city are full of small, single-occupancy apartments too.
There are no communal spaces. There are no chance encounters. People seem to feel like there is too much risk in meeting new people, let alone dining with them.
There have been some shared houses popping up here and there. But they are viewed as as exceptional and unconventional. Social interaction has become a peculiar character trait rather than a normal part of life.
Not having things in common with others doesn't exactly provoke loneliness. You can be lonely around people you have a lot in common with.
Worst thing is that if you don't start a conversation you won't even know whether you do have anything in common.
Best solution to loneliness is to gain massive debt, become dirt poor, and battle daily with attention deficit issues while you struggle to learn and become productive enough to get a job in the software industry with a pretty horrible work history, an incomplete bachelors, and a near worthless associates.
Living one rung lower on Maslow's hierarchy makes you forget about the desire to be around people, or even leave the house (father's) all that often (2% of the time).
Granted, I think maybe my concern for my health (irrational or not) has been exacerbated, so I've traded loneliness for frequent panic attacks concerning whether or not I might have cancer or a heart defect. On the plus side, I know for a fact that I've torn back muscles weight lifting, so all I really need is the medicaid office to get back to me after submitting my 4th application with no phone calls or emails as to my status.
People don't talk about it, but the club has gotten huge, at least from my vantage point.
I don't think people are being more honest, or it's the ease of communication over the internet.
A lot of people are trying to manage a mix of intense anxiety, and depression.
I look around and technology has just made things worse. (Yea--I know one day--technology might eradicate cancer. I'm not going to argue. Today--I wish the smartphone was Never invented. )
I have always thought too much about death. It's kinda ruined my life.
That said, my only preparation for eventual illness is getting rid the television.
I've never thought it was healthy to be reminded daily through commercials I will get cancer, or if lucky just, die of a quick heart attack. And so many lonely people use t.v to alleviate the pain of being alone, or at least I do.
I haven't got rid of it yet, but it will come. I do have a healthy collection of movies on dvds.
As I aged, I do see why people do drugs. And yes--I do exercise daily. It does help.
Danke. I'm cool for the most part right now. I've come to embrace my anxiety to an extent. If I'm able to type, then that means it's mostly not affecting me at the moment. Late night just has me feeling a lack of inhibition and dis-concern for my privacy on these matters.
As far as caffeine goes, I don't know what I'd do without it. Up until recently I was on 2 doses of 3 cups (measurement unit) of espresso per day, but I've realized that I needed to up the dosage, or at least the source. So I went down to 1 dose of 3 cups of espresso + 1 caffeine pill later on, 1 Monster Energy (lowest caffeine content of all my sources I believe), and 1 cup of green tea. This also has the side benefit of pain relief from the muscle tear issues.
As for software development, I'm in the process of learning the ins and outs of OAuth and OpenID Connect prior to implementing a sign up and login. Using Node, so it seems like there is a wealth of tutorials out there for passport, and apparently many of them are insecure (or so I've read), so I want to fully understand the concepts behind the most commonly accepted as secure protocols for Authorization and Authentication. Please correct me if I've said anything gibberish; still learning.
Caffeine can cause anxiety, I gave it up for a while when I started suffering from panic attacks and it helped. I was lucky that I had no withdrawl headaches.
Also, sleep. Good sleep, a bit of regular exercise and a bit of a routine are a great deal of help to stablizing your mood and anxieties.
OAuth and OpenID are completely, ridiculously, utterly, pathetically over-complicated. It's one of the worst specs ever released. You do not need to know it to be a professional developer. Most professional developers will have no clue how it works. Trust me, I have over a decade of experience. If you can get a plug and play library, I really would just do that. Especially while learning development.
I mean, if you're enjoying it, go ahead, but OAuth is basically stupid. A cruel joke inflicted on developers and a lesson in how not to make a spec.
Understood, and that's generally what I've been taking away from it, but I have a mind towards security and while I don't need to fully understand it to be a developer, I must understand it for my own purposes, as I would (1) feel completely ashamed of myself for blindly following tutorials, especially on this topic, and (2) would not want to adopt the liability that comes with implementing an insecure system for a client that has a bigger wallet than me and wants to crush me financially even further for making a mistake that harmed their customers or business. Is such a scenario likely? I don't know; doubtful, but still, I'd feel like an impostor.
Truthfully, the spec itself doesn't seem too difficult to understand; it's mostly my inability to stay focused that causes me the problems I deal with when studying and coding. Perhaps the true culprit of our times are browser tabs; the more I have open, the more overwhelming it becomes to consume them.
As for caffeine and anxiety it's better than the depression that I feel with a lack of caffeine. Caffeine also has a kind of analgesic effect, or rather maybe the lack of caffeine causes me to have more pain in my spine for some reason. Sleep isn't too difficult with chronic melatonin use. Your body never adapts to melatonin as with other substances, so you can maintain the same dose (5mg in my case) with consistent efficacy. I'm out within 30 minutes after taking melatonin.
No, actually it isn't, please go fuck yourself and your assumptions, jesus fucking christ. I've been interested in software development my whole adult life and have just had a series of unrecoverable bad decisions.
God, seriously, go fucking fuck yourself. It's so fucking insulting to have those kind of asinine assumptions thrown my way.
Modern society may have issues, but it as bad as it is usually portrayed.
10,000 years ago, you would live in a tribe. If you were not popular among your tribe, it is likely you would be either exiled and forced to live in solitude and die during winter or be constantly subject to violence.
2,000 years ago, you would live only to work in a farm or be in a state of perpetual war. To make things worse, literacy rate was something around 0.001%, if you were lucky.
1,000 years ago, you would be essentially doing the same while dying from a plague. There was no sanitation of any kind.
200 years ago, you would be working at a factory and going to war every 30 years.
Wait, do you think that the Tulsa race riot happened because people didn't have radio or TV? Wtf?
Race riots occurred in this country because of the acute structural contradiction between the white settler-nation and the other nations; these contradictions have not been resolved by radio and TV in the interim. We will see more of these riots in the future.
But I think is that more people would not have been OK with that level of violence and destruction if they had a chance to actually see it, rather than presented through words on a newspaper.
Could you stop make your point using such widely false and over generalized statement ?
The point of people who think that our society is de-humanized is that when your society was forcing you to work in a farm or to go to war, you didn't have the free will to be alone. You were indeed "forced" to engage in activity involving using your body to do meaningful work (farming), do things with your peers (war).
And talk about modern online dating. It takes defeat to a wholly new level. Back in the day one could be rejected by a handful of ladies in a conventional setting (bar, club, whatever). Now when you're dating online you can instantly rejected by an infinite number of women \o/
I don't think number of lonely people increases, they just become much more visible. Social networks and other changes in modern society make loneliness acceptable and people stop hiding it.
On the other hand one might argue that they also create the illusion of how fantastic and exciting everyone else's life is - an artificial and often unrealistic image that's broadcasted and probably not helping lonely people at all.
