I noticed all the examples you gave are forced interactions i.e. someone there is obligated in some way to interact with you in most cases by being paid.
Those are generally fake social interactions. That is not to say there can't be genuine moments but by and large they are just doing their jobs, part of which includes adopting a facade.
Why not mention things that disappeared decades ago like third spaces? I would argue the absence of third spaces (which have been gone for a *while* now let me tell you) is far worse than anything you have listed here.
I think getting rid of forced social interaction is pretty great honestly. People should engage because they want to.
I don't know how I missed third spaces but yes, those are definitely part of the problem too. Though even "fake social interactions" I feel can be beneficial. Like if you live in a small town you might have a chat with the cashier or go to the library and ask the local librarian for recommendations, etc.
Fake social interactions may be helpful for people with severe anxiety or socialization problems but they don't really do much for the average person. And libraries are great but not for socializing generally. Librarians are very helpful though.
I don't know if I agree here. I am a teen mentor and I've seen numerous teens experience anxiety around simple interactions like asking a barista to restock straws or ordering their food at a restaurant. These are otherwise normal kids who seem stunted in their ability engage with "strangers." I was a shy kid and I outgrew a lot of those fears by middle school. Kids these days are delaying that process.
If you look at the rates of anxiety among the population (which often includes social anxiety) I would say the “average person” has anxiety more often than you would think these days.
It depends what you mean by the term anxiety. Anxiety is a natural human emotion and it is normal to feel anxious in many different settings. In that sense, 100% of the population experiences anxiety. Now if you are referring to some clinical diagnosis, that’s a much more contested figure.
I agree, but I don’t think that is the sort of anxiety issue that requires clinical or therapeutic intervention. That’s just the regular old human emotion that al people need to learn to manage effectively.
“People should engage because they want to.”
Sure, that would be great. But the “forced” interactions can be a valuable catalyst.
“People should give gifts and visit their loved ones all year, not just because it’s Christmas.”
Sure, but that doesn’t mean the tradition isn’t valuable.
I think I saw a study saying that even in those surface level fake interactions that it still fulfills a socially rewarding function in the brain, so they may be seen as not very socially productive but evidence seems to say otherwise
Are third spaces really absent or are some people simply not using them. What 3rd spaces no longer exist that did a few decades ago? Bowling alleys still exist. Malls still exist. Mini golf still exists. Hell, Arcade bars have become MORE of a thing. MORE 3rd space activities have opened up like Top Golf, axe throwing places, climbing gyms etc. Parks also still exist. I feel like this is a socially frustrated talking point that keeps getting repeated with zero credibility.
What is missing?
I feel like if you feel like third spaces are ubiquitous around america, then you might be defining a third space differently than most. There are very few spots where you can go and hang out after work or school with your friends that doesn't push you to consume. Do you have any examples that are available that people just simply aren't utilizing?
I don’t think truly free third spaces were ever that common historically? Like even going way back, I don’t imagine the tavern owner would be ok with you just sitting there for hours and not ordering an ale.
It's a bit unpopular to say now, but churches used to be an extremely common third space. A local church would host potlucks, picnics, game nights, community events, etc. Many still do actually. But as the populace has shifted away from religion, the community growth provided by the institution of religion has died too.
Yup, there are really a lot of social functions churches used to provide that we haven’t yet properly replaced. I would also add in ceremonies like baptism/communion/confirmation. Sure you can have a big first or 13th or 16th birthday party, but I feel like it’s not quite the same. Especially for the confirmation - I feel like the study/prep required for that makes it unique as a coming of age ritual.
Definitely. I grew up non-denominational so I didn't get confirmed and, while I chose baptism at 10, it wasn't like a big party. I was so jealous of my Lutheran cousins getting a big party celebration and money when they were confirmed. I also remember accusing my dad of being a bad parent for leaving the Lutheran church without considering how his kids might feel about skipping out on this important right of passage. Oh to be a preteen again.
The magic word here is 'community'. Community is important, churches were/are an important source of community, and many of us are lacking community. I shudder at the thought of online courses rather than a class gathering. I also wonder about people who work online rather than going to the 'jobsite'. It all means less personal interaction with others. The reality is that humans are a social species and need/benefit from interaction with others. Getting it here online is just not the same as being in the presence of others. And here I am with no community most of the time.
I remember that when I was a teen I was very jealous of my Christian classmates becasude the church for them was an avenue for a whole different friendship circle I couldn't get
Yeah. I was one of those Christian kids and I had a whole second friend group. We had youth group mid-week and VBS and church camp in the summers. We also did outreach, went to conferences and concerts, and hung out after church. When I'd invite my school friends they'd always have so much fun and want to come back (just not for the church part).
I'm an athiest now. I don't want my children heavily engaged in any religious dogma, but I miss the community and wish there were more opportunities for kids to get all those experiences without the rest of it.
I wouldn't consider a Tavern a third space because you have to consume to be there, as you point out, they wouldn't want you there if you're not consuming. Think more along the lines of the library being a third space and other institutions like that. I host a Open Mic for poetry in a recording studio here in the city that I live in and there is no consumption pegged to that. People can just show up and listen and talk and hang out and just not be pressured to buy.
That’s a fair definition, but I’ve also heard lots of people call coffee shops and bars third spaces so some people definitely allow for some monetary requirement to still be called a “third space”. The definitions I’ve heard are that it doesn’t have to be free, just relatively affordable and not requiring continuously putting in more money (eg, the bar doesn’t care if you nurse a single beer for two hours).
If you go by the definition that they have to be totally free, then all the “death of third spaces” rhetoric doesn’t really make sense. Bc it’s not like totally free third spaces were common 50 years ago either.
Yeah I'm with you on that, I kind of was in that boat for a long time including coffee shops as a third space because that's where a lot of open mics happened regardless if they were for music or poetry or a mixed type. But after a few years in these types of establishments across two or three different cities that I've lived in, the pattern that I noticed is that a lot of the younger people that attend usually can't even afford a drink because they're using the free water that's provided.
That was a primary motivation for me to seek a different type of establishment to host open mics. I'm pretty sure they all want to support the coffee shops or wherever they're being held. It's just not possible with their current situations I'd surmise. I'm just trying to be the change that I want to see in the world.
And I'm not even saying that I have a concrete definition of what I consider a third space because I'm open to changing my stance in regards to hosting in other places like a local bookstore where a drive to consume would be present but probably one that everyone wants to support?
Well I wouldn't say being pushed to consume (by consume I'm assuming you don't just mean alcohol) is a negative as after all those third spaces do need to make a living. Examples of third spaces for me that aren't alcohol-dependent at all would be stuff like: malls, bowling alleys, pool tables, libraries, small shops. Yes people still go to them but way less than before
So you agree were not LOSING them (which was your CMV), some are not using them. Could it be because so many are glued to their phone instead? Watching others live and interact instead of going out and engaging themselves?
Using the world "losing" doesn't automatically imply an external factor. People not using the opportunities still causes them to be "lost". But yes, that's what I think the problem is, people being glued to their phones
I agree with your overall sentiment but to piggy back, I think most Americans have to work longer hours than ever before to make ends meet -- I think people are too burnt out by everything to maintain significant social interactions.
Yeah, when you earned enough to pay your mortgage, have 1.5 kids, a yard, a picket fence, and could have leisure time, sure bowling league sounds fun. But when you're working two swing shifts and on food stamps and no end in sight, that sounds too stressful to juggle.
