Is the 21st century making you miserable?
February 9, 2007 7:34 PM Subscribe
Is the 21st century making you miserable? This young fellow may know why. Is he right, folks?
"Text = Bad Communication "
Yes, I vote we all go back to oral tradition. I'm sure that's the best way to teach engineering and such.
...in all seriousness, that entire section just made me wonder how stupid this guy is. He assumed that somebody was being sarcastic when they used an extremely generic response. Then he proceeded to have a hissy fit and refuse to talk to the guy because of it. What part of that makes any sense?
posted by Target Practice at 7:46 PM on February 9, 2007
Yes, I vote we all go back to oral tradition. I'm sure that's the best way to teach engineering and such.
...in all seriousness, that entire section just made me wonder how stupid this guy is. He assumed that somebody was being sarcastic when they used an extremely generic response. Then he proceeded to have a hissy fit and refuse to talk to the guy because of it. What part of that makes any sense?
posted by Target Practice at 7:46 PM on February 9, 2007
Is that "naked photo test" a literal study, or is he conflating actual studies with a made up example? Because, as he presents it, it seems flawed.
There are actually many people that I would trust with a photo of me doing something shockingly embarrassing.
However, the stronger I would trust someone with such a photo, the stronger I would not want that person to know about such a photo.
I suspect that many people, when asked specifically about the former, unintentionally conflate it with the latter.
posted by Flunkie at 7:52 PM on February 9, 2007
There are actually many people that I would trust with a photo of me doing something shockingly embarrassing.
However, the stronger I would trust someone with such a photo, the stronger I would not want that person to know about such a photo.
I suspect that many people, when asked specifically about the former, unintentionally conflate it with the latter.
posted by Flunkie at 7:52 PM on February 9, 2007
Now, I was about to say that this is a bad thing because peacefully dealing with incompatible people is important to living in a society. But that's not true. No, peacefully dealing with people you can't stand is society. That's literally all it is. People with opposite tastes and conflicting personalities sharing space and cooperating, through gritted teeth sometimes.
This is a pretty good point.
posted by maryh at 7:52 PM on February 9, 2007
This is a pretty good point.
posted by maryh at 7:52 PM on February 9, 2007
There seemed to be some valid points in there, but he was kind of all over the place. Is he saying that online friends are different from meatspace friends and that's having an effect on how we interact with the world? Well, file that under "Shit, Incredibly Obvious."
I interact with people with people online all the time and roughly 75% of my close friends right now, I initially met on the internet. But, I still roam around the city and interact with strangers all the time, because..well, because I like to. In fact, I got on the internet mainly to be able to do that at home when I'm broke or the weather is bad. Narrow interest forums can have an isolating effect, I suppose, but general interest communities like MeFi, Flickr, Wikipedia etc. not so much. too much variety, too much diversity of opinion. if anything it'll expose you to new ideas.
As far as people judging or demanding less from you online than IRL? In real life, my friends just expect me to be sociable and polite and hold up my end of the conversation (and of course buy the occasional round). Online, I'm expected to back up my opinions with evidence and links and ideas. or at the very least be entertaining and coherent. So there goes that theory.
So his theroies don't quite hold up.
posted by jonmc at 7:54 PM on February 9, 2007
I interact with people with people online all the time and roughly 75% of my close friends right now, I initially met on the internet. But, I still roam around the city and interact with strangers all the time, because..well, because I like to. In fact, I got on the internet mainly to be able to do that at home when I'm broke or the weather is bad. Narrow interest forums can have an isolating effect, I suppose, but general interest communities like MeFi, Flickr, Wikipedia etc. not so much. too much variety, too much diversity of opinion. if anything it'll expose you to new ideas.
As far as people judging or demanding less from you online than IRL? In real life, my friends just expect me to be sociable and polite and hold up my end of the conversation (and of course buy the occasional round). Online, I'm expected to back up my opinions with evidence and links and ideas. or at the very least be entertaining and coherent. So there goes that theory.
So his theroies don't quite hold up.
posted by jonmc at 7:54 PM on February 9, 2007
[this is old]
posted by kid ichorous at 7:55 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by kid ichorous at 7:55 PM on February 9, 2007
It seems to me he's basically saying that the medium through which we're making an increasing percentage fo our social connections isn't particularly well-suited to making meaningful social connections. I tend to agree.
It's not the first time it's been said, but I thought he said it pretty well and entertainingly.
posted by treepour at 7:58 PM on February 9, 2007
It's not the first time it's been said, but I thought he said it pretty well and entertainingly.
posted by treepour at 7:58 PM on February 9, 2007
There were a number of good points. Lack of real criticism, a la taking the piss; feeling special by doing things not by self-brainwashing.
I have to think the chili example was just hyperbole used to make a point. Otherwise, wtf?
posted by dreamsign at 8:04 PM on February 9, 2007
I have to think the chili example was just hyperbole used to make a point. Otherwise, wtf?
posted by dreamsign at 8:04 PM on February 9, 2007
"Shit, Incredibly Obvious."
As opposed to "Shit, Intentionaly Obtuse."
posted by davejay at 8:11 PM on February 9, 2007
As opposed to "Shit, Intentionaly Obtuse."
posted by davejay at 8:11 PM on February 9, 2007
quonsar said, "what a fucking annoying asshole."
Okay. I'm an annoying asshole, and even I was annoyed by that asshole. That writer is a wannabe goth wannabe-ing gothing.
