I Quit Social Media for a Year - <AUTHOR> https://joshcsimmons.com/2019/09/10/i-quit-social-media-for-a-year-and-nothing-magical-happened/ <comment><USER3> My biggest issue with social media is less that it's distracting (IMO not necessarily an unhealthy thing) but that it has, for me, more than anything else seemed to make all aspects of my life a competition with others.

On Instagram, you're competing with others on who has the happiest life.

On LinkedIn, you're competing with others on who has the steepest career trajectory.

Even on Twitter, perhaps more acutely in certain jobs or industries, it seems like you're competing with other in gaining professional influence.

It creates a lot of anxiety that stems from a feeling like you're constantly on the verge of falling behind others.

Plenty of scholars/thinkers/philosophers have said something to the effect of focusing on just being a better version of you. Social media enables the exact opposite i.e. forcing you to constantly evaluate how you compare to others.

<comment><USER4> Maybe I'm in the minority, but I like social media and I'm capable of controlling my usage. I've developed some ground rules to ensure a good healthy experience.

To start, I have an iOS rule that prevents more than 7 minutes of each social media app per day. I pretty much only use Facebook. After the timer is up that's it for the day.

I honestly enjoy seeing picture of my friends, their kids, their vacations, and the fun things they are doing. I don't have FOMO and I'm not depressed seeing people doing something more fun than I am in that exact moment. In some cases I'm inspired to go somewhere or do something because I know my family or I would enjoy it. I rarely post myself, even if I'm doing something FOMO worthy (okay, maybe sometimes). I'll share some photos from big occasions like birthdays or weddings since I think other people may want to see them, especially if they are in the photos.

I generally use social media when I'm waiting for a train, sitting in a doctors office, or going to the bathroom. I never itch for it during the day and rarely find myself reaching for the app robotically. One thing that's definitely help to curb constant dopamine hits and addiction is disabling all social media notifications. I'm never pushed content, I only pull it. Actually, I've disabled almost every single notification on my phone with the exception of imessage, slack, citizen, and photos. My phone never buzzes from email, social media, or anything else that I find distracting.

One thing I've always wanted to do but never do is clean up my Facebook friend list so it's only the people I care about. For what it's worth Facebook seems to do a decent job of filtering it. But one day I'll do it right.

<comment><USER5> I don't know if we're in the minority, but I'm completely with you. I use social media for about 15 minutes a day and it only improves my life. I'm happy when I see my friends being happy.

I think people who blame their life problems on social media have deeper underlying issues. Mark Zuckerberg didn't invent envy in 2004.

<comment><USER6> Well, I tend to see it like opioids, for example. Some people can just use their prescribed dosage and in the end they have no addiction whatsoever. Many more, even though they use their prescribed dosage, start an addiction which can lead to their lives getting ruined.

I think the same happens with social media. There are people who are more prone to addiction than others. People close to me have claimed to have felt much better after deleting/deactivating their social media accounts.

Personally it's been more than 10 years without Facebook, and I never had an Instagram, so there's not much I can say about the topic from my own experience.

<comment><USER7> > Many more, even though they use their prescribed dosage, start an addiction > which can lead to their lives getting ruined.

I don't know if it's true that many more people prescribed opioids become addicted than not, and spreading such information harms people who do need them.

<comment><USER6> You're absolutely right, it seems I've made a typo inadvertently. It's true that less people become addicted than not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I used to use Twitter. My country's political news and related commentary usually got me into a mental state of frustration and misanthropy.

I deleted Twitter. Political news still frustrate me but I rarely see them anymore. Ignorance is bliss. I've effectively created a safe space where political idