I agree with you that I wish social media was full of more posts like this, but foodgrams and humble brags as you put it are also one of the reasons I avoid social media these days. Seeing a feed of the best moments of other peoples lives leaves me feeling depressed. "Comparison is the thief of joy." I'm happy for my friends, but seeing it all collected in one place makes my own life feel inadequate. I'm much happier when I avoid social media.
It's strange... I thought we were wired as a species to live vicariously, to feel joy when others are blessed, and feel pain when they suffer. You're not the only one that doesn't get that out of Facebook... Why? Is it the quantity? The format? What turns it into a place of covetousness and bitterness?
It's definitely the format and the quantity for me. Seeing an old friend in person and having them tell me about their life and accomplishments, even showing me pictures, does not make me feel the same way. I think it's also the fact that I turn to social media when I'm feeling lonely, so seeing a feed of people at their best moments, on vacation with friends, getting married, having children, etc... makes me feel even more lonely and isolated. Also, social media is full of people that I have lost touch with, who never check in with me or reach out to see how I'm doing. I've found that I feel much more connected by reaching out to old friends one on one and catching up with them via texting or phone calls. Likes and comments just don't cut it.
I think also that the format is different, the link between people is not the same on social media posts. There is a difference between seeing something interesting, thinking of a friend who might be interested and sending it to him with a personal message like "check this out, it made me think of you, you might like it" and just putting something on display for people to see it, and add like to it to give you some small pride and some endorphin reinforcement of the posting behaviour.
It seems to me that the direction of the thinking goes the other way: in one, you think of a friend and contact him, in the other, you think of yourself, show yourself to the world and people send you likes.
When I thought of this, it seemed to me that social media is often some sort of "narcissistic exposure of oneself" and encourages this type of behaviour from me and I didn't like it. This plus the fact that I didn't like Facebook's behaviour with it's user's data made me delete my account, and I didn't miss it since. If I think of friends, I have other means of contacting them that have a more personal feel.
This is very true. And it reminds me that, at first, I did like Facebook, and I thought it was fun and cool. It's only when you realize how little meaning there is to the interactions that they start to feel shallow and depressing.
I feel the same way, and to me it's all about the authenticity. The context of social media takes away from the authenticity of the post. Someone may genuinely just want to share some dish that they just created, but in the context of social media, you can never be sure if they're posting it because of that, or posting it for the easy likes or easy engagement. Social media has commodified human interaction.
I forget where I read it, but it's similar to the idea that if someone you love makes a meal for you, at the end of it, you don't ask "how much do I owe you?" and break out your wallet. It's distasteful. Likewise, you don't do someone for a loved one or friend and afterwards say, "well that will be $X".
Posting on social media has a reward of sharing and liking, and as a result, to me, it turns human interaction into an exchange. (And I will admit that there is an element to that already, in terms of owing people favors etc., but the "bookkeeping" that we do is generally in our heads and is hard to quantify, which makes it a bit fuzzier and less commodified.)
For me, it's the dishonesty of facebook and instagram. The whole culture seems to be based around lying about misrepresenting how good your life is.
I love seeing a post about something that made a friend happy, but so much of the content on facebook is so obviously not an honest post about something that made somebody happy, but rather something they felt should have made them happy, or something that somebody else would be jealous of, or worst of all a brand trying to co-opt the "something that made me happy" style of posting, that it's ruined the few honest moments of joy.
Facebook isn't doing anything new. This sort of phenomenon is something of a universal human experience. For example, "Keeping up with the Joneses" is a phrase that's been in the English language for at least a century. All social media does is crank its input gain as high as it will go.
It's the bias. You _only_ see the best moments out of the lives of others. When watching TV or movies, we used to become depressed about comparing ourselves to celebrities and their silly TV lives, until some of the sheen of Hollywood has been torn down to reveal how utterly awful achieving and keeping a 6-pack of abs can be. Or how 6 broke idiots could never actually afford a huge flat in NYC. Now I think people see it for what it is, and it doesn't depress them anymore.
But seeing people who are your peers, who have mostly followed the same paths as you being far happier and living much full and rich lives (by appearance), and _only_ seeing that, I think, becomes a subtle reminder of your own failings.
We just need to see some of that sheen taken down. If, somehow, we saw _all_ of the shit people go through in their lives, and not just the good, maybe social media would be way different.
Personally, I find it incredibly shallow to post about food you're eating or places you're visiting. That's just money, and you might as well just take a picture of the money you're spending. I prefer to see things people make in my feed (art, woodworking, metalworking, electronics, etc.). It impresses and inspires me to see people out there making the world better with their minds and bodies, not just consuming.
It's one thing to feel joy when others do. But when everything's joy, then it's just normalcy. But when you know it isn't really the case that everything's joy, then the appearance of it comes off as fake. Because it is fake. Then you feel jaded. But we also can't help but have a part of us that thinks "no, this is normal."
