I agree with the argument the author presents. As an infrastructure-obsessed person, I am contractually obligated to add that many modern Western individualistic tendencies reinforced by...
Exemplary
I agree with the argument the author presents. As an infrastructure-obsessed person, I am contractually obligated to add that many modern Western individualistic tendencies reinforced by infrastructure and adjacent policy enforce isolation. Examples include:
Living in detached, single-family housing with a social expectation not to house elderly relatives ("the village") who might provide emotional support structures
Euclidean zoning models which separate housing from other amenities and therefore artificially induce the need for long, isolated travel times and significantly raise costs. These models also make communal or community-oriented "third places" extremely difficult to create naturally, reinforcing individualistic social isolation and antisocial libertarianism
Remaining encapsulated in motor vehicles along arterial roads instead of interacting with neighbors on the street and along transit routes, as is infinitely more likely as a pedestrian
In the United States, a lack of socialized healthcare and other necessities increases medical costs and by extension the amount of time people have to spend working and commuting (in an isolated manner)
In all industrialized capitalistic countries, a perception that the acquisition of material goods is paramount and further that the "good life" involves relatively careless spending and debt acquisition for luxury items like vehicles
Like most problems that affect an entire society, this is a structural matter.
Underpinning most of modern society is an expectation that people privately own everything, that they have at most one meaningful social support person (their spouse), and that they can do whatever they want with their money and who cares if it's objectively bad for themselves and society. Obviously people will say that "of course it's good to have friends!" but then choose to live somewhere car-dependent and sprawling where it is very difficult to see their friends, or support policies that artificially make this an economically dominant model. There is a complete lack of recognition among the vast majority of Westerners, especially Americans and Canadians, that all of our social problems are self-induced. They can also be fixed.
Not to make this all about housing and transportation, because there's more to it as far as social science is concerned, but 50% of the thesis is "people don't have enough money" and that is directly caused by restrictive zoning laws and car dependency. The part of the article that physical infrastructure doesn't explicitly address is stress caused by corporate culture; but I agree with the author that government policies legally mandating paid sick days and paid time off would go a long way toward structurally addressing trauma recovery issues.
This in particular has the knock-on affect of weakening labor's bargaining power. Can't risk rocking the boat with your employer if don't want to lose your health insurance! Frankly, we should ban...
In the United States, a lack of socialized healthcare
This in particular has the knock-on affect of weakening labor's bargaining power. Can't risk rocking the boat with your employer if don't want to lose your health insurance!
Frankly, we should ban letting companies provide health benefits to their employees. It gives employers too much power. The employer <-> employee relationship should begin and end with cash salaries, equity in company, and paid time off.
I don't necessarily see an issue with private healthcare plans as long as public ones are available and fully funded, but it does raise the question of how a society which relies largely on the...
I don't necessarily see an issue with private healthcare plans as long as public ones are available and fully funded, but it does raise the question of how a society which relies largely on the former could realistically transition to relying mostly or entirely on the latter and remain truly equitable.
Banning private healthcare outright in the current economic climate (where socialized or public healthcare is not universally accessible) would be politically untenable. Personally, I would oppose that because my healthcare is private and I would not otherwise have access to a public service. I'm willing to make sacrifices that a lot of other people aren't for moral reasons, but health and risk of hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt isn't really one of those.
Disregarding for a moment the political challenges in implementing a public healthcare option in a socialized system, if one were to exist and be quite good, I'm not sure companies would really have much in the way of leverage over employees. Current models are attractive to employees in part because of Health Savings Accounts pay-ins for high-deductible healthcare plans; in a socialized model this is irrelevant. I struggle to see how a private healthcare plan in a system whose costs are totally socialized would offer any privileges. Honestly, this is not my area and I would welcome other thoughts.
If it were a matter of "costs are not entirely socialized, but everyone has a public option and employers can offer a private option," I do see how private plans could still privilege certain job-holders. In this model an HSA would still be a relevant consideration because deductibles still exist and some costs will always be borne by the consumer regardless of which plan someone has. Therefore the best plans are still attractive. Even so, it seems less attractive. I get that a company maxing out an HSA is a pretty cool benefit, but if a public healthcare option doesn't have a super high deductible then the benefit seems negligible. Most of the HSA funds wouldn't realistically be used at all. (Blah blah penalty elimination after a certain age, yes yes.) Maybe still useful, but I don't think I would be hesitant to quit a terrible job for health reasons if I knew I had a public option, even if it wasn't technically ideal. Most people aren't on HDHPs anyway.
I think that the United States is a little closer to socialized or universal public healthcare than we think. The next time there is a Democratic trifecta in the legislative and executive branches, I'd be willing to bet that healthcare becomes the critical issue and the critical legislation. The Affordable Care Act, though initially unpopular among some voters, has become much more popular by people who initially opposed it because they can recognize how useful it is. Of course a certain political party will always disagree, but I think enough "politically undecided" people are leaning toward offering more healthcare to more people these days that it would be realistic to see an expansion of the ACA to all citizens, with allowances that private healthcare plans can continue to exist.
Oh, I'm ok with private healthcare plans existing alongside government ones. I'm just saying that employers are not allowed to purchase them for you directly. They give you money and you buy them....
Oh, I'm ok with private healthcare plans existing alongside government ones. I'm just saying that employers are not allowed to purchase them for you directly. They give you money and you buy them. Added bonus to severely limiting what companies are and aren't allowed to provide for their employees: Much easier to tax it.
Think the ACA healthcare marketplace as the only way to attain healthcare insurance. Half the reason health plans suck so bad is because you can't "opt out" of your employer's plan to purchase your own.
You would transition to the Japanese healthcare system, where the majority of Japanese families are insured via work but the country still has free healthcare and some of, if not the best,...
but it does raise the question of how a society which relies largely on the former could realistically transition to relying mostly or entirely on the latter and remain truly equitable.
You would transition to the Japanese healthcare system, where the majority of Japanese families are insured via work but the country still has free healthcare and some of, if not the best, healthcare outcomes in the developed world.
Something I’d like to add to the list is the systematically shoddy construction of dense housing in the US, which lends to the illusion that peace and quiet can’t be had in urban environments and...
Something I’d like to add to the list is the systematically shoddy construction of dense housing in the US, which lends to the illusion that peace and quiet can’t be had in urban environments and strengthens the case for moving out into the suburbs.
There should really be a minimum level of soundproofing required for apartment complexes and the like. Sound pollution is not taken nearly as seriously as it should be.
Totally agree! And it should really be a federally enforced law. Some municipalities have their own regulations, but they're inconsistent and often insufficient. New York City's construction code...
Totally agree! And it should really be a federally enforced law. Some municipalities have their own regulations, but they're inconsistent and often insufficient. New York City's construction code has an article called "Noise Control in Multiple Dwellings" (27.1.12.9):
§ 27-768 Requirements. Interior walls, partitions, floor-ceiling constructions, and mechanical equipment in spaces or buildings of occupancy group J-2 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter, to provide minimum protection for each dwelling unit from extraneous noises emanating from other dwelling units and from mechanical equipment. In addition, airborne sound from exterior mechanical equipment of buildings in any occupancy group shall conform to the requirements of this subchapter.
