This is more complex than you might thing. First, there's far more places to meet people - rather than having them over for coffee, we meet in a coffeeshop. Networks have provided a "together in time" alternative to "together in place", so people can game, talk, ... via voice and video rather than traveling to a common location. There's far more 2-working-member families than previously, so the ability to organize household events is reduced. Finally, there's far more organized sports activities that consume both child and parent time. These pull everybody out of the house.
For the last century (and still today) we called them cafés (in Germany). Coffee shop was the term we used for joints in Amsterdam where you could buy ... well, joints.
Yeah, but they weren't as common as they are today. There were pubs and eateries before also, but again, not so common. My point was that much of what was done "then" in one's house are now done elsewhere. Some, of course, aren't done and I'm not sure they're quite so popular.
And I assume the pertinent discussion is what happened/changed in the western world post WW II.
Decline in religion + third spaces combined with socioeconomic system expectations of a 40 hour work week + two incomes needed to live comfortably. Places and time for community and social activities has declined, and so social activity has as well.
If more social time is desired at the macro system level, people need to have more leisure time (shorter work week, higher wages, good quality of life with more free time broadly speaking) and more third spaces to meet and socialize.
An enormous portion of my social life is through my church. Bible studies, committee, small groups, Sunday schools are the main structures things, and then you make friends through it and start having other people over and hanging out with them. I don't know what my social life would look like without it.
Do you have ideas on how this will be solved for with 100k churches anticipated to close over the next several years, and religions in the US losing half their members every generation?
At least in the US, people are leaving the church (at least the more conservative ones) in droves. I saw recent numbers that over 40% of people who were raised LDS are no longer in adulthood, for example.
Tying religion to politics was probably a bad idea for both religion and politics.
I’ll never forget a conversation I overheard on a plane years back: a caricature of a man in his 20s failing repeatedly to explain to an older lady what a “gastropub” was. Each time, he rephrased his description, and each time she responded, “that sounds like a pub.”
“No, not exactly...,” he replied in an increasingly exasperated tone. I could hear the struggle in his voice as he recognized the cracks forming in the thin veneer of his identity. “It’s like a pub, but it serves food. Like, real food, thoughtfully considered by a gastrochef.” She returned the serve, now teetering on boredom at minute four of the flight. “At our pub we call him Kevin. He makes the best pot pie.”
He regrouped and they found truce in talking about the weather in Toronto. I resisted the urge to twist around to ask if they knew any good restaurants downtown.
A pub must serve drink. It doesn't need to serve food.
In Ireland that distinction matters. It generally will affect other things, like what time and how loud music will be played, how the tables and chairs will be organised and what type. It will often affect opening hours and the price of a pint. Gastro pubs also tend to be much larger.
In North America it seems the vast majority of "pubs" are gastro pubs, possibly why that lady couldn't see the difference. I personally love micropubs and they never serve food other than crisps and maybe a toastie.
I feel like a pedant but I get that dude in his 20s and had to speak up.
> In North America it seems the vast majority of "pubs" are gastro pubs
To be fair, at least in the US, anything calling itself a "pub" is already going down a marketing/branding road and it almost certainly means they're going to try to evoke an Irish or British sensibility.
Social media, smart phones, and all of that are heavily responsible for this, but at the same time I think the main crux of the issue, in my opinion, is that we don’t have a common culture anymore. As long as you don’t have a common culture and a common understanding of the basic rules that everyone agrees on, no one can spend time with each other comfortably.
"All but the most extreme far-right and far-left people in the country really do agree on 95%+ of anything with daily relevance to their lives."
Can I get a source for this? Or is this just something you are pulling out of nowhere to argue against someone else's lived experience because it conflicts with yours?
Now consider what fraction of things in a society could possibly be controversial, versus things like: "when a person is hurt, I should try to help them" or "when I owe money, I should pay it back," or "if I find money lying around, I should find the proper owner," or "if I'm taking an exam, I should not cheat on it."
These are beliefs that are nearly unanimous within American culture and not unanimous at all globally. Those are what constitute the core of "our culture." They are by definition nearly invisible to us.
The fragmentation of culture is also the fault of social media (and all media to a lesser extent). It's far easier to get sucked in to echo chambers where other opinions are mocked or shut out.
In the past we all got our news from Walter Cronkite.
I had a pretty busy social life in university, 20 years ago
The first city I landed in afterwards, I was able to make some connections and was lucky enough some of my uni friends were around too
But I moved for work to a much further away city and my social life has dropped to zero since then. The pandemic and lockdowns didn't help of course, but that was years ago. I don't have a single friend in this city and I've lived here almost 10 years now
Admittedly I'm kind of socially awkward and quite afraid of new groups, which has only gotten worse over the years. I also haven't had any luck making lasting connections through work or anything like that.
I tend to blame myself for this but it's not too surprising to hear many others are struggling too
The 55+ crowd where I'm from have the most active social life. Constantly at each others houses for a chat, activities (gossip parties) after Sunday mass etc.
Americans are very intolerant of others, whether it's political convictions or food preferences; the few that have kids threat the little ones like fragile glassware that can't be moved or otherwise inconvenienced, so it doesn't surprise me that they meet others less. My wife and I meet with a varying group of friends every week, or even more, but we're all immigrants. We've tried to invite local acquaintances, but they always find a reason to say no and just stay home.
The simple answer is media. First television, then internet, then smartphones.
People used to actively seek the company of others - if for no other reason than out of boredom. Entertainment and parasocial relationships have filled that hole.
Another reason I might posit is declining birth rates and an aging population. Entire neighborhoods used to be filled with young families of roughly the same age. Now on any given city block in the US, there may only be 1 or 2 houses that have kids of any age in them. Smaller concentration of kids -> thinner market for playdates and sleepovers -> less interactions between families.
I think the media influence went far beyond just pacifying or entertaining.
The relentless satire is what really did it. It was all written by some of the smartest yet depraved and depressed people who found a home in comedy. What did we think was going to happen?
Satire is all well and good, but what are we doing when we no longer take anything seriously anymore? Social media, but particularly reddit, continues to be an echo chamber for these mentally castrated and bitter people who couldn't challenge the comedy with a life that was actually any better than what was being mocked.
I've heard that everything is nihilistic. Things are funny when you're life's good. Things are serious when your life's not good but following them will to make it good. Things are nihilistic when your life's not good but gambling has a chance of making it good and that's the best option you see.
Example of past generation seriousness: investing - put all your money in housing or the stock market and you'll get rich and comfortable. Example of current generation nihilism: everyone wanting to be an influencer. Some people will become successful and some more will get by but most will fail at that, by the mathematics of it. Or literal gambling as in the rise of Kalshi - if your life's crap with $0 or $1k but wouldn't be crap with $100k, why not put it all on 100x odds? Or something like looksmaxxing: will doing xyz to your jawline somehow result in success? Probably not, but it might and you weren't going to be successful otherwise anyway.
GP is wrong anyway, comedy's always been about saying what everyone is secretly thinking.
> comedy's always been about saying what everyone is secretly thinking
That actually was my whole point. Why do you think they're saying what you're thinking? Where did you get those thoughts from? Comedy has been an influence and tastemaking machine for a very long time.
I think Bowling Alone did a great job of describing the phenomena. I don't think it did a great job of explaining why it was happening.
It doesn't, for example, cover the privatization of public spaces, it doesn't mention mass white flight from cities to suburban sprawl due to people wanting to preserve apartheid, nor does it cover the rise in wealth inequality or the weakening of labor laws or the obliteration of pedestrian friendly infrastructure.
Instead, it pins it all on 'television' which, sure, but there's a reason why people gravitate towards entertainment that is served to them much more cheaply per-hour than not. It's a little like saying the problem with small pox is that the boils are painful, not the underlying virus systematically destroying your body.
In my personal experience in community organizing, the main pain points people have are 1) that they have day jobs that exhaust them, 2) the traffic sucks and they don't want to drive to our meetings, or 3) they need to pick up a second shift or another job to cover their basic needs. And even to those points, it's hard to get a public space where you can regularly meet that doesn't charge a lot of money, to provide food/refreshment, to maintain an ongoing potluck which requires a lot of coordination especially when it comes to preferences/dietary restrictions, etc. It's almost never out of a lack of interest. People desperately want community but there are so many barriers in place.
> It doesn't, for example, cover the privatization of public spaces, it doesn't mention mass white flight from cities to suburban sprawl due to people wanting to preserve apartheid
That's because, contrary to the way it's often depicted, the 20th century was overwhelmingly a flight from rural areas to cities. Suburbs were an outgrowth of that, but the reality is that rural areas were hollowed out the most. (Also, community engagement in rural areas with lots of sprawl was even higher than in cities).
> that they have day jobs that exhaust them
The median adult is spending 5+ hours on their phone a day. This is what is exhausting people. Everyone is essentially working a second job that involves lots of reading and attention and social engagement. It's a parasitic draw on our lives.
> they need to pick up a second shift or another job to cover their basic needs.
Maybe that's true for some people, but the data usually shows that income and free time is inversely related to community time. Poorer people are making more time for friends and family.
I can see what you're trying to do - reframe this problem as another outgrowth of class struggle. But it doesn't really explain the reality. A steelworker in the 1920s coming off of a 10-hour shift would still find the time and energy to go out dancing. A software engineer in 2026 is going to get off of work at 5pm and watch 3.4 more hours of screen time in a day.
>the 20th century was overwhelmingly a flight from rural areas to cities
You're talking about an entirely different phenomena. The move from rural areas to cities and exurbs happened in the 50s/60s with cheap mortgage rates, WWII-provisioned education, and large sweeping social services being enacted. White flight is a phenomena that started in the mid-60s to 80s that specifically coincided with integration.
>The median adult is spending 5+ hours on their phone a day. This is what is exhausting people
There's much to be said about the behavioral manipulation and dark patterns in apps and devices, sure. But I don't think television inherently was employing Skinner-boxes to get people to watch and that's what I was specifically speaking to. Regardless, that dark pattern of it is class struggle related if that's the direction you want to frame it (I see it more as just MBA-brained corporate sociopathy) because it seeks to extract capital from its users while externalizing all negatives onto the users themselves.
>Maybe that's true for some people, but the data usually shows that income and free time is inversely related to community time. Poorer people are making more time for friends and family.
Obviously. And this is clearly related to the fact that the more impoverished you are, the more you need to pool resources to survive. The pain points I illuminated are for individuals who are still showing up to community organizing work and much of what we do in these spaces is effectively providing enough mutual aid for them to survive.
> A steelworker in the 1920s coming off of a 10-hour shift would still find the time and energy to go out dancing.
You have proof of this? That they wouldn't just go home and get shitfaced or otherwise incapacitated? All steelworkers, per capita, were going out dancing regularly? And even so, this wasn't because they were economically incentivized by the rise of labor unions to be in community with others, building power and fighting for better rights? The 30 years of post-Reagan neoliberal expanisionism has effectively neutered unions - and that's something that wasn't covered either by Putnam.
I suspect another thing largely missed by Putnam was the rise of online social spaces. Connecting with friends via the phone, on Discord, in video game spaces - that's community. It's just different from the community envisioned by people in more elderly generations. The fact that you're even commenting on HackerNews is effectively proof against Putnam's claims.
You don't connect with your friends on these platforms, mostly. You connect with amorphous anonymous mobs of people. Like on HN, you aren't my friend, just someone posting, and your username is interchangeable with the one attached to any other reply.
Nobody's commented on your most important point: "city" does not equate to "community involvement." Suburban people statistically volunteer more and join groups more than rural or urban people, and rural people are more likely to meet in person with their groups than suburban or urban people [0].
I'm not sure how much that is age correlation. Suburbs are older and usually have more parents, so they're more likely to volunteer in clubs and organizations. Even in my urban area the most frequently volunteered at organization is the PTA and most of the soup kitchens and senior centers have volunteers in their late 30s to early-50s.
Community engagement isn't also quite the same thing as friend groups. This is making me interested in doing a similar analysis.
> I can see what you're trying to do - reframe this problem as another outgrowth of class struggle. But it doesn't really explain the reality. A steelworker in the 1920s coming off of a 10-hour shift would still find the time and energy to go out dancing.
I doubt that steelworkers around 1920 typically went out dancing after their shifts. Back then, there was a lack of radios or sound systems, and live music was likely reserved for more upscale establishments. The average worker would more likely have gone to a beer hall or pub to have a drink with his mates.
I haven’t been able to quickly find any statistics for the U.S. that go back that far, but in Germany, around 67% of 18- to 25-year-olds were still consuming alcohol regularly in 1973, whereas that figure had dropped to about 28% by 2023. I’m not suggesting that this trend is inherently negative, but there is, at the very least, a correlation with a decline in social activities.
> The median adult is spending 5+ hours on their phone a day. This is what is exhausting people.
When I am tired from work, I spend more time on phone after. And less time doing other more engaging activities. When I had easy workday, I am more likely to do something else.
> Poorer people are making more time for friends and family.
This is what I found: "the social interactions of those from lower-income households tend to revolve around family members and neighbors" and "richer people spend more with their self-selected friends".
This would confirm exactly what OP wrote - people who do socialize do it with people nearby.
> I can see what you're trying to do - reframe this problem as another outgrowth of class struggle.
They are referring to what they see as they do their community organizing. You dismiss it all, because none of that should theoretically matter.
>When I am tired from work, I spend more time on phone after. And less time doing other more engaging activities. When I had easy workday, I am more likely to do something else.
I have a similar experience but I don't think this disagrees with the parent. My mental exhaustion makes me seek out low-friction "junk food" behaviors. But much like drinking after work because you had a long day, the phone exhausts you in another way. The cure and disease are one in the same here.
Have you read the book? It does cover everything you listed.
Putnam doesn't pin it all on television, this is the high level breakdown he arrives at after the long analysis chapters:
10% The pressure of time and money, two career families, wealth inequality
10% Suburbanization, long commute, surburd's segregation, loss of public space
10% Television and other solo entertainment
15% Television related generational change
35% Other generational change (the replacement of the WW2 generation with their children and grand-children)
20% Unknown other causes
So only 25% caused by television.
The following hypotheses were found unconclusive:
The growth of the welfare state
The civil rights revolution
Changes in structure and scale of the American economy (chain store, globalization)
Reversing the loss of public space trend is also one of the 6 big outlines for solutions he proposes in the final part.
Your personal experience is true and covered in Bowling Alone.
I don’t think it’s as simple as that. It seems like people are increasingly exhausted and disillusioned with life.
What you seem to be implying is people are lazy and choosing TikTok over real relationships. But I also think people choose TikTok because it’s low effort and they don’t have much gas left in the tank.
> It seems like people are increasingly exhausted and disillusioned with life.
The interesting part is what causes what. Are people exhausted and disillusioned because they aren't experience life the same way as previously, or aren't they having these experiences because they are exhausted and disillusioned.
This might be controversial, and I'm not saying it has to be the case, but I believe at least part of it is due to lack of sunlight / outside movement (vs all day in office, car, train, home with stuffy air and sometimes not even openable windows) and nutrition (too much processed and fortified food, not enough protein for many people).
I'm trying to focus on both in my life, and I have become much happier as a result.
>seems like people are increasingly exhausted and disillusioned with life.
Counterpoint, people are TOLD and CONVINCED that they are exhausted and that life is way harder than it is.
Capitalism loves someone who is "too busy" to make stuff or avoid buying stuff.
Our lives are all about reducing friction and making everything easier.
Relative to 20-30 years ago we are so lucky and privileged. It's nuts how the victim mindset has spread.
I've lived all over the place and one thing I've seem priliferate is this mindset of "I'm a victim, doing this is too hard, so I just won't for X and Y reasons" while folks order Uber eats.
I think people are actually increasingly exhausted and disillusioned with life, but that increase is basically entirely due to spending hours doomscrolling and similar behavior.
One could argue that both parents having to work is much more difficult than when one person could support a household. Houses, healthcare and education are objectively much more expensive as well. It's not "victim mindset", it's literal exhaustion because everything is much more expensive. There's also no way to retire vs pensions and other baby boomer offramps.
Life has become increasingly expensive. Safety nets that used to be there, aren’t anymore. We’re surrounded by enshittification. Social divides, and antagonism between social groups are high.
Your contempt for humanity is blinding you to real issues people face every day. Yes, some things have gotten better over the years, but some things have gotten a lot worse.
I don't need people to tell me. My rent and paycheck are a very convincing argument in and of themselves.
>I've lived all over the place and one thing I've seem priliferate is this mindset of "I'm a victim, doing this is too hard, so I just won't for X and Y reasons" while folks order Uber eats.
There's a lot I can do by myself. But at the end of the day, someone choosing not to ghost me for a hangout or take the time to get together regularly is a 2-way street. Even pre-pandemic, it's been said people are flakier than ever.
There are systematic reasons to explain this, but on a micro level: "just work harder" is not a solution to friendship.
20-30 years ago was 1996-2006. Granted, I was younger back then, but in my mind this post Cold War, young Internet, pre-smartphone age was the best of times. Since then life got easier in some ways, harder in others. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about today, but how do you think we're so much better off now?
No one's saying there aren't legitimate reasons to be disillusioned with the world - but that's not mutually exclusive from people socializing or having community. If anything, it's one reasons people are so exhausted and defeated to begin with.
There's a reason people call it "doomscrolling", and it's not because it's healthy escapism. Bad news and defeatism is psychologically addictive, and platforms have financial incentive to pump your brain full of negativity. Regardless of how bad it is outside, the internet is not a protective bubble - it's an opium den.
In the Great Depression there was community and hope. People could band together, form unions or political movements.
Today, computers allow for mass dystopian control. Cameras and algorithms everywhere with no chance of appealing to an actual human.
There are multiple kinds of suffering, and even if more people have sufficient nutrition and health than in the great depression, it's much harder to see hope for the future today.
It’s bleaker because everyone knows a lot more. People back in the day were for lack of a better word- naive. They had no idea what others were doing outside of their neighborhood and what was in the newspapers. There are incredible, chronic hidden pressures in the world now even if you individually disengage from social media and the like.
It's a negative feedback loop too. There used to be people out doing things so when folks got bored they'd go find them.
Now entertainment and social media sort of fill that gap (not really) but enough that there's less people out. Less people out mean it's less entertaining, so less people go out etc.