There's also the asynchronous nature. If you're out with friends and hear about their engagement after the fact (among other catching up), that's one thing. But when you're sitting on the couch lonely and see photos from moments after the engagement (and nothing else), it's just that much more of a gap.
Then throw in everyone's highlights with their outrage and some random shared clickbait (fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd:You won't believe what this evil politician did!), and it's just toxic.
Maybe the distance and the volume? I belong to some whatsapp and Telegram groups with people I know and I meet with at least every few months. We share stuff, even foodgrams. It's ok to hear from them. I can't just cope with all the stuff posted by some people I know but I didn't meet with for years. There are too many of them. I need time to live my life so I gave up Facebook, downsized my network and do things with people I meet.
> feel joy when others are blessed, and feel pain when they suffer.
Most people will probably acknowledge that it's more complicated than that. I think it might have to do with how easily comparable the other person's life is to our own.
I can't explain it well, but here's an example:
I saw a video of a child surprising their step-dad with paperwork for the official name change (kid accepting the Dad's last name). The Dad cried out of joy.
The video made me feel good.
On the other hand, seeing someone that I graduated highschool with getting promoted and being more successful than me makes me jealous.
Why? Because he has something and I don't, but would be within the realm of possibility to achieve. This behavior can also be observed in monkeys, so I don't question it too much.
Because people only share happy moments on Facebook. When you're catching up with someone, you're probably in a "normal" state of mind. They'll share a happy moment and the mood will spike up, then drop to baseline. Then you'll share a sad moment and the mood will spike down, return to baseline, etc. Facebook is always happy, never normal, never sad (unless it's in some way a humblebrag. "Ugh had to put in 20 hours of overtime at my killer job"). Imagine living in the crest of a manic depressive's life, forever. That's Facebook.
that's a very simplistic idea of humanity. yes, people can feel joy when others are blessed, but they can feel anything else they can feel also. surely you're familiar with envy at least.
How do you suppose Tiktok fits into all this? On the one hand, it's still a glamorous best-of reel, but it's also a lot more silliness, with sketch comedy and various remix formats (lipsync, duet, etc) being a big thing, not to mention significant subcommunities posting earnestly about topics like self esteem, mental health, etc (and with the needed community-management tools to enable the resulting discussion to not just become a Twitter-style free for all).
I'm not a super active user, but as an observer, I do wonder if much of it is pushing those same buttons but in a perhaps more subtle way— like a lot of "wellness" creators who cultivate an apparently authentic persona from which to deliver a never ending stream of motivational you're-worth-it type content meant to encourage and uplift, but that ultimately rings a bit hollow.
I think community plays a huge part. I'm not a tiktok user but I get the impression that a lot of the early tiktok users were heavily creative users. It's like a flywheel.
As these sites/services gain more popularity communities tend to splinter and it's up to the service to keep things going in whatever direction they want to via things like the fyp algorithm.
i also avoid social media, but for the opposite reason. i'm not bothered seeing everyone else's greatest hits, but curating my life and thoughts to present to an audience was wearing me down, and when i finally realized that's what i was doing, i got off it.
presumably there are some personality types that social media works well for, as opposed to personality types that work well for social media, of which there are clearly a lot.
Maybe it's not the healthiest thing, but I kind of enjoy having that as a secondary motivation, especially for projects I'm on the edge for— things like bread baking, kombucha making, small electronics repair, etc. If I know I can take a few pictures and tell a fun story around it, then it can be the motivation to get something started or power it through.
I guess the one boundary is that I don't generally mine my interactions with my kids for internet kudos— I don't want my camera in their faces when we're at the park or reading a book, making them feel like I'm only there spending time with them to score internet kudos later.
> The possibilities of NFTs fascinate me, especially for portable, digital identities and assets that transcend any specific virtual realm and can't be arbitrarily erased by any central authority.
I'm struggling to understand the possibilities. Can you enlighten me? It seems like people buying these things are just speculating. Can you paint a picture of what kind of possibilities you're excited about?
Ooohhh not the evil speculation. So scawwrry. Seriously though, everything in life is speculation. Do you have a job? That's speculation on return for your time. Do you own a house? That is speculation on property prices. Do you have a bank account? That is speculation on inflation. Everything is speculation unless you have a God's eye view of the world. Get over it.
A very simple example is that it could partially solve the problem of verifying digital identities. If I follow/friend your NFT based identity, and various virtual realms (games, social media, virtual spaces) integrate with that 'identity' NFT for user accounts, then any new virtual realm I enter, I can immediately find and connect with people I already know, or identify imposters. There will obviously still be some other hoops I need to jump through to know a digital identity maps to a particular physical person.
