
Networks of Low-Stakes, Casual Friendships - gk1
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/smarter-living/why-you-need-a-network-of-low-stakes-casual-friendships.html
======
hardwaresofton
I think this is one of the biggest things that separates introverts and
extroverts. Extroverts expend the energy to maintain these weaker
relationships, and more willingly participate in the social
cues/situations/events that keep them going. The willingness to small talk and
sometimes feign interest which can actually jump start a meaningful longterm
relationship -- for example let's say someone's child is doing some sport and
being busy running them around comes up in small talk -- I find extroverts
remember facts like these and use them to deepen or at least keep distanced
but mindful relationships whereas introverts wouldn't to start with.

The word "friend" itself takes on different meanings to different groups of
people -- especially after the rise of FB -- 1000s of "friends" on a social
network is very different from 100s of "friends" you've only met once which is
also very different from the ~5 "friends" you see on a daily basis, and much
different from 0/1/2 "best" friends who you think you'd do anything for.

I also think it's weird that everyone has to learn these (and other lesson)
themselves in their 20s/30s/40s/whenever -- why is there not a compendium of
reasonable/decent ways to approach intrapersonal relationships and society in
society today? Like a farmer's almanac for human interaction.

[EDIT] - I also think that this is the key difference between sales and
engineering orgs. Not that all engineers are introverts or all sales people
are extroverts but this choice of expenditure of energy feels crucial to me.

~~~
geomark
"I also think it's weird that everyone has to learn these (and other lesson)
themselves in their 20s/30s/40s/whenever "

I have also wondered about this. And recently was surprised that my kid's
school has a multi-year program in which things like this are covered. They
call it PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education). It includes age-
approriate learnings about relationships, starting in early years with friends
and family relationships, what they mean, differences, feelings, etc. It gets
repeated each year and expands earlier learnings. Seems very good. I guess
it's a UK thing as my kid's school is an international school following the
British curriculum.

~~~
barry-cotter
The trouble is some of those children will take that educational face value
and be confused that things aren’t actually as described. Educational
materials are always sugar coated, sometimes more, sometimes less. Some people
who realise they’ve been lied to find this quite disturbing, others treat it
as the educational lesson it is. Educators are much more motivated to look
good to administrators, parents and other adults than to help children.
Helping children gives them a feeling of having helped and of professional
satisfaction, looking good in front of people with power can make a real
difference to their likelihood of having a job next year.

~~~
geomark
It's true what you say about educators wanting to make themselves look good.
But that doesn't detract from the program that I have seen. They do things
like have the kids make posters about what is important to them in different
relationships, and then have the kids talk about their feelings in various
situations. It normalizes having conversations about those things. Sure beats
anything we had when I was in school where we never discussed feelings or
relationships.

~~~
barry-cotter
This can be a good programme with broadly positive effects for a large subset
of students that go through it. It cannot normalise having emotional
conversations. Schools can’t even reliably enforce a norm of non-violence or
of respect for learning. If school teaches one thing and society and the
outside world the outside world wins every time. Children pick up on hypocrisy
and adjust very quickly. Some spot pious bullshit immediately, others learn
through experience and many, of course, pay no more attention than they
absolutely must, in every class.

~~~
mikekchar
I'm going to have to disagree with this. _My_ school when I grew up utterly
failed at this. _Your_ school may have too. I was shocked when I worked in a
school that _didn 't_ fail on this front. I'm not sure it would work in a
standard North American school because the main problem is that _parents_
don't respect the teachers/education system. Teachers have to accommodate
every single bizarre idea that parents have about how to raise children. But
if you have a private school that isn't afraid to tell parents to go elsewhere
if they don't like the education, I think it can be done. In fact, I've seen
it done. The Japanese school where I taught lectured parents for failing their
children _more_ than they lectured the students for screwing up. It was
incredible.

------
hhs
The author writes:

 _" A study from 2018 found that people formed a “casual” friendship after
spending 30 hours together."_

Of note, when you click on that "study", it's actually a paper on two studies.
The first study's methodology relies on participants using Amazon's Mechanical
Turk via survey collection, and these participants "were given $.65 for survey
completion". Then, the second study's methodology relies on "a Midwest public
university, [where] participants were recruited from public speaking courses.
To be eligible, participants had to have enrolled in their first semester of
school that fall (i.e., freshman, transfer) and have moved to the city within
2 weeks prior to the start of class." There's no mention of incentives for the
second study.

I wish the NYT article talked more about the details of these studies and
their possible limitations, for instance, with generalizing. Still, I think
this is an interesting question. I wonder if there's meta-analysis research
done in this area.

