Do Men Suck At Friendship?(mensjournal.com)
mensjournal.com
Do Men Suck At Friendship?
http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/print-view/do-men-suck-at-friendship-20140422
260 comments
This is true.
Which is why I have plenty of female friends to do everyday gossip and chatting with and a few male friends to bury bodies with. It tends to work out pretty well.
Maybe I'm a weird guy, but I find that I really need people with whom I can chat about things that are happening but are of no real consequence. Sometimes you just need someone to tell "Dude, something mildly interesting just happened!"
It's the whole "The only things worth complaining about are things that aren't worth solving" philosophy. Guy friends tend to handle those poorly. Lady friends relish it.
Which is why I have plenty of female friends to do everyday gossip and chatting with and a few male friends to bury bodies with. It tends to work out pretty well.
Maybe I'm a weird guy, but I find that I really need people with whom I can chat about things that are happening but are of no real consequence. Sometimes you just need someone to tell "Dude, something mildly interesting just happened!"
It's the whole "The only things worth complaining about are things that aren't worth solving" philosophy. Guy friends tend to handle those poorly. Lady friends relish it.
Speaking of cringing, the adjective you're looking for is 'American'.
I wonder when "America" ceased to mean "the two continents North and South America" and started to mean "USA" in the heads of US citizens. There's a reason why "European" isn't synonymous to "German", and why "Asian" isn't synonymous to "Chinese".
It's been going on since long before you were born. John Adams(our second President) called the United States "America" in his inaugural address. [1]
We use "The Americas" to refer to the continents as a pair, and prepend a cardinal direction to refer to one of them individually.
Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia call themselves Australians, despite there being other governments on the continent of Australia.
[1]: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres15.html
We use "The Americas" to refer to the continents as a pair, and prepend a cardinal direction to refer to one of them individually.
Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia call themselves Australians, despite there being other governments on the continent of Australia.
[1]: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres15.html
Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and some Indonesian islands, if anyone else is curious exactly what else is on the same shelf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_%28continent%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_%28continent%29
As I understand it, America = USA is not a US thing, it's an anglophone thing. For most of the history of the continent, if you were an english speaker, you were simply most likely to speak about the bit that's the USA, thus it got abbreviated. All language is littered with abbreviations that literally mean something broader, but has changed meaning for convenience. A car, for an example, technically means anything with wheels, but has changed its meaning to refer to an automobile for personal transportation.
Also, FWIW, my understanding is that the word "european" when used by americans and britons carries a mildly prerogative air of "frenchness". It certainly isn't a purely neutral geographical term.
Also, FWIW, my understanding is that the word "european" when used by americans and britons carries a mildly prerogative air of "frenchness". It certainly isn't a purely neutral geographical term.
Is it specifically anglophone? If anything, I think America=USA is a stronger association in some continental European languages. In English it's common to use "American" as an adjective, but not so common to use "America" as a noun to mean the USA, saying things like "I have a cousin in America" or "I took a vacation to America last year" (in both of these cases constructions like "the U.S." or "the States" are more common). But in Greek you'd definitely use "Αμερική" in those cases too, unless you were writing formally (in which case you'd say "Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες" or ΗΠΑ).
Same in Portuguese.
Not so much in Canada. We'll call someone from the US an American, but we don't say America; we'll say the US, instead.. as I just did.
"America" is short for "The United States of America". It's also the only shortened name which doesn't need to be preceded by 'the'. And it's the only single word which can be used to describe people of the US so then it's also been used to refer to the country. Originally 'American' was used to refer to people of British America, an area comprised of the eastern half of present-day US and Canada. Later the term came to refer to just the US.
> and started to mean "USA" in the heads of US citizens
You're being a little pedantic. It's usually understood to refer to US citizens by just about everyone outside the USA as well, not just US citizens themselves.
You're being a little pedantic. It's usually understood to refer to US citizens by just about everyone outside the USA as well, not just US citizens themselves.
I guess you are being a little bit insensitive by calling him "pedantic".
As an "American" from the South, and having friends in both Central and North, we constantly make fun of the fact that we can't call ourselves Americans the way Europeans and Asians do.
Another "interesting point" though is that the Indigenous population are still called Indians and the the real Indians are not identified as Asians.
As an "American" from the South, and having friends in both Central and North, we constantly make fun of the fact that we can't call ourselves Americans the way Europeans and Asians do.
Another "interesting point" though is that the Indigenous population are still called Indians and the the real Indians are not identified as Asians.
You can call yourselves "South Americans" though, and everybody would understand.
Not all taxonomies consider "America" as one continent. In geography school we were taught of North America and South America as different continents. And if you check Wikipedia, you'll see there are several ways to divide the continents, and they cound from 5 to 7 depending on how you look at it, IIRC.
>Another "interesting point" though is that the Indigenous population are still called Indians and the the real Indians are not identified as Asians.
In my corner of Europe we don't consider the "real Indians" as Asians either. Some cultures do, but we prefer to reserve the "Asian" moniker for the far east (Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea etc). I don't see much cultural or historical resemblance between these and Indians.
Not all taxonomies consider "America" as one continent. In geography school we were taught of North America and South America as different continents. And if you check Wikipedia, you'll see there are several ways to divide the continents, and they cound from 5 to 7 depending on how you look at it, IIRC.
>Another "interesting point" though is that the Indigenous population are still called Indians and the the real Indians are not identified as Asians.
In my corner of Europe we don't consider the "real Indians" as Asians either. Some cultures do, but we prefer to reserve the "Asian" moniker for the far east (Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea etc). I don't see much cultural or historical resemblance between these and Indians.
For those languages for which this is actually true, you can most likely chalk it up to US cultural influence.
There's no other word in English to say "from the US". When I'm talking with my Latino friends who don't like me using the word "American", I just say "gringo". But that obviously doesn't work well for general usage.
Yes, there's another word you're expected sometimes to use when traveling in South America: estadounidense. There's no equivalent in English, it would be USian.
> There's no other word in English to say "from the US".
Actually, there is: "US American" [1], though it's rarely used.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/US_American
Actually, there is: "US American" [1], though it's rarely used.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/US_American
Yea. I'm from India. And I resent the fact that any reference to 'Asian' means they are referring to the Chinese, Mongoloids or the Japanese.
Hell, even most of Russia falls in Asia.
In the UK, "Asian" usually refers to India / Pakistan / Bangladesh.
I'm sensitive to this enough to specify 'US' when that's what I mean -- yet, when Europeans (well, N. Europeans in my experience) say "Americans" they're referring to US people. It's probably because US culture, politics, imperialism etc. intrude into their countries and lives a lot more than Canadians, Mexicans or South Americans do.
Usually the abbreviation "America" refers to "United States of ...", while if you're referring to the two continents, you refer to "The Americas". And if you want to get more specific, you can refer to North America or South America.
United States of America = America
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = Britain
I'd say "Britain" more commonly refers to Great Britain, not the UK (i.e. Britain == [England, Scotland, Wales, *islands]).
Speaking from a US perspective again, for me "the UK", "England", and "Britain" are all completely synonymous with each other.
He knows how it came into being. I think his question was more along the lines of "should it?"
Here is a great video explaining the history of "America" and its usage around the world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVMZC4y4zXU
tl;dw? Skip to 3:40.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVMZC4y4zXU
tl;dw? Skip to 3:40.
Do Canadians self-identify as living in "America"? I would guess not. But Germans certainly self-identify as European.
They equate "America" with "USA". "Canada", "America", and "Mexico" are located in "North America". And, BTW, "Mexico" is also in "Central America".
It's a cultural/linguistic norm, not a programming problem. Don't try to reason it out as rigorous logic.
It's a cultural/linguistic norm, not a programming problem. Don't try to reason it out as rigorous logic.
I do not. Maybe that would be different if I traveled to the US often. But despite some of our similarities I see Canada as distinctly Canada and I do not live in America (America’s Hat and Canada’s Pants jokes aside).
I believe "North American" would be suitable. (Sorry, Canada.)
Mexico is actually considered part of North America as well
Well... TIL! (Though, rather obvious thinking about it...) It definitely screws up my generalisation. I thought "North American" would be nice given the U.S. and Canada generally share the same language and culture. Mexico messes with that, slightly. Though, I suppose states like Florida (from my Dexter knowledge) would have similar issues given the high-proportion of Spanish speakers.
Speaking as a Brit, we do (rather ignorantly) generally refer to citizens of the U.S. as "American."
Speaking as a Brit, we do (rather ignorantly) generally refer to citizens of the U.S. as "American."
The US and Canada do not really have the same language demographics. 56% of Canada speaks English as a native language, 21% speaks French and Spanish clocks in at 1.2%; in contrast, the US has 80% English, 12.4% Spanish and 0.45% French.
The article seems to extol what most would call "girly" friendship--continuous contact, social gossip, etc. Lots of attention to little things.
This happens within the article - the writer's wife essentially shames him for his "surfing friendship" not being like her friendships.
I've encountered this too, as I'm sure many men have - being criticized or blamed by family or spouses for not talking enough or not talking about "the right things" when spending time with friends. And you're left asking yourself "was I doing it wrong?" when I come home from hanging out with friends and playing video games or hacking or whatever.
This happens within the article - the writer's wife essentially shames him for his "surfing friendship" not being like her friendships.
I've encountered this too, as I'm sure many men have - being criticized or blamed by family or spouses for not talking enough or not talking about "the right things" when spending time with friends. And you're left asking yourself "was I doing it wrong?" when I come home from hanging out with friends and playing video games or hacking or whatever.
The author explicitly acknowledges that the traditional "girly" friendship may not be the optimal. And implies that male friendships can be deeper than shared activities without turning into such relationships:
> At the same time, a wave of feminist sociologists and psychologists began describing female friendship, with all its confessional talk, as the optimal model.
> Many feminist thinkers now see those views as overly simplistic. And as recent news about gay marriage shows, America is growing more comfortable with homosexuality.
I don't think the article extols that particular type of friendship. I am surprised the article gives you that impression at all.
> At the same time, a wave of feminist sociologists and psychologists began describing female friendship, with all its confessional talk, as the optimal model.
> Many feminist thinkers now see those views as overly simplistic. And as recent news about gay marriage shows, America is growing more comfortable with homosexuality.
I don't think the article extols that particular type of friendship. I am surprised the article gives you that impression at all.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that feminist thinkers should be an authority on male friendships, since by definition feminist thinkers think from the point of women, and here we are discussing friendships between men.
I've a couple of female "friends"[1], and generally when talking to them I often feel all they're doing is telling me how right I am to feel in such and such way, frequently highlighting the differences between "us" and "them", whoever "them" might be, whenever the opportunity arise. (I suppose you'd call that 'gossip'). I also find often their opinions aren't decided till they figure out everyone else's, as if a fact cannot be correct until it is agreed on by other people. And when I speak confidently about a non-conformist view, they're often reluctant to outright disagree with me until they're sure my view is non-conformist, which might be weeks later when they suddenly bring it up (I assume after having quizzed all their friends).
I've been called a "best friend" half a dozen times by other men in the past year or two, but I've only got one best friend myself, who I've known for close to a decade, and we talk most days of the week. I think one of the most important qualities in a close male friendship is to mean what I say and say what I mean, even if no one would agree with me, even if it offends and hurts feelings. I think that is the stuff male bond is made of. It's hard to feel closeness when a friend is hiding what they really think about me from me[2]. To maintain the closeness of a male friendship, it's also important I put it above any romantic relationships I develop with women, even, and especially when, the women in such relationship puts pressure on me to become closer to her than to my friends. If I was "Matt" in the article, and if the author was my best friend, and a very important one at that, I would rather divorce my wife than move, if the move would endanger the friendship I had with the author. Only this willingness to sacrifice would ensure the strength of the bond in the friendship[3].
[1] I don't consider any female as "friends" even if they think I'm theirs, because of [2].
[3] It is also my opinion that "following" my wife wherever she goes and agreeing with her every word would reduce her attraction for me somewhat. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10524035/Hap...
I've a couple of female "friends"[1], and generally when talking to them I often feel all they're doing is telling me how right I am to feel in such and such way, frequently highlighting the differences between "us" and "them", whoever "them" might be, whenever the opportunity arise. (I suppose you'd call that 'gossip'). I also find often their opinions aren't decided till they figure out everyone else's, as if a fact cannot be correct until it is agreed on by other people. And when I speak confidently about a non-conformist view, they're often reluctant to outright disagree with me until they're sure my view is non-conformist, which might be weeks later when they suddenly bring it up (I assume after having quizzed all their friends).
I've been called a "best friend" half a dozen times by other men in the past year or two, but I've only got one best friend myself, who I've known for close to a decade, and we talk most days of the week. I think one of the most important qualities in a close male friendship is to mean what I say and say what I mean, even if no one would agree with me, even if it offends and hurts feelings. I think that is the stuff male bond is made of. It's hard to feel closeness when a friend is hiding what they really think about me from me[2]. To maintain the closeness of a male friendship, it's also important I put it above any romantic relationships I develop with women, even, and especially when, the women in such relationship puts pressure on me to become closer to her than to my friends. If I was "Matt" in the article, and if the author was my best friend, and a very important one at that, I would rather divorce my wife than move, if the move would endanger the friendship I had with the author. Only this willingness to sacrifice would ensure the strength of the bond in the friendship[3].
[1] I don't consider any female as "friends" even if they think I'm theirs, because of [2].
[3] It is also my opinion that "following" my wife wherever she goes and agreeing with her every word would reduce her attraction for me somewhat. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10524035/Hap...
'Feminism' (is a bad name and) does not by definition imply thinking from the point of view of a woman.
Feminism is usually defined approximately as 'anti-sexism'. Often that involves discussing issues where women are worse off- but not really in this article!
Feminism is usually defined approximately as 'anti-sexism'. Often that involves discussing issues where women are worse off- but not really in this article!
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
I can tell we're going to have a lot of disagreements over the definition and the concept of Feminism so I'm just going to suggest maybe you could edit the wikipedia entry on Feminism and change the definition there to include the possibilities of inequalities against men.
I can tell we're going to have a lot of disagreements over the definition and the concept of Feminism so I'm just going to suggest maybe you could edit the wikipedia entry on Feminism and change the definition there to include the possibilities of inequalities against men.
> when talking to them I often feel all they're doing is telling me how right I am to feel in such and such way, frequently highlighting the differences between "us" and "them", whoever "them" might be, whenever the opportunity arise. (I suppose you'd call that 'gossip').
It's called "emotional validation", and widely acknowledged as something that women are notoriously keen on and men are notoriously bad at providing.
http://www.womensweb.in/2012/04/validating-feelings-expressi...
Or, in a satirical manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
It's called "emotional validation", and widely acknowledged as something that women are notoriously keen on and men are notoriously bad at providing.
http://www.womensweb.in/2012/04/validating-feelings-expressi...
Or, in a satirical manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
Yes, it would be called that. I suppose the I'm not entirely comfortable with it all the time because when someone is doing it to me, they're just saying I'm right because I think I'm right, rather than telling them what they think. I suppose they could actually be feeling the same way as I do about the issue but that would only have happened because through the way I told the the story I managed to transfer my emotions to them. Sometimes I feel I'm talking to a mirror rather than a friend. Of course at other times it's just hearing what I want to hear and I suppose everyone would enjoy that from time to time. It's not something I want my friend to exclusively do to me all the time whenever we're communicating however.
My wife and I kid about it, but to me, emotional validation is the same as a lack of confidence. I have some unpopular beliefs, I don't need them to be validated by anyone. If I did, I would be a sheep.
"If I was "Matt" in the article, and if the author was my best friend, and a very important one at that, I would rather divorce my wife than move, if the move would endanger the friendship I had with the author".
Wow that's taking it to one extreme. What if this job was extremely rewarding financially for your wive or turned out to be what she really wanted to do for years? Would you not support her in this endeavour?
I think true, lasting male friendship should not necessarily imply frequent meetings among friends, but it should definitely entail something along the lines of "I've got your back, and I know you've got mine buddy". Also a lot of things in male friendship do not need to be explicitly communicated unlike female friendship (No need for endless text/messages saying "I love you man!").