And when you do find people out, they're wearing headphones and/or their nose is in a screen, and if you try to talk to them they look startled and annoyed like how dare you speak to me in a public place. The culture is just gone.
my 94 yo gpa is calling his homies ALL DAY LONG. ill see my best friends between once a week to once a month and texting comes and goes. if i got a phone call i assume its an emergency
> First television, then internet, then smartphones
i like vr so i sometimes wonder if itll catch on and if were in the "we know one or two people with a tv" era of the early 40s. theres certainly seems to be a financial incentive since it seems like tvs and phones have gone about as far as we can take them. its also certainly seems like a another leap down the isolation path as well
luckily i think most people reject vr bc it sucks to wear something on your face
Media in general is probably the real answer. We lack boredom at home. Earlier you were bored, so you signed up for sports, went on cheap trips, camping, pretty much anything to get out. Talking to older people 60 - 70+, some of them spent three or four days at the clubhouse of their chosen sport, they where constantly out of the house, because that's were you weren't bored.
> Entertainment and parasocial relationships have filled that hole.
I would also add the suburbanization of American society. A neat little home in a neat little sub-division with a neat little patch of grass. You can sit on your grass in your own little kingdom, and be completely unbothered by the world around you.
And being alone and bored is enabled by television and scrolling.
It turns out, being completely unbothered is also unchallenging, and challenge drives us.
Honestly, I view the suburbs as the worst of both worlds (urban and rural), with few benefits.
BTW: As an aside, this is why i think the suburbs-class loves tesla self driving so much. The one downside is the long monotony of transitting to the place where people gather to do your work. I'm not against self driving cars, but they enable suburban self-imposed isolation.
I grew up in suburban Wisconsin. The at-home bar was and is common there too.
People don't throw parties with them nearly as much any more because throwing a party with an at-home bar in a suburban house essentially requires drunk driving. We've gotten much more strict about since 1980 for very good reason.
Happy hours are still relatively common in cities because you can get home without driving.
Interesting experience I supposed. Mine is the exact opposite. Neighbors in the suburbs are a community , whereas in the city, it’s common for neighbors to remain strangers.
I've had far easier experience joining my neighborhood community in a city as many of my neighbors are literally walking around. My last 2 suburban neighborhood communities were on Facebook and the groups were less "lets get coffee" and more "that car that drove by is suspicious". One of my old neighbors in a city occasionally had a TV and cooler set up outside for people to drop by to watch baseball.
Prior to air conditioning the venerable front porch was the socialization locale of choice. A lot of houses in my city have a massive one and it's kinda sad to me to not see many people sitting on them virtually ever
That's not a universal truth. I grew up in the suburbs and I've lived in a city for my whole adult life. I feel a MUCH stronger sense of community in the city. I know so many of my neighbors that it's hard to leave my house without running into somebody I know.
It's funny that as a child in the suburbs I had maybe 10 neighbors within a half mile and we only knew 2 of them. I never saw them. There were no sidewalks and people didn't walk around.
In fact, in our typical suburban boredom, sometimes we'd sneak around our neighbor's properties to see if we could learn who they were. We were pretending to be spies. One time we discovered that our closest neighbors had goats and we were blown away. I never did meet the people living in those suburban houses in the 10 years we lived in that house.
I’m from Germany so I can’t comment on the exact dynamics of American suburbia but I grew up in a medium to small town in a single family House and we were regularly in contact with the neighbors. Eventually I moved out into the next big city and in the apartment complex that I moved into it’s completely anonymous and no contact between neighbors except the occasional head nod.
This has largely been my experience as well but in the US. However, a new couple moved in next door to my apartment. We’ve done happy hour with them and I share the fruits of my cooking/baking adventures. Stop and chat when we are not in a hurry. For whatever reason we’ve not gotten to be much closer than friendly neighbors. Could be the woes of young professionals in their 30s without kids but the effort definitely feels greater than at other points of life.
I live in a suburb by a major city in the US, and know so many neighbors. The sense of community is really strong. I help my neighbors remove snow and take their trash out as they are old.
I feel like some people are just making assumptions or are extremely introverted.
A lot of people are assuming that the main people you would be interacting with in a city are your neighbors. There are many more positive interactions you'd have, outside.
When I rented an apartment in central part of large city for 2 years, I literally haven’t never seen people from 2 other apartments on same floor as me and maybe had one chat with last one.
I rent house in suburbs, at nice cul de sac, I know names of neighbors in 2 houses and had chats with 2 more. So your mileage may vary A LOT. Although large city offers many more chances to randomly step up. Reaching literal center of city and it’s life in 30 minutes on subway is much different from reaching another burbs on car.
Yeah the point of apartments is not to socialize with the neighbors specifically, it's more that the increased density gets you walkability and density.
It's much more appealing to get to the street and walk when you have 4 cafes, a theater, two libraries and a gym in a 10 minute radius than when you just get to walk next to lawns for an hour.
And there's a point to be made for the added friction of a small home. The more self sufficient your house is the harder it is to convince yourself to get out.
Thats wild to me. When I lived in an apartment I couldn’t get out the door without having the crazy cat lady telling me her new smoking spot the cameras couldn’t see (she wanted to smoke on the rooftop). It was a riot, that place had some characters.
The suburbs were soul sucking to me, the people were largely insufferable. I knew my neighbors, but hated them because 90% of our conversations were some form of “I noticed your grass wasn’t cut this week” or “your cans sat on the curb until the morning”. There were some good ones, but like me they mostly hid in their back yard to avoid the Karen’s.
A lot of people are assuming that the main people you would be interacting with in a city are your neighbors. There are many more positive interactions you'd have, outside.
> I would also add the suburbanization of American society. A neat little home in a neat little sub-division with a neat little patch of grass. You can sit on your grass in your own little kingdom, and be completely unbothered by the world around you.
What are you talking man? Atomic family from 50s with their suburb is literally the utopia for American and whatnot family. Kids running around in droves, BBQ with neighbors, helping around with a house, etc. Good luck having that in New York rat cages.
It’s interesting that you think the opposite of the suburbs is high rises (I assume that’s what you mean by rat cages).
The reality is that prewar housing in cities in the US was still frequently single family housing. The Chicago Bungalow is an obvious example.
The difference was in how close they were to each other and how much of the infrastructure was given to cars.
I’m not sure I buy that there is some tidy explanation about suburbanization leading to the decline in social interaction but if you think everyone describing city living is describing midtown manhattan you’ve got to myopic view of what urban housing means.
This is true of suburbs as well fwiw. There are lots of walkable suburbs with common community space and not a McMansion or big box shop to be seen.
The pre-war streetcar suburbs are great. Everything is on a grid, which makes getting around easy. After WWII it's all cul-de-sacs and arterials, and there is no place for kids to walk to.
I live in a city similar to NYC (but not quite as dense) and IMO it's far better for kids than the suburbs.
I grew up in the suburbs and it was a miserable experience. If I wanted to go anywhere I had to ask an adult to drive me. There were no sidewalks. Nearest friend's house was a mile away, and my parents were understandably afraid of letting us go there alone. It was a 100% car-dependent suburb. Everything was so spread out. Nobody wanted to live on a main road with cars, so there were endless dead-ends and culs-de-sac so everybody can have their own little traffic-free neighborhood
One time I literally WALKED SIX MILES to the mall because I was just so bored. I literally spent about half a day just walking on streets with cars going 40+ miles per hour with no shoulder. What's worse is that I had to go behind my parents back to do it because who wants their kid walking next to F-150s going 40 miles an hour?
I thought things would get better once I could drive. Things improved a little bit, but it's hard to afford a car + insurance + gas at 17 years old. The car was a huge drain on my limited resources. I was so eager to get rid of it
Once I discovered the "rat cages" you're deriding, life became a whole lot better for me. I refuse to raise my kids in the suburbs. Kids deserve better than that.
My experience is literally the exact opposite. Suburbs were lifeless, soulless places and the city is where my social life got measurably better. There's no way I can ever go back to the suburbs now
I'd say there are upsides and downsides. The kids have room to play, but do you have to drive them to see their friends? Or are they close enough to walk or ride their bikes over there? It depends on the neighborhood.
Space to play, but nowhere to go. Everybody has their own private space which isn't great for social interaction. Kids have to be driven everywhere which isn't great for families
Cities have shared parks. I don't have any yard. But I have wonderful parks within short walking distance. There are far more amenities and so much more to offer at public parks than private yards. It's a shared backyard
In the suburbs, everybody has their own play structure in their back yard. In cities, we have bigger, better play structures that more kids can use simultaneously which encourages more social interaction.
Kind of disagree, suburbs I see most of the kids literally played in the streets or alleyways. Usually it only stops in winter and mostly because it gets dark shortly after school and the extreme cold.
Plus the actual article itself is commenting on a decline of socializing that's occurred in the last 30 years. But suburbs have been predominant the US for around 60 years. And there's similar declines occurring in more dense cities like NYC and Washington. If it was strictly a suburb problem then someone living in Manhattan shouldn't have been affected but last I heard even those cities are affected.
Another problem with the suburbs is car-dependency. When you're in a car you're not interacting in a positive way with other people. In the best case scenario you're just isolating yourself and in the worst case scenario you're angry and frustrated at other people on the road.
This stands in stark contrast to my car-free life. Every time I go out of the house to travel somewhere, I run into people I know. I say hi to strangers. I nod to pedestrians crossing the street. I have a brief conversation with somebody on the bus. I didn't expect that traveling by transit or bike would have such a positive impact on my well-being.
Knowing what I know now, it's not possible for me to go back to a suburban car-dependent life. It would be a major step backwards
I don't think anybody would call me extroverted. I'm a typical introverted engineer. humans are social creatures!
when you're in a car, the possibility for a positive social interaction is nearly 0. I don't know about you but I've never been happier after driving my car
when you're not in a car, there's just more opportunities for small social interactions. You can choose to take those opportunities or not, but they're there. There's just something different about being eye-to-eye with people and not separated by a sound proof metal and glass cage
The urban lifestyle is also to blame when it demands a lot of time for work and commute, leaving the individual with little time for self improvement and free time. It deteriorates the third place by not allowing time to dedicate to it.
These however are all effects of a larger mentality of hyper-individualism and hyper-productivity, symptoms of late-stage capitalism.
It's common of Internet discourse to reduce an extremely wide range of experiences down to either the one you personally had or a stereotype. Suburbs are kind of like that. You can see it in the existing responses, with some people saying they experienced tremendous community in a suburb but not in a city and some saying the opposite.
The truth is there is no archetype of an "American suburb." They can be wildly different from each other. I grew up in Whittier, a suburb of Los Angeles, famous for car culture. You can find videos today all over the place of lowriders on hydraulics cruising Whittier Blvd. It's referenced in rap songs from the 90s. But you could also walk or ride a bike. Whittier Blvd itself is two lanes each way for much of its length and is the biggest street in the city. I lived two blocks from this street and walked places all the time. I knew all my neighbors. Kids played in the streets. We walked to parks and played there, too. Whittier even has a really nice wilderness park thanks to Turnbull Canyon, where you're not really remote but you can feel that way. In high school when we were assigned to read Walden Pond and produce similar journals, I found isolated creekbeds where you couldn't hear or see anything except the woods and kept a paper journal I wrote in.
On the other hand, my sisters have moved out to Murrieta, CA and are raising their children there. It's a radically different experience. My wife asked if we could walk to a convenience store when we first visited and my sister was almost laughing at us. It's miles away, some streets have no sidewalks, the streets are a hundred feet wide with 50 mph+ speed limits. It's also hot as hell because it's out in the desert.
Both suburbs, even both in Southern California, but very different experiences with very different communities.
Hacker News talks past each other a lot by not acknowledging this and reducing everything down to "suburbs" or "American" and assuming that kind of shorthand has a clear, universal meaning.
Even television and media consumption in general are not the automatic atomizers they're being characterized as. Aside from the old watercooler monoculture of having something to talk about when everyone watched the same five primetime shows, for sports fans and especially when pay-per-view first took off, gathering at one person's house to collectively watch together was almost ubiqitous. That's not even considering cinema in theaters, which were always a group event. I grew up with that. We almost never watched anything alone in the 80s. If people are now primarily watching video media on their phones from their beds while alone, that is a lot different than how we grew up 40 years ago. Reading was more characteristic of alone-time media consumption.
My whole life, my mom would talk about how much she hated the suburbs, how she lived in a Chicago suburb and it was a miserable experience, she would never do it again, etc., all the while praising the time that she lived in Tiburon.
I finally went and visited the house where she had rented in Tiburon (it was just a block from the Paradise Loop path, a pleasant bike ride from SF), and I was like, "Mom, Tiburon is totally a suburb." And her response was "Oh, well your sisters could walk to school and I could walk to the grocery store, so it didn't feel like a suburb to me."
Are you kidding? Suburbs used to have thriving social circles around churches, golf clubs, schools, etc. Trust can be easier too because of greater cultural uniformity.
This hating on suburbs has got to stop. It's fine if you don't like it, but I have way more friends in suburbia than I ever had in the faceless city where people just walked right on past out of fear.
I don’t think being unbothered is unchallenging/stagnating? You can have solo hobbies that push you.
I hate suburbs and car-based societies as much as the next person, but being left alone doesn’t feel like the underlying problem.
My whole life, my mom would talk about how much she hated the suburbs, how she lived in a Chicago suburb and it was a miserable experience, she would never do it again, etc., all the while praising the time that she lived in Tiburon.
I finally went and visited the house where she had rented in Tiburon (it was just a block from the Paradise Loop path, a pleasant bike ride from SF), and I was like, "Mom, Tiburon is totally a suburb." And her response was "Oh, well your sisters could walk to school and I could walk to the grocery store, so it didn't feel like a suburb to me."
I guess the moral of the story is that there are suburbs and then there are suburbs.
Yeah, I don't think the age disparity is talked about enough. Admitedly I'm in this weird "youngest millenial" bracket where, growing up, I was always much older than my parent's friend's kids. But even in general with young adult life: once you leave college, everyone around you feels "older".
There's maybe 1-2 other people around your age at work, unless you actively chose the massive internship to employment pipeline of MAANG, Big 4, or your industry equivalent that was still actively training employees. Not really for me; my first gig was pretty young, but going to a large corporation for much higher pay: it was a satellite office with 2-3 other people my age than a bunch of seasoned veterans.
Neighborhoods are the same way too. Even today, I can make small talk with my neighbors. But they are some 15+ years ahead of life with two young kids. Different vibe from a single dude in his 30's.
My cultural anthropology professor used to study remote villages in Nepal. Once he told the class a story about this one village where a group of people used to socialize each night, with each family taking turns hosting dinner at their home.
Then one family got a TV, and they stopped rotating because everyone wanted to spend the evening watching TV at that one family's house.
Then the other families got TVs, and they stopped the socializing tradition altogether, preferring to watch TV at home.
"playdates" is in itself a tell. That didn't used to be a thing. Kids would just... go out and find their friends and play. No parental scheduling or coordination required.
We use this term when little kids aren't old enough to just go out and find their friends and play. E.g., 2-5 year olds definitely aren't going to be let to go wander around the street.
It’s not quite that simple, though. Various studies show that people are feeling increasingly lonely. It is not so much that media replace social activities, but rather that they tend to simply inhibit them.
It feels strange to assign all the blame to media, like theoretically it should be a number of factors, but that's what I got from reading Bowling Alone (fwiw I read the 1995 essay and not the 2000 book).
Even on the TFR point, the birth rate in 1976 in USA was 1.74, 2025 it was 1.6. So it's not like a China situation where it went from over 3 to less than 1 in 50 years.
It's not just smartphones - it's any connected device. Before the pandemic, I'd arrange Peloton rides with my friends and colleagues with bikes, and we'd ride "together" from our houses, high-fiving as we went. I'd meet up with college friends in other cities on Xbox or PlayStation from the luxury of my couch. Social moved, but made us sedentary at the same time.
For some time every new form of isolation had limits causing people to keep finding friends. Early on, one family or shop had a TV set, so people flocked there. Video games were made to play 2 or 4 in the same room. Near free tech and networking was an inflection point.
> The simple answer is media. First television, then internet, then smartphones.
And, as is often the case, the simple answer is incomplete/oversimplified. Because there are cultures which have absorbed those technologies while remaining much more social than Western cultures. And they are ones that are less individualistic and stress more of a group, family or clan mentality.
The issue with fertility rates is similar/correlated. Most of the developed world is seeing rates far below replacement, but some cultures are far more resistant to the influences of technology than others. Many developed countries have tried to address their low birth rates from a policy standpoint, essentially paying people a small percentage of what it costs to raise a child to incentivize parenthood. But I’d argue it’s far more important to address their low birth rate as a cultural issue, which is basically a semi-narcissistic focus on maximizing our own lives rather than doing what’s best for our (for lack of a better word) tribe. Because the less individualistic a society is, the less it’s struggling with these problems.
I’d posit that a lot of this has to do with the decline of religiosity in Western cultures. Religion was where a lot of people got their group cohesion and sense of an importance of something greater than self. And while I’m no fan of religion, we’ve removed it without replacing it with something else that serves the same function. We’re going to have to find that something or these sorts of trends will only continue.
In my experience it’s not because there’s lack of attempts to get people together
When given the option between: socializing with people in a shared space and being at home and entertaining yourself people are consciously choosing the latter.
When I ask why, this is what I hear from other people the most:
-I don’t have time
-I don’t have transportation
-Who else is going to be there
Etc…
There seems to be a genuine lack of desire whatsoever to simply get yourself to a place where there is a free event.
And to be clear this is not just talking about one particular type of event
I just went to a Democratic socialist of America event this weekend in support of Gaza, and the amount of people who showed up compared to the number of people who are on the list (even the organizing list) is some vanishingly small group.
If the plurality of individuals don’t want to join groups in person because they feel satisfied by themselves, then that’s a signal of some kind.
Every single social event is a financial consideration now. Want to go out with the wife for the evening? It's going to cost $150+ for a baby sitter at $25/hour. The dinner + tip is going to cost $200. Parking is going to cost $50 - $100 if you go into a city. You could take public transportation but then you're loooking at that cost shifting back to the babysitter. Before you know it you're in for $300 - $500 just for a night off.
I have often thought about how many movies and TV shows in my childhood (1980s) focused on plot lines of people regularly gathering at a bar after work. Did people really do that or is it just a Hollywood thing to put people in the same place? Now that I think about it, actually, I guess my department at work did this when I first started in the early 2000s, going out to the bar once or twice a week.
It's hard to imagine doing that nowadays. I have a family, so doing that instead of going home in the evening would be selfish (if done too often), but even if I were younger and had time, it would seem very extravagant now. When a beer is $8-10 or even more, it would be an expensive proposition to go to the bar every night after work. And if you order food it's even worse...
I went first time with office team this year a couple of weeks back. Needless to say whole experience was atrocious. No common reference, movies, sports, TV and so on to talk about besides work. It was just: "Oh, what do you do on weekend? I do x,y,z " in a round-robbin manner.
It was definitely not good time, or even bad time one can remember, just an insipid gathering for 3 hours of doing nothing. $8 for a beer and $15-20 per person for lukewarm food not sure I'll be excited for another meet any time soon.
