[nicd]

This is the issue that is top of mind for me at the moment. If you're frustrated by political polarization, this is one of the root causes! I'm very eager to hear any ideas on steps we can take to systematically reverse this damage to society.

[jasdi]

Read the UN report on the Attention Economy. Everything is connected to Attention being over fished by platforms.

The human pool of Attention is slow growing and finite (the limit being number of minutes in a day*people). Yet Content keeps exploding to infinity.

Just like inflation devalues money, content inflation devalues individual Attention.

In traditional economics, more money chasing the same goods = inflation. In the Attention Economy, more content chasing the same attention = engagement inflation (harder to get noticed, costs more to be seen).

The real winners - Platforms, since they act like central banks controlling both supply (content) and demand (attention via algorithm).

The Attention Economy behaves like a manipulated market where demand is fixed but distorted, and supply keeps increasing, benefiting the gatekeepers (platforms) while exhausting the participants (creators, advertisers, businesses, users).

History teaches us where the story goes.

[robwwilliams]

> Just like inflation devalues money, content inflation devalues individual Attention.

In some sense perhaps, but I now value my attention more since there is so much more competing for attention. Out with Twitter/X, in with Hacker News; out with daily papers, in with long news: Aeon and Atlantic and Foreign Affairs. And zero broadcast TV.

[63]

This requires conscious choice and some discipline though. For the average person, content competes for attention on their behalf before their conscious brain kicks in. Social media uses cheap tricks like rage bait that your local book club just can't compete with. Yes, an emotionally healthy person with some free time who enjoyed books as a child (already a minority of people it seems due to many factors) may choose the book club, but the higher barrier of entry just keeps most people from ever considering it.

It's just so damn hard for any in-person activities to compete with instant gratification and addictive rage. In college in 2022, I was a member of several clubs with varying subjects and members. Every one of them struggled to get anyone to attend. The CS club hosted drone races and 3d printed model painting. The improv club had weekly themed meetings. The theater department hosted at least 1 large and 1 small show per semester and we couldn't even get people to sit in the audience. And this is college, where demands on participants' time are relatively lacking (compared to kids and a 9-5). I imagine a lot of social activities have failed to get members and then just ceased to exist as a result. Several of the clubs I was in no longer exist due to a lack of participants to take up leadership after my class graduated.

Don't even get me started on how people talk and talk about causes they admire on the internet but then never actually volunteer their time to make anything better.

I really think society has just fucked itself over by letting social media companies run rampant with our attention, feeding us lies and gossip that doesn't matter 24 hours later. I genuinely just don't know if most people can be conscious and disciplined enough to get themselves out of the trap. At the very least, it will take a few generations to develop new mores and standards and who knows what new tech will be around to ruin their lives by then. I find it hard to believe that anyone was ever hopeful about working in this industry.

[robwwilliams]

Thanks for your insights. I am old enough that all I need to do partly is revert to habits I had when younger. I make an exception for Hacker News since that quality of discussion is usually so high.

[yesco]

> History teaches us where the story goes.

Does it? When else has this happened before? Or do you just mean manipulated markets specifically?

[rnd0]

>History teaches us where the story goes.

I think my book is missing that chapter -where does it go?

[hansonkin]

I've been working on a project to solve the social connection problem using a new approach. In a post third space society, I want to make it easier for people to connect with others nearby in small groups around shared hobbies and activities. Having a small group size makes it easier to host at someone's place and it's also cheaper than going out.

I did a soft launch earlier this week by posting on NYC subreddits to get early feedback and test out my hypothesis . The reaction has been very positive with many comments saying they like the concept. Obviously there's a long way to go to really nail down the product market fit and build a sustainable business around it but the early feedback makes me feel like there is really something there.

[loganc2342]

Your project seems very cool and like a great way to tackle the problem. Although between apps similar to yours and dating apps like Tinder, I can’t help but feel a little uneasy that more and more frequently, people only meet by first filtering out dozens or hundreds, if not thousands of other people through an app.

I suppose theoretically it should lead to more connections based on interests and commonalities, as opposed to superficial characteristics (at least in the case your app, going off of your Reddit post; Tinder is a bit of a different story). I do feel like something is lost in the process, though. There are many people who have good friends that they have very little in common with.

[hansonkin]

Really love your comment about filtering people. It's something I thought a lot about when designing the user experience. A few hypotheses I want to test with my approach are:

1) Swipe based interfaces inherently cause users to see other people as more disposable. I'm trying to have my app be centered around plans, which is a mix between a traditional event with a set time and location and a social media post.