~~~
hammock
Almost the entire body of social science is based on generalizations from
limited studies.

~~~
stefan_
Generalizations from limited studies _performed exclusively on bored
university students, typically of social science_.

------
quailandquasar
Hopefully this hasn't been pointed out already...

Often times introverted people are brimming (if not full) of empathy, and
compassion. The joy they give is the joy they receive. That reward system is
personal, internal, and can even be sullied by outside observance.

These people (whom you might have known, or know now) really don't need
compliments. In fact, compliments border on uncomfortable. They probably give
anonymously.

They put themselves in peoples shoes and embody their difficulty.

Their reward is to help because that effort returns to them in an unspoken and
even unnoticed joy.

Having friends, or a social network is definitely a way to create
opportunities. But for some people, that isn't necessarily worth the
engagement.

A very empathetic person might not want to loosely couple themselves in a
social network with anyone else if they feel like they won't be able to offer
their finest. It'd be unfair.

They don't need those connections to find joy. They generate their own in
compassion.

------
tyre
I eat dinner at the same restaurant almost every Sunday night. I know the
waitstaff, the maître d', and the people at the bar. They know about my life
and I know about theirs. I have a similar relationship with people at a wine
bar near my house.

We don't see each other outside this context, except for the occasional
serendipitous run-ins. They are nice, casual friendships that tie me closer to
my community.

That kind of community feels less and less common with our AirPods in, heads
in our phones, taking Lyft instead of public transit, etc.

~~~
war1025
This is exactly how I feel about the different coffee shops I frequent. I
think it's also the sort of relationships that churches, social clubs, etc.
provide. These all fit under the broad umbrella of Third Places [1].

Third Places are critical to the social fabric of a community, and I think
they are largely overlooks and underappreciated by people.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place)

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
For the longest time, Overwatch was one of those third places for me.

Now my third place is more or less at home with my siblings.

~~~
war1025
Home is the "First Place" in this framework. Work is the "Second Place".

I saw an article recently that kind of missed what "Third Place" was, in my
opinion. It basically said "Third Place" was just taking time for yourself.
The real point of "Third Places", in my understanding, is that they are
neither home nor work. At home, connections you build are with family. At
work, connections you build are with coworkers. At third places, the
connections you build are with the broader community. It's where you build the
disparate connections that weave together the "social fabric" of a place.

------
gumby
The 1973 Strength of Weak Ties paper briefly mentioned in the article is
actually the Ur-reference on this topic, and is insightful:
[https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jure/pub/papers/granovetter73ties.pd...](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jure/pub/papers/granovetter73ties.pdf)

------
finnh
Interesting article - all of the referenced studies are about the real world,
and the benefits of those interactions I definitely agree with - and yet the
author leads with an anecdote about a tweet leading to a job.

I'm less convinced that the claimed benefits of casual networks (feeling
connected, for example) accrue to purely online casual relationships.

------
_emacsomancer_
To what extent does this apply to online casual friendships? E.g. 'Friends'
that one has never met in real life, on IRC, Facebook etc.

~~~
hateful
I would say that just because it's online, doesn't make it any different than
someone you only talk to at the "water cooler" or friends of friends you only
see at parties.

"We don't use the expression IRL. We say AFK. [...] We don't like that
expression. We say AFK - Away From Keyboard. We think that the internet is for
real." \- Peter Sunde

------
algaeontoast
As a millennial I really hate this trend. For instance, most housing groups on
facebook now are mostly filled with people just posting about themselves and
expect others to come to them with housing options that work. Instead of
actually just going through listings to find something that would work for
them... It's the most bizarre entitled way to try to flip a sellers market
into a buyers market...

~~~
ashelmire
...it sounds like you're complaining about the people who are trying to make
money from a relationship being the ones to put the work in. If you're renting
or selling, it's up to you to put in the legwork.

~~~
losteric
Housing groups are usually for people looking to rent a property together, not
owners selling/renting.

Some people view that relationship as "you need me so come to me" \- in my
experience, those are the worst people to live with.

I rather like that Facebook lets people act naturally. The people that reply
to those lazy posts are usually poor planners desperately seeking a
flatmate... so neither group engages with my ads :D

------
mirimir
Back in the day, we called this "networking". Back before Eternal September,
so mainly via telephone. I used to spend hours at a time on the phone, seeking
information. Basically cycles of cold calling people, getting referrals, and
cold calling them.

I found jobs that way. Also preprints. And copies of EPA documents that were
under review, or buried for political reasons. I tracked down authors, and got
background.

------
ryanmarsh
Meanwhile some of the most replicated, reliable psychometric findings get
thrown out because they’re politically inconvenient.

The social sciences are a dumpster fire.

~~~
sctb
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19851234](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19851234).