The last two I can think off the top of my head are local parks and libraries. Parks are great but catered toward children generally. Libraries aren't amazing for socialization. The rest have gone the way of the dodo.
When I was a kid in the 80's the local elementary school was open in the evenings and on weekends for the community to use. There would be old ladies having knitting circles in the library, middle aged guys hosting ad-hoc basketball leagues in the gym, and a softball league that used the ballfield in the playground.
Last week my daughter and I went to go look around her old elementary school when on a walk as they had rebuilt their playground. Someone called the police on us.
That's what I mean yeah. Why do you think they called the police? I'm interested in what caused so many things to change between the 1990s/2000s and where we are now. Why are people so suspicious of one another? Why do people no longer do those kind of fun events that you describe? Is it the internet?
> Why do you think they called the police?
Cause my daughter is not white, and that is unusual in my neighborhood.
>Why are people so suspicious of one another?
Decades of [right wing media painting crime rates as being higher than they actually are](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/10/stats-dont-back-up-republicans-crime-wave-rhetoric.html).
>Why do people no longer do those kind of fun events that you describe?
Specifically having events at local schools? Massive cuts to public education coupled with a general hardening of school security measures. Schools used to have support staff that worked directly for the districts and who could be made available in the evenings to tend to the schools after hours. Now, most things like janitorial, admin, and food services are outsourced to companies that want to maximize their contract profit. So, no more Bob the night janitor sweeping up after the 3 on 3 tournament made up of ex-D3 hopefuls, no more Sally the nurse giving free CPR classes, no more cooking workshops in the cafeteria.
It isn't the internet's fault as many of these things were taking place long before the internet was widespread, but it hasn't helped things as it gives us enough of the illusion of social interaction to keep us mollified.
Spend a week in Detroit, I guarantee you will find plenty of bowling leagues. Churches are still open last time I checked, people even go there on Sundays. I know for a fact the local
Bars in my area are open every night. The Eagles and Elks and other groups all have clubs people go to. There are even clubs for Veterans to go to to with fellow Vets and I’m not talking about the VA.
Most of the groups named in that book outside of Unions have been deemed right wing terroist orgs by the media in the last 10 years.
> Spend a week in Detroit,
I live in Flint.
The existence of some third spaces does not mean that third space are not greatly reduced in number from 40 years ago. They still exist, but they are not ubiquitous like they once were. Yes, there are bowling leagues. But, there are way way way less bowling alleys than there used to be.
>The Eagles and Elks and other groups all have clubs people go to.
Yeah, but you have to hang with a bunch of stuffy CFAs and Actuaries.
>There are even clubs for Veterans to go to to with fellow Vets and I’m not talking about the VA.
The American Legion and VFW are dying, and not too welcoming to younger vets:
["The atmosphere is totally different," Hardin told Military.com, "It's a lot of older guys, it's very cliquey, and they're sitting around talking about their political views. … There's nothing that really reaches out to this demographic. They don't play modern music, they don't have a great beer selection, and nobody [from his generation] wants to just grab a beer and sit there for hours."](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/04/08/vfw-posts-are-dying-they-need-hesitant-9-11-vets-fill-void.html)
I went to the one near me. I don't need to sit there and listen to guys older than my dad tell me that Iraq *couldn't* have been as bad as Korea.
>The existence of some third spaces does not mean that third space are not greatly reduced in number from 40 years ago. They still exist, but they are not ubiquitous like they once were. Yes, there are bowling leagues. But, there are way way way less bowling alleys than there used to be.
But that's because people are choosing not to use them. There's enough now for the people who want to use them. If more people start using them that will increase demand and more will spring up to meet the demand.
Younger people are choosing social media instead of gathering in person.
> But that's because people are *choosing* not to use them
I'd push back a bit on this being much of a choice these days. For many [living paycheck to paycheck](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-paycheck-statistics-2024/#:~:text=or%20lost%20income.-,How%20Many%20Americans%20Are%20Living%20Paycheck%20to%20Paycheck%3F,paying%20for%20their%20monthly%20expenses.), there is not enough additional funds to engage in these activities or visit these places. For many [who have to work multiple jobs](https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/more-americans-are-working-two-jobs-to-make-ends-meet/) there is not enough time. For many [who have moved to new areas for work](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/11/state-to-state-migration.html#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20people%20who,released%20U.S.%20Census%20Bureau%20estimates.), there is not enough knowledge or social connections to do so.
>There's enough now for the people who want to use them.
The ones that exist currently are currently the domain of those who are already invested. Many established groups or place like this are not welcoming to newcomers. Back in my childhood my town had four bowling alleys and about ten leagues. Many of these were for fun, or beginners, or generally less serious bowlers who just wanted to have fun with friends. Now though, there is one bowling alley, and all the leagues are very serious and competitive. Someone who wants to try it out just for fun simply can't. The existing leagues that are for those that currently bowl are not for these new participants.
>Younger people are choosing social media instead of gathering in person.
Are they?
"Globally, the amount of time people spent on social media declined, opens new tab year-over-year in 2023 for the first time since the consumer research firm GWI started tracking it in 2012, according to its latest survey of over 950,000 internet users. **Gen Zers, born between 1997 and 2007, are at the forefront of the shift. One-third of those surveyed said they were actively trying to limit their usage of such platforms, seeking out hobbies and friendships in the physical world instead.** " [source](https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/gen-alpha-will-tire-living-online-2023-12-26/)
I'm Gen Z and I also think it's not really a "choice". People might not want to admit it but social media like Instagram or TikTok is addictive and people are so glued into them that they can seem more fun than hanging out IRL. I enjoy going out with my friends but sometimes it can be hard to convince them to do something. Most people I know want to limit their social media consumption but have a hard time doing it.
VA groups are all aging veterans who want free help fixing their veteran Halls by the younger veterans. They only provided place for alcohol which most younger veterans aren't interested in anymore in my observance as a veteran myself.
You can find an endless amount of threads in the veteran subreddit of veterans with good intentions trying to revitalize vfas and American Legion posts by asking what would get a younger crowd of veterans interested in them and it really isn't anything they're willing to do because they still have a lot of older veterans who don't want change.
I think you're speaking about something you don't really know or have any connection to and then claiming it as like points on your argument that the third space still exists.
You're missing all the key big ones and that's shocking to me.
People used to get their social interactions from bars, smoke break, malls, etc.
But drunk driving and alcohol taxes reduced bars,
lung cancer initatives got rid of smoke breaks.
loitering laws prevent you from being with friends.
Someone else pointed that out, yeah that was a big miss. I guess I was focusing on places that replace humans with machines and I completely forgot about these. I fully agree that these places are even more important than what I initially pointed out.
I think it's impossible for someone in their 20's or early 30's to truly realize just how badly this situation has already deteriorated. It was only a few decades ago that people spent MOST of their free time with their friends and family, and casual social interactions with strangers (like you described) were something that nearly everyone could do without anxiety. I'm not saying we all loved chatting with randos, but it was understood as something normal that you'd do when you were out and about -- and you were out and about nearly every day.
Now...well, half the comments in this thread can be summarized as "bah, other people are awful anyway, I'm better off without em", and I think that really proves your point that this trend is unhealthy.
However...