2) Paradox of choice. I'm testing whether providing people with fewer good options will make it easier to commit to something instead of having endless choices.

3) Friend dates are awkward. When people meet through traditional friend making apps, the first meeting is usually dinner, coffee, etc. I think people become pickier when this is the common mode of meeting because if you don't really click at the meeting, it's a waste of time. My theory is that when the meetings are more focused on doing an activity you already like, even if you don't completely click with the group you meet with, it can still be an enjoyable time. I'm hoping this makes people more open to getting out there more.

[BlueTemplar]

I've used a website like this a decade / decade and a half ago, and it was pretty great (even despite heavily leaning two generations older than me due to the demographics of that location).

[ajb]

Good vision, but why is it an app? In general "We want to install an app on your phone" is a no from many people unless there's a compelling reason. Not to mention the whole cross platform issue.

[vaginicola]

Could help me find your reddit posts? I'm interested in learning more, but am having trouble locating them through search...

I share your enthusiasm for making it easier for people to connect in person, focused around shared interests (incl. established online social networks). I'm sincerely concerned about the potential outcomes of our current and growing social isolation.

That said, I believe that "third spaces" are still essential. Effective third spaces can provide safe, neutral ground for those who are unacquainted to get to know one another on their own terms. I think that the thought of inviting a strangers into your personal space is pretty uncomfortable to many people. I also think people want to get out of their cave every now and then--especially with the rise of work-from-home.

I think the failure of traditional third spaces (cafes, bars, social clubs, libraries, etc.) has more to do with them being unable to adapt to the needs of modern society & socialization.

My thought is that there needs to be a new type of third space which meets those needs. Perhaps something like WeWork, but geared towards the third space? Something that can adapt to and support the diverse interest/hobbies/networks that have come about due to the internet. Something that tics all of the "Great Good Place" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place) boxes and more. I have some ideas, but need to develop them further.

[hansonkin]

https://www.reddit.com/r/astoria/comments/1hvw7m5/i_created_...

I agree that third spaces are very valuable but the reality is that they are declining in the current market and the trend doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. I think some venues will figure out how to make it work in the modern market but ultimately there will be fewer of these places in general.

And you're right about people being uncomfortable with strangers in their home but most people will meet in public first before having people over. This is a pattern I've seen a lot in NYC where a community will have public events to attract newcomers. Once these people are vetted, they are invited into a private Whatsapp or Discord. Once accepted into the private chat, people will organize private events which sometimes takes place at someone's home. In a way, my platform hopes to formalize this pattern and make it more accessible for individuals so it's less dependent on having formal organizers/hosts. This pattern still requires public spaces but I think it's a bit more flexible.

[BlueTemplar]

Hmm, what happens to the people that refuse to use WhatsApp/Discord ?

[TingPing]

If that’s where the group is, you refuse to be part of that group. Nobody is going to inconvenience themselves for an outsider.

There is obviously variety is what tools groups use though.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

A social crutch I really like is games. I’m terrible at talking to people, but I love playing competitive but social games. Stuff like chess boards, card games could go a long way.

[com2kid]

I ran a company for 3 years working on this, let me know if you want to chat! I've moved on but I'm always happy to talk about solving this problem.

[hansonkin]

Yes definitely! How can I reach out to you?

[com2kid]

devlin . bentley @ gmail.com or if you have xmpp [e-mail]

I'm also on discord as com2kid

[reducesuffering]

Unfortunately it involves stopping staring at screens 10 hours a day, which is the funds supporting half of this forum's careers.

How many people think today's children are having better lives than the last generation? 25% of US university students on antidepressants.

We optimize for a big GDP number but never for a population happiness level.

[Dracophoenix]

> How many people think today's children are having better lives than the last generation? 25% of US university students on antidepressants.

Are they on anti-depressants because life has gotten worse or because of decreasing stigma resulting from greater accessibility to better-informed patients? Until the turn of the century, just mentioning you saw a shrink in any sincere capacity would get you funny looks in most parts of the country.

> Unfortunately it involves stopping staring at screens 10 hours a day, which is the funds supporting half of this forum's careers.

There's an old joke where a reporter asks a bank robber why he robs banks. The latter's response: "Because, that's where the money is". The bank and bar of today is the Internet. It's what funds and facilitates most social ventures, even the ones that take place IRL.

Happiness isn't a quality you can optimize for on a national or global scale as it's a purely individual affair.

[riehwvfbk]

> Happiness isn't a quality you can optimize for on a national or global scale as it's a purely individual affair.

This right here is exactly what's wrong. People are put into impossible conditions and then blamed when they can't magically make themselves happy with the arrangement.

