I learned this the hard way not too long ago when someone informed me that a number of people I'd worked with who I'd thought of as friends just really disliked me. It hit hard at first because I thought of them as friends- 'work friends' at the very least, and made me start questioning other people that I thought of as friends.
After letting my mind spin in a tight loop about it for a while I decided that really it doesn't matter that much, because I'm happier liking people, and I can like someone and be friendly even irrespective of if they like me or not. Of course I'm not going to push my company on people who are clear that they don't want it, but it doesn't really do any good to second guess who actually cares for me and who is being polite.
It can get weirder, when you are talking third party conversations. Alice considers Bob a friend, Bob tells Charles that he dislikes Alice because he needs something from Charles and Charles has expressed dislike for Alice.
Charles then tells Alice that Bob dislikes her which surprises Alice. (and is not actually the truth)
I got an opportunity to research workplace relations in depth and one of the courses cautioned about third party information for exactly this reason. They had surveyed several people and their supervisors about whether they "approved" or "disapproved" of one of their peers. When the survey was completely anonymous they got one answer but when the survey was said to be for their supervisor, the results skewed toward the supervisor's biases. The inference was that if a person's supervisor dislikes someone, the people they supervise are more likely to say they dislike that person to, regardless of their actual feelings. It can be seen as a loyalty reflex, or kissing up, it doesn't really matter, but if some supervisor tells you the people that work for them dislike you, the only information that offers is that the supervisor person dislikes you.
> I'm happier liking people, and I can like someone and be friendly even irrespective of if they like me or not.
That is extremely mature, and shows great perception of the complications of our perceptions and social interactions. Congratulations on reaching that conclusion.
Ina semi related note, I try to keep my distance with coworkers. The added factor of work responsabilities and possible conflics would be harder to manage with a friendship or more added to the equations.
But I tend to compartmentalize my relationships, so there's that.
This happened to me. I think on some intellectual level I understood that work friendship wasn't terribly authentic and based on the politics of getting ahead. Then I was on the receiving end of some very dishonest politics and it really opened my eyes on how terrible some/many of the people here are and people I've had unbelievably good relationships with will turn on you in a very aggressive manner instantly if they think picking the other side will gain them more benefits. Fairness, truth, etc didn't matter to them. Holy cow, I just couldn't believe it.
Ironically, this has made me appreciate the people who are openly jerky at work. At least they're open with the biases. There's probably something to be said about white collar workplace culture's default of "aren't we all just friends and teammates?" It seems to empower only the worst political players. At this point, I'd probably rather work with a bunch of jerks who are open with their biases than a bunch of 'office friendly' people who are only friendly because it serves them. There's a certain level of honesty with the jerks.
I also see this in myself. I've learned how to play up false modesty and the whole "Aren't we just pals" attitude, and I don't like it now that I'm self-aware of it. I don't know if I'm ready to become an full-on office jerk, but I'm probably half-way there now and life seems a lot easier when you're more open with your biases and honestly accept that most of your coworkers are adversaries, not teammates. I'm sure I'm more disliked, but disliked by people who would just turn on me anyway if push came to shove. I also invest much less mental energy into trying to be everyone's buddy and instead focus that on the work itself, anti-burn out strategies, leisure time, my creative projects, planning my next career move, etc.
I used to laugh at the grumpy gray-beards in IT. Now I see where they are coming from. The sooner the automation/robot revolution comes the better. Work is a zero-sum game that best serves the extremely dishonest. I don't know why we're so worried about moving into a post-work and post-scarcity society. The status quo is pretty terrible if we're being honest about it.
When there's an economic advantage to be gained, people at work can be fake. You can either get bummed out about that, or accept it as their issue and not yours. I found that if I treat people like friends (and having good intent) it usually works out for the best, though I've been backstabbed here and there.
This definitely seems like another edition of "researcher generalizes from handful of white college students to entire country".
If you asked me to name a group with the largest percentage of fake friendships, "college business management class" would be right up there with "popular clique in high school". So the topic is worth talking about, but I'll bet the number is skewed way to the high end.
Not being a troll, but I'd probably have a tough time finding friends in a business management class anyway, so I don't really find this that surprising.
It also seems very easy to misinterpret, because it says that only about 50% reciprocated, but what does this mean? A considers B their best friend, but B does not? Maybe B has someone else who is their actual best friend, but are still close to A. Maybe A and B don't agree on the term of the relationship they have, but, if you asked them how much they like each other, you'd get the same answers.
> “There is a limited amount of time and emotional capital we can distribute, so we only have five slots for the most intense type of relationship,” Mr. Dunbar said. “People may say they have more than five but you can be pretty sure they are not high-quality friendships.”