But if you eat junk food all the time, it's pretty obvious that one of the immediate consequences of eating junk food every day is the general decline of your health.
So it goes for social media. Social networks are the junk food of socializing. And don't get me started on what that does to someone's sense of self, well-being, norms, ethics, morality etc.
Maybe this picture will be illuminating to you[1]. It succinctly summarizes what I'm trying to say.
I should probably mention the image might be NSFW.
We are currently using technology to tear people apart with the illusion of social contacts. Instead of building communities we are supporting the development of hikikomoris. Already now, you don't need to leave your apartment for work, food, non-food supermarket items, payments, etc.
"I think therefore I am." The essence that precedes the thought. "Our actions are the outcome of our being."
The notion that success is reserved for the deserving, and criminals are devils that require punishment. That there are good and bad people; good do good, and bad do bad. All we need to do is sort them. And that all depends on our individual essence, our free will.
Everything good pre-exists and we shall be the judge.
As opposed to,
"There are no actors, only actions" and "We are the sum of our actions."
"I think therefore I'm thinking."
"I committed a crime, got caught, and that is why I'm in jail."
"I witnessed his birth, I changed his diapers, I taught him how to walk, and he follows me around. He must be my son."
I actually don't have the name for the latter philosophy. I really wish I knew. It's along the lines of Nietzsche and Aristotle, but I can't say they put their finger on it. Any pointers welcome.
It also holds the key:
"I'm lonely. And that's the only reason I need you by my side."
Personally, going to Church has helped me suffer less with loneliness. I've made meaningful friendships, and relationships with people from all sorts of backgrounds. It has given more meaning to my life than anything I found at work, or by random socialising.
Of course, YMMV. Please take this as a random anecdote, not as evangelism.
I know a few people who have suggested attending a Unitarian Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism) as a way to get the social benefits of church without having to subscribe to a religious belief. Many congregations include atheists and agnostics.
"The Sunday Assembly was started by Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, two comedians who were on the way to a gig in Bath when they discovered they both wanted to do something that was like church but totally secular and inclusive of all—no matter what they believed."
I've had this on my mind for a few months, but something would push it aside before I could look into it. Your post inspired me to finally look up my local Unitarian Church, and we're going to check it out. Thank you!
Thank you for mentioning this. Going to church has helped me too.
First in no way is believing in god a requirement to going to church. If you look at Catholicism they even say that they believe the Bible is only metaphorical and that they believe in evolution.
A lot of people also have very negative (and kind of rightly so) views of the church developed from the religious wars of the 90’s and 00’s. I want to say that these cultural battles were in part 1). stoked by church leaders as a means to hold their congregations together [there are a million ways to argue over Christian doctrine otherwise] and increase their bargaining power as church leaders with political leaders and 2). were also stoked by more liberal leaders as a means to rile up their base / present a credible threat.
One of the hardest first steps for a lot of people is to try.
Whether church or volunteering or finding a hobby, just pick 1 thing. Having something to look forward to and a group of people we have something in common with (even if it is new) is something all humans crave. Just try one, and try another until you find your thing.
Also as an anecdote, I had a similar situation with a local hackerspace. Made long-lasting friendships, solved the loneliness issue.
We're social beings. Nevertheless I think that finding meaning in life should be separate from a decision to belong to any group. Be it of interest or religious. All a group can provide is opportunities.
I came to this thread to write something along these lines of "have a place to go to". This can be beside club, swim club, the Parisian cafe, etc. Church certainly qualifies as well.
Fascinating how feminist mouthpiece the Guardian manages to make even this topic about the alleged failures of men (offering solutions instead of emotional support), with a fictional TV series painting men as callous assholes for proof.
Its how we live and dine. Prehistoric humans ate, hunted and lived together as tribes while at the same time acting very antisocial to other competing tribes. We are built to be social at the same time we are also built to be wary and even hostile to people we dont know. Its a contradiction. If you are not eating and living with anyone then you are most likely lonely. The answer is to find a community that eats and dines and live together.
I think a large part of the problem is that the younger generations have grown up with pretty strong expectations placed upon them to do things like go to college (at whatever cost), land a white collar job, climb the ladder, etc.
The obvious solution is to own your decisions and start doing what you think is right for you, but it's far easier said than done to step out from under the expectations you've been saddled with your entire life.
I think you are right. Just the other day there was a posting in our anonymous university group chat and someone complained how she thinks she is unable to start and finish masters degree and its thesis work. The first suggestion which adviced taking time off to re-evaluate her choices of continuing with graduate studies were downvoted. Instead, replies supporting going through the masters with various lifehacks, even though the OP clearly states she doesn't want to do it, were upvoted.
I understand its natural for students to pep talk their peers to study more, but I don't understand why controversial suggestions are being dismissed. I almost feel like these calls for help are just seeking validation to continue hoop jumping instead of actually finding alternative ways to fix the root cause. It makes me sad to think that my peers don't think they are ready for working life until they graduate, whilst I would, as an employer, much rather hire someone capable of self-inspection and listening of people with differentiating viewpoints.
There's an experience I had in undergrad that's always stuck with me.
The computer science department and the careers office jointly brought in some startup founders to talk about founding or joining startups and take questions; it was really quite a good idea. Someone asked about degrees and majors - do you need a Master's, which degrees are 'relevant', and so on. The first few founders hemmed and hawed, said "technical skills from any degree" and "undergrad is enough" and so on.
The last founder didn't play the game. His answer was: "I'm not worried about your name on a sheet of paper. If you're good at what you do, I'll hire you."
Cue nervous laughter from the moderator, and a gentle prompt: "but of course it's worth finishing up school for the people who are already here, those are valuable skills, right?"
Founder: "I guess I was unclear. If you drop out today, I will hire you. I recommend it."
Yet we all know that virtually every programming job advertised requires a computer science degree, I'm not convinced it was good advice given the way most companies hire.
Just because it's advertised doesn't mean it's actually required.
Much like companies asking for 10 years of Rust experience, from what I've seen qualifications tend to matter less as you get further along in your career.
the founder was basically saying that, if he somehow knew before the fact that you were good, he would hire you. he certainly would not just hire an arbitrary college dropout. it's essentially a vacuous conditional that sidesteps the fact that a college degree is widely considered a signifier of some minimal level of skill and will of course be one of the primary ways that applicants are evaluated, unless they somehow have substantial work experience at the age of 20.
> unless they somehow have substantial work experience at the age of 20
This is going to be very anecdotal, but that merit is even more run by buzzwords than qualitative inspection of one's skills compared to a degree. I had the privilege to be employed as 20-year old in Silicon Valley as a foreigner, but I did not find myself doing more challenging work than I had before. However, namedropping Silicon Valley on my CV had huge implications back in my home country once I returned (because ironically I did not have a degree). The interesting part is that not a single workplace back in my home country has yet conducted a technical review for me, yet I have been given offer letters.