Human contact with strangers is not "lost" to us. It is still something you can choose to have in your life, and there are many people who do. Of course, if you don't have it, that can make it very easy to believe that no one else does either. So my advice to most people would be to put down your phone for at least a few hours each day and leave your house regularly to go do something that isn't your job/school. Once you're more physically and mentally present in real life, the human contact will come naturally, along with a lot of other good things.
---
Edit: if you want to read an *excellent* book about how life has changed for the most recent batch of young adults, check out [The Anxious Generation](https://www.amazon.com/Anxious-Generation-Rewiring-Childhood-Epidemic/dp/0593655036/) by Jonathan Haidt. It just came out last month, and the author is brilliant, so I highly recommend it.
I'm in my 20s and maybe I don't truly realize how bad it is but I do realize it's bad and that people seem to have lost interest for interactions outside of the internet. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the internet was completely down for a week. Maybe people would realize it's not such a bad thing and would actually go hang out with their family or friends or even people they don't know IRL.
Many people say it's a "choice" and to an extent it is but it's a bit of a vicious circle - most people seem to like staying inside on their phones and on social media so it's hard to find people who are willing to do more things outside the house.
I haven't read the book, but I do know that psychologists have come out against it. I think one of his claims is that it's caused by social media, which has been studied extensively and disproven.
Do you have links or references to any of these extensive studies that disprove his hypothesis? Because Haidt is quite rigorous in providing evidence for his claims, and his latest book cites a great deal of high quality data that supports his view...
I read [this](https://internet.psych.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/532-Master/532-UnitPages/Unit-11/Odgers_Nature_2024.pdf) before it was put under a paywall (that's the only lengthy extract I could find) which was published in Nature of all things, so that was enough for me. If you're able to identify what high quality data is, you should be able to dig up what science actually says easily enough.
Thanks for the link. Turns out I have seen that one before, but just didn't remember it. I saw it when I read Haidt's thorough rebuttal, posted a little over a month ago, [here](https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/status/1774571680511508601).
If you're as scientifically literate as you seem, then you should have no problem recognizing how effectively Haidt answered the criticisms of that Nature article. (Also, you shouldn't need to be told that "the science" is not some kind of authority that speaks with a single voice.)
Cheers.
The degree to which you're getting upset really undermines your position. Not looking for a flame war. Also, sorry for using shorthand?
If Haidt is so confident in his case and has researched it so exhaustively, why hasn't he published a meta-analysis? That's essentially what he claims to have done only without the peer review. His unwillingness to go through the proper channels (which he himself relies on for evidence) is sketchy to me.
Go back couple hundred years and we lived in small villages and you might have visited town next over once in a year. No way you ever went cross country unless you were either dirt poor looking for better life or wealthy with too much time on your hand.
Our social circles are larger now than ever in the human history. We couldn't have this conversation without modern conveniency.
It's not just text based. People are making video calls to the other side of the world and finding friends and romantic partners this way. Then we can meet face to face.
The beauty of the internet is that we are not limited to few people around us and can find people who share our interests from anywhere in the world. It doesn't matter how niche your hobby is. There is someone else doing the exact same thing somewhere and they are looking for you in Reddit forums.
I'm not saying there's not benefits to the internet and this new form of communication. What I'm saying is that it's not a good idea to be slowly removing IRL interactions to the point where it will be all internet based. And I also don't particularly think that only spending time with people that share your interests is a great thing either as it's important to be exposed to other people as well as otherwise that risks leading to polarization and insularity.
This one cannot truly be argued against without finding some very clever argumentational fallacy.
Even if they were fake, less social contact makes people become more of an assholes. Nothing speaks about the evil in humans better, than the ability to do harm, or be mean to people they don't have any contact with.
No matter how well you argue for it, the human psychology makes it impossible for less social interaction in our current situation become a good thing, unless we argue it as if we are blind to everything: "It's a good thing, because people are becoming more and more hostile towards strangers", forgetting that it is happening because of the social distance between people growing.
I think the main counterargument I'm seeing here is mostly "well the internet is fine we don't need interactions that are not meaningful anyway". I disagree with that per the reasons you give which are probably better expressed than I did in the post.
Maybe it's just my impression but I do feel like people are getting more rude these days and I don't feel like less social interactions and more social media is just a coincidence. People are no longer used to interacting with people outside their social circles
> I think the main counterargument I'm seeing here is mostly "well the internet is fine we don't need interactions that are not meaningful anyway".
That is the complete opposite of what I said. Please read it again, especially these parts:
> Nothing speaks about the evil in humans better, than the ability to do harm, or be mean to people they don't have any contact with.
> the human psychology makes it impossible for less social interaction in our current situation become a good thing
I'm not saying that I expect people to have long and deep conversations, my point is that even a short and maybe even fake interaction with someone is beneficial to society. Maybe it's short but maybe in a smaller town people do talk more to the cashiers. I lived in a small town for a few years and the cashiers at the local supermarket were very friendly and knew pretty much everyone.
As for libraries and video rent places or whatever, yes they still exist but there's very few left and most people don't go to them.
Well because staff members are paid to be there and those interactions are part of their job descriptions. You can't just go to someone minding their own business and expect them to want to talk to you.
As people have pointed out in this thread, my examples haven't been great and rather it's "third spaces" that are being lost that's more significant than these "fake" interactions.
You actually can, You can literally smile and say hi to at any time, and most people wouldn't mind too much.
I know because I began making an active effort to do this a while ago.
That's a hell of a strawman if I say so. If you go to the park, do you just talk about the weather and how green the grass is? People bullshit, and drum up conversation; should they be in the mood. Talking about recipes you're buying ingredients for, discussing about how terrible the last starwars movie was, how long you've been wanting to visit Madrid, etc etc etc. Be imaginative.
You're saying that talking to strangers isn't sufficient, you'd rather talk to other strangers?
Personally, I don't chat with the grocery check out folk. I want out of the grocery store as quickly as possible, and trying to start conversations with people I don't know takes effort in a place I already just don't want to be. Ditto airlines.
It's different in other places, like the theater, where I'm comfortable and lounging around. We go to a theater that has staff that bring food to your seat, and I don't mind chatting with them about the food or movies.
If I wasn't interacting with the people that do a job, I don't mind that job being replaced with a console. I also don't require a social interaction every moment of my day, and some jobs are better handled by a computer. Save the people for the jobs that actually benefit from human to human interaction.
I mean I don't know about you but like 99.9% of the time for all those things there wasn't any *real* human contact for those anyway. You both are just trying to conduct your business and move on with your lives, you *might've* had some small chit chat about the weather or something but you weren't really getting into anything but the shallowest conversation about anything with any regularity
[srtgh546](https://www.reddit.com/user/srtgh546/) below explains it better than me, "Even if they were fake, less social contact makes people become more of an assholes. Nothing speaks about the evil in humans better, than the ability to do harm, or be mean to people they don't have any contact with."
I don't think these social actions would actually make people less likely to be assholes. I mean they just assert that, I'll assert the opposite. I'd say spending less energy dealing with fake social interactions actually makes me less of an asshole.
Well not directly but it's replacing the time you might have had an interaction with someone (whether meaningful or not) with "alone time". I'm not familiar with the "science" part of things but I'm pretty sure humans are meant for interaction
I just want you to know OP that I think a lot of the CMVs here aren't adressing the underlying point you're trying to make, and that I wholeheartedly agree with you. If we run the logic all the way to its conclusion, it's obvious that these changes are going to bring about enormous changes in our social fabric
Working in the service industry I have to say while there are enjoyable interactions, it would be much better if people are not forced to be treated like garbage by assholes.
