Facebook Is Making Us Miserable(blogs.hbr.org)
blogs.hbr.org
Facebook Is Making Us Miserable
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/12/facebook_is_making_us_miserabl.html
25 comments
Agreed. Almost all of the advice on HN is well-intended, but some stories are just big negative walls of text about how my business plan is shit, how I'm an idiot, and how my idea is stupid. By cutting out HN sometimes, I can get things done without overstressing myself thinking about my startup in a negative light.
Play Minecraft instead of reading HN, and you can have your own island!
There are too many opinions around here that at one point either the HN readers will follow some of them and become a followers (and lost their own primary focus) or they just become more convoluted (should I try X? Y? Z?).
The key is to recognize the patterns (news, prog-lang, running business, scaling) in HN quickly before we become HN-addicts. Once you learn the patterns, HN becomes an average place (e.g.: re-hash of news).
The key is to recognize the patterns (news, prog-lang, running business, scaling) in HN quickly before we become HN-addicts. Once you learn the patterns, HN becomes an average place (e.g.: re-hash of news).
I'm beginning to wonder if Facebook – along with online games and other free diversions like YouTube – could even be contributing to economic malaise and unemployment.
It's cheaper and easier than ever to acquire a minimal sustaining reward-drip of novelty and even 'social' strokes via the free net. If savings, family, or public support are enough to keep someone fed, sheltered, and online… then perhaps their willingness to seek and accept a paid job has gone down.
Even if this is not the case for most unemployed, at the margin, there are likely to be some people who, without Facebook/Farmville/YouTube/WorldOfWarcraft/etc., would feel so bored and isolated they'd take on drudge work. Because these diversions are available, they don't.
What if 'gamification' and long-term unemployment/underemployment are connected?
It's cheaper and easier than ever to acquire a minimal sustaining reward-drip of novelty and even 'social' strokes via the free net. If savings, family, or public support are enough to keep someone fed, sheltered, and online… then perhaps their willingness to seek and accept a paid job has gone down.
Even if this is not the case for most unemployed, at the margin, there are likely to be some people who, without Facebook/Farmville/YouTube/WorldOfWarcraft/etc., would feel so bored and isolated they'd take on drudge work. Because these diversions are available, they don't.
What if 'gamification' and long-term unemployment/underemployment are connected?
McDonald's held a "National Hiring Day" this year, and accepted 62,000 applications out of a million. Even near-minimum-wage drudge work is scarce compared to the number who will take it.
http://thecashflowisking.com/2011/04/30/1000000-applicants-f...
http://thecashflowisking.com/2011/04/30/1000000-applicants-f...
That's a statistical fallacy along the same lines as "we only hire the top 1%".
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html
I'm trying to connect the dot here... What's the scarcity of job has anything to do with hiring the top 1% fallacy?
Following Joel Spolsky's logic, there could easily be 938000 people who are unqualified for any job. On the other hand, every single one of the 62,000 qualified people who applied was hired. Thus, all employers will have low hiring rates, and yet finding a job is easy for qualified applicants.
If you want to talk about scarcity of jobs, look at JOLTS data or even traditional BLS timeseries.
Talking about how one particular employer rejected a lot of applicants tells you virtually nothing.
If you want to talk about scarcity of jobs, look at JOLTS data or even traditional BLS timeseries.
Talking about how one particular employer rejected a lot of applicants tells you virtually nothing.
> any job
This is McDonalds. I'm having trouble thinking of employment for which more people are qualified if at least (1) able-bodied and (2) have at least a middle-school education. There is virtually nothing beyond those requirements that needs to be taken into consideration. If 938000 applicants were rejected, I can only assume that the majority of the rejections were for reasons other than lack of qualification.
This is McDonalds. I'm having trouble thinking of employment for which more people are qualified if at least (1) able-bodied and (2) have at least a middle-school education. There is virtually nothing beyond those requirements that needs to be taken into consideration. If 938000 applicants were rejected, I can only assume that the majority of the rejections were for reasons other than lack of qualification.