(a) Field testing. Where conditions indicate that the installed construction or equipment does not meet the noise control prescribed in this subchapter, measurements shall be taken to determine conformance or non-conformance. For conformance with this subchapter, the results of such measurements shall not fail by more than two db to meet the requirements in any octave band, or by more than two points to meet any STC or INR requirements.
§ 27-769 Acoustical isolation of dwelling units. (a) Airborne noise. (1) Walls, partitions, and floor-ceiling constructions separating dwelling units from each other or from public halls, corridors, or stairs shall have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of forty-five for airborne noise. This requirement shall not apply to dwelling unit entrance doors. However, such doors shall fit closely and not be undercut. For permits issued after January first, nineteen hundred seventy-two, the STC required shall be fifty for airborne noise. For permits issued after April thirtieth, nineteen hundred seventy-three, dwelling unit entrance doors shall have a minimum STC of thirty-five.
(b) Structure-borne noise. (1) Floor-ceiling constructions separating dwelling units from each other or from public halls or corridors shall have a minimum impact noise rating (INR) of zero.
A Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 45 is OK but not ideal. I guess it's acceptable as a minimum—Wikipedia describes this subjectively as "Loud speech heard but not audible"—but it probably ought to be higher. Most neighbors are very quiet, but those who are loud are sometimes exceptionally loud to a point where the noise is unbearable and just never stops. 50 STC, the minimum for new construction in NYC (1972 and later), is subjectively described as "Loud sounds faintly heard." That's better and I think most people would be relatively satisfied by that. For some reason entrance doors are given an exemption (only 35 STC after 1973). For older construction, it's 45 STC in general and 0 STC for entrance doors?
The International Building Code 2021 apparently recommends a minimum of 45–50 STC for any dwelling, depending on some more specific codes I can't be bothered to look up. Impact Noise Rating (INR) or Impact Insulation Class (IIC) refers to sounds from impacts on a floor or wall. I can't tell from the language, but it seems like NYC literally doesn't have a minimum requirement here, though it apparently recommends IIC-50 or above. Weird...
The policy doesn't specifically call out Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) values. This is similar to STC but focuses on lower frequencies, the sort of thing you would feel from construction or deep bass music. It technically applies to indoors too (low-frequency sound doesn't just have an external origin), but traffic and construction are probably the biggest motivators, so it's mainly a metric for windows.
Sometimes the issue is that there is a lot of dense legacy housing in the US, like former tenement buildings in New York which have been converted to "normal" apartments. Some of these buildings actually have great soundproofing depending on what the walls are made of; others have very little, including when the interior floor plan has been changed and new walls are thin. Also, a lot of sound bleed comes from windows, and older buildings simply don't have great windows; landlords of grandfathered units aren't typically required to fix the issue, so it persists. In addition to higher STC/OITC requirements for new construction (I think 50 STC is a fine minimum, but I would be pleased with 55 STC), I think that retroactive policies would go a long way.
I’m so glad you brought this up, then Skybrain elaborated on it. If this were certain other nested discussion sites, someone would have spammed your replies with some braindead spew about “that’s...
I’m so glad you brought this up, then Skybrain elaborated on it. If this were certain other nested discussion sites, someone would have spammed your replies with some braindead spew about “that’s just the sound of human life” in response to complaints about babies crying to the left, violin practice above, and domestic violence in the apartment down below. Proper soundproofing and flats with square footage comparable to the SFH are what’s needed to make dense living palatable. That and lowered condo fees.
In fairness, a lot of dense housing in old cities predates the invention of air conditioning. That breathability was a much-desired feature. Anything built after 1960 doesn't really have that...
In fairness, a lot of dense housing in old cities predates the invention of air conditioning. That breathability was a much-desired feature.
Anything built after 1960 doesn't really have that excuse though.
Another interesting cultural assumption is that in many fields, it's expected that you will move to a different place to get a good job, and it might be necessary to work in that field at all....
Another interesting cultural assumption is that in many fields, it's expected that you will move to a different place to get a good job, and it might be necessary to work in that field at all. This can result in a much higher income, but it also means that families may be widely separated and rely on long car trips or air travel to get together.
There are also people who never consider moving, and that means their families are right there, but it has other downsides. Locally available work might be very limited.
Video chat can help but it doesn't work for everything.
Really good and important point. Work-induced diaspora splinters "the village" and reduces the practicality of intergenerational support systems. You could say the same thing about tax structures...
Really good and important point. Work-induced diaspora splinters "the village" and reduces the practicality of intergenerational support systems. You could say the same thing about tax structures that encourage parents to move to a particular place to raise a kid (localized school funding), and elsewhere to retire.
This is the sort of thing that high-speed rail (in particular) and any kind of public transit, including long-distance buses, has the opportunity to meaningfully address; automobile and air travel also have their place. But it would conceivably be best if people weren't expected to upend their lives to move for work at all.
However, I have absolutely no clue how we would solve that problem. The world is so polycentric and some industries will always have a geographic basis. To some extent, more allowances for remote work could prevent people from moving unnecessarily, but lots of jobs inherently require physical presence. Even if they don't, in-person work does have certain intangible benefits. And to some extent I think that regional cross-pollination is an important aspect of diversity, open-mindedness, and innovation.
I often consider how much regional culture is lost because people don't stay in one place for as long as they used to, hundreds of years ago. The apple falls not far from the tree—I still live in the same region as most of my extended family—but winds, rains, and hillsides seem to kick the apples around just enough to make communities difficult to retain. We don't live in the same city and doubtfully ever will.
Even for fields where one might’ve been able to find employment locally, prospects, stability, and sanity can be improved dramatically by moving. This was the case for me as a developer. Could I...
Even for fields where one might’ve been able to find employment locally, prospects, stability, and sanity can be improved dramatically by moving.
This was the case for me as a developer. Could I have found work somewhere within a couple hours drive of my hometown in Appalachia? Probably, but it probably wouldn’t have been a top-shelf position and I would’ve been more likely to feel stuck if my workplace sucked. Moving to a tech hub city alleviated that, providing a labor market that was much more in my favor with enough hiring going on to not have to worry too much about getting stuck with a bad employer or quickly hitting comp ceilings.
But now visiting family is a major ordeal and not something that can be done all that frequently. My current job is remote which in theory makes it more feasible to move closer, but the issues that brings with limiting options and stunting future potential remain.
I live in a tenant house in Berlin, like many people here and neighbors seldom talk, families seldom visit, unless there is an important reason. People don’t usually interact on the metro or...
I live in a tenant house in Berlin, like many people here and neighbors seldom talk, families seldom visit, unless there is an important reason. People don’t usually interact on the metro or busses unless something amusing or strange happens to break the ice.
I’ve lived in both the US and Germany and know more people with a healthy community around them in the US, I would say… with their cars and single family homes. They value having friends over so they make the small effort.
It doesn’t matter if people live closer to you if nobody around you wants to talk… and if people want to talk, they will travel to do it - walk, bike, drive or train.