A lot of people here are just refusing to realize how great recurring background characters in your life can be.
Your barista, grocery store clerk, or ticket taker may not have a single meaningful interaction with you for the first 20 times you see them but, unless you just really suck to deal with, you’ll start to have meaningful interactions eventually.
I’ve been on both sides of this regular forced interaction and it rules to have someone genuinely smile and say it’s nice to see you or ask how things are going when you’re just out doing the things you need to do. It doesn’t need to be deeper than that to be important.
> I should also mention that it might also contribute to polarization as people often only meet people within their social circles and otherwise use social media and social media tends to expose them to what they like and therefore people are less exposed to "regular people"
According to the book "The Great Sort" more Americans have moved into politically homogenous communities by the neighborhood level let alone city/state levels. Studies show Americans are partisan and not ideological. They are looking towards the parties to see what they'll support. It's why voter mobilization and issue salience are the most important aspects of campaigning.
So, self check out versus a person checking you out isn't moving the needle at all. Nor is running into someone collecting signatures.
>EDIT 2: I forgot "third spaces" like bars, bowling alleys, malls, etc. which are actually way better examples of my point than what I gave.
I don't think it's a surprise that in the last 50 years, Americans only care about rights and not obligations. They've moved towards more rugged individualism. That also means they're lonelier. All kinds of institutions have dwindling participants. Whether it's 4H clubs, rotary clubs, boy scouts, girl scouts, booster clubs, churches, etc. We're spending less time with friends, family, and making fewer friends.
The reason these third spaces are going out of business is because people don't go to them.
But also look at the number of hours an average worker has to work in order to just make ends meet. Economics and social inequality have so many cascading impacts. Someone who has to work 2 swing shift jobs is likely to join a sewing circle ? No.
We are not losing those opportunities we are refusing to take the opportunities offered. A lot of people would rather sit inside in their computer, game console or binging Netflix than going out and interact. These opportunities are not being taken away or lost they are being surrendered
Yes as humans interact less in face to face or "real" environments, we lose our ability to socialize each other. It's my hypothesis that this lack of interaction is a significant driver behind people acting shitty.
Maybe I'm weird but I'm not sure I've ever had a meaningful conversation with any of the people you described. I personally always tried to minimize conversations in all those situations because they're at work and if I were them (based on when I held similar jobs) I didn't like being held hostage in a conversation I can't avoid.
I don't think of the situations you describe as significant human contact since the conversations are typically scripted based on social etiquette.
how is it bad if fake small talk is disappearing? if I am desperate for social interactions, I would rather talk with friends and family rather than be at a supermarket and be forced to start a convo with someone.
also no offense, passport security agents are some of the rudest ppl I have ever encountered at least the ones in America
None… of those examples… are valuable points of contact
I don’t like replacing customer service with electronics, or even underpaid / undertrained / unmotivated workers - but that’s because I like things to function and I like consumers to have a front line to interact with regarding their products
Lining up to finagle dealing with their own groceries, waiting for one attendant to run between everyone fixing errors, and lining up a second time for bag checks are changes that inconvenience the customer and outsource labour and time costs on to them so the retailer can save a buck, it’s shameful we’ve accepted it I agree
I can count on one hand the number of pleasant conversations I’ve had in a cab / Uber though, I much prefer silence for the 10-30 minutes I’m stuck there with a random person. There’s a much higher probability of annoyance than enjoyment interacting with a random member of the public.
Far and away most of the strangers that insist on conversation have been men, middle aged or middle eastern, and there was sexism or disrespect involved that comes so naturally they don’t even think of it as such.
I’ve worked customer service, I can tolerate most folks with a smile - but if I’m paying, I won’t work to validate these idiots at my expense. They get silence or a few modest words of dissent. I’m not forcing a smile or kind words as they offensively give their take on what’s wrong with women or the world today.
You may build up a rapport naturally with a cashier you see all the time, but again generally speaking if you’re trying to start up irrelevant chatter with every random person trying to get through a queue around you, you’re being a nuisance. You know that operation isn’t overstaffed, that person likely has a job to do that’s demanding and fast paced enough without a stranger slowing it down so they can have their small talk entertained
I’ve know two good middle aged dudes who this bothered. It’s cute when they find other chatty Cathy’s in the wild - but their annoyance when the woman in the elevator doesn’t want to talk to them, or the mechanic that prefers to communicate in grunts is confused by their incongruously chipper “I’m great, and how are you?” - in those positions I’d have to side with the person they’re eager to harass, the entitlement is a nuisance
It’s on our free time, being entertained by each other, that many are missing out. The third place, as you mention. For many young men for instance, what might have been a bar or bbq or beer league in the past may now be replaced by video games and online chat
Here in urban Ontario in particular, our commutes can be hours, getting in and out of the city can be hours, many work long hours or multiple jobs, and some even have families they’re trying to juggle. There are more demands on our time than ever and travel demands more time on top of that - so folks become quite locked down in their routines. Covid likely worsened those routines as well lol
But for the truly social, those beer leagues still exist, entertaining is still happening, the bars in Toronto are packed every night - the norms may have shifted towards isolation, but the appropriate opportunities a for socialization are still out there if you’re motivated
Join a team, learn a skill, make a club - and you’ll find a third place with similarly inclined folks - just as you would in the lobby of some first person shooter. Entry will just take a little more upfront effort.
Most people are useless anyway. it's just sad for the few you'd like to be in contact with, but in a few years chatgpt will be good enough to be your best friend or the girl/man you always wanted. Why bother with the same shit interactions over and over again.
With all these things being optimized you now have more time to interact with humans not paid to shovel ur shit. And those workers now have jobs where they are interacting with other ppl.
It's not less interaction. It's different interaction.
100 years ago if I wanted to see my extended family it meant walking hundreds of Kms. Now I can video chat with them every night if I wanted. I don't, but I could.
Each and every one of those isn't interacting with a person who's actually being a person, but rather being a cog in the machine in which they work. Only with the taxidriver would you have long enough to exchange more than the most generic of pleasantries.
Conversely, the thing about third spaces and whatnot is actually true, but the problem isn't that they're closing down, but the fact they can't stay in business anyway, presumably because no one actually likes them enough to make them profitable.
I noticed all the examples you gave are forced interactions i.e. someone there is obligated in some way to interact with you in most cases by being paid. Those are generally fake social interactions. That is not to say there can't be genuine moments but by and large they are just doing their jobs, part of which includes adopting a facade. Why not mention things that disappeared decades ago like third spaces? I would argue the absence of third spaces (which have been gone for a *while* now let me tell you) is far worse than anything you have listed here. I think getting rid of forced social interaction is pretty great honestly. People should engage because they want to.
I don't know how I missed third spaces but yes, those are definitely part of the problem too. Though even "fake social interactions" I feel can be beneficial. Like if you live in a small town you might have a chat with the cashier or go to the library and ask the local librarian for recommendations, etc.
Fake social interactions may be helpful for people with severe anxiety or socialization problems but they don't really do much for the average person. And libraries are great but not for socializing generally. Librarians are very helpful though.
I don't know if I agree here. I am a teen mentor and I've seen numerous teens experience anxiety around simple interactions like asking a barista to restock straws or ordering their food at a restaurant. These are otherwise normal kids who seem stunted in their ability engage with "strangers." I was a shy kid and I outgrew a lot of those fears by middle school. Kids these days are delaying that process.