It's very important to have friends with whom you share common interests and activities, but they are not necessarily your best friends. Your best friends are generally the ones you've known for decade(s) and regardless of where they are , will be ready to jump in a field of fire with you and come to your aid when times are tough. There's an unwritten contract among best friends; there's an unpronounced oath among men who hold each other in high esteem.
Wow that's taking it to one extreme. What if this job was extremely rewarding financially for your wive or turned out to be what she really wanted to do for years? Would you not support her in this endeavour?
I think true, lasting male friendship should not necessarily imply frequent meetings among friends, but it should definitely entail something along the lines of "I've got your back, and I know you've got mine buddy". Also a lot of things in male friendship do not need to be explicitly communicated unlike female friendship (No need for endless text/messages saying "I love you man!").
It's very important to have friends with whom you share common interests and activities, but they are not necessarily your best friends. Your best friends are generally the ones you've known for decade(s) and regardless of where they are , will be ready to jump in a field of fire with you and come to your aid when times are tough. There's an unwritten contract among best friends; there's an unpronounced oath among men who hold each other in high esteem.
"Wow that's taking it to one extreme. What if this job was extremely rewarding financially for your wive or turned out to be what she really wanted to do for years? Would you not support her in this endeavour?"
I've assumed the best friend in question was very important and the move would endanger the friendship. Let's also assume my wife is important in my life. Yes, I would emotionally and perhaps materially support her in her endeavor, accept our differences in the paths of our lives, and separate/divorce. Though if we have kids, I imagine I would fight to keep them, probably trying to persuade her that her financially rewarding job may also be highly stressful and she might not want yet another responsibility.
I've assumed the best friend in question was very important and the move would endanger the friendship. Let's also assume my wife is important in my life. Yes, I would emotionally and perhaps materially support her in her endeavor, accept our differences in the paths of our lives, and separate/divorce. Though if we have kids, I imagine I would fight to keep them, probably trying to persuade her that her financially rewarding job may also be highly stressful and she might not want yet another responsibility.
>since by definition feminist thinkers think from the point of women
Hrm? Many men are feminist.
Feminism is defined as "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities." Feminism also deals with men's interests when the inequalities benefit women (child custody for example)
>"following" my wife wherever she goes and agreeing with her every word
Good god. These are join decisions that are made mutually.
Hrm? Many men are feminist.
Feminism is defined as "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities." Feminism also deals with men's interests when the inequalities benefit women (child custody for example)
>"following" my wife wherever she goes and agreeing with her every word
Good god. These are join decisions that are made mutually.
Not sure if I understand what you're saying, but if I do, that's got to be offensive to at least two large groups of people.
At the end of the day, there are not just gay men, straight men and girls. Within the straight men there are subsets who equate a lot of social contact, gossip etc. with friendship, just as there are gay men or girls who don't equate this with friendship.
The "most guys I know of" thing is probably just confirmation bias based on social circles and career choices.
At the end of the day, there are not just gay men, straight men and girls. Within the straight men there are subsets who equate a lot of social contact, gossip etc. with friendship, just as there are gay men or girls who don't equate this with friendship.
The "most guys I know of" thing is probably just confirmation bias based on social circles and career choices.
What exactly lead you to think the author was gay?
Do men have to be gay to be effeminate?
The adjective that should usually be used for that stereotype is 'camp'. Plenty of gay men aren't camp, and plenty of camp men aren't gay.
Yeah, I'm not the biggest fan of 'effeminate' really.
Do men have to be effeminate to identify with isolated feminine characteristics?
Do men have to be to identify?
^^ This. I know I am there for my friends and I know that they are there for me. That already gives me a feeling of connectedness. I do not need to see them on a daily basis.
Good point. I can go fishing with my best friend, be at other sides of a lake and hardly talk all day. That still counts as hanging out.
"This article makes me cringe. Is the author gay or a pseudonym for a girl?"
You are officially part of the problem.
You are officially part of the problem.
"In Steppenwolf's case, the fact is that, like all hybrid creatures, he lived with the feeling of being sometimes a wolf, sometimes a human being. However, as a wolf he was forever conscious of his human side lying in wait, observing, judging and condemning him; just as the wolf did when he was a human being. For example, whenever Harry in his capacity as a human being had some lovely idea, experience some fine and noble sentiment, or did a so-called good deed, the wolf in him would bare its teeth and laugh him utterly to scorn, indicating how ludicrously out of character all this fine play-acting was in a wild animal of the steppes, a wolf who at heart knew perfectly well that his real pleasure lay in stalking alone across the plains, occasionally blood or pursuing a she-wolf. Seen thus from the wolf's point of view, every human action became frighteningly comic and self-conscious, vain and inane. But it was exactly the same when Harry felt and behaved like a wolf, when he showed other people his teeth or became murderously hostile to humankind as a whole, hating all its hypocritical and degenerate manners and customs. For then it was the human side of him that lay in wait, observing the wolf, calling him a brute and a beast, spoiling and souring all the pleasure he was taking in the straightforward life of a healthy untamed wolf...
His position was a lonely one; it was uncanny the way the world left him to his own devices. Other people were longer of concern to him; he wasn't even concerned about himself. The air around him was getting thinner and thinner the more solitary he became, severing all contact with others, and he was slowly suffocating as a result. For the situation now was different. No longer his desire and goal, solitude and independence were a fate he was condemned to. He had made his magic wish and there was no going back on it. However strongly he yearned to re-establish contact with others, however willing he was to hold out his arms to embrace them, it was of no avail: they now left him alone. Yet there was no indication that people hated him or found him repugnant. On the contrary; he had lots of friends. Lots of people liked him. But friendliness and sympathy were the only reactions he ever encountered. People would invite him to their homes, give him presents, write him nice letters, but nobody was able or willing to share his life. He was no breathing the air that the lonely breathe, living in an atmosphere that was still, adrift from the world around him. No amount of yearning or goodwill had any effect on his inability to form relationships."
Steppenwolf - Hermann Hesse
His position was a lonely one; it was uncanny the way the world left him to his own devices. Other people were longer of concern to him; he wasn't even concerned about himself. The air around him was getting thinner and thinner the more solitary he became, severing all contact with others, and he was slowly suffocating as a result. For the situation now was different. No longer his desire and goal, solitude and independence were a fate he was condemned to. He had made his magic wish and there was no going back on it. However strongly he yearned to re-establish contact with others, however willing he was to hold out his arms to embrace them, it was of no avail: they now left him alone. Yet there was no indication that people hated him or found him repugnant. On the contrary; he had lots of friends. Lots of people liked him. But friendliness and sympathy were the only reactions he ever encountered. People would invite him to their homes, give him presents, write him nice letters, but nobody was able or willing to share his life. He was no breathing the air that the lonely breathe, living in an atmosphere that was still, adrift from the world around him. No amount of yearning or goodwill had any effect on his inability to form relationships."
Steppenwolf - Hermann Hesse
I find it interesting how focused this article is in the "traditional" male gender role. It doesn't even touch the subject of different friendship types and relations when involving other genders than 'male'.
Without denying that sex has it's toll in the physical (duh) and psychological treats of a person, I do believe that traditional gender roles are the only roles taken into account for this article, making a great deal of assumptions on how males act towards friendship. Does anyone know if there are studies such as the ones mentioned in the article that take into account a less black and white view of gender roles or that digs into other types of friendships?
Without denying that sex has it's toll in the physical (duh) and psychological treats of a person, I do believe that traditional gender roles are the only roles taken into account for this article, making a great deal of assumptions on how males act towards friendship. Does anyone know if there are studies such as the ones mentioned in the article that take into account a less black and white view of gender roles or that digs into other types of friendships?
I wasn't sure I was supposed to be expecting more as a guy?
Most of my male-to-male interaction occurs because of shared interest. Usually a 'man activity' such as working on a car, house, or yard, working out, riding motorcycles, that sort of thing.
But there's no talk about feelings or things like that. I could help a buddy cut down a couple trees and nothing of the sort gets discussed. I'll come home and be asked, "So did Mike say how it's going with his new job/girlfriend/whatever?"
I reply, "No. Was I supposed to ask him about that?"
I think the only time there's any real discussion about things of that sort is the other activity I share with other guys: drinking alcohol
Most of my male-to-male interaction occurs because of shared interest. Usually a 'man activity' such as working on a car, house, or yard, working out, riding motorcycles, that sort of thing.
But there's no talk about feelings or things like that. I could help a buddy cut down a couple trees and nothing of the sort gets discussed. I'll come home and be asked, "So did Mike say how it's going with his new job/girlfriend/whatever?"
I reply, "No. Was I supposed to ask him about that?"
I think the only time there's any real discussion about things of that sort is the other activity I share with other guys: drinking alcohol
Some men are genuinely not very interested in forming intimate friendships with other males. This does not mean men "suck" at friendship. It just means they prefer to have intimate relationships with women, not men.
"when we were all so freaked-out about seeming gay that we'd leave an empty seat between us at the movies."
or, you know, because horizontal leg room...
or, you know, because horizontal leg room...
This seems more like a myth to me. I have friend that I have known since we were toddlers.
Even though me and him are in different countries we Skype daily! I will be visiting him in August and he's going to visit me in December.
Do men suck at friendships? the answer is yes but because most of us never try,
Personal Ramble
It all starts when we are children. Look at how young boys and girls play. Boys will do things together, play football, play video games talk about things they do (notice the DO, guys like to DO things). Girls will play games around social events, and developing their social hierarchy. Girls learn from a young age how to operate in social groups. boys do not tend to learn these skills until teenage years, until then they will entertain themselves
To make the point, say 2 boys have an argument, they are more likely to come to blows, fight and then drop the issue, dealing with the issue. Girls on the other hand will use talking/and social to punish those that they are fighting with. Social exclusion is the general form of punishment for girls that do not follow the established social hierarchy of a school system. This is simply to highlight the differences between boys and girls as children (aka less time for social manipulation in to pre-defined roles)
The above i feel is a biological difference in the way that men and women operate even at young ages. This is still in us as adults. (there are a number of studies about this point, boys raised as girls and so on, personally i KNOW that boys and girls are biologically different and in turn you can not just tell someone to be a girl or boy, it is hard coded (trying to highlight that I do not believe that the role of girls and boys are interchangeable as some people imply; I believe trans and other gender identity issues are based on biological triggers))
So moving on, i might be getting to a point
In my part of the world men are taught from a young age to be 'strong', 'leaders', 'money earners', 'head of the family'. Men have been exploited throughout history because of this mentality (think men front line of wars, its the mans role to defend his country and not complain (if you ran you got shot), protect our women, and supply our family with money. We are taught to ignore our emotions and to endure (work 8hrs/5days a week for 60 years). This is 1000s of years old, men are the work horses, well minus the very few at the top who pull the strings and certain people use to proclaim that men rule the world.
I also believe that we put too much focus on SO to 'complete' our lives (an extension of the idea that a man should support a family). So many people have said that their SO is their best friend and i think this is great. However as a 30 year old male I have one group of friends that have all got engaged at the same time, they all getting married within the same few years and they will be having kids at the same time i am sure. My honest option on this is that out of the 5 guys in that group, 4 of them have been pushed in to it by the girls of the group, and the first couple that started it off, well the guy was told he either asked her to marry him or she would ask him that leap year (last year) Basically what happened was one girl wanted to get married and then using that as a president the other girls banded together and got the rest of the guys to ask them.
This might sound like harsh but men need to stop thinking that their lives are about supporting other people, we need to learn that our lives are our own, we are not here to pay bills, support children (if you want to then amazing) but it is not our default roles. Sadly there is such a lack of male roles today that the 9-5 with 2-4 children is now the default. I feel sorry for men, we have been used and abused as wage earners and human targets, we work to support our families all the time self sacrificing our own social well being.
i am 30 and spent the last 9 years working on my friendship (balanced between girls and boys these days) and being close with my family. I was one of the most socially difficult people you will never know when young but thanks to lots of practice i can start a conversion with anyone anywhere. I can go to clubs by myself, dancing as an example or the pictures, it is not an issue. I guess i should put in that I have only had few relationships and i have spent more time living on my own that I ever have in relationships but on the flip side, I have a lot of friends (Sounds bad, but i have always feared some girl loading me up with kids and then me spending the rest of my life slaving to support them while they all resent me for never being at home because i am working). One thing i will say is that single guys do tend to socialize together, a lot of my single male friends are all interlinked, and most of my friends in couples are friends with couples. There is very little over lap between these groups. Single guys have different social requirements to men with SOs, and I guess it is a preference to what social groups you prefer.
So to all of you what is your priority? to become the default wage earner for a family and then complain that you have no friends? or start making your own path in life, focus on your friends rather than chasing the next SO. Find out who you are, and what you like, and you will have no issues making friends.
Be true to yourself, not true to someone else s view of you
I guess a summery is... Men and women socialize differently from a young age, i think its hard coded to a large degree. Men have lost their roles in every day life, and (personally) too many men spend their lives supporting family's because they believe it is what is expected off them. I say it's time for a male revolution, a time when men can band together (pack style) and we can entertain ourself and get out of this rat race that is a life of working to raise a family. There are too many people in the world anyway, do you really want to bring someone in to it? where the hell do you think we will be in 10 years given what has happened over the last 10 years.
It is time for Males to start redefining their roles in the world and this will start with you.
Personal Ramble
It all starts when we are children. Look at how young boys and girls play. Boys will do things together, play football, play video games talk about things they do (notice the DO, guys like to DO things). Girls will play games around social events, and developing their social hierarchy. Girls learn from a young age how to operate in social groups. boys do not tend to learn these skills until teenage years, until then they will entertain themselves
To make the point, say 2 boys have an argument, they are more likely to come to blows, fight and then drop the issue, dealing with the issue. Girls on the other hand will use talking/and social to punish those that they are fighting with. Social exclusion is the general form of punishment for girls that do not follow the established social hierarchy of a school system. This is simply to highlight the differences between boys and girls as children (aka less time for social manipulation in to pre-defined roles)
The above i feel is a biological difference in the way that men and women operate even at young ages. This is still in us as adults. (there are a number of studies about this point, boys raised as girls and so on, personally i KNOW that boys and girls are biologically different and in turn you can not just tell someone to be a girl or boy, it is hard coded (trying to highlight that I do not believe that the role of girls and boys are interchangeable as some people imply; I believe trans and other gender identity issues are based on biological triggers))
So moving on, i might be getting to a point
In my part of the world men are taught from a young age to be 'strong', 'leaders', 'money earners', 'head of the family'. Men have been exploited throughout history because of this mentality (think men front line of wars, its the mans role to defend his country and not complain (if you ran you got shot), protect our women, and supply our family with money. We are taught to ignore our emotions and to endure (work 8hrs/5days a week for 60 years). This is 1000s of years old, men are the work horses, well minus the very few at the top who pull the strings and certain people use to proclaim that men rule the world.
I also believe that we put too much focus on SO to 'complete' our lives (an extension of the idea that a man should support a family). So many people have said that their SO is their best friend and i think this is great. However as a 30 year old male I have one group of friends that have all got engaged at the same time, they all getting married within the same few years and they will be having kids at the same time i am sure. My honest option on this is that out of the 5 guys in that group, 4 of them have been pushed in to it by the girls of the group, and the first couple that started it off, well the guy was told he either asked her to marry him or she would ask him that leap year (last year) Basically what happened was one girl wanted to get married and then using that as a president the other girls banded together and got the rest of the guys to ask them.
This might sound like harsh but men need to stop thinking that their lives are about supporting other people, we need to learn that our lives are our own, we are not here to pay bills, support children (if you want to then amazing) but it is not our default roles. Sadly there is such a lack of male roles today that the 9-5 with 2-4 children is now the default. I feel sorry for men, we have been used and abused as wage earners and human targets, we work to support our families all the time self sacrificing our own social well being.
i am 30 and spent the last 9 years working on my friendship (balanced between girls and boys these days) and being close with my family. I was one of the most socially difficult people you will never know when young but thanks to lots of practice i can start a conversion with anyone anywhere. I can go to clubs by myself, dancing as an example or the pictures, it is not an issue. I guess i should put in that I have only had few relationships and i have spent more time living on my own that I ever have in relationships but on the flip side, I have a lot of friends (Sounds bad, but i have always feared some girl loading me up with kids and then me spending the rest of my life slaving to support them while they all resent me for never being at home because i am working). One thing i will say is that single guys do tend to socialize together, a lot of my single male friends are all interlinked, and most of my friends in couples are friends with couples. There is very little over lap between these groups. Single guys have different social requirements to men with SOs, and I guess it is a preference to what social groups you prefer.