People really did that regularly. It does seem to be economically related, for a lot of reasons.
One aspect is that a single income really was enough to not feel extravagant to have a home, a family, and afford to go to the bar a few nights a week. (Part of this was there wasn't as much random other stuff to buy, it wasn't being marketed to you nearly as aggressively either.)
I certainly did this quite a bit in the 1990's, and in the early 1980's I definitely remember my father going out at least twice a week and then the weekends also being for going out and doing something as a family at least 2/3 weekends per month - like trips to a nearby city, or to a sports game, or visit other family, or whatnot.
It used to be fairly common in smaller but densely populated areas in the United States, not so long ago (pre-2020). A lot of breweries were setup so that there were even outdoor areas that kids could be in. Usually one of the drafts was priced drastically lower than the others, and there were many unspoken relationship-based discounts or "try this" from the bartender or owner.
I think the answer to your question is right there in your post:
> Now that I think about it, actually, I guess my department at work did this when I first started in the early 2000s, going out to the bar once or twice a week.
> It's hard to imagine doing that nowadays. I have a family,
This still happens. Young people get together and go out after work. I don't go to pubs often, but when I meet up with someone after work the crowd is people meeting up after work with each other.
If everyone in your department is over 35 and has kids, you won't have much luck with this. If everyone is in their 20s and friendly, there's probably something going on.
I think a lot of people forgot how to be friendly with coworkers, especially if they spend a lot of time online. Online discussions about jobs mostly read like it's a cutthroat single player game where you shouldn't get too close to anyone because you can't trust anyone and you should be planning your next job hop anyway. I have to remind a lot of people younger than me that it's okay to have friends at work. You need to have friends outside of work, too, but you can be friendly with people at work.
I guess my point was that the socializing depicted in media was older people, not just young singles.
If I didn't have kids, would I want to go out multiple nights a week for a few beers with friends? I don't know. I'd certainly think about the cost of it more now than when I was 25.
Similarly for restaurants - they've gotten so expensive, and often the food isn't as good as we remember - that my wife and I don't seem to be as interested in going out to eat as we used to.
> Online discussions about jobs mostly read like it's a cutthroat single player game where you shouldn't get too close to anyone because you can't trust anyone and you should be planning your next job hop anyway
You don't think this is a response to corporate culture? Especially over the last few years.
I'm afraid to have friends at work because I get attached and I feel bad when I leave after 2-5 years. I have to make career moves to get raises and progress, and it's easiest if I'm not too fond of the people around me.
This is also the same reason that companies push "culture" and try to emphasize how we're a team or a family.
In university, I made a few friends who went to different international schools growing up. Their parents were diplomats or executives who moved cities/countries every couple of years, and they'd switch schools to go with them. They were charismatic and personable, and quick to make friends.
But at the same time, after our natural relationship ran its course (due to graduations or leaving a student team), it felt like they disappeared. My relationship with them wouldn't linger like with other friends (even if weakened).
Another friend of mine directly described this view that "friendships have a time and place" in life. I thought about that perspective and didn't fully agree, but it still taught me that it's perfectly possible and even healthy to make friends quickly even if circumstances are temporary.
My view is that even if you become good friends with someone (at work or elsewhere) and they leave, you still end up with a network of friends across the country in different workplaces. Even when the nature of the friendship changes, you can still catch up with many of your old friends on occasion (like around the holidays).
And even if relationships completely fade, I believe that genuine relationships will always be a nice experience.
I can, but it probably won't work out, and I don't want to dump my old projects off on them and make them suffer, and I don't want to disappoint them, etc.
I live in an urban area. Most bars in the area have a decent crowd after work into the night. The demographics of the crowd varies based on the bar. Based on your description we're roughly the same age, as a data point I wind up out after work usually 2-3x a week.
There's one bar I go to regularly where there's a couple of guys who I've literally never seen absent over the years.
Interestingly, "went to a bar in the past year" is one of the few questions in the survey whose answer basically didn't budge (52% in 1995 vs. 49% in 2026).
I think the friction is a much bigger issue than the cost. People are stuck in a trap of scrolling short form video because it provides no friction. While organizing a picnic is extremely high friction relative to social media scrolling.
I think to solve this we are going to have to blow up social media and make going out in public more convenient and friendly. Otherwise we are going to end up in a WALL-E society where people spend all day with their meta glasses streaming AI generated micro dramas.
> The dinner + tip is going to cost $200. Parking is going to cost $50 - $100 if you go into a city.
Why are you driving into a city that costs $100 to park in and then to a restaurant that costs $100 per person if money is a consideration?
Go to a local restaurant. Go to one outside of that city. Do literally anything other than the scenario you described.
I guarantee that if you're near a city where you can find $100 parking, you can find 100 or 1000 amazing small restaurants that are affordable and interesting.
This is a type of defeatism where someone imagines the worst possible scenario, erases all other options, and then pretends it's a choice between the worst scenario or nothing at all.
Some people live on a different planet.. The last social event I did (last night) I took the train to their house which cost me $5 return, and we went out to eat at a Japanese restaurant where I got a Chicken Katsu for $17AUD. This social event cost me not much more than if I had sat at home and ate dinner normally.
If it's a sporting event or concert and you need to drive $50 is pretty easy to hit. Major downtowns are solidly $40 on a regular night out if you can't find a meter (which is capped at 2 hours and a parking ticket costs you $50). If you have two cars because not everyone is coming from the same place you're completely hosed.
Going to the movies costs my family $100 without concessions. The zoo $80, the aquarium $100, art museum $80. There's a decent public park system but we're often the only ones there. McDonalds doesn't have playplaces anymore, sleepovers barely exist. The nearest bowling alley is 30 minutes away and runs us about $60 an hour without food.
Add food to anything (which most places don't allow from outside) and you're sometimes doubling the price for complete trash.
You haven't seen "event pricing" parking in cities have you? I was in Atlanta a while back and I was unfortunate enough to need to go in to the city during some big concert. Every garage had event parking prices that were $80+.
I had a burger, fries and 2 beers last night at one of these small local restaurants. It was $47 with tip. I had a bbq plate the other day at a local restaurant. 2 meats, 2 sides was $26 dollars before a drink or tip was added.
Going out in the US is so expensive now, even the low end, that you might as well do something nicer.
When I'm visiting developing countries, I'm often in awe of the increased social activity and wondering why we don't have that in the western world anymore. One thing I think about is the cost increase like this.
Baumol's cost disease often comes to mind - in my (might be wrong) application of it - western society simply has had too much productivity and efficiency improvements. You can make more money as a software developer or as an investment banker because those jobs have gotten more efficient and have higher payouts to employers who want the best employees.
There can't be efficiency improvements in efficiency for child care, so the only way to have people want to become child care workers is to pay a competitive salary, so the efficiency increases in the other unrelated fields directly increase the cost of child care.
Developing countries don't have this problem and domestic labor and child care are still cheap.
Babysitting is cheap if there are enough aunts and uncles (or trustworthy teenage neighbor girls) around, but in Western countries many of us don't have siblings or moved too far away.
Yeah definitely not something to ignore; growing up we'd have grandma and a neighbourhood friend baysit us. Now, I moved far away from where I grew up because the jobs are better, but I'm left without much of an (unpaid) support network. But that's a bigger story than a random internet comment.
I spend about half of every year cycling the developing world. Whatever the continent, I'm seeing more and more young people on their phones watching short-length video. I don't think they are far behind the West in the decline of socializing.
Babysitting is the big one for me. I can eat cheaper, but I can't really get a cheaper babysitter. My wife used to babysit for 5 bucks an hour just 10 years ago, and high school aged girls now want 20 an hour minimum. We're not talking "professionals" and my cost of going out is now at least 60-80 bucks without acting else.
This is also caused by the decline in social activity and community. People in the past didnt have this problem as much because they had tons of trusted family members, friends, neighbors, who also had children and could thus look after theirs for an evening.
We went out just today, went to favorite restaurant, for dinner, on foot. Took the kids along. The whole thing cost a lot, 100 Euro, usually only 50-60. This is Berlin, though, somewhat cheaper than the US.
With kids, most social interactions are with kids, kids' friends, kids' friends' parents. Oh well, at least they're social.
Used to go out more often in the middle of the day, while kids were in daycare/school. At least then you don't have to pay for babysitter.
I remember when the iPhone first came out. I was at a bar, at a table with a few people I didn't really know. This was a pretty common occurrence.
You usually got a drank, talked. This was a kind of gothic-theme bar, all done up with spooky decorations, a good dj, interesting drinks. We'd host arts/culture slide show jams before the place really would get going for the night. The art was curated and swapped out monthly. There was a lot going on! The place did a lot to charge the space with energy and excitement, bringing a lot of different people together.
Then this guy at the table whipped out his phone and just ignored us all sitting there.
I knew right then and there that this was the beginning of the end.
Even before the iPhone it started happening with the Blackberry, Palm, et. al. I distinctly remember the early-mid '00's when my aunt got her first BB, a 7250(?) and it quickly became more important than anything else. Family get-togethers started to consist of her sitting by herself on her phone while the rest of us enjoyed each other's company.
My memory is that my phone was always on me, and I texted a lot on the go, but most of the texts were about meeting up, getting directions, or coordinating. After that, if a phone was brought out it was to do more of that in the group setting "Hey Sally is going to be here in 15 brining Jake"), then put back.
Now we're all dopamine seeking doom scrollers.
I've been out with a group of friends -- some I just met -- once this year. It also doesn't help that meals and drinks seem hard to justify for the price. I'm waxing nostalgia, but $30 of tacos used to be maybe $8; my $10 beer today was $3.
It is much more common with smartphones. I was never very social and before smartphones when I went to see a show or have dinner, I would always have a paperback in my back pocket and read it between sets or while waiting for food. But I was the exception - usually the only person in the bar reading rather than socializing, and one of a few at a restaurant. Now it isn't uncommon for most people to be on their phones in public.
In secondary school, the first kids got phones and some of them were already spending a ton of time and money texting others. Wasn't for me because every text message had a fixed cost, but I followed not long after through ICQ, MSN and the like. But that wasn't on phones yet at the time, so at least it wasn't a constant possible activity.
My online social activity has declined a lot since then though, there was just so much unnecessary drama, oversharing, and vying for attention, emotional support, etc and the people that gave it burned out and left, leaving just emotionally needy people yelling into the void while the others moved on with their lives.
Thinking back to when I got my first smartphone 15 years ago, it occupied just so much of my attention and I figured it was some kind of honeymoon phase with a new gadget. But it never got less, if anything it's increased since then.
I'm not convinced. I (and I'm sure many others) quit trying to keep up (I think Game of Thrones burned a generation of TV viewers, lol). Video games are cool but the most popular / played ones are 10 years old now, more comfort than trying to keep up.
I was out in NYC when the iphone 2007 came out, without an app store and without 3G broadband, and I don’t think it was that entertaining to the people I saw with it. It was still mostly just for text communications.
It wasn’t until iphone 3G in 2008 that you had a full fledged browser with unlimited broadband capable of streaming audio, maps, and visiting websites with graphics. And, of course, new apps coming out everyday.
> Then this guy at the table whipped out his phone and just ignored us all sitting there.
Sounds like the real gothic-guy in the place. ; )
Also a similar story: This was a kind of normal bar, all done up with fine photos for decorations, good music, good drinks. We'd host performances and jams before the place really would get going for the night. The art was curated and swapped out monthly. There was a lot going on! The place did a lot to charge the space with energy and excitement, bringing a lot of different people together. Then one day a guy got bored and went home alone early. I knew then and there, that place was finished!
I'm 25. I go to work and then I go home. Same schedule since I got out of university. I do networking / IT. I usually buy a six pack of beer and then go to bed when I'm off, sometimes I'll stay up on my lab but I usually regret it because lack of sleep.
No bars, no dinners with anyone. I think the only blessing this lifestyle has given me is minimized impact from the failing economy we're in, at the cost of not seeing anyone or doing anything. I still have outside hobbies, but it's all too expensive to keep up with now, or being heavily regulated.
Not really satisfied, but the alternatives seem like an uphill battle for myself. Most of my friends have moved on to their marriages, kids, etc. Certainly entering childless uncle phase of my life.
You don't have to live this way. To begin with, drinking a six pack at night on a regular basis is absolutely terrible for your health. It disrupts your sleep and so you will always be operating well below what you could be. The social problems are harder to solve because they are society-wide and not individual, but at your age a lot can change, and I think it's really important that you don't start to give up and think of your situation as inevitable, lest you ossify.
The flip side is that you have time for hobbies, regular workouts instead of beer belly dad bod, you can play sports, bike or skateboard (including socializing), play chess, whatever you like, go to concerts, walk around town photographing.
Everything young parents don't have time for or are too tired for.
I'm 32 now and met some of my current best friends when I was 26. My parents are 60 and just moved to a new country and within a year they met a dozen new people they now hang out with all the time.
It sounds cliche but it's literally true that there's always time to meet new people no matter what phase of life you're in.
Related: when I was 25 I had a depressive existential crisis and felt like my life was basically over. It's common, and therapy was a lifesaver. If you feel like you might be depressed then talking to someone can really help. Take care of yourself as best you can!
Mate you are only 25, those people getting married and having kids are doing it early. You have another 10+ years before you could even think about the childless uncle phase as a construct.
Friend, I'm in my 50s now and I can tell you that you really are only just getting started. I highly recommend finding a new activity or social group and without making massive changes, as those can feel daunting, just make a small change to involve yourself with that. Even just once a month being part of a park run club, or getting to know people in your local art scene, or doing a cooking course, can start you down a path that will enrich your life.
Relationships don't fall in your lap, you need to work on it. Fail, repeat, maintain. Yes, it is an uphill battle in many cases, for few it never ends well, but many reaches the hilltop. But those not 'fighting' uphill will not get up there, ever.
I am the childless aunt. I'm in my late 40s, never desired children, so that won't change.
That said, I met my spouse in my early 30s. Was worth switching countries for and that was 13 years ago. We met playing the same silly text-based MMORPG some years ago. I have never been very social, but not being social doesn't mean that you won't meet people in non-traditional ways.
I love not socializing. I've never enjoyed a party in my life, I hate dating, I don't want to lose any time in the day to hanging out with anyone. But what I wonder is if am I fundamentally an antisocial person, or am I a product of my cursed environment and trapped in the momentum of the antisocial tidal wave that has been happening since before I was born?
I think it’s also a comfort or maybe risk/reward analysis thing.
I think staying at home basically rotting is more comfortable, sure. No judgment here, I’ve done that for months at a time. But the payoff is also… underwhelming. I mean you get basically nothing, just monotony and silence.
The more risky things, like dating or going to a party, are much more uncomfortable. But the potential payoff is a lot more. I mean you can really strike it up with someone, find someone on your wavelength. It can be exciting, exhilarating.
But it lacks the certainty. The reward is higher, but so is the drawback. If I stay inside and do nothing, at least I know the outcome. It’s more enticing in that way. But I also know I won’t make any memories that way. There won’t be some moment or some person I’ll look back on fondly.
You read to me as fundamentally antisocial. But I don't know you (heh) and could be way off.
The environment is certainly antisocial. But I would say that it is reinforcing your hermetic disposition.
Also, it would be an interesting experiment to go the complete opposite way. Become cartoonishly social for a period and see what happens. It's not like solo-mode us difficult to reboot.
I have an abundance of positive social experiences that remind me that the highs are high and the low are low and I just need to push through it to find that next great experience.
I can definitely see how someone who doesn't have many positive reference experiences would prefer to just be alone and avoid the lows all together.
Not that you asked, but I'd encourage you to not define yourself as antisocial. You just haven't found your kin yet, and if you keep looking you can find it.
I do suspect that a lot of programmers have some level of OCPD and since socialising feels unproductive and productivity is a lodestar of OCPD, it gets dropped. Or if you do socialise, it's hard to enjoy if you feel like you're 'wasting' useful time.
So it's basically Rush's "Working Man" - "So I get home at five o'clock and I take myself out an ice-cold beer. Always seem to be wond'rin' Why there's nothin' goin' down here. It seems to me I could live my life a lot better than I think I am. I guess that's why they call me...They call me the workin' man"
(and this goes back farther than 30 years. Closer to 50 now)
Work as much overtime as you possibly can for a few months or even a year and save as much as you can. Then get rid of any material possessions bogging you down and go travel and find life.
Just some personal anecdotes: I've come into the orbit of a local "no phones" meetup group in my city. I discovered it by seeing a black and white printed scan of a hand-drawn flyer on a pole by my apartment. Currently it's just organized by one guy who sends out random Signal pings for stuff to do like a potluck picnic, group trip to some free instructed yoga at a park, craft night at a local bar/bookstore, etc., and usually there's ~4-15 people that show up. I organized a World Postcard Day postcard writing party last week, found a venue that would host for free, donated some of my own dollars to provide free official WPD postcards to attendees, and had 7 people come write postcards with me, I convinced 4 of them to sign up for Postcrossing, it was a great time.
If anybody else is looking for change, try setting something like this up. It has so far been free, easy, relatively low stakes, and I think by virtue of the main focus being "no phones", you get some great people who are all tired of the same algorithmic churn.
I became very good friends with someone who I met at one of the meetups and we've done all kinds of things just the 2 of us and have had some really interesting conversations, which is something I haven't done in a LONG time.
I re-started using meetup just a couple of weeks ago after feeling the same way. And, honestly, my interactions were great. Meetup was scheduled, people showed up, we had a good time. I live in a smaller city and found two to go to in one night(ping pong and board games)
Meetup was fine 10+ years ago, but it's my go-to example of enshittification today. It feels like they're actively trying to kill it with every new change to the app / web experience. But despite that there are some good groups.
It's also worth noting that sometimes, groups are on Meetup because it is one of the least bad options.
I still host board game events on Meetup, although I'm hoping to switch to my open source alternative soon. I think the other commercial options such as Discord and Facebook are worse, and people have gotten used to Meetup.
in America we have had 20 years of "Tech Disruption"., making the world a better place and relentless technical innovation, combined with the 'corporization' of America
Has our day to day lives improved?
Do we work less, live healthier, have less stress?
Seems like this (the younger generation) is far worse off then pre-internet connected, smartphone generation
As long as technology keeps being visible I don't think society will be improved by it. The development in the past few years have let me to the conclusion that having technology insisting on being in your face, it will not benefit society. It has to blend into the background and be something you pull out when you need it. Almost anything "big tech" has produced in the past 25 year have pushed technology into the foreground.
because suburbs and housing models like it designed around a closed loop even some apartment building which have high population density encourage social isolation.
compare a 'luxury' Florida apartment vs the old New York apartments built in the 1800s. the NY apartments have narrow stairs, one way in.
likewise dense / small cities / villages in either africa/europe etc force more natural social interaction.
even for friends - easier to host friends when they can easily walk to your home & they don't have to drink & drive.
so blaming tv, social media, video games etc doesn't get to the root of the matter.