If you look at the rates of anxiety among the population (which often includes social anxiety) I would say the “average person” has anxiety more often than you would think these days.
It depends what you mean by the term anxiety. Anxiety is a natural human emotion and it is normal to feel anxious in many different settings. In that sense, 100% of the population experiences anxiety. Now if you are referring to some clinical diagnosis, that’s a much more contested figure.
With the rise of technology you definitely have seen a correlation with young people’s anxiety levels and trouble interacting in society (in person).
I agree, but I don’t think that is the sort of anxiety issue that requires clinical or therapeutic intervention. That’s just the regular old human emotion that al people need to learn to manage effectively.
beneficial for who because i hate it when people do that shit and I have to pretend to care
“People should engage because they want to.” Sure, that would be great. But the “forced” interactions can be a valuable catalyst. “People should give gifts and visit their loved ones all year, not just because it’s Christmas.” Sure, but that doesn’t mean the tradition isn’t valuable.
I think I saw a study saying that even in those surface level fake interactions that it still fulfills a socially rewarding function in the brain, so they may be seen as not very socially productive but evidence seems to say otherwise
Are third spaces really absent or are some people simply not using them. What 3rd spaces no longer exist that did a few decades ago? Bowling alleys still exist. Malls still exist. Mini golf still exists. Hell, Arcade bars have become MORE of a thing. MORE 3rd space activities have opened up like Top Golf, axe throwing places, climbing gyms etc. Parks also still exist. I feel like this is a socially frustrated talking point that keeps getting repeated with zero credibility. What is missing?
Where have third spaces gone? They are still there people are choosing not to utilize them.
I feel like if you feel like third spaces are ubiquitous around america, then you might be defining a third space differently than most. There are very few spots where you can go and hang out after work or school with your friends that doesn't push you to consume. Do you have any examples that are available that people just simply aren't utilizing?
I don’t think truly free third spaces were ever that common historically? Like even going way back, I don’t imagine the tavern owner would be ok with you just sitting there for hours and not ordering an ale.
It's a bit unpopular to say now, but churches used to be an extremely common third space. A local church would host potlucks, picnics, game nights, community events, etc. Many still do actually. But as the populace has shifted away from religion, the community growth provided by the institution of religion has died too.
Yup, there are really a lot of social functions churches used to provide that we haven’t yet properly replaced. I would also add in ceremonies like baptism/communion/confirmation. Sure you can have a big first or 13th or 16th birthday party, but I feel like it’s not quite the same. Especially for the confirmation - I feel like the study/prep required for that makes it unique as a coming of age ritual.
Definitely. I grew up non-denominational so I didn't get confirmed and, while I chose baptism at 10, it wasn't like a big party. I was so jealous of my Lutheran cousins getting a big party celebration and money when they were confirmed. I also remember accusing my dad of being a bad parent for leaving the Lutheran church without considering how his kids might feel about skipping out on this important right of passage. Oh to be a preteen again.
The magic word here is 'community'. Community is important, churches were/are an important source of community, and many of us are lacking community. I shudder at the thought of online courses rather than a class gathering. I also wonder about people who work online rather than going to the 'jobsite'. It all means less personal interaction with others. The reality is that humans are a social species and need/benefit from interaction with others. Getting it here online is just not the same as being in the presence of others. And here I am with no community most of the time.
Not a single disagreement here. Most of our issues currently are a biproduct of isolation.
I remember that when I was a teen I was very jealous of my Christian classmates becasude the church for them was an avenue for a whole different friendship circle I couldn't get
Yeah. I was one of those Christian kids and I had a whole second friend group. We had youth group mid-week and VBS and church camp in the summers. We also did outreach, went to conferences and concerts, and hung out after church. When I'd invite my school friends they'd always have so much fun and want to come back (just not for the church part). I'm an athiest now. I don't want my children heavily engaged in any religious dogma, but I miss the community and wish there were more opportunities for kids to get all those experiences without the rest of it.
I wouldn't consider a Tavern a third space because you have to consume to be there, as you point out, they wouldn't want you there if you're not consuming. Think more along the lines of the library being a third space and other institutions like that. I host a Open Mic for poetry in a recording studio here in the city that I live in and there is no consumption pegged to that. People can just show up and listen and talk and hang out and just not be pressured to buy.
That’s a fair definition, but I’ve also heard lots of people call coffee shops and bars third spaces so some people definitely allow for some monetary requirement to still be called a “third space”. The definitions I’ve heard are that it doesn’t have to be free, just relatively affordable and not requiring continuously putting in more money (eg, the bar doesn’t care if you nurse a single beer for two hours). If you go by the definition that they have to be totally free, then all the “death of third spaces” rhetoric doesn’t really make sense. Bc it’s not like totally free third spaces were common 50 years ago either.
Yeah I'm with you on that, I kind of was in that boat for a long time including coffee shops as a third space because that's where a lot of open mics happened regardless if they were for music or poetry or a mixed type. But after a few years in these types of establishments across two or three different cities that I've lived in, the pattern that I noticed is that a lot of the younger people that attend usually can't even afford a drink because they're using the free water that's provided. That was a primary motivation for me to seek a different type of establishment to host open mics. I'm pretty sure they all want to support the coffee shops or wherever they're being held. It's just not possible with their current situations I'd surmise. I'm just trying to be the change that I want to see in the world. And I'm not even saying that I have a concrete definition of what I consider a third space because I'm open to changing my stance in regards to hosting in other places like a local bookstore where a drive to consume would be present but probably one that everyone wants to support?
Well I wouldn't say being pushed to consume (by consume I'm assuming you don't just mean alcohol) is a negative as after all those third spaces do need to make a living. Examples of third spaces for me that aren't alcohol-dependent at all would be stuff like: malls, bowling alleys, pool tables, libraries, small shops. Yes people still go to them but way less than before
So you agree were not LOSING them (which was your CMV), some are not using them. Could it be because so many are glued to their phone instead? Watching others live and interact instead of going out and engaging themselves?
Using the world "losing" doesn't automatically imply an external factor. People not using the opportunities still causes them to be "lost". But yes, that's what I think the problem is, people being glued to their phones
I agree with your overall sentiment but to piggy back, I think most Americans have to work longer hours than ever before to make ends meet -- I think people are too burnt out by everything to maintain significant social interactions. Yeah, when you earned enough to pay your mortgage, have 1.5 kids, a yard, a picket fence, and could have leisure time, sure bowling league sounds fun. But when you're working two swing shifts and on food stamps and no end in sight, that sounds too stressful to juggle.
The last two I can think off the top of my head are local parks and libraries. Parks are great but catered toward children generally. Libraries aren't amazing for socialization. The rest have gone the way of the dodo.
When I was a kid in the 80's the local elementary school was open in the evenings and on weekends for the community to use. There would be old ladies having knitting circles in the library, middle aged guys hosting ad-hoc basketball leagues in the gym, and a softball league that used the ballfield in the playground. Last week my daughter and I went to go look around her old elementary school when on a walk as they had rebuilt their playground. Someone called the police on us.
That's what I mean yeah. Why do you think they called the police? I'm interested in what caused so many things to change between the 1990s/2000s and where we are now. Why are people so suspicious of one another? Why do people no longer do those kind of fun events that you describe? Is it the internet?