You are missing one important qualification to work at McD's: (3) conscientiousness.
When the boss says "someone pooped in the urinal", a McDonald's employee needs to say "yes sir" and go put on gloves. They also need to show up to work on time, take the 6AM shift when asked to, etc. Not all people are willing to do this.
According to many sociologists, a large number of lower class Americans lack conscientiousness. Go read this dead-tree book, for example (sorry, online sources are hard to find):
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-Marriage/...
The focus of the book is on why poor single women choose to become single mothers, but it gives a great look into the work habits of the lower classes as well.
When the boss says "someone pooped in the urinal", a McDonald's employee needs to say "yes sir" and go put on gloves. They also need to show up to work on time, take the 6AM shift when asked to, etc. Not all people are willing to do this.
According to many sociologists, a large number of lower class Americans lack conscientiousness. Go read this dead-tree book, for example (sorry, online sources are hard to find):
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-Marriage/...
The focus of the book is on why poor single women choose to become single mothers, but it gives a great look into the work habits of the lower classes as well.
Interesting, but doesn't the act of applying for a job itself guarantee to at least some extent that an applicant is conscientious?
Not even remotely. I worked at an EB Games (hardly a prestigious retail outlet, but pretty decent). I had stoned-looking, unshaven, greasy-haired teenagers in ripped clothes and baggy jeans stagger into my store as if they were stoned out of their minds, throw down a folded-in-quarters resume on the counter, and say 'I'd like a job'. When I said 'Thanks, we'll let you know' they wandered off to play on the demo Xbox for ten minutes and then left.
Another guy came in, an overweight, sweaty, hillbilly-looking man in ratty jeans and a flannel shirt so worn out that there were obvious holes in the armpits, and I got the sense that hygiene was as important to him as fashion.
Then there's the women who come in with their son's resume (and occasionally even their sons) and try to get them a job.
I'd like to say 'For every talented, worthwhile individual we saw ten of these', but in three years of working there, I don't recall having spoken to a single person that made me think 'Hey, we should hire this guy', but I saw one person after another like this, people so unqualified for the job that I couldn't help but wonder if they really wanted to be employed at all, or if their parents or girlfriends were just tired of them lazing around the house and smoking pot and were forcing them to pretend to make an attempt.
My manager at EB used to manage a McDonald's, and he became one of those people who refuses to leave the drive-thru until he's gone through everything he ordered to make sure it's what he asked for. The reason? He's had to do hiring. The kids that are too blasted out of their minds to accomplish anything? The ones that stand there like idiots until you give them specific, detailed, step-by-step instructions which they immediately forget? The ones that don't actually understand what's happening, never really know how to do their jobs, and never take action on their own? Those, he said, were the best applicants he got. He hired these people because everyone else who applied was incapable of doing simple tasks even when instructed. These people were the cream of the crop.
So when McDonald's says they hired 6.2% of the people who applied to them, I also have a hard time believing them. I can't help but think, 'Really? That many? They must be desperate.'
Another guy came in, an overweight, sweaty, hillbilly-looking man in ratty jeans and a flannel shirt so worn out that there were obvious holes in the armpits, and I got the sense that hygiene was as important to him as fashion.
Then there's the women who come in with their son's resume (and occasionally even their sons) and try to get them a job.
I'd like to say 'For every talented, worthwhile individual we saw ten of these', but in three years of working there, I don't recall having spoken to a single person that made me think 'Hey, we should hire this guy', but I saw one person after another like this, people so unqualified for the job that I couldn't help but wonder if they really wanted to be employed at all, or if their parents or girlfriends were just tired of them lazing around the house and smoking pot and were forcing them to pretend to make an attempt.
My manager at EB used to manage a McDonald's, and he became one of those people who refuses to leave the drive-thru until he's gone through everything he ordered to make sure it's what he asked for. The reason? He's had to do hiring. The kids that are too blasted out of their minds to accomplish anything? The ones that stand there like idiots until you give them specific, detailed, step-by-step instructions which they immediately forget? The ones that don't actually understand what's happening, never really know how to do their jobs, and never take action on their own? Those, he said, were the best applicants he got. He hired these people because everyone else who applied was incapable of doing simple tasks even when instructed. These people were the cream of the crop.