What was up with the bear? Whatever. I don't care.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:20 PM on February 9, 2007
Okay. I'm an annoying asshole, and even I was annoyed by that asshole. That writer is a wannabe goth wannabe-ing gothing.
What was up with the bear? Whatever. I don't care.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:20 PM on February 9, 2007
Actually, I agree with him on a lot of it. Especially after listening to a old friend of mine go on for an hour about her avatar's experiences with popularity on Second Life... when in the real world most of my friends can't stand her, they think she's really rude. She's in her late 40s, yet she seems completely oblivious to just how uncomfortable I've seen her make some people when she meets them in real life.
If she spent 1/10th the time on certain aspects of herself as she apparently spent considering every little detail of her avatar in virtual reality, she'd sure be an awful lot easier to hang out with. I would be thrilled! I'd love to consider her a deeper friend, but I can't.
Maybe I should just hang out with her avatar instead...?
posted by miss lynnster at 8:24 PM on February 9, 2007
If she spent 1/10th the time on certain aspects of herself as she apparently spent considering every little detail of her avatar in virtual reality, she'd sure be an awful lot easier to hang out with. I would be thrilled! I'd love to consider her a deeper friend, but I can't.
Maybe I should just hang out with her avatar instead...?
posted by miss lynnster at 8:24 PM on February 9, 2007
That young fellow would make me miserable if I had to spend time with him.
posted by watsondog at 8:30 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by watsondog at 8:30 PM on February 9, 2007
We do all realize Pointless Waste of Time is a satire/poop jokes site, right?
posted by freedryk at 8:37 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by freedryk at 8:37 PM on February 9, 2007
"shitflannel"
posted by slickvaguely at 8:42 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by slickvaguely at 8:42 PM on February 9, 2007
"1. Not enough annoying strangers in our lives."
Stopped reading there. Obviously does not apply to MetaFilter members, where you can find all the annoying strangers anyone could ever want.
posted by wendell at 9:16 PM on February 9, 2007
Stopped reading there. Obviously does not apply to MetaFilter members, where you can find all the annoying strangers anyone could ever want.
posted by wendell at 9:16 PM on February 9, 2007
I liked it. I thought he was funny and unpretentious, and right.
I'm with Flunkie on that naked photo business, though -- that didn't make any sense at all.
posted by Methylviolet at 9:27 PM on February 9, 2007
I'm with Flunkie on that naked photo business, though -- that didn't make any sense at all.
posted by Methylviolet at 9:27 PM on February 9, 2007
Read the article on the Monkeysphere . It is insightful and good reading.
posted by Osmanthus at 10:05 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by Osmanthus at 10:05 PM on February 9, 2007
That's another old-world inconvenience, like having to wash your clothes in a creek or wait for a raccoon to wander by the outhouse so you could wipe your ass with it.
Yep, those were the days...
posted by anarcation at 10:36 PM on February 9, 2007
Yep, those were the days...
posted by anarcation at 10:36 PM on February 9, 2007
I'm with Methylviolet; I think the guy is basically right. I think the problematic change he's talking about in our society is not so much the prevalence "text-based communication" in particular (which a bunch of commenters here have focused on) and more "increasingly mediated communication", of which text IM is a particular case. Filtered and controlled. If I rarely talk to people I disagree with --- because our increasingly effective electronic self-organization keeps me from having to --- then I not only am exposed to a narrower and narrower viewpoint, but I also lose the ability to deal with disagreement. We also start to lose the sense that we are all living in the same world. This makes our social fabric a lot more tenuous.
It's not just electronic communication; I think there's been a general social shift even in F2F interaction. People politely avoid talking about difficult or controversial things; as a result, we each deal with those difficult or controversial things in isolation, without the benefit of the collective wisdom of the people around us. Perhaps worse, people who aren't exposed to a good range of naive but thoughtful babble don't easily gain the skill of critically thinking about what they hear.
posted by hattifattener at 10:41 PM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's not just electronic communication; I think there's been a general social shift even in F2F interaction. People politely avoid talking about difficult or controversial things; as a result, we each deal with those difficult or controversial things in isolation, without the benefit of the collective wisdom of the people around us. Perhaps worse, people who aren't exposed to a good range of naive but thoughtful babble don't easily gain the skill of critically thinking about what they hear.
posted by hattifattener at 10:41 PM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
As with most PWOT semi-serious articles, it's a mix of "yeah, that makes sense", and "hmm...I dunno about that", with very little "no, that's just fucking wrong", which makes it a nice read. More interesting than the usual internet polarities of "I agree with every word you have said, which means reading it was a waste of time" and "I disagree with every word you have said, which means reading it was a waste of time, and now I'm angry".
Personally, I think the Monkeysphere article was better, but this one wasn't bad.
posted by Bugbread at 10:46 PM on February 9, 2007
Personally, I think the Monkeysphere article was better, but this one wasn't bad.
posted by Bugbread at 10:46 PM on February 9, 2007
It might seem easy to dismiss his observations as tired and trite, but owing to my eponymously-indicated condition, I can confirm that they are all too real. Something must be done! We must combat this social crisis! I hereby propose that a League of Lone Bowlers be established forthwith to fight isolation in all its forms. I'd volunteer to lead it myself, but I'm already late for the monthly meeting of the Society for the Prevention of Worlds Colliding. (I'm the social convenor, you know.)
posted by Urban Hermit at 10:50 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by Urban Hermit at 10:50 PM on February 9, 2007
hattifattener : "I think the problematic change he's talking about in our society is not so much the prevalence 'text-based communication' in particular (which a bunch of commenters here have focused on) and more 'increasingly mediated communication', of which text IM is a particular case. Filtered and controlled."