Having to commute for more than one hour with a train with noise cancelling headphones on is just as bad as driving alone in a car. You’re alone in both cases.
I do have one tip, but it’s a luxury that most can’t afford and the Berlin model can’t solve it for everyone: I walk ten minutes to work. Find a job within 15 minutes driving, walking or biking distance. That’s what really helps because you win 8% more life outside work (2 hours a day is 8.33% of your life). Use that time to hang out with friends and family.
Car infrastructure and all other transportation options have to be efficient to make that possible for as many people as possible.
To be honest, I don't think I'd like to live with the alternatives. Emotional support structure seems like a pretty big euphemism in a lot of cases, and I say that as someone with kids. I would...
Living in detached, single-family housing with a social expectation not to house elderly relatives ("the village") who might provide emotional support structures
To be honest, I don't think I'd like to live with the alternatives. Emotional support structure seems like a pretty big euphemism in a lot of cases, and I say that as someone with kids. I would have no problem housing my parents or in-laws as a temporary solution but not as a permanent one.
Also, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't cultures with traditional large family structures usually patriarchal in the sense that the woman is absorbed into the man's family? I'm not sure that is something that would be encouraged over here. And we already have smaller families in the west, and there isn't always the bandwidth for even one set of grand parents to be looked after, never mind two, so it's hard to imagine a cultural road map for extending 'the village' without creating animosity in the family or marriage.
I grew up in a house just down the hill from one set of grandparents (in a rural area) and I'm thinking of some relatives where grandma lives in a condo a few doors away in the same building....
I grew up in a house just down the hill from one set of grandparents (in a rural area) and I'm thinking of some relatives where grandma lives in a condo a few doors away in the same building. These were deliberate choices. It seems pretty close to ideal to have a bit of separation but still in easy walking distance.
But I never considered that for myself; I went off to college and just assumed I wouldn't be living anywhere near family.
Agreed but I think it's going to vary heavily based on family dynamics and the age of the parents in question. I started off being quite far away from my parents and have slowly been moving...
These were deliberate choices. It seems pretty close to ideal to have a bit of separation but still in easy walking distance.
Agreed but I think it's going to vary heavily based on family dynamics and the age of the parents in question.
I started off being quite far away from my parents and have slowly been moving closer, now I'm only one town over. That's close enough to see them pretty often and let them be involved in my kids lives but far enough away my wife and I remain sane. As they get older though, I imagine we'll be living even closer just so we're nearby to help out.
It's worth noting that the first three points are a godsend for introverts. Sometimes I think about how stressful my life would be living in a situation where being able to be alone when I want to...
It's worth noting that the first three points are a godsend for introverts. Sometimes I think about how stressful my life would be living in a situation where being able to be alone when I want to on a daily basis is not really possible.
I think it is not quite correct to equate introvertedness with antisociability. It is not correct to suppose that introverted people do not need social relationships or communities. Introverted...
I think it is not quite correct to equate introvertedness with antisociability. It is not correct to suppose that introverted people do not need social relationships or communities.
Introverted people have existed for the entirety of human history and I find it very hard to believe that traditional familial housing models did not account for different personalities. Because modern family dynamics enforce a strict separation between generations, those times when older relatives do visit tend to be extremely social; over-social as far as an introvert is concerned. But if families were to identify communal time in a longer-term sense, they would naturally recognize what is feasible and unfeasible as far as different personalities go. i.e. when your perspective of the timeline changes—when you know you will be living with someone as opposed to putting up with them—it is natural to find patterns of being that accommodate everyone. Coming from an extended family of mostly introverted people, it is very possible to be introverted in a large social housing unit. To some extent, modern friction between family members with different social personalities is a function of how much time we spend indoors; this is also unnecessary and largely a result of living in extremely isolated dwellings far from other amenities. i.e. we force ourselves indoors because it is too dangerous to walk anywhere else (a direct result of car-oriented infrastructure).
Living in a place that is physically far from other people attends to introverts' perceived desire to "be alone" but still causes loneliness. By designing our habitats in a way that makes it expensive to see friends and family and participate in society in general, even an introverted person is structurally inhibited from social benefits when they do wish to engage in them.
Being a pedestrian does not require one to speak to neighbors, but it leaves that option open for the occasions where one wishes to be social. Being a driver in a vehicle always makes that option physically unrealistic and infeasible. (Subconsciously, the "windshield effect" is also very real in that it specifically reinforces antisocial behavior, such as hostility to and fear of other people.)
And so on. In general, introverts have higher baseline needs for social fulfillment than they might intuitively recognize. Those needs are not markedly different from extroverts. The only difference is that, above a certain point, introverted people prefer to keep to themselves and extroverted people prefer to socialize further. But infrastructure which keeps us isolated actually stops either group from reaching that initial baseline.
I think it’s important to highlight however that an introvert isn’t necessarily antisocial as a result of wanting control over when and where they socialize. Additionally, society as it existed in...
I think it’s important to highlight however that an introvert isn’t necessarily antisocial as a result of wanting control over when and where they socialize.
Additionally, society as it existed in the past may not always work as a benchmark, simply because people living in those times were likely much more restricted in how they could choose to live. They may have technically functioned, but whether or not they were happy or mentally healthy is another question.
That’s not to discount the value of generational housing or more integrated communities (I’m a huge fan of how Tokyo is built for instance, and hope that when/if I marry and have children, family is there to help) and I believe pursuit of those things is something that’s needed right now, but I also think it’s important to recognize that there will always be outliers that don’t fit well into that system and that this group was likely under-accommodated in decades and centuries past.
I dont really think your first bullet point makes sense. Swap introvert out with something like being gay or being a woman or being a minority and I feel history has plenty of examples where...
I dont really think your first bullet point makes sense. Swap introvert out with something like being gay or being a woman or being a minority and I feel history has plenty of examples where society was perfectly capable of ignoring the ways it imposes on certain subsets of the population because a different subset just didn't care about problems that didn't directly apply to them. Anyone with a toxic family member can probably attest that some people will not choose to find patterns that accommodate everyone.
Being gay or being a woman isn’t influenced by how you live like being an introvert (or antisocial, which is probably more what OP is talking about; introverts can still enjoy being around people)...
Being gay or being a woman isn’t influenced by how you live like being an introvert (or antisocial, which is probably more what OP is talking about; introverts can still enjoy being around people) is.
People develop antisocial tendencies and social anxiety because of isolation. There’s a reason why those diagnoses have skyrocketed. If you grow up and live apart from people your whole life, being around people will be deeply uncomfortable. Human beings are innately social animals though, so having that level of constant isolation causes many other issues other than social anxiety.
I think many introverts (or at myself, at least) find that they enjoy being around people in controlled doses. There’s a certain amount of energy available to spend on others and once that’s...
I think many introverts (or at myself, at least) find that they enjoy being around people in controlled doses. There’s a certain amount of energy available to spend on others and once that’s exhausted, having others around stops being fun. Context is also important; close connections can be energizing to spend time with, but that has its limits too. I think not having a way to opt out would grind me down.