This was the part I found most interesting. They describe people you're in touch with daily or weekly as being in the "close friends" category.
Personally, I'm fortunate to have deep, meaningful, long-term friendships with my wife and one other friend, and a few other friends and family members I consider close even if we talk something more like "every couple months" - when we do, it's about important stuff. We freely say that we love each other, we hug, and I feel more relaxed and happy around them.
I'm tempted by stuff like being liked on social media, but when I think about it, it's pretty meaningless compared to these few relationships. Given X hours for maintaining friendships, I'd rather have fewer and better.
The article refers to Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" in conjunction with "strategic and propagandist" friendships. The book is often referenced in this manner but it's important to note that Carnegie emphasizes one's approach to friendship must be genuine -- anything less rings hollow and is easily spotted as fraud.
Having read Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" recently, long after I had heard of people recommending it left, right and centre I came to the conclusion that the book says more about the person who reads it and finds it revelatory than it does about society itself. If you believe the world works as the book lays out, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Just to add my non-sociopathic agreement, a friendship based on mutual respect is probably stronger than one just based on strongly liking each other (which is what most people mean by love).
Without getting too philosophical, I would say mutual respect is a more sincere form of love, anyway, so there isn't much difference.
The article dances around, but doesn't really say that people define friendship differently and segment their lives differently.
I have professional colleagues whom I consider good friends where we've established level of mutual trust, but our "closeness" is defined by what/where we're going things -- we have a level of trust that is very meaningful, but we mutually "pop" up/down to a higher/lower levels of friendship.
Well according to this article, now that I've moved, all my friends will inevitably become acquaintances. Of course making new true friends is much harder when you're older. Wow, depressing.
It's at least true for me. For example, I had someone that was probably my best friend that I hung out with at least once a week when he lived near me, and after he moved away, I'd like his Facebook posts but almost never reach out to talk to him. Except when he comes back into town, then I make a point to be available and we catch up. I also might go visit him next year sometime. But yeah, I haven't spoken to him in at least six months.
And now I have other friends nearby that I care about more and make an effort to hang out with on a regular basis.
And for that reason (amongst others), I am very hesitant to move away from this place, even though there are better job opportunities elsewhere in the country. I'm friends with quite a few people here, and I know I won't maintain those friendships hardly at all once I move away.
Reminds me of another study that came out in May. It reiterates what you said, but basically after you're out of school you stop making new friends, you prioritize who you consider a friend based on what their value is, etc.
The only way around it is to go waaaay out of your way to reverse it. Throw parties and shit even though you're way too old to stay up past 10pm. ;-)
That is an unfortunate truth of life. Some folks get lucky, but I don't think that is as common.
I don't think folks do this intentionally, however. Things change in life over time, and often it is difficult to keep on the same page. Over time, you just aren't there.
On the other hand, I'm not sure 'true' friends are all that common for anyone, so perhaps it is better to find a group that fills different sorts of needs instead. I have my spouse, who is my friend. Took some time after moving to make other friends, who might not be "true!, but they all add something positive to my life. I'll take that.
This has played out for me. A couple of friends moved away. We had kids and the ones that stayed didn't. I talk to one out of my four "close" friends on anything resembling a regular basis. I realized I hadn't spoke to one in 8 months.
If you have kids and your friends don't, expect that to put a strain on your friendship because you won't have time to spend the way you did once upon a time. You will plan more because your time is no longer free, just borrowed from your spouse or whoever else is watching your children. You will lose those serendipitous moments that form the contours of your relationship.
As an entrepreneur, I have found it really difficult to make friends. I have a business partner and a distributed team, it is extra hard to make new friends. If you work in an office, you come across people. I always found it easy to make friends at work and took it for granted. Now, it's nearly impossible to do. Then again, my mom has exactly zero friends and gets by so I have to imagine friendship is not a necessity.
This is very true though. My wife and I moved across the country, and making new friends was hard. We do not have kids, and are older so meeting other people our age without kids was tough. I was mostly okay with it, because I have always been fine being alone, but my wife struggled.
After 2 years we moved back. The friend issue was not the only reason, but was a big driver.
Anymore, my only "real" friends are my parents, my wife, and my pets (hopefully someday my kid). My wife tops the list, since she is the one who I can talk endlessly to, and knows when to tell me to shut up :-)
So many times I've heard that you're the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with, but then if you suck and go hang out with 5 awesome people all the time, don't you bring down their average?
Unless there's some kind of friendship time ponzi scheme where you can spend little time but still be top 5...
"Suck" isn't a single dimension. Usually in groups of friends, you end up sucking in a dimension that those friends don't care about, while bringing something to the group that they do.
