Do Men Suck At Friendship? - <AUTHOR> http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/print-view/do-men-suck-at-friendship-20140422 <comment><USER3> 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/...](http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/Caldwell%20%26%20Peplau%2082.pdf)

<comment><USER4> 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...](http://users.business.uconn.edu/jgoodman/mgmt%206201%20assigned%20readings%202008/1%20theory%20and%20research%20design/Baumeister%20Vohs%20and%20Funder%202007.pdf)

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...](http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/TonkaCares/RwR/Documents/Validity%20of%20Self%20Report.pdf)

<comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER4> 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 - <USER2> 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...](http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/69039/10.1177_004912417600400305.pdf?sequence=2)

*edited for brevity and grammar

<comment><USER3> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Quoted text below from this source: [http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300997-ok-now-let-s-have- som...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300997-ok-now-let-s-have-some-fun-let- s-talk-about-sex)

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!"

<comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER7> 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.

<comment><USER8> 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](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.

<comment><USER7> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > 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.

<comment><USER10> 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.

<comment><USER11> 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.

<comment><USER12> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> USian viewpoint here.

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".

<comment><USER14> Speaking of cringing, the adjective you're looking for is 'American'.

<comment><USER15> 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".

<comment><USER16> 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](http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres15.html)

<comment><USER8> Many cultures consider "The Americas" to be one continent - America.

<comment><USER16> That's true, but the United States and most other English-speaking countries do consider them to be separate continents, and that's why we refer to them that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 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.

<comment><USER18> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> 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.

<comment><USER20> 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.

<comment><USER19> 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.

<comment><USER21> > 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?

<comment><USER22> 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.

<comment><USER16> 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".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> 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.

<comment><USER24> 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.

<comment><USER25> 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.

<comment><USER26> 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."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 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.

</comment><comment><USER28> 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.

</comment><comment><USER29> 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.

</comment><comment><USER30> 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.

<comment><USER31> 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...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call- yourself-a-programmer/)

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.

<comment><USER32> 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.

<comment><USER30> HN is a common interested, and this is completely outside the current thread, but we joined HN on the very same day!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> 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?

<comment><USER34> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> 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.

<comment><USER36> You are slowly turning into a girl. Before you'll realize that - you gonna become a transperson :(

<comment><USER37> I would be so happy if attitudes like yours didn't exist.

C'est la vie. Assholes all the way down.

<comment><USER36> Feed me!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> 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...](http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jvt002/brainmind/readings/henrich_2010.pdf)

In particular attempting to draw conclusions about innate (genetic) behavior from this skewed sample is highly subject to confounding.

<comment><USER8> >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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> 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.

<comment><USER40> 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.

<comment><USER39> And why do you want long-term friendships? The article seemed to imply that they were good because they were healthy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 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](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hmlPtRu1SQ)

<comment><USER6> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> 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.

<comment><USER43> Men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.

<comment><USER44> I really hope I'm missing some sarcasm there.

<comment><USER43> 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...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant-be-just- friends/)

<comment><USER45> > 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_...](https://analysights.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/071210_2340_considerres22.png?w=450)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> 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.

<comment><USER47> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm 28 now and I already feel like I have no friends left. Yay.

</comment><comment><USER49> "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

</comment><comment><USER50> 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.

</comment><comment><USER51> Tangential point - what does the phrase "any dish?" mean?

<comment><USER52> It's equivalent to "scoop" or "gossip".

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> 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.

<comment><USER52> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> 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...

</comment><comment><USER55> 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.

<comment><USER56> like?

<comment><USER55> \- 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> 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](https://twitter.com/hnycombinator/status/458827145398484992)

<comment><USER58> That's part of bitly's premium offering.

nytimes.com shortens to [http://nyti.ms/1gQdV1r](http://nyti.ms/1gQdV1r), Amazon shortens to [http://amzn.to/1mCftnd](http://amzn.to/1mCftnd), and anything .gov shortens to 1.usa.gov: [http://1.usa.gov/1iejWVe](http://1.usa.gov/1iejWVe)

The shortened part is totally interchangable, ie [http://bit.ly/1gQdV1r](http://bit.ly/1gQdV1r) still goes to the NY Times site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> 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.