Ok, fair enough, but there are plenty of examples of intergenerational and extended family living worldwide which don't necessarily have those problems.
Ok, fair enough, but there are plenty of examples of intergenerational and extended family living worldwide which don't necessarily have those problems.
Well yes, of course. Some people are more social and don't have a problem with that kind of living situation. People are all different and have a diverse spectrum of needs and wants. Personally...
Well yes, of course. Some people are more social and don't have a problem with that kind of living situation. People are all different and have a diverse spectrum of needs and wants. Personally that's why I like having different kinds of communities, some more dense and some more sparse, to accommodate those differences.
It's also worth noting that a lot of introverts actually want to be thrust into social situations because (1) they wouldn't have a social life otherwise and (2) introverted doesn't mean you aren't...
It's also worth noting that a lot of introverts actually want to be thrust into social situations because (1) they wouldn't have a social life otherwise and (2) introverted doesn't mean you aren't outgoing or sociable or that you don't like spending a lot of time with other people. It just means that you sometimes need a way/place to get away from people in order to recharge/destress.
That, and if you're escaping from abusive parents...if society expects you to house your elderly parents for both your needs (childcare) and theirs (housing + medical care), you're at a massive...
That, and if you're escaping from abusive parents...if society expects you to house your elderly parents for both your needs (childcare) and theirs (housing + medical care), you're at a massive disadvantage.
I see that even now. My kid's grandparents are all either dangerous or incapable of taking care of children. Other parents whom do have grandparents to lean on have no idea how much harder it is without that. I can't imagine how much worse it'd be if I was expected to provide their EOL care as well.
I would imagine that in more interwoven societies abusive parents might be easier to catch and deal with than they are when they are relatively isolated. I don't have anything to back that up...
I would imagine that in more interwoven societies abusive parents might be easier to catch and deal with than they are when they are relatively isolated. I don't have anything to back that up with, though.
From what I've seen where that's the case, Mormons and Amish, if anything it's the reverse. In a highly trust-driven community, abuse thrives. Part of this is because almost all abuse comes from...
From what I've seen where that's the case, Mormons and Amish, if anything it's the reverse.
In a highly trust-driven community, abuse thrives. Part of this is because almost all abuse comes from trusted figures in a community, not strangers.
I very much like the idea of figuring out how to rebuild "the village", but the "escape hatch" that exists courtesy of individualism and women's lib needs to be incorporated. Part of the problem that needs addressed is the highly specialized nature of much of our workforce.... my town is at-capacity for doctors....I'm not going to be able to convince my doctor friends to move within 30 miles. The demand for tech workers is not that high....not going to be able to attract many people whom don't have full-time remote jobs already. Large disparities in cost of living make it hard to move in either direction, exacerbated by minimum wages being too low. Good luck moving from a high CoL area to a low CoL area to be with family if you've got any debt...your wages will be almost certainly be cut by 1/3 or more.
I moved to a small town that has many more people living in it from multiple generations than I used to (not same house, but same block). The cliques are very strong, and coming in as an outsider takes quite some time....most of my friends are also transplants from within 5 years, almost none of the 'locals.'
There's real tension in the data we have to answer these questions with. High-trust communities like those religious "enclaves" are not just "high-trust", they're "high-trust and we believe we are...
There's real tension in the data we have to answer these questions with. High-trust communities like those religious "enclaves" are not just "high-trust", they're "high-trust and we believe we are the City on the Hill". It's hard to generalize from an insular religious minority group to a society-wide pattern, since there are so many "good reasons" for people to just go with abusers in such a restrictive environment. If you grow up in a small town deeply immersed in that sort of sect, it means that the rest of the world feels alien, and these sorts of religions take excommunication seriously. What's better, suffering occasional but pervasive abuses in silence, or abandoning everything you know? Beside these tangible structures, how much does or doesn't "honor culture" play into this? Or intrinsically and violently patriarchal theologies? Those dynamics definitely might replicate at large-scale, see: Hollywood, but then, see: #MeToo.
This is true. But almost any trust culture is going to, in some way, rely on ex-communication for those whom violate community norms. Leaving a high-trust community, of any sort, is going to...
This is true. But almost any trust culture is going to, in some way, rely on ex-communication for those whom violate community norms. Leaving a high-trust community, of any sort, is going to result in the rest of the world feeling foreign, because you'll be untrusted in other places that also have high-trust communities.
Absolutely! That's where I think there's a ton of discussion to be had on what that "escape hatch" entails. Trust needs stakes, like you're saying, but that has these sorts of consequences, and...
Absolutely! That's where I think there's a ton of discussion to be had on what that "escape hatch" entails. Trust needs stakes, like you're saying, but that has these sorts of consequences, and the alienated social structure that our current trajectory is hurtling toward is clearly unworkable, so where does that leave us? I don't know, and I wasn't trying to criticize your line of reasoning, just expand. We can't draw universality from any of these atomic facts.
Wasn't taking it as such, just expanding my own reasoning as well. I wasn't trying to imply universality, merely offering counter-evidence. It's a tough nut to crack to be sure. But society would...
Wasn't taking it as such, just expanding my own reasoning as well. I wasn't trying to imply universality, merely offering counter-evidence.
It's a tough nut to crack to be sure. But society would do well to examine this problem to find out how to solve the chicken/egg problem of trust.
I think you'd be surprised. Sweden exhibits those second and third points much, much less than America does, and Sweden is an introvert's dream. Lots of people walk and take public transportation...
I think you'd be surprised. Sweden exhibits those second and third points much, much less than America does, and Sweden is an introvert's dream. Lots of people walk and take public transportation as our primary mode of transportation, and we simply don't talk to each other. We talk to each other in contexts specifically designated for socializing, including the many third places that exist within walking distance of our homes. If you don't want to interact with people, simply don't go to the parties or gatherings that people organize in order to talk to each other.
I just want to say that it's not infinitely more likely...my dad did meet my mom by hitting her with his car while he was driving to work...so it is possible with cars.
Remaining encapsulated in motor vehicles along arterial roads instead of interacting with neighbors on the street and along transit routes, as is infinitely more likely as a pedestrian.
I just want to say that it's not infinitely more likely...my dad did meet my mom by hitting her with his car while he was driving to work...so it is possible with cars.
Ah yes, that famous romance trope where you realize that you've found the man of your dreams as you get to know him as he drives you to the hospital's urgent care facilities. :P
Ah yes, that famous romance trope where you realize that you've found the man of your dreams as you get to know him as he drives you to the hospital's urgent care facilities. :P
The headline is so unashamed it made me laugh. I do agree with the advice though – "more money doesn't make you happier" is one of those arguments popular only with those with a lot of money.
The headline is so unashamed it made me laugh. I do agree with the advice though – "more money doesn't make you happier" is one of those arguments popular only with those with a lot of money.
It is important to clarify that decades of empirical data support a more complex hypothesis: that money makes you happier if and only if your emotional needs are broadly already being met....