So to all of you what is your priority? to become the default wage earner for a family and then complain that you have no friends? or start making your own path in life, focus on your friends rather than chasing the next SO. Find out who you are, and what you like, and you will have no issues making friends.
Be true to yourself, not true to someone else s view of you
I guess a summery is... Men and women socialize differently from a young age, i think its hard coded to a large degree. Men have lost their roles in every day life, and (personally) too many men spend their lives supporting family's because they believe it is what is expected off them. I say it's time for a male revolution, a time when men can band together (pack style) and we can entertain ourself and get out of this rat race that is a life of working to raise a family. There are too many people in the world anyway, do you really want to bring someone in to it? where the hell do you think we will be in 10 years given what has happened over the last 10 years.
It is time for Males to start redefining their roles in the world and this will start with you.
Even though we use the same word, friendship in the male culture is a different concept from friendship in the female culture and it is a mistake to judge one with the criteria for the other.
Automated tweet for this article has a custom mjm.ag domain instead of bit.ly for first time. Not sure why that happened https://twitter.com/hnycombinator/status/458827145398484992
That's part of bitly's premium offering.
nytimes.com shortens to http://nyti.ms/1gQdV1r, Amazon shortens to http://amzn.to/1mCftnd, and anything .gov shortens to 1.usa.gov: http://1.usa.gov/1iejWVe
The shortened part is totally interchangable, ie http://bit.ly/1gQdV1r still goes to the NY Times site.
nytimes.com shortens to http://nyti.ms/1gQdV1r, Amazon shortens to http://amzn.to/1mCftnd, and anything .gov shortens to 1.usa.gov: http://1.usa.gov/1iejWVe
The shortened part is totally interchangable, ie http://bit.ly/1gQdV1r still goes to the NY Times site.
Looks like a (new?) bit.ly feature (pasting the long url into bit.ly gives the same domain); I'm guessing this is related to the Branded Short Domain feature of Bitly Brand Tools?
https://bitly.com/a/features
https://bitly.com/a/features
Semi sexist, greatly generalizing title. The sample used for the study covers only fraction of the entire data set so making this conclusion is very bold.
It's just sexist, no semi about it.
"this is how men are, this is how women are, this is how black people are, this is how gay people are..." it's a harmful way of thinking about the world
"this is how men are, this is how women are, this is how black people are, this is how gay people are..." it's a harmful way of thinking about the world
Acknowledging and cataloging real observed differences between men and women is fine. That's just science. What's not OK is shaming men for behaviors that are not better or worse than women, but just different.
tl;dr; answer: no. No they don't.
Can anyone suggest a better title? This one is pretty linkbaity.
Actually quite appropriate, since the data set doesn't answer the question.
I think we could make it more linkbaity.
Men: You're shitty friends, and it's killing you
I think we could make it more linkbaity.
Men: You're shitty friends, and it's killing you
Good lord. You're good at that. Please don't do it often :)
Maybe something closer to the title of the paper that started this discussion 30 years ago: Sex Differences in Same-Sex Friendship.[1] The paper itself is much more informative, although drier reading. It's also more engage-able. One can criticize the sample (US college students), methodology, or even the statistics. No doubt there are follow-up studies that confirm some bits of the paper and discredit others. I find that sort of discussion much more productive than the anecdotes and opinions that the Men's Journal post will likely spark.
1. http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/...
1. http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/...
"Men's friendships aren't the same as women's friendships"
or
"People who you were once friends with aren't necessarily good friends for life"
or
"People who you were once friends with aren't necessarily good friends for life"
Indeed. But it is the title of the article, no?
Otherwise, maybe "The Male Deficit Model"? (which, I suppose, is linkbaity in its own way)
Otherwise, maybe "The Male Deficit Model"? (which, I suppose, is linkbaity in its own way)
> But it is the title of the article
The HN guidelines call for changing titles that are misleading or linkbait, and we do that all the time. But I can't think of a better one here. I guess we'll leave it as is.
The HN guidelines call for changing titles that are misleading or linkbait, and we do that all the time. But I can't think of a better one here. I guess we'll leave it as is.
[deleted]
I feel this, my chat group I've had with friends from work for the last year just went dead. We bonded strongly at work, in work, and when work didn't connect us we disconnected. This year I made more effort than ever to make friends, but it just hasn't stuck yet. I'm not giving up though.
People at work aren't necessarily your friends, rather they are people forced to "cohabitate" together. Makes sense to keep it friendly, but don't expect it to last much longer than a year or two past your resignation.
Patio says the same thing here: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...
Similarly, I've always liked to keep in touch with friends, see how they are doing, etc. When I was younger I expected others were the same, but no. Most people have their own friends and family and while you'll get a hi and smile from them if you bump into them at the grocery, they won't put any effort into keeping in touch.
I notice as people get older they tend to isolate themselves, dare I say on purpose. For example I have school friends from 20 years ago who don't even want to be friends on facebook, which is about as close to zero effort you can manage. No, I don't post much, treat others well, and keep it light.
In other words, get used to it.
Patio says the same thing here: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...
Similarly, I've always liked to keep in touch with friends, see how they are doing, etc. When I was younger I expected others were the same, but no. Most people have their own friends and family and while you'll get a hi and smile from them if you bump into them at the grocery, they won't put any effort into keeping in touch.
I notice as people get older they tend to isolate themselves, dare I say on purpose. For example I have school friends from 20 years ago who don't even want to be friends on facebook, which is about as close to zero effort you can manage. No, I don't post much, treat others well, and keep it light.
In other words, get used to it.
I disagree. Three of my best friends were former co-workers. We happened to be new-ish to the city back then, in our 20s, going out, bars/clubs, etc, yet sharing a lot of other common career goals as well as personal ones.
If you hang out with co-workers on non work related (or sponsored activities), a lot, there is a greater chance for you to become friends on the long term after you moved on to different jobs.
They key is to have other common interests that are not related to work, and hang outside work related activities.
If you hang out with co-workers on non work related (or sponsored activities), a lot, there is a greater chance for you to become friends on the long term after you moved on to different jobs.
They key is to have other common interests that are not related to work, and hang outside work related activities.
People at work aren't necessarily your friends, and it makes sense to be friendly, even if you're not friends.
But it doesn't follow at all that you can't make friends at work, even that it can't be a good environment for doing so. On the other hand, it also doesn't follow that such friend-making come out of nothing, or that it's easy - which I guess is really the subject of the article.
But it doesn't follow at all that you can't make friends at work, even that it can't be a good environment for doing so. On the other hand, it also doesn't follow that such friend-making come out of nothing, or that it's easy - which I guess is really the subject of the article.
I didn't say it couldn't be done, just not to expect it.
I have not bonded strongly with my coworkers. Well, maybe one of them. I know if I wanted to go beyond being coworkers, I'd have to go beyond it -- that is, hanging out, outside the context of work.
I was surprised at how my work "friends" group fell apart. We would meet every few weeks at a sports bar. Everyone seemed so close I thought we would all be friends at least a year or two, but it fell apart after just three months.
This article implies that living a long life should be the ultimate driving goal behind our actions.
What's wrong with "convenience", "mentor", or "activity" friendships? They sound perfectly logical and reasonable to me. Just because these kind of friendships might not contribute as much to longevity doesn't make them wrong.
What's wrong with "convenience", "mentor", or "activity" friendships? They sound perfectly logical and reasonable to me. Just because these kind of friendships might not contribute as much to longevity doesn't make them wrong.
I didn't take away from my reading, that those friendships weren't valuable, but that there could be another stronger connection category that could be made which would be valuable as well.
Health, happiness, & longevity are known to be intermixed. The way I read the article, increased longevity is a more measurable proxy for health & happiness.
The problem with "convenience", "mentor", or "activity" friendships, as the article later explains, is that they tend to rapidly go away when the convenience, mentorship or particular activity ceases.
If you want a long-term friendship, then you'd need to push those relationships beyond the convenience/mentorship/activity to have more than that single tie that may randomly disappear.
If you want a long-term friendship, then you'd need to push those relationships beyond the convenience/mentorship/activity to have more than that single tie that may randomly disappear.
And why do you want long-term friendships? The article seemed to imply that they were good because they were healthy.
I don't buy it. What stresses me out the most are groups of people jabbering about nothing in particular. Give me a hammock and a nice book and I'm good to go. No elevated cortisol and whatnot.
Yeah this is clearly a American issue. It's certainly not true in Asian/South Asian countries, sure we lose touch with friends but whenever we meet there is an instant and unmistakable bond.
When I moved to the US, I couldn't understand why Americans were so "distant". I don't have the same friendships with them as I do with others. Sad but true.
Anecdotally, I've noticed this when I'm in America. Everyone is normally outwardly very friendly, but there's always the feeling that they don't give a shit about the encounter you're having and they're only even talking to you out of some perverse sense of politeness.
It was even more strange for me because often our conversations would be relatively honest and about somewhat personal topics (not just the weather, what cities we'd been to etc) which, in my experience, you only broach when you really want to discuss such things and feel a connection with a person, but, apart from a few people there was still always that feeling that people were just being polite and basically waiting for you to excuse them. YMMV.
It was even more strange for me because often our conversations would be relatively honest and about somewhat personal topics (not just the weather, what cities we'd been to etc) which, in my experience, you only broach when you really want to discuss such things and feel a connection with a person, but, apart from a few people there was still always that feeling that people were just being polite and basically waiting for you to excuse them. YMMV.
As an American living in France, one difference that I really notice is politeness.
In the US, people are casually friendly, but not always polite. In France, politeness manifests as respectful words and actions, consistently. It doesn't hurt that formal politeness is part of the French culture. It's 'hi, how are you?' vs 'good day, sir', because most of the time the 'how are you' is not really a question, but an expression of friendliness.
There is also a fairly clear boundary between acquaintances, friends, and 'BFFs' in France. That boundary is not always clear in the US. It's not as formal as in Germany, where there is a sort of ceremony when two people want to recognize a stronger friendship. In France people (in my social circle, anyway) just switch from formal ('vous') to familiar ('tu'). I've been told that some people have a little discussion about it before switching, but I've never seen that.
In the US, people are casually friendly, but not always polite. In France, politeness manifests as respectful words and actions, consistently. It doesn't hurt that formal politeness is part of the French culture. It's 'hi, how are you?' vs 'good day, sir', because most of the time the 'how are you' is not really a question, but an expression of friendliness.
There is also a fairly clear boundary between acquaintances, friends, and 'BFFs' in France. That boundary is not always clear in the US. It's not as formal as in Germany, where there is a sort of ceremony when two people want to recognize a stronger friendship. In France people (in my social circle, anyway) just switch from formal ('vous') to familiar ('tu'). I've been told that some people have a little discussion about it before switching, but I've never seen that.
I think part of this is bad translation, at least that's the case with Polish-English translation. Word "friend" is usually translated as "przyjaciel", but it really should be translated as "znajomy" or at most "kumpel", and "przyjaciel" should be translation of "best f*ing friend".
You couldn't possible have 20 "przyjaciel"s and spend enough time with them to keep the relationship alive. Same with BFFs. You can easily have 50 "kumpel"s and same with friends.
Keeping this mistranslation in mind I think European (or at least Polish) culture isn't much different from American regarding friendship.
You couldn't possible have 20 "przyjaciel"s and spend enough time with them to keep the relationship alive. Same with BFFs. You can easily have 50 "kumpel"s and same with friends.
Keeping this mistranslation in mind I think European (or at least Polish) culture isn't much different from American regarding friendship.
You're right. Strangers are outwardly friendly for no apparent reason. The worst part was when I met them again, many of them wouldn't recognize me!
I was mainly referring to the convenience/activity/mentor friends described in the article.
I was mainly referring to the convenience/activity/mentor friends described in the article.
> Strangers are outwardly friendly for no apparent reason
Why should one need a reason to be friendly? Would you rather people be curt and standoffish by default?
Why should one need a reason to be friendly? Would you rather people be curt and standoffish by default?
If everyone is your friend then no-one is. I wouldn't say curt and standoffish, but it's good to keep a certain amount of distance and formality with people you're not actually friends with so that you both know where you stand.
Unless friendliness is an expected social signal, and there's a separate signal, known to the local culture, but not to you, that says, "I'm being nice but we aren't actually friends".
Well I said outwardly friendly. As in like we grew up together in the same neighborhood kind of friendly.
Same happened when I had interviews for American companies. They were so excited about everything and overly enthusiastic I can't help but thing I'm being interviewed by psychos.
In the United States this is considered a "normal" amount of politeness. In some other cultures it is considered weird and fake. Some Americans go abroad and complain everyone was "rude" to them not realizing the cultural differences.
I bet they'd recognize you if you were perceived as someone potentially "useful" to them. I noticed the friendships here are often centered around very pragmatic sense of utility.
You're right. Strangers are outwardly friendly for no apparent reason.
Politeness norms. For whatever reason, in the US, there's a certain base line expectation of cheeriness. Especially in service staff like waiters or flight attendants. ("Hi, welcome to McTuckey's. My name's Megan and I'll be taking care of you tonight.")
Politeness norms. For whatever reason, in the US, there's a certain base line expectation of cheeriness. Especially in service staff like waiters or flight attendants. ("Hi, welcome to McTuckey's. My name's Megan and I'll be taking care of you tonight.")
This really bothers me. I don't care if someone is "cheery" as long as they just do their job. People justify tipping service personnel (bar tenders, waitstaff) over them getting a fair salary because if they didn't tip "how would I get good service? There's no incentive without a tip." I believe some people believe "good service" means fakely cheery while to me it is "you brought me my food." If you aren't faking a smile and elevating your voice you are being "rude."
That's how I see it, though I've also learned there is value in just chit chatting.
In my mind, those folks are classified as "acquaintances", not friends. These are folks you might be friendly to, but if you are not willing to, say, take them to the hospital because they are injured, or take them in because they are on the run and someone is after them, are they really friends?
In my mind, those folks are classified as "acquaintances", not friends. These are folks you might be friendly to, but if you are not willing to, say, take them to the hospital because they are injured, or take them in because they are on the run and someone is after them, are they really friends?
What exactly gave you the impression that people were waiting for you to excuse them?
I'm from Venezuela and I must tell you that every male guy I know has very close friends. We're more outgoing and trustworthy and we've always attributed this to the fact that we're from the caribean and as such very warm. I've made acquaintances with americans and europeans alike and the difference I have noticed is that the time it takes you to share trust with other Venezuelans (also colombians and people from caribean islands) is several orders of magnitude shorter. You can meet someone and a week later you'll be interacting like you've known each other for years. I've read this elsewhere before as well, It's not a rare opinion.
How culture-specific is this trend?
Some people say we're past the "social fad". I think that we're just at the tip of the iceberg, and this article hints at some of the problems that we could solve.
like?
- The fact that most friendships are shallow, not deep.
- The fact that people lose touch with their friends at predictable points in their lives.
- The fact that married people have trouble finding friends.
- The fact that people lose touch with their friends at predictable points in their lives.
- The fact that married people have trouble finding friends.
This article really resonates with me.
Many of my male friendships do seem to resonate around convenience (i.e. we help each other) or activities.
If you take that away...I'm unsure what the depth is.
This could just be me though.
I do have friendships with females who are nothing like me, which are more around just...fun/chatting/hanging out.
But either way, friendships do take work/effort - and sometimes you need to push that along a bit, and think gee, I haven't seen "XYZ" in a while, let's organise a catchup.
Many of my male friendships do seem to resonate around convenience (i.e. we help each other) or activities.
If you take that away...I'm unsure what the depth is.
This could just be me though.
I do have friendships with females who are nothing like me, which are more around just...fun/chatting/hanging out.
But either way, friendships do take work/effort - and sometimes you need to push that along a bit, and think gee, I haven't seen "XYZ" in a while, let's organise a catchup.