</comment><comment><USER60> 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.

</comment><comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER61> He doesn't. At the end of his story, after he rekindled his friendship with this surfer guy, he still has no gossip for his wife.

<comment><USER6> Looks like I read the end of it the wrong way, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Can anyone suggest a better title? This one is pretty linkbaity.

<comment><USER63> 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

<comment><USER62> Good lord. You're good at that. Please don't do it often :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> > 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.

</comment><comment><USER65> 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.

</comment><comment><USER66> 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.

<comment><USER67> Maybe it's hard to make male friends when all you wanna talk about is relationships and general angst.

<comment><USER66> Or maybe I just don't bother maintaining friendships with people who aren't capable of getting real without hiding behind a veil of snark.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> As a 27 year old male, most of my friendships revolve around doing things together. Working, video games, sports, drinking, or eating, mostly.

<comment><USER69> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> This doesn't happen in India. This is a purely western phenomenon.

<comment><USER71> Do you speak for all Indians?

This also happens in India and has nothing to do with western culture.

<comment><USER72> 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. :-/

<comment><USER52> 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.

<comment><USER72> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> 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?

</comment><comment><USER74> 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

</comment><comment><USER75> 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.

</comment><comment><USER76> 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.

</comment><comment><USER77> "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...

</comment><comment><USER78> 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.

</comment><comment><USER79> How culture-specific is this trend?

</comment><comment><USER80> 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.

<comment><USER81> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> 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.

</comment><comment><USER83> Google "Men have bigger brains than women, research reveals"

</comment><comment><USER84> Men can be friends with women too. Just sayin'.

</comment><comment><USER85> 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.

</comment><comment><USER86> Men just talk less.But Men are equally good at friendship.

</comment><comment><USER87> 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.

</comment><comment><USER88> 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?

<comment><USER8> You've been hanging out with some terrible people.

I actually didn't find this article sexist or attacking.

<comment><USER88> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> 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.

</comment><comment><USER90> 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.

<comment><USER91> 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

<comment><USER92> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> tl;dr; answer: no. No they don't.</comment>


New Gmail Interface? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/10/5704452/screenshots-suggest-google-is-testing-a-completely-redesigned-gmail Screenshots suggest Google is testing a completely redesigned Gmail interface <comment><USER2> Its interface could do with an overhaul that integrates its latest feature additions better (tabs mostly). It has been feeling rather dated for a while as well.

saying that - if it aint broke..

<comment><USER3> Indeed. I have no problem with dated. My shovels and hammer are dated.

For certain applications, I have newer shovels and hammers, but these are specialized applications requiring specialized tools.

Most times I need a shovel or a hammer, one of the plain old centuries-old designs do the trick just fine.

<comment><USER4> Test</comment></comment></comment>


PHP On Pie takes a fresh new approach. - <AUTHOR>

Hey everyone. I've been creating a "social application framework" called PHP On Pie over the past 2 years, mainly to streamline my own work with social media applications and also to re-use code and help my developers get up to speed quicker. I'm open sourcing it under the BSD license and hopefully others among you find it useful. If you do, feel free to contribute back to it.
I came up with its design after using a lot of other PHP frameworks, including Cake (RoR clone basically), symfony/agavi, CodeIgniter, Kohana and Zend. And drupal. I think PIE really tries to take advantage of the PHP way, and make things simple. If you want, you can drop classes from ZF or PEAR into it and they "just work". Anyway if anyone wants to get involved, drop me a line.
http://phponpie.com <comment><USER2> First thought: The opening tag line,

 _You can make great applications with PHP._

Is relatively underwhelming. It's like saying 'you can make great cakes with sugar.' - true, but not really saying a lot.