Tell me, are animals happy to be in a zoo? Why not? Why can't they just make themselves happy?

[Dracophoenix]

Happiness isn't self-induced solipsism. I don't claim that external conditions have no effect on individual happiness, but rather that external conditions do not uniformly or systematically determine an individual's happiness nor can one reliably use such conditions to extrapolate the happiness of others. A policy that addresses a so-called collective need often comes at the cost of individual agency and thus individual happiness. It is therefore, necessary to recognize that the domain of happiness and its relevant parameters does not belong to an abstract blob, but solely to the individual.

> Tell me, are animals happy to be in a zoo? Why not? Why can't they just make themselves happy?

Not every animal views a zoo (or for that matter, a farm or a pet-owner's house) as a prison. For a significant population of zoo animals, life in captivity is the only life they know. For the most part, they are as happy and content as they are well-fed.

[throaway54]

>Not every animal views a zoo (or for that matter, a farm or a pet-owners house) as a prison. For a significant population of zoo animals, life in captivity is the only life they know. For the most part, they are as happy and content, as they are well-fed.

Not if they are given a space which is too small and not stimulating enough for them, then they just pace around for their whole lives.

[flenkzooz]

I'm not sure I completely agree with your last assertion (except according to a very rigorous definition of "optimize"). While people do very much differ, there are certain things that predictably make the majority of people happier. Social connectedness, for example. We may not be able to truly optimize for these things, but I think we can reliably improve human wellbeing at scale. A successful example from the past would be the efforts to add more green spaces to cities. People like parks, and they're happier on average when they have access to them.

[dinkumthinkum]

Maybe an increased stigma was better? Why is that you can “optimize” unhappiness nationally but not happiness, if you discount the former I think there are some examples.

[Dracophoenix]

> Why is that you can “optimize” unhappiness nationally but not happiness

The conditions that make someone miserable are just as variable. Some of the most content people possess little education and are mired in the throes of poverty. If you started a national misery program where the government impoverishes its population left and right, there would still be a minority who find enjoyment, even thrive, in such circumstances.

[dinkumthinkum]

I mean you are talking about anomalies which is not what people mean here. Obviously masochists exist but that’s not very interesting

[brookst]

Yeah increasing treatment of medical conditions seems like a very poor proxy for proving an increase in incidence.

[watwut]

> 25% of US university students on antidepressants.

You need to factor in alcohol and drug use rates for previous generations, crime rates of youth and so it. It is not that current situation is optimal, but when I was young, you would not get antidepressants even if you actually desperately needed it. The taboo against admitting even to yourself that you might have mental health issue was too high.

Conservative minded people like to complain about lack of risk taking among youth ... but quite a lot of risk taking was pure self destruction or destruction of whoever you got pregnant (if you was a guy).

[matrix87]

> 25% of US university students on antidepressants.

Is it because they're emotionally worse off, or is it because pharma is advertising them more aggressively, kickbacks, etc

[reducesuffering]

There are many studies showing US youth report feeling worse than previously. The CDC: "Youth in the U.S. are experiencing a mental health crisis."

https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-youth/mental-health/mental-healt...

Increased pharma pushing is an easy scapegoat, but it would have to be making these youth more depressed before they were ever taking antidepressants.

Social media and phones have been disconnecting real interactions and pushing people onto fake digital "connections." Then when people are more lonely than ever, we're now pushing them "AI bot connections" to help loneliness, purely because VC's see $ in it, basically giving desperate people soda to help their hunger.

[dinkumthinkum]

I think social media even promotes this hyper therapy and medication seeking behavior. My guess it probably even creates a kind of Overton window sort of thing for physicians, big pharma notwithstanding. It’s very easy for people to get prescriptions for these drugs and a lot of doctors seem to think “patients reports depression so I prescribed SSRI” or whatever is popular.

[harvodex]

When I was 20, no one my age had got incredibly wealthy or famous who wasn't an actor or musician.

It is like a hyper version of de Tocqueville now. No matter how poor someone is, they still don't feel that far from being rich and famous in America.

This creates enormous status anxiety coupled with the reality of student loans and inflation it is a really bad deal for young people's mental health.

[matrix87]

yeah I see the same trend, at some point I just kinda decided to mentally slot all of those people into the stupid category, tune them out, and go on living

[dinkumthinkum]

I totally agree with you but there is a lot of tech that is not social media related. But, that fact probably doesn’t change your quantitative observation.

[cess11]

Capitalism can't reproduce itself through happy people. It needs enormous amounts of suffering to continue, and as a kid growing up you'll at some point notice this. At least you did, before the screens became dominant over reality.