I find what matters most in my friendships is being on the same page in terms of mindset, because then anything is enjoyable. I'm a social guy, I have lots of "friends", but I really only have three TRUE friends. I called my buddy up (one of the three) that I haven't seen for 2 years, nothing was awkward, talked for a few hours like nothing happened, all because we never changed who we were.
All three of my friends have completely different stances on various topics, topics that usually divide people, in terms of subjects like religion and politics. The thing is, even though we don't agree on much of anything really, we take pleasure in endlessly bantering between one another and "fighting" our opinions. At the end of the day though, nobody is hurt. You always end up learning something new, or exploring some other outlook.
The key is to be friends with mentally strong people. Friends that are open to whatever, whenever.
I hate being friends with people who have defined things that they like, or don't like, for no real reason. My friends and I's take on life is that the only thing that truly matters are relationships, everything else is mainly either a vehicle for fun, or to support yourself, so doing things isn't a struggle because nobody holds any personal or cultural bias against anything.
We like exploring things just by virtue of curiosity and it's nearly always a fun experience.
Just plain old hanging out like as if we were kids.
All three of my friends have completely different stances on various topics, topics that usually divide people, in terms of subjects like religion and politics. The thing is, even though we don't agree on much of anything really, we take pleasure in endlessly bantering between one another and "fighting" our opinions. At the end of the day though, nobody is hurt. You always end up learning something new, or exploring some other outlook.
The key is to be friends with mentally strong people. Friends that are open to whatever, whenever.
I hate being friends with people who have defined things that they like, or don't like, for no real reason. My friends and I's take on life is that the only thing that truly matters are relationships, everything else is mainly either a vehicle for fun, or to support yourself, so doing things isn't a struggle because nobody holds any personal or cultural bias against anything.
We like exploring things just by virtue of curiosity and it's nearly always a fun experience.
Just plain old hanging out like as if we were kids.
It really resonates with me too at a personal level but at the same time it's quite surprising if this is indeed so widespread across men.
I'm an extreme introvert with few, if any, close friends and relationships or a strong desire for such, and it has always befuddled me how smooth and effortless many friendships look from the outside. The whole concept of "hanging out" without some common ground or a common activity or goal in mind is almost foreign to me. I can "hang out" with a friend I haven't seen for ages to catch up with what's been going on with each other but I can't see how this is sustainable on a weekly basis or more.
Age is also a big factor. It seems that most friendships go back to childhood, teenage or college years. The older you get, the harder is to make new relationships that go past the plain acquaintance stage. The prospect of building a social network (in the offline sense of the word) from scratch in your mid thirties, say after moving to the other side of the country or the world, sounds intimidating even to normal extroverted people I've talked to, let alone chronic loners.
I'm an extreme introvert with few, if any, close friends and relationships or a strong desire for such, and it has always befuddled me how smooth and effortless many friendships look from the outside. The whole concept of "hanging out" without some common ground or a common activity or goal in mind is almost foreign to me. I can "hang out" with a friend I haven't seen for ages to catch up with what's been going on with each other but I can't see how this is sustainable on a weekly basis or more.
Age is also a big factor. It seems that most friendships go back to childhood, teenage or college years. The older you get, the harder is to make new relationships that go past the plain acquaintance stage. The prospect of building a social network (in the offline sense of the word) from scratch in your mid thirties, say after moving to the other side of the country or the world, sounds intimidating even to normal extroverted people I've talked to, let alone chronic loners.
I've found that there are people that I instantly click with, typically people to whom I can speak my mind without any filter, and who come back at me with theirs. I think filters and worrying about being inoffensive in general really gets in the way for a lot of people.
I think that if you want to get past the polite acquaintance stage, you have to risk offending them, which can be scary, but I think one really good friend is worth more than almost any number of acquaintances, so I think it's worth it.
I think that if you want to get past the polite acquaintance stage, you have to risk offending them, which can be scary, but I think one really good friend is worth more than almost any number of acquaintances, so I think it's worth it.
My bad social habit which I am working on correcting is in imposing a thought on someone's personal life a bit too eagerly, which for me usually begins with the phrases, "so then it's like..." or "you should..." - I got caught out on the former phrase just today, in fact. When they take offense it's always a blow to me since I don't want to be That Guy, but I have to admit that I get the same sense that people I really click with don't even bother taking offense at that stuff. They're okay with having a conversation that has some conjecture and vulnerability, and some difficulty of thought conveyance, built into it.
Conversely, I get a really bad impression when the defense mechanism rolls out, particularly so when it's elaborate, practiced, and snarky. A strong rejection indicates that I've tread into territory they'd really want to not dwell upon. Extreme snark is even worse since it indicates that their intention is to control the power dynamic. The time I encountered that, I found myself boomeranging it by replying "I'm too trusting."
Conversely, I get a really bad impression when the defense mechanism rolls out, particularly so when it's elaborate, practiced, and snarky. A strong rejection indicates that I've tread into territory they'd really want to not dwell upon. Extreme snark is even worse since it indicates that their intention is to control the power dynamic. The time I encountered that, I found myself boomeranging it by replying "I'm too trusting."
I've certainly found this to be my experience with my friends, who are mostly males, but I've also found it to be that way with females as well. My theory has been that evolutionarily it is advantageous for us to get over loss quickly. If a person in your tribe suddenly disappears from your daily experience, there's really only one explanation -- they aren't coming back. It doesn't do much good to pine over them for your own survival's sake. I'm not saying that it's a good thing -- it actually depresses me quite a bit. Maybe it's different for females though. I'm not sure what to make of it.
As a 27 year old male, most of my friendships revolve around doing things together. Working, video games, sports, drinking, or eating, mostly.
I agree with this but, my problem is that most people have only one or two major interests so friendship is completely one-dimensional based around a single activity. So when conversation drifts off the common topic or activity, there isn't much to do or talk about. People interested in sports may not also be interested in video games, etc.
How are we really defining friendship here? I've mostly found in my experiences that females value self-serving relationships that build them up. Meaningless values of 'friendship' where they have no contrast for a real, meaningful relationship. See how sexism swings both ways? Who the heck posts this kind of drivel?
You've been hanging out with some terrible people.
I actually didn't find this article sexist or attacking.
I actually didn't find this article sexist or attacking.
I'm sorry? Do explain how you could read so much into a single comment. That or crawl back into whatever hole you came from please.
I had an issue with this while finishing up classes at school, although I understand being a college student isn't really the main demographic for this article. I had a group of friends that I met with only through convenience (we were all in the same fraternity, and then I quit).
After some time, one of the guys made a multi-way text/chat group on WhatsApp and it gave us all an opportunity to bullshit amongst each other about whatever we felt like. The best part was that it didn't leave anyone out of the loop, and held us each accountable for responding to attempts to get together. Most of the time the interactions are pretty pointless (cracking jokes at someone, sending links to a funny picture or article, changing the group photo to a hotter girl than the last one someone put up, etc), but it's just a good outlet to stay in sync with one another, even if we don't all have time to hang out. I'd recommend it to anyone who connected with the article.
After some time, one of the guys made a multi-way text/chat group on WhatsApp and it gave us all an opportunity to bullshit amongst each other about whatever we felt like. The best part was that it didn't leave anyone out of the loop, and held us each accountable for responding to attempts to get together. Most of the time the interactions are pretty pointless (cracking jokes at someone, sending links to a funny picture or article, changing the group photo to a hotter girl than the last one someone put up, etc), but it's just a good outlet to stay in sync with one another, even if we don't all have time to hang out. I'd recommend it to anyone who connected with the article.
Adding onto this:
Set up a Teamspeak or similar voice server. Like the guy above I'm only in my lower 20's at this point but it's the single best move I've made in maintaining friendships with people I'm no longer physically close to. My friends know that they can hop in any time they want and we can have a great time chatting or playing a game together.
I think the more accessible you make it to keep in touch the better off your relationships will be, but there's no getting around the simple fact that friendships require effort from both parties to maintain.
Set up a Teamspeak or similar voice server. Like the guy above I'm only in my lower 20's at this point but it's the single best move I've made in maintaining friendships with people I'm no longer physically close to. My friends know that they can hop in any time they want and we can have a great time chatting or playing a game together.
I think the more accessible you make it to keep in touch the better off your relationships will be, but there's no getting around the simple fact that friendships require effort from both parties to maintain.
This doesn't happen in India. This is a purely western phenomenon.
Do you speak for all Indians?
This also happens in India and has nothing to do with western culture.
This also happens in India and has nothing to do with western culture.
It's certainly easier to make friends in India. I used to do it effortlessly when I was there and I never felt lonely at all. Here it just seems harder to make friends. Part of it might just be that there are fewer people so you're less likely to find someone with whom you connect.
And the other thing might be that a lot of interactions are so much more impersonal here. I haven't lived there in years but I know many of the shopkeepers who operate near my parents house in India and we always catch up and chat a bit when I visit. The supermarket here is a merry-go-round of high school kids and other temporary workers. There's no connection to be made at all.
Ashwin's story upthread about people seeming to be very friendly and then forgetting who you are really resonated with me. There was this lady who gave me haircut a year or two ago. We chatted quite a bit, I told her where I studied and what I worked on (somewhat unusual for me because I'm very private). She told me he was doing a master's degree at a nearby university, lived in a nearby town and I think we even talked politics for a bit! I felt like we had at least established an acquaintance and I gave her a $5 tip on a $10 haircut. And the next time I went there she had completely forgotten me! I understand their profession requires them to be friendly, but I did feel a let down. :-/
And the other thing might be that a lot of interactions are so much more impersonal here. I haven't lived there in years but I know many of the shopkeepers who operate near my parents house in India and we always catch up and chat a bit when I visit. The supermarket here is a merry-go-round of high school kids and other temporary workers. There's no connection to be made at all.
Ashwin's story upthread about people seeming to be very friendly and then forgetting who you are really resonated with me. There was this lady who gave me haircut a year or two ago. We chatted quite a bit, I told her where I studied and what I worked on (somewhat unusual for me because I'm very private). She told me he was doing a master's degree at a nearby university, lived in a nearby town and I think we even talked politics for a bit! I felt like we had at least established an acquaintance and I gave her a $5 tip on a $10 haircut. And the next time I went there she had completely forgotten me! I understand their profession requires them to be friendly, but I did feel a let down. :-/
A lot of this stuff is very dependent on the person I feel, the hair stylist I always went to (living in the US) was incredibly on top of what all of her customers were up to. There were even times she'd mention things my parents had told her about that my parents hadn't even thought to mention to me since they didn't deem it important. It's all anecdotal of course, but figured I'd chime in.
Speaking more broadly on your first paragraphs I feel that my ability to make new friends has really changed as I've aged. As a kid I had tons of friends and people I'd talk to, leaving for college I also met and got to be friends with new people. Now living on my own in a new city as a self employed single male I'm finding it really difficult to make friends. Or perhaps difficult isn't the right way to word it...I think it's more fair to say it requires very real effort now. I simply don't meet people unless I make a conscious effort to do so and the grocery store isn't a very conducive location for making friends.
Everyone I talk to is friendly, but I seemingly never got very good at turning "friendly" into friendships. I still have old friends that I make a point of keeping up with and talking to regularly, but without normal social obligations in my life it's tricky for me to break that invisible wall (if you will). Curious stuff.
Speaking more broadly on your first paragraphs I feel that my ability to make new friends has really changed as I've aged. As a kid I had tons of friends and people I'd talk to, leaving for college I also met and got to be friends with new people. Now living on my own in a new city as a self employed single male I'm finding it really difficult to make friends. Or perhaps difficult isn't the right way to word it...I think it's more fair to say it requires very real effort now. I simply don't meet people unless I make a conscious effort to do so and the grocery store isn't a very conducive location for making friends.
Everyone I talk to is friendly, but I seemingly never got very good at turning "friendly" into friendships. I still have old friends that I make a point of keeping up with and talking to regularly, but without normal social obligations in my life it's tricky for me to break that invisible wall (if you will). Curious stuff.
I definitely agree it depends on the person and it gets harder with age.
While I kinda agree that the grocery store isn't the best place to make friends, the point I was trying to make was that in India sometimes these people unintentionally end up becoming friends.
An amusing related anecdote: my tailor back in India was mildly upset I didn't invite him to my wedding! On the one hand I was touched that he felt that strong a connection with me. On the other hand, while Indian weddings are quite large, one does have to draw the line somewhere! But the point is this sort of thing does happen. The security guard at the university where my wife and I studied did get invited to our wedding.
These serendipitous friendships do seem harder here or maybe it's just that the cultural gap between me and the average American is too large to bridge.
While I kinda agree that the grocery store isn't the best place to make friends, the point I was trying to make was that in India sometimes these people unintentionally end up becoming friends.
An amusing related anecdote: my tailor back in India was mildly upset I didn't invite him to my wedding! On the one hand I was touched that he felt that strong a connection with me. On the other hand, while Indian weddings are quite large, one does have to draw the line somewhere! But the point is this sort of thing does happen. The security guard at the university where my wife and I studied did get invited to our wedding.
These serendipitous friendships do seem harder here or maybe it's just that the cultural gap between me and the average American is too large to bridge.
I think the article in the OP is a particularly modern problem in societies with widely disparate socio-ethnic demographies. I think in more monocultural nations (India and CHina come immediately to mind) there is a much higher base level commonality of shared experience that translates particularly well into an assumed familiarity with other people.
In America, a lot of what is actually important (family, friendship, love) is sacrificed at the altar of self.
In America, a lot of what is actually important (family, friendship, love) is sacrificed at the altar of self.
As an American who is currently in India, I absolutely think this has to do with western culture. It really is easier forming close friendships here. I came back after being gone for a couple of years and it almost feels like I never left.
India is a more difficult in terms of meeting people (except at work), but once you do, close friendships are far closer to the norm.
India is a more difficult in terms of meeting people (except at work), but once you do, close friendships are far closer to the norm.
I don't know if you live (or have lived for years) in the US or not, but if you do you'll have a very different opinion. Trust me.
Men can be friends with women too. Just sayin'.
I think men's friendships tend to be fewer but deeper. This resonates with a lot of people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hmlPtRu1SQ
There's a lot of variation between individuals, and it also changes significantly with age. 20-year-olds tend to form cliques of 5-15 people that do things together... then as they age and pair off or move elsewhere, they stop doing things as a group. Friendship dynamics change as well.
I think there's something in the research about a healthier life being one with more friends, but the author seems to make a huge jump from that to extrapolating his own experience to all other men.
I think there's something in the research about a healthier life being one with more friends, but the author seems to make a huge jump from that to extrapolating his own experience to all other men.
This is definitely an American "culture" issue. Especially in a big city like San Francisco, i've noticed a lot of ephemeral relationships that last around convenience.
Really?
To be fair, I have only a small handful of friends who I'd entrust my body and my life to in the worse case, but I've generally made friends wherever I have lived. These friends are ones that isn't quite activity, mentorship, or convenience friends.
Maybe I'm just the outlier.
To be fair, I have only a small handful of friends who I'd entrust my body and my life to in the worse case, but I've generally made friends wherever I have lived. These friends are ones that isn't quite activity, mentorship, or convenience friends.
Maybe I'm just the outlier.
As a male with more close female confidants/friends than male, I find it interesting that this article in no way acknowledged the possibility of a platonic male/female friendship.
Men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
But the thing is, why is this considered a problem really? Should we only have sex with our enemies or persons we don't like? I understand the underlying reasoning, the questions are for the most part rhetorical, but I just don't find the whole idea very well thought out, not to mention it's completely wrong in the "always" part. Also, I never heard people say gay men or lesbians can never be friends. Why is that? Is there some bogus assumption that hetero sexuality is somehow different in nature?
The point is that the "sex part" does not have to get in the way. In most cases the sex part is very superficial, it's just an idea that comes naturally to peoples minds and it's simply not a big deal at all. People, men and women, think about sex (almost all the time, both sexes) and worthless semi random thoughts about sex with almost any person will be had. It simply is not such a big deal. The funny thing is that we are all aware of the universality and banality of these thoughts, yet act as though it's something special, extraordinary and serious. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating promiscuity (although, again to be clear, I have no moral issue with that as long as it's honest), but simply putting the whole thing to rest, it's not even worth talking about.
And it better not be true that sex stands in the way of friendship because long, commited, beautiful relationships sure involve a lot of sex and deep friendship. Sex can only stand in the way of friendship if all one wants is sex.