<comment><USER3> So many frameworks to choose from; why pick yours? Give me a single sentence mind-changer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I should put something there. I haven't thought of a single killer reason, except "it's faster, more powerful, takes advantage of PHP's unique strengths and encourages clean web programming"

<comment><USER2> IF you don't have something concrete, make something up that sounds concrete, within the realm of puffery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's up with the constant usage of compact()? Isn't it as icky and avoidable as its inverse, explode()?

Starting off the 'Technology' tab with supported OSes and servers couldn't be a good idea: those familiar with PHP will understand that incompatible with a system on which PHP is supported is a bug, but compatibility within PHP is obvious.

That said, the event system is interesting, and might be a good rethink of the Drupal hook system.

<comment><USER5> It's inverse is extract(). What's icky about using compact()?

<comment><USER6> Whenever reflection can be avoided, it should be. What makes it icky is that developers then need to worry about how they name their variables. It shouldn't be a problem so long there's a convention established.

Personally, when passing a lot of parameters, I condense them into a "Holder" class:

        $holder->var1 = "foo";
        $holder->var2 = "foo";
        //or set from array
        $holder->addArray(array("var1"=>"foo", "var2"=>"foo"));
        //later on, retrieving values
        $holder->useStrictMode(true); //optional: throws exception if key isn't present (rather than returning null)
        echo $holder->var1;
        echo $holder->var2;
        echo $holder->var3; //throws exception that var3 was expected to be present

It's worked well for me. It's also very handy for returning multiple values and status codes.

<comment><USER5> >What makes it icky is that developers then need to worry about how they name their variables.

Good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Clickable. <http://phponpie.com>

</comment><comment><USER8> At a quick glimpse at the framework code, I found several no gos for me: 1) First file i opened contained Methods with > 600 lines of code with mixed variable naming (camelcase and underscore). I don't want to debug that stuff, if I run into a framework bug. 2) Several classes/interfaces in a single file. What if I ie want to write my own adapters by using the given interfaces?

On the other side the code is very well commented (not all but most of it), which is a very huge plus.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, but are you looking at the right framework? I am hard pressed to imagine how you could encounter either 1) or 2) in it, let alone both in a single file. As for your question, PIE is designed to let you write any adapters you want. For example it currently supports only MySQL, but you are free to add support for e.g. Postgres, SQLite or even NoSQL databases.

I'm just a bit surprised by your comments because they describe the exact opposite of how most of PIE is designed, and the philosophy behind it. Although I take your point with mixed variable naming. There is lots of room for standardizing the internal codebase more than it is.

<comment><USER9> framework/classes/pie.php 1082 lines long

Methods existing in the file: microtime, exceptionHandler, includeFile, autoload, var_dump, do_dump.

It's the first file I opened, and I see exactly what this guy saw immediately as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right ... but I thought he said there were methods with > 600 lines of code, and files with multiple classes/interfaces all over the place. That's why I took issue with it. But yeah, the Pie class has all the core functions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The site doesn't explain (anywhere that I could find) what is different about this framework, or what this "fresh new approach" is. That should be the first thing on the homepage.

</comment><comment><USER11> I must say, you've made a neat and clean website. Very inviting.

What would really get me to try it out is a video link on the first page. Just like the one on the play (Java) website. It should like play, show a jquery/ajax update. I've wanted to learn php (and a framework) for a long time, this could be it, if you give a short 10 minute demo.

<comment> mike-cardwell The site is completely broken without javascript enabled.

You can't download the framework, you can't view the feature list, you can't click the "technology" tab.

None of those things require any particular functionality of javascript and could work as simple anchor tags.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's something I should fix. I don't think I'm using Javascript for anything other than the tabs + ajax. I'll convert them to regular anchors as a fallback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nicely done site, but I would say that immediately your site should tell what makes your framework stand out from the crowd.

</comment><comment><USER12> I want to see something significant built with the framework. That's what gets me to try something new.