[eli_gottlieb]

Modes of production are not modes of consumption. The system doesn't change if the "plastic trivia" companies go bankrupt from everyone suddenly growing a sense of thrift.

[dinkumthinkum]

What does any of this mean? What is capitalist reproduction? How is any of that true? Does a system in which someone has a right to your labor somehow solve this?

[cess11]

It's an expression from economics. Do you disagree that societies reproduce themselves?

We're living in a world system where almost all societies are based on the idea that one class of people has a right to the labour of almost all the rest. I'm not sure why you suggest furthering it is a solution to our current predicaments.

[tmnvix]

I'm sure people will disagree on the significance, but I think it seems obvious that a society that encourages (and in some cases requires) its members to isolate themselves in mobile metal boxes is going to be more antisocial than one that doesn't.

[pesus]

I'm with you on this one, and I think my time living in a fairly walkable city vs. previously living in a non-walkable suburb really underscored this point for me personally.

I'm failing at finding it via google, but I also recall a study that showed drivers tended to view other drivers/cars on the road not as a person in control of a vehicle, but rather an inanimate object, which I think further supports your point. If anyone has a link to the study, I'd be grateful.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

I think cars are a symptom of a philosophy, not the root cause.

[pesus]

I'd say they're both, and it feeds into itself.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

Fair

[dinkumthinkum]

I feel like there is a political side that loves and thinks it clever to shame car ownership or blame everything on cars because because of sone socialist nonsense or something. People have been very social up until 2000 perhaps even later and so-called “metal boxes” have been a big part of American life for a long time. There have even been times when cars were an integral part of socializing in many circles. I get it “America sucks and ancient cities on the Continent are superior” or whatever , but isn’t this kind an f a cliche take at this point?

[JambalayaJimbo]

I think it’s a combination of things and car centric transportation makes our online addled communities worse.

One major issue is that affordability is down bad, many people cannot afford cars and they are stuck in environments where cars are required to do everything and as a result have turned to the internet for their social needs. Which as we know is a mirage for social interaction.

Dense areas where walking/public transit are enough to see friends are becoming more expensive as well.

[TingPing]

It’s just compounding.

If your environment is isolating and the internet replaces easy socialization then you become isolated.

If your environment is low friction for socializing it is less likely.

[bdangubic]

until people realize that “social” media is the root of most evil plauging society currently nothing will change. and people will not disconnect from “social” media because of pure addiction.

my life is drastically different today since I’ve ditched ALL social media. unlike other addictions, this came without withdrawals (10-20 minutes on HN helps :) )

[dinkumthinkum]

I think you’re more on point than anyone else. Social media not working but affects connections but it hinders connections in both platonic and romantic relationship for so many reasons.

[MathMonkeyMan]

The article recommends seeking out interactions with others even when (especially when) we would avoid it.

I don't know how to make that a movement, but I'll be more mindful of it.

[intended]

Aren’t there many countries which are happily anti social?

In any case - approaching this as if it is damage, will end up putting you in opposition to choices people are making.

You can be incredibly alone in a crowd of people. You can be empty when people are singing your praises.

Meaning - is different simple social interaction. People can find their comfort zone of personal interaction is much smaller than others.

TLDR: Treating it like a problem, results in bad suggestions. Treating it like a choice, suggests that one look at the options available to people.

It may turn out that people aren’t hanging out at bars, but at home. Frankly, why wouldn’t people stay at home, if home is where they have put their time and effort into setting up.

If you want a good place to find solutions, look to boredom and monotony.

Do note - polarization started well before the personal computer showed up in the geological record.

[bostik]

> Aren’t there many countries which are happily anti social?

Yes: Finland. Purportedly the happiest country on the planet. A bilingual nation who will merrily shut up in two languages simultaneously. Whose complete lack of small-talk is legendary.

Hell is other people.

Ob-disclosure: I'm a Finn.

[Herring]

Quality over quantity, right?

The article thinks the problem is declining quantity, but I'm unconvinced. Americans have always been low on quality, since as far back as slavery and native american genocide.

If anything I think the "meditation" mentioned in the article is a really good sign.

[bostik]

I suspect it might be the smaller quantity in general.

90% of everything is crap. 90% of everything that remains is still crap. With the endless yammering cut out, there is simply a lower volume of garbage competing with your limited bandwidth and attention.

> Americans have always been low on quality

I'm intentionally stripping this out of your provided context, because I don't think aligning the sentiment with atrocities helps. Obviously this is coming from an outside observer's point of view, so take it with a grain of salt - from what I've seen, the American culture is obsessed with self-promotion and hustle. Peoples' ear canals are flooded with demands for attention, and everyone is incentivised to drown out everyone else.