The point is that the "sex part" does not have to get in the way. In most cases the sex part is very superficial, it's just an idea that comes naturally to peoples minds and it's simply not a big deal at all. People, men and women, think about sex (almost all the time, both sexes) and worthless semi random thoughts about sex with almost any person will be had. It simply is not such a big deal. The funny thing is that we are all aware of the universality and banality of these thoughts, yet act as though it's something special, extraordinary and serious. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating promiscuity (although, again to be clear, I have no moral issue with that as long as it's honest), but simply putting the whole thing to rest, it's not even worth talking about.
And it better not be true that sex stands in the way of friendship because long, commited, beautiful relationships sure involve a lot of sex and deep friendship. Sex can only stand in the way of friendship if all one wants is sex.
I really hope I'm missing some sarcasm there.
It was a quote from 'When Harry met Sally', but a study recently backed it up: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant...
> but a study recently backed it up
Except it ... doesn't? Not only it doesn't seem to be a well designed study (the 9 point scale doesn't make much sense, there is no graph with the numbers for each answers, etc), the conclusion they get from it seem strange, since most people don't want to go on a date:
On average: Male: 4.55 Female: 3.90, since it's a 9 point scale[1]: 5 mean "Neutral/Unsure" and below is the "no" range.
[1]https://analysights.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/071210_2340_...
Except it ... doesn't? Not only it doesn't seem to be a well designed study (the 9 point scale doesn't make much sense, there is no graph with the numbers for each answers, etc), the conclusion they get from it seem strange, since most people don't want to go on a date:
On average: Male: 4.55 Female: 3.90, since it's a 9 point scale[1]: 5 mean "Neutral/Unsure" and below is the "no" range.
[1]https://analysights.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/071210_2340_...
176 teenagers... what an impressive study.
A study on the gender interactions of undergraduate students really shouldn't be used to describe the wider population. They're in a very artificial environment, in a tumultuous phrase of life.
[deleted]
Unless there's no sexual attraction, preferably mutual. I for one don't consider every (or even most) women to be fuckable.
What an heteronormative thing to say.
How about: "straight men and straight women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way". Better now?
No, not really. What about same sex friendships in homosexual men and women? Why would we single out hetero sexuality? As I said in my comment to Colin's post, no one ever makes such a statement for homosexual relations.
Let me put it a different way then. Is it possible to make a general comment on the heterosexual interactions between men and women without implicitly excluding homosexual people? And, is that exclusion sufficient reason that such general comments should never be made? (I'm not answering yes or no to these questions, just figuring out where we want to draw the lines.)
I don't think it's possible in this case. And, yes, I think it is a sufficient reason that such comments shouldn't be made. Not because it's exclusionary (although discrimination is an awful thing, I don't think homosexual people would mind being excluded from the implications of the premise we're discussing), but because it shows how wrong the comment is. The implication is that specifically heterosexual persons have the sex-friendship issue, or if not, then all humans have this issue, in which case the "men and women" part has to be thrown out.
Is there any evidence that friendship, sexual and romantic relations work differently among homosexual people? And to such an extent that the negative tension between sex and friendship exists only with heterosexual people? I don't know of any. Has anyone ever made a comment: "Gay men can't be friends because sex always gets in the way." or "Lesbians can't be friends because sex always gets in the way."?
I'm not implying there's homophobia in this kind of thinking, just very bad, shallow "analysis" of interpersonal relationships (of the kind you tend to get from "women magazines" and "men magazines", no surprise there) and, in some cases, a lot of rationalisation by people who only want infantile sexual relations from persons of desirable sex and don't even try to make friends, although they try to fake it to get sex (i.e. by people for whom friendship was never actually a motivating option).
Is there any evidence that friendship, sexual and romantic relations work differently among homosexual people? And to such an extent that the negative tension between sex and friendship exists only with heterosexual people? I don't know of any. Has anyone ever made a comment: "Gay men can't be friends because sex always gets in the way." or "Lesbians can't be friends because sex always gets in the way."?
I'm not implying there's homophobia in this kind of thinking, just very bad, shallow "analysis" of interpersonal relationships (of the kind you tend to get from "women magazines" and "men magazines", no surprise there) and, in some cases, a lot of rationalisation by people who only want infantile sexual relations from persons of desirable sex and don't even try to make friends, although they try to fake it to get sex (i.e. by people for whom friendship was never actually a motivating option).
It was mostly a friendly jab, not a real criticism. I don't think I can ever use the word "heteronormative" in a completely serious way.
Well, it's technically correct. The sense I get is that most people aim their "generic" comments at the 95% (straight, cis, etc). Because reality, in a statistical sense, is heteronormative. But being inclusive is kind as well. There's no exact answer - if you are 100% inclusive, people scoff at you being "politically correct". If you're not, different people get offended.
It is more like aiming generic comments at a subset of the population makes that subset "normal" and the other "abnormal" and one must conform to the "normal."
I always hate it when people say "women do this" or "women think this" because I often don't do or think that. Plus within the women I know there is a large range of personalities, actions, thoughts, beliefs, motivations, etc. It reduces women down to a stereotype.
I always hate it when people say "women do this" or "women think this" because I often don't do or think that. Plus within the women I know there is a large range of personalities, actions, thoughts, beliefs, motivations, etc. It reduces women down to a stereotype.
Tangential point - what does the phrase "any dish?" mean?
It's equivalent to "scoop" or "gossip".
It comes from the phrase "dish it out".
More: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/dish+out
More: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/dish+out
Yeah, and/or people are totally fucked on average when it comes to sustaining deep, long-lasting relationships. Go figure. That shit is hard. Hard. Like: fulfillment, actualization, self-discipline, happiness, etc., etc.
Do men suck at friendship? Of course. Just like they suck at vying w/ their own mortality. It's hardly a gender thing.
Start with a better narrative and you'll end up with a better answer.
Do men suck at friendship? Of course. Just like they suck at vying w/ their own mortality. It's hardly a gender thing.
Start with a better narrative and you'll end up with a better answer.
Well, if anything, the article concludes that men suck at gossip. Which is a little disappointing if true. Gossip has its insidious bits, but it was also the best carrier of information before things like internet forums and news aggregators.
There are studies that show things like health and job-finding happen along second-degree links. Friends of friends, that is, or in other words, the gossip space. Things like, "Oh, I hear Joe quit smoking" or "Oh, I hear Sam is looking for a new executive" and so on are gossip. So is "So it turns out Jay is allergic to chocolate", which tells you don't give any chocolate to Jay.
So, Mr. Duane? A suggestion? Tell your wife about how Matt reacted to biking through that one area. Or how goofy he looked when he finished taking apart the wall. Give her a connection to him, even if it's viewed entirely through your perspective. These are touchstones for her to help you maintain your friendship with him, too. Yeah, sure, you want to make sure he's okay with this. Don't gossip behind his back, or reveal things he wants to remain confidential. But she obviously knows what you're doing together; share details.
There are studies that show things like health and job-finding happen along second-degree links. Friends of friends, that is, or in other words, the gossip space. Things like, "Oh, I hear Joe quit smoking" or "Oh, I hear Sam is looking for a new executive" and so on are gossip. So is "So it turns out Jay is allergic to chocolate", which tells you don't give any chocolate to Jay.
So, Mr. Duane? A suggestion? Tell your wife about how Matt reacted to biking through that one area. Or how goofy he looked when he finished taking apart the wall. Give her a connection to him, even if it's viewed entirely through your perspective. These are touchstones for her to help you maintain your friendship with him, too. Yeah, sure, you want to make sure he's okay with this. Don't gossip behind his back, or reveal things he wants to remain confidential. But she obviously knows what you're doing together; share details.
I don't understand why the author thinks that a good friendship requires collecting some gossip for his wife for each hour or two of contact.
I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that this article refers primarily to non-poor white men in the OECD, and that most people are not WEIRD:
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jvt002/brainmind/readings/h...
In particular attempting to draw conclusions about innate (genetic) behavior from this skewed sample is highly subject to confounding.
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jvt002/brainmind/readings/h...
In particular attempting to draw conclusions about innate (genetic) behavior from this skewed sample is highly subject to confounding.
>In particular attempting to draw conclusions about innate (genetic) behavior from this skewed sample is highly subject to confounding.
Was the author trying to do that? It didn't read like that to me at all. He tried to explain some cultural trends that contribute, etc.
Was the author trying to do that? It didn't read like that to me at all. He tried to explain some cultural trends that contribute, etc.
I don't think men are bad at friendship I do think it takes more for them to develop the kind of deep friendship between men that the article laments are missing. I have a handful of good friends who mostly live in different cities now but we still keep in touch and make a point to get together whenever we cross paths. These all came out of things like high school cross country or roommates over several years. Point being I think there needs to be a strong shared experience over several years for men to get to that point.
The sorts of things described in the article usually don't run deep enough or last long enough to cultivate a longer lasting friendship.
The sorts of things described in the article usually don't run deep enough or last long enough to cultivate a longer lasting friendship.
All my long-term friends are women. The closest are ex-lovers or best-friends lovers/ex-lovers. Most of our banter is about relationships and general angst. Many I only see maybe once or twice a year, but talk regularly online or over the phone.
But even before I had any romantic history, most of my friends were girls.
Nearly all of my male friends have drifted, but I have female friends from highschool that I still talk to pretty regularly.
But even before I had any romantic history, most of my friends were girls.
Nearly all of my male friends have drifted, but I have female friends from highschool that I still talk to pretty regularly.
I have both male and female friends, but all my closest friends these days are male. This wasn't always the case, though. I used to have a lot more female friends, and I guess now it's shifted the other way. I haven't personally noticed any sort of difference between genders that makes one better suited for friendship over the other...
I wrote a big long spiel about the comments in this thread, but i'll summarize to save everyone some time.
The culture-centricity in this thread is kind of sickening, and as hackers I hope that everyone who is reading through it remembers to attempt to take things as a neutral observer and apply scientific methods to your findings; and take anecdotal evidence at it's worth.
The culture-centricity in this thread is kind of sickening, and as hackers I hope that everyone who is reading through it remembers to attempt to take things as a neutral observer and apply scientific methods to your findings; and take anecdotal evidence at it's worth.
Oh! As a hacker I was planning on calling bullshit and doing my own thing as normal. I'll try it your way...
Hmmm... it's all anecdotal including the original post and the citations... there is no scientific method present... so it's all bullshit and I'll just do things my way as normal.
There's been some interesting discussion though.
Hmmm... it's all anecdotal including the original post and the citations... there is no scientific method present... so it's all bullshit and I'll just do things my way as normal.
There's been some interesting discussion though.
While I agree with most of the author's points, I think it's missing two key aspects. Intellectual curiosity doesn't continue for everyone (I want to scratch my eyes out just watching football and never discussing anything of intrigue) and some guys don't know how to be friends outside of a group.
1. I don't find most my old friends interesting. The guys I have stuff in common with are mostly work connections/guys that understand the plight of the entrepreneur and we don't actually hang out. Activity friends are cool but like most my friends from college, it increasingly feels like a chore.
The few friends that have any depth to them live out of town. That said, in the future we have email and don't have to physically see each other all the time to coddle our friendships.
2. Some dudes just never learned how to have one-on-one friends outside of a group. This is by far the most common problem I see that transcends male friendships. If you befriend someone as an adult that you can regularly carry on a conversation with, without outside help, take note - they may become your new brosive.
1. I don't find most my old friends interesting. The guys I have stuff in common with are mostly work connections/guys that understand the plight of the entrepreneur and we don't actually hang out. Activity friends are cool but like most my friends from college, it increasingly feels like a chore.
The few friends that have any depth to them live out of town. That said, in the future we have email and don't have to physically see each other all the time to coddle our friendships.
2. Some dudes just never learned how to have one-on-one friends outside of a group. This is by far the most common problem I see that transcends male friendships. If you befriend someone as an adult that you can regularly carry on a conversation with, without outside help, take note - they may become your new brosive.
> That's because nearly all research into healthy aging has found that the key to a long, happy life is not diet or exercise but strong social connections – that is, friendships. Loneliness accelerates age-related declines in cognition and motor function, while a single good friend has been shown to make as much as a 10-year difference in overall life expectancy.
This makes me sad :( My mother passed away from cancer in 2001 after 16 years of marriage to my father. Their marriage was one of those ideal marriages that most people don't think really exists; they were truly each other's best friend and were incredibly happy together.
Now that my sister is finishing college and I'm in grad school, my dad goes to work for long hours each day and comes home to an empty house. He doesn't socialize much more than going to the coffee shop on weekend mornings.
I don't know what to do about this; I live three hours away and can't visit every weekend, and my sister is getting married soon and moving away as well. He's not opposed to dating, but the last time he dated was nearly a decade ago, and I know he doesn't want to date because of the sheer sadness he still feels from my mother's death. He has mentioned it would be really nice to have a companion though.
I need ideas. Solitude isn't a good way to spend the rest of one's life, and I really want him to be happy. This article has confirmed my fears about loneliness even more, and I want to help him.
This makes me sad :( My mother passed away from cancer in 2001 after 16 years of marriage to my father. Their marriage was one of those ideal marriages that most people don't think really exists; they were truly each other's best friend and were incredibly happy together.
Now that my sister is finishing college and I'm in grad school, my dad goes to work for long hours each day and comes home to an empty house. He doesn't socialize much more than going to the coffee shop on weekend mornings.
I don't know what to do about this; I live three hours away and can't visit every weekend, and my sister is getting married soon and moving away as well. He's not opposed to dating, but the last time he dated was nearly a decade ago, and I know he doesn't want to date because of the sheer sadness he still feels from my mother's death. He has mentioned it would be really nice to have a companion though.
I need ideas. Solitude isn't a good way to spend the rest of one's life, and I really want him to be happy. This article has confirmed my fears about loneliness even more, and I want to help him.
I would get him a dog.
I would also set him up on Skype so that you and your sister can interact with him in a personable way more often.
I would also set him up on Skype so that you and your sister can interact with him in a personable way more often.
This is actually a great suggestion. If you are a dog person it can bring a lot of joy, amusement and companionship. The thing that sucks though is that they very short lives. My lhasa apso did live to be 17 years, but this is unusual for most other dog breeds.
About loneliness and losing people dear, my brother's friend's dad lost his parents, wife and son all at an unusually early age. I would have no idea how to deal with that.
About loneliness and losing people dear, my brother's friend's dad lost his parents, wife and son all at an unusually early age. I would have no idea how to deal with that.
I also agree with this suggestion. I know that battle grounds are drawn on the dog vs cat debate, but either/or would do well for most lonely people. My wife's grandfather died when we first started seeing each other; 5/6 or so (oops - I hope she isn't reading) years ago. Bizarrely, this was within a few months of his dog dying. He took that thing everywhere - snook him into hotel rooms, family houses, the golf club, trips abroad.
Part of my commute involves walking through a public park and I've noticed that the people out walking their dogs seem to find it much easier to strike-up conversations with each other thank other park users. I'm not a dog person, but a dog might help Xcelerate's father make new friends, or at least acquaintances, as well as providing companionship.
Really fantastic suggestion.
Dogs are amazing companions, however the long hours he works probably don't help, however he's probably working long hours so he doesn't have to come home to an empty house.
Dogs are amazing companions, however the long hours he works probably don't help, however he's probably working long hours so he doesn't have to come home to an empty house.
I agree it may help, but how on earth is a dog the same as a companion? It will fill a different void but certainly not the lack of a soulmate.
It's not. But it exposes one to many social interactions by walking, grooming, vaccinating a dog etc.
add a social hobby (e.g. golf) to that list for some out of house time
My father died 7 years ago after my parents had been married for more than 50 years. After a few years of solitude, my mother started to develop a whole new life (with 80). I think this will develop also for your father, it just takes time. But he has to be ready for it and there is little you can do to accelerate the process. Maybe he was busy with you and your sister until recently?
Key for him is to leave the house. Go to the doctor, buy fresh food on the market instead of in the mall and chat a few words with the farmers, join sports teams (my mother did when she was 78) or meet with colleagues for a beer (they all want an excuse not to go home, believe me).