What I am saying is that while some people feel like a BSc is a dumb obligation, the path of having a prestigious CV isn't much better. Instead, if you happen to have one, the chances are that some CV buzzwords are regarded as, as you said about degrees:
> considered a signifier of some minimal level of skill and will of course be one of the primary ways that applicants are evaluated
Yet I find this alarmingly false. This has caused me to stray away of those companies, as I don't really want to be employed somewhere where people are hired like this either.
Every single job I've take has advertised that a degree is required. After joining, I've always had at least one co-worker without a degree (usually in some sort of respected, senior role). A degree certainly makes things easier, but everything in business is negotiable.
I'm not convinced it was good advice for most people. I'm pretty sure the guy meant it for his company, but I would definitely have worried about ending up locked into a small pool of employers.
What made it memorable for me was mostly watching people freeze up and basically try to avoid the suggestion. I certainly think there are people for whom dropping out of college to work at a startup is sensible, and yet no one was going to even discuss the merits of the comment.
Expectations and also demands; as the precariat grows, and the unnecessariat under it, there's steadily more risk to striking out on one's own.
Certainly a six-figure salary is not necessary for happiness, but if you find yourself working long hours to make rent in some midwestern town it's going to cut into your opportunities for self-discovery and joy. And if you got wise a bit too late, after picking up federal student loans, you might well find that your dream career is genuinely off the table. (Found your true calling as a firefighter? Better keep up on those loans or you'll lose your license.)
It seems like we've created a system where the straight-and-narrow is increasingly narrow, and the cliffs around it are increasingly high. It's still worth finding one's own path, but in both social and purely-practical terms it's gotten steadily harder.
> It seems like we've created a system where the straight-and-narrow is increasingly narrow, and the cliffs around it are increasingly high. It's still worth finding one's own path, but in both social and purely-practical terms it's gotten steadily harder.
On the one hand yes, on the other hand mobility at every level has never been greater, even if still not at the optimal level.
Can you provide some evidence for this claim? Inequality has grown pretty systematically since the '70s, and though I don't have the link, there was a study recently demonstrating that it's harder to move up than it was for our parent's parents...
"Mobility at every level has never been greater" is a completely unfamiliar claim to me. I literally can't find a single plausible source saying that about socioeconomic mobility - they all say it's been flat or falling for at least 20 years.
Are we maybe talking about different forms of mobility?
From Wikipedia:
"In recent years, several studies have found that vertical intergenerational mobility is lower in the US than in some European countries.[1] US social mobility has either remained unchanged or decreased since the 1970s.[2]"
"A study published in 2008 showed that economic mobility in the U.S. increased from 1950 to 1980, but has declined sharply since 1980.[3]"
"A 2013 Brookings Institution study found income inequality was increasing and becoming more permanent, sharply reducing social mobility.[4]"
That's exactly it, I think. Not long ago when I was still in high school, many of my peers worked incredibly hard to be able to go to college. I'm not sure that many of them knew exactly what they wanted to study while in college, but I know that many of them went away and then came back because it "wasn't for them"; whether that means they were lonely as described in this article, or realized that what they were studying and where was a mistake for them. Either way, last I checked, many of my peers are back at home in familiar territory.
As I'm not a parent, I have no idea how the modern child is raised or how the modern parent is "expected" to raise their kid, but I get the feeling that, on the whole, creativity and exploration aren't encouraged in young children; rather their lives revolve around structured activities where the agenda is decided ahead of time for them. That's a great way to keep kids busy, but I'm not sure if or how it develops their brains and senses of independence... But I have no actual proof of that claim, just anecdotal evidence from seeing my aunt and grandparents raise my younger cousins.
That's definitely a risk, and for all our pressure to go to college it's less bad in the US than elsewhere.
I know Japan still has "simultaneous hiring", where a whole graduating class gets hired at once, and if you don't have a degree and a job on schedule you either avoid graduating or risk being marginalized. Compared to something like that, the US is still admirably willing to let people take time off school, drop out, or just spend some time unemployed after graduating.
Even in the US, not participating in on campus recruiting makes the job hunt much harder as a new grad (from personal experience). That being said I agree that the penalty is much less than in Japan where entire careers will close their doors on you for basically the rest of your life. In the US we have opportunities to claw back even after we have setbacks.
I think individualistic cultures like the West can only work by teaching their members many subconscious habits for pushing away other people. That's great because it enables individual creativity (not to mention freedom from some ugly hierarchies we'd rather forget about), but the flip side is that people feel more distant from each other.
Thankfully, solving this problem doesn't require changing all of society. You can solve it for yourself: take a few years to notice and unlearn your habits for pushing away other people. I'm confident that you have many such habits right now, from the way you stare at your phone in public, to your posture and facial expressions every minute of the day.
To give you a picture of the end result, imagine a stereotypical immigrant from a more collectivist culture. Their reputation for openness isn't undeserved.
I think I have suffered from loneliness before. A stomach-stabbing loneliness really. No friends to truly communicate, going on car drives with no destination/intention but to just think, walking in the evening hoping someone would strike a conversation, etc. Though I find my loneliness usually arises because I expect something different than what already is. Expecting something different than what is is a way to suffer (accept what is, and you’re free?). Consequently, I find that I must make a home out of this loneliness. You know how when you move into a new place and you are organizing or reorganizing or maybe decorationing your work station at home to make it feel comfortable and home-y? Well, that’s what I think I had to do internally to make my loneliness not loneliness. I suppose convert loneliness into solitude.
Then again, I have this vague thought that many people suffer from loneliness (depression, etc) because of how we are raised, how society, culture, civilization, have molded our minds. I think in modern day, consciousness is everything. But because it’s an unknowable object, we ignore it or worse: pretend it doesn’t exist. Consequently, we end up hard-headed in a matrix of half-baked beliefs, lonely, depressed, fearful, and anxious. I don’t know, the whole social order I think is set up in order to avoid the unknowable, if you will, of what everything is. The idea that the radio is blaring at all times. That we are all taught to listen to channels but never taught to turn it off and listen to the silence. If only we were to listen we would see that from the unknowable arises a reflection; the consciousness of everything, the I-am. At this point, I think, sort of in the poverty of true humility, everything that appears is seen as a miracle. The birds chirping in the morning is as much of a miracle as being in the perfect spot in the knowable universe for life to exist. The question then arises: Why is it that we remain deaf/blind running around anxiously in the noise when pure consciousness is right here out in the open all the time?
Above all: I think loneliness may be combated through several forms: reading really good fiction, doing drugs (weed in particular), having passionate sex, or any form of escapism. I find that the latter are only temporary ways to combat loneliness. If we would like to conquer loneliness, making a home of yourself and reflecting on what truly is is really important.
Have you thought about taking upon more responsibility? Be it to your community, to a volunteer organization, pets, and even plants. Modern society is malnourished when it comes to the sense of belonging.