Almost as if the agreed solution to the needle-in-a-haystack problem is "more hay".

[Herring]

Unfortunately, there is evidence that the provided context greatly matters. Here's a quote from the book “The Sum of Us”, by Heather McGhee.

>He was building on global comparative research by Stanley Engerman and Kenneth Sokoloff, which found that “societies that began with relatively extreme inequality tended to generate institutions that were more restrictive in providing access to economic opportunities.” Nunn’s research showed that although of course slave counties had higher inequality during the era of slavery (particularly of land), it wasn’t the degree of inequality that was correlated with poverty today; it was the fact of slavery itself, whether on large plantations or small farms. When I talked to Nathan Nunn, he couldn’t say exactly how the hand of slavery was strangling opportunity generations later. He made it clear, however, that it wasn’t just the Black inhabitants who were faring worse today; it was the white families in the counties, too. When slavery was abolished, Confederate states found themselves far behind northern states in the creation of the public infrastructure that supports economic mobility, and they continue to lag behind today. These deficits limit economic mobility for all residents, not just the descendants of enslaved people.

That "public infrastructure" mentioned includes healthcare and welfare, contentious issues in the US even today. Without them, we get inequality, hustle culture, and the US dropping in that list of "Happiest Countries in the World".

[nicd]

I'm not sure which happy, anti-social countries you are referring to.

"It may turn out that people aren’t hanging out at bars, but at home." I understand that entertaining at home has been in decline over the last few decades, and is at or near an all time low. Putnam discusses this in Bowling Alone, and all research I've seen lines up with that.

My belief is that most people agree that the decline of community is a problem (I'll cite the Surgeon General's report, for example). I'm open to reconsidering my position if you have sources for the opposing viewpoint.

[intended]

I was thinking of Denmark, but as someone pointed out above, Finland.

I went through the surgeon generals report to better understand your point.

Hopefully this brings us closer to congruence:

1) Loneliness and being Alone are different. You can be lonely in a group of people. The Surgeon General captures this where they talk about quality of connection.

2) An underlying issue highlighted in the report, is economics. Resources can set of virtuous cycle, increasing health and time for social connection. Lack of resources decrease this.

If there is a short answer, it’s worth pointing out that causative factors are what solves problems. Forcing people into proximity, for example, wouldn’t alleviate loneliness.

Meaningful interactions, and the ability for people to afford them, is what matters.

[chrisbrandow]

I think the primary point is that until the 20th century, most people did not ever have a choice. Communal living was the only primary successful strategy for survival, so we are fairly hardwired for that environment. In that environment occasional solitude was probably a benefit.

It’s like the physical exercise which until the 20th century was just a part of everyone’s life. We sought relief from it whenever possible, but that wasn’t often possible. But in modern life we can go weeks without much physical exertion. And we know the consequences of that.

[bruce343434]

> polarization started well before the personal computer showed up in the geological record.

What do you mean?

[ahartman00]

I think "well before the personal computer showed up in the geological record" is a bit of hyperbole, but it is not a new phenomenon:

"We find that despite short-term fluctuations, partisanship or non-cooperation in the U.S. Congress has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years with no sign of abating or reversing"

"Partisanship has been attributed to a number of causes, including the stratifying wealth distribution of Americans [2]; boundary redistricting [3]; activist activity at primary elections [4]; changes in Congressional procedural rules [5]; political realignment in the American South [6]; the shift from electing moderate members to electing partisan members [7] movement by existing members towards ideological poles [8]; and an increasing political, pervasive media [9]."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

[intended]

Oh thank god, this is the report I was looking for, and I couldn’t remember what it was. Thank you.

[HPsquared]

The Reformation is one famous example.

[jfengel]

Reformation was itself really about long-standing conflicts between countries/nationalities. Few people really care whether they are saved through faith alone or not, just as East and West weren't really having wars over whether "filioque" belongs in the Nicene Creed.

The Internet does give ordinary people the opportunity to be mean to each other on a daily basis rather than having wars. I'm genuinely not sure that's an improvement, since at least people would think twice before going into combat. The level of desiring to harass each other seems roughly constant.

[philwelch]

The reformation broke out in the middle of the hundreds of tiny German microstates that comprised the "Holy Roman Empire". In fact that's the only way it could have broken out; power was diffused among hundreds of princes and the mechanisms of central control weren't strong enough to stop it. That's why it happened when and where it did. Nationalism and politics didn't enter into it for the better part of a century.