So when McDonald's says they hired 6.2% of the people who applied to them, I also have a hard time believing them. I can't help but think, 'Really? That many? They must be desperate.'
It doesn't tell us how many are qualified, but it does tell us how many are not content to opt out of the economy and space out on Tube of FarmBook, at the very least because keeping the lights on long term is not as easy as the earlier comment speculated.
They are connected. Human beings need structure and a sense of purpose in their life. Games provide that structure when nothing else does. The problem is real life, overall is not as black and white as games. You don't become successful by following X, Y, and Z. There are circumstances we can't control. Whereas in RPG games, we know we can go to the next level, or beat that boss if we just keep grinding, just keep working. Real life doesn't work that way. It's frustrating.. there's no framework (well, there's a lot, but lots of choices = frustrating). RPG games, you just grind. Life is fuzzier.
I think most people lack the fortitude. It's better to sit in silence for a moment and think, and take your time, than to 'check out' into the reward drip novelty as you so well described it.
The next level, for me anyway, is to focus on creating stuff and making a business that contributes to the person who agrees with the above statement, rather than working to create the crap that sustains those who don't.
How could such a perspective be integrated into gamification? In other words where the objective of the game is to make something that doesn't just rake in high profits and make one rich, but sustains and exemplifies an integrated, engaging existence on all levels?
The next level, for me anyway, is to focus on creating stuff and making a business that contributes to the person who agrees with the above statement, rather than working to create the crap that sustains those who don't.
How could such a perspective be integrated into gamification? In other words where the objective of the game is to make something that doesn't just rake in high profits and make one rich, but sustains and exemplifies an integrated, engaging existence on all levels?
It's absolutely true that Facebook encourages a sort of 'happiness' arms race, where most people seek to convey the brightest possible interpretation of their own lives to match the same projections they see in others. That isn't Facebook's fault (insomuch as they actively encourage this), it's just a natural human reaction ported to a new context and environment.
The reason this hits the HBR crowd particularly hard is because it adds another, ubiquitous front to the battle of positive image. It used to be, you only had to be an assertive, bright, shining star when you were around people or talking on the phone. Then you could go home, pour yourself a belt of Glenlivet, and be miserable for a while to blow off steam. Now you have to keep it up ALL of the time, on a medium that's everywhere and never stops. It hits hard, particularly when you're a hard charger whose career depends on being perceived as relentlessly successful and upbeat.
The reason this hits the HBR crowd particularly hard is because it adds another, ubiquitous front to the battle of positive image. It used to be, you only had to be an assertive, bright, shining star when you were around people or talking on the phone. Then you could go home, pour yourself a belt of Glenlivet, and be miserable for a while to blow off steam. Now you have to keep it up ALL of the time, on a medium that's everywhere and never stops. It hits hard, particularly when you're a hard charger whose career depends on being perceived as relentlessly successful and upbeat.
This piece was spot on, except for one thing-- the suggestion that "quitting facebook" is unrealistic.
Why?
Maybe the author was trying to avoid being labeled "too extreme". And granted, there are probably a few people out there who are dependent on it for their livelihood somehow. For everyone else, "quitting facebook" is a very realistic alternative. I've done it, so have many of my friends, and life goes on, with improved well being.
Once you realize you're being used and abused, it's time to move on.
Why?
Maybe the author was trying to avoid being labeled "too extreme". And granted, there are probably a few people out there who are dependent on it for their livelihood somehow. For everyone else, "quitting facebook" is a very realistic alternative. I've done it, so have many of my friends, and life goes on, with improved well being.
Once you realize you're being used and abused, it's time to move on.
Agreed. It's like someone writing a whole article about all the harms of smoking, and then ending the article with "Now of course I'm not saying quit smoking, just cut down to a pack a day."