I can't square this with the fact that I have a perfect storm situation that should point me there. I am a foreigner of minority ethnicity to the United States living in a high-rise building of 600 people that has no Schelling point common-space to spend time in that's located in a city that is expensive and I have all the social contact I desire: family, close friends, more distant friends, neighbours, strangers in the building, familiar strangers in the area.
I talked about how relatively easy it is to have social contact here at all levels and so I must conclude that most people simply have better uses for their time (by their own judgment) than this. https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2025-10-09/Community
A lot of people are convinced of things without ever trying, which they then use to justify not trying.
"I mildly attempted doing this once and it didn't work, so I won't bother trying again" describes a shocking amount of people's experiences.
I sometimes think people fail on purpose to justify apathy or giving up.
Then if anyone says anything they scream about how their experience is valid and nobody can tell them otherwise. It's wild.
There's something important about being outside our comfort zones. We need entropy in our lives and the best way to accomplish that is being in new environments with different people/creatures. What I've found is over time my comfort zone expands as I become familiar with more stuff.
The flip side to this is thinking everyone is on equal footing and that your trying is the same as their trying. They're just doing it wrong.
Most people in this post's comments that are "not trying" seem to also be depressed in some way. If you've never experienced it, depression can make trying impossible not just a minor inconvenience. Going to therapy can help, or not. Taking anti-depressants can help, or not.
Also a "mild attempt at doing this once" that ends very poorly can cause a depressed or anxious person to spiral into a self-hatred looping hellscape. It's not a rational decision they're making it just happens. After you've experienced that you're very cautious and try to never feel it again.
And then the kicker is when you're paralyzed like this everyone just thinks you're lazy or unmotivated and pretty much tells you "don't be depressed stupid" which further sends you into having a poor outlook of yourself and it spirals from there. I've been in and out of this several times in my life, it's not pleasant. I've also tried every single remedy known to man and sometimes nothing works.
To put it simply: their experience is probably valid and nobody should tell them otherwise.
To an extent. Humans are products of our environments. Right now, a lot of people seem to have figured out and/or been conditioned to not really ever try.
How do I know this? I've just asked people. I have very honest conversations with people and always have.
Back in high school I had multiple "special ed" kids who would give us test answers because they were handed them. Why would they bother trying if they can act dumb and get help? The US education system encourages test results and it has created a system of doing anything to keep funding. Small schools give kids answers to boost their results. My school, and many around it, did exactly this. Probably still do.
Since being an adult I've run across this countless times. I'm nearly 40 now and been a teacher and educator in many fields, from STEM to Outdoor.
I've had hundreds of people admit to me that not trying is easier. Someone is always willing to help or do the work for them. They don't immediately say this, but after a few minutes of discussion its very obvious and they'll often finally say it.
US media also heavily encourages it by portraying so many people as lucky or gifted or chosen. Why bother trying when the system is stacked against you?
This culture of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt conditions people to always have an excuse and to not really take responsibility.
Plenty of folks still do, I'm not saying it's a majority. But it's wild to me how folks consistently choose to ignore the fact a lot of people have figured out that they can do the bare minimum and still get by just fine.
And to be clear, I don't mean a majority of people. But it is a crazy amount. It isnt just young folks either. I see retirees with this mentality who didn't used to have it. A friend of mine's dad has turned into a complete useless dude in the last few years cuz everything is immigrants and Democrats fault, so he doesn't even bother anymore. People will, understandably, find excuses to hold themselves less accountable.
Right, and perhaps that indicates that the decline in social activity is a conscious trade-off made as Americans (a relatively wealthy group) prefer to live in detached land properties. That points to the social activity as not being something to be bemoaned but something to be celebrated because people have the opportunity to choose otherwise and they have done so in droves.
This is precisely because you are a foreigner of minority ethnicity (the minority ethnicity points towards hailing from a more traditional culture compared to if you were white and therefore you would be from Europe which does not have a traditional culture, it has a modern culture).
To clarify the idea: you have a healthy social matrix but if you marry and settle in the US, your grandchildren won't.
I'm a white foreigner in Asia and feel the exact same as you. But I also realize, because I'm different than everyone else, there is more interest in getting to know me.
Also, people that are different than everyone else (but same background as me) seek me out to be friends.
For example, there is a HUGE difference between a Seattle Tech event where I am literally the same as the other 60 people in the room vs Vietnamese Tech event where I am one of 3 people that speak english. Those other 2 English speakers are going to walk over and chat with me.
Fellow desi here, and I am happy for you, but I haven't had the same experience at all in the Bay. Imo, there is something in American culture which makes people very incurious about other cultures...because there are so many immigrants from all over the world, Americans find it hard to relate to anyone not American. My favorite example to illustrate this is how "where are you from" is everyone's favorite question in South Asia and often asked with good intentions, but it can be considered rude in the States.
Haha, the only time someone has done that to me they were doing it tongue-in-cheek. I’ve never encountered an actual problem here but also recently I’ve found the “Did you grow up here?” or “How long have you been living here?” questions much more fun. They have more conversation forks in them and I like that style of conversation where each interaction increases the conversation cone.
FWIW here in San Francisco I have found many people it’s fun to be around.
It would be useful to know whether the same trends have happened in other places. If iPhones are causing people to be less social, we should see similar trends in France and Japan.
If we didn’t see the same trends, it points to reasons more specific to the US.
Japan is not necessarily applicable 1:1; homes are smaller and space is at a premium so people are far more likely to just go sit somewhere… and nowadays they are usually on their phone.
From personal experience, the juice isn't worth the squeeze for actually interacting with others, in person or online.
Even posting this comment is psychologically pulling teeth for me. I regularly type out long replies to comments, but I eventually return to the knowledge derived from a lifetime of past experience that, at best, the comment will be uncharitably misinterpreted by someone who will immediately jump down my throat for some entirely confabulated reason or, at worst, show no signs of having been read or heard at all. What's the point? Nine times out of ten, I just delete the draft and move on with my day and have no regrets. The opposite isn't true; I almost always regret leaving comments (and this one is already included).
In person social commitments somehow became even worse than the online ones. Every single friend (and at this point extended family member) I've had or made since college, people that pre-2012 were the most open and humane-minded people I've ever met, I've either ghosted or been ghosted by because I won't demonize who they want to demonize or mindlessly let them complain about problems they don't and won't try to either understand or fix. ("Well, that's not my experience" and "If you run into assholes all day..." is already flashing before my eyes.)
In my experience, being charitable, accurate, or helpful became so socially toxic (both offline and online) that every social group began to metaphorically shoot on sight at any sign of dissent.
After a certain point, I just gave up and withdrew from almost all avoidable social contact. And on top of all this, why would I pay to have this kind of repeated negative experience?! It's boggles the mind.
And I don't think I'm alone in this experience, even in the slightest.
Fun dumbbell plot. I like how the bottom "Used the internet" is graphically and metaphorically the foundation for the entire presentation of change. The change is so total that you might miss it, as if it is the baseline or the water we are all swimming in.
These days I must make a real effort to be social on a regular basis. Personally I've found satisfaction in going to meetups to find like minds. I also go with my gut and in the moment ask to swap Instagram usernames with interesting people and promptly schedule with them to get coffee. If they prove to be as interesting and kind as I had sensed, then I invite them to a dinner party which I throw every other month. In this way, I invite people under my umbrella, keep them in my life by regularly seeing them, slowly build a friendship, and hopefully they make friends with the regulars at dinner party. I must continually remind myself that I am the instigator and it's feels quite strange as a heavily introverted person. I don't particularly enjoy being the instigator for most social occasions but the pros outweigh the cons.
Overall yes. When I attend a meetup then I have a mindset of putting myself out there and should I meet an interesting and kind person, then just ask to get coffee with them sometime and talk shop. Also I remind myself that the current conversation went well from my perspective, so probably from theirs too.
I took the CBT approach. First to change how I thought about things (as a skill to practice) and then that allowed me to do a form of exposure therapy. Mostly finding something small to start with, a single relevant question or comment that is genuine. Saying something nice to someone, like a stressed out cashier at the grocery store goes a long way, or commenting on something like someone reading the packaging of a item and you know it and can give a brief review.
I didn't start trying to have deep conversations or expectations of ever seeing that person again. Only simple interaction for social skill improvement and over time this small talk started to come more naturally. Then that snowball into this lighter feeling around people (so anything would have been perceived as rejection before became not personal and moved on) and that, in gaming terms, was a level-up to more meaningful interaction, then another level-up and another etc. This is a decades long practice that is still going. Like many skills some pick up faster than others.
It does. It eventually sinks in that no one is watching nearly as much as you think, and are for the most part disinterested in what you’re doing. Not in a judgey way, but in the sense that nobody saw you do that slightly weird thing, and even if they did they’re still more interested in how fat the pigeon outside is than anything you do.
> I must continually remind myself that I am the instigator and it's feels quite strange as a heavily introverted person. I don't particularly enjoy being the instigator
Once I figured out that this was a skill and not just something people that are not me are born with, it made things a lot easier. Went from making up all kinds of stories in my head about myself and others to thinking about each interaction as practice and realized lot more people were like me, thinking I'll be invited somewhere or talked to if I was liked or was interesting enough; waiting for someone else to do the inviting or talking first. I just remind myself that a lot of others also want to be invited or talked to, and that reminder greatly reduced my fear of rejection.
Indeed I've had a similar realization and it's a very helpful reminder. Also every time I go to a meetup, I remind myself: to be interesting, you must be interested.
I think thats the crux of it, most people respond positively when others are interested in them. As long as its genuine, asking about, or be interested in, others goes a really long way.
It helps to know a thing or two, about a wide range of topics, for this reason.
Take for instance someone telling you about their career. "I'm a software developer".
You can express interest with a response like "Oh, thats cool, what made you go into that line of work?" but thats a very generic, shallow response.
If you know a thing or two about software, for example, you can ask more interesting questions that show your interest in them, and your knowledge of the space. "Woh cool, how is AI coding impacting your life?"
Suddenly, it seems like you're much more interesting yourself, AND you're interested in them.
The tricky part nowadays is everyone has very niche interests. It's harder than ever to really have a breadth of knowledge that is broadly applicable. This was easier before the internet, before travel, before telecommunication. When your community was your community and news traveled slowly, it was a lot easier to learn about what impacted others.
I love being asked "what made you go into that line of work?" because I can answer with "mostly the money" (which is a very honest answer yet socially somewhat inappropriate), and their reaction to my answer immediately gives me a signal into whether we're going to be close or not.
Some people act so shocked when you tell them you did something because it would make you richer and not because an angel came to you in a dream and whispered in your ear to save the disenfranchised proletariat underclass by democratizing software, or whatever's the current faux na pas reason to pursue a vocation these days.
I think the reason they act that way is because you're signaling to them that you dislike your job. Which is fine, but ideally you'd find some gratification in it that isn't just monetary, since it's what you spend most of your time doing.
It’s considered socially crass to just care about money in life (see: Ebenezer Scrooge), but everyone does a job for money - very few jobs are actually altruistic. There are many jobs that few would do if not for the high income (eg Lawyer) or is just difficult or boring. It’s a given that the income is a motivator in a high earning job.
Answering why you picked this particular path to high income is more interesting of an answer to the person asking and carries the conversation. Did your parents do it, did you have a professor that captured your attention, did you just google “easiest job to make a lot of money?” and pick the first one?
Someone asking wants to understand how and why you make decisions. What motives you. Etc. It’s the XY problem and from the other person’s perspective, you’re answering the wrong one.
> Someone asking wants to understand how and why you make decisions. What motives you
This is too simplistic. Someone might ask that for a million reasons. Also, you will be judged not only by your answer. Being so direct might show you are not on autopilot in the conversation, your humour or that you only care about money, depending on a lot of other factors. It might make one more memorable as well. I personally would read it as light humour, unless it is accompanied by a dead eyes stare.
There are no uninteresting natural numbers. One, as the smallest natural number, is certainly interesting. Assume all numbers up to n are interesting. If n+1 is uninteresting it is the smallest uninteresting number and therefore interesting.
And yet everybody cares precisely nothing about almost all natural numbers.
… where we came in. The premise is flawed. n + 3 can never become interesting because when n + 2 becomes the smallest uninteresting number, n + 1 cannot hold that distinction at the same time, so n + 1 loses its interesting status as the smallest interesting number, and becomes uninteresting again, which means n + 2 is no longer the smallest uninteresting number, n + 1 is and isn’t this…
Most people are completely and utterly uninteresting. I feel that interest in people is largely a physical reaction rather than a thought exercise. Even people who have done cool stuff are often uninteresting. Their story may be interesting, but their person is not.
I don't really know. Why do we get along with some people but not others? There's probably a definable reason but it's not usually a conciously-reasoned thing that can be easily specified or classified.
> Most people are completely and utterly uninteresting
How do we even define interesting ? Like interesting opinions/hobbies? Good storyteller ? Who cares about that. I do need to like you and you need to be an agreeable person imo, but no having a real unique life or opinions is really not that necessary imo. Having a sense of humor is a big plus to me though.
Depends on how we define interesting. Interesting in itself is pretty overrated imo, I don't need you to be some artist who lives in the streets and is addicted to heroin - I mean that's really interesting but not something I want in my life.
Be boring - have a 9-5 job like me.
But be agreeable, be interested in me as well from time to time and we can relate.
Whether we truly hit it off is not about how interesting I am to you or you are to me I think.
Are you conflating normal interest in another's well being with Einstein like outlierness?
I can find "interesting" (based on a boring reading from a dictionary) the unknown days events of a friend even if while knowing the person was not engaged in breaking down understanding of reality.
It's not the person or their todo list that's interesting but awareness of a cognitive disconnect of not knowing what their todo list was that day.
Interestingly, this is what the book "How to Win Friends and Influence Others" gets at. While it's ostensibly a sales book, the very basis is how to be genuinely nice to people so they want to talk to you and be around you. And from those relationships come sales opportunities.
As another person for whom relation stuff does not come naturally, this was incredibly helpful because little pieces of advise really do work, because they really are nice things to do/say.
A favorite example of mine, when starting to talk to someone who probably already doesn't care for you is to find something -- anything -- that it's clear they like or chose, which you also happen to like, and pay it a genuine positive complement. And perhaps talk about it a little bit.
I've heard a lot of negativity around this book, and haven't read it yet. Did you feel like it was positive in the sense of genuine niceness, or negative in the sense of trying to be manipulative, etc.?
The negativity is from people who only read the title. The book content's are about skills to be friendly. Some people over index on the skills to being off-putting because it's such a popular book that many can tell when you're using "skills" from the book
It's really more of a dated manual on social etiquette. The negativity is mainly that it seems every salesperson is gifted a copy and implements the same techniques. Similar to how Chick Fil A has ruined the phrase "My Pleasure". The author himself states that it's genuine interest that forms connections, but ultimately the goal is to get something like a deal closed, the employee complying or the customer buying. Just depends on how you frame it.
What the others have said, and also, there are folks who take and implement the advise wrongly. Like, one of the other points is that people like knowing their name was remembered and hearing it used. I take this as "remember people's names, and when you haven't seen them in a while, say 'Hi, name!'" or so.
Some folks take this over the top and do a weird, false-feeling thing like sprinkle the person's name into conversation over and over, or at the start/middle/end. And it makes the conversation feel stilted, fake, and like a situation is being forced. And that casts a negative light on the overarching idea that people like being remembered, and their own name is a big part of that.
Being interested is also a lot more easy than to be interesting. The latter really depends on the eye of the beholder. Whereas I make it a game to find out what is interesting about the person across from me. Sometimes I strike gold, sometimes it's a dumpsterfire and we implicitly agree never to talk again. But once you strike gold and meet people you genuinely are really interested in, you get addicted.
>Once I figured out that this was a skill and not just something people that are not me are born with,
Agreed, but I'm not so sure this was previously true. Or at least not _as_ true. There used to be a lot of more socializing by default. People who were poor in this skill set still had relatively regular social opportunities.
This seems to be gone today, and now it's purely manual.
>Once I figured out that this was a skill and not just something people that are not me are born with
I agree that it is a skill, but like any skill it helps immensely to start learning it as a child. It took me until my 30s to realize that my parents were essentially... antisocial. And that most of the social skill lessons I took from them, if any, were probably wrong and unproductive. I spent a lot of time (and money) trying to learn to overcome that, but never made any progress.
There's a post-Covid dynamic in large cities where people often report that meetups are not as social as they once were, that one isn't isn't likely to meet anyone outside the meetup (or perhaps ever again even inside it). There can even be a feeling of cringe when someone like yourself acts as instigator, because there is a gnawing feeling the world has changed utterly and your approach is a futile attempt to go back to the past.
I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think it is general social meetups, or hobby meetups, or religions of the lax and casual type.
Also many people simply aged out of it. When I moved to a major city I'd attend every programming meetup (had something to go to 3 nights/week for a solid 3 years), after covid I found more worthwhile hobbies with others.
What COVID broke is that there was no one to take over from the previous club leaders so they mostly just died with nothing to replace them and now the new generation doesn't really know how to rebuild it because they never experienced it.
The likely study in question, for those interested.
Hall, J. A. (2019). How many hours does it take to make a friend? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1278-1296.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518761225
Who is reporting this? That has not been my experience at all. Social hobbies are how I make almost all of my friends as an adult (specifically: music and tabletop gaming). It's been very consistent through my entire adult life. I often have to be the instigator at first, but it has led to lasting friendships where everyone contributes. To the degree of traveling overseas together and attending each others' weddings.
EDIT: The only "cringe" meetups I've attended were "singles meetups" in my city. Mild desperation and no common interests aren't exactly a social lubricant. Hobby meetups are great because if you're truly interested in the subject matter it's an easy/exciting conversation starter.
If you are somewhere with live music, consider yourself lucky. That has declined in many countries in the last decade, as so widely reported in the music press.
You mention tabletop gaming. This is exactly the stereotype among friends and colleagues of unfulfilling meetups in a city I recently moved from: multiple games meetups sprung up around the university and public library as a way to get people meeting and talking, but most casual attendees didn't find the natural socializing they hoped for ("people just seem too desperate"), while players keen on the games and not looking for socializing per se complained about the casuals not being commited enough.
I'm near a major city in the US. While live music as an industry is under attack from corporate behemoths like Ticketmaster pricing out small working artists, the local scene for musicians just looking to jam is alive and well. If you live within an hour of any major city in the US you can easily find people to play music with. I think the distinction between live music as a business and live music as a hobby is important; the headlines are talking about the former. (Not to downplay the problems that working musicians are facing. I feel for them). Recording your own music at home is easier and more accessible than ever, so anyone with the creative urge can do it. And people are, including younger people.