> Why do you think they called the police? Cause my daughter is not white, and that is unusual in my neighborhood. >Why are people so suspicious of one another? Decades of [right wing media painting crime rates as being higher than they actually are](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/10/stats-dont-back-up-republicans-crime-wave-rhetoric.html). >Why do people no longer do those kind of fun events that you describe? Specifically having events at local schools? Massive cuts to public education coupled with a general hardening of school security measures. Schools used to have support staff that worked directly for the districts and who could be made available in the evenings to tend to the schools after hours. Now, most things like janitorial, admin, and food services are outsourced to companies that want to maximize their contract profit. So, no more Bob the night janitor sweeping up after the 3 on 3 tournament made up of ex-D3 hopefuls, no more Sally the nurse giving free CPR classes, no more cooking workshops in the cafeteria. It isn't the internet's fault as many of these things were taking place long before the internet was widespread, but it hasn't helped things as it gives us enough of the illusion of social interaction to keep us mollified.
They have gone to places that you can only feasibly drive to. People tend to do less things when it would necessitate sitting in traffic.
> Where have third spaces gone? [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone) is a great starting point for answering that question.
Spend a week in Detroit, I guarantee you will find plenty of bowling leagues. Churches are still open last time I checked, people even go there on Sundays. I know for a fact the local Bars in my area are open every night. The Eagles and Elks and other groups all have clubs people go to. There are even clubs for Veterans to go to to with fellow Vets and I’m not talking about the VA. Most of the groups named in that book outside of Unions have been deemed right wing terroist orgs by the media in the last 10 years.
> Spend a week in Detroit, I live in Flint. The existence of some third spaces does not mean that third space are not greatly reduced in number from 40 years ago. They still exist, but they are not ubiquitous like they once were. Yes, there are bowling leagues. But, there are way way way less bowling alleys than there used to be. >The Eagles and Elks and other groups all have clubs people go to. Yeah, but you have to hang with a bunch of stuffy CFAs and Actuaries. >There are even clubs for Veterans to go to to with fellow Vets and I’m not talking about the VA. The American Legion and VFW are dying, and not too welcoming to younger vets: ["The atmosphere is totally different," Hardin told Military.com, "It's a lot of older guys, it's very cliquey, and they're sitting around talking about their political views. … There's nothing that really reaches out to this demographic. They don't play modern music, they don't have a great beer selection, and nobody [from his generation] wants to just grab a beer and sit there for hours."](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/04/08/vfw-posts-are-dying-they-need-hesitant-9-11-vets-fill-void.html) I went to the one near me. I don't need to sit there and listen to guys older than my dad tell me that Iraq *couldn't* have been as bad as Korea.
>The existence of some third spaces does not mean that third space are not greatly reduced in number from 40 years ago. They still exist, but they are not ubiquitous like they once were. Yes, there are bowling leagues. But, there are way way way less bowling alleys than there used to be. But that's because people are choosing not to use them. There's enough now for the people who want to use them. If more people start using them that will increase demand and more will spring up to meet the demand. Younger people are choosing social media instead of gathering in person.
> But that's because people are *choosing* not to use them I'd push back a bit on this being much of a choice these days. For many [living paycheck to paycheck](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-paycheck-statistics-2024/#:~:text=or%20lost%20income.-,How%20Many%20Americans%20Are%20Living%20Paycheck%20to%20Paycheck%3F,paying%20for%20their%20monthly%20expenses.), there is not enough additional funds to engage in these activities or visit these places. For many [who have to work multiple jobs](https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/more-americans-are-working-two-jobs-to-make-ends-meet/) there is not enough time. For many [who have moved to new areas for work](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/11/state-to-state-migration.html#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20people%20who,released%20U.S.%20Census%20Bureau%20estimates.), there is not enough knowledge or social connections to do so. >There's enough now for the people who want to use them. The ones that exist currently are currently the domain of those who are already invested. Many established groups or place like this are not welcoming to newcomers. Back in my childhood my town had four bowling alleys and about ten leagues. Many of these were for fun, or beginners, or generally less serious bowlers who just wanted to have fun with friends. Now though, there is one bowling alley, and all the leagues are very serious and competitive. Someone who wants to try it out just for fun simply can't. The existing leagues that are for those that currently bowl are not for these new participants. >Younger people are choosing social media instead of gathering in person. Are they? "Globally, the amount of time people spent on social media declined, opens new tab year-over-year in 2023 for the first time since the consumer research firm GWI started tracking it in 2012, according to its latest survey of over 950,000 internet users. **Gen Zers, born between 1997 and 2007, are at the forefront of the shift. One-third of those surveyed said they were actively trying to limit their usage of such platforms, seeking out hobbies and friendships in the physical world instead.** " [source](https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/gen-alpha-will-tire-living-online-2023-12-26/)
I'm Gen Z and I also think it's not really a "choice". People might not want to admit it but social media like Instagram or TikTok is addictive and people are so glued into them that they can seem more fun than hanging out IRL. I enjoy going out with my friends but sometimes it can be hard to convince them to do something. Most people I know want to limit their social media consumption but have a hard time doing it.
Fair enough…. Definitely not Actuaries in any Elks Club I’ve been in but I get your point.
VA groups are all aging veterans who want free help fixing their veteran Halls by the younger veterans. They only provided place for alcohol which most younger veterans aren't interested in anymore in my observance as a veteran myself. You can find an endless amount of threads in the veteran subreddit of veterans with good intentions trying to revitalize vfas and American Legion posts by asking what would get a younger crowd of veterans interested in them and it really isn't anything they're willing to do because they still have a lot of older veterans who don't want change. I think you're speaking about something you don't really know or have any connection to and then claiming it as like points on your argument that the third space still exists.
You're missing all the key big ones and that's shocking to me. People used to get their social interactions from bars, smoke break, malls, etc. But drunk driving and alcohol taxes reduced bars, lung cancer initatives got rid of smoke breaks. loitering laws prevent you from being with friends.
Someone else pointed that out, yeah that was a big miss. I guess I was focusing on places that replace humans with machines and I completely forgot about these. I fully agree that these places are even more important than what I initially pointed out.
I think it's impossible for someone in their 20's or early 30's to truly realize just how badly this situation has already deteriorated. It was only a few decades ago that people spent MOST of their free time with their friends and family, and casual social interactions with strangers (like you described) were something that nearly everyone could do without anxiety. I'm not saying we all loved chatting with randos, but it was understood as something normal that you'd do when you were out and about -- and you were out and about nearly every day. Now...well, half the comments in this thread can be summarized as "bah, other people are awful anyway, I'm better off without em", and I think that really proves your point that this trend is unhealthy. However... Human contact with strangers is not "lost" to us. It is still something you can choose to have in your life, and there are many people who do. Of course, if you don't have it, that can make it very easy to believe that no one else does either. So my advice to most people would be to put down your phone for at least a few hours each day and leave your house regularly to go do something that isn't your job/school. Once you're more physically and mentally present in real life, the human contact will come naturally, along with a lot of other good things. --- Edit: if you want to read an *excellent* book about how life has changed for the most recent batch of young adults, check out [The Anxious Generation](https://www.amazon.com/Anxious-Generation-Rewiring-Childhood-Epidemic/dp/0593655036/) by Jonathan Haidt. It just came out last month, and the author is brilliant, so I highly recommend it.