Yeah. I think that because the examples he gives are primarily electronic, folks are reading it as a luddite screed, when really it's just coincidental that the means by which communication is mediated is the internet. Like you say, I'd assume he has pretty much the same thing to say about any other extremely isolationist social groupings in real life, like goths only hanging out with other goths, etc.
posted by Bugbread at 10:51 PM on February 9, 2007
Yeah. I think that because the examples he gives are primarily electronic, folks are reading it as a luddite screed, when really it's just coincidental that the means by which communication is mediated is the internet. Like you say, I'd assume he has pretty much the same thing to say about any other extremely isolationist social groupings in real life, like goths only hanging out with other goths, etc.
posted by Bugbread at 10:51 PM on February 9, 2007
Target Practice: You didn't recognize that as a joke? (Maybe you would have if it had been said rather than written.)
posted by Tlogmer at 11:38 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by Tlogmer at 11:38 PM on February 9, 2007
I liked it. When's the next SF meetup-- I want to annoy y'all and be annoyed.
posted by alexei at 1:39 AM on February 10, 2007
posted by alexei at 1:39 AM on February 10, 2007
The only thing that I could think of, while reading that, was: "Maybe you're lonely because you're an emo who listens to Slipknot. Did you ever think that might be a problem in real society?"
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 2:17 AM on February 10, 2007
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 2:17 AM on February 10, 2007
I thought it was brilliant and obvious and undeniable all at once. Mostly because I've read it before and internalized it to where it's likely it will never be dug out.
We're presented from birth with more options than could possibly be explored, so we're free to discard anything which doesn't amuse us. We've chosen everything we have, and everything we are, and everyone we know. We're finally, each of us, complete kings of our own domain. Unfortunately, since the only rule remaining is to respect the sovereignty of our neighbors, our arena barely stretches past the edges of our own selves. The petulant imperator occupying the throne wants acknowledgment and acceptance and accolades and needs the help of the other tyrants. But not too many. The last thing a flattered self needs is a clear view of the world awash with an unimaginable sea of humanity, choked in tiny fiefdoms like seaweed.
You've always cut off people who weren't helping you be you, ever since you stopped needing them for survival. Curiously enough, the same technology which gives you anything you want, lets you touch all the knowledge and all the people, also gives you the knife you need to par it all down to understandable and manageable scale. As a bonus, we're all mostly used to the endless series of slices.
You know how he talks about blogs and outrage in the desperate scrabbling for readers? It works for Metafilter replies too. Attention, while once freely and unconsciously given, we horde like misers.
I'll quote you if you quote me.
posted by Ictus at 2:32 AM on February 10, 2007 [4 favorites]
We're presented from birth with more options than could possibly be explored, so we're free to discard anything which doesn't amuse us. We've chosen everything we have, and everything we are, and everyone we know. We're finally, each of us, complete kings of our own domain. Unfortunately, since the only rule remaining is to respect the sovereignty of our neighbors, our arena barely stretches past the edges of our own selves. The petulant imperator occupying the throne wants acknowledgment and acceptance and accolades and needs the help of the other tyrants. But not too many. The last thing a flattered self needs is a clear view of the world awash with an unimaginable sea of humanity, choked in tiny fiefdoms like seaweed.
You've always cut off people who weren't helping you be you, ever since you stopped needing them for survival. Curiously enough, the same technology which gives you anything you want, lets you touch all the knowledge and all the people, also gives you the knife you need to par it all down to understandable and manageable scale. As a bonus, we're all mostly used to the endless series of slices.
You know how he talks about blogs and outrage in the desperate scrabbling for readers? It works for Metafilter replies too. Attention, while once freely and unconsciously given, we horde like misers.
I'll quote you if you quote me.
posted by Ictus at 2:32 AM on February 10, 2007 [4 favorites]
I read until I got to this sentence:
The problem is we've built an awesome, sprawling web of technology meant purely to let us avoid annoying people.
And then I realized that he's writing about a whole different Internet than the one we're on...
posted by mmoncur at 3:34 AM on February 10, 2007
The problem is we've built an awesome, sprawling web of technology meant purely to let us avoid annoying people.
And then I realized that he's writing about a whole different Internet than the one we're on...
posted by mmoncur at 3:34 AM on February 10, 2007
I'm with SPrintF, the sad bear made me sad. Especially the birthday bear. Being lonely on a sunny day is a horrible thing.
posted by smashingstars at 4:34 AM on February 10, 2007
posted by smashingstars at 4:34 AM on February 10, 2007
Man, I'd like to attack a nobel laureate.
....no, this isn't posted in the wrong thread.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:02 AM on February 10, 2007
....no, this isn't posted in the wrong thread.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:02 AM on February 10, 2007
I can't believe this guy is still writing articles.
Not that this is horrendous and needs to be stopped, it's a perfectly reasonable theory. It's just that there's usually a pretty tight lifespan on this kind of writing, right?
I mean, we all knew this guy. He's the sort of smart guy. He spends a lot of time thinking about how smart he is, and also how dumb everyone else is. He is pretty sure that most of the things he thinks about, other than how smart he is, are amazing, and he's discovered that if he presents them as absolute truth, other people are impressed too. Scientists say that I am amazing! Here, look at the math! I'm mathematically rad!