</comment><comment><USER13> You have a typo on #10 - s/Competely/Completely/.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed, thanks.</comment></comment>


Out in the Open: Man Creates One Programming Language to Rule Them All - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/02/julia/ <comment><USER2> Here's the previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7171126](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7171126)

It's a nine months old story. And the hyperbole in the title has been thoroughly acknowledged in that discussion as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Opening line: "Stefan Karpinski was building a software tool that could simulate the behavior of wireless networks, and his code was a complete mess. But it wasn't his fault."

Interestingly, it was Bjarne Stroustrup's experience implementing a distributed system simulator in Simula that lead to him working on what became C++. He liked the architecture of the code, but it was too slow for him to get any results. He reimplemented the whole thing in BCPL, and that experience got him interested in having a fast language that provided Simula-like abstractions.

I originally read this anecdote in his book "The Design and Evolution of C++", but it's also in the beginning of his History of Programming Languages paper: [http://www.stroustrup.com/hopl2.pdf](http://www.stroustrup.com/hopl2.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> Julia is interesting for sure, but I think Clojure has had more of an impact in terms of what the future of languages might look like. I would argue the same for Rust as well.

<comment><USER5> I agree on Clojure. Rust I'd need to know more about, but I may study it now that it's post-1.0.

What do you think about Haskell's impact on the future? I think that static typing, although less popular as of now, could make a resurgence given the value it adds once one learns how to use the type system.

Most of the negative reputation of static typing, I'd argue, comes from languages that are falling out of favor (C++, Java) and that never did static typing right in the first place.

<comment><USER4> TLDR; Optional type systems are the future

I hear a lot about Haskell but I don't see a lot about Haskell...

Clojure has two optional type systems known as the core.typed library, and Prismatic's schema library. I don't think it's an all or nothing situation. Use types when you need them and don't when you don't.

<comment><USER6> You are overlooking how powerful programming with types can be. This applies to Haskell, but even moreso to languages like Idris.

Did you hear about Haxl[0]?

[0]: [https://code.facebook.com/projects/854888367872565/haxl/](https://code.facebook.com/projects/854888367872565/haxl/)

<comment><USER4> You're overlooking my entire comment...

<comment><USER6> No I'm not, but I guess there was a possibility of you thinking that. Let's erase all ambiguity.

> TLDR; Optional type systems are the future

Optional type systems have their place, but I think you are ignoring applications that types can have besides type assertion and documentation.

> I hear a lot about Haskell but I don't see a lot about Haskell...

It's a shame you haven't "seen" Haskell and have only heard about it, I know how that can make the entire language seem like vaporware. I personally have seen at least one big thing from a large company that used Haskell. I'm guessing you didn't see Facebook's semi-recent release of Haxl[0].

> Clojure has two optional type systems known as the core.typed library, and > Prismatic's schema library. I don't think it's an all or nothing situation. > Use types when you need them and don't when you don't.

Optional typing is cool, but it's not useful for type based programming since it makes types optional. You can do some cool stuff by programming types. Haskell does some of this, but Idris[1] does much more by taking advantage of dependent typing[2].

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The comments in the OP pretty much state the skepticism that I feel...but let me limit my layperson's cynicism:

> _Stefan Karpinski was building a software tool that could simulate the > behavior of wireless networks, and his code was a complete mess. But it > wasn't his fault._

 _As a computer science grad student with years of industry experience under his belt, Karpinski was far from a programming novice. He knew how to build software. The problem was that in order to build his network simulation tool, he needed four different programming languages. No single language was suited to the task at hand, but using four languages complicated everything from writing the code to debugging it and patching it._

Is the code for this simulation open-source? I'm not sure what that simulation entails, to need four different languages to effectively implement it...but I would definitely be interested in reading some specifics on what these languages are (or at least, the domains that they pertain to) and in which ways Julia adequately fulfilled their roles (I'm going to assume that Julia wasn't the flat-out best language across all the roles...though really, that's what the OP's headline leads me to believe...)