Always entertaining these "Facebook quitting is not possible" discussion that are following such postings. It is very impressive how much value people put on remote peer group approval. Sometimes it all seems like a bunch of highschool kids telling their parents that if they don't get these "cool" apparel items, they are not going to be popular anymore.
The misery can be avoided. I have my girl print off only the most relevant "wall postings" along with my morning emails. I review these over my after-breakfast coffee or sometimes (God willing) over a mid-morning BM. Either way, I only allocate 15-17 minutes per day to "the web" and the rest to managing my department.
Was that deliberately the funniest thing I've read today, or did you just luck out?
Karma-whoring is a very hit-or-miss proposition, so I would say deliberate but also lucky. Thanks! I'm here all week...
That's certainly an improvement to "email to a program that wgets the data and emails back."
Actually, I'd like to find out what that program is and try it.
Disclosure: I've always been nervous around parrots.
Back on topic: I've got my students using the Pomodoro Method in workshop time, no sms, fbook, anything while the timer is ticking.
Disclosure: I've always been nervous around parrots.
Back on topic: I've got my students using the Pomodoro Method in workshop time, no sms, fbook, anything while the timer is ticking.
Who do you think you are? Knuth?
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html
That product is going to make your Christmas ;) http://bergcloud.com/littleprinter/
For several months now I've set myself the rule that I only access FB from home; I've broken this rule only rarely and it's been remarkably successful at toning down the constant-checking behaviour---even when I'm at home. Because I've broken the "24-hour-IV-feed" nature of it, I've found that even when I have access to it I tend to spend a little while, check my updates, read a few things off the top of the feed, and then log out. And then I do other things.
Very helpful, and a nice compromise that stops short of "quitting facebook".
Very helpful, and a nice compromise that stops short of "quitting facebook".
My rule is to only use Facebook on my iPad. I typically do all my work on my laptop so when I'm on my iPad I can be sure it's leisure time. I would probably put HN in the same category but I can't stop commenting on everything that's remotely relevant to me and I hate typing on the iPad.
My rule is to use Facebook three times a day for twenty minutes each. I'm not addicted to FB, but this helps me stay away from long chats I may get into with friends. I get shit done with this method and I rarely break this rule.
What can you possibly accomplish on Facebook for 7 hours a week? I can understand the needed distraction here and there or the defined communication with friends but really?*
I'll stop my inflammatory rant because I'm going to assume you're a reasonably smart cookie because you're here. But really?
*for a 6 month personal experiment I deactivated my FB account and defriended, 2% of current friends per reactivation (17 times each under an hour) and could argue that I still have a top 5% social life.
I'll stop my inflammatory rant because I'm going to assume you're a reasonably smart cookie because you're here. But really?
*for a 6 month personal experiment I deactivated my FB account and defriended, 2% of current friends per reactivation (17 times each under an hour) and could argue that I still have a top 5% social life.
A lot of my time is dedicated to messaging (which is handy because a lot of my friends use FB more than texting), and I also occasionally read through and comment on wall posts.
Exactly this. Since quitting Facebook a month ago after noticing it was driving me nuts I've been happier, more productive and a lot closer to my closest friends. YMMV, but for me it has been very positive on all aspects of my life.
Perhaps this is a sign that Path are onto something - for people like me at least. (I had been very skeptical before)
Perhaps this is a sign that Path are onto something - for people like me at least. (I had been very skeptical before)
I quit for 3 years and went back for a month or two once or twice during that time. While this was happening, I was no longer invited to events my friends (sorry, "friends") went to and no longer knew what they were up to in their lives plus between work and Facebook events, they stopped doing anything spontaneous (such as meeting me for a coffee when I called). These were people I knew for between 5 to 10 years in real life.
I have since recently gone back to Facebook and moved cities (countries) so I'm trying to use it just for events/to my advantage, if such a thing is possible.
I have since recently gone back to Facebook and moved cities (countries) so I'm trying to use it just for events/to my advantage, if such a thing is possible.
I've been on a few Facebook vacations, and I've always been disappointed to see how many people use it as their sole means of keeping in touch with friends (meaning, I don't exist if I'm not on FB with them). You won't get emails from some of these people, even if you write to them. It's as if they either aren't checking, or can't be bothered to write more than a few lines anymore.