And then he graduates from high school, and discovers that a lot of the time he's wrong. He tries to present a half-formed piece of marginalia philosophy as cutting edge social insight a few times, and everyone laughs at him, and he doesn't feel amazing at all. He keeps telling people his ideas, but they no longer have seven chapters and diagrams. They now include expressions like "I think" and "maybe."
I'm just saying, does he keep getting held back or something? Is he missing a gym credit? Eventually even this guy's got to leave high school pseudo-sociology behind, right?
posted by Simon! at 5:11 AM on February 10, 2007
Not that this is horrendous and needs to be stopped, it's a perfectly reasonable theory. It's just that there's usually a pretty tight lifespan on this kind of writing, right?
I mean, we all knew this guy. He's the sort of smart guy. He spends a lot of time thinking about how smart he is, and also how dumb everyone else is. He is pretty sure that most of the things he thinks about, other than how smart he is, are amazing, and he's discovered that if he presents them as absolute truth, other people are impressed too. Scientists say that I am amazing! Here, look at the math! I'm mathematically rad!
And then he graduates from high school, and discovers that a lot of the time he's wrong. He tries to present a half-formed piece of marginalia philosophy as cutting edge social insight a few times, and everyone laughs at him, and he doesn't feel amazing at all. He keeps telling people his ideas, but they no longer have seven chapters and diagrams. They now include expressions like "I think" and "maybe."
I'm just saying, does he keep getting held back or something? Is he missing a gym credit? Eventually even this guy's got to leave high school pseudo-sociology behind, right?
posted by Simon! at 5:11 AM on February 10, 2007
I liked the sad bear drawings. The artist has an insanely annoying site with some decent drawings, like this one.
posted by papercake at 5:34 AM on February 10, 2007
posted by papercake at 5:34 AM on February 10, 2007
That ability to absorb the moods of others through that kind of subconscious osmosis is crucial. Kids born without it are considered mentally handicapped.
no, they're considered autistic ... that statement annoyed me
but onwards ...
1. Not enough annoying strangers in our lives.
back in pre-mass media america people didn't tune each other out with ipods ... no, they insisted on going to different schools and churches, living in different neighborhoods, and a kid could get beat up for wandering down a street where people had a different ethnicity ... so they had their ways of shutting out "annoying strangers"
2. Not enough annoying friends, either.
I was born in a town full of people I couldn't stand. When I found myself in that classroom in elementary school, I was packed in there with two dozen kids I did not choose.
what gives him the idea that today's schools or workplaces are any different?
And yet, on the whole, people back then were apparently happier in their jobs and more satisfied with their everyday lives than we are.
actually, they weren't ... the expression and expectation was that "you just coped" and didn't complain about it ... i've heard that from a lot of people who grew up in the 30s and 40s, including my folks
3. Text = Bad Communication
no ... slovenly thinking and language = bad communication
4. Text = Less Communication
(...)
It's seven percent. The other 93% is nonverbal, according to studies.
that doesn't prove that language is inadequate ... it only shows that people use and listen to it inadequately
5. We're not criticized enough.
(...)
I've been insulted lots, but I've been criticized - and I mean the way a wife or a best friend can criticize you - very little.
give that man subscription to metafilter! ... really, the reason he's not being criticized is because he's hanging out with a bunch of mutual sycophants ... his lack of "annoying" and or "criticizing" friends on and offline are a direct consequence of his choices
6. The Outrage Machine
But how did we wind up with a more negative view of the world than our parents?
because we're spoiled brats and a generation (or two) of toothless narcissistic vipers
see also ... "you just coped"
7. We feel worthless because we actually are worth less.
he does have a point here ... however, i'd have said that doing something constructive, period, is what people need to do in their spare time
posted by pyramid termite at 5:38 AM on February 10, 2007
no, they're considered autistic ... that statement annoyed me
but onwards ...
1. Not enough annoying strangers in our lives.
back in pre-mass media america people didn't tune each other out with ipods ... no, they insisted on going to different schools and churches, living in different neighborhoods, and a kid could get beat up for wandering down a street where people had a different ethnicity ... so they had their ways of shutting out "annoying strangers"
2. Not enough annoying friends, either.
I was born in a town full of people I couldn't stand. When I found myself in that classroom in elementary school, I was packed in there with two dozen kids I did not choose.
what gives him the idea that today's schools or workplaces are any different?
And yet, on the whole, people back then were apparently happier in their jobs and more satisfied with their everyday lives than we are.
actually, they weren't ... the expression and expectation was that "you just coped" and didn't complain about it ... i've heard that from a lot of people who grew up in the 30s and 40s, including my folks
3. Text = Bad Communication
no ... slovenly thinking and language = bad communication
4. Text = Less Communication
(...)
It's seven percent. The other 93% is nonverbal, according to studies.
that doesn't prove that language is inadequate ... it only shows that people use and listen to it inadequately
5. We're not criticized enough.
(...)
I've been insulted lots, but I've been criticized - and I mean the way a wife or a best friend can criticize you - very little.
give that man subscription to metafilter! ... really, the reason he's not being criticized is because he's hanging out with a bunch of mutual sycophants ... his lack of "annoying" and or "criticizing" friends on and offline are a direct consequence of his choices
6. The Outrage Machine
But how did we wind up with a more negative view of the world than our parents?
because we're spoiled brats and a generation (or two) of toothless narcissistic vipers
see also ... "you just coped"
7. We feel worthless because we actually are worth less.
he does have a point here ... however, i'd have said that doing something constructive, period, is what people need to do in their spare time
posted by pyramid termite at 5:38 AM on February 10, 2007
Metafilter: Where everyone can be a critic and nothing they read is good enough!