“The higher degree of responsibility that you agree voluntarily to try to bear the richer your life will be.” -Jordan Peterson
>How can a person be expected to be happy with, and in, themselves when the eternal message is: “Try harder, do better, climb higher, don’t fail”?
"Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.
What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
Your position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
You will always keep your balance.
What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
That arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
What do we have to fear?
See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
Then you can care for all things."
This is actually why I am so concerned with (as in: working towards) the elimination of all jobs. "But what will people do?" I am often asked, as if the worth of someone is determined by their job. They can write bad poetry or watch TV, but I suspect and hope that a lot of the time will be spent with others. Humans are social animals.
Particularly in an environment where the marginal cost of goods is nil, price signalling should resolve this. Consider the economics of Simon, Hubbert et al vs Erlich, Malthus et al.
181 comments
[ 0.51 ms ] story [ 225 ms ] threadWhen something bad happens to someone you care about, don't say "What happened?" That focuses on the problem. Maybe they don't want to talk about it.
Ask "Are you OK?"
You can always say this even if there's nothing wrong.
If they say "Yes, why?", they're your friend.
If they say "Fine." then they don't trust you.
If they tell you "No, ..." they think you're a close friend.
Then ask "What can I do to help you? You're not alone."
Focus on the solution.
If you want to know if someone trusts you, just ask "Are you OK?" and they will tell you.
If they say "Fine." then they don't trust you.
If they tell you "No, ..." they think you're a close friend
I'm guessing you're a programmer :)
It's surely all about getting them to talk and open up, regardless of their answers?
How do we get through that barrier?
There is a difference between emotional intelligence and willingness to freely express emotion. "I'm fine" in many cases just means "no, thank you".
Few days ago I also read Ted Kaczynski's essay[1], and it's hard for me not to acknowledge how right he is on many points.
However, I do believe it is possible to survive all this, and that stoicism is a way. Kaczynski wrote for instance :
"It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one’s fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry."
Is it not possible for the modern man to accept the drawbacks of modern life, including loneliness, just as stoically as the primitive man was accepting adversity and death? Whether adversity is man-made or "natural" should not matter for the individual. From the stoic point of view, in each case it is just an external factor.
It seems to me that as long as someone understands what is happening to him, he can make his mind at peace with it, whatever it is. Was it not after all one of the lessons of Epictetus, that what matters is not so much what happens to us, but how we react to it? That as long as we are ready for the worst, we can not really be troubled by it?
1. http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/impromptu-man/201205/ha...
He seems to have walked the line between spree-killer style arbitrary violence and political terrorism. It's a strange situation; there was a clear political philosophy (anarcho-primitivism, roughly), but it's one too rare to have other violent supporters. What would we have called anarcho-communist violence if there had only been one person total who engaged in it?
It's a strange case all around, but definitely made stranger by his adopting a viewpoint that was obscure, but not unique.
How do we know they were stoic? How do we know they were not stressed or frustrated?
That is perfect situation for bullying. The victim cant leave. Close knit groups are great, until they are not.
Applying the fad buzzword for children being mean to each other in suburban middle schools to primitive human culture isn't exactly a valid comparison.
Look at how much constant violence and bullying there is between any siblings when an adult isn't around to stop it.
Back then, kids would need to rely on each other more, no?
Nowadays, what good is a sibling really?
Read no further than the histories of nobles and their feuds and murders to see how bad the best families were.
Given that even in good years a large portion of the population was malnourished in whatever time period you want to pick before the middle of the 20th century, the rich were always better off than the poor and rich families were better than poor ones.
The implication made uphtread is that the rich were best in terms of (lower) intrafamilial conflict. One might assume that wealth produced that effect, one might also assume that the rich were more dependent on social status and property for support, while the poor were more dependent on having close relations who could give aid and lacked assets to fight over, thus leading to less intrafamilial conflict than among the rich.
Then again, harassing someone who depends on you is entirely different.
Then again, bullying someone so that you ensure pecking order and he does what you want and is beneficial for you a bit more in situation with scarcity is different too.
Suburban middle schools kids did not invented cruelty nor mockery nor ostracization nor beating other kids up. My grand parents remembered such stories. Old books contains such stories. If anything, this get worst with bad situations - hunger or war. There is no reason to think primitive people were somehow magically honorable and noble.
Primitive men weren't stoic. We attribute that quality to them because we now understand how common diseases work and why they were so prominent in that time. That understanding -part of the advantages of modern life- has forever changed our perspective on the subject.
For primitive men, life was probably terrifying and a constant struggle. When someone in the tribe got sick, they didn't say "oh well, that's life! What can you do?". They'd attribute it to some supernatural force that was clearly angry at them for something they did. That's why they created various superstitions and rituals, as a way to combat the things they could not understand and control. That's not exactly being stoic.
That being said, I do believe that some people are not equipped to deal with modern life, and that a larger degree of solitude is part of that life.
I'm lucky in the sense that, for me, being alone does not have an emotional tax. I enjoy being alone as much as I enjoy being in good company (and because you cannot always count on the company to be good, i'd say I enjoy it even more). I'm not saying I like to be alone sometimes. I really enjoy being alone for extended periods of time and could imagine living the rest of my life alone to some degree (I do like the rhythm of modern cities). But I understand the frustration of those who cannot endure solitude or get a feeling of loneliness from it.
I wouldn't say modern society sucks, though. It has a lot going for it, but it's obviously not perfect.
Yes, but the Stoics weren't "primitive" really. I may be getting the timeline mixed up slightly but they were part of a civilisation that invented steam engines but never bothered to develop them because they had slavery to provide manual labour! They are far closer to us than they were to cavemen in every meaningful way.
Update: Epictetus died in 135 AD. Vitruvius died in 15 AD and was writing about steam engines... So the Stoics were a century into what could have been the Age of Steam, which would be 1870 in our timeline!
[0]: https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/98363/26525
They weren't that many either. Most of their greek / roman peers were still in the dark about common ailments and diseases, and resorted to all kinds of superstitions to treat them and fight them.
What I'm getting at is that this view of the primitive man as a stoic figure in tune with nature is severely distorted by our current worldview and knowledge. There was nothing "stoic" about the majority of them lived their lives.
More broadly, I'm trying to make the point that Kaczynski was a nutcase with a severe misconception of the human condition.
Or the neighbouring tribe hexing them. Stuff like this still goes on today unchanged in Papua New Guinea.
I’ve struggled with loneliness my entire life - and adult life has been worse than childhood. I started boarding school at six - and while I was homesick for some time, the camaraderie of other inmates, uh, students, was the only thing that kept me mildly sane - I had people to look out for and protect, and similarly people looked out for and protected me.
As an adult, I’ve unwittingly repeatedly chosen lonely paths - moving frequently for several years before settling down and starting a business. I spent my days surrounded by people with nobody to relate to - I can be friendly with employees and clients, but I can’t be friends. I can’t confide about what worries me.