I'm mostly a Rubyist. I hope Julia is faster than Ruby (what _isn 't?_)...but is it as easy to read and write, and does it serve well as a glue language?

<comment><USER8> Not simulation, but here is my example from finance which does things pretty similar to those in technical computing. First you want to prototype things and see what works. You need low-overhead fast iteration interpreted language with good graphing abilities. This is usually Excel, sometimes Matlab, R, or Python. The solution that you get does not scale, so you roll up your sleeves and re-implement calculations in C++, C#, or Java (and in some cases more exotic languages like F#, Haskell or OCaml). Then you need to present these results to users, which means you need Visual Basic or C# to integrate that back into Excel, or C# or Java (or maybe Python) to build a standalone desktop GUI application or web application. At this point build and deployment is supported by a bunch of other technologies, like Makefiles, batch scripts, maven files and what not.

<comment><USER9> A large part of this is discipline and knowledge.

There is nothing to stop you from writing a nice-looking, fast app in C++. I routinely do this kind of thing in a mix of C++ and Python because wxPython makes it easier to throw together a UI, but the development overhead for doing it in C++ is relatively small.

There are very few algorithms in Matlab or R that you can't find in decent libs for C++, so translating is no big deal given you're going that way anyway.

The question is: are we better to put resources into new special-purpose, highly-optimized-for-a-single-type-of-job languages like Julia (which for some reason the article talks about as universal, then admits at the end it is totally special purpose and unsuited for a whole bunch of applications)... or are we better off learning to use the tools we have with greater discipline?

I generally opt for the latter. Changing our behaviour as developers will produce better results than building new tools. We have the tools to manage our processes now (CMake, for example, rather than Makefiles). We need to be disciplined about using them. If we aren't, no new tools will help that much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone on here have day-to-day experience using Julia? If so, what do you use it for? What languages are you supplementing with Julia?

<comment><USER11> I've been using it to to play with fractals and other procedural graphics. I've enjoyed it. The only thing that was slightly unpleasant (besides growing pains and REPL startup time) was getting used to 1-based indices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> [http://xkcd.com/927/](http://xkcd.com/927/)

now we have 5 programming languages ;)

</comment><comment><USER13> >> As a computer science grad student with years of industry experience under his belt, Karpinski was far from a programming novice. He knew how to build software.

Probably was coding as a kid. And according to his resume his first professional (money paid) part-time job was in 1996, coding in C/ALGOL/C++/Perl. That is close to 20 years. Reasonable enough. People tend to keep it simple and not design overly complicated things when they've been doing something for 20 years.

A style guide page here gives a good feel of the language: [http://julia.readthedocs.org/en/latest/manual/style- guide/](http://julia.readthedocs.org/en/latest/manual/style-guide/)

Compare with Python: [http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/](http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/)

And, say, Ocaml: [http://caml.inria.fr/resources/doc/guides/guidelines.en.html](http://caml.inria.fr/resources/doc/guides/guidelines.en.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> >He and several other computer scientists are building a new language they hope will be suited to practically any task. [...] What we need, Karpinski realized after struggling to build his network simulation tool, is a single language that does everything well.

a few paragraphs later:

> That said, it isn't for everyone. Bezanson says it's not exactly ideal for > building desktop applications or operating systems, and though you can use > it for web programming, it's better suited to technical computing.

So he made one language that's good for everything, as long as everything doesn't include desktop apps, operating systems, or web apps? That's a pretty big lacuna...

</comment><comment><USER15> Am I the only one who saw the title and thought Perl 6?

<comment><USER16> Yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Julia is also designed parallelism."

</comment><comment><USER18> For whatever reason, I expected the article to be about haxe -- one language that transpiles to everything.

</comment><comment><USER19> So, apparently Julia is the "One True Language."

<comment><USER20> One does not simply code C in Mordor.

<comment><USER21> Nope, legacy code base. FORTRAN.