For tabletop gaming, it definitely depends on the game. There certainly are salty regulars who have been playing their specific game for decades and who lack social grace with newcomers. But there are also nicer folks who enjoy teaching newcomers and building a community. It all comes down to having good event organizers. Sounds like the ones you heard about didn't manage expectations or toxic personalities well, which is a bummer.
To be clear I've absolutely experienced salty cringe behavior from stereotypical neckbeard gamer types at these events. But I've also met really nice people that I ended up hanging out with independently. Each meetup seems to attract a different crowd so I had to try a few before finding a group that was the right vibe for me.
Rehearsal spaces, small venues cheap enough to be booked by a group of 5-6 people for a day/evening (not necessarily bars or concert spaces), book a studio for a few hours and everyone pitch in.
Haha. Most cities have rehearsal spaces for rent. The more expensive ones let you store your gear there indefinitely, like a storage unit, and cheaper ones let you rent the space hourly but you haul your gear in and out for the day.
Nearly 25 years ago, I had some friends from church who were able to organize a very stable meetup for tabletop gaming, and they met at least 2 times every week in a very large and popular, independent coffeehouse downtown. They had things going smoothly before I joined up, and let me tell you, it sort of saved my life. I was homeless at the time, but they kinda got me addicted to Magic: the Gathering, and at least it was a somewhat benign way to spend my evenings.
Note: this wasn't a church activity by any means, even though 3 of us were in ministry together. We didn't evangelize, although sometimes we discussed our common faith. This was strictly personal, social time for everyone.
The years we met in that coffeehouse were very successful. We often enjoyed at least 10 people around the table, all sorts of kids, although my church friends were elderly, retirement-age, but very sensitive to the needs of the poor and the street people who often joined us. That coffeehouse eventually closed, so we moved on to a Starbucks, and the stable group became smaller, but more tightly-knit. Eventually, I found a really awesome teahouse that was just a few blocks off the beaten path, and our group moved there. We no longer found ourselves yelling/screaming over the noise of crowds and steamed milk machines.
Eventually our group lost nearly everyone except us three. Sometimes we had a guest, but they didn't stay. I don't know why people drifted away. Perhaps we weren't welcoming, or fun, or young enough. But we did diversify our activities into board games, such as Clue, Rummikub, Boggle, trivia, Scrabble, you name it. And the teas and snacks were delicious there.
Now one key feature of the group is that one guy was there for the games. He was hardcore, heads-down, "we're playing these games!" with intense concentration. The other lady, she was there for socializing and chatting, but her garage-sale habit had garnered a closet full of games to bring. I was there for both, I suppose, but mainly I liked the social aspect, getting out of the house, having some good boba tea and stuff. The board games were definitely a means to an end. So we all had varying reasons for being there.
Sadly, the pandemic lockdowns killed our group for good. Not even the teahouse was able to weather that storm, and they closed their doors permanently, too. I haven't seen my friends in that long a time. We tried doing some online gaming together, coordinated, but it wasn't the same at all! I really miss them, and I really miss the excuse to get out of the house, and socialize, and I wish there was a stable activity that had that sort of impetus in 2026, but all my friends were made through those gaming activities, and as a result, I no longer have any friends.
My experience is that meetups have largely the same dynamic, but the attendees very rarely reach out to get coffee. I can't think of a single instance in recent memory where someone has asked me, and yet I have many experiences where people later thank me for instigating. That used to bother me until I spoke with some people about it and realized it seemingly doesn't happen much these days outside of business pitches.
But personally I cannot afford to worry if they think it's cringe. For a long time I was lonely, even in a healthy marriage, but having friends that I see regularly is something that I have found to be a vital aspect of having good mental health and avoiding stagnation. So I continually take the risk and put myself out there when I meet an interesting and kind person.
My dad used to have our uncle and auntie over for dinner literally every other week, they'd stay until late hours of the night, they'd chat, laugh, listen to music, what have you.
And I remember once hearing my mum ask my dad - why do you keep inviting them over, they never invite us in return. And I remember what my dad said - yeah they don't, but I'm doing it because I want to be close to them and I enjoy spending time with them - even if they never invite us over it's still worth it.
> It can even be cringe to some when someone like yourself acts as instigator
Yes it can feel cringe but I would argue we need to just accept it as prosocial and not cringe. We are cringe for thinking normal social things are cringe.
Like, I would probably have thought OP was after my money like 5 years ago. But now I would just assume good faith.
I am fully convinced that "cringe" is just the death throws of patriarchal societal engineering.
It's like "Well, sure, they can be gay, but ~holding hands in public~? We've got to have some sense of morality around here or we're no better than animals!"
Living with your parents in your 20s isn't cringe, it's a powerfule economic decision. Having or not having kids isn't cringe it's a personal decision. Carrying a dog in a purse is cringe, it's practical. Being an impoverished drug addict isn't cringe. Crying out for help with mental illness isn't cringe. Telling loved ones you love them in public isn't cringe.
Inviting people to continue sociallizing with you at a later date isn't cringe, that's just fucking friendship.
People are using the word to label entirely regular perfectly acceptable behavior as if it is genuinely bad simply because they don't like it. Sure, okay, you personally don't like it when people express interest in you beyond your 30 second attention span, but who the fuck gave you the right to decide that society can't make friends in public? Damn, okay, OP said it was cringe to ask people if they want to hang out, guess I'll just die a hermit.
There is a need for the word 'cringe' for wannabe, fake, dishonest, superficial etc. expressions that are embarrassing. But it is way over used and should not be used on people who are trying to mock them. It is way too easy to be a critique.
Do we need a new word? We already call fakes fakes and the dishonest dishonest. We already have embarrassing embarrassed.
Really, I suppose it's not the words so much as the useage. People used to call some of the same perfectly normal things embarrassing rather than cringe in order to try to police behavior; like when telling your kids you love them in public is suddenly some sort of sin or when macho men aren't allowed to defer to their wives' expert opinion because "their friends say it's embarrassing"
> that one isn't isn't likely to meet anyone outside the meetup (or perhaps ever again even inside it).
I don't think that's a post-COVID dynamic as much as a pre-COVID one that got accelerated. When I moved to a new city in 2018, I spent a lot of time at meetups and had exactly that issue. No one would want to meetup outside the group (to be fair, most of it was that some people seemed to be willing to travel really far for a meetup group but not for other things), and you wouldn't see the same people often enough to really be friends within the group.
This mirrors my experience quite a bit. Hobbies that involve creative thinking and leaning on each others' skills are incredible at creating lasting social bonds which go beyond the hobby itself. For me that's music (creating it) and tabletop gaming (especially D&D or any similar RPG).
Meeting others through those activities and then gradually building upon the relationships via other social outings, dinner parties, weekend trips etc.
I'm also introverted but learned early on in life that it often just takes one person instigating things to rally a whole group.
> I must continually remind myself that I am the instigator and it's feels quite strange as a heavily introverted person
Ironically, the potluck style events strike me as the most introverted way to socialize. Not to denigrate the initiative at all, I have two Canadian friendsgivings this month, and they're fun, but I really wouldn't see the hosts frequently otherwise, because they're the ones packing their schedules in advance, moving to the distant suburbs, or just don't get out much. I don't feel like I can hit them up for something more casual, whether it's always true or not, it's more of a calendar event style relationship I have with them.
The reason I don't take it upon myself to host these myself is primarily because the substance of my social life comes largely from common interests outside the house that I invest deeply into, some of which are non-event hangouts just to watch movies at theirs, hiking, climbing, billiards bar, coffee and a walk etc... I don't try to find like-minded people as much as I do people that I have enough chemistry with, and build on that.
That said, in general it is important to try to take any kind of initiative you can. Friendships don't build themselves, and everyone's scared to stick their neck out.
+1 for the potluck dinners. I find much satisfaction in seeing my social circles merging.
Another lost art is keeping a contacts list and contacting them regularly. People used to have these lists on paper and then send cards at least once per year on birthdays/christmas/independence. With this being relegated to social media, your contacts often fall in the cracks of the quirks of tech companies.
Yep, I used to merge my circles often in the past, usually at restaurants and bars. I did not think about it otherwise though than optimizing my available time to target as many friends from different groups as possible.
But this also created a group of its own that I was coining together for regular Thursday craft beer night or occasionally having wine and beef together.
I stopped though, many years ago as when I started my own family, family and work consumed me too much to have regular night life and meetup exercising and my home was always my sanctum, I rarely invite people to my home. this is where i rest and only some inner circle has entrance there.
that inner circle was developed during last 20+ years and I don't find much space to expand this circle unless somebody new spends with me 20+ years having random access to my limited time.
And that's ok. having up to 5 close friends who you see and talk to regularly if you're 45+ is already enough. Random folk... can stay online. like here to share ideas and then bring them back home.
I actually stopped looking for new friends based on the interests.. I have enough in that gang to cover already. sharing interest related insights is where I use internet mostly.
one of the reasons why place like HN started becoming attractive again as after ditching FB, Discord and many other places with just noise instead of valuable insight and content only HN, lobsters and telnet/ssh BBSes become legitimate sources of idea sharing and tech progress.
other topics are covered fine for decades and when I'm randomly at bar sometimes (usually work delegations outside my own town) then I'm open for one evening conversation about any nonsense just to stay connected with the city folk, but no huge expectactions about phone sharing or another meeting.
I never share my social accounts connection with strangers. I stopped doing that.. it's just spam after all and like collecting f* pokemon cards instead of having meaningful relationship. One can't maintain relationship with 1000+ people so I dropped all that and keep online activities either socially anonymous or narrowed to under 100 people whom I at least remember I had a drink with, once.
Every year I make some (handmade) digital art and write a letter with it about our year, and then I email it (bcc’d) to all our friends, family, and other people we want to stay in touch with.
It’s not as tangible as a paper card but by being an email, people can just hit reply and answer. Every year a few dozen people write back to our card (out of maybe 350 recipients), and a lot of people have said that this is one of their favorite messages to get all year.
I think people can tell when you actually put time into something instead of just making a quick conventional card with platitudes. It’s helped us keep in touch with people from all over the place, across different continents, etc, who we might not stay in touch with so much otherwise.
YMMV but I find people who want to exchange socials like insta far less likely to meet up again then just old fashioned phone numbers. To such an extent that I exchange socials and not waste the time.
You're doing good work, not just for yourself, but for others.
Sometimes, it may be just the knowledge that you're contributing positively to other peoples lives that makes it worth sacrificing some of your own comfort.
I'm worried that although you might build up a big group of acquaintances that you hang out with on a regular basis this way, none of those would quite fit the definition of "friends".
A friend to me is someone with whom you can drop the mask of social propriety near-completely - share unpopular opinions, make racist jokes (directed at them or others), talk about the opposite sex (assuming hetero), talk about your own relationships, give honest feedback, do borderline illegal stuff like smoke weed etc. Because this is what intimacy means.
If I meet my friend after a bad haircut and he doesn't immediately go "what the fuck is wrong with your hair?", he's not a true friend, just someone I hang out with.
I think most people stop having friendships like this after grade school or university. I suspect some people have never had a friendship like this.
I think the cool thing about this, especially as an older person (40's), is that it creates a low-stress, high-interactivity scenario. So while some of the people may just be acquaintances that come to one or two potlucks, some will inevitably click and become more than just once a month dinner guests.
Forming friendships after schooling isn't hard, but it takes work. That said, I've had a good number of small social interactions that usually don't even lead to an acquaintance over the last decade, and even those feel good just to get out of my shell. Then there's the people I'd recognize if I saw them again and maybe remember their names. And a small but close group of about 12 and counting have become incredibly close friends that have recently begun mingling with my prior set of really close friends (different states, so we have a couple yearly gatherings).
I think you don't realize how hollow the initial interactions were with the people you consider friends now. You have to start somewhere. It's just when you are younger you do not have a baseline of what a really good friend is.
If it is indeed always hollow rather than perhaps just usually hollow, you may find a common denominator in your mirror.
No one's just going to become a lifelong friend of radical candor bumping in to you waiting in line for coffee for the same reason that you're not going to become someone else's lifelong friend of radical candor when you bump in to them waiting for coffee.
The schoolyard friends you mentioned didn't just automagically happen either. You were thrust in to an environment with lots of variables. You remained in that environment for a significant period of time. There were some you vibed with on perhaps just the first day, and some of those continued to vibe with you in the coming days, weeks, months, and years. Some of them went different ways over the years, and perhaps you stuck with one or two for the entire time, but that cohesion is effort whether it feels that way or not. It requires the right initial conditions and for the conditions to continue to be correct over time.
The bestest greatest friends of all time can fall to simple geographical distance if one or both of the participants isn't fulfilled by the new long-distance nature of the relationship. The conditions must remain sufficient for the relationship to endure.
The only way to see if the conditions are sufficient is to meet people and cultivate relationships with them. You as you are will naturally filter many or most just as many or most would filter you, but where's the harm in that? No one's friends with everyone, and not every friend need be some platonic soul mate.
There is mean-spirited racist humor and non-mean-spirited racist humor. Would you say Russell Peters is a racist?
True racism is about exclusion. If you'd never meaningfully associate with a person of some certain race(s), you're a racist. Doesn't matter if you're the most polite soul in the world.
There are people who have traveled the whole world, eat ethnic food all the time, do yoga, vote left etc but are still super racist because they'd never make friends with someone not of their own race. They are the real racists.
Often it stops there, that's what I mean. A big group of people to hang out with could give you the illusion of having friends when it's not really friendship, because it lacks the deep intimacy that comes with a good friendship.
There are more people LARPing as friends than are actually friends these days. Then I can see why many people these days reject these "friendships" at all. Just playing dress-up and doing stuff with people you know is tedious.
I mean sure you could use casual meetups to meet new people, but friendship really develops and exists in a one-on-one context. I re-read the root comment and it seems like the person has the right approach initially - meet at a meetup, invite for 1:1 coffee afterward.
But then he invites them to his potluck and I think the friendship dies there. There's just not enough 1:1 time for emotional depth to develop. That potluck is a graveyard of all his potentially real friendships. It's just another "hangout group".
I think you're missing the "slowly build a friendship, and hopefully they (I) make friends with the regulars at dinner party" and wrongly assuming that the potluck is the end of the road.
They don't say that they don't then go on to develop deeper friendships outside of the potluck, only that the potluck is a step in the road. It provides a low-stress low-stakes scene of congenially likely like-minded people in which people who are relative strangers can pair and group off if they choose to.
Approaching someone at a potluck like this, or chatting to your dinner neighbors, is way easier and likely more fruitful than chatting up strangers at a bar.
It is far easier to develop a friendship with someone who you can see interacting positively with your other friends. Easier to see more facets of an individual as they interact with people of slightly differing opinion.
I really genuinely cannot conceive how you're seeing it as a graveyard rather than a garden. Like...throwing a potluck is so vastly much more effort than showing up to someone else's event. They are putting genuine effort in to regularly surrounding themselves with people they enjoy. There's just no way that any of those people are "fake friends". They may be but mere acquantances, but even then these are people that are chosen to be invited. Everyone there is there because they were wanted and wanted to be there. If the host feelt they were fake friends, they wouldn't be invited, would they?
Compare this to a monthly coworker dinner where the only reason everyone's there is because the boss said so. Where everyone agrees Janice from accounting is always trying way to hard to laugh at everyone's jokes and Bob from QA just didn't quite grok the message behind "How to Make Friends and Influence People" and so uses everyone's name in every sentence because he figures that's important.
I hear you but maybe not everyone wants this. It sounds great but it's also high investment/high effort and sometimes hurts and disappoints. I think some people are fine with having shallower relationships than that.
To me, being close with someone does not involve being insulted, insulting them or making racist jokes. I also dont particularly care about other peoples haircuts, one way or the other. I do have friends I spend 1 on 1 with who I am completely open with.
> I think most people stop having friendships like this after grade school or university.
When I was younger, I was never open with people who would be insulting to me or found it important to make racist jokes. I would simply not tell them what I think to avoid conflict or insult. They were assymetrically open, I was not.
But I genuinely did not cared about their haircuts either.
> being the instigator for most social occasions but the pros outweigh the cons
It depends on the personality. Some people are very open. Some are not. I find social open-ness much harder than closed-ness. The open-ness approach, though, is most likely the better strategy indeed. It just helps little when people are naturally closed off mentally already.
I really don't understand why they have virtual meetups on their platform. Their branding used to be all, "get out from behind a screen and meet people IRL!"
And like really all stopped; via digital comms everyone from the social group has said they realized after the plans I pulled together was their extent of their social life.
American culture fuckin' sucks. And it's Americans propping it up. It isn't Russia or the other usual boogeymen.
Well, here is the real truth - everyone’s culture sucks in the right circumstances.
We’re going through the aftermath of the old social paradigm collapsing and the robber barons feasting on the corpse.
We’ll find a new one eventually, and people will adapt (eventually) and they won’t feel the suck in the same way everyone used to the old way does. It will just be normal to them.
448 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 35.2 ms ] threadWeed here you get at a "dispensary", which is a very unsexy term but apparently we also need to protect the ears of the innocent.
Out east you'd go get beer and wine at the "package store" or just, "packy"
And I assume the pertinent discussion is what happened/changed in the western world post WW II.
We have a lot more people these days and we're a lot more urbanized.
> My point was that much of what was done "then" in one's house are now done elsewhere
Yeah, and I don't think I believe that.
If more social time is desired at the macro system level, people need to have more leisure time (shorter work week, higher wages, good quality of life with more free time broadly speaking) and more third spaces to meet and socialize.
Citations:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49644650
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49644302
Tying religion to politics was probably a bad idea for both religion and politics.
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/the-lds-church-has-a-r... (“Just a bare majority of kids raised LDS are still LDS as adults (54%)“)
“No, not exactly...,” he replied in an increasingly exasperated tone. I could hear the struggle in his voice as he recognized the cracks forming in the thin veneer of his identity. “It’s like a pub, but it serves food. Like, real food, thoughtfully considered by a gastrochef.” She returned the serve, now teetering on boredom at minute four of the flight. “At our pub we call him Kevin. He makes the best pot pie.”
He regrouped and they found truce in talking about the weather in Toronto. I resisted the urge to twist around to ask if they knew any good restaurants downtown.
In Ireland that distinction matters. It generally will affect other things, like what time and how loud music will be played, how the tables and chairs will be organised and what type. It will often affect opening hours and the price of a pint. Gastro pubs also tend to be much larger.
In North America it seems the vast majority of "pubs" are gastro pubs, possibly why that lady couldn't see the difference. I personally love micropubs and they never serve food other than crisps and maybe a toastie.
I feel like a pedant but I get that dude in his 20s and had to speak up.