Either way, I broke - I spent most of 2016 having anxiety attacks that’d see me vomit for weeks on end, to the extent that I ended up hospitalised several times with severe dehydration and hypoglycaemia. I passed on the reins and left.
I now live on the edge of a village in the middle of nowhere north wales. I have drinks or go for walks with with my 93 and 84 year old neighbours most days. I’ve made friends with all sorts, just by saying hello to folks as they walk past the cottage.
My financial future is uncertain - but as I write this I am so happy it brings tears to my eyes.
We’ve really forgotten what’s important - and there’s a story about a chap called Midas that we could all do to learn a thing or two from.
I've moved out of London to try and live a more comfortable and less hectic life in a smaller city, now I find I'm so alone I want to move back to the city just to be with my friends.
I'd love to be in the middle of nowhere, or anywhere else in the world, but the "friends" problem is always so understated. I _need_ friends(hip), or I don't function. Even as an "antisocial" person, as my friends like to say, friendship is the most important thing in life.
Funnily, the fact that I'm being productive while a big part of myself is just a huge hole is impressive in itself.
deeply envious envious of the place you've chose to live
where i've had so many excellent days out (snowdonia mostly)--bunk at pen-y-pass YHA, snowdon horseshoe, glyders traverse, etc), then finish each day with a litre mug of tea at Pete's in Llanberis
I once got taken up Crib Goch completely unprepared, thinking I was going on a leisurely walk. I was not impressed.
is Pete's still there? I haven't been to Llanberis in maybe 5 years; it would be depressing to find it closed (and eg, a mini-Marks & Spencers in its place) on my next trip
Thanks for sharing
[1] Within Zen, this idea is captured in the parable of an "empty boat." http://omswami.com/2015/09/the-empty-boat.html
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Buddhist_traditions_t...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali
In the past, there was no guard against disease. If it came, you were done for. There were some limited options available when it came to medicine, but by and large, if you got a disease, that was it. It was out of your hands, and even if you wanted to, you couldn't do anything.
In the present, there are a lot of solutions that can be solved with enough access to capital. It's possible now, not impossible as it was prior, to cure yourself of certain ailments, if only you live in the right place, have the right amount of money (or social security), etc. To a certain degree, living in a particular place and access to capital can be a matter of personal choice. A lot of the time, not enough to get you the treatment you need, but enough to give you the sense of having some measure of control.
Having a measure of control but being powerless is new to modern life.
That's what I think, at least. What does HN think?
---
Industrial Society and it's Future really hit home for me a month ago when I first came across it. I feel you.
There is value in acceptance but it's for the ones that are better off than others. There's nothing just in death by a preventable disease when a cure is outside if ones ability to obtain it.
Silicon valley stoicism emerged due to people loosing track of their worth, mindlessly running after profit. We should stride for goals (personal and shared), not take solace in a philosophy of existential stagnation.
It's pretty bleak and depressing but IMO it's not ones philosophy that changes, but the interpretation of it and resulting actions that it inspires.
In other words economic prosperity is a variable factor that will influence ones actions no matter what their philosophy is. By changing the variable you will change the product it gives. Dismissing it is ignorant until it's proven that it doesn't influence your sum-of-life-happiness.
Pretty hard to measure given we have 1 playthrough, nevertheless it can still be a factor. Stating otherwise is a matter of opinion about the volatility of influence a given factor has.
Telling people that they must learn to bear their suffering, rather than receive substantial support from (a possibly reorganized) system, is, of course, a very inexpensive form of wellbeing intervention.
He makes a lot of claims, with little to no evidence. You can cherry pick notions of stoicism from it (and incorrectly claim that it can be a universally applied philosophy), but what you've linked is essentially just propaganda.
I mean, Kaczynski was certainly not writing calm and evidence-based prose, but he's regularly cited as saying something seminal and interesting regardless. I don't think "there's no evidence, that's pure propaganda" is untrue, but it feels like a strange objection to raise for anyone aware of what the work is.
Aren't manifestos usually meant to be a position statement or propaganda, with factual debate conducted elsewhere? It's like criticizing an instruction manual for lacking compelling characters, or a holy book for not being peer-reviewed.
(Yes, I realize that a different person could have raised the same ideas without using a bombing campaign to try to publicize them...)
Sure you can come up with various philosophies like stoicism, Buddhism ect but you are merely trading one loop of seeking for another. Now you are stuck in a 'non-seeking' loop and failure to achieve 'non-seeking'.
The practice (IMO) isn't to break the loop as much as it is to see the loop. And to see it while it's happening/during triggers.
Just responding to this: fooling your mind is not hard. Even very rational, skeptical minds engage in self deception all the time. Our minds are so unbelievably malleable. We are all wired to be prone to biases and unexamined schemas. These just look different for rational types.
On the other hand, it is possible to achieve results by not fooling your mind, but simply by reframing one's own thoughts. This is the basis of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which works very well in helping manage negative feedback loops.
Often times our negative emotions are caused by feedback loops, therefore it stands to reason that we need a method to moderate these overactive loops. CBT is one of a few approaches that have been shown to work well for a significant number of people (nothing works 100% of course).
Guy Winch alludes to this in a TED Talk (I think TED talks are oversimplifications, but this one does present some good salient points about emotional hygiene and loneliness which I have found to be helpful in my own life)
https://www.ted.com/talks/guy_winch_the_case_for_emotional_h...
Who is this entity that is reframing the your thoughts. Is it also not you? This is some sort of psychotic thinking to divide yourself into many parts, one part passing judgments and rulings on the other. This sort of thinking of is at the root of why we are so conflicted and full of suffering. This just perpetuates that style of thinking without examining why we are so divided in the first place.
"The great prophylactic against loneliness is feeling that you are part of something bigger than yourself – a family, a friendship group, a community, a benign universe, whatever. Even a community with little in the way of material resources finds some contentment in being in a group of people who are all in it together."
When you're feeling the way you feel you can retreat from the world and try to treat everything with detachment and equanimity, but I think that's a losing proposition. It puts you in a passive role and makes you feel like you don't have much control of your life. It's better to take a more active role in life and find something that you value and work towards that. What it is doesn't really matter as long as you pick something that has a least some significance to you and that involves other people.
All in what together?
Groups need goals, some sense of purpose..
It's a pretty amazing book. And really brings things into sharp contrast. You might be struggling with work (and I've been in that struggle myself, it's not fun, and hard to escape from), but this man managed to to make it through one of the worst atrocities ever committed against fellow humans, and not fall to pieces as a result of it.
http://benjaminmcevoy.com/7-lessons-learned-mans-search-mean...
If you're into essays, check this one out: http://julesboykoff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Boykoff_L...
"A social app, like Tinder but for hangouts with friends.
See what your friends want to do, and swipe right to show you’re interested. You can also join hangouts in the global feed to instantly expand your social circle. Hangouts are capped at 10 people so you can actually get to know each other. Post things you want to do, like "Hike in John Muir". When 10 people swipe right, a chat opens up so you can coordinate when to meet & who is down to go."