<comment><USER22> In Middle-Earth Mordor is the progressive nation, which (together with Isengard) is inventing industrialization. Gondor, Rohan and the elves are the conservative faction. ;)

<comment><USER23> ...and, just to back up your comment, here's The Book that tells that side of the story: [http://ymarkov.livejournal.com/280578.html](http://ymarkov.livejournal.com/280578.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Don't know what happened. Think someone deleted my comment. What I said was we need a common metalanguage or knowledge representation for algorithms that can be translated to different programing languages.

<comment><USER25> LLVM IR?

<comment><USER24> Yes similar but generally higher level where possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> [http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png)

</comment><comment><USER27> If it were only true! But the way Julia is tied in (REPL _ONLY_ ), it's nothing more than a _lab tool_ for number crunchers. And the developers don't plan to make Julia create stand-alone binary executables (R or Matlab users wouldn't expect that). That's a deal breaker for me.

(Edit: Typo)

<comment><USER2> Where do you get that from? Stefan Karpinski actually claimed quite the opposite:

[https://groups.google.com/d/topic/julia- users/rttSG6_pAiA/di...](https://groups.google.com/d/topic/julia- users/rttSG6_pAiA/discussion)

<comment><USER27> I will believe it just as soon as I see it. Until then, I prefer to remain skeptical.

<comment><USER2> Well, first you're stating that they don't plan it, then you're called out, now you're simply stating that you remain sceptical. That's pretty poor.

<comment><USER27> Touché.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mathiness in the Theory of Economic Growth (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://paulromer.net/mathiness/ <comment><USER2> Math envy. It affects more than economics and often only obscures the intended meaning (if there's any there in the first place) while giving the illusion of rigor because symbols...and "math"!

<comment><USER3> Indeed. One of the more infamous examples comes from the field of _positive psychology_ [1]. A psychology researcher used fluid dynamics formulas to come up with ratios of positive to negative experiences that separate _languishing_ from _flourishing_. And then one of those articles [2] got numerous citations in the literature, helping to establish the idea of this ratio and a whole little clade of research that took the validity of that ratio for granted. To be fair, one of the reasons for its infamy is that _the_ Alan Sokal co- authored an article [3] that ruthlessly criticized the mathematical methods.

[1] This is a surprisingly hard term to really pin down. Loosely speaking, the idea is that we should be able to characterize the development of psychological strengths independently of any taxonomy of diseases or disorders. However, explanations of it often seamlessly bleed over into concepts more characteristic of virtue ethics, Stoicism, rugged individualism, and self-help. The more cynical part of me wants to dismiss it as the clinical psychology equivalent of vitalism, but perhaps that is just a pattern that characterizes its excesses.

[2] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126111/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126111/)

[3] [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/complex_dynamics_final_clea...](http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/complex_dynamics_final_clean.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _" The point of the paper is that if we want economics to be a science, we > have to recognize that it is not ok for macroeconomists to hole up in > separate camps, one that supports its version of the geocentric model of the > solar system and another that supports the heliocentric model. As > scientists, we have to hold ourselves to a standard that requires us to > reach a consensus about which model is right, and then to move on to other > questions."_

I disagree with this. Convergence on one methodology, model or theory is usually achieved by some process of reductionism, but the complexity of economics makes it hard to ever come to some straight forward conclusion about which form of inquiry is superior, or if there even is such a thing.

Even physics is not safe from this. People have questioned the importance of string theory and its 'mathiness' and difficulty to be empirically verified. Some people believe in grand unified theories, others think they're not worth pursuing.

In general I think what ever helps clarifying issues we have or helps solve problems is worth keeping. I think we ought to science more as a form of discourse than as some sort of 'model' that needs to converge on anything. Mathiness has its place and so has non mathiness. Different models may work in different circumstances.</comment>


Adopting the "Mobile First" Mindset at the New York Times - <AUTHOR> http://mobile1st.com/embracing-or-testing-the-mobile-first-mindset-at-the-new-york-times/

<comment><USER2> Even the "old grey lady" has to meet the needs of today's consumers</comment>