The article is all over the place because "ghosting" is too broadly defined; "ghosting" online because you are creeped out by a guy you barely had contact with is a another whole category as leaving your house and saying to your newly wed and pregnant wife: "Honey, I'm going to take out the trash!" and never coming back.
I assume the most common and potentially hurtful "ghosting" coincides with the ubiquitous use of dating apps, so I will focus on that.
Though it is possible to "ignore"/"ghost" someone you dated which you got to know from workplace, through mutual friends or through a regular activity you share (art, sport, church ...), it also may cost you because you have to potentially quit your job, lose some friends or find another place for your hobby. The club/bar/socially going out thing is a bit of a grey zone because the probability of someone looking for a "one-night stand" is pretty high which is normally regulated by giving a clear rejection or risking to suffer a rebuff.
Online dating changes the game field because without a social environment and therefore potential considerable personal cost (in the example above: the husband "ghosting" his pregnant wife would have gone through the lengths to leave his belongings, house, common friends, family members, the city, the state ...) ghosting is a very attractive strategy, the psychological consequences - as described in the article - you only tend to feel later and as a repeated ghostee you also start at some point to feel entitled to ghost in this sterile digital environment, too --> positive feedback loop.
As with the club context ("one night stand") in online dating "ghosting" is to be expected, I would reckon for a lot of people a hefty price for the ultra-convenience, they didn't fully consider when going in.
...
>Ghosters are just doing what good capitalists do, except within the domain of interpersonal relations: maximize the bottom line of personal gain without letting empathy, compassion, or kindness get too much in the way. If a partner must be “fired” because their “performance” is inadequate, then so be it. Nothing personal, it’s just business.
It boils down to social regulations as applied above. "Corporate capitalism" with elaborate mechanisms (in tandem with dozens of specialized law firms) to maximally "diffuse responsibilities". Yes.
But I don't think in companies in which the boss knows his employees and their families. That is a very different talk.
Indeed, at some point conjuring up the dark triad is inevitable.
But that's another highly loaded discussion and while it is a serious problem in the scale of our modern societies, it's often used as a boogeyman/strawman in isolated contexts to deflect from the enabling circumstances which are uncomfortable to acknowledge.
Ghosting totally makes sense for creepy strangers on dating apps, but you really don’t want to make those where people expect to find intimacy, which a lot of people (especially nerds on the internet) seem too think is supposed to happen. They're basically the worst nightclub on the planet, and the $500 Tinder package pretty much proves why no one should ever use it
I assume the most common and potentially hurtful "ghosting" coincides with the ubiquitous use of dating apps, so I will focus on that.
Though it is possible to "ignore"/"ghost" someone you dated which you got to know from workplace, through mutual friends or through a regular activity you share (art, sport, church ...), it also may cost you because you have to potentially quit your job, lose some friends or find another place for your hobby. The club/bar/socially going out thing is a bit of a grey zone because the probability of someone looking for a "one-night stand" is pretty high which is normally regulated by giving a clear rejection or risking to suffer a rebuff.
Online dating changes the game field because without a social environment and therefore potential considerable personal cost (in the example above: the husband "ghosting" his pregnant wife would have gone through the lengths to leave his belongings, house, common friends, family members, the city, the state ...) ghosting is a very attractive strategy, the psychological consequences - as described in the article - you only tend to feel later and as a repeated ghostee you also start at some point to feel entitled to ghost in this sterile digital environment, too --> positive feedback loop.
As with the club context ("one night stand") in online dating "ghosting" is to be expected, I would reckon for a lot of people a hefty price for the ultra-convenience, they didn't fully consider when going in.
...
>Ghosters are just doing what good capitalists do, except within the domain of interpersonal relations: maximize the bottom line of personal gain without letting empathy, compassion, or kindness get too much in the way. If a partner must be “fired” because their “performance” is inadequate, then so be it. Nothing personal, it’s just business.
It boils down to social regulations as applied above. "Corporate capitalism" with elaborate mechanisms (in tandem with dozens of specialized law firms) to maximally "diffuse responsibilities". Yes. But I don't think in companies in which the boss knows his employees and their families. That is a very different talk.
Indeed, at some point conjuring up the dark triad is inevitable. But that's another highly loaded discussion and while it is a serious problem in the scale of our modern societies, it's often used as a boogeyman/strawman in isolated contexts to deflect from the enabling circumstances which are uncomfortable to acknowledge.