Seriously guys, I think that the message of the piece was pretty good and spot on accurate for the world we are increasingly living in. We are increasingly isolated and becoming more fragmented into our own little worlds that all in all, have little meaning. We have the material objects, but does that necessarily make us happier?
I thought it was pretty entertaining. Apparently my threshold before dismissing something and someone as 'shit' is far higher than a lot of the people around here. Wow, I guess that just validated a lot of the author's points.
posted by tgrundke at 7:56 AM on February 10, 2007
Seriously guys, I think that the message of the piece was pretty good and spot on accurate for the world we are increasingly living in. We are increasingly isolated and becoming more fragmented into our own little worlds that all in all, have little meaning. We have the material objects, but does that necessarily make us happier?
I thought it was pretty entertaining. Apparently my threshold before dismissing something and someone as 'shit' is far higher than a lot of the people around here. Wow, I guess that just validated a lot of the author's points.
posted by tgrundke at 7:56 AM on February 10, 2007
The Anti-Buddha:
"Things outside of me make me feel this way or that."
posted by wfc123 at 8:27 AM on February 10, 2007
"Things outside of me make me feel this way or that."
posted by wfc123 at 8:27 AM on February 10, 2007
My mother's new boyfriend lives in a wealthy Chicago suburb, gets most of his news from conservative web sites, and gets the rest from emails (like the Dunkin' Donuts desecrate American flags story) forwarded by like-minded friends. He also thinks Bush hasn't made a single mistake in his presidency, homosexuality is curable, and evolution is a liberal invention.
I'm not saying that social stratification is a new phenomenon, but I do think technology has enabled a whole new level of social self-selection in which no one has to hear dissenting opinions. I suspect that 50 years ago, if he wanted some kind of social / mental stimulation, he'd have to endure a more diverse set of opinions, and probably wouldn't be as deeply right-wing as he is now.
So I think this writer's right on, although I'm less worried about the emotional impact of our isolation than the political and philosophical impact.
Also: awww, that poor bear!
posted by molybdenum at 9:37 AM on February 10, 2007
I'm not saying that social stratification is a new phenomenon, but I do think technology has enabled a whole new level of social self-selection in which no one has to hear dissenting opinions. I suspect that 50 years ago, if he wanted some kind of social / mental stimulation, he'd have to endure a more diverse set of opinions, and probably wouldn't be as deeply right-wing as he is now.
So I think this writer's right on, although I'm less worried about the emotional impact of our isolation than the political and philosophical impact.
Also: awww, that poor bear!
posted by molybdenum at 9:37 AM on February 10, 2007
MetaFilter: a screaming crotch-punching spree.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 9:42 AM on February 10, 2007
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 9:42 AM on February 10, 2007
The world is becoming a colder and lonelier place. Here's why:
THE GM 10,000-MILE WARRANTY
he should have stopped there. that was the best part. I admit I skimmed...
The whole thing is taking the piss, right? It's a satire of "high school pseudo-sociology"? Please? I thought it *could* be sincere for a second, but the "goth" pics (and the domain, and the references to Slipknot and Fallout Boy ...) were the clincher.
The whole "bowling alone" and "nobody goes to PTA meetings" meme has been around for a long time.
Like I said, I think it's a satirical article, but I'd contend that the Internet has been a huge boon for social (not to mention educational) interaction, albeit of the non-traditional variety.
If that annoying woman miss_lynster mentions wasn't hanging out in Second Life (or involved in bboard discussions like this) what would she be likely be doing instead? Watching reruns of Friends. Alone.
I'll take the 21st century over the 20th century any day. Until we destroy the planet, that is. :)
posted by mrgrimm at 9:53 AM on February 10, 2007
THE GM 10,000-MILE WARRANTY
he should have stopped there. that was the best part. I admit I skimmed...
The whole thing is taking the piss, right? It's a satire of "high school pseudo-sociology"? Please? I thought it *could* be sincere for a second, but the "goth" pics (and the domain, and the references to Slipknot and Fallout Boy ...) were the clincher.
The whole "bowling alone" and "nobody goes to PTA meetings" meme has been around for a long time.
Like I said, I think it's a satirical article, but I'd contend that the Internet has been a huge boon for social (not to mention educational) interaction, albeit of the non-traditional variety.
If that annoying woman miss_lynster mentions wasn't hanging out in Second Life (or involved in bboard discussions like this) what would she be likely be doing instead? Watching reruns of Friends. Alone.
I'll take the 21st century over the 20th century any day. Until we destroy the planet, that is. :)
posted by mrgrimm at 9:53 AM on February 10, 2007
And that ability to suffer fools, to tolerate annoyance, that's literally the one single thing that makes you a human being, that allows you to function in a world populated by other people who aren't you. Otherwise, you turn into a goth. Science has proven it.
Seriously.
Though I work in an establishment where I have to suffer fools and the occasional goth, and I have to say that most goths are really very polite. Does science know why this is?
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:57 AM on February 10, 2007
Seriously.
Though I work in an establishment where I have to suffer fools and the occasional goth, and I have to say that most goths are really very polite. Does science know why this is?