To be fair, at least in the US, anything calling itself a "pub" is already going down a marketing/branding road and it almost certainly means they're going to try to evoke an Irish or British sensibility.
All but the most extreme far-right and far-left people in the country really do agree on 95%+ of anything with daily relevance to their lives.
Can I get a source for this? Or is this just something you are pulling out of nowhere to argue against someone else's lived experience because it conflicts with yours?
Now consider what fraction of things in a society could possibly be controversial, versus things like: "when a person is hurt, I should try to help them" or "when I owe money, I should pay it back," or "if I find money lying around, I should find the proper owner," or "if I'm taking an exam, I should not cheat on it."
These are beliefs that are nearly unanimous within American culture and not unanimous at all globally. Those are what constitute the core of "our culture." They are by definition nearly invisible to us.
In the past we all got our news from Walter Cronkite.
I had a pretty busy social life in university, 20 years ago
The first city I landed in afterwards, I was able to make some connections and was lucky enough some of my uni friends were around too
But I moved for work to a much further away city and my social life has dropped to zero since then. The pandemic and lockdowns didn't help of course, but that was years ago. I don't have a single friend in this city and I've lived here almost 10 years now
Admittedly I'm kind of socially awkward and quite afraid of new groups, which has only gotten worse over the years. I also haven't had any luck making lasting connections through work or anything like that.
I tend to blame myself for this but it's not too surprising to hear many others are struggling too
The simple answer is media. First television, then internet, then smartphones.
People used to actively seek the company of others - if for no other reason than out of boredom. Entertainment and parasocial relationships have filled that hole.
Another reason I might posit is declining birth rates and an aging population. Entire neighborhoods used to be filled with young families of roughly the same age. Now on any given city block in the US, there may only be 1 or 2 houses that have kids of any age in them. Smaller concentration of kids -> thinner market for playdates and sleepovers -> less interactions between families.
The relentless satire is what really did it. It was all written by some of the smartest yet depraved and depressed people who found a home in comedy. What did we think was going to happen?
Satire is all well and good, but what are we doing when we no longer take anything seriously anymore? Social media, but particularly reddit, continues to be an echo chamber for these mentally castrated and bitter people who couldn't challenge the comedy with a life that was actually any better than what was being mocked.
That was a very 90s 'thing'. Today people, especially young people, are exceedingly lacking in levity. Everything is serious.
Example of past generation seriousness: investing - put all your money in housing or the stock market and you'll get rich and comfortable. Example of current generation nihilism: everyone wanting to be an influencer. Some people will become successful and some more will get by but most will fail at that, by the mathematics of it. Or literal gambling as in the rise of Kalshi - if your life's crap with $0 or $1k but wouldn't be crap with $100k, why not put it all on 100x odds? Or something like looksmaxxing: will doing xyz to your jawline somehow result in success? Probably not, but it might and you weren't going to be successful otherwise anyway.
GP is wrong anyway, comedy's always been about saying what everyone is secretly thinking.
That actually was my whole point. Why do you think they're saying what you're thinking? Where did you get those thoughts from? Comedy has been an influence and tastemaking machine for a very long time.
It doesn't, for example, cover the privatization of public spaces, it doesn't mention mass white flight from cities to suburban sprawl due to people wanting to preserve apartheid, nor does it cover the rise in wealth inequality or the weakening of labor laws or the obliteration of pedestrian friendly infrastructure.
Instead, it pins it all on 'television' which, sure, but there's a reason why people gravitate towards entertainment that is served to them much more cheaply per-hour than not. It's a little like saying the problem with small pox is that the boils are painful, not the underlying virus systematically destroying your body.
In my personal experience in community organizing, the main pain points people have are 1) that they have day jobs that exhaust them, 2) the traffic sucks and they don't want to drive to our meetings, or 3) they need to pick up a second shift or another job to cover their basic needs. And even to those points, it's hard to get a public space where you can regularly meet that doesn't charge a lot of money, to provide food/refreshment, to maintain an ongoing potluck which requires a lot of coordination especially when it comes to preferences/dietary restrictions, etc. It's almost never out of a lack of interest. People desperately want community but there are so many barriers in place.
That's because, contrary to the way it's often depicted, the 20th century was overwhelmingly a flight from rural areas to cities. Suburbs were an outgrowth of that, but the reality is that rural areas were hollowed out the most. (Also, community engagement in rural areas with lots of sprawl was even higher than in cities).
> that they have day jobs that exhaust them
The median adult is spending 5+ hours on their phone a day. This is what is exhausting people. Everyone is essentially working a second job that involves lots of reading and attention and social engagement. It's a parasitic draw on our lives.
> they need to pick up a second shift or another job to cover their basic needs.
Maybe that's true for some people, but the data usually shows that income and free time is inversely related to community time. Poorer people are making more time for friends and family.
I can see what you're trying to do - reframe this problem as another outgrowth of class struggle. But it doesn't really explain the reality. A steelworker in the 1920s coming off of a 10-hour shift would still find the time and energy to go out dancing. A software engineer in 2026 is going to get off of work at 5pm and watch 3.4 more hours of screen time in a day.
You're talking about an entirely different phenomena. The move from rural areas to cities and exurbs happened in the 50s/60s with cheap mortgage rates, WWII-provisioned education, and large sweeping social services being enacted. White flight is a phenomena that started in the mid-60s to 80s that specifically coincided with integration.
>The median adult is spending 5+ hours on their phone a day. This is what is exhausting people
There's much to be said about the behavioral manipulation and dark patterns in apps and devices, sure. But I don't think television inherently was employing Skinner-boxes to get people to watch and that's what I was specifically speaking to. Regardless, that dark pattern of it is class struggle related if that's the direction you want to frame it (I see it more as just MBA-brained corporate sociopathy) because it seeks to extract capital from its users while externalizing all negatives onto the users themselves.
>Maybe that's true for some people, but the data usually shows that income and free time is inversely related to community time. Poorer people are making more time for friends and family.
Obviously. And this is clearly related to the fact that the more impoverished you are, the more you need to pool resources to survive. The pain points I illuminated are for individuals who are still showing up to community organizing work and much of what we do in these spaces is effectively providing enough mutual aid for them to survive.
> A steelworker in the 1920s coming off of a 10-hour shift would still find the time and energy to go out dancing.
You have proof of this? That they wouldn't just go home and get shitfaced or otherwise incapacitated? All steelworkers, per capita, were going out dancing regularly? And even so, this wasn't because they were economically incentivized by the rise of labor unions to be in community with others, building power and fighting for better rights? The 30 years of post-Reagan neoliberal expanisionism has effectively neutered unions - and that's something that wasn't covered either by Putnam.
I suspect another thing largely missed by Putnam was the rise of online social spaces. Connecting with friends via the phone, on Discord, in video game spaces - that's community. It's just different from the community envisioned by people in more elderly generations. The fact that you're even commenting on HackerNews is effectively proof against Putnam's claims.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/09/28/how-urban...
Community engagement isn't also quite the same thing as friend groups. This is making me interested in doing a similar analysis.
I doubt that steelworkers around 1920 typically went out dancing after their shifts. Back then, there was a lack of radios or sound systems, and live music was likely reserved for more upscale establishments. The average worker would more likely have gone to a beer hall or pub to have a drink with his mates.
I haven’t been able to quickly find any statistics for the U.S. that go back that far, but in Germany, around 67% of 18- to 25-year-olds were still consuming alcohol regularly in 1973, whereas that figure had dropped to about 28% by 2023. I’m not suggesting that this trend is inherently negative, but there is, at the very least, a correlation with a decline in social activities.
When I am tired from work, I spend more time on phone after. And less time doing other more engaging activities. When I had easy workday, I am more likely to do something else.
> Poorer people are making more time for friends and family.
This is what I found: "the social interactions of those from lower-income households tend to revolve around family members and neighbors" and "richer people spend more with their self-selected friends".
This would confirm exactly what OP wrote - people who do socialize do it with people nearby.
> I can see what you're trying to do - reframe this problem as another outgrowth of class struggle.
They are referring to what they see as they do their community organizing. You dismiss it all, because none of that should theoretically matter.
I have a similar experience but I don't think this disagrees with the parent. My mental exhaustion makes me seek out low-friction "junk food" behaviors. But much like drinking after work because you had a long day, the phone exhausts you in another way. The cure and disease are one in the same here.
Putnam doesn't pin it all on television, this is the high level breakdown he arrives at after the long analysis chapters:
10% The pressure of time and money, two career families, wealth inequality 10% Suburbanization, long commute, surburd's segregation, loss of public space 10% Television and other solo entertainment 15% Television related generational change 35% Other generational change (the replacement of the WW2 generation with their children and grand-children) 20% Unknown other causes
So only 25% caused by television.
The following hypotheses were found unconclusive: The growth of the welfare state The civil rights revolution Changes in structure and scale of the American economy (chain store, globalization)
Reversing the loss of public space trend is also one of the 6 big outlines for solutions he proposes in the final part.
Your personal experience is true and covered in Bowling Alone.
What you seem to be implying is people are lazy and choosing TikTok over real relationships. But I also think people choose TikTok because it’s low effort and they don’t have much gas left in the tank.
The interesting part is what causes what. Are people exhausted and disillusioned because they aren't experience life the same way as previously, or aren't they having these experiences because they are exhausted and disillusioned.
I'm trying to focus on both in my life, and I have become much happier as a result.
Counterpoint, people are TOLD and CONVINCED that they are exhausted and that life is way harder than it is.
Capitalism loves someone who is "too busy" to make stuff or avoid buying stuff.
Our lives are all about reducing friction and making everything easier.
Relative to 20-30 years ago we are so lucky and privileged. It's nuts how the victim mindset has spread.
I've lived all over the place and one thing I've seem priliferate is this mindset of "I'm a victim, doing this is too hard, so I just won't for X and Y reasons" while folks order Uber eats.
Your contempt for humanity is blinding you to real issues people face every day. Yes, some things have gotten better over the years, but some things have gotten a lot worse.
>I've lived all over the place and one thing I've seem priliferate is this mindset of "I'm a victim, doing this is too hard, so I just won't for X and Y reasons" while folks order Uber eats.
There's a lot I can do by myself. But at the end of the day, someone choosing not to ghost me for a hangout or take the time to get together regularly is a 2-way street. Even pre-pandemic, it's been said people are flakier than ever.
There are systematic reasons to explain this, but on a micro level: "just work harder" is not a solution to friendship.
Is life today bleaker or harder than it was during the Great Depression? People still made time for each other.
What if it is the media that is making people exhausted and disillusioned? Not the other way around.
I’m arguing there are legitimate reasons why people are exhausted and disillusioned with the current state of the world.
There's a reason people call it "doomscrolling", and it's not because it's healthy escapism. Bad news and defeatism is psychologically addictive, and platforms have financial incentive to pump your brain full of negativity. Regardless of how bad it is outside, the internet is not a protective bubble - it's an opium den.
Today, computers allow for mass dystopian control. Cameras and algorithms everywhere with no chance of appealing to an actual human.
There are multiple kinds of suffering, and even if more people have sufficient nutrition and health than in the great depression, it's much harder to see hope for the future today.
Now entertainment and social media sort of fill that gap (not really) but enough that there's less people out. Less people out mean it's less entertaining, so less people go out etc.
> First television, then internet, then smartphones
i like vr so i sometimes wonder if itll catch on and if were in the "we know one or two people with a tv" era of the early 40s. theres certainly seems to be a financial incentive since it seems like tvs and phones have gone about as far as we can take them. its also certainly seems like a another leap down the isolation path as well
luckily i think most people reject vr bc it sucks to wear something on your face
edit: grammar (still bad but better)
Our modern day equivalent is being on HN or Reddit all day long
I would also add the suburbanization of American society. A neat little home in a neat little sub-division with a neat little patch of grass. You can sit on your grass in your own little kingdom, and be completely unbothered by the world around you.
And being alone and bored is enabled by television and scrolling.
It turns out, being completely unbothered is also unchallenging, and challenge drives us.
Honestly, I view the suburbs as the worst of both worlds (urban and rural), with few benefits.
BTW: As an aside, this is why i think the suburbs-class loves tesla self driving so much. The one downside is the long monotony of transitting to the place where people gather to do your work. I'm not against self driving cars, but they enable suburban self-imposed isolation.
Everyone had a part of their house that was essentially a bar and they would have house parties all the time.
So I don't think it's sub-urbanization per se.
People don't throw parties with them nearly as much any more because throwing a party with an at-home bar in a suburban house essentially requires drunk driving. We've gotten much more strict about since 1980 for very good reason.
Happy hours are still relatively common in cities because you can get home without driving.
It's funny that as a child in the suburbs I had maybe 10 neighbors within a half mile and we only knew 2 of them. I never saw them. There were no sidewalks and people didn't walk around.
In fact, in our typical suburban boredom, sometimes we'd sneak around our neighbor's properties to see if we could learn who they were. We were pretending to be spies. One time we discovered that our closest neighbors had goats and we were blown away. I never did meet the people living in those suburban houses in the 10 years we lived in that house.
I feel like some people are just making assumptions or are extremely introverted.
It's not just about neighbors.
It's much more appealing to get to the street and walk when you have 4 cafes, a theater, two libraries and a gym in a 10 minute radius than when you just get to walk next to lawns for an hour.
And there's a point to be made for the added friction of a small home. The more self sufficient your house is the harder it is to convince yourself to get out.
The suburbs were soul sucking to me, the people were largely insufferable. I knew my neighbors, but hated them because 90% of our conversations were some form of “I noticed your grass wasn’t cut this week” or “your cans sat on the curb until the morning”. There were some good ones, but like me they mostly hid in their back yard to avoid the Karen’s.
Sometimes I don't want to have a conversation with my neighbor who I really don't have anything in common with except they live next door.
What are you talking man? Atomic family from 50s with their suburb is literally the utopia for American and whatnot family. Kids running around in droves, BBQ with neighbors, helping around with a house, etc. Good luck having that in New York rat cages.
The reality is that prewar housing in cities in the US was still frequently single family housing. The Chicago Bungalow is an obvious example.
The difference was in how close they were to each other and how much of the infrastructure was given to cars.
I’m not sure I buy that there is some tidy explanation about suburbanization leading to the decline in social interaction but if you think everyone describing city living is describing midtown manhattan you’ve got to myopic view of what urban housing means.
This is true of suburbs as well fwiw. There are lots of walkable suburbs with common community space and not a McMansion or big box shop to be seen.
I grew up in the suburbs and it was a miserable experience. If I wanted to go anywhere I had to ask an adult to drive me. There were no sidewalks. Nearest friend's house was a mile away, and my parents were understandably afraid of letting us go there alone. It was a 100% car-dependent suburb. Everything was so spread out. Nobody wanted to live on a main road with cars, so there were endless dead-ends and culs-de-sac so everybody can have their own little traffic-free neighborhood
One time I literally WALKED SIX MILES to the mall because I was just so bored. I literally spent about half a day just walking on streets with cars going 40+ miles per hour with no shoulder. What's worse is that I had to go behind my parents back to do it because who wants their kid walking next to F-150s going 40 miles an hour?
I thought things would get better once I could drive. Things improved a little bit, but it's hard to afford a car + insurance + gas at 17 years old. The car was a huge drain on my limited resources. I was so eager to get rid of it
Once I discovered the "rat cages" you're deriding, life became a whole lot better for me. I refuse to raise my kids in the suburbs. Kids deserve better than that.
Where did that "utopia" ideal come from?
> Good luck having that in New York rat cages
Yeah, that isn't good either. That's poverty. Do you think poverty doesn't exist in the suburbs?
It can't possibly be something in the middle! All or nothing.
Once I moved to the city I didn’t know my neighbors. People kept to themselves or the turnover was high.
Cities have shared parks. I don't have any yard. But I have wonderful parks within short walking distance. There are far more amenities and so much more to offer at public parks than private yards. It's a shared backyard
In the suburbs, everybody has their own play structure in their back yard. In cities, we have bigger, better play structures that more kids can use simultaneously which encourages more social interaction.
Plus the actual article itself is commenting on a decline of socializing that's occurred in the last 30 years. But suburbs have been predominant the US for around 60 years. And there's similar declines occurring in more dense cities like NYC and Washington. If it was strictly a suburb problem then someone living in Manhattan shouldn't have been affected but last I heard even those cities are affected.
This stands in stark contrast to my car-free life. Every time I go out of the house to travel somewhere, I run into people I know. I say hi to strangers. I nod to pedestrians crossing the street. I have a brief conversation with somebody on the bus. I didn't expect that traveling by transit or bike would have such a positive impact on my well-being.
Knowing what I know now, it's not possible for me to go back to a suburban car-dependent life. It would be a major step backwards
when you're in a car, the possibility for a positive social interaction is nearly 0. I don't know about you but I've never been happier after driving my car
when you're not in a car, there's just more opportunities for small social interactions. You can choose to take those opportunities or not, but they're there. There's just something different about being eye-to-eye with people and not separated by a sound proof metal and glass cage
These however are all effects of a larger mentality of hyper-individualism and hyper-productivity, symptoms of late-stage capitalism.
ironically, urban commutes are substantially shorter on average
> leaving the individual with little time for self improvement and free time. It deteriorates the third place by not allowing time to dedicate to it.
what? there's so many urban third places.
The truth is there is no archetype of an "American suburb." They can be wildly different from each other. I grew up in Whittier, a suburb of Los Angeles, famous for car culture. You can find videos today all over the place of lowriders on hydraulics cruising Whittier Blvd. It's referenced in rap songs from the 90s. But you could also walk or ride a bike. Whittier Blvd itself is two lanes each way for much of its length and is the biggest street in the city. I lived two blocks from this street and walked places all the time. I knew all my neighbors. Kids played in the streets. We walked to parks and played there, too. Whittier even has a really nice wilderness park thanks to Turnbull Canyon, where you're not really remote but you can feel that way. In high school when we were assigned to read Walden Pond and produce similar journals, I found isolated creekbeds where you couldn't hear or see anything except the woods and kept a paper journal I wrote in.
On the other hand, my sisters have moved out to Murrieta, CA and are raising their children there. It's a radically different experience. My wife asked if we could walk to a convenience store when we first visited and my sister was almost laughing at us. It's miles away, some streets have no sidewalks, the streets are a hundred feet wide with 50 mph+ speed limits. It's also hot as hell because it's out in the desert.
Both suburbs, even both in Southern California, but very different experiences with very different communities.
Hacker News talks past each other a lot by not acknowledging this and reducing everything down to "suburbs" or "American" and assuming that kind of shorthand has a clear, universal meaning.