My brother and I also live far away. That is not a problem (as long as he is in good health…), because it assures that your father has to manage his life for himself instead of sitting down and let you organize it. Also make him visit you instead of the other way round. This will let him leave the house, see different towns, revive his interest in life and discovery and he has to make plans (this is important). It worked for us, at least.
Where I live, also the church has groups for tea/coffee and cake. So has the red cross. This may aim at older people but it is great to go there. My mother loves it. (yes, I know, she is a woman and women make contacts easier). But, as I said, some day he will be ready.
Key for him is to leave the house. Go to the doctor, buy fresh food on the market instead of in the mall and chat a few words with the farmers, join sports teams (my mother did when she was 78) or meet with colleagues for a beer (they all want an excuse not to go home, believe me).
My brother and I also live far away. That is not a problem (as long as he is in good health…), because it assures that your father has to manage his life for himself instead of sitting down and let you organize it. Also make him visit you instead of the other way round. This will let him leave the house, see different towns, revive his interest in life and discovery and he has to make plans (this is important). It worked for us, at least.
Where I live, also the church has groups for tea/coffee and cake. So has the red cross. This may aim at older people but it is great to go there. My mother loves it. (yes, I know, she is a woman and women make contacts easier). But, as I said, some day he will be ready.
I'd suggest him picking a hobby, and taking classes about it. He doesn't really need someone to date, apparently, but just someone to talk to and have fun. Going out and doing something he likes surrounded by like-minded people sounds about right.
When my dad retired he started participating in local organizations, like the Lions Club and a food kitchen. There may be groups, organizations, meetups, etc. that would help your father establish some meaningful relationships outside of work.
Just have him move with you. It's a priceless experience.
I've been thinking about doing this in the upcoming years. I'm guessing you're speaking from experience, if so, can you elaborate more?
Make sure he knows that dating doesn't mean he's trying to replace the relationship he had with your mother, or take away anything they had together. It's possible to meet new people, have new experiences, and still cherish those old memories.
[deleted]
I'm not sure where you are located, but back home in Australia they've come up with the idea of "Men's sheds". I think it's a great idea on so many levels.
http://www.mensshed.org/what-is-a-men's-shed/.aspx
I'm not sure if it's the kind of thing your dad would be into (my dad probably not). But sounds like fun.
http://www.mensshed.org/what-is-a-men's-shed/.aspx
I'm not sure if it's the kind of thing your dad would be into (my dad probably not). But sounds like fun.
My mom goes on vacations and city-trips with loads of different people. Some of those people she still has contact with, but even without that the trips themselves are a welcome diversion.
On the other hand, it's not your responsibility to arrange for your dad what you think is best for him. He's an adult and will try to make the most of his life and will succeed or fail to be happy on his own.
I'm a father and I wouldn't want my kids to patch my lonely life if I have one: they have their own lives and I have mine and it's certainly nice to see them sometimes but it can never be a deal breaker.
I'm a father and I wouldn't want my kids to patch my lonely life if I have one: they have their own lives and I have mine and it's certainly nice to see them sometimes but it can never be a deal breaker.
It's not OP's responsibility - but love is love, and wanting the best for your parents is not a bad thing at all.
Actually, I would consider that making it my responsibility. I love my father. He made sacrifices for me, I will return the favor if I have to.
The OP can't "make" his/her father do things, however they can suggest things. They implied the father wants to/is open to new experiences.
I don't know how old your dad is but I suggest he go to the local senior center.
create a profile for him on match or some other dating site, and organize some good dates
This article raises an issue that terrifies me; over-reliance on one's wife for friendship. I love my wife and I do consider her my best friend, which is wonderful...but now that I no longer live in the same city as my closest friends, I don't have any really strong local bonds other than with her. She's planning a trip out of town in a few weeks, and I've already started figuring out what I'll do: maybe go on a bike ride, play some video games, clean our apartment, go see a movie, order takeout, etc. None of those plans involve friends. Probably not a good sign. =/
It's not exactly difficult to make loose friends or fun acquaintances, but maintaining and strengthening those into deep, close friendships feels nearly impossible.
It's not exactly difficult to make loose friends or fun acquaintances, but maintaining and strengthening those into deep, close friendships feels nearly impossible.
I am in a similar situation, except I moved to another country with my long-term girlfriend. I know what you mean, but I think all it takes is time. You must have met someone recently in your new city? A neighbor? Is there a "hacker space" in your city to which you could go to a meetup to meet similar people?
It's almost like dating, but for friendship. Try to find people you think you'd get along with, meet them, and invite them to do things. Sure, you'll have to put yourself out there a bit, but after the first few times you don't even think about that anymore.
It's almost like dating, but for friendship. Try to find people you think you'd get along with, meet them, and invite them to do things. Sure, you'll have to put yourself out there a bit, but after the first few times you don't even think about that anymore.
The article is statistically irrelevant - but feels right.
I have many close friends, most of them are worlds away in terms of distance, and I don't hang out with many locals - sometimes I wonder if its Seattle, or something specific to my generation.
I have many close friends, most of them are worlds away in terms of distance, and I don't hang out with many locals - sometimes I wonder if its Seattle, or something specific to my generation.
Having split my life between Seattle and San Francisco, I feel comfortable making the generalization that many Seattleites are very shy in real life.
If you moved to another city you might be surprised at how much easier it is to make new friends out of absolute strangers.
If you moved to another city you might be surprised at how much easier it is to make new friends out of absolute strangers.
If you have friends that are flaky and won't hang out, fuck 'em and get new friends. Get hobbies and meet people who do the same thing. Learn a language, join a book club, go to code meetups, start your own Code/BBQ/Motorcycle workshop. Be interesting and you will meet interesting people. Be boring and wrapped up in your own life and you will not.
This has nothing to do with men, the article should be titled: "Do boring, flaky people suck at friendship?" Most of the people on this planet are boring, and flaky, and wrapped up in their own lives, and if you don't learn how to cope with that and you don't have one of those miraculous, since high-school, partners in crime, friendships you're not gonna have friends. Have kids instead.
This has nothing to do with men, the article should be titled: "Do boring, flaky people suck at friendship?" Most of the people on this planet are boring, and flaky, and wrapped up in their own lives, and if you don't learn how to cope with that and you don't have one of those miraculous, since high-school, partners in crime, friendships you're not gonna have friends. Have kids instead.
Men just talk less.But Men are equally good at friendship.
My formative years were somewhat less than ideal (moving every three months, abusive environment, fat before fat was normal, nerdy, etc). I always blamed not being able to make lasting relationships on that. I've now come to the conclusion that 80% of why I suck at friendship is innate, and 20% is learned.
I've tried hobbies and meetups to no avail; I just wind up sitting in the corner. I think this is where the 20% mentioned hurts. Even if I manage to get out of that corner (a rare event, but it does happen), I don't know how to take a conversation beyond "How's it going?"
Where's the Facebook for actually finding new friends?
I've tried hobbies and meetups to no avail; I just wind up sitting in the corner. I think this is where the 20% mentioned hurts. Even if I manage to get out of that corner (a rare event, but it does happen), I don't know how to take a conversation beyond "How's it going?"
Where's the Facebook for actually finding new friends?
Like boardgames (ones on boardgamegeek.com, not Monopoly)? It's a great hobby that requires interaction. It's great for ice-breaking imo. Most men need ice broken to make a connection, alcohol helps too. Some shared common thread like kids in the same school helps a lot. Joining a sports league is good too if that's your cup of tea, I've met a number of people that way. It's a good no-pressure way of interacting with your teammates.
At the pool is one I've heard mentioned here, though it's somewhat meetuppy. I think going somewhere explicitly "to make friends" would put most people off, it's the sort of thing that needs to be approached obliquely.
This isn't so much innate. It is most likely an anxiety problem. You can overcome it but it isn't going to be easy as it takes going far out of your comfort zone.
Quoted text below from this source:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300997-ok-now-let-s-have-som...
OK, now let’s have some fun. Let’s talk about sex. Let’s talk about women. Freud said he didn’t know what women wanted. I know what women want. They want a whole lot of people to talk to. What do they want to talk about? They want to talk about everything.
What do men want? They want a lot of pals, and they wish people wouldn’t get so mad at them.
Why are so many people getting divorced today? It’s because most of us don’t have extended families anymore. It used to be that when a man and a woman got married, the bride got a lot more people to talk to about everything. The groom got a lot more pals to tell dumb jokes to.
A few Americans, but very few, still have extended families. The Navahos. The Kennedys.
But most of us, if we get married nowadays, are just one more person for the other person. The groom gets one more pal, but it’s a woman. The woman gets one more person to talk to about everything, but it’s a man.
When a couple has an argument, they may think it’s about money or power or sex, or how to raise the kids, or whatever. What they’re really saying to each other, though, without realizing it, is this:
“You are not enough people!”
OK, now let’s have some fun. Let’s talk about sex. Let’s talk about women. Freud said he didn’t know what women wanted. I know what women want. They want a whole lot of people to talk to. What do they want to talk about? They want to talk about everything.
What do men want? They want a lot of pals, and they wish people wouldn’t get so mad at them.
Why are so many people getting divorced today? It’s because most of us don’t have extended families anymore. It used to be that when a man and a woman got married, the bride got a lot more people to talk to about everything. The groom got a lot more pals to tell dumb jokes to.
A few Americans, but very few, still have extended families. The Navahos. The Kennedys.
But most of us, if we get married nowadays, are just one more person for the other person. The groom gets one more pal, but it’s a woman. The woman gets one more person to talk to about everything, but it’s a man.
When a couple has an argument, they may think it’s about money or power or sex, or how to raise the kids, or whatever. What they’re really saying to each other, though, without realizing it, is this:
“You are not enough people!”
There is more divorce now because it is no longer a burdensome shame to break from a joyless marriage. People change and mature in different ways, and young people aren't known for making sensible decisions affecting the rest of their life. In ye olde days, people would stay with abusive (or boring) spouses purely because the social stigma of leaving was worse. These days that stigma is largely gone in much of the West.
> There is more divorce now because it is no longer a burdensome shame to break from a joyless marriage.
You seem to imply this is a good thing. However, my issue is specifically with the fact that people vow themselves to a lifelong marriage -- a lifelong commitment, and then they break that vow later when they get bored. It shows a complete lack of integrity.
If you don't think you're going to stay with the same person the rest of your life, make this clear up front to them! You can still get married for the tax benefits, but it should be understood by both parties from the very beginning that the relationship is only going to last temporarily. Then no one gets devastated when it comes to an end, and no one has broken a promise.
You seem to imply this is a good thing. However, my issue is specifically with the fact that people vow themselves to a lifelong marriage -- a lifelong commitment, and then they break that vow later when they get bored. It shows a complete lack of integrity.
If you don't think you're going to stay with the same person the rest of your life, make this clear up front to them! You can still get married for the tax benefits, but it should be understood by both parties from the very beginning that the relationship is only going to last temporarily. Then no one gets devastated when it comes to an end, and no one has broken a promise.
It's a Vonnegut quote.
I think he was lamenting the shift he had witnessed in American culture, from his common personal childhood experience – in a very large family – to the 'nuclear' family that tended to characterize America from the 1950s onwward. 'Slapstick', where I grabbed the quote, was written in 1976.
I think he was lamenting the shift he had witnessed in American culture, from his common personal childhood experience – in a very large family – to the 'nuclear' family that tended to characterize America from the 1950s onwward. 'Slapstick', where I grabbed the quote, was written in 1976.
What you say is true, but the grandparent is arguing why people want a divorce and why today's marriages are boring for participants. The implication is that even if access to divorce had been as easy 100 years ago as it is now, people would still divorce less frequently than they do now, because of the extended family stuff.
Yesteryear's marriages were also boring for some, it's not a new phenomenon. Yes, there is probably some effect in terms of psychological support from an extended family, but I doubt that that would have been more powerful (demographically) at discouraging divorce than the social stigma. Plenty of times that extended family was telling the individual to stay with the abusive spouse or else the family would be shamed. That's not a social environment to be proud of - who gives a fuck about the family name if the members have to live in misery to maintain it?
This might not be completely it.
Human physiology is weird.
Only in recent history have we married for love and in some cultures you don't marry for love. Previously marriage was more like a business arrangement between families. They were also more final because of things like coverture men generally owned all the property of his wife. The woman tended to lose their own identity and become an extension of their husband's identity. My grandma exclusively refereed to herself as "Mrs. HusandFirstName HusbandLastName." For example "Mrs. John Smith." She was never her own name after marriage. My mom said at the DMV they would specifically say on forms "women use own first name."
This sounds crazy but humans have the ability to manufacture happiness.
Since the partners in the relationships of yesteryear didn't have much of a choice in the matter they subconsciously were happier because they didn't have an easy way out nor did they make the choice. They couldn't decide otherwise so their brains manufactured happiness with the situation they were in. This isn't really "fake" happiness, it is real, there is nothing different about it. It is how the human brain works. There is nothing bad about this. It is kinda like a psychological immune system.
If divorce is easy and socially acceptable and you choose your partner from millions of potential partners your subconscious thinks "maybe someone else can make me happier" and you are less happy with your choice.
Our brains "make" happiness with the life we have if we can't choose an alternative.
Daniel Gilbert has a great book on this aspect of humans ability to alter their own happiness - "Stumbling on Happiness"
Here is his TED talk on the matter which has a lot of the same material as the book - http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy
The following is from my memory and might not be 100%:
For example - he cites a study in which students in a photo class were asked to choose and submit one of the photos to get blown up and framed. One group of students were told that the photo they choose was final and they couldn't change it and the other group was told they had two weeks time to change their minds and submit another one. When the students received their final photos the group who couldn't change their photo were more happy with the photo they choose than the students who had the two week option of changing their photo.
Another one is asking people to rank several Monet paintings on how much they like them. Then they got one to take home. When the researchers came back and asked them to rank the paintings again they ranked the one they owned higher. They like the painting more because they owned it.
Human physiology is weird.
Only in recent history have we married for love and in some cultures you don't marry for love. Previously marriage was more like a business arrangement between families. They were also more final because of things like coverture men generally owned all the property of his wife. The woman tended to lose their own identity and become an extension of their husband's identity. My grandma exclusively refereed to herself as "Mrs. HusandFirstName HusbandLastName." For example "Mrs. John Smith." She was never her own name after marriage. My mom said at the DMV they would specifically say on forms "women use own first name."
This sounds crazy but humans have the ability to manufacture happiness.
Since the partners in the relationships of yesteryear didn't have much of a choice in the matter they subconsciously were happier because they didn't have an easy way out nor did they make the choice. They couldn't decide otherwise so their brains manufactured happiness with the situation they were in. This isn't really "fake" happiness, it is real, there is nothing different about it. It is how the human brain works. There is nothing bad about this. It is kinda like a psychological immune system.
If divorce is easy and socially acceptable and you choose your partner from millions of potential partners your subconscious thinks "maybe someone else can make me happier" and you are less happy with your choice.
Our brains "make" happiness with the life we have if we can't choose an alternative.
Daniel Gilbert has a great book on this aspect of humans ability to alter their own happiness - "Stumbling on Happiness"
Here is his TED talk on the matter which has a lot of the same material as the book - http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy
The following is from my memory and might not be 100%:
For example - he cites a study in which students in a photo class were asked to choose and submit one of the photos to get blown up and framed. One group of students were told that the photo they choose was final and they couldn't change it and the other group was told they had two weeks time to change their minds and submit another one. When the students received their final photos the group who couldn't change their photo were more happy with the photo they choose than the students who had the two week option of changing their photo.
Another one is asking people to rank several Monet paintings on how much they like them. Then they got one to take home. When the researchers came back and asked them to rank the paintings again they ranked the one they owned higher. They like the painting more because they owned it.
Seems intuitively acceptable to me. For instance, when shopping for clothes, I usually buy the ones I hate the least. However, I actually like most of the clothes I own, even if I hadn't liked them that much before I bought them.
EDIT: Didn't realize that whole parent post was a quotation. Sorry.
Well, you^W Vonnegut said that like all men and women are extroverts. Personally, I'd prefer a tiny group of pals (active, any amount of "hey, I know that dude, we talked once ten years ago" is fine), because being a well-connected peer in a large communications cluster is tiresome.