Also, slightly ironic/depressing to react to an article about systemic loneliness in the tech age with "maybe we can make an app for that".
Maybe there is hope for it.
Ultimately, though, getting yourself to an event with other people is only part of the problem, you still need to be able to connect with the people you meet, introduce yourself, have a conversation, bond.
If you really want to create an app to tackle social isolation, maybe you could look at something that helps people improve their social skills instead, a sort of online tutor. There are definitely a lot of tricks to be learned to thrive in social situations, and while some people seem innately more equipped, I believe almost everyone can learn them to some degree.
Interestingly just a couple of day I wrote about the topic of loneliness in the modern age at my medium [2]
[1] http://www.idrop.in
[2] https://medium.com/@thisTenqyuLife/life-after-facebook-is-re...
The trouble with an app like this is that if it works and people become friends they'll probably just switch to the lowest common denominator/free platform, e.g. facebook/whatsapp to coordinate, so monetisation could be tricky. I.e. if your app is 100% efficient, people may use it once then not return.
You also have the added challenge of seeding this "two-sided" marketplace (people suggesting activities and those saying they'll attend) in every locality you want to operate in, so you'll need a compelling growth strategy. It also sinks or swims on people actually turn up for events.
Good luck - I do think Meetup sucks and could be far better, but I think you'd need a lucky break/very interesting twist to really gain traction.
Trying something new is usually slightly uncomfortable when you're the only newbie (and everyone else has to accommodate you); and in the clubs I've been a member of, those who stuck around for longer were almost always already friends with another member.
Having whole groups sign up at once gives the club a better chance at retaining them and should also provide a fun experience for everyone even if they don't decide to stay.
features needed to be successful: --STack overflow/HN/Reddit style Rep or magical internet points: These things are important, look how compelling they are for people to go out of their way to do things.... If you can tap into this so people go out of their way... to leave their house and socialize. even if its superficial for internet points, its helping adn putting them in the right direction.
--badges, via Audible App/Duolingo App, and other big sites that have probably spent big $$$$ coming to the conclusion that these things increase engagement. Have badges for 'hung out with same person in same meetup event 6 times in a row...(having social interactions with the same people over and over again builds better connections.) also: hung out with a newb (low reputation) and a (insert great noun here warlock/mage (gender neutral)/pilot etcc.) basically a veteran socializer in same group.(sub point... people can get different avatar badges i dunno anything to make it optionally fun/kooky not so serious, adds a great common talking point when players (social players) get together in a meetup.
--these things can also be refactored to mimic Riot games 'League of Legends' game, a free to play game, that is the #1 esports game in the world, with more viewers than NBA finals. They use 'riot points' as a way to make $ so players can customize / stylize/express uniqueness in game with skins on base models... anyways point being that there oculd be points like this which allow people to 'enhance a meetup' so anyone attending gets a bunch of rep, or gets a hat, or gets a badge etc etc... maybe it costs the person activating it 10$, but its totally worth it for them cause the nerdy players coming are psyched for the __Free__ magical internet points or magical virtual hat or whatever. Also you can tie it into businesses and volunteer organizations in your local town. Like, meetup at foodbank berlin, foodbank Newyork, southside to volunteer and get XXXX extra points, or increase your volunteer badge etc.. heck put in a talent-tree a la duolingo/diablo for volunteering advancment haha (this step would require late stage company growht with lots of emplyees / communtiy mgrs and operations to avoid corruption and loopholes in this system)
At the end of each meetup have an optional form players can fill out ascribing strange nouns or adjectives to other players (green rooted dandelion, extreme fluff shark, ported slime swamp) a la heroku/gfycat slug style. They wont ever know, the exact attributions they receive but every 6 months some strange algorithm takes the inputs and generates a strange pokemon style creature or item and gives it to them.
then fractal-idea-spiral off this and include them in meetup invites with other players who have been given randomly given similar creatures. so then the commonality in that unique meetup is the strange-ass reward they receive in this game.
also see Yelp, and how they have community events, could probably snipe some ideas from that to increase peoples local engagement in this. Or, plug into yelps api and have food based events where people meetup based on local deals restaurants are having. then have sub games inside the meetup like who can take the best photo of a drink shrine, where everyone stacks their drinks/cans of sodas in an intricate pattern, or who can make the best fries shrine or some weird art construction thing like that. they are all passed into a NN-imageclassifier you have running that tries to accurately match em to ancient temple shrines as well as pictures of fries etc...make up some function to give each picture a score. whatever the challenge is. This is crazy dumb, but thats the point its some kooky dumb thing they are doing together and its fun its social. also great press cause it will generate weird headlines.
There would be lots of features/game modes in this app, the food one above...
I think gamification of socialization in general is part of the reason all social media sucks.
My solution is to scale this to everyone, A housing colony with community kitchen and hangout areas. More like a less intense urban co-op. This is probably also a solution to healtcare crisis in america, healthy food + social belonging == well being.
I'm not sure if it has any value, but it was an attempt to lower the barrier of entry to hanging out with people, and at least it's a fun challenge to work on!
Where I live (Japan) living alone is the new norm. After I moved out of university dorms I've lived in little shoebox apartments with my own little kitchen, my own little bathroom and no need to cross paths with any of the other 100 people in my building at all. I see that a lot of the new apartment blocks around my city are full of small, single-occupancy apartments too.
There are no communal spaces. There are no chance encounters. People seem to feel like there is too much risk in meeting new people, let alone dining with them.
There have been some shared houses popping up here and there. But they are viewed as as exceptional and unconventional. Social interaction has become a peculiar character trait rather than a normal part of life.
Living one rung lower on Maslow's hierarchy makes you forget about the desire to be around people, or even leave the house (father's) all that often (2% of the time).
Granted, I think maybe my concern for my health (irrational or not) has been exacerbated, so I've traded loneliness for frequent panic attacks concerning whether or not I might have cancer or a heart defect. On the plus side, I know for a fact that I've torn back muscles weight lifting, so all I really need is the medicaid office to get back to me after submitting my 4th application with no phone calls or emails as to my status.
People don't talk about it, but the club has gotten huge, at least from my vantage point.
I don't think people are being more honest, or it's the ease of communication over the internet.
A lot of people are trying to manage a mix of intense anxiety, and depression.
I look around and technology has just made things worse. (Yea--I know one day--technology might eradicate cancer. I'm not going to argue. Today--I wish the smartphone was Never invented. )
I have always thought too much about death. It's kinda ruined my life.
That said, my only preparation for eventual illness is getting rid the television.
I've never thought it was healthy to be reminded daily through commercials I will get cancer, or if lucky just, die of a quick heart attack. And so many lonely people use t.v to alleviate the pain of being alone, or at least I do.
I haven't got rid of it yet, but it will come. I do have a healthy collection of movies on dvds.