Even television and media consumption in general are not the automatic atomizers they're being characterized as. Aside from the old watercooler monoculture of having something to talk about when everyone watched the same five primetime shows, for sports fans and especially when pay-per-view first took off, gathering at one person's house to collectively watch together was almost ubiqitous. That's not even considering cinema in theaters, which were always a group event. I grew up with that. We almost never watched anything alone in the 80s. If people are now primarily watching video media on their phones from their beds while alone, that is a lot different than how we grew up 40 years ago. Reading was more characteristic of alone-time media consumption.
I finally went and visited the house where she had rented in Tiburon (it was just a block from the Paradise Loop path, a pleasant bike ride from SF), and I was like, "Mom, Tiburon is totally a suburb." And her response was "Oh, well your sisters could walk to school and I could walk to the grocery store, so it didn't feel like a suburb to me."
This hating on suburbs has got to stop. It's fine if you don't like it, but I have way more friends in suburbia than I ever had in the faceless city where people just walked right on past out of fear.
I finally went and visited the house where she had rented in Tiburon (it was just a block from the Paradise Loop path, a pleasant bike ride from SF), and I was like, "Mom, Tiburon is totally a suburb." And her response was "Oh, well your sisters could walk to school and I could walk to the grocery store, so it didn't feel like a suburb to me."
I guess the moral of the story is that there are suburbs and then there are suburbs.
There's maybe 1-2 other people around your age at work, unless you actively chose the massive internship to employment pipeline of MAANG, Big 4, or your industry equivalent that was still actively training employees. Not really for me; my first gig was pretty young, but going to a large corporation for much higher pay: it was a satellite office with 2-3 other people my age than a bunch of seasoned veterans.
Neighborhoods are the same way too. Even today, I can make small talk with my neighbors. But they are some 15+ years ahead of life with two young kids. Different vibe from a single dude in his 30's.
https://www.puttingourdifferencestowork.com/pdf/j.1467-9477....
Then one family got a TV, and they stopped rotating because everyone wanted to spend the evening watching TV at that one family's house.
Then the other families got TVs, and they stopped the socializing tradition altogether, preferring to watch TV at home.
Even on the TFR point, the birth rate in 1976 in USA was 1.74, 2025 it was 1.6. So it's not like a China situation where it went from over 3 to less than 1 in 50 years.
And, as is often the case, the simple answer is incomplete/oversimplified. Because there are cultures which have absorbed those technologies while remaining much more social than Western cultures. And they are ones that are less individualistic and stress more of a group, family or clan mentality.
The issue with fertility rates is similar/correlated. Most of the developed world is seeing rates far below replacement, but some cultures are far more resistant to the influences of technology than others. Many developed countries have tried to address their low birth rates from a policy standpoint, essentially paying people a small percentage of what it costs to raise a child to incentivize parenthood. But I’d argue it’s far more important to address their low birth rate as a cultural issue, which is basically a semi-narcissistic focus on maximizing our own lives rather than doing what’s best for our (for lack of a better word) tribe. Because the less individualistic a society is, the less it’s struggling with these problems.
I’d posit that a lot of this has to do with the decline of religiosity in Western cultures. Religion was where a lot of people got their group cohesion and sense of an importance of something greater than self. And while I’m no fan of religion, we’ve removed it without replacing it with something else that serves the same function. We’re going to have to find that something or these sorts of trends will only continue.
When given the option between: socializing with people in a shared space and being at home and entertaining yourself people are consciously choosing the latter.
When I ask why, this is what I hear from other people the most:
-I don’t have time
-I don’t have transportation
-Who else is going to be there
Etc…
There seems to be a genuine lack of desire whatsoever to simply get yourself to a place where there is a free event.
And to be clear this is not just talking about one particular type of event
I just went to a Democratic socialist of America event this weekend in support of Gaza, and the amount of people who showed up compared to the number of people who are on the list (even the organizing list) is some vanishingly small group.
If the plurality of individuals don’t want to join groups in person because they feel satisfied by themselves, then that’s a signal of some kind.
It's hard to imagine doing that nowadays. I have a family, so doing that instead of going home in the evening would be selfish (if done too often), but even if I were younger and had time, it would seem very extravagant now. When a beer is $8-10 or even more, it would be an expensive proposition to go to the bar every night after work. And if you order food it's even worse...
I went first time with office team this year a couple of weeks back. Needless to say whole experience was atrocious. No common reference, movies, sports, TV and so on to talk about besides work. It was just: "Oh, what do you do on weekend? I do x,y,z " in a round-robbin manner.
It was definitely not good time, or even bad time one can remember, just an insipid gathering for 3 hours of doing nothing. $8 for a beer and $15-20 per person for lukewarm food not sure I'll be excited for another meet any time soon.
One aspect is that a single income really was enough to not feel extravagant to have a home, a family, and afford to go to the bar a few nights a week. (Part of this was there wasn't as much random other stuff to buy, it wasn't being marketed to you nearly as aggressively either.)
I certainly did this quite a bit in the 1990's, and in the early 1980's I definitely remember my father going out at least twice a week and then the weekends also being for going out and doing something as a family at least 2/3 weekends per month - like trips to a nearby city, or to a sports game, or visit other family, or whatnot.
> Now that I think about it, actually, I guess my department at work did this when I first started in the early 2000s, going out to the bar once or twice a week.
> It's hard to imagine doing that nowadays. I have a family,
This still happens. Young people get together and go out after work. I don't go to pubs often, but when I meet up with someone after work the crowd is people meeting up after work with each other.
If everyone in your department is over 35 and has kids, you won't have much luck with this. If everyone is in their 20s and friendly, there's probably something going on.
I think a lot of people forgot how to be friendly with coworkers, especially if they spend a lot of time online. Online discussions about jobs mostly read like it's a cutthroat single player game where you shouldn't get too close to anyone because you can't trust anyone and you should be planning your next job hop anyway. I have to remind a lot of people younger than me that it's okay to have friends at work. You need to have friends outside of work, too, but you can be friendly with people at work.
If I didn't have kids, would I want to go out multiple nights a week for a few beers with friends? I don't know. I'd certainly think about the cost of it more now than when I was 25.
Similarly for restaurants - they've gotten so expensive, and often the food isn't as good as we remember - that my wife and I don't seem to be as interested in going out to eat as we used to.
You don't think this is a response to corporate culture? Especially over the last few years.
But at the same time, after our natural relationship ran its course (due to graduations or leaving a student team), it felt like they disappeared. My relationship with them wouldn't linger like with other friends (even if weakened).
Another friend of mine directly described this view that "friendships have a time and place" in life. I thought about that perspective and didn't fully agree, but it still taught me that it's perfectly possible and even healthy to make friends quickly even if circumstances are temporary.
My view is that even if you become good friends with someone (at work or elsewhere) and they leave, you still end up with a network of friends across the country in different workplaces. Even when the nature of the friendship changes, you can still catch up with many of your old friends on occasion (like around the holidays).
And even if relationships completely fade, I believe that genuine relationships will always be a nice experience.
I get your logic, but I so don't want to live that life. Screw money, I spend ~8h per day at work, I want to hang out with people I like.
There's one bar I go to regularly where there's a couple of guys who I've literally never seen absent over the years.
I don’t think money is a barrier to getting out.
I think to solve this we are going to have to blow up social media and make going out in public more convenient and friendly. Otherwise we are going to end up in a WALL-E society where people spend all day with their meta glasses streaming AI generated micro dramas.
Why are you driving into a city that costs $100 to park in and then to a restaurant that costs $100 per person if money is a consideration?
Go to a local restaurant. Go to one outside of that city. Do literally anything other than the scenario you described.
I guarantee that if you're near a city where you can find $100 parking, you can find 100 or 1000 amazing small restaurants that are affordable and interesting.
This is a type of defeatism where someone imagines the worst possible scenario, erases all other options, and then pretends it's a choice between the worst scenario or nothing at all.
Going to the movies costs my family $100 without concessions. The zoo $80, the aquarium $100, art museum $80. There's a decent public park system but we're often the only ones there. McDonalds doesn't have playplaces anymore, sleepovers barely exist. The nearest bowling alley is 30 minutes away and runs us about $60 an hour without food.
Add food to anything (which most places don't allow from outside) and you're sometimes doubling the price for complete trash.
I had a burger, fries and 2 beers last night at one of these small local restaurants. It was $47 with tip. I had a bbq plate the other day at a local restaurant. 2 meats, 2 sides was $26 dollars before a drink or tip was added.
Going out in the US is so expensive now, even the low end, that you might as well do something nicer.
Baumol's cost disease often comes to mind - in my (might be wrong) application of it - western society simply has had too much productivity and efficiency improvements. You can make more money as a software developer or as an investment banker because those jobs have gotten more efficient and have higher payouts to employers who want the best employees.
There can't be efficiency improvements in efficiency for child care, so the only way to have people want to become child care workers is to pay a competitive salary, so the efficiency increases in the other unrelated fields directly increase the cost of child care.
Developing countries don't have this problem and domestic labor and child care are still cheap.
Is Southern Europe not part of The West?
Feels like a guinea pig society with all of the rapid changes happening
With kids, most social interactions are with kids, kids' friends, kids' friends' parents. Oh well, at least they're social.
Used to go out more often in the middle of the day, while kids were in daycare/school. At least then you don't have to pay for babysitter.
Why do you feel the need to spend money to socialize?
You usually got a drank, talked. This was a kind of gothic-theme bar, all done up with spooky decorations, a good dj, interesting drinks. We'd host arts/culture slide show jams before the place really would get going for the night. The art was curated and swapped out monthly. There was a lot going on! The place did a lot to charge the space with energy and excitement, bringing a lot of different people together.
Then this guy at the table whipped out his phone and just ignored us all sitting there.
I knew right then and there that this was the beginning of the end.
Now we're all dopamine seeking doom scrollers.
I've been out with a group of friends -- some I just met -- once this year. It also doesn't help that meals and drinks seem hard to justify for the price. I'm waxing nostalgia, but $30 of tacos used to be maybe $8; my $10 beer today was $3.
My online social activity has declined a lot since then though, there was just so much unnecessary drama, oversharing, and vying for attention, emotional support, etc and the people that gave it burned out and left, leaving just emotionally needy people yelling into the void while the others moved on with their lives.
The baseline keeps dropping.
It wasn’t until iphone 3G in 2008 that you had a full fledged browser with unlimited broadband capable of streaming audio, maps, and visiting websites with graphics. And, of course, new apps coming out everyday.
Sounds like the real gothic-guy in the place. ; )
Also a similar story: This was a kind of normal bar, all done up with fine photos for decorations, good music, good drinks. We'd host performances and jams before the place really would get going for the night. The art was curated and swapped out monthly. There was a lot going on! The place did a lot to charge the space with energy and excitement, bringing a lot of different people together. Then one day a guy got bored and went home alone early. I knew then and there, that place was finished!
No bars, no dinners with anyone. I think the only blessing this lifestyle has given me is minimized impact from the failing economy we're in, at the cost of not seeing anyone or doing anything. I still have outside hobbies, but it's all too expensive to keep up with now, or being heavily regulated.
Uphill battles are often worth fighting.
A number of military historians would beg to differ.
Everything young parents don't have time for or are too tired for.
It sounds cliche but it's literally true that there's always time to meet new people no matter what phase of life you're in.
Related: when I was 25 I had a depressive existential crisis and felt like my life was basically over. It's common, and therapy was a lifesaver. If you feel like you might be depressed then talking to someone can really help. Take care of yourself as best you can!
"Nothing in this world worth having comes easy"
That said, I met my spouse in my early 30s. Was worth switching countries for and that was 13 years ago. We met playing the same silly text-based MMORPG some years ago. I have never been very social, but not being social doesn't mean that you won't meet people in non-traditional ways.
I think staying at home basically rotting is more comfortable, sure. No judgment here, I’ve done that for months at a time. But the payoff is also… underwhelming. I mean you get basically nothing, just monotony and silence.
The more risky things, like dating or going to a party, are much more uncomfortable. But the potential payoff is a lot more. I mean you can really strike it up with someone, find someone on your wavelength. It can be exciting, exhilarating.
But it lacks the certainty. The reward is higher, but so is the drawback. If I stay inside and do nothing, at least I know the outcome. It’s more enticing in that way. But I also know I won’t make any memories that way. There won’t be some moment or some person I’ll look back on fondly.
The environment is certainly antisocial. But I would say that it is reinforcing your hermetic disposition.
Also, it would be an interesting experiment to go the complete opposite way. Become cartoonishly social for a period and see what happens. It's not like solo-mode us difficult to reboot.
I can definitely see how someone who doesn't have many positive reference experiences would prefer to just be alone and avoid the lows all together.
Not that you asked, but I'd encourage you to not define yourself as antisocial. You just haven't found your kin yet, and if you keep looking you can find it.
(and this goes back farther than 30 years. Closer to 50 now)
If anybody else is looking for change, try setting something like this up. It has so far been free, easy, relatively low stakes, and I think by virtue of the main focus being "no phones", you get some great people who are all tired of the same algorithmic churn.
I became very good friends with someone who I met at one of the meetups and we've done all kinds of things just the 2 of us and have had some really interesting conversations, which is something I haven't done in a LONG time.
The reason for the decline in social activity is not that it was insufficiently commercialized. Meetup should be a nonprofit.
I still host board game events on Meetup, although I'm hoping to switch to my open source alternative soon. I think the other commercial options such as Discord and Facebook are worse, and people have gotten used to Meetup.
Here are more details about the planned architecture: https://createthirdplaces.org/events/techOverview
in America we have had 20 years of "Tech Disruption"., making the world a better place and relentless technical innovation, combined with the 'corporization' of America
Has our day to day lives improved?
Do we work less, live healthier, have less stress?
Seems like this (the younger generation) is far worse off then pre-internet connected, smartphone generation
compare a 'luxury' Florida apartment vs the old New York apartments built in the 1800s. the NY apartments have narrow stairs, one way in.
likewise dense / small cities / villages in either africa/europe etc force more natural social interaction.
even for friends - easier to host friends when they can easily walk to your home & they don't have to drink & drive.
so blaming tv, social media, video games etc doesn't get to the root of the matter.
It says "Connect with Others. Learn. Be Active".
Strikes me as good advice 10 years ago when I wrote it, and just as good now.
I talked about how relatively easy it is to have social contact here at all levels and so I must conclude that most people simply have better uses for their time (by their own judgment) than this. https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2025-10-09/Community
"I mildly attempted doing this once and it didn't work, so I won't bother trying again" describes a shocking amount of people's experiences.
I sometimes think people fail on purpose to justify apathy or giving up.
Then if anyone says anything they scream about how their experience is valid and nobody can tell them otherwise. It's wild.
There's something important about being outside our comfort zones. We need entropy in our lives and the best way to accomplish that is being in new environments with different people/creatures. What I've found is over time my comfort zone expands as I become familiar with more stuff.
Most people in this post's comments that are "not trying" seem to also be depressed in some way. If you've never experienced it, depression can make trying impossible not just a minor inconvenience. Going to therapy can help, or not. Taking anti-depressants can help, or not.
Also a "mild attempt at doing this once" that ends very poorly can cause a depressed or anxious person to spiral into a self-hatred looping hellscape. It's not a rational decision they're making it just happens. After you've experienced that you're very cautious and try to never feel it again.
And then the kicker is when you're paralyzed like this everyone just thinks you're lazy or unmotivated and pretty much tells you "don't be depressed stupid" which further sends you into having a poor outlook of yourself and it spirals from there. I've been in and out of this several times in my life, it's not pleasant. I've also tried every single remedy known to man and sometimes nothing works.
To put it simply: their experience is probably valid and nobody should tell them otherwise.
How do I know this? I've just asked people. I have very honest conversations with people and always have.
Back in high school I had multiple "special ed" kids who would give us test answers because they were handed them. Why would they bother trying if they can act dumb and get help? The US education system encourages test results and it has created a system of doing anything to keep funding. Small schools give kids answers to boost their results. My school, and many around it, did exactly this. Probably still do.
Since being an adult I've run across this countless times. I'm nearly 40 now and been a teacher and educator in many fields, from STEM to Outdoor.
I've had hundreds of people admit to me that not trying is easier. Someone is always willing to help or do the work for them. They don't immediately say this, but after a few minutes of discussion its very obvious and they'll often finally say it.
US media also heavily encourages it by portraying so many people as lucky or gifted or chosen. Why bother trying when the system is stacked against you?
This culture of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt conditions people to always have an excuse and to not really take responsibility.
Plenty of folks still do, I'm not saying it's a majority. But it's wild to me how folks consistently choose to ignore the fact a lot of people have figured out that they can do the bare minimum and still get by just fine.
And to be clear, I don't mean a majority of people. But it is a crazy amount. It isnt just young folks either. I see retirees with this mentality who didn't used to have it. A friend of mine's dad has turned into a complete useless dude in the last few years cuz everything is immigrants and Democrats fault, so he doesn't even bother anymore. People will, understandably, find excuses to hold themselves less accountable.
To clarify the idea: you have a healthy social matrix but if you marry and settle in the US, your grandchildren won't.
Also, people that are different than everyone else (but same background as me) seek me out to be friends.
For example, there is a HUGE difference between a Seattle Tech event where I am literally the same as the other 60 people in the room vs Vietnamese Tech event where I am one of 3 people that speak english. Those other 2 English speakers are going to walk over and chat with me.
FWIW here in San Francisco I have found many people it’s fun to be around.
If we didn’t see the same trends, it points to reasons more specific to the US.
Even posting this comment is psychologically pulling teeth for me. I regularly type out long replies to comments, but I eventually return to the knowledge derived from a lifetime of past experience that, at best, the comment will be uncharitably misinterpreted by someone who will immediately jump down my throat for some entirely confabulated reason or, at worst, show no signs of having been read or heard at all. What's the point? Nine times out of ten, I just delete the draft and move on with my day and have no regrets. The opposite isn't true; I almost always regret leaving comments (and this one is already included).
In person social commitments somehow became even worse than the online ones. Every single friend (and at this point extended family member) I've had or made since college, people that pre-2012 were the most open and humane-minded people I've ever met, I've either ghosted or been ghosted by because I won't demonize who they want to demonize or mindlessly let them complain about problems they don't and won't try to either understand or fix. ("Well, that's not my experience" and "If you run into assholes all day..." is already flashing before my eyes.)
In my experience, being charitable, accurate, or helpful became so socially toxic (both offline and online) that every social group began to metaphorically shoot on sight at any sign of dissent.
After a certain point, I just gave up and withdrew from almost all avoidable social contact. And on top of all this, why would I pay to have this kind of repeated negative experience?! It's boggles the mind.
And I don't think I'm alone in this experience, even in the slightest.
Not OP, but wanted add for myself it did.