> and is fast becoming the dominant communication platform of the future.
Facebrick is only a necessity for attention whores, stalkers, pedophiles, and the insecure. Social networking is a fad, people. Just like pet rocks. Get over yourselves.
Downvote all you like. Don't care. Those with two brain cells to rub together will look back in five to ten years and try to remember why they thought Fartbook -- and the whole damned "social networking" phenominon -- was such a big deal.
For those that aren't old enough to remember how many times we've been through this cycle, do the research on MySpace, AOL... hell, the list is endless. Google "predecessors to Facebook", learn something about what's gone before, and for Christ's sake, get a life.
Facebrick is only a necessity for attention whores, stalkers, pedophiles, and the insecure. Social networking is a fad, people. Just like pet rocks. Get over yourselves.
Downvote all you like. Don't care. Those with two brain cells to rub together will look back in five to ten years and try to remember why they thought Fartbook -- and the whole damned "social networking" phenominon -- was such a big deal.
For those that aren't old enough to remember how many times we've been through this cycle, do the research on MySpace, AOL... hell, the list is endless. Google "predecessors to Facebook", learn something about what's gone before, and for Christ's sake, get a life.
In five years, we may look back at Facebook as a has-been. But I am confident that it will enjoy a long life, at least relative to the Web.
I don't care much for Facebook for my own personal enjoyment, but there's money to be made in Facebook. There are no doubt plenty of HN readers who can testify to this: huge amounts of money are being spent by companies around the world every day just to have tabs or full-blown Facebook apps developed for them. This amounts to a simple window (an iframe, really) within Facebook itself, but it is a gold mine for some of these companies, and they'll gladly pay to participate.
Again, this may all dry up within the next few years. But AOL and Myspace never got close to this kind of user base, so the fall may not be so swift.
I don't care much for Facebook for my own personal enjoyment, but there's money to be made in Facebook. There are no doubt plenty of HN readers who can testify to this: huge amounts of money are being spent by companies around the world every day just to have tabs or full-blown Facebook apps developed for them. This amounts to a simple window (an iframe, really) within Facebook itself, but it is a gold mine for some of these companies, and they'll gladly pay to participate.
Again, this may all dry up within the next few years. But AOL and Myspace never got close to this kind of user base, so the fall may not be so swift.
Did AOL or MySpace have close to Facebook's user count?
Pardon the snark, but it sounds like a lot of people are either easily addicted or have poor time management skills.
Facebook is a social networking site. Others exist (though it is the biggest). That person who almost got hit because they weren't paying attention to their surroundings? Is that Facebook's fault, or is the person just easily distracted?
Facebook is a social networking site. Others exist (though it is the biggest). That person who almost got hit because they weren't paying attention to their surroundings? Is that Facebook's fault, or is the person just easily distracted?
>Pardon the snark, but it sounds like a lot of people are either easily addicted or have poor time management skills.
behold the power of [easy] dopamine.
behold the power of [easy] dopamine.
A lot of people ARE either easily addicted or have poor time management skills.
yeah totally.
so, I'll see you at the bar? ;)
so, I'll see you at the bar? ;)
simple recipe for being miserable:
1. make yourself belief that "the social network [Facebook] has taken over most aspects of our personal and professional lives, and is fast becoming the dominant communication platform of the future." and "that \"quitting\" Facebook altogether is unrealistic"
2. be miserable
Disclaimer: i've never had a Facebook or any other soc. network account (beyond Linkedin), so use the recipe at your own risk and YMMV.
1. make yourself belief that "the social network [Facebook] has taken over most aspects of our personal and professional lives, and is fast becoming the dominant communication platform of the future." and "that \"quitting\" Facebook altogether is unrealistic"
2. be miserable
Disclaimer: i've never had a Facebook or any other soc. network account (beyond Linkedin), so use the recipe at your own risk and YMMV.