As I aged, I do see why people do drugs. And yes--I do exercise daily. It does help.
Have you tried subreddits like https://www.reddit.com/r/Anxiety/, /r/offmychest/, or something like 7 cups of tea?
As the story relates, we're more like to offer practical advice here on HN rather than the emotional support you probably need right now.
It does, honestly, get better. You're making the right moves, even if it does all look desperate right now.
As far as caffeine goes, I don't know what I'd do without it. Up until recently I was on 2 doses of 3 cups (measurement unit) of espresso per day, but I've realized that I needed to up the dosage, or at least the source. So I went down to 1 dose of 3 cups of espresso + 1 caffeine pill later on, 1 Monster Energy (lowest caffeine content of all my sources I believe), and 1 cup of green tea. This also has the side benefit of pain relief from the muscle tear issues.
As for software development, I'm in the process of learning the ins and outs of OAuth and OpenID Connect prior to implementing a sign up and login. Using Node, so it seems like there is a wealth of tutorials out there for passport, and apparently many of them are insecure (or so I've read), so I want to fully understand the concepts behind the most commonly accepted as secure protocols for Authorization and Authentication. Please correct me if I've said anything gibberish; still learning.
Also, sleep. Good sleep, a bit of regular exercise and a bit of a routine are a great deal of help to stablizing your mood and anxieties.
OAuth and OpenID are completely, ridiculously, utterly, pathetically over-complicated. It's one of the worst specs ever released. You do not need to know it to be a professional developer. Most professional developers will have no clue how it works. Trust me, I have over a decade of experience. If you can get a plug and play library, I really would just do that. Especially while learning development.
I mean, if you're enjoying it, go ahead, but OAuth is basically stupid. A cruel joke inflicted on developers and a lesson in how not to make a spec.
Truthfully, the spec itself doesn't seem too difficult to understand; it's mostly my inability to stay focused that causes me the problems I deal with when studying and coding. Perhaps the true culprit of our times are browser tabs; the more I have open, the more overwhelming it becomes to consume them.
As for caffeine and anxiety it's better than the depression that I feel with a lack of caffeine. Caffeine also has a kind of analgesic effect, or rather maybe the lack of caffeine causes me to have more pain in my spine for some reason. Sleep isn't too difficult with chronic melatonin use. Your body never adapts to melatonin as with other substances, so you can maintain the same dose (5mg in my case) with consistent efficacy. I'm out within 30 minutes after taking melatonin.
https://www.7cups.com/about/howitworks.php
God, seriously, go fucking fuck yourself. It's so fucking insulting to have those kind of asinine assumptions thrown my way.
10,000 years ago, you would live in a tribe. If you were not popular among your tribe, it is likely you would be either exiled and forced to live in solitude and die during winter or be constantly subject to violence.
2,000 years ago, you would live only to work in a farm or be in a state of perpetual war. To make things worse, literacy rate was something around 0.001%, if you were lucky.
1,000 years ago, you would be essentially doing the same while dying from a plague. There was no sanitation of any kind.
200 years ago, you would be working at a factory and going to war every 30 years.
100 years ago, there was no radio or TV, so you still had stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
About 60 years ago women were predominantly housewives and were vulnerable to all sorts of abuse.
So no, right now things are better.
Let's continue improving.
Race riots occurred in this country because of the acute structural contradiction between the white settler-nation and the other nations; these contradictions have not been resolved by radio and TV in the interim. We will see more of these riots in the future.
But I think is that more people would not have been OK with that level of violence and destruction if they had a chance to actually see it, rather than presented through words on a newspaper.
The family/social unit in tribal cultures is comparably closer on many levels than families in individualistic/civilized societies.
In the former, survival depends on community cohesiveness, in the latter, survival is a game of everybody against everybody.
The point of people who think that our society is de-humanized is that when your society was forcing you to work in a farm or to go to war, you didn't have the free will to be alone. You were indeed "forced" to engage in activity involving using your body to do meaningful work (farming), do things with your peers (war).
;-)
But if you eat junk food all the time, it's pretty obvious that one of the immediate consequences of eating junk food every day is the general decline of your health.
So it goes for social media. Social networks are the junk food of socializing. And don't get me started on what that does to someone's sense of self, well-being, norms, ethics, morality etc.
Maybe this picture will be illuminating to you[1]. It succinctly summarizes what I'm trying to say.
I should probably mention the image might be NSFW.
[1] http://artfucksme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/controversi...
"You're on your own" is good when reaping rewards and thriving in a meritocracy, but not when you need help, are losing, or just want warmth.
But a healthy dose of loneliness is what has us reaching for each other.
So we should all just give in, and reach for each other.
Natural feeling tend to take care of themselves, so long as we're capable of being honest.
Of course, that's the other issue.
From "No Exit", by Jean-Paul Sartre, 1944.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Exit
The notion that success is reserved for the deserving, and criminals are devils that require punishment. That there are good and bad people; good do good, and bad do bad. All we need to do is sort them. And that all depends on our individual essence, our free will.
Everything good pre-exists and we shall be the judge.
As opposed to,
"There are no actors, only actions" and "We are the sum of our actions."
"I think therefore I'm thinking."
"I committed a crime, got caught, and that is why I'm in jail."
"I witnessed his birth, I changed his diapers, I taught him how to walk, and he follows me around. He must be my son."
I actually don't have the name for the latter philosophy. I really wish I knew. It's along the lines of Nietzsche and Aristotle, but I can't say they put their finger on it. Any pointers welcome.
It also holds the key:
"I'm lonely. And that's the only reason I need you by my side."
That's all we need.
With one existence precedes all phenomena.
With the other phenomena precedes all existence.
Of course, YMMV. Please take this as a random anecdote, not as evangelism.
"The Sunday Assembly was started by Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, two comedians who were on the way to a gig in Bath when they discovered they both wanted to do something that was like church but totally secular and inclusive of all—no matter what they believed."
The community part is really great though, as a Expat I really miss that sometimes.
First in no way is believing in god a requirement to going to church. If you look at Catholicism they even say that they believe the Bible is only metaphorical and that they believe in evolution.
A lot of people also have very negative (and kind of rightly so) views of the church developed from the religious wars of the 90’s and 00’s. I want to say that these cultural battles were in part 1). stoked by church leaders as a means to hold their congregations together [there are a million ways to argue over Christian doctrine otherwise] and increase their bargaining power as church leaders with political leaders and 2). were also stoked by more liberal leaders as a means to rile up their base / present a credible threat.
SOURCE: The Evangelicals and America https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439131333/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_1-ro...
Whether church or volunteering or finding a hobby, just pick 1 thing. Having something to look forward to and a group of people we have something in common with (even if it is new) is something all humans crave. Just try one, and try another until you find your thing.
We're social beings. Nevertheless I think that finding meaning in life should be separate from a decision to belong to any group. Be it of interest or religious. All a group can provide is opportunities.
Humans need face to face contact to be fully happy.
