[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?