"As Facebook adds new features such as video chat, it is fast becoming a viable substitute for meetings, relationship building, and even family get-togethers. But each time a Facebook interaction replaces a richer form of communication — such as...a long phone call...."
Despite many good points, this is the part that reveals the article as Luddism. How, exactly, is video chat less intimate and rich than a phone call?
Despite many good points, this is the part that reveals the article as Luddism. How, exactly, is video chat less intimate and rich than a phone call?
This makes me tempted to start a 'My life is Awesome' movement on Facebook where everyone just keeps posting ever more ridiculous great achievements and over the top status updates.
Make it a "My Life is Awesome since I Quit Facebook" movement. Now we're over the top.
It would be, in effect, a Bill Brasky or Chuck Norris Facts sort of situation, except YOU are Bill Brasky.
Beginning of 2011, my new year resolution was "less facebook". I am glad that I have kept it. The way I did was, stopped posting stuff over there. As I figured I am more keen on what people are liking/commenting on what I post.
I know it is not fair entirely on my friends. As I am not entirely off it - and I consume but don't produce any thing over there. But I had to do something drastic as my work is more important, and I could not have waited for good social usage patterns to evolve. Mostly, I respond as a private message, if I see something which I feel compelled to comment on. Even if some friend posts on my wall, or on some occasions inquire about my silence, I try to do the same thing.
I am wondering if in Jan 2012, I should go back there or not...
PS: I do waste time on HN too. But I honestly feel, I gain something out of it as well. The quality of discussion is very high. And the kind of stuff posted is to my taste. I also use Google+ to discuss something with friends. The less number of people there actually helps, in a different way.
I know it is not fair entirely on my friends. As I am not entirely off it - and I consume but don't produce any thing over there. But I had to do something drastic as my work is more important, and I could not have waited for good social usage patterns to evolve. Mostly, I respond as a private message, if I see something which I feel compelled to comment on. Even if some friend posts on my wall, or on some occasions inquire about my silence, I try to do the same thing.
I am wondering if in Jan 2012, I should go back there or not...
PS: I do waste time on HN too. But I honestly feel, I gain something out of it as well. The quality of discussion is very high. And the kind of stuff posted is to my taste. I also use Google+ to discuss something with friends. The less number of people there actually helps, in a different way.
I got a friend on FB that works in Brussels but literally every weekend he's off to some exotic destination.
So everyday I either see a checkin from god knows where, or if he's not there yet, there's always a status "Next weekend, I will be in <exotic destination>"
I wonder if he'd be still doing this if there was no Facebook.
The only reason I keep Facebook is because it's easy to contact people when I need to get a hold of someone that I met five years ago while traveling or something.
But even so, I'm beginning to question the logic behind having a million acquaintances "just in case"
My close friends are on Skype anyway, so FB seems to have less meaning with each passing day.
I wonder if he'd be still doing this if there was no Facebook.
The only reason I keep Facebook is because it's easy to contact people when I need to get a hold of someone that I met five years ago while traveling or something.
But even so, I'm beginning to question the logic behind having a million acquaintances "just in case"
My close friends are on Skype anyway, so FB seems to have less meaning with each passing day.
FB, just like Twitter or blogs, is a tool for social broadcasting. It can be abused like anything else.
I don't buy the first point. Maybe my friends don't share everything sad, but some do share hardships and from experience, Facebook friends can sometimes become and additional support group. For example, when our baby was having cardiac surgery, my wife and I decided to share some of our experience and the positive is that you can keep your friends informed and get a lot of moral support when you most need it. It was awesome. Some of that support translated in real life too. It doesn't replace family or close friends that are present in your real life during these times, but it can be a valuable addition.
Same thing for the third point. Wether with Twitter or Facebook, we've had many real life impromptu meet ups we would never had before these tools because of status updates.
Social networks are tools. What matters is how you and your friends are using these. Of course, some friends only use these for self promotion or self gratification but you tend to notice and behaviors and filter out those updates that never lead to mean something.
On the other hand, if your life is miserable in the first place, I can see cases where Facebook could make your life more miserable. Again, it all depends on how your use it, your attitude and what you make of it.
