[small_model]

But if I want to be social why does it have to be people I didnt choose (i.e. co workers). Why can I WFH and socialise with my family/friends who I choose to be with. This is basically nothing to do with remote work and more about isolation.

[obscurette]

Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.

[tayo42]

Work is a fake environment where your communication is policed and you need to read books about how to effectively communicate to influence people do the things you want. Normals socialization isn't like that.

[nozzlegear]

When I worked in an office, there was no policing of communication or reading books on effective communication to influence people (??) – people were just normal ass people.

[sdevonoes]

Well, I think there’s some difference between talking to a colleague and taking to your manager (or to your manager’s manager). One cannot talk shit in front of the latter (e.g., “this company sucks”) without fear of being laid off.

[wqaatwt]

I mean maybe not in a vulgar and explicit way but it really depends on the environment and the manager.

[watwut]

The usual expectation is that you wont discuss politics or personal topics. You are expected to not ask about other peoples health either.

The other completely normal expectation is that you will limit general chit chat, unless you are at unusually slacky workplace.

[nozzlegear]

To be honest, this kinda just sounds like normal social etiquette. Not discussing politics or personal topics is more like a "don't do this with anyone unless they're your close friends or family", right? And I've talked about my coworkers' health with them plenty over the years, but you don't generally dig into it with your coworkers or with non-coworkers unless they volunteer it, because there's a decent chance their health issue is some kind of weird goop on their balls or post-butthole drip that they're embarrassed about. It's not really particular to the office work environment.

[wqaatwt]

That’s really cultural, though. In a lot of places those topics are generally more than acceptable and maybe even expected (in moderation at least)

[tayo42]

You never had a list of banned words at work? You missed the whole master/main thing? Words prefixed with black/white weren't given alternatives?

I had a manager once go thorough one of my slack conversations and go line by line with how I could rephrase things with softer corporate jargon.

There's books on leadership, books like crucial conversations, books on managing up. The industry is obsessed with staff engineers now and there's on that and the differentiator in that role is getting people to do things.

If you really don't deal with that, let me know where I can send a resume I'd love to work with normal people.

[em-bee]

where i am from, such policing is illegal. germany has a different approach to freedom of speech. no institution is allowed to even monitor, let alone censor private conversations (that includes overhearing something). private conversations at work are private and legally protected. the only time when a company can interfere is if the manner of communication (not the content) is disruptive. and getting fired for being disruptive in most cases leads to a lawsuit from the employee against the company, and so courts will decide if there actually was a disruption, and if it was bad enough to warrant dismissal.

[nozzlegear]

No, I never had any of that. I worked as the dev at a family-owned printing company, around 100 employees.

[tensor]

I don't think it has anything to do with echo chambers. It's simply that weak tie relationships are different than close ties, and very valuable. This narrative that we somehow are required to interact with people who are "very different" (often it actually means "offensive to us") is something that seems to be pushed by the US alt-right very hard. I call BS on it.

[zimpenfish]

> Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society.

That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes; it is 100% absolutely not true for "all people". You force me to interact with people I haven't chosen and there's a reasonably high probability that I'll subsequently choose to never interact with you again.[0]

> People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc.

My childhood was largely interaction with people I didn't choose[1] and, nope, I am absolutely not "more trusting" as a result.

> Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.

Citation needed for that one.

[0] There is a slim chance that the people I haven't chosen to interact with turn out to be reasonable decent people who I don't annoy and, more importantly, don't annoy me.

[1] A bunch of enforced house moves and a paucity of decent locals at each new house/school.

[tpmoney]

> That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes

It's true for some of us introverted people as well, especially given that without some "reason" to get together, some of us might never interact with another person ever.

[vladvasiliu]

Indeed. But as a very introverted person, I find it much easier to socialize when it's on my terms. I get to choose where I go, the kinds of people I interact with, for how long.

Sure, it's very easy to just "not feel like it" and stay home alone for a week at a time. But I've found that this is usually a reaction to being forced into some situation I don't particularly enjoy, like being compressed like a sardine twice a day on my way to a noisy office where I can't get anything done.

Working from home has actually made me much more social. I'm not drained and annoyed with people at the end of the workday, so I have energy to attend social activities. And, paradoxically, I'm even somewhat closer to people at work: now that I don't have to hear them all day long, I'm much more open to actually interacting with them when I do see them.