It is important to clarify that decades of empirical data support a more complex hypothesis: that money makes you happier if and only if your emotional needs are broadly already being met. Veritasium discusses this revelation in an accessible video from November: What The Longest-Running Study on Happiness Reveals.
In 2010, Kahneman and Deaton found that "high income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being." They also found that "Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000 [USD]." This study was extremely influential and became the dominant understanding of the money/happiness correlation.
In 2021, Killingsworth found that "Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 [USD] per year." This directly contradicted Kahneman and Deaton's findings and suggested that previous understandings of the money/happiness correlation were false.
In 2022, Killingsworth and Kahnemancollaborated on research that would resolve the differences in their data. They found that:
A reanalysis of Killingsworth’s experienced sampling data confirmed the flattening pattern only for the least happy people. Happiness increases steadily with log(income) among happier people, and even accelerates in the happiest group.
We suggest that Kahneman and Deaton might have reached the correct conclusion if they had described their results in terms of unhappiness rather than happiness; their measures could not discriminate among degrees of happiness because of a ceiling effect.
We believe that if KD had labeled their scale “unhappiness,” they could have concluded with confidence that the flattening pattern applies to a category of unhappy people. We also believe that they would have had no grounds to infer that the happiness of happier people flattens in the same way.
Emphasis mine. The takeaway is that, contrary to what people intuitively think (because your anecdotal opinion does not outweigh tens of thousands of data points taken across many studies over many years), having more money does not automatically make someone happier; it has an effect if and only if a certain other condition—interpersonal fulfillment—is simultaneously already met. While income greater than the $75,000 threshold measured has potential to eventually resolve some problems which contribute to overall happiness, the effect of those resolutions are delayed until that other condition is met. If that first condition of interpersonal satisfaction is never met, the benefits of greater income are not actualized.
In other words, the data still suggests that happiness is directly correlated with income for all people up to a certain point (around $75,000 USD, probably a little higher now from inflation). However, while [middle-class] people often believe they are unhappy because they are not as wealthy as they could be, they are instead or also unhappy because they are socially isolated and unfulfilled. Both things may be true, and indeed having more money can offer pathways toward more meaningful interpersonal relationships. But as far as individual psychology is concerned, becoming emotionally satisfied with your interpersonal relationships is a prerequisite to seeing positive effects from higher income; and further, the way people attempt to realize happiness by spending their money does not automatically or universally lead to supporting that interpersonal prerequisite. Money is often spent on material objects or experiences at the expense of activities that create and sustain strong interpersonal relationships. Without that requisite emotional satisfaction, more income has no observable effect on long-term fulfillment or happiness.
I hate these thought-terminating cliches. It's not a strong argument to say "the only people with this experience are the only ones who make this argument about this experience, so it must be...
I hate these thought-terminating cliches. It's not a strong argument to say "the only people with this experience are the only ones who make this argument about this experience, so it must be dismissed as trivial, since I, a person without the experience, disagree." Sorry, I get the actual line of reasoning here, and know I'm not refuting it. But that's why I take issue with the argument.
In our world, is money necessary for life, deeply analogized with power, and does the typical person deserve more power over their lives and a stronger sense of security? Undoubtably. There seems to be a hollowness at the core of these arguments though, like everything would be fine if the rich people just peppered us more generously with their detritus. No, these issues are deep, and intrinsically tied to our conception of currency and economy, as "a" culture. To bring the righteous indignation of social oppression to an argument that boils down to wanting to be higher on the totem pole is both politically naive and socially distasteful.
Demand more from governments, absolutely. Demand whatever you feel you deserve. But money is only a proxy for power, and if that's all we demand, we will be happily granted monopoly bucks while the real exchanges happen on some other form of ledger.
Thankfully I have never been on a jetski – way too dangerous! (That said I do ski which is probably more dangerous, but I have a lot of internal contradictions).
Thankfully I have never been on a jetski – way too dangerous! (That said I do ski which is probably more dangerous, but I have a lot of internal contradictions).
In a society where money is power in so many facets of life (healthcare, mobility/housing, freedom/free time, life balance, travel, etc) and one without good safety nets or baselines, more money...
In a society where money is power in so many facets of life (healthcare, mobility/housing, freedom/free time, life balance, travel, etc) and one without good safety nets or baselines, more money indeed buys a cushion/security from many forms of loss and hardship. The fact that we rely so heavily on our employment for that money further handcuffs us to work and can instill a fear of loss of that work leading to hardship.
Sure I can't constantly go to the store and shop for happiness, but I have a modicum of comfort in that I've saved up some money and currently bring in money that meets my needs. It is preventing a hell of a lot of unhappiness, and thus my baseline happiness is much higher when my worries don't have to be set on those things.
That said, even as well as I do for myself, I am one bad medical accident or procedure away from losing all of that security. So yes, even now I wish I had far more money so this wasn't a worry- and ultimately I wish I had enough money to complete the employment era of my life and have all my waking hours back in my control. Money buys that, whatever the hell you want to call it.
I see people doing the “can money buy happiness” discussion here so i will share my perspective: I think it’s the wrong question. People should ask “can money buy satisfaction?” And the answer is...
I see people doing the “can money buy happiness” discussion here so i will share my perspective: I think it’s the wrong question. People should ask “can money buy satisfaction?” And the answer is “no”. That being said, it’s hard to be satisfied when your future is uncertain.
I agree with the argument the author presents. As an infrastructure-obsessed person, I am contractually obligated to add that many modern Western individualistic tendencies reinforced by infrastructure and adjacent policy enforce isolation. Examples include:
Like most problems that affect an entire society, this is a structural matter.
Underpinning most of modern society is an expectation that people privately own everything, that they have at most one meaningful social support person (their spouse), and that they can do whatever they want with their money and who cares if it's objectively bad for themselves and society. Obviously people will say that "of course it's good to have friends!" but then choose to live somewhere car-dependent and sprawling where it is very difficult to see their friends, or support policies that artificially make this an economically dominant model. There is a complete lack of recognition among the vast majority of Westerners, especially Americans and Canadians, that all of our social problems are self-induced. They can also be fixed.
Not to make this all about housing and transportation, because there's more to it as far as social science is concerned, but 50% of the thesis is "people don't have enough money" and that is directly caused by restrictive zoning laws and car dependency. The part of the article that physical infrastructure doesn't explicitly address is stress caused by corporate culture; but I agree with the author that government policies legally mandating paid sick days and paid time off would go a long way toward structurally addressing trauma recovery issues.
This in particular has the knock-on affect of weakening labor's bargaining power. Can't risk rocking the boat with your employer if don't want to lose your health insurance!
Frankly, we should ban letting companies provide health benefits to their employees. It gives employers too much power. The employer <-> employee relationship should begin and end with cash salaries, equity in company, and paid time off.
I don't necessarily see an issue with private healthcare plans as long as public ones are available and fully funded, but it does raise the question of how a society which relies largely on the former could realistically transition to relying mostly or entirely on the latter and remain truly equitable.