I could also see game studios start to issue varying tiers of rare in-game items as NFTs that can then trade on a free market, like collectible cards. Not only would I suspect people will be much more likely to pay more for digital items they can actually take uncensorable possession of (and still sell after they get banned from a game), but different studios could even make deals to make their NFT items cross compatible. (Mario NFT skins and items in Minecraft?)
Maybe I'm starry eyed and delusional, and I'm sure it's a LONG, messy road to get wherever we're going with this.
> A very simple example is that it could partially solve the problem of verifying digital identities. If I follow/friend your NFT based identity, and various virtual realms (games, social media, virtual spaces) integrate with that 'identity' NFT for user accounts
You don't need Crypto Kitties for account verification. All you need is a cryptographic keypair, like the kind you already get by default in any Bitcoin wallet. Just sign a message proving you own a public key with the corresponding private key.
> Maybe I'm starry eyed and delusional, and I'm sure it's a LONG, messy road to get wherever we're going with this.
Evidently we’re going back in time to 2015, when “NFT” meant a blockchain representation of a digital trading card game. No one cared then, and no one cares now. The only thing new to the 2021 “NFT” narrative cycle is Twitter trying to monetize itself by selling tweets. Needless to say, none of the historical attempts at NFTs have ever resulted in lasting value to society, and probably this won’t either.
> A very simple example is that it could partially solve the problem of verifying digital identities.
It does not. In fact, it reduces to the public/private key system we already have for verifying digital identities.
I have zero way of proving that I am the owner or creator of an NFT without the private key used to sign the original transaction. Why bother with an NFT and the complexity of a wallet when I can just sign whatever you'd like me to sign and you can verify it with the same public key that verifies my identity claim?
Thank you for your answer. Personally, as a gamer the idea of cross game microtransactions and collectibles does not interest me. Minecraft skins are free and easy to create, you can make yourself look like Mario if you want, or anything else. The idea of putting that on the blockchain instead seems dystopian. On top of that, I’m pretty sure that Nintendo would never want to do such a thing.
I was with you initially, but after thinking about it could be argued that creating classes that are overwhelmingly white in an overwhelmingly non white district are something approaching segregation. In the end, all that is being done to the “advanced” students is that they’re being offered the same education that their peers are getting. Resources spent on the advanced learning program could have been spent on offering a better quality of education for the entire school. I’m sympathetic to both sides of this issue but I don’t find it simple.
It’s not segregation because the school doesn’t place students in these classes based on their skin color.
Oftentimes these disparities arise from communities being economically mixed along racial lines. It’s not even the case that these economic disparities arise from what’s called “systemic racism.” In urban school districts many kids are immigrants or children of immigrants, and have lesser economic circumstances because of recent migration. Treating them differently based on skin color doesn’t help erase some historical injustice. For example, Bangladeshi Americans, a group I belong to, have a household income in New York City much lower than whites. Indian Americans, by contrast, have incomes much higher than whites. These disparities aren’t due to differing effects of “racism” but recency of immigration and characteristics of the immigrants. This is true for Latinos as well. They have lower incomes now because a large number are recent economic migrants. But their incomes are converging with those of white people over time: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353. (In fact, after three generations, half of Latinos don’t even identify as such.)
The data shows that, apart from Black and Native American people, other ethnic groups in the US are similarly situated to how Polish people, Italians, etc., were during the early 20th century. Or how Cubans or Vietnamese were in the later 20th century. They’re in the process of economic integration. It’s not a situation where government discrimination is required now to erase the effects of past government discrimination.
For similar reasons, it makes no sense to discriminate between kids based on race to address present (rather than systemic) economic disparities. For purposes of dismantling gifted programs and test-based admissions, whites and Asians are typically lumped together. But in NYC, for example, most Asian kids in the gifted programs are actually fairly poor, because they’re the children of recent immigrants. It’s irrational to lump them together with whites in the “advantaged” group.
"The data shows that, apart from Black and Native American people, other ethnic groups in the US are similarly situated to how Polish people, Italians, etc., were during the early 20th century. Or how Cubans or Vietnamese were in the later 20th century. They’re in the process of economic integration. It’s not a situation where government discrimination is required now to erase the effects of past government discrimination."
That will end the narrative of systemic racism and then all the "diversity" officers and quote will be blown away.
Call what you want but America is the least racist country.
That's a pretty wide exception, and it's worth addressing why they remain an exception. Why are these groups so slow to economically integrate?
The simplest (and therefore most Occam's-razor-friendly) explanation for the black population is that they can't usually pass as "white" as easily as other demographics. But this doesn't really explain much for Native Americans, who could pass as "white" about as easily as Latinos and/or Asians.
> It’s irrational to lump them together with whites in the “advantaged” group.
Why?
The “advantaged” here isn't about transitory economic status but systematic racism, and the durable effects of historical racism.