[wqaatwt]

> Citation needed for that one.

Current reality? Of course its more on the (social)media level. Significant proportions of the society in many countries seem to be living in alternate realities.

Real life echo chambers reinforce that as well if you only interact with people with similar lifestyles and worldviews.

> That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes

I would certainly see that’s the case for the overwhelming majority people (certainly not for everyone, though)

[zimpenfish]

> Real life echo chambers reinforce that as well if you only interact with people with similar lifestyles and worldviews.

I'm not sure that's a truism. But we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Certainly the reverse (anti-echo chambers?) isn't true (which casts doubt on the original statement, for me): cf current US Republicans politicians who constantly interact with people that have different lifestyles and worldviews[0] without it having the slightest effect on their own worldview.

See also: anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and, extreme[1] religious people; all of whom cannot fail to mix with people of opposing views nearly every day without it changing their minds.

[0] As a small example, they mingle, have lunch, holiday, serve on committees with, etc., their Democrat colleagues all the time and yet not a shred of sanity rubs off on them.

[1] The more culty end of the spectrum; you know the ones.

[small_model]

Not sure about this, most people would rather interact with people the like, click with than some boomer manager who thinks it's still 1950 IBM days.

[nozzlegear]

As an extrovert, I like interacting with anyone. I enjoyed interacting with my boomer manager when I worked in an office, and the middle aged women with kids or grand kids, and everyone else. They weren't my friends, but talking and interacting with them each day was enjoyable.

[small_model]

I just don't like authority or people having power over me, especially someone who is could be replaced with a calendar app.

[JackFr]

Socializing != socialization.

The first is enjoying the company of friends, while the second is a sociological process of internalizing cultural norms and appropriate behavior. How to behave in a group, how to approach a stranger, how to respond to someone who irritates you, etc.

[xg15]

No one is stopping you. The question is how easy it is to do that vs staying lonely.

I think the problem is that "being social with" some group isn't always as easy as it seems. Work and family are sort of two "default" groups that you automatically have access to (even if those groups may not always be fitting or rewarding).

For other social groups, you have to invest effort yourself, and that effort can be a lot: Finding communities in the first place, making contact, staying engaged, being socially fluent enough that others want to keep contact, etc etc.

That's a lot of work and also requires some skill (and even luck sometimes). Not everyone may be willing or able to put in that work.

(Specifically for work environments, I wonder if the "shared misery" aspect might also play a role: In a work environment, everyone knows that you're not here for fun - paradoxically, that might make some social interactions easier, because you can stop interacting without sending a negative message. In contrast, in voluntary activities, this is harder, because the basic expectation is that you want to be there. So talking about interactions that didn't work well socially might be harder.)

[aok1425]

The abstract of the article says that folks who have remote work are more socially isolated, even after work hours.

Maybe WFH allows folks to be more social with the people they want, but the abstract says that they socialise less overall, and are more socially isolated.

[small_model]

Most people live with a spouse , kids, room mates though, I live with my family and they are generally around so get plenty of company (too much sometimes). This is about living alone AND WFH, then yes might be good to go to the office.

[throw-the-towel]

> Most people live with a spouse , kids, room mates though

[citation needed]

[oytis]

I mean, it's right there in the abstract. The study showed that people working remotely were more isolated outside of work too.

Personally I enjoy working remotely and value time spent alone, but the data looks interesting

[small_model]

Why is more isolation negative, should be a spectrum, 98% alone and the rest socialising.

[aok1425]

The abstract doesn't say that isolation is negative (I think). It just says WFH folks are more socially isolated.

For some people, more social isolation is OK. For others, not so OK. YMMV .

I personally think that more socializing is better, if it's with people who I become better by being around. The tough part is knowing who's good for me, and how I can find them.

[ahtihn]

I prefer being alone but also feel worse after prolonged periods alone.

Preferring something doesn't mean it's good for you.

[small_model]

True, I meant forced socialisation a.k.a office. You need some socialising most days but most people get that from living with spouse/family/room mates etc i.e. people they have chosen.

[oytis]

Well, the abstract also says they were not feeling well because of that, I guess that's what matters