Banning private healthcare outright in the current economic climate (where socialized or public healthcare is not universally accessible) would be politically untenable. Personally, I would oppose that because my healthcare is private and I would not otherwise have access to a public service. I'm willing to make sacrifices that a lot of other people aren't for moral reasons, but health and risk of hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt isn't really one of those.
Disregarding for a moment the political challenges in implementing a public healthcare option in a socialized system, if one were to exist and be quite good, I'm not sure companies would really have much in the way of leverage over employees. Current models are attractive to employees in part because of Health Savings Accounts pay-ins for high-deductible healthcare plans; in a socialized model this is irrelevant. I struggle to see how a private healthcare plan in a system whose costs are totally socialized would offer any privileges. Honestly, this is not my area and I would welcome other thoughts.
If it were a matter of "costs are not entirely socialized, but everyone has a public option and employers can offer a private option," I do see how private plans could still privilege certain job-holders. In this model an HSA would still be a relevant consideration because deductibles still exist and some costs will always be borne by the consumer regardless of which plan someone has. Therefore the best plans are still attractive. Even so, it seems less attractive. I get that a company maxing out an HSA is a pretty cool benefit, but if a public healthcare option doesn't have a super high deductible then the benefit seems negligible. Most of the HSA funds wouldn't realistically be used at all. (Blah blah penalty elimination after a certain age, yes yes.) Maybe still useful, but I don't think I would be hesitant to quit a terrible job for health reasons if I knew I had a public option, even if it wasn't technically ideal. Most people aren't on HDHPs anyway.
I think that the United States is a little closer to socialized or universal public healthcare than we think. The next time there is a Democratic trifecta in the legislative and executive branches, I'd be willing to bet that healthcare becomes the critical issue and the critical legislation. The Affordable Care Act, though initially unpopular among some voters, has become much more popular by people who initially opposed it because they can recognize how useful it is. Of course a certain political party will always disagree, but I think enough "politically undecided" people are leaning toward offering more healthcare to more people these days that it would be realistic to see an expansion of the ACA to all citizens, with allowances that private healthcare plans can continue to exist.
Oh, I'm ok with private healthcare plans existing alongside government ones. I'm just saying that employers are not allowed to purchase them for you directly. They give you money and you buy them. Added bonus to severely limiting what companies are and aren't allowed to provide for their employees: Much easier to tax it.
Think the ACA healthcare marketplace as the only way to attain healthcare insurance. Half the reason health plans suck so bad is because you can't "opt out" of your employer's plan to purchase your own.
You would transition to the Japanese healthcare system, where the majority of Japanese families are insured via work but the country still has free healthcare and some of, if not the best, healthcare outcomes in the developed world.
Something I’d like to add to the list is the systematically shoddy construction of dense housing in the US, which lends to the illusion that peace and quiet can’t be had in urban environments and strengthens the case for moving out into the suburbs.
There should really be a minimum level of soundproofing required for apartment complexes and the like. Sound pollution is not taken nearly as seriously as it should be.
Totally agree! And it should really be a federally enforced law. Some municipalities have their own regulations, but they're inconsistent and often insufficient. New York City's construction code has an article called "Noise Control in Multiple Dwellings" (27.1.12.9):
A Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 45 is OK but not ideal. I guess it's acceptable as a minimum—Wikipedia describes this subjectively as "Loud speech heard but not audible"—but it probably ought to be higher. Most neighbors are very quiet, but those who are loud are sometimes exceptionally loud to a point where the noise is unbearable and just never stops. 50 STC, the minimum for new construction in NYC (1972 and later), is subjectively described as "Loud sounds faintly heard." That's better and I think most people would be relatively satisfied by that. For some reason entrance doors are given an exemption (only 35 STC after 1973). For older construction, it's 45 STC in general and 0 STC for entrance doors?
The International Building Code 2021 apparently recommends a minimum of 45–50 STC for any dwelling, depending on some more specific codes I can't be bothered to look up. Impact Noise Rating (INR) or Impact Insulation Class (IIC) refers to sounds from impacts on a floor or wall. I can't tell from the language, but it seems like NYC literally doesn't have a minimum requirement here, though it apparently recommends IIC-50 or above. Weird...
The policy doesn't specifically call out Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) values. This is similar to STC but focuses on lower frequencies, the sort of thing you would feel from construction or deep bass music. It technically applies to indoors too (low-frequency sound doesn't just have an external origin), but traffic and construction are probably the biggest motivators, so it's mainly a metric for windows.
Sometimes the issue is that there is a lot of dense legacy housing in the US, like former tenement buildings in New York which have been converted to "normal" apartments. Some of these buildings actually have great soundproofing depending on what the walls are made of; others have very little, including when the interior floor plan has been changed and new walls are thin. Also, a lot of sound bleed comes from windows, and older buildings simply don't have great windows; landlords of grandfathered units aren't typically required to fix the issue, so it persists. In addition to higher STC/OITC requirements for new construction (I think 50 STC is a fine minimum, but I would be pleased with 55 STC), I think that retroactive policies would go a long way.
I’m so glad you brought this up, then Skybrain elaborated on it. If this were certain other nested discussion sites, someone would have spammed your replies with some braindead spew about “that’s just the sound of human life” in response to complaints about babies crying to the left, violin practice above, and domestic violence in the apartment down below. Proper soundproofing and flats with square footage comparable to the SFH are what’s needed to make dense living palatable. That and lowered condo fees.
In fairness, a lot of dense housing in old cities predates the invention of air conditioning. That breathability was a much-desired feature.
Anything built after 1960 doesn't really have that excuse though.
Another interesting cultural assumption is that in many fields, it's expected that you will move to a different place to get a good job, and it might be necessary to work in that field at all. This can result in a much higher income, but it also means that families may be widely separated and rely on long car trips or air travel to get together.
There are also people who never consider moving, and that means their families are right there, but it has other downsides. Locally available work might be very limited.
Video chat can help but it doesn't work for everything.
Really good and important point. Work-induced diaspora splinters "the village" and reduces the practicality of intergenerational support systems. You could say the same thing about tax structures that encourage parents to move to a particular place to raise a kid (localized school funding), and elsewhere to retire.
This is the sort of thing that high-speed rail (in particular) and any kind of public transit, including long-distance buses, has the opportunity to meaningfully address; automobile and air travel also have their place. But it would conceivably be best if people weren't expected to upend their lives to move for work at all.
However, I have absolutely no clue how we would solve that problem. The world is so polycentric and some industries will always have a geographic basis. To some extent, more allowances for remote work could prevent people from moving unnecessarily, but lots of jobs inherently require physical presence. Even if they don't, in-person work does have certain intangible benefits. And to some extent I think that regional cross-pollination is an important aspect of diversity, open-mindedness, and innovation.
I often consider how much regional culture is lost because people don't stay in one place for as long as they used to, hundreds of years ago. The apple falls not far from the tree—I still live in the same region as most of my extended family—but winds, rains, and hillsides seem to kick the apples around just enough to make communities difficult to retain. We don't live in the same city and doubtfully ever will.
Even for fields where one might’ve been able to find employment locally, prospects, stability, and sanity can be improved dramatically by moving.