Why, as supposedly modern humans, do we have to rediscover this?
The obvious solution is to own your decisions and start doing what you think is right for you, but it's far easier said than done to step out from under the expectations you've been saddled with your entire life.
I understand its natural for students to pep talk their peers to study more, but I don't understand why controversial suggestions are being dismissed. I almost feel like these calls for help are just seeking validation to continue hoop jumping instead of actually finding alternative ways to fix the root cause. It makes me sad to think that my peers don't think they are ready for working life until they graduate, whilst I would, as an employer, much rather hire someone capable of self-inspection and listening of people with differentiating viewpoints.
The computer science department and the careers office jointly brought in some startup founders to talk about founding or joining startups and take questions; it was really quite a good idea. Someone asked about degrees and majors - do you need a Master's, which degrees are 'relevant', and so on. The first few founders hemmed and hawed, said "technical skills from any degree" and "undergrad is enough" and so on.
The last founder didn't play the game. His answer was: "I'm not worried about your name on a sheet of paper. If you're good at what you do, I'll hire you."
Cue nervous laughter from the moderator, and a gentle prompt: "but of course it's worth finishing up school for the people who are already here, those are valuable skills, right?"
Founder: "I guess I was unclear. If you drop out today, I will hire you. I recommend it."
The next year that panel wasn't repeated.
Much like companies asking for 10 years of Rust experience, from what I've seen qualifications tend to matter less as you get further along in your career.
This is going to be very anecdotal, but that merit is even more run by buzzwords than qualitative inspection of one's skills compared to a degree. I had the privilege to be employed as 20-year old in Silicon Valley as a foreigner, but I did not find myself doing more challenging work than I had before. However, namedropping Silicon Valley on my CV had huge implications back in my home country once I returned (because ironically I did not have a degree). The interesting part is that not a single workplace back in my home country has yet conducted a technical review for me, yet I have been given offer letters.
What I am saying is that while some people feel like a BSc is a dumb obligation, the path of having a prestigious CV isn't much better. Instead, if you happen to have one, the chances are that some CV buzzwords are regarded as, as you said about degrees:
> considered a signifier of some minimal level of skill and will of course be one of the primary ways that applicants are evaluated
Yet I find this alarmingly false. This has caused me to stray away of those companies, as I don't really want to be employed somewhere where people are hired like this either.
What made it memorable for me was mostly watching people freeze up and basically try to avoid the suggestion. I certainly think there are people for whom dropping out of college to work at a startup is sensible, and yet no one was going to even discuss the merits of the comment.
Certainly a six-figure salary is not necessary for happiness, but if you find yourself working long hours to make rent in some midwestern town it's going to cut into your opportunities for self-discovery and joy. And if you got wise a bit too late, after picking up federal student loans, you might well find that your dream career is genuinely off the table. (Found your true calling as a firefighter? Better keep up on those loans or you'll lose your license.)
It seems like we've created a system where the straight-and-narrow is increasingly narrow, and the cliffs around it are increasingly high. It's still worth finding one's own path, but in both social and purely-practical terms it's gotten steadily harder.
On the one hand yes, on the other hand mobility at every level has never been greater, even if still not at the optimal level.
Are we maybe talking about different forms of mobility?
From Wikipedia:
"In recent years, several studies have found that vertical intergenerational mobility is lower in the US than in some European countries.[1] US social mobility has either remained unchanged or decreased since the 1970s.[2]"
"A study published in 2008 showed that economic mobility in the U.S. increased from 1950 to 1980, but has declined sharply since 1980.[3]"
"A 2013 Brookings Institution study found income inequality was increasing and becoming more permanent, sharply reducing social mobility.[4]"
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-t...
[2] http://www.economist.com/node/3518560?story_id=3518560
[3] http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/43/1/139.refs
[4] http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conferen...
Source?
As I'm not a parent, I have no idea how the modern child is raised or how the modern parent is "expected" to raise their kid, but I get the feeling that, on the whole, creativity and exploration aren't encouraged in young children; rather their lives revolve around structured activities where the agenda is decided ahead of time for them. That's a great way to keep kids busy, but I'm not sure if or how it develops their brains and senses of independence... But I have no actual proof of that claim, just anecdotal evidence from seeing my aunt and grandparents raise my younger cousins.
Lucky ones. Here in Russia you are expected to have university diploma by 21-22, otherwise you are close to being treated as subhuman, lol.
As a result - huge paint for many people, depreciation of higher education etc.
I know Japan still has "simultaneous hiring", where a whole graduating class gets hired at once, and if you don't have a degree and a job on schedule you either avoid graduating or risk being marginalized. Compared to something like that, the US is still admirably willing to let people take time off school, drop out, or just spend some time unemployed after graduating.
If I was lonely I think I'll go somewhere where board games are played and there find an unlimited company.
Thankfully, solving this problem doesn't require changing all of society. You can solve it for yourself: take a few years to notice and unlearn your habits for pushing away other people. I'm confident that you have many such habits right now, from the way you stare at your phone in public, to your posture and facial expressions every minute of the day.
To give you a picture of the end result, imagine a stereotypical immigrant from a more collectivist culture. Their reputation for openness isn't undeserved.
Then again, I have this vague thought that many people suffer from loneliness (depression, etc) because of how we are raised, how society, culture, civilization, have molded our minds. I think in modern day, consciousness is everything. But because it’s an unknowable object, we ignore it or worse: pretend it doesn’t exist. Consequently, we end up hard-headed in a matrix of half-baked beliefs, lonely, depressed, fearful, and anxious. I don’t know, the whole social order I think is set up in order to avoid the unknowable, if you will, of what everything is. The idea that the radio is blaring at all times. That we are all taught to listen to channels but never taught to turn it off and listen to the silence. If only we were to listen we would see that from the unknowable arises a reflection; the consciousness of everything, the I-am. At this point, I think, sort of in the poverty of true humility, everything that appears is seen as a miracle. The birds chirping in the morning is as much of a miracle as being in the perfect spot in the knowable universe for life to exist. The question then arises: Why is it that we remain deaf/blind running around anxiously in the noise when pure consciousness is right here out in the open all the time?
Above all: I think loneliness may be combated through several forms: reading really good fiction, doing drugs (weed in particular), having passionate sex, or any form of escapism. I find that the latter are only temporary ways to combat loneliness. If we would like to conquer loneliness, making a home of yourself and reflecting on what truly is is really important.
“The higher degree of responsibility that you agree voluntarily to try to bear the richer your life will be.” -Jordan Peterson
"Success is as dangerous as failure. Hope is as hollow as fear.
What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure? Whether you go up the ladder or down it, Your position is shaky. When you stand with your two feet on the ground, You will always keep your balance.
What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear? Hope and fear are both phantoms That arise from thinking of the self. When we don't see the self as self, What do we have to fear?
See the world as your self. Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self; Then you can care for all things."
-Lao Tzu