23 ms·

Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. People interacting with different people ar

Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.

small_model 3mo ago
Not sure about this, most people would rather interact with people the like, click with than some boomer manager who thinks it's still 1950 IBM days.
- nozzlegear 3mo ago
  As an extrovert, I like interacting with anyone. I enjoyed interacting with my boomer manager when I worked in an office, and the middle aged women with kids or grand kids, and everyone else. They weren't my friends, but talking and interacting with them each day was enjoyable.
  - small_model 3mo ago
    I just don't like authority or people having power over me, especially someone who is could be replaced with a calendar app.
zimpenfish 3mo ago
> Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes; it is 100% absolutely not true for "all people". You force me to interact with people I haven't chosen and there's a reasonably high probability that I'll subsequently choose to never interact with you again.[0] > People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. My childhood was largely interaction with people I didn't choose[1] and, nope, I am absolutely not "more trusting" as a result. > Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole. Citation needed for that one. [0] There is a slim chance that the people I haven't chosen to interact with turn out to be reasonable decent people who I don't annoy and, more importantly, don't annoy me. [1] A bunch of enforced house moves and a paucity of decent locals at each new house/school.
- tpmoney 3mo ago
  > That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes It's true for some of us introverted people as well, especially given that without some "reason" to get together, some of us might never interact with another person ever.
  - vladvasiliu 3mo ago
    Indeed. But as a very introverted person, I find it much easier to socialize when it's on my terms. I get to choose where I go, the kinds of people I interact with, for how long. Sure, it's very easy to just "not feel like it" and stay home alone for a week at a time. But I've found that this is usually a reaction to being forced into some situation I don't particularly enjoy, like being compressed like a sardine twice a day on my way to a noisy office where I can't get anything done. Working from home has actually made me much more social. I'm not drained and annoyed with people at the end of the workday, so I have energy to attend social activities. And, paradoxically, I'm even somewhat closer to people at work: now that I don't have to hear them all day long, I'm much more open to actually interacting with them when I do see them.
- wqaatwt 3mo ago
  > Citation needed for that one. Current reality? Of course its more on the (social)media level. Significant proportions of the society in many countries seem to be living in alternate realities. Real life echo chambers reinforce that as well if you only interact with people with similar lifestyles and worldviews. > That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes I would certainly see that’s the case for the overwhelming majority people (certainly not for everyone, though)
  - zimpenfish 3mo ago
    > Real life echo chambers reinforce that as well if you only interact with people with similar lifestyles and worldviews. I'm not sure that's a truism. But we'll have to agree to disagree here. Certainly the reverse (anti-echo chambers?) isn't true (which casts doubt on the original statement, for me): cf current US Republicans politicians who constantly interact with people that have different lifestyles and worldviews[0] without it having the slightest effect on their own worldview. See also: anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and, extreme[1] religious people; all of whom cannot fail to mix with people of opposing views nearly every day without it changing their minds. [0] As a small example, they mingle, have lunch, holiday, serve on committees with, etc., their Democrat colleagues all the time and yet not a shred of sanity rubs off on them. [1] The more culty end of the spectrum; you know the ones.
tayo42 3mo ago
Work is a fake environment where your communication is policed and you need to read books about how to effectively communicate to influence people do the things you want. Normals socialization isn't like that.
- nozzlegear 3mo ago
  When I worked in an office, there was no policing of communication or reading books on effective communication to influence people (??) – people were just normal ass people.
  - tayo42 3mo ago
    You never had a list of banned words at work? You missed the whole master/main thing? Words prefixed with black/white weren't given alternatives? I had a manager once go thorough one of my slack conversations and go line by line with how I could rephrase things with softer corporate jargon. There's books on leadership, books like crucial conversations, books on managing up. The industry is obsessed with staff engineers now and there's on that and the differentiator in that role is getting people to do things. If you really don't deal with that, let me know where I can send a resume I'd love to work with normal people.
    - nozzlegear 3mo ago
      No, I never had any of that. I worked as the dev at a family-owned printing company, around 100 employees.
    - em-bee 3mo ago
      where i am from, such policing is illegal. germany has a different approach to freedom of speech. no institution is allowed to even monitor, let alone censor private conversations (that includes overhearing something). private conversations at work are private and legally protected. the only time when a company can interfere is if the manner of communication (not the content) is disruptive. and getting fired for being disruptive in most cases leads to a lawsuit from the employee against the company, and so courts will decide if there actually was a disruption, and if it was bad enough to warrant dismissal.
tensor 3mo ago
I don't think it has anything to do with echo chambers. It's simply that weak tie relationships are different than close ties, and very valuable. This narrative that we somehow are required to interact with people who are "very different" (often it actually means "offensive to us") is something that seems to be pushed by the US alt-right very hard. I call BS on it.