Same thing for the third point. Wether with Twitter or Facebook, we've had many real life impromptu meet ups we would never had before these tools because of status updates.
Social networks are tools. What matters is how you and your friends are using these. Of course, some friends only use these for self promotion or self gratification but you tend to notice and behaviors and filter out those updates that never lead to mean something.
On the other hand, if your life is miserable in the first place, I can see cases where Facebook could make your life more miserable. Again, it all depends on how your use it, your attitude and what you make of it.
The same can also be same of this forum, and Techcrunch when we hear news about other startups getting acquired "easily".
It's easy to get depressed when you hear a startup like Hunch(seriously, eBay was a knight on a white horse, they got off easy) getting acquired for $80 million when you've worked your ass off on an idea or 2 for the last 5 years with little to show for it.
Sometimes it's better to just ignore positive news. It's hard to not get jealous.
It's easy to get depressed when you hear a startup like Hunch(seriously, eBay was a knight on a white horse, they got off easy) getting acquired for $80 million when you've worked your ass off on an idea or 2 for the last 5 years with little to show for it.
Sometimes it's better to just ignore positive news. It's hard to not get jealous.
It seems to me that what may be happening with sites such as Facebook is behavioral sink. That is, the frequency/intensity of interactions, especially facilitated by involuntary sharing, is beyond what the biological system can handle and the result may be maladaptive behaviors.
From Wikipedia:
"When forced interactions exceed some threshold, social norms break down. Thus social density is considered more critical than geometric spatial density."
From Wikipedia:
"When forced interactions exceed some threshold, social norms break down. Thus social density is considered more critical than geometric spatial density."
Is comparing ourselves to others so bad?
For me, it called attention to the fact that others were leading more interesting and dynamic lives than me. Yes, it made me more stressed. But it also brought me out of my comfort zone, and it led me to honestly ask why I wasn't getting more of what I wanted in life -- and to do something about it.
Facebook has my gratitude.
For me, it called attention to the fact that others were leading more interesting and dynamic lives than me. Yes, it made me more stressed. But it also brought me out of my comfort zone, and it led me to honestly ask why I wasn't getting more of what I wanted in life -- and to do something about it.
Facebook has my gratitude.
That's great that Facebook "opened your eyes" in a seemingly healthy way. Seriously.
The world was full of ways to compare ourselves with others before social media came around. It isn't going away. Facebook is just the latest iteration, and also happens to be the most surface-level, un-holistic, and competitive channel yet conceived for this kind of behavior.
Once people get competitive about "happiness" and "self esteem", there's a way that they lose sight of the original "goal" in the attempt to outdo each other.
We should all explore the different available paths in life and strive to gain from others' perspective and experience, but the Facebook news feed is not a particularly good way to do it.
The world was full of ways to compare ourselves with others before social media came around. It isn't going away. Facebook is just the latest iteration, and also happens to be the most surface-level, un-holistic, and competitive channel yet conceived for this kind of behavior.
Once people get competitive about "happiness" and "self esteem", there's a way that they lose sight of the original "goal" in the attempt to outdo each other.
We should all explore the different available paths in life and strive to gain from others' perspective and experience, but the Facebook news feed is not a particularly good way to do it.
+1, but I strongly disagree with you. I learn that: my friends have dragged themselves out of bed to enjoy some new and fascinating experience; after a long and severe effort, they have succeeded at their dissertation/weight loss/exercise program; that after a lot of duds on OKCupid, they have met somebody amazing; etc. There's plenty of surface-level stuff on FB too, but whenever FB has made me "miserable" it has always been over something important and meaningful.
A lot of things strike me as vastly more surface-level and un-holistic: what kind of car you drive, how big your house is, how rich your neighbors are, how immaculate your lawn is, etc.
A lot of things strike me as vastly more surface-level and un-holistic: what kind of car you drive, how big your house is, how rich your neighbors are, how immaculate your lawn is, etc.
What if you just decided to "not play the game" and pursue a life that was meaningful to you, on your own terms, instead of waiting for somebody else's Facebook post to make feel you "miserable" and inadequate?