The material you are citing, taken at face value, justifies lumping not only Asians, but everyone but Blacks and Native Americans, into the “advantaged” group with Whites, rather than providing an argument against lumping recent Asian immigrants into that group.
In the paragraph you’re quoting, I’m talking about what you call transitory economic status above. The point is that if you’re trying to address that, it makes no sense to lump poor Asian kids in NYC together with wealthy white kids. Or to treat poor white or Asian kids differently than poor Black or Latino kids.
I address systemic racism in the second to last paragraph above, and I agree that in that context, everyone but Blacks and native Americans should be in the advantaged group.
Did you miss that part of the article or have you intentionally excluded the presence of Asian students in your reply because it makes your argument stick better? I don't think it meets the definition of segregation when a subset of multiple groups are given special treatment due to their aptitude on topics that are inherently race-agnostic. Yes, those with money and power can better educate their kids compared to the poor, but so can those without money who simply value education higher (speaking as a 1.5 gen immigrant who grew up extremely poor). Why are we always the first ones to be penalized in the name of racial equality?
> In the end, all that is being done to the “advanced” students is that they’re being offered the same education that their peers are getting.
This is generally not what advanced students get. They are usually taught different, more advanced curricula. Not all kids are capable of learning quickly, so the whole point of a separate program is to provide quick learners with advanced curricula and others with the support they need.
>Resources spent on the advanced learning program could have been spent on offering a better quality of education for the entire school.
This assumption rests on the false supposition that all children have the same intelligence and learn at the same rate, and the only difference is environmental factors. While environmental factors are certainly important, they aren't everything, despite how wonderful that would be towards realizing the fantasy of a "fair and just" world. The fact is that people are different - innately. Just as a proper schooling system allocates resources for students that learn at a slower rate, so should a proper schooling system allocate resources for students who learn at an advanced rate.
> Resources spent on the advanced learning program could have been spent on
Segregating students who would fail to be engaged by mainstream coursework unless disproportionate effort and attention was focussed on them is “offering a better quality of education for the entire school.”
> Fifty years on, the last man is here, placidly enjoying his lockdown thanks to Zoom, Netflix and Uber Eats, totally comfortable with the prospect of a future controlled by artificial intelligence and big data. Perhaps we need a modern day Mishima to shock us out of our complacency.
Is this a real person? I don’t think I know anyone unconcerned by the future, no matter how much they may distract themselves with modern convenience, as the author describes. But maybe there are people who think everything is going just fine, and I don’t know them.
the use of the phrase 'the last man' is a nod to Nietzsche's concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man . we see similar sentiments echoed elsewhere in culture, for example: the masses placated by soma in Huxley's 'Brave New World', the blue pill in the matrix, or the public medicated by cheap conveniences in Idiocracy.
the author is pointing towards a decadent and impotent cultural milieu -- "Nietzsche warned that the society of the last man could be too barren and decadent to support the growth of healthy human life or great individuals."
Search for the text "blink" on this page https://praxeology.net/zara.htm for a fuller picture. "We have discovered happiness," -- say the Last Men, and they blink.
Kind of funny, as the author is an investment banker, and therefore probably a lot more like Nietsche's Last Man than any Ubermensch, however much those self-proclaimed alphas love to see themselves as such.
It's an appropriate perspective for Japan. The country is slowly dying off as the population shrinks. Outside of Tokyo and Osaka, cities and towns are emptying out. On the way down, life is good.
I don't think we're remotely at that point yet. Anyone who has paid attention to US news at all last year can see that we've still got some ways to go before the society of the last man is realized. That said, the conditions for another Mishima to arise just aren't there despite the rise in right-wing rhetoric and violence in the past few years.
The main problem with suicide is that it forecloses the possibility that your life will get better. And it can. The fact that you care about leaving your connections in distress tells me you care for people. This is normal and good and makes you human. We need human connection to live. Even now, you take others feelings into account. You seem like a good person, and the world would be worse without you.
I don’t know what has brought you to this point in life, but I’m sorry that it has you considering suicide.
For me, being a workaholic left me feeling disconnected and isolated from the world. The antidepressants didn’t help, they just numbed me to my own emotional pain enough that I could keep functioning.
The holidays are a depressing time for a lot of people, and to a limited extent, I can see the harm reduction in working through them. But for me, finding a reason to live involved spending time outside of work to make new friends, revive old friendships, and improve my family life. I truly believe that work is no replacement for friends and family, the only things that I have found worth living for.
Listening to the audiobook while smoking is how I quit. Took me two attempts but it really wasn’t some grueling, terrible ordeal the whole time. Smokers and non smokers alike romanticize smoking excessively. Listening to Carr helped me realize that smoking is actually a huge pain in the ass that makes your life worse instead of something so pleasurable that living life without it seems like asceticism.