This was the case for me as a developer. Could I have found work somewhere within a couple hours drive of my hometown in Appalachia? Probably, but it probably wouldn’t have been a top-shelf position and I would’ve been more likely to feel stuck if my workplace sucked. Moving to a tech hub city alleviated that, providing a labor market that was much more in my favor with enough hiring going on to not have to worry too much about getting stuck with a bad employer or quickly hitting comp ceilings.
But now visiting family is a major ordeal and not something that can be done all that frequently. My current job is remote which in theory makes it more feasible to move closer, but the issues that brings with limiting options and stunting future potential remain.
I live in a tenant house in Berlin, like many people here and neighbors seldom talk, families seldom visit, unless there is an important reason. People don’t usually interact on the metro or busses unless something amusing or strange happens to break the ice.
I’ve lived in both the US and Germany and know more people with a healthy community around them in the US, I would say… with their cars and single family homes. They value having friends over so they make the small effort.
It doesn’t matter if people live closer to you if nobody around you wants to talk… and if people want to talk, they will travel to do it - walk, bike, drive or train.
Having to commute for more than one hour with a train with noise cancelling headphones on is just as bad as driving alone in a car. You’re alone in both cases.
I do have one tip, but it’s a luxury that most can’t afford and the Berlin model can’t solve it for everyone: I walk ten minutes to work. Find a job within 15 minutes driving, walking or biking distance. That’s what really helps because you win 8% more life outside work (2 hours a day is 8.33% of your life). Use that time to hang out with friends and family.
Car infrastructure and all other transportation options have to be efficient to make that possible for as many people as possible.
To be honest, I don't think I'd like to live with the alternatives. Emotional support structure seems like a pretty big euphemism in a lot of cases, and I say that as someone with kids. I would have no problem housing my parents or in-laws as a temporary solution but not as a permanent one.
Also, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't cultures with traditional large family structures usually patriarchal in the sense that the woman is absorbed into the man's family? I'm not sure that is something that would be encouraged over here. And we already have smaller families in the west, and there isn't always the bandwidth for even one set of grand parents to be looked after, never mind two, so it's hard to imagine a cultural road map for extending 'the village' without creating animosity in the family or marriage.
I grew up in a house just down the hill from one set of grandparents (in a rural area) and I'm thinking of some relatives where grandma lives in a condo a few doors away in the same building. These were deliberate choices. It seems pretty close to ideal to have a bit of separation but still in easy walking distance.
But I never considered that for myself; I went off to college and just assumed I wouldn't be living anywhere near family.
Agreed but I think it's going to vary heavily based on family dynamics and the age of the parents in question.
I started off being quite far away from my parents and have slowly been moving closer, now I'm only one town over. That's close enough to see them pretty often and let them be involved in my kids lives but far enough away my wife and I remain sane. As they get older though, I imagine we'll be living even closer just so we're nearby to help out.
It's worth noting that the first three points are a godsend for introverts. Sometimes I think about how stressful my life would be living in a situation where being able to be alone when I want to on a daily basis is not really possible.
I think it is not quite correct to equate introvertedness with antisociability. It is not correct to suppose that introverted people do not need social relationships or communities.
And so on. In general, introverts have higher baseline needs for social fulfillment than they might intuitively recognize. Those needs are not markedly different from extroverts. The only difference is that, above a certain point, introverted people prefer to keep to themselves and extroverted people prefer to socialize further. But infrastructure which keeps us isolated actually stops either group from reaching that initial baseline.
I think it’s important to highlight however that an introvert isn’t necessarily antisocial as a result of wanting control over when and where they socialize.
Additionally, society as it existed in the past may not always work as a benchmark, simply because people living in those times were likely much more restricted in how they could choose to live. They may have technically functioned, but whether or not they were happy or mentally healthy is another question.
That’s not to discount the value of generational housing or more integrated communities (I’m a huge fan of how Tokyo is built for instance, and hope that when/if I marry and have children, family is there to help) and I believe pursuit of those things is something that’s needed right now, but I also think it’s important to recognize that there will always be outliers that don’t fit well into that system and that this group was likely under-accommodated in decades and centuries past.
I dont really think your first bullet point makes sense. Swap introvert out with something like being gay or being a woman or being a minority and I feel history has plenty of examples where society was perfectly capable of ignoring the ways it imposes on certain subsets of the population because a different subset just didn't care about problems that didn't directly apply to them. Anyone with a toxic family member can probably attest that some people will not choose to find patterns that accommodate everyone.
Being gay or being a woman isn’t influenced by how you live like being an introvert (or antisocial, which is probably more what OP is talking about; introverts can still enjoy being around people) is.
People develop antisocial tendencies and social anxiety because of isolation. There’s a reason why those diagnoses have skyrocketed. If you grow up and live apart from people your whole life, being around people will be deeply uncomfortable. Human beings are innately social animals though, so having that level of constant isolation causes many other issues other than social anxiety.
I think many introverts (or at myself, at least) find that they enjoy being around people in controlled doses. There’s a certain amount of energy available to spend on others and once that’s exhausted, having others around stops being fun. Context is also important; close connections can be energizing to spend time with, but that has its limits too. I think not having a way to opt out would grind me down.
Ok, fair enough, but there are plenty of examples of intergenerational and extended family living worldwide which don't necessarily have those problems.
Well yes, of course. Some people are more social and don't have a problem with that kind of living situation. People are all different and have a diverse spectrum of needs and wants. Personally that's why I like having different kinds of communities, some more dense and some more sparse, to accommodate those differences.
It's also worth noting that a lot of introverts actually want to be thrust into social situations because (1) they wouldn't have a social life otherwise and (2) introverted doesn't mean you aren't outgoing or sociable or that you don't like spending a lot of time with other people. It just means that you sometimes need a way/place to get away from people in order to recharge/destress.
Yeah being social isn’t a problem, there just needs to be a socially acceptable way to exit once energy has been exhausted.
That, and if you're escaping from abusive parents...if society expects you to house your elderly parents for both your needs (childcare) and theirs (housing + medical care), you're at a massive disadvantage.
I see that even now. My kid's grandparents are all either dangerous or incapable of taking care of children. Other parents whom do have grandparents to lean on have no idea how much harder it is without that. I can't imagine how much worse it'd be if I was expected to provide their EOL care as well.
I would imagine that in more interwoven societies abusive parents might be easier to catch and deal with than they are when they are relatively isolated. I don't have anything to back that up with, though.
From what I've seen where that's the case, Mormons and Amish, if anything it's the reverse.
In a highly trust-driven community, abuse thrives. Part of this is because almost all abuse comes from trusted figures in a community, not strangers.
I very much like the idea of figuring out how to rebuild "the village", but the "escape hatch" that exists courtesy of individualism and women's lib needs to be incorporated. Part of the problem that needs addressed is the highly specialized nature of much of our workforce.... my town is at-capacity for doctors....I'm not going to be able to convince my doctor friends to move within 30 miles. The demand for tech workers is not that high....not going to be able to attract many people whom don't have full-time remote jobs already. Large disparities in cost of living make it hard to move in either direction, exacerbated by minimum wages being too low. Good luck moving from a high CoL area to a low CoL area to be with family if you've got any debt...your wages will be almost certainly be cut by 1/3 or more.