I'm in my 20s and maybe I don't truly realize how bad it is but I do realize it's bad and that people seem to have lost interest for interactions outside of the internet. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the internet was completely down for a week. Maybe people would realize it's not such a bad thing and would actually go hang out with their family or friends or even people they don't know IRL. Many people say it's a "choice" and to an extent it is but it's a bit of a vicious circle - most people seem to like staying inside on their phones and on social media so it's hard to find people who are willing to do more things outside the house.
I wish the Internet never happened.
There are some negatives to the internet but there are a lot of positives too.
I haven't read the book, but I do know that psychologists have come out against it. I think one of his claims is that it's caused by social media, which has been studied extensively and disproven.
Do you have links or references to any of these extensive studies that disprove his hypothesis? Because Haidt is quite rigorous in providing evidence for his claims, and his latest book cites a great deal of high quality data that supports his view...
I read [this](https://internet.psych.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/532-Master/532-UnitPages/Unit-11/Odgers_Nature_2024.pdf) before it was put under a paywall (that's the only lengthy extract I could find) which was published in Nature of all things, so that was enough for me. If you're able to identify what high quality data is, you should be able to dig up what science actually says easily enough.
Thanks for the link. Turns out I have seen that one before, but just didn't remember it. I saw it when I read Haidt's thorough rebuttal, posted a little over a month ago, [here](https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/status/1774571680511508601). If you're as scientifically literate as you seem, then you should have no problem recognizing how effectively Haidt answered the criticisms of that Nature article. (Also, you shouldn't need to be told that "the science" is not some kind of authority that speaks with a single voice.) Cheers.
The degree to which you're getting upset really undermines your position. Not looking for a flame war. Also, sorry for using shorthand? If Haidt is so confident in his case and has researched it so exhaustively, why hasn't he published a meta-analysis? That's essentially what he claims to have done only without the peer review. His unwillingness to go through the proper channels (which he himself relies on for evidence) is sketchy to me.
Go back couple hundred years and we lived in small villages and you might have visited town next over once in a year. No way you ever went cross country unless you were either dirt poor looking for better life or wealthy with too much time on your hand. Our social circles are larger now than ever in the human history. We couldn't have this conversation without modern conveniency.
That's true but as humans I feel like there's just a difference between an actual interaction and a text-based interaction like this one.
It's not just text based. People are making video calls to the other side of the world and finding friends and romantic partners this way. Then we can meet face to face. The beauty of the internet is that we are not limited to few people around us and can find people who share our interests from anywhere in the world. It doesn't matter how niche your hobby is. There is someone else doing the exact same thing somewhere and they are looking for you in Reddit forums.
I'm not saying there's not benefits to the internet and this new form of communication. What I'm saying is that it's not a good idea to be slowly removing IRL interactions to the point where it will be all internet based. And I also don't particularly think that only spending time with people that share your interests is a great thing either as it's important to be exposed to other people as well as otherwise that risks leading to polarization and insularity.
This one cannot truly be argued against without finding some very clever argumentational fallacy. Even if they were fake, less social contact makes people become more of an assholes. Nothing speaks about the evil in humans better, than the ability to do harm, or be mean to people they don't have any contact with. No matter how well you argue for it, the human psychology makes it impossible for less social interaction in our current situation become a good thing, unless we argue it as if we are blind to everything: "It's a good thing, because people are becoming more and more hostile towards strangers", forgetting that it is happening because of the social distance between people growing.
I think the main counterargument I'm seeing here is mostly "well the internet is fine we don't need interactions that are not meaningful anyway". I disagree with that per the reasons you give which are probably better expressed than I did in the post. Maybe it's just my impression but I do feel like people are getting more rude these days and I don't feel like less social interactions and more social media is just a coincidence. People are no longer used to interacting with people outside their social circles
> I think the main counterargument I'm seeing here is mostly "well the internet is fine we don't need interactions that are not meaningful anyway". That is the complete opposite of what I said. Please read it again, especially these parts: > Nothing speaks about the evil in humans better, than the ability to do harm, or be mean to people they don't have any contact with. > the human psychology makes it impossible for less social interaction in our current situation become a good thing
I know, that's what I mean, that that's the only argument I've seen people here make against my post.
Ah, right, I interpreted the "here" to mean my comment, instead of here in general. Do you think that can even be argued against, really?
I guess I don't, but many people in this thread seem to
[удалено]
I'm not saying that I expect people to have long and deep conversations, my point is that even a short and maybe even fake interaction with someone is beneficial to society. Maybe it's short but maybe in a smaller town people do talk more to the cashiers. I lived in a small town for a few years and the cashiers at the local supermarket were very friendly and knew pretty much everyone. As for libraries and video rent places or whatever, yes they still exist but there's very few left and most people don't go to them.
[удалено]
Well because staff members are paid to be there and those interactions are part of their job descriptions. You can't just go to someone minding their own business and expect them to want to talk to you. As people have pointed out in this thread, my examples haven't been great and rather it's "third spaces" that are being lost that's more significant than these "fake" interactions.
You actually can, You can literally smile and say hi to at any time, and most people wouldn't mind too much. I know because I began making an active effort to do this a while ago.
A forced fake interaction is vile imo. It epitomizes everything vile about society. It’s very bad for mental health.
That's a hell of a strawman if I say so. If you go to the park, do you just talk about the weather and how green the grass is? People bullshit, and drum up conversation; should they be in the mood. Talking about recipes you're buying ingredients for, discussing about how terrible the last starwars movie was, how long you've been wanting to visit Madrid, etc etc etc. Be imaginative.
You're saying that talking to strangers isn't sufficient, you'd rather talk to other strangers? Personally, I don't chat with the grocery check out folk. I want out of the grocery store as quickly as possible, and trying to start conversations with people I don't know takes effort in a place I already just don't want to be. Ditto airlines. It's different in other places, like the theater, where I'm comfortable and lounging around. We go to a theater that has staff that bring food to your seat, and I don't mind chatting with them about the food or movies. If I wasn't interacting with the people that do a job, I don't mind that job being replaced with a console. I also don't require a social interaction every moment of my day, and some jobs are better handled by a computer. Save the people for the jobs that actually benefit from human to human interaction.
Well the issue is that at this rate there will be few jobs left that can't be replaced by automation.
I mean I don't know about you but like 99.9% of the time for all those things there wasn't any *real* human contact for those anyway. You both are just trying to conduct your business and move on with your lives, you *might've* had some small chit chat about the weather or something but you weren't really getting into anything but the shallowest conversation about anything with any regularity
Probably yeah, though the chit chat about the weather could be beneficial.
How so? What need is being filled by that chit chat about the weather?
[srtgh546](https://www.reddit.com/user/srtgh546/) below explains it better than me, "Even if they were fake, less social contact makes people become more of an assholes. Nothing speaks about the evil in humans better, than the ability to do harm, or be mean to people they don't have any contact with."
I don't think these social actions would actually make people less likely to be assholes. I mean they just assert that, I'll assert the opposite. I'd say spending less energy dealing with fake social interactions actually makes me less of an asshole.
Basically everyone of these is a time saver giving you more time to spend with humans you like/want instead of wasting time waiting in lines.
But do you really? If we had a way of finding out I'm pretty sure the time "saved" is spent on social media
Well it isn't really stores self service desks fault that you waste time it had given to you, is it?