I took the CBT approach. First to change how I thought about things (as a skill to practice) and then that allowed me to do a form of exposure therapy. Mostly finding something small to start with, a single relevant question or comment that is genuine. Saying something nice to someone, like a stressed out cashier at the grocery store goes a long way, or commenting on something like someone reading the packaging of a item and you know it and can give a brief review.
I didn't start trying to have deep conversations or expectations of ever seeing that person again. Only simple interaction for social skill improvement and over time this small talk started to come more naturally. Then that snowball into this lighter feeling around people (so anything would have been perceived as rejection before became not personal and moved on) and that, in gaming terms, was a level-up to more meaningful interaction, then another level-up and another etc. This is a decades long practice that is still going. Like many skills some pick up faster than others.
Once I figured out that this was a skill and not just something people that are not me are born with, it made things a lot easier. Went from making up all kinds of stories in my head about myself and others to thinking about each interaction as practice and realized lot more people were like me, thinking I'll be invited somewhere or talked to if I was liked or was interesting enough; waiting for someone else to do the inviting or talking first. I just remind myself that a lot of others also want to be invited or talked to, and that reminder greatly reduced my fear of rejection.
I think thats the crux of it, most people respond positively when others are interested in them. As long as its genuine, asking about, or be interested in, others goes a really long way.
Take for instance someone telling you about their career. "I'm a software developer".
You can express interest with a response like "Oh, thats cool, what made you go into that line of work?" but thats a very generic, shallow response.
If you know a thing or two about software, for example, you can ask more interesting questions that show your interest in them, and your knowledge of the space. "Woh cool, how is AI coding impacting your life?"
Suddenly, it seems like you're much more interesting yourself, AND you're interested in them.
The tricky part nowadays is everyone has very niche interests. It's harder than ever to really have a breadth of knowledge that is broadly applicable. This was easier before the internet, before travel, before telecommunication. When your community was your community and news traveled slowly, it was a lot easier to learn about what impacted others.
Some people act so shocked when you tell them you did something because it would make you richer and not because an angel came to you in a dream and whispered in your ear to save the disenfranchised proletariat underclass by democratizing software, or whatever's the current faux na pas reason to pursue a vocation these days.
Answering why you picked this particular path to high income is more interesting of an answer to the person asking and carries the conversation. Did your parents do it, did you have a professor that captured your attention, did you just google “easiest job to make a lot of money?” and pick the first one?
Someone asking wants to understand how and why you make decisions. What motives you. Etc. It’s the XY problem and from the other person’s perspective, you’re answering the wrong one.
This is too simplistic. Someone might ask that for a million reasons. Also, you will be judged not only by your answer. Being so direct might show you are not on autopilot in the conversation, your humour or that you only care about money, depending on a lot of other factors. It might make one more memorable as well. I personally would read it as light humour, unless it is accompanied by a dead eyes stare.
To be fair, most people are uninteresting.
Maybe the goal should be to be okay with being ordinary.
If you meet someone who is completely and utterly uninteresting, that in itself is interesting.
And yet everybody cares precisely nothing about almost all natural numbers.
How do we even define interesting ? Like interesting opinions/hobbies? Good storyteller ? Who cares about that. I do need to like you and you need to be an agreeable person imo, but no having a real unique life or opinions is really not that necessary imo. Having a sense of humor is a big plus to me though.
And it doesn't have to be anything special; you could find joy together in the mundane:
Petting cats, watching the rain, taking a walk through the woods without saying anything..
I can find "interesting" (based on a boring reading from a dictionary) the unknown days events of a friend even if while knowing the person was not engaged in breaking down understanding of reality.
It's not the person or their todo list that's interesting but awareness of a cognitive disconnect of not knowing what their todo list was that day.
As another person for whom relation stuff does not come naturally, this was incredibly helpful because little pieces of advise really do work, because they really are nice things to do/say.
A favorite example of mine, when starting to talk to someone who probably already doesn't care for you is to find something -- anything -- that it's clear they like or chose, which you also happen to like, and pay it a genuine positive complement. And perhaps talk about it a little bit.
Some folks take this over the top and do a weird, false-feeling thing like sprinkle the person's name into conversation over and over, or at the start/middle/end. And it makes the conversation feel stilted, fake, and like a situation is being forced. And that casts a negative light on the overarching idea that people like being remembered, and their own name is a big part of that.
Agreed, but I'm not so sure this was previously true. Or at least not _as_ true. There used to be a lot of more socializing by default. People who were poor in this skill set still had relatively regular social opportunities.
This seems to be gone today, and now it's purely manual.
I agree that it is a skill, but like any skill it helps immensely to start learning it as a child. It took me until my 30s to realize that my parents were essentially... antisocial. And that most of the social skill lessons I took from them, if any, were probably wrong and unproductive. I spent a lot of time (and money) trying to learn to overcome that, but never made any progress.
I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think it is general social meetups, or hobby meetups, or religions of the lax and casual type.
What COVID broke is that there was no one to take over from the previous club leaders so they mostly just died with nothing to replace them and now the new generation doesn't really know how to rebuild it because they never experienced it.
Hall, J. A. (2019). How many hours does it take to make a friend? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1278-1296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518761225
EDIT: The only "cringe" meetups I've attended were "singles meetups" in my city. Mild desperation and no common interests aren't exactly a social lubricant. Hobby meetups are great because if you're truly interested in the subject matter it's an easy/exciting conversation starter.
You mention tabletop gaming. This is exactly the stereotype among friends and colleagues of unfulfilling meetups in a city I recently moved from: multiple games meetups sprung up around the university and public library as a way to get people meeting and talking, but most casual attendees didn't find the natural socializing they hoped for ("people just seem too desperate"), while players keen on the games and not looking for socializing per se complained about the casuals not being commited enough.
For tabletop gaming, it definitely depends on the game. There certainly are salty regulars who have been playing their specific game for decades and who lack social grace with newcomers. But there are also nicer folks who enjoy teaching newcomers and building a community. It all comes down to having good event organizers. Sounds like the ones you heard about didn't manage expectations or toxic personalities well, which is a bummer.
To be clear I've absolutely experienced salty cringe behavior from stereotypical neckbeard gamer types at these events. But I've also met really nice people that I ended up hanging out with independently. Each meetup seems to attract a different crowd so I had to try a few before finding a group that was the right vibe for me.
Note: this wasn't a church activity by any means, even though 3 of us were in ministry together. We didn't evangelize, although sometimes we discussed our common faith. This was strictly personal, social time for everyone.
The years we met in that coffeehouse were very successful. We often enjoyed at least 10 people around the table, all sorts of kids, although my church friends were elderly, retirement-age, but very sensitive to the needs of the poor and the street people who often joined us. That coffeehouse eventually closed, so we moved on to a Starbucks, and the stable group became smaller, but more tightly-knit. Eventually, I found a really awesome teahouse that was just a few blocks off the beaten path, and our group moved there. We no longer found ourselves yelling/screaming over the noise of crowds and steamed milk machines.
Eventually our group lost nearly everyone except us three. Sometimes we had a guest, but they didn't stay. I don't know why people drifted away. Perhaps we weren't welcoming, or fun, or young enough. But we did diversify our activities into board games, such as Clue, Rummikub, Boggle, trivia, Scrabble, you name it. And the teas and snacks were delicious there.
Now one key feature of the group is that one guy was there for the games. He was hardcore, heads-down, "we're playing these games!" with intense concentration. The other lady, she was there for socializing and chatting, but her garage-sale habit had garnered a closet full of games to bring. I was there for both, I suppose, but mainly I liked the social aspect, getting out of the house, having some good boba tea and stuff. The board games were definitely a means to an end. So we all had varying reasons for being there.
Sadly, the pandemic lockdowns killed our group for good. Not even the teahouse was able to weather that storm, and they closed their doors permanently, too. I haven't seen my friends in that long a time. We tried doing some online gaming together, coordinated, but it wasn't the same at all! I really miss them, and I really miss the excuse to get out of the house, and socialize, and I wish there was a stable activity that had that sort of impetus in 2026, but all my friends were made through those gaming activities, and as a result, I no longer have any friends.
But personally I cannot afford to worry if they think it's cringe. For a long time I was lonely, even in a healthy marriage, but having friends that I see regularly is something that I have found to be a vital aspect of having good mental health and avoiding stagnation. So I continually take the risk and put myself out there when I meet an interesting and kind person.
And I remember once hearing my mum ask my dad - why do you keep inviting them over, they never invite us in return. And I remember what my dad said - yeah they don't, but I'm doing it because I want to be close to them and I enjoy spending time with them - even if they never invite us over it's still worth it.
Yes it can feel cringe but I would argue we need to just accept it as prosocial and not cringe. We are cringe for thinking normal social things are cringe.
Like, I would probably have thought OP was after my money like 5 years ago. But now I would just assume good faith.
It's like "Well, sure, they can be gay, but ~holding hands in public~? We've got to have some sense of morality around here or we're no better than animals!"
Living with your parents in your 20s isn't cringe, it's a powerfule economic decision. Having or not having kids isn't cringe it's a personal decision. Carrying a dog in a purse is cringe, it's practical. Being an impoverished drug addict isn't cringe. Crying out for help with mental illness isn't cringe. Telling loved ones you love them in public isn't cringe.
Inviting people to continue sociallizing with you at a later date isn't cringe, that's just fucking friendship.
People are using the word to label entirely regular perfectly acceptable behavior as if it is genuinely bad simply because they don't like it. Sure, okay, you personally don't like it when people express interest in you beyond your 30 second attention span, but who the fuck gave you the right to decide that society can't make friends in public? Damn, okay, OP said it was cringe to ask people if they want to hang out, guess I'll just die a hermit.
There is a need for the word 'cringe' for wannabe, fake, dishonest, superficial etc. expressions that are embarrassing. But it is way over used and should not be used on people who are trying to mock them. It is way too easy to be a critique.
Really, I suppose it's not the words so much as the useage. People used to call some of the same perfectly normal things embarrassing rather than cringe in order to try to police behavior; like when telling your kids you love them in public is suddenly some sort of sin or when macho men aren't allowed to defer to their wives' expert opinion because "their friends say it's embarrassing"
I don't think that's a post-COVID dynamic as much as a pre-COVID one that got accelerated. When I moved to a new city in 2018, I spent a lot of time at meetups and had exactly that issue. No one would want to meetup outside the group (to be fair, most of it was that some people seemed to be willing to travel really far for a meetup group but not for other things), and you wouldn't see the same people often enough to really be friends within the group.
Meeting others through those activities and then gradually building upon the relationships via other social outings, dinner parties, weekend trips etc.
I'm also introverted but learned early on in life that it often just takes one person instigating things to rally a whole group.
Ironically, the potluck style events strike me as the most introverted way to socialize. Not to denigrate the initiative at all, I have two Canadian friendsgivings this month, and they're fun, but I really wouldn't see the hosts frequently otherwise, because they're the ones packing their schedules in advance, moving to the distant suburbs, or just don't get out much. I don't feel like I can hit them up for something more casual, whether it's always true or not, it's more of a calendar event style relationship I have with them.
The reason I don't take it upon myself to host these myself is primarily because the substance of my social life comes largely from common interests outside the house that I invest deeply into, some of which are non-event hangouts just to watch movies at theirs, hiking, climbing, billiards bar, coffee and a walk etc... I don't try to find like-minded people as much as I do people that I have enough chemistry with, and build on that.
That said, in general it is important to try to take any kind of initiative you can. Friendships don't build themselves, and everyone's scared to stick their neck out.
Another lost art is keeping a contacts list and contacting them regularly. People used to have these lists on paper and then send cards at least once per year on birthdays/christmas/independence. With this being relegated to social media, your contacts often fall in the cracks of the quirks of tech companies.
But this also created a group of its own that I was coining together for regular Thursday craft beer night or occasionally having wine and beef together.
I stopped though, many years ago as when I started my own family, family and work consumed me too much to have regular night life and meetup exercising and my home was always my sanctum, I rarely invite people to my home. this is where i rest and only some inner circle has entrance there.
that inner circle was developed during last 20+ years and I don't find much space to expand this circle unless somebody new spends with me 20+ years having random access to my limited time.
And that's ok. having up to 5 close friends who you see and talk to regularly if you're 45+ is already enough. Random folk... can stay online. like here to share ideas and then bring them back home.
I actually stopped looking for new friends based on the interests.. I have enough in that gang to cover already. sharing interest related insights is where I use internet mostly.
one of the reasons why place like HN started becoming attractive again as after ditching FB, Discord and many other places with just noise instead of valuable insight and content only HN, lobsters and telnet/ssh BBSes become legitimate sources of idea sharing and tech progress.
other topics are covered fine for decades and when I'm randomly at bar sometimes (usually work delegations outside my own town) then I'm open for one evening conversation about any nonsense just to stay connected with the city folk, but no huge expectactions about phone sharing or another meeting.
I never share my social accounts connection with strangers. I stopped doing that.. it's just spam after all and like collecting f* pokemon cards instead of having meaningful relationship. One can't maintain relationship with 1000+ people so I dropped all that and keep online activities either socially anonymous or narrowed to under 100 people whom I at least remember I had a drink with, once.
It’s not as tangible as a paper card but by being an email, people can just hit reply and answer. Every year a few dozen people write back to our card (out of maybe 350 recipients), and a lot of people have said that this is one of their favorite messages to get all year.
I think people can tell when you actually put time into something instead of just making a quick conventional card with platitudes. It’s helped us keep in touch with people from all over the place, across different continents, etc, who we might not stay in touch with so much otherwise.
Sometimes, it may be just the knowledge that you're contributing positively to other peoples lives that makes it worth sacrificing some of your own comfort.
A friend to me is someone with whom you can drop the mask of social propriety near-completely - share unpopular opinions, make racist jokes (directed at them or others), talk about the opposite sex (assuming hetero), talk about your own relationships, give honest feedback, do borderline illegal stuff like smoke weed etc. Because this is what intimacy means.
If I meet my friend after a bad haircut and he doesn't immediately go "what the fuck is wrong with your hair?", he's not a true friend, just someone I hang out with.
I think most people stop having friendships like this after grade school or university. I suspect some people have never had a friendship like this.
Forming friendships after schooling isn't hard, but it takes work. That said, I've had a good number of small social interactions that usually don't even lead to an acquaintance over the last decade, and even those feel good just to get out of my shell. Then there's the people I'd recognize if I saw them again and maybe remember their names. And a small but close group of about 12 and counting have become incredibly close friends that have recently begun mingling with my prior set of really close friends (different states, so we have a couple yearly gatherings).
Beyond that, the second half of my first paragraph was about how some of those people probably become more than just acquaintances.
No one's just going to become a lifelong friend of radical candor bumping in to you waiting in line for coffee for the same reason that you're not going to become someone else's lifelong friend of radical candor when you bump in to them waiting for coffee.
The schoolyard friends you mentioned didn't just automagically happen either. You were thrust in to an environment with lots of variables. You remained in that environment for a significant period of time. There were some you vibed with on perhaps just the first day, and some of those continued to vibe with you in the coming days, weeks, months, and years. Some of them went different ways over the years, and perhaps you stuck with one or two for the entire time, but that cohesion is effort whether it feels that way or not. It requires the right initial conditions and for the conditions to continue to be correct over time.
The bestest greatest friends of all time can fall to simple geographical distance if one or both of the participants isn't fulfilled by the new long-distance nature of the relationship. The conditions must remain sufficient for the relationship to endure.
The only way to see if the conditions are sufficient is to meet people and cultivate relationships with them. You as you are will naturally filter many or most just as many or most would filter you, but where's the harm in that? No one's friends with everyone, and not every friend need be some platonic soul mate.
True racism is about exclusion. If you'd never meaningfully associate with a person of some certain race(s), you're a racist. Doesn't matter if you're the most polite soul in the world.
There are people who have traveled the whole world, eat ethnic food all the time, do yoga, vote left etc but are still super racist because they'd never make friends with someone not of their own race. They are the real racists.
Why can't the big group of acquaintances not lead to real friendship?
I would haver guesst that's the way you find friends. Stranger -> acquaintances -> friends -> close friends?
There are more people LARPing as friends than are actually friends these days. Then I can see why many people these days reject these "friendships" at all. Just playing dress-up and doing stuff with people you know is tedious.
But then he invites them to his potluck and I think the friendship dies there. There's just not enough 1:1 time for emotional depth to develop. That potluck is a graveyard of all his potentially real friendships. It's just another "hangout group".
They don't say that they don't then go on to develop deeper friendships outside of the potluck, only that the potluck is a step in the road. It provides a low-stress low-stakes scene of congenially likely like-minded people in which people who are relative strangers can pair and group off if they choose to.
Approaching someone at a potluck like this, or chatting to your dinner neighbors, is way easier and likely more fruitful than chatting up strangers at a bar.
It is far easier to develop a friendship with someone who you can see interacting positively with your other friends. Easier to see more facets of an individual as they interact with people of slightly differing opinion.
I really genuinely cannot conceive how you're seeing it as a graveyard rather than a garden. Like...throwing a potluck is so vastly much more effort than showing up to someone else's event. They are putting genuine effort in to regularly surrounding themselves with people they enjoy. There's just no way that any of those people are "fake friends". They may be but mere acquantances, but even then these are people that are chosen to be invited. Everyone there is there because they were wanted and wanted to be there. If the host feelt they were fake friends, they wouldn't be invited, would they?
Compare this to a monthly coworker dinner where the only reason everyone's there is because the boss said so. Where everyone agrees Janice from accounting is always trying way to hard to laugh at everyone's jokes and Bob from QA just didn't quite grok the message behind "How to Make Friends and Influence People" and so uses everyone's name in every sentence because he figures that's important.
> I think most people stop having friendships like this after grade school or university.
When I was younger, I was never open with people who would be insulting to me or found it important to make racist jokes. I would simply not tell them what I think to avoid conflict or insult. They were assymetrically open, I was not.
But I genuinely did not cared about their haircuts either.
It depends on the personality. Some people are very open. Some are not. I find social open-ness much harder than closed-ness. The open-ness approach, though, is most likely the better strategy indeed. It just helps little when people are naturally closed off mentally already.
I enjoy meetups, but those have been pretty much nonexistent here since covid.
As soon as I stopped it all stopped.
And like really all stopped; via digital comms everyone from the social group has said they realized after the plans I pulled together was their extent of their social life.
American culture fuckin' sucks. And it's Americans propping it up. It isn't Russia or the other usual boogeymen.
We’re going through the aftermath of the old social paradigm collapsing and the robber barons feasting on the corpse.
We’ll find a new one eventually, and people will adapt (eventually) and they won’t feel the suck in the same way everyone used to the old way does. It will just be normal to them.
Of course it’s going to suck in the meantime.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49892789
It did wonders for me.
Small side project, if you know of a nice club in you area please submit it: https://clubs.fyi