I moved to a small town that has many more people living in it from multiple generations than I used to (not same house, but same block). The cliques are very strong, and coming in as an outsider takes quite some time....most of my friends are also transplants from within 5 years, almost none of the 'locals.'
There's real tension in the data we have to answer these questions with. High-trust communities like those religious "enclaves" are not just "high-trust", they're "high-trust and we believe we are the City on the Hill". It's hard to generalize from an insular religious minority group to a society-wide pattern, since there are so many "good reasons" for people to just go with abusers in such a restrictive environment. If you grow up in a small town deeply immersed in that sort of sect, it means that the rest of the world feels alien, and these sorts of religions take excommunication seriously. What's better, suffering occasional but pervasive abuses in silence, or abandoning everything you know? Beside these tangible structures, how much does or doesn't "honor culture" play into this? Or intrinsically and violently patriarchal theologies? Those dynamics definitely might replicate at large-scale, see: Hollywood, but then, see: #MeToo.
This is true. But almost any trust culture is going to, in some way, rely on ex-communication for those whom violate community norms. Leaving a high-trust community, of any sort, is going to result in the rest of the world feeling foreign, because you'll be untrusted in other places that also have high-trust communities.
Absolutely! That's where I think there's a ton of discussion to be had on what that "escape hatch" entails. Trust needs stakes, like you're saying, but that has these sorts of consequences, and the alienated social structure that our current trajectory is hurtling toward is clearly unworkable, so where does that leave us? I don't know, and I wasn't trying to criticize your line of reasoning, just expand. We can't draw universality from any of these atomic facts.
Wasn't taking it as such, just expanding my own reasoning as well. I wasn't trying to imply universality, merely offering counter-evidence.
It's a tough nut to crack to be sure. But society would do well to examine this problem to find out how to solve the chicken/egg problem of trust.
I think you'd be surprised. Sweden exhibits those second and third points much, much less than America does, and Sweden is an introvert's dream. Lots of people walk and take public transportation as our primary mode of transportation, and we simply don't talk to each other. We talk to each other in contexts specifically designated for socializing, including the many third places that exist within walking distance of our homes. If you don't want to interact with people, simply don't go to the parties or gatherings that people organize in order to talk to each other.
I just want to say that it's not infinitely more likely...my dad did meet my mom by hitting her with his car while he was driving to work...so it is possible with cars.
Ah yes, that famous romance trope where you realize that you've found the man of your dreams as you get to know him as he drives you to the hospital's urgent care facilities. :P
Bonding over Bankrupcy
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/Bhh2I
The headline is so unashamed it made me laugh. I do agree with the advice though – "more money doesn't make you happier" is one of those arguments popular only with those with a lot of money.
It is important to clarify that decades of empirical data support a more complex hypothesis: that money makes you happier if and only if your emotional needs are broadly already being met. Veritasium discusses this revelation in an accessible video from November: What The Longest-Running Study on Happiness Reveals.
In 2010, Kahneman and Deaton found that "high income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being." They also found that "Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000 [USD]." This study was extremely influential and became the dominant understanding of the money/happiness correlation.
In 2021, Killingsworth found that "Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 [USD] per year." This directly contradicted Kahneman and Deaton's findings and suggested that previous understandings of the money/happiness correlation were false.
In 2022, Killingsworth and Kahneman collaborated on research that would resolve the differences in their data. They found that:
Emphasis mine. The takeaway is that, contrary to what people intuitively think (because your anecdotal opinion does not outweigh tens of thousands of data points taken across many studies over many years), having more money does not automatically make someone happier; it has an effect if and only if a certain other condition—interpersonal fulfillment—is simultaneously already met. While income greater than the $75,000 threshold measured has potential to eventually resolve some problems which contribute to overall happiness, the effect of those resolutions are delayed until that other condition is met. If that first condition of interpersonal satisfaction is never met, the benefits of greater income are not actualized.
In other words, the data still suggests that happiness is directly correlated with income for all people up to a certain point (around $75,000 USD, probably a little higher now from inflation). However, while [middle-class] people often believe they are unhappy because they are not as wealthy as they could be, they are instead or also unhappy because they are socially isolated and unfulfilled. Both things may be true, and indeed having more money can offer pathways toward more meaningful interpersonal relationships. But as far as individual psychology is concerned, becoming emotionally satisfied with your interpersonal relationships is a prerequisite to seeing positive effects from higher income; and further, the way people attempt to realize happiness by spending their money does not automatically or universally lead to supporting that interpersonal prerequisite. Money is often spent on material objects or experiences at the expense of activities that create and sustain strong interpersonal relationships. Without that requisite emotional satisfaction, more income has no observable effect on long-term fulfillment or happiness.
I hate these thought-terminating cliches. It's not a strong argument to say "the only people with this experience are the only ones who make this argument about this experience, so it must be dismissed as trivial, since I, a person without the experience, disagree." Sorry, I get the actual line of reasoning here, and know I'm not refuting it. But that's why I take issue with the argument.
In our world, is money necessary for life, deeply analogized with power, and does the typical person deserve more power over their lives and a stronger sense of security? Undoubtably. There seems to be a hollowness at the core of these arguments though, like everything would be fine if the rich people just peppered us more generously with their detritus. No, these issues are deep, and intrinsically tied to our conception of currency and economy, as "a" culture. To bring the righteous indignation of social oppression to an argument that boils down to wanting to be higher on the totem pole is both politically naive and socially distasteful.
Demand more from governments, absolutely. Demand whatever you feel you deserve. But money is only a proxy for power, and if that's all we demand, we will be happily granted monopoly bucks while the real exchanges happen on some other form of ledger.
You ever try to frown on a jetski?
Thankfully I have never been on a jetski – way too dangerous! (That said I do ski which is probably more dangerous, but I have a lot of internal contradictions).
In a society where money is power in so many facets of life (healthcare, mobility/housing, freedom/free time, life balance, travel, etc) and one without good safety nets or baselines, more money indeed buys a cushion/security from many forms of loss and hardship. The fact that we rely so heavily on our employment for that money further handcuffs us to work and can instill a fear of loss of that work leading to hardship.
Sure I can't constantly go to the store and shop for happiness, but I have a modicum of comfort in that I've saved up some money and currently bring in money that meets my needs. It is preventing a hell of a lot of unhappiness, and thus my baseline happiness is much higher when my worries don't have to be set on those things.
That said, even as well as I do for myself, I am one bad medical accident or procedure away from losing all of that security. So yes, even now I wish I had far more money so this wasn't a worry- and ultimately I wish I had enough money to complete the employment era of my life and have all my waking hours back in my control. Money buys that, whatever the hell you want to call it.
I see people doing the “can money buy happiness” discussion here so i will share my perspective: I think it’s the wrong question. People should ask “can money buy satisfaction?” And the answer is “no”. That being said, it’s hard to be satisfied when your future is uncertain.