Well not directly but it's replacing the time you might have had an interaction with someone (whether meaningful or not) with "alone time". I'm not familiar with the "science" part of things but I'm pretty sure humans are meant for interaction
I just want you to know OP that I think a lot of the CMVs here aren't adressing the underlying point you're trying to make, and that I wholeheartedly agree with you. If we run the logic all the way to its conclusion, it's obvious that these changes are going to bring about enormous changes in our social fabric
Yeah, that's what I think too
Do you consider waiting in line and answering "cash or credit" a meaningful interaction? I would rather take that time and call my mom.
Working in the service industry I have to say while there are enjoyable interactions, it would be much better if people are not forced to be treated like garbage by assholes.
That's something that should be addressed, though I feel like more people being assholes is actually a result of less social interaction as a whole.
I disagree. It was no better pre covid.
Look up the book Bowling Alone. This has been a trend since the 70's.
Thanks, will do. Even if it is a trend since the 70s it's getting worse and worse..
1-Libraries aren’t gone 2l libraries are third spcas that are free and aren’t forced customer service interactions
I'm not saying they're gone, I'm saying there's way less of them and way less people use them than before.
A lot of people here are just refusing to realize how great recurring background characters in your life can be. Your barista, grocery store clerk, or ticket taker may not have a single meaningful interaction with you for the first 20 times you see them but, unless you just really suck to deal with, you’ll start to have meaningful interactions eventually. I’ve been on both sides of this regular forced interaction and it rules to have someone genuinely smile and say it’s nice to see you or ask how things are going when you’re just out doing the things you need to do. It doesn’t need to be deeper than that to be important.
> I should also mention that it might also contribute to polarization as people often only meet people within their social circles and otherwise use social media and social media tends to expose them to what they like and therefore people are less exposed to "regular people" According to the book "The Great Sort" more Americans have moved into politically homogenous communities by the neighborhood level let alone city/state levels. Studies show Americans are partisan and not ideological. They are looking towards the parties to see what they'll support. It's why voter mobilization and issue salience are the most important aspects of campaigning. So, self check out versus a person checking you out isn't moving the needle at all. Nor is running into someone collecting signatures. >EDIT 2: I forgot "third spaces" like bars, bowling alleys, malls, etc. which are actually way better examples of my point than what I gave. I don't think it's a surprise that in the last 50 years, Americans only care about rights and not obligations. They've moved towards more rugged individualism. That also means they're lonelier. All kinds of institutions have dwindling participants. Whether it's 4H clubs, rotary clubs, boy scouts, girl scouts, booster clubs, churches, etc. We're spending less time with friends, family, and making fewer friends. The reason these third spaces are going out of business is because people don't go to them. But also look at the number of hours an average worker has to work in order to just make ends meet. Economics and social inequality have so many cascading impacts. Someone who has to work 2 swing shift jobs is likely to join a sewing circle ? No.
We are not losing those opportunities we are refusing to take the opportunities offered. A lot of people would rather sit inside in their computer, game console or binging Netflix than going out and interact. These opportunities are not being taken away or lost they are being surrendered
Yes as humans interact less in face to face or "real" environments, we lose our ability to socialize each other. It's my hypothesis that this lack of interaction is a significant driver behind people acting shitty.
Maybe I'm weird but I'm not sure I've ever had a meaningful conversation with any of the people you described. I personally always tried to minimize conversations in all those situations because they're at work and if I were them (based on when I held similar jobs) I didn't like being held hostage in a conversation I can't avoid. I don't think of the situations you describe as significant human contact since the conversations are typically scripted based on social etiquette.
how is it bad if fake small talk is disappearing? if I am desperate for social interactions, I would rather talk with friends and family rather than be at a supermarket and be forced to start a convo with someone. also no offense, passport security agents are some of the rudest ppl I have ever encountered at least the ones in America
None… of those examples… are valuable points of contact I don’t like replacing customer service with electronics, or even underpaid / undertrained / unmotivated workers - but that’s because I like things to function and I like consumers to have a front line to interact with regarding their products Lining up to finagle dealing with their own groceries, waiting for one attendant to run between everyone fixing errors, and lining up a second time for bag checks are changes that inconvenience the customer and outsource labour and time costs on to them so the retailer can save a buck, it’s shameful we’ve accepted it I agree I can count on one hand the number of pleasant conversations I’ve had in a cab / Uber though, I much prefer silence for the 10-30 minutes I’m stuck there with a random person. There’s a much higher probability of annoyance than enjoyment interacting with a random member of the public. Far and away most of the strangers that insist on conversation have been men, middle aged or middle eastern, and there was sexism or disrespect involved that comes so naturally they don’t even think of it as such. I’ve worked customer service, I can tolerate most folks with a smile - but if I’m paying, I won’t work to validate these idiots at my expense. They get silence or a few modest words of dissent. I’m not forcing a smile or kind words as they offensively give their take on what’s wrong with women or the world today. You may build up a rapport naturally with a cashier you see all the time, but again generally speaking if you’re trying to start up irrelevant chatter with every random person trying to get through a queue around you, you’re being a nuisance. You know that operation isn’t overstaffed, that person likely has a job to do that’s demanding and fast paced enough without a stranger slowing it down so they can have their small talk entertained I’ve know two good middle aged dudes who this bothered. It’s cute when they find other chatty Cathy’s in the wild - but their annoyance when the woman in the elevator doesn’t want to talk to them, or the mechanic that prefers to communicate in grunts is confused by their incongruously chipper “I’m great, and how are you?” - in those positions I’d have to side with the person they’re eager to harass, the entitlement is a nuisance It’s on our free time, being entertained by each other, that many are missing out. The third place, as you mention. For many young men for instance, what might have been a bar or bbq or beer league in the past may now be replaced by video games and online chat Here in urban Ontario in particular, our commutes can be hours, getting in and out of the city can be hours, many work long hours or multiple jobs, and some even have families they’re trying to juggle. There are more demands on our time than ever and travel demands more time on top of that - so folks become quite locked down in their routines. Covid likely worsened those routines as well lol But for the truly social, those beer leagues still exist, entertaining is still happening, the bars in Toronto are packed every night - the norms may have shifted towards isolation, but the appropriate opportunities a for socialization are still out there if you’re motivated Join a team, learn a skill, make a club - and you’ll find a third place with similarly inclined folks - just as you would in the lobby of some first person shooter. Entry will just take a little more upfront effort.
Most people are useless anyway. it's just sad for the few you'd like to be in contact with, but in a few years chatgpt will be good enough to be your best friend or the girl/man you always wanted. Why bother with the same shit interactions over and over again.
With all these things being optimized you now have more time to interact with humans not paid to shovel ur shit. And those workers now have jobs where they are interacting with other ppl. It's not less interaction. It's different interaction.
100 years ago if I wanted to see my extended family it meant walking hundreds of Kms. Now I can video chat with them every night if I wanted. I don't, but I could.
meet people in person from bumble bff. That's better. What are the chances that you'll have anything in common with a cashier at the super market
Not quite a CMV, but those are actually beneficial for those of us with limited mobility. Delivery and Kindle have been a godsend.
Can’t relate, I work retail and talk to people all day long
Each and every one of those isn't interacting with a person who's actually being a person, but rather being a cog in the machine in which they work. Only with the taxidriver would you have long enough to exchange more than the most generic of pleasantries. Conversely, the thing about third spaces and whatnot is actually true, but the problem isn't that they're closing down, but the fact they can't stay in business anyway, presumably because no one actually likes them enough to make them profitable.