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:57 AM on February 10, 2007
Metafilter: waiting for a raccoon to wander by the outhouse so you can wipe your ass with it.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 10:37 AM on February 10, 2007
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 10:37 AM on February 10, 2007
I just read that entire article. Dunno if anyone's reading this thread anymore but I'll stick this comment down here anyway.
I have a friend who plays WoW all day. She's a really sweet girl and I always try to get her to go out to the bar with us but she's always busy playing WoW. (I quit playing MMORPGs last year - I'm really, really happy that I made that choice).
The other day we were talking and I asked her about WoW. She knows that I disapprove of videogames that cannot be played for less than two hours at a sitting. (The world desperately needs you, you're abandonding your fate to a videogame, life is short, etc.)
She said, "I have many friends from around the world. We have similar interests and we get along really well. We work together to accomplish goals in the game and it's rewarding. What's wrong with this?"
And I asked her, "When your car runs out of gas on the highway at 3 a.m. who do you call?"
Friendship is not simply about common interests and "having fun together." It is about sacrifice and compromise, and true friendship does generate fun, but it also generates a relationship that will deliver a gallon of gasoline at 3 a.m. on a dark highway in February.
I work very, very hard at helping my friends understand just how much I love them and how much I would sacrifice for their welfare. I've never met a single person on the internet who could do either of those things for me.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:36 PM on February 10, 2007
I have a friend who plays WoW all day. She's a really sweet girl and I always try to get her to go out to the bar with us but she's always busy playing WoW. (I quit playing MMORPGs last year - I'm really, really happy that I made that choice).
The other day we were talking and I asked her about WoW. She knows that I disapprove of videogames that cannot be played for less than two hours at a sitting. (The world desperately needs you, you're abandonding your fate to a videogame, life is short, etc.)
She said, "I have many friends from around the world. We have similar interests and we get along really well. We work together to accomplish goals in the game and it's rewarding. What's wrong with this?"
And I asked her, "When your car runs out of gas on the highway at 3 a.m. who do you call?"
Friendship is not simply about common interests and "having fun together." It is about sacrifice and compromise, and true friendship does generate fun, but it also generates a relationship that will deliver a gallon of gasoline at 3 a.m. on a dark highway in February.
I work very, very hard at helping my friends understand just how much I love them and how much I would sacrifice for their welfare. I've never met a single person on the internet who could do either of those things for me.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:36 PM on February 10, 2007
Baby_Balrog:
You've obviously never spent four hours trying to fix someone's computer over instant messenger.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:28 PM on February 10, 2007
You've obviously never spent four hours trying to fix someone's computer over instant messenger.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:28 PM on February 10, 2007
Cyclopsis Raptor : "The only thing that I could think of, while reading that, was: 'Maybe you're lonely because you're an emo who listens to Slipknot. Did you ever think that might be a problem in real society?'"
David Wong is neither emo, nor a Slipknot listener.
Ictus : "We're finally, each of us, complete kings of our own domain. Unfortunately, since the only rule remaining is to respect the sovereignty of our neighbors, our arena barely stretches past the edges of our own selves."
That's actually extremely well phrased. I hope you don't mind if I quote you on that.
mmoncur : "And then I realized that he's writing about a whole different Internet than the one we're on..."
He probably should have said "those of us who seek to avoid being annoyed". And it's true. I hang out in places on the internet where I'm not annoyed, and I avoid places where I'm annoyed. Which is true in real life as well, but the internet has made it far easier, which I think is his point. It's not like the internet started that behaviour in people; we've always been like that, and now it's far easier.
Now, of course, there are people who thrive on being annoyed, and love to hang out in annoying places on the internet to get the adrenaline rush of Outrage. But, in that case, the core argument isn't wrong, per se, but just doesn't apply: Wong is talking about how, if you deal with annoyance because you have to, you grow more tolerant and more able to handle that annoyance, not on purpose, but naturally. For the Internet Outrage Monger, the whole point is to get angry and self-righteous, so you end out trying to avoid growing tolerant.
Simon! : "I mean, we all knew this guy. He's the sort of smart guy. He spends a lot of time thinking about how smart he is, and also how dumb everyone else is. He is pretty sure that most of the things he thinks about, other than how smart he is, are amazing, and he's discovered that if he presents them as absolute truth, other people are impressed too. Scientists say that I am amazing! Here, look at the math! I'm mathematically rad!"
I know Wong from reading his various stuff on PWOT, JayPinkerton, Cracked, and National Lampoon, and I think you're off-base. Sure, there are a lot of guys out there like that, but Wong isn't one of 'em.
pyramid termite : "back in pre-mass media america people...had their ways of shutting out 'annoying strangers'"
He's not denying that, though. He's just saying that now we have even more ways of doing that.
pyramid termite : "what gives him the idea that today's schools or workplaces are any different?"
Nothing. His point is that those "being-stuffed-with-people-you-don't-like" experiences were very formative and assisted with coping with people, and now those places are pretty much the only places where that happens. They went from being the rule to being the exception.