Oh, and I know at least one case where extended family caused a divorce. Guess that's a fairly common case, as finding consensus and maintaining good relationships within a large group is a harder task than between two persons.
Well, you^W Vonnegut said that like all men and women are extroverts. Personally, I'd prefer a tiny group of pals (active, any amount of "hey, I know that dude, we talked once ten years ago" is fine), because being a well-connected peer in a large communications cluster is tiresome.
Oh, and I know at least one case where extended family caused a divorce. Guess that's a fairly common case, as finding consensus and maintaining good relationships within a large group is a harder task than between two persons.
Ha! I was just about to say this reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's Slapstick, where people get automatically assigned to an extended family. Then I clicked the link at the bottom.
I edited the parent to overcome the confusion I caused some people. Sorry about that.
In my experience it's the total opposite: I've known most of my friends since kindergarten. We all know each others dreams, hopes and fears and support each other without being judgmental. We share a common set of values. I could vanish without saying a word and they'd welcome me back with open arms 10 years later.
I've realized that many men (I know) want to talk about their feelings, frustrations, relationships, insecurities etc., when given a good example and opening up a little at first. I learned to do that a couple of years ago, when I was going through difficult times. Went to meet a friend for a couple of beers, started slowly talking, without whining or complaining, about things that make me insecure and we realized opening up and talking about all kinds of "non-manly" things that made us feel bad. That friend relationship deepened into totally new level and since then I've gone through same thing with many of my real friends.
1) Open up, 2) Share, 3) Listen, 4) Care.
It felt really great to get a SMS a week later saying "how are things and are you feeling better?"
Not saying that I am a perfect friend or Mr. Empathy, but I feel that I am a little bit better person than I used to be.
1) Open up, 2) Share, 3) Listen, 4) Care.
It felt really great to get a SMS a week later saying "how are things and are you feeling better?"
Not saying that I am a perfect friend or Mr. Empathy, but I feel that I am a little bit better person than I used to be.
You are slowly turning into a girl. Before you'll realize that - you gonna become a transperson :(
I would be so happy if attitudes like yours didn't exist.
C'est la vie. Assholes all the way down.
C'est la vie. Assholes all the way down.
Feed me!
I'm willing to take that risk, if that's what it takes.
> That's because nearly all research into healthy aging has found that the key to a long, happy life is not diet or exercise but strong social connections
Epicurus believed that three things were necessary for a happy existence:
1. Friends 2. Freedom 3. Thought (as in personal reflection on yourself and your life)
I believe that in life there are many doors and therefore many keys. If you find a key and it opens a door, do not assume that all other doors will open for you; likewise, do not assume that what's behind the door you have opened is the answer to life long happiness.
It's quite frustrating that as a species we try to reduce such complex matters into such simple rules.
Epicurus believed that three things were necessary for a happy existence:
1. Friends 2. Freedom 3. Thought (as in personal reflection on yourself and your life)
I believe that in life there are many doors and therefore many keys. If you find a key and it opens a door, do not assume that all other doors will open for you; likewise, do not assume that what's behind the door you have opened is the answer to life long happiness.
It's quite frustrating that as a species we try to reduce such complex matters into such simple rules.
Has anyone actually read the studies linked by the author to back up his drivel? I'll save you some time: the 2007 study isn't valid even by the low levels of scientific burden required for psychological studies (it's entirely based on self-reporting), and the 1982 study support the opposite conclusion to the author's. In fact, the 1982 study [0] finds that men and women simply have different kinds of friendships, where men are likely to only engage in emotional sharing with their closest friends, and women are more likely to engage in emotional sharing with all their friends.
This brings me on to challenging the true point of the article: slating the traditional male gender role. It's no accident that the author turns to the authority of feminists for perspectives on men -- despite that being so laughly outside the remit of feminism -- because the entire point, unstated but present, throughout the article is that women have 'got it right' and men should be more like women. In lieu of any studies which actually support his point (note that only the first two studies in the article actually even discuss his point about male friendships, the rest are an irrelevance), he instead uses anecdote as evidence for a point neither study can support, and then goes on to blame the entire mess on the traditional male gender role. I won't defend the male gender role, because I have no stock in doing so, but I would at least ask that if something's going to be blamed for mens' terrible friendships then we at least provide some proof that men do indeed have terrible friendships.
Lastly, the article, like so many in the media, is yet another argument that encourages you to accept its faulty form by providing you with a false dichotomy: the argument begs the question that either type of friend (the emotional numerous friends of women, or the close few friends of men) is a superior type of friend, links some 'evidence' which doesn't support its point, and then encourages you to ask yourself whether men or women 'have it right' before even bothering to prove if there's anything to actually get right in this situation.
I will say one thing though: if this is the kind of stuff Men's Journal prints, then either its readership is mostly women, or men sure do love self-flagellation.
[0] http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/...
This brings me on to challenging the true point of the article: slating the traditional male gender role. It's no accident that the author turns to the authority of feminists for perspectives on men -- despite that being so laughly outside the remit of feminism -- because the entire point, unstated but present, throughout the article is that women have 'got it right' and men should be more like women. In lieu of any studies which actually support his point (note that only the first two studies in the article actually even discuss his point about male friendships, the rest are an irrelevance), he instead uses anecdote as evidence for a point neither study can support, and then goes on to blame the entire mess on the traditional male gender role. I won't defend the male gender role, because I have no stock in doing so, but I would at least ask that if something's going to be blamed for mens' terrible friendships then we at least provide some proof that men do indeed have terrible friendships.
Lastly, the article, like so many in the media, is yet another argument that encourages you to accept its faulty form by providing you with a false dichotomy: the argument begs the question that either type of friend (the emotional numerous friends of women, or the close few friends of men) is a superior type of friend, links some 'evidence' which doesn't support its point, and then encourages you to ask yourself whether men or women 'have it right' before even bothering to prove if there's anything to actually get right in this situation.
I will say one thing though: if this is the kind of stuff Men's Journal prints, then either its readership is mostly women, or men sure do love self-flagellation.
[0] http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/...
> men and women simply have different kinds of friendships
I think you nailed it there. This matches what I've been picking up from books by Deborah Tannen, an author recommended to me by a guy at work.
Tannen describes men and women as having two massively different styles of communication. Communication is not at all addressed in the attached article, yet, when I perceive the dialogue in the article, it matches Tannen's model to a T. In a nutshell: men communicate in the domain of independence while women communicate about intimacy. If you remember _nothing_ else about what I write here, remember those two words: intimacy vs. independence.
So for example, when the wife in the article repeatedly asks for "dish," that's a blatant signal of intimacy. She wants to be in on secrets. She wants intimacy with her husband and is sending out "sonar" to see how intimate her husband is with his friends. Even her use of the idiosyncratic term "dish" and expecting her husband to pick up on it can be perceived as calls for intimacy.
Meanwhile, when the author describes "activity" or "convenience" friends, (with an undeserving negative air), he's failing to perceive that these types of friendship allow the men to preserve their independence. It also explains why the men felt intruded upon when the women scheduled an activity for them. The author perceives it in the parent-child spectrum, which is okay, but not insightful imo. Tannen's model of men's independence I find superior. It also explains the author's ignoring phone calls from his friend - it's a meta-communication about preserving his own independence.
Just to get meta about publishing in the 2010s, the article is a smorgasbord of irritainment, pseudo-psychology and self-doubt. Certainly not the kind of thing most men would find useful, valuable or insightful. Although that certainly doesn't it make the author "gay" as someone below suggested! However, this article is neither empowering through interdependence nor through independence, just a slab of rage press with a bit of correlation without causation statistics. (Can't you just hear an editor saying "Great, now finish up with some stats to back it up.")
So let's read Tannen's books to help our relationships and communication along, then get back to talking about Linux and signal processing and shit.
I think you nailed it there. This matches what I've been picking up from books by Deborah Tannen, an author recommended to me by a guy at work.
Tannen describes men and women as having two massively different styles of communication. Communication is not at all addressed in the attached article, yet, when I perceive the dialogue in the article, it matches Tannen's model to a T. In a nutshell: men communicate in the domain of independence while women communicate about intimacy. If you remember _nothing_ else about what I write here, remember those two words: intimacy vs. independence.
So for example, when the wife in the article repeatedly asks for "dish," that's a blatant signal of intimacy. She wants to be in on secrets. She wants intimacy with her husband and is sending out "sonar" to see how intimate her husband is with his friends. Even her use of the idiosyncratic term "dish" and expecting her husband to pick up on it can be perceived as calls for intimacy.
Meanwhile, when the author describes "activity" or "convenience" friends, (with an undeserving negative air), he's failing to perceive that these types of friendship allow the men to preserve their independence. It also explains why the men felt intruded upon when the women scheduled an activity for them. The author perceives it in the parent-child spectrum, which is okay, but not insightful imo. Tannen's model of men's independence I find superior. It also explains the author's ignoring phone calls from his friend - it's a meta-communication about preserving his own independence.
Just to get meta about publishing in the 2010s, the article is a smorgasbord of irritainment, pseudo-psychology and self-doubt. Certainly not the kind of thing most men would find useful, valuable or insightful. Although that certainly doesn't it make the author "gay" as someone below suggested! However, this article is neither empowering through interdependence nor through independence, just a slab of rage press with a bit of correlation without causation statistics. (Can't you just hear an editor saying "Great, now finish up with some stats to back it up.")
So let's read Tannen's books to help our relationships and communication along, then get back to talking about Linux and signal processing and shit.
can you recommend something specific by Tannen?
Sure. She has numerous books now, but the first one that started her off on this path was _That's Not What I Meant!_, which was about differences in communications styles in general. One chapter of it was about the diff. b/t men and women and that got the most attention and requests for more info, so she wrote _You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation_. (There's a lesson for startups about listening to your audience there, too.)
The main one to recommend is the latter, but the first one is great, too. I haven't read her other ones. And TBH I haven't finished either one after several months, b/c the material in the first few chapters just got me so far along I was surprised and it shifted my perspective quite a bit. Especially for a literally-minded person like myself, it was like learning to see not only a new color, but a new, parallel spectrum.
The main one to recommend is the latter, but the first one is great, too. I haven't read her other ones. And TBH I haven't finished either one after several months, b/c the material in the first few chapters just got me so far along I was surprised and it shifted my perspective quite a bit. Especially for a literally-minded person like myself, it was like learning to see not only a new color, but a new, parallel spectrum.
> because the entire point, unstated but present, throughout the article is that women have 'got it right' and men should be more like women .... true point of the article: slating the traditional male gender role.
That was not my reading at all and on re-reading I still can't see it.
Then Liz would let out a big theatrical groan that said, in essence, What kind of friendship is that?
I thought it was a great friendship, if I thought about it at all.
To me, this suggests that there is a model for male friendships that works perfectly well. I perceived the problem to be that not all men are good at implementing or maintaining this model, especially over distance.
The author acknowledges that the female model isn't necessarily the single optimal model:
At the same time, a wave of feminist sociologists and psychologists began describing female friendship, with all its confessional talk, as the optimal model. Many feminist thinkers now see those views as overly simplistic.
> ...before even bothering to prove if there's anything to actually get right in this situation
But there is something to get right! Not feeling lonely.
> Has anyone actually read the studies linked by the author to back up his drivel?
No. I skimmed over that bit and didn't feel it was actually necessary for the point of the article. The author spoke to me on a personal level, through a narrative that I can relate to. They didn't need to prove anything to me: speaking to my lived experience was more than enough to make me think.
That was not my reading at all and on re-reading I still can't see it.
Then Liz would let out a big theatrical groan that said, in essence, What kind of friendship is that?
I thought it was a great friendship, if I thought about it at all.
To me, this suggests that there is a model for male friendships that works perfectly well. I perceived the problem to be that not all men are good at implementing or maintaining this model, especially over distance.
The author acknowledges that the female model isn't necessarily the single optimal model:
At the same time, a wave of feminist sociologists and psychologists began describing female friendship, with all its confessional talk, as the optimal model. Many feminist thinkers now see those views as overly simplistic.
> ...before even bothering to prove if there's anything to actually get right in this situation
But there is something to get right! Not feeling lonely.
> Has anyone actually read the studies linked by the author to back up his drivel?
No. I skimmed over that bit and didn't feel it was actually necessary for the point of the article. The author spoke to me on a personal level, through a narrative that I can relate to. They didn't need to prove anything to me: speaking to my lived experience was more than enough to make me think.
The problem is that the only point of the article, besides telling a story, is to raise the question of whether the author is unsatisfied with (or sometimes merely insecure about) his friendships because men are bad at friendship compared to women. It doesn't make it better to present both sides and say "but who knows," it just makes it a worse article. Without any real facts or insight to talk about, attributing something you don't like about yourself to your gender is just psychological projection and spreads negative feelings towards men.
Imagine if a Dad wrote an article, "Do men suck at parenting?" that assessed men on what was essentially their ability to "mother." Or imagine if a male teacher wrote, "Do men suck at teaching?" or a female programmer wrote, "Do women suck at programming?" None of them motivated by a new study or based on anything but a personal anecdote. We'd all rightfully rise to the defense of men and women in general.
Imagine if a Dad wrote an article, "Do men suck at parenting?" that assessed men on what was essentially their ability to "mother." Or imagine if a male teacher wrote, "Do men suck at teaching?" or a female programmer wrote, "Do women suck at programming?" None of them motivated by a new study or based on anything but a personal anecdote. We'd all rightfully rise to the defense of men and women in general.
There are whole field of scientific study based almost entirely on self-reports. As such, there has been much research done on its veracity, which has shown that it is largely valid and reliable when reporting on simple things (like friendship behavior) so long as it's anonymous, does not require introspection(1), and there is no fear of reprisal(2).
The 2007 study meets all those requirements, so I see no scientific reason to question its results.
Also, I can't think of any practical methodology for studying friendship behaviorally - but would love to be proven wrong.
1. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396-403. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). http://users.business.uconn.edu/jgoodman/mgmt%206201%20assig...
2. Brener ND, Billy JOG, Grady WR. Assessment of factors affecting the validity of self-reported health-risk behavior among adolescents: evidence from the scientific literature. Journal of Adolescent Health 2003;33:436-457. Summary at http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/TonkaCares/RwR/Documents/Val...
The 2007 study meets all those requirements, so I see no scientific reason to question its results.
Also, I can't think of any practical methodology for studying friendship behaviorally - but would love to be proven wrong.
1. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396-403. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). http://users.business.uconn.edu/jgoodman/mgmt%206201%20assig...
2. Brener ND, Billy JOG, Grady WR. Assessment of factors affecting the validity of self-reported health-risk behavior among adolescents: evidence from the scientific literature. Journal of Adolescent Health 2003;33:436-457. Summary at http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/TonkaCares/RwR/Documents/Val...
Oh, very well. Thank you for proving that the scientific community disagrees with me, and proving evidence for your point. I can't say I actually agree with those criteria; especially since one is wholly impossible: there is never a possibility that there's 'no fear of reprisal' when the reprisal can take the form of conflicting with one's self-identity. To be honest, to accept a self-report I'd have to see the following:
1) A study which shows that the questions themselves do not introduce bias. An actual study, where multiple groups of participants were asked the same questions in different forms so as to prove the language of the question cannot influence the result. Of course, this would cause every questionnaire and interview study to fail, because the language does indeed affect the results and is thus a confounding variable (which cannot be controlled without pretending that some language "just doesn't affect people", and yet still functions as language).
2) A proof that the demographic of the sample was controlled for all controllable factors other than those measured. For instance, in this study it wouldn't be good enough to test for the correlation between gender and friendship satisfaction by just getting a bunch of men and women: they'd all have to be the same class, race, wealth etc.
3) The study cannot draw conclusions, nor interpret its results as causative. This is really quite self-explanatory: correlation does not imply causation. Yet, especially in sociology and psychology, this logical maxim seems to get forgotten amongst the excitement of having produced a study.
I'm sure there's more objections, but you've already put up with me arrogantly berating the scientific community for 3 points now. If I were allowed to edit my post to state that the scientific community disagrees with me regarding the validity of the 2007 study, I would.