Regarding your final point, as it happens, a pretty sizable chunk of Facebook feed items tend to revolve things like the cars people drive, their house, and their farmville "lawn". At least that's how it was when I was using it. The more things change...
Regarding your final point, as it happens, a pretty sizable chunk of Facebook feed items tend to revolve things like the cars people drive, their house, and their farmville "lawn". At least that's how it was when I was using it. The more things change...
so whenever your friends succeed in something meaningful, you always feel miserable? You never ever feel good for them? (don't be afraid to say yes, because I'm like that.. wondering if I'm alone..)
No, far from always, and not miserable exactly. By "miserable", I mean that I ask myself, "Bob drove to Yosemite National Park and hiked Half Dome this weekend, while I hung around my apartment and surfed the net and watched TV. Why didn't I do something like Bob?"
Because you are content in your surroundings and more energy efficient.
Those others are lying to impress you. That's the point.
[deleted]
"First, it's creating a den of comparison. Since our Facebook profiles are self-curated, users have a strong bias toward sharing positive milestones and avoid mentioning the more humdrum, negative parts of their lives."
It sounds a bit like cocktail parties, neighborhood open houses, and so on.
It sounds a bit like cocktail parties, neighborhood open houses, and so on.
I bet sometime soon Facebook's News Feed will be run through an "emotional state/mood" filter to customize the visible feed items that show up to be appropriate to what it infers is appropriate for your current mood/mental state. Unfortunately, for some people the algorithmic pendulum will swing too far to the 'depressed' state and cause unforeseen misery. The FCC will then collaborate with the Dept. of Health And Human Services to create new compliance guidelines. Yay, future!
Isn't this is just a basic feature of human nature? I'm pretty sure we once had cavemen sitting around the fire grunting/bragging about their awesome hunting skills while other cavemen felt jealous, anxious, or depressed about their own skills. Fire is clearly making us miserable.
Comparing is built-in perceptual functionality, but the meaning we associate with what we see are not. I'm not sure what culture you're embedded in, but where I live, in America, we are taught to take pride in material success, and to judge ourselves negatively or positively in comparison to others' material success. There are examples of countries that are quite different, e.g. Bhutan. In some cultures, people are taught early on that they should be happy for others' success, instead of envious and depressed.
Regardless of where it comes from, if one has concluded that such comparing and one-upmanship is not helpful and probably deleterious to well being, doesn't it make sense to opt out of things that encourage it?
Regardless of where it comes from, if one has concluded that such comparing and one-upmanship is not helpful and probably deleterious to well being, doesn't it make sense to opt out of things that encourage it?
Cavemen had to work together for common goal (survival) hence people usually root for each other. In modern world, people compete and try to one-up each other. No common goals. Big difference.
Disagree.
> Cavemen had to work together for common goal (survival) hence people usually root for each other.
How is that any different today? People manifest survival in a totally different way today, and the human being either choses to use other people to survive (bartering) or survive on our own (live off the land).
> Cavemen had to work together for common goal (survival) hence people usually root for each other.
How is that any different today? People manifest survival in a totally different way today, and the human being either choses to use other people to survive (bartering) or survive on our own (live off the land).
Survival is already an non-issue for most people in modern society and non-3rd world countries. Most friendships and relationships today are built on things that are so fragile, vulnerable, and superficial.. it's not even close.
If survival was an issue (fighting aliens for instance), we'd all be united in a way that would be unrecognizable today.
If survival was an issue (fighting aliens for instance), we'd all be united in a way that would be unrecognizable today.
Unsubscribing nearly 90% of my "friends" from appearing in my news feed has helped me manage my fb time better.
If I could figure out how to unfriend mass numbers easily, I'd do that instead.
If I could figure out how to unfriend mass numbers easily, I'd do that instead.
One-step bulk unfriend: http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_ac...
On the right of the page :"STAY CONNECTED TO HBR" with Facebook.
........
I've noticed that by cutting out HN, I am happier and feel more positive about my business.