I usually have the opposite problem: I'll consider myself a friend of a person, but that person thinks I don't like them. A common side effect of being factual/honest, unfortunately.
I'm old enough now to know what I do to annoy other people. I actively work on those things, so people who _are_ around me at least do not want to run away :)
I'm also old enough not to care if someone does not like me. Life is too short to be fake friendly, and some people just do not get along. I'm okay with that.
Perhaps social networking has changed how we define "friend", and some are adopting the new definition faster than others?
I have many connections, but very few real friends. I'm totally fulfilled by that though, and can't imagine having enough time (or the desire) to nurture more friendships. But when everyone has 500+ "friends" on Facebook, does 5 no longer seem like a large enough number to tell a researcher?
I also don't have any social networking accounts (besides LinkedIn), neither do my "real" friends. This could be because our anti-social(-network) temperaments are a part of what draws us together, but it could also mean that social(-network) butterflies are spreading themselves too thin to keep up with their expanded group of acquaintances.
Maybe it's a cliché, but it really seems to me rarely somebody does. Not "mature and adult" people anyway. Except for spouse, maybe. Maybe.
Why? Well, understanding implies there is something to understand, that implies feelings, generally. Big thoughts, sincere troubles. And "mature and adult" people are not about feelings, they are about business. They don't show their feelings and don't put their nose into others'. Especially in western, "civilized" countries: you are supposed to smile, you are supposed to be happy…ish. Everybody knows that "we don't need toxic people in our company", right? If you don't sport bright fake smile that's already "gloom", maybe impolitely so.
And now, with facebook and stuff everybody you need to speak occasionally to is a "friend". And I don't really mean it in a bad way (well, maybe a little I do): "friend" is just a word, it means what people mean by it, not what some psychologist (or even a dictionary) defines it to be.
So maybe you just need to use another word to suit this definition. I mean, if you say you don't have a "soulmate" it doesn't sound as surprising, right? Maybe sad, but not surprising, really.
Ugh, this headline asks a question that's not very fun to ponder. Especially considering Betteridge's law [1].
When it comes to male friends, I think part of the problem is that men—especially straight men—are bad at/afraid of expressing intimacy in platonic contexts, probably because of social conditioning and subconscious homophobia.
When I thought about the answer to the headline's question for my friends, the only "I don't know"s were men. My female friends have made it clear that they value my friendship; most of my male friends haven't, and I think I'm bad at expressing that to anyone of any gender.
Of course, maybe I'm just overgeneralizing my own experiences and/or my female friends are just better friends than my male friends.
Either way, good article. A lot of the not-news NYT stuff that gets posted on HN is crap, to be honest. This one really got me thinking and got me to churn out something wayyy more personal than I'd normally ever post here.
> Others point to a misunderstanding of the very notion of friendship in an age when “friend” is used as a verb, and social inclusion and exclusion are as easy as a swipe or a tap on a smartphone screen.
I realize it's just fluff for the intro of the article, but this is typical kids-today-and-their-loud-music-get-off-my-lawn garbage. Social media does in general make people more aware of more people's lives, but I doubt anyone actually believes that every single one of their Facebook friends is actually their friend.
Anyone I know, I usually refer to them as a "friend" in conversation, whether they are or not. The word "friend" does not mean much to me, considering I'm invariably stabbed in the back if someone becomes "good friends."
The size of the layers described in the article seems correct. The contact frequency as a measure of said friendship is not. My closest friend lives 1800 km away, we are in touch 5 times a year at most and still enjoy it very much, always looking forward to it.
[+] [-] rebeccaskinner|9 years ago|reply
After letting my mind spin in a tight loop about it for a while I decided that really it doesn't matter that much, because I'm happier liking people, and I can like someone and be friendly even irrespective of if they like me or not. Of course I'm not going to push my company on people who are clear that they don't want it, but it doesn't really do any good to second guess who actually cares for me and who is being polite.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|9 years ago|reply
Charles then tells Alice that Bob dislikes her which surprises Alice. (and is not actually the truth)
I got an opportunity to research workplace relations in depth and one of the courses cautioned about third party information for exactly this reason. They had surveyed several people and their supervisors about whether they "approved" or "disapproved" of one of their peers. When the survey was completely anonymous they got one answer but when the survey was said to be for their supervisor, the results skewed toward the supervisor's biases. The inference was that if a person's supervisor dislikes someone, the people they supervise are more likely to say they dislike that person to, regardless of their actual feelings. It can be seen as a loyalty reflex, or kissing up, it doesn't really matter, but if some supervisor tells you the people that work for them dislike you, the only information that offers is that the supervisor person dislikes you.