As for an experimental methodology for studying friendship, I can't say that I can think of any studies which would do so and get past an ethics committee (bloody ethicists), but making the study longitudinal over childhood through to young adulthood would help, as it would show what age-bound variables affect the output. It might just be that young adult men are, for instance, too busy developing a career to have friends, or too busy drinking beer to have friends, or whatever; either way, making it longitudinal would allow some of the uncontrollable confounding variables (such a life experiences) to become more apparent.
1) A study which shows that the questions themselves do not introduce bias. An actual study, where multiple groups of participants were asked the same questions in different forms so as to prove the language of the question cannot influence the result. Of course, this would cause every questionnaire and interview study to fail, because the language does indeed affect the results and is thus a confounding variable (which cannot be controlled without pretending that some language "just doesn't affect people", and yet still functions as language).
2) A proof that the demographic of the sample was controlled for all controllable factors other than those measured. For instance, in this study it wouldn't be good enough to test for the correlation between gender and friendship satisfaction by just getting a bunch of men and women: they'd all have to be the same class, race, wealth etc.
3) The study cannot draw conclusions, nor interpret its results as causative. This is really quite self-explanatory: correlation does not imply causation. Yet, especially in sociology and psychology, this logical maxim seems to get forgotten amongst the excitement of having produced a study.
I'm sure there's more objections, but you've already put up with me arrogantly berating the scientific community for 3 points now. If I were allowed to edit my post to state that the scientific community disagrees with me regarding the validity of the 2007 study, I would.
As for an experimental methodology for studying friendship, I can't say that I can think of any studies which would do so and get past an ethics committee (bloody ethicists), but making the study longitudinal over childhood through to young adulthood would help, as it would show what age-bound variables affect the output. It might just be that young adult men are, for instance, too busy developing a career to have friends, or too busy drinking beer to have friends, or whatever; either way, making it longitudinal would allow some of the uncontrollable confounding variables (such a life experiences) to become more apparent.
1) Questions that introduce bias are known as leading questions, and researchers have devised multiple methods of avoiding that - including, as Dan noted, asking the same question more than once with different wording, and using only neutral language. Also, keeping questions simple, clear, specific and brief - with no implicit assumptions or loaded phrases.
2) Good research controls as many variables as possible. The more uncontrolled the variables are the less valid the data is - but this applies to all studies, not just self-reports.
3) Correlation ≠ causation is rarely forgotten in the actual research - the discussion sections of research in reputable journals are overly modest at best, noting the limitations and weaknesses of the study and typically making few claims for generalizability. Mass media reports, however, tend to take more than a few liberties.
I agree any valid study of friendship has to be longitudinal - the issue becomes one of measurement. You do not trust self-reports, yet how else could it be measured? Hire a researcher to follow people around? Ask them to carry an audio recorder with them every day for a few years?
The only practical alternative I can think of is to ask their close friends or relatives. However, this may be unnecessary because research has already compared self and other reports on a sensitive issue (life satisfaction) and found a high correlation (1).
And finally - although unscientific, the high upcount of this article suggests that it hit a nerve and that many here are unsatisfied with the quality of their friendships. It is my own experience, and that of my brother and my father, and most of the other men I know - more than enough to suggest something is not quite right - that it warrants a thoughtful discussion and not be dismissed out of hand.
1. Crandall, R. (1976). Validation of self-report measures using ratings by others. Sociological Methods & Research, 4(3), 380-400. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/69039...
*edited for brevity and grammar
2) Good research controls as many variables as possible. The more uncontrolled the variables are the less valid the data is - but this applies to all studies, not just self-reports.
3) Correlation ≠ causation is rarely forgotten in the actual research - the discussion sections of research in reputable journals are overly modest at best, noting the limitations and weaknesses of the study and typically making few claims for generalizability. Mass media reports, however, tend to take more than a few liberties.
I agree any valid study of friendship has to be longitudinal - the issue becomes one of measurement. You do not trust self-reports, yet how else could it be measured? Hire a researcher to follow people around? Ask them to carry an audio recorder with them every day for a few years?
The only practical alternative I can think of is to ask their close friends or relatives. However, this may be unnecessary because research has already compared self and other reports on a sensitive issue (life satisfaction) and found a high correlation (1).
And finally - although unscientific, the high upcount of this article suggests that it hit a nerve and that many here are unsatisfied with the quality of their friendships. It is my own experience, and that of my brother and my father, and most of the other men I know - more than enough to suggest something is not quite right - that it warrants a thoughtful discussion and not be dismissed out of hand.
1. Crandall, R. (1976). Validation of self-report measures using ratings by others. Sociological Methods & Research, 4(3), 380-400. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/69039...
*edited for brevity and grammar
> And finally - although unscientific, the high upcount of this article suggests that it hit a nerve and that many here are unsatisfied with the quality of their friendships.
See, you used the term 'suggests' rather than 'proves' because you know that claiming a stronger relationship between upvotes and motive would be affirming the consequent. But this is precisely the sort of weasel-wording which I've seen in observational studies, and it seems deliberately crafted to trick an uncanny reader ill-versed in logic into misinterpreting 'suggests' as 'proves'. Of course, we both know that we cannot infer anything from a consequent other than one of the possible antecedents must have occurred, and we both know that the antecedents in this case -- motive for clicking upvote -- is huge, and thus nothing meaningful can be inferred about the consequent. I'm happy to have a discussion about almost anything, but if someone comes to the party with nonsense evidence pretending the discussion has already been studied and decided, I'm going to call them on it.
I also feel like you've also dodged every point I've raised (or perhaps I didn't explain my objections very well). With regards to #1, the issue wasn't that I think researchers are deliberately crafting leading questions, but that in order for the study to be valid they'd have to show that their questions either do not lead thus aren't confounding (which I've argued is impossible), or that they lead predictably thus can be countered in the analysis (which I also argued is impossible).
With #2 you're correct that this is an issue for all studies, but it's a particularly large issue for studies of things which are irreducibly complex, like people. Since we can't (easily) take specific facets of a person and study those in silo from the rest of a person, controlling confounding variables becomes a bigger issue. Even in other observational sciences we can usually demonstrate the core parts of our assumptions in a controlled experimental manner. For instance, in the study of global warming, we can demonstrate in a controlled, experimental way that the combustion of fossil fuels releases CO2. With studies of human behaviour this is rarely possible.
With #3 you're correct that the media is far guiltier of this than the scientists, but I'd argue that scientists need to be more vocal about this issue. I appreciate this treads a fine line between asking for more scientific social responsibility, and holding scientists responsible for the behaviour of society, but I feel this is a valid concern due to the way that politicians like to fund studies such as these to validate their personal opinion. The reason I believe this important isn't that I think scientists are trying to dupe us, far from it, but because it worries me that as burden the of proof for a posteriori logic falls from the strongly codified and philosophically justified rules of empiricism and falsifiability, so scientists move from being discoverers of truth to yet another controllable authority figure.
Also, thank you again for citing evidence for your point. I apologise that I have not done so, but I seriously doubt any scientists actually agree with me here. Having read your linked study, I would say it both stands to reason and doesn't really seem to prove the point it claims to prove. If you set out to prove that self-reporting isn't invalidated by confounding variables, and you do so by invoking self-reporting which contains almost exactly the same confounding variables, then you can't really claim to have proved anything. Relatives and friends of a sample in such a study would be just as likely to change their answers, consciously or subconsciously, to avoid internal conflict, and because they're tied to the sample in such a way that would produce a similar personality and similar self-identity reprisals if the subject's life choice were cast in doubt, it's also not a large leap of logic that their changed answers would usually change along the same lines as the sample.
Again, I can't really think of a better way of studying complex issues like human behaviour, but since we started at the point of 'science agrees self-reporting is fine' and are now at 'we agree it is the best we can get', I feel we're moving in the right direction. I do agree that well-controlled self-report studies are probably the best we can get in this field, it just seems to me that the best we can get isn't as valid as the best we can get in experimental sciences, and should be noted as such.
See, you used the term 'suggests' rather than 'proves' because you know that claiming a stronger relationship between upvotes and motive would be affirming the consequent. But this is precisely the sort of weasel-wording which I've seen in observational studies, and it seems deliberately crafted to trick an uncanny reader ill-versed in logic into misinterpreting 'suggests' as 'proves'. Of course, we both know that we cannot infer anything from a consequent other than one of the possible antecedents must have occurred, and we both know that the antecedents in this case -- motive for clicking upvote -- is huge, and thus nothing meaningful can be inferred about the consequent. I'm happy to have a discussion about almost anything, but if someone comes to the party with nonsense evidence pretending the discussion has already been studied and decided, I'm going to call them on it.
I also feel like you've also dodged every point I've raised (or perhaps I didn't explain my objections very well). With regards to #1, the issue wasn't that I think researchers are deliberately crafting leading questions, but that in order for the study to be valid they'd have to show that their questions either do not lead thus aren't confounding (which I've argued is impossible), or that they lead predictably thus can be countered in the analysis (which I also argued is impossible).
With #2 you're correct that this is an issue for all studies, but it's a particularly large issue for studies of things which are irreducibly complex, like people. Since we can't (easily) take specific facets of a person and study those in silo from the rest of a person, controlling confounding variables becomes a bigger issue. Even in other observational sciences we can usually demonstrate the core parts of our assumptions in a controlled experimental manner. For instance, in the study of global warming, we can demonstrate in a controlled, experimental way that the combustion of fossil fuels releases CO2. With studies of human behaviour this is rarely possible.
With #3 you're correct that the media is far guiltier of this than the scientists, but I'd argue that scientists need to be more vocal about this issue. I appreciate this treads a fine line between asking for more scientific social responsibility, and holding scientists responsible for the behaviour of society, but I feel this is a valid concern due to the way that politicians like to fund studies such as these to validate their personal opinion. The reason I believe this important isn't that I think scientists are trying to dupe us, far from it, but because it worries me that as burden the of proof for a posteriori logic falls from the strongly codified and philosophically justified rules of empiricism and falsifiability, so scientists move from being discoverers of truth to yet another controllable authority figure.
Also, thank you again for citing evidence for your point. I apologise that I have not done so, but I seriously doubt any scientists actually agree with me here. Having read your linked study, I would say it both stands to reason and doesn't really seem to prove the point it claims to prove. If you set out to prove that self-reporting isn't invalidated by confounding variables, and you do so by invoking self-reporting which contains almost exactly the same confounding variables, then you can't really claim to have proved anything. Relatives and friends of a sample in such a study would be just as likely to change their answers, consciously or subconsciously, to avoid internal conflict, and because they're tied to the sample in such a way that would produce a similar personality and similar self-identity reprisals if the subject's life choice were cast in doubt, it's also not a large leap of logic that their changed answers would usually change along the same lines as the sample.
Again, I can't really think of a better way of studying complex issues like human behaviour, but since we started at the point of 'science agrees self-reporting is fine' and are now at 'we agree it is the best we can get', I feel we're moving in the right direction. I do agree that well-controlled self-report studies are probably the best we can get in this field, it just seems to me that the best we can get isn't as valid as the best we can get in experimental sciences, and should be noted as such.
About 1) - don't most forms ask questions more than on e using different wording? This helps eliminate people just filling the form out randomly, but couldn't it also help keep language neutral?
Yes, this is correct. Most self-reporting relies on having the same question asked in different ways and places to catch people whose inconsistent answers suggest they should be removed from the sample.
However, my objection is that I don't believe language can be easily classified in terms of the response it'll elicit. Obviously, one can (usually) correctly guess the response that'll be received if one were to run up to a stranger and yell "You're a [swearword of choice here]", yet the fact that I've had to preface this with the modifier 'usually' betrays my point; some people will get aggressive if you swear at them, some will laugh, some will respond in kind, and so on. My concern is that if we can't even predict the effect of language in its most obvious state, we probably can't predict its effect in subtler states.
This unpredictability of language leaves us in a tricky position when it comes to asking questions on a self-reporting study. In order to solve that one objection, we'd have to come up with a method of using language which manages to communicate its point, without causing that point to make people feel emotion. This is further complicated by the fact that people are complex beasts with internal and external factors playing in to how they behave, such that a question formed neutrally for one person would probably not be so neutral with others. This also makes avoiding 'fear of reprisal' for one's response to a question impossible, as we can only remove external reprisal. It would not be possible for us to, for instance, removal the internal upheaval of a conflicted homosexual admitting to a survey that they were gay.
However, my objection is that I don't believe language can be easily classified in terms of the response it'll elicit. Obviously, one can (usually) correctly guess the response that'll be received if one were to run up to a stranger and yell "You're a [swearword of choice here]", yet the fact that I've had to preface this with the modifier 'usually' betrays my point; some people will get aggressive if you swear at them, some will laugh, some will respond in kind, and so on. My concern is that if we can't even predict the effect of language in its most obvious state, we probably can't predict its effect in subtler states.
This unpredictability of language leaves us in a tricky position when it comes to asking questions on a self-reporting study. In order to solve that one objection, we'd have to come up with a method of using language which manages to communicate its point, without causing that point to make people feel emotion. This is further complicated by the fact that people are complex beasts with internal and external factors playing in to how they behave, such that a question formed neutrally for one person would probably not be so neutral with others. This also makes avoiding 'fear of reprisal' for one's response to a question impossible, as we can only remove external reprisal. It would not be possible for us to, for instance, removal the internal upheaval of a conflicted homosexual admitting to a survey that they were gay.
I am not sure I understand what you are claiming here?
Are you saying that self-reports (a.k.a. anecdotal evidence) has happened so often on this subject that it in itself has created a big enough dataset to label it a proper study?
Are you saying that self-reports (a.k.a. anecdotal evidence) has happened so often on this subject that it in itself has created a big enough dataset to label it a proper study?
No, he is claiming that self-reports are not anti-scientific, as the OP (you?) claims them to be.
Men's Journal is basically Cosmo. Bullshit journalism and fluff.
Which leads to the inevitable question of what in gods name this garbage is doing on the front page of HN
perhaps because it is an issue that resonates with the demographic of hacker news?
Agreed @aaren, in todays fast pace life, its becoming alarmingly simple to lose touch with friends. IMHO if you work in startup, its even easier.
Without it we wouldn't have had this great debate about male friendships. Sure, the original article may very well be crap, but the resulting debate is not.
It might be due to its linkbait title :/
Perhaps it highlights a potential problem and a market that needs to be disrupted.
I'd sooner say that men and women _currently_ have different kinds of relationships, for the most part. For men who have been conditioned toward independence but who have greater emotional needs than that model allows, the independence model can feel repressive. Likewise, I've known a number of women who lean more toward independence than intimacy. (This switching of relationship models seems to happen more than a little among the trans-men and trans-women that I know.) It isn't clear to me that the relationship categories are linked to anything other than cultural/societal conditioning.
Listening to feminists talk about relationships is actually helpful, in that by acknowledging the basic equality of women, we as men can allow ourselves to form the kind of relationships that we each want individually, rather than the kind that is trained into us from childhood. Escaping from societal pigeonholes can be good for men as well as women.
Listening to feminists talk about relationships is actually helpful, in that by acknowledging the basic equality of women, we as men can allow ourselves to form the kind of relationships that we each want individually, rather than the kind that is trained into us from childhood. Escaping from societal pigeonholes can be good for men as well as women.
I don't think he attacked the traditional male gender role. In fact, I think the article supports your general opinion. it starts by entertaining the idea of the male friendship deficiency, and even giving some anecdotal evidence.
But then, it turns around. He could enjoy his friendships without sharing "deep feelings", just centering around activities. That's what the ending means, when the wife asks him for entertaining gossips, and he can't tell anyone.
But then, it turns around. He could enjoy his friendships without sharing "deep feelings", just centering around activities. That's what the ending means, when the wife asks him for entertaining gossips, and he can't tell anyone.
Yeah, Mens Journal is not famous for its rigorous peer review.
Google "Men have bigger brains than women, research reveals"
This article makes me cringe. Is the author gay or a pseudonym for a girl?
The article seems to extol what most would call "girly" friendship--continuous contact, social gossip, etc. Lots of attention to little things.
Most guys I know of tend to equate true friendship along the lines of "will help you bury the body and won't ask questions." Male friendship tends to get tested around helping with big, infrequent things--death of parent/spouse, get somebody to hospital, cover for you when you did something monumentally stupid.
Men tend to forgive the "didn't hang out last week" but won't ever forgive things like "didn't show up for your dad's funeral".