Plus, he may be talking about how, in a small town, you're stuck with folks you don't like, but in a big city/big school, there are so many people that you can still duck out and avoid anyone you don't agree with. I went to a school with 2,000 students, and that was relatively true. My uni was small, so it wasn't that much different than high school in that sense, but from what I've heard from people who go to MegaUniversities, it's even more true that you get a distinct fracturing of the student body, with less interaction between groups.
pyramid termite : "actually, they weren't ... the expression and expectation was that 'you just coped' and didn't complain about it ... i've heard that from a lot of people who grew up in the 30s and 40s, including my folks"
While I've been defending what he's said, I agree that this is the weak point of his argument, and also the core argument. Basically, he's saying "A, B, and C make us unhappy", and I guess I agree, but then he's saying "people didn't used to have A, B, and C, and were happier", and unless there's evidence, I think it's equally likely to be true that "people didn't have A, B, or C, but instead had D, E, and F, that made them unhappy."
pyramid termite : "give that man subscription to metafilter! ... really, the reason he's not being criticized is because he's hanging out with a bunch of mutual sycophants ... his lack of 'annoying' and or 'criticizing' friends on and offline are a direct consequence of his choices"
Nah. MetaFilter is good at insults, but it's not so good at the type of criticism he's talking about. People here tend to insult the folks they don't like. He's talking about criticism of the folks you like. People have criticised me at MeFi, but nobody has criticised me in the same way that a friend in real life has, where the criticism is really taken to heart because I know it's from someone who both A) knows me well, and B) is making that criticism not as an attack or because of a grudge, but in spite of us getting along well.
mrgrimm : "The whole thing is taking the piss, right? It's a satire of 'high school pseudo-sociology'? Please? I thought it *could* be sincere for a second, but the 'goth' pics (and the domain, and the references to Slipknot and Fallout Boy ...) were the clincher."
It's a "being serious while not being serious" thing. The guy is a comedy writer (whether you find him funny or not aside). When he's serious, he's still not dead serious; it's just not in his blood to write the dry stuff we at MeFi do.
posted by Bugbread at 6:19 PM on February 10, 2007
David Wong is neither emo, nor a Slipknot listener.
Ictus : "We're finally, each of us, complete kings of our own domain. Unfortunately, since the only rule remaining is to respect the sovereignty of our neighbors, our arena barely stretches past the edges of our own selves."
That's actually extremely well phrased. I hope you don't mind if I quote you on that.
mmoncur : "And then I realized that he's writing about a whole different Internet than the one we're on..."
He probably should have said "those of us who seek to avoid being annoyed". And it's true. I hang out in places on the internet where I'm not annoyed, and I avoid places where I'm annoyed. Which is true in real life as well, but the internet has made it far easier, which I think is his point. It's not like the internet started that behaviour in people; we've always been like that, and now it's far easier.
Now, of course, there are people who thrive on being annoyed, and love to hang out in annoying places on the internet to get the adrenaline rush of Outrage. But, in that case, the core argument isn't wrong, per se, but just doesn't apply: Wong is talking about how, if you deal with annoyance because you have to, you grow more tolerant and more able to handle that annoyance, not on purpose, but naturally. For the Internet Outrage Monger, the whole point is to get angry and self-righteous, so you end out trying to avoid growing tolerant.
Simon! : "I mean, we all knew this guy. He's the sort of smart guy. He spends a lot of time thinking about how smart he is, and also how dumb everyone else is. He is pretty sure that most of the things he thinks about, other than how smart he is, are amazing, and he's discovered that if he presents them as absolute truth, other people are impressed too. Scientists say that I am amazing! Here, look at the math! I'm mathematically rad!"
I know Wong from reading his various stuff on PWOT, JayPinkerton, Cracked, and National Lampoon, and I think you're off-base. Sure, there are a lot of guys out there like that, but Wong isn't one of 'em.
pyramid termite : "back in pre-mass media america people...had their ways of shutting out 'annoying strangers'"
He's not denying that, though. He's just saying that now we have even more ways of doing that.
pyramid termite : "what gives him the idea that today's schools or workplaces are any different?"
Nothing. His point is that those "being-stuffed-with-people-you-don't-like" experiences were very formative and assisted with coping with people, and now those places are pretty much the only places where that happens. They went from being the rule to being the exception.
Plus, he may be talking about how, in a small town, you're stuck with folks you don't like, but in a big city/big school, there are so many people that you can still duck out and avoid anyone you don't agree with. I went to a school with 2,000 students, and that was relatively true. My uni was small, so it wasn't that much different than high school in that sense, but from what I've heard from people who go to MegaUniversities, it's even more true that you get a distinct fracturing of the student body, with less interaction between groups.
pyramid termite : "actually, they weren't ... the expression and expectation was that 'you just coped' and didn't complain about it ... i've heard that from a lot of people who grew up in the 30s and 40s, including my folks"
While I've been defending what he's said, I agree that this is the weak point of his argument, and also the core argument. Basically, he's saying "A, B, and C make us unhappy", and I guess I agree, but then he's saying "people didn't used to have A, B, and C, and were happier", and unless there's evidence, I think it's equally likely to be true that "people didn't have A, B, or C, but instead had D, E, and F, that made them unhappy."
pyramid termite : "give that man subscription to metafilter! ... really, the reason he's not being criticized is because he's hanging out with a bunch of mutual sycophants ... his lack of 'annoying' and or 'criticizing' friends on and offline are a direct consequence of his choices"
Nah. MetaFilter is good at insults, but it's not so good at the type of criticism he's talking about. People here tend to insult the folks they don't like. He's talking about criticism of the folks you like. People have criticised me at MeFi, but nobody has criticised me in the same way that a friend in real life has, where the criticism is really taken to heart because I know it's from someone who both A) knows me well, and B) is making that criticism not as an attack or because of a grudge, but in spite of us getting along well.
mrgrimm : "The whole thing is taking the piss, right? It's a satire of 'high school pseudo-sociology'? Please? I thought it *could* be sincere for a second, but the 'goth' pics (and the domain, and the references to Slipknot and Fallout Boy ...) were the clincher."