small_model 3mo ago

Not sure about this, most people would rather interact with people the like, click with than some boomer manager who thinks it's still 1950 IBM days.

nozzlegear 3mo ago
As an extrovert, I like interacting with anyone. I enjoyed interacting with my boomer manager when I worked in an office, and the middle aged women with kids or grand kids, and everyone else. They weren't my friends, but talking and interacting with them each day was enjoyable.
- small_model 3mo ago
  I just don't like authority or people having power over me, especially someone who is could be replaced with a calendar app.

zimpenfish 3mo ago

> Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes; it is 100% absolutely not true for "all people". You force me to interact with people I haven't chosen and there's a reasonably high probability that I'll subsequently choose to never interact with you again.[0] > People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. My childhood was largely interaction with people I didn't choose[1] and, nope, I am absolutely not "more trusting" as a result. > Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole. Citation needed for that one. [0] There is a slim chance that the people I haven't chosen to interact with turn out to be reasonable decent people who I don't annoy and, more importantly, don't annoy me. [1] A bunch of enforced house moves and a paucity of decent locals at each new house/school.

tpmoney 3mo ago
> That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes It's true for some of us introverted people as well, especially given that without some "reason" to get together, some of us might never interact with another person ever.
- vladvasiliu 3mo ago
  Indeed. But as a very introverted person, I find it much easier to socialize when it's on my terms. I get to choose where I go, the kinds of people I interact with, for how long. Sure, it's very easy to just "not feel like it" and stay home alone for a week at a time. But I've found that this is usually a reaction to being forced into some situation I don't particularly enjoy, like being compressed like a sardine twice a day on my way to a noisy office where I can't get anything done. Working from home has actually made me much more social. I'm not drained and annoyed with people at the end of the workday, so I have energy to attend social activities. And, paradoxically, I'm even somewhat closer to people at work: now that I don't have to hear them all day long, I'm much more open to actually interacting with them when I do see them.
wqaatwt 3mo ago
> Citation needed for that one. Current reality? Of course its more on the (social)media level. Significant proportions of the society in many countries seem to be living in alternate realities. Real life echo chambers reinforce that as well if you only interact with people with similar lifestyles and worldviews. > That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes I would certainly see that’s the case for the overwhelming majority people (certainly not for everyone, though)
- zimpenfish 3mo ago
  > Real life echo chambers reinforce that as well if you only interact with people with similar lifestyles and worldviews. I'm not sure that's a truism. But we'll have to agree to disagree here. Certainly the reverse (anti-echo chambers?) isn't true (which casts doubt on the original statement, for me): cf current US Republicans politicians who constantly interact with people that have different lifestyles and worldviews[0] without it having the slightest effect on their own worldview. See also: anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and, extreme[1] religious people; all of whom cannot fail to mix with people of opposing views nearly every day without it changing their minds. [0] As a small example, they mingle, have lunch, holiday, serve on committees with, etc., their Democrat colleagues all the time and yet not a shred of sanity rubs off on them. [1] The more culty end of the spectrum; you know the ones.

tayo42 3mo ago

Work is a fake environment where your communication is policed and you need to read books about how to effectively communicate to influence people do the things you want. Normals socialization isn't like that.

nozzlegear 3mo ago
When I worked in an office, there was no policing of communication or reading books on effective communication to influence people (??) – people were just normal ass people.
- tayo42 3mo ago
  You never had a list of banned words at work? You missed the whole master/main thing? Words prefixed with black/white weren't given alternatives? I had a manager once go thorough one of my slack conversations and go line by line with how I could rephrase things with softer corporate jargon. There's books on leadership, books like crucial conversations, books on managing up. The industry is obsessed with staff engineers now and there's on that and the differentiator in that role is getting people to do things. If you really don't deal with that, let me know where I can send a resume I'd love to work with normal people.
  - nozzlegear 3mo ago
    No, I never had any of that. I worked as the dev at a family-owned printing company, around 100 employees.
  - em-bee 3mo ago
    where i am from, such policing is illegal. germany has a different approach to freedom of speech. no institution is allowed to even monitor, let alone censor private conversations (that includes overhearing something). private conversations at work are private and legally protected. the only time when a company can interfere is if the manner of communication (not the content) is disruptive. and getting fired for being disruptive in most cases leads to a lawsuit from the employee against the company, and so courts will decide if there actually was a disruption, and if it was bad enough to warrant dismissal.

tensor 3mo ago

I don't think it has anything to do with echo chambers. It's simply that weak tie relationships are different than close ties, and very valuable. This narrative that we somehow are required to interact with people who are "very different" (often it actually means "offensive to us") is something that seems to be pushed by the US alt-right very hard. I call BS on it.