[+] [-] Vaskivo|9 years ago|reply
That is extremely mature, and shows great perception of the complications of our perceptions and social interactions. Congratulations on reaching that conclusion.
Ina semi related note, I try to keep my distance with coworkers. The added factor of work responsabilities and possible conflics would be harder to manage with a friendship or more added to the equations.
But I tend to compartmentalize my relationships, so there's that.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|9 years ago|reply
Ironically, this has made me appreciate the people who are openly jerky at work. At least they're open with the biases. There's probably something to be said about white collar workplace culture's default of "aren't we all just friends and teammates?" It seems to empower only the worst political players. At this point, I'd probably rather work with a bunch of jerks who are open with their biases than a bunch of 'office friendly' people who are only friendly because it serves them. There's a certain level of honesty with the jerks.
I also see this in myself. I've learned how to play up false modesty and the whole "Aren't we just pals" attitude, and I don't like it now that I'm self-aware of it. I don't know if I'm ready to become an full-on office jerk, but I'm probably half-way there now and life seems a lot easier when you're more open with your biases and honestly accept that most of your coworkers are adversaries, not teammates. I'm sure I'm more disliked, but disliked by people who would just turn on me anyway if push came to shove. I also invest much less mental energy into trying to be everyone's buddy and instead focus that on the work itself, anti-burn out strategies, leisure time, my creative projects, planning my next career move, etc.
I used to laugh at the grumpy gray-beards in IT. Now I see where they are coming from. The sooner the automation/robot revolution comes the better. Work is a zero-sum game that best serves the extremely dishonest. I don't know why we're so worried about moving into a post-work and post-scarcity society. The status quo is pretty terrible if we're being honest about it.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glenjamin|9 years ago|reply
That seems like quite a small sample, and I wouldn't expect business management students to be representative of the population as a whole.
It might still be true, but it's probably a bit early to write off all of your perceived friends as shallow fakes.
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply
If you asked me to name a group with the largest percentage of fake friendships, "college business management class" would be right up there with "popular clique in high school". So the topic is worth talking about, but I'll bet the number is skewed way to the high end.
[+] [-] redleggedfrog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StavrosK|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathan_long|9 years ago|reply
This was the part I found most interesting. They describe people you're in touch with daily or weekly as being in the "close friends" category.
Personally, I'm fortunate to have deep, meaningful, long-term friendships with my wife and one other friend, and a few other friends and family members I consider close even if we talk something more like "every couple months" - when we do, it's about important stuff. We freely say that we love each other, we hug, and I feel more relaxed and happy around them.
I'm tempted by stuff like being liked on social media, but when I think about it, it's pretty meaningless compared to these few relationships. Given X hours for maintaining friendships, I'd rather have fewer and better.
[+] [-] musha68k|9 years ago|reply
The problem to me seems to be Facebook's pervasive "friend" lingo (certainly not true in most cases) and a heavy cultural bias in that article.
[+] [-] ChrisBanner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rorykoehler|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jcadam|9 years ago|reply
Now, respect is another matter. If I had to choose, I'd rather be respected than loved.
[+] [-] Practicality|9 years ago|reply
Without getting too philosophical, I would say mutual respect is a more sincere form of love, anyway, so there isn't much difference.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
I came to that conclusion around 13 or 14. It's been a very pleasant and if I had to put it one way or the other, I'd say most people do like me.
> Now, respect is another matter. If I had to choose, I'd rather be respected than loved.
Love is good, respect is great, but fear is the one that gets results!
[+] [-] michael_h|9 years ago|reply
I guess we had better draw some general conclusions from such a robust sample then, shall we?
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
I have professional colleagues whom I consider good friends where we've established level of mutual trust, but our "closeness" is defined by what/where we're going things -- we have a level of trust that is very meaningful, but we mutually "pop" up/down to a higher/lower levels of friendship.
[+] [-] andrewclunn|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cableshaft|9 years ago|reply
And now I have other friends nearby that I care about more and make an effort to hang out with on a regular basis.
And for that reason (amongst others), I am very hesitant to move away from this place, even though there are better job opportunities elsewhere in the country. I'm friends with quite a few people here, and I know I won't maintain those friendships hardly at all once I move away.
[+] [-] inanutshellus|9 years ago|reply
The only way around it is to go waaaay out of your way to reverse it. Throw parties and shit even though you're way too old to stay up past 10pm. ;-)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/people-lose-friend...
[+] [-] Broken_Hippo|9 years ago|reply
I don't think folks do this intentionally, however. Things change in life over time, and often it is difficult to keep on the same page. Over time, you just aren't there.
On the other hand, I'm not sure 'true' friends are all that common for anyone, so perhaps it is better to find a group that fills different sorts of needs instead. I have my spouse, who is my friend. Took some time after moving to make other friends, who might not be "true!, but they all add something positive to my life. I'll take that.
[+] [-] partisan|9 years ago|reply
If you have kids and your friends don't, expect that to put a strain on your friendship because you won't have time to spend the way you did once upon a time. You will plan more because your time is no longer free, just borrowed from your spouse or whoever else is watching your children. You will lose those serendipitous moments that form the contours of your relationship.
As an entrepreneur, I have found it really difficult to make friends. I have a business partner and a distributed team, it is extra hard to make new friends. If you work in an office, you come across people. I always found it easy to make friends at work and took it for granted. Now, it's nearly impossible to do. Then again, my mom has exactly zero friends and gets by so I have to imagine friendship is not a necessity.
[+] [-] matwood|9 years ago|reply
After 2 years we moved back. The friend issue was not the only reason, but was a big driver.
[+] [-] new_hackers|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbanek|9 years ago|reply
So many times I've heard that you're the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with, but then if you suck and go hang out with 5 awesome people all the time, don't you bring down their average?
Unless there's some kind of friendship time ponzi scheme where you can spend little time but still be top 5...
[+] [-] nostrademons|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ysavir|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CPLX|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 7Z7|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matwood|9 years ago|reply
I'm also old enough not to care if someone does not like me. Life is too short to be fake friendly, and some people just do not get along. I'm okay with that.
[+] [-] DelaneyM|9 years ago|reply
I have many connections, but very few real friends. I'm totally fulfilled by that though, and can't imagine having enough time (or the desire) to nurture more friendships. But when everyone has 500+ "friends" on Facebook, does 5 no longer seem like a large enough number to tell a researcher?
I also don't have any social networking accounts (besides LinkedIn), neither do my "real" friends. This could be because our anti-social(-network) temperaments are a part of what draws us together, but it could also mean that social(-network) butterflies are spreading themselves too thin to keep up with their expanded group of acquaintances.
Eh, anecdata, take it for what it is.
[+] [-] SixSigma|9 years ago|reply
I mean, there's plenty about my friends I actively dislike but we have more binding us together than tearing us apart.
[+] [-] joestr87|9 years ago|reply
TIL I literally have no friends.
[+] [-] krick|9 years ago|reply
Why? Well, understanding implies there is something to understand, that implies feelings, generally. Big thoughts, sincere troubles. And "mature and adult" people are not about feelings, they are about business. They don't show their feelings and don't put their nose into others'. Especially in western, "civilized" countries: you are supposed to smile, you are supposed to be happy…ish. Everybody knows that "we don't need toxic people in our company", right? If you don't sport bright fake smile that's already "gloom", maybe impolitely so.
And now, with facebook and stuff everybody you need to speak occasionally to is a "friend". And I don't really mean it in a bad way (well, maybe a little I do): "friend" is just a word, it means what people mean by it, not what some psychologist (or even a dictionary) defines it to be.
So maybe you just need to use another word to suit this definition. I mean, if you say you don't have a "soulmate" it doesn't sound as surprising, right? Maybe sad, but not surprising, really.
[+] [-] justinlardinois|9 years ago|reply
Ugh, this headline asks a question that's not very fun to ponder. Especially considering Betteridge's law [1].
When it comes to male friends, I think part of the problem is that men—especially straight men—are bad at/afraid of expressing intimacy in platonic contexts, probably because of social conditioning and subconscious homophobia.
When I thought about the answer to the headline's question for my friends, the only "I don't know"s were men. My female friends have made it clear that they value my friendship; most of my male friends haven't, and I think I'm bad at expressing that to anyone of any gender. Of course, maybe I'm just overgeneralizing my own experiences and/or my female friends are just better friends than my male friends.
Either way, good article. A lot of the not-news NYT stuff that gets posted on HN is crap, to be honest. This one really got me thinking and got me to churn out something wayyy more personal than I'd normally ever post here.
> Others point to a misunderstanding of the very notion of friendship in an age when “friend” is used as a verb, and social inclusion and exclusion are as easy as a swipe or a tap on a smartphone screen.
I realize it's just fluff for the intro of the article, but this is typical kids-today-and-their-loud-music-get-off-my-lawn garbage. Social media does in general make people more aware of more people's lives, but I doubt anyone actually believes that every single one of their Facebook friends is actually their friend.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
[+] [-] helthanatos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] magic_beans|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] booleandilemma|9 years ago|reply
Honoré de Balzac
[+] [-] BrandoElFollito|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jksmith|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]