It's a "being serious while not being serious" thing. The guy is a comedy writer (whether you find him funny or not aside). When he's serious, he's still not dead serious; it's just not in his blood to write the dry stuff we at MeFi do.
posted by Bugbread at 6:19 PM on February 10, 2007
His point is that those "being-stuffed-with-people-you-don't-like" experiences were very formative and assisted with coping with people, and now those places are pretty much the only places where that happens.
that may be so, but the significance of school and/or work shouldn't be minimized ... we spend a lot of time at those places and they can have a significant effect on who we interact without outside of those places
i went to a high school with 400 students, and believe me, there was no avoiding anyone
posted by pyramid termite at 8:16 PM on February 10, 2007
that may be so, but the significance of school and/or work shouldn't be minimized ... we spend a lot of time at those places and they can have a significant effect on who we interact without outside of those places
i went to a high school with 400 students, and believe me, there was no avoiding anyone
posted by pyramid termite at 8:16 PM on February 10, 2007
pyramid termite : "that may be so, but the significance of school and/or work shouldn't be minimized"
I don't think he is...that is, he's not saying "we have no more contact with people we dislike! We all live in perfectly handmade bubbles and only interact with others when they cut us off in traffic!" as much as "we still have to deal with eachother, even folks that we don't like, but we do so less now, and that's negatively impacting us".
I think about my mom, who was raised in an insanely small village in Spain (her high school graduating class consisted of two people, including her), obviously with no internet, and probably no television either (if they had one, there was probably one for the whole village), and it's pretty clear that, while she had time alone and she had time with just family or friends, the amount of interaction with other folks was way more than anything I've experienced past maybe elementary school.
Sure, I dealt with other folks a lot in high school, but there was always a lot of group separation: I didn't deal with the auto mech kids or the basketball players in my calculus classes, or honours English, or physics, or, well, anything except for gym and art classes. And in university, the narrowing was even greater: I was all among people roughly equally intelligent, with nobody far less intelligent and nobody far more intelligent. And now, in my work, I deal with a huge throng of folks around my age, interested in computers, with a relatively narrow range of interests. Still enough to make things lively, and still dealing with assholes, but not nearly on the level of, say, elementary school, where there were no class levels and I was put together with everyone, regardless of interest, academic ability, ability to avoid eating own boogers, etc.
pyramid termite : "i went to a high school with 400 students, and believe me, there was no avoiding anyone"
Yes, but in bigger schools, like mine (2000), avoiding most folks was really easy, unless they sought you out. So I definitely agree that the influence of school or work is great, but keep in mind that, even then, there are people in workplaces large enough or impersonal enough, and high schools large enough, that the exposure-to-others element is smaller. Existant, true, important, true, but smaller.
(Interesting side-note: I'd always assumed that the more people around, the more you would be exposed to differences (the whole "you get broader horizons in a big city because there's more variety in the people" thing), but now that I think of it, the reverse might be true. I dunno, just a passing thought.)
posted by Bugbread at 11:41 PM on February 10, 2007
I don't think he is...that is, he's not saying "we have no more contact with people we dislike! We all live in perfectly handmade bubbles and only interact with others when they cut us off in traffic!" as much as "we still have to deal with eachother, even folks that we don't like, but we do so less now, and that's negatively impacting us".
I think about my mom, who was raised in an insanely small village in Spain (her high school graduating class consisted of two people, including her), obviously with no internet, and probably no television either (if they had one, there was probably one for the whole village), and it's pretty clear that, while she had time alone and she had time with just family or friends, the amount of interaction with other folks was way more than anything I've experienced past maybe elementary school.
Sure, I dealt with other folks a lot in high school, but there was always a lot of group separation: I didn't deal with the auto mech kids or the basketball players in my calculus classes, or honours English, or physics, or, well, anything except for gym and art classes. And in university, the narrowing was even greater: I was all among people roughly equally intelligent, with nobody far less intelligent and nobody far more intelligent. And now, in my work, I deal with a huge throng of folks around my age, interested in computers, with a relatively narrow range of interests. Still enough to make things lively, and still dealing with assholes, but not nearly on the level of, say, elementary school, where there were no class levels and I was put together with everyone, regardless of interest, academic ability, ability to avoid eating own boogers, etc.
pyramid termite : "i went to a high school with 400 students, and believe me, there was no avoiding anyone"
Yes, but in bigger schools, like mine (2000), avoiding most folks was really easy, unless they sought you out. So I definitely agree that the influence of school or work is great, but keep in mind that, even then, there are people in workplaces large enough or impersonal enough, and high schools large enough, that the exposure-to-others element is smaller. Existant, true, important, true, but smaller.
(Interesting side-note: I'd always assumed that the more people around, the more you would be exposed to differences (the whole "you get broader horizons in a big city because there's more variety in the people" thing), but now that I think of it, the reverse might be true. I dunno, just a passing thought.)
posted by Bugbread at 11:41 PM on February 10, 2007
I disagree with the premise that people are becoming unhappier and more isolated. Maybe that guy is, but that's because he sucks.
posted by breath at 12:43 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by breath at 12:43 AM on February 11, 2007
« Older "The British government has learned that Saddam... | Eagles are so free Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by furtive at 7:39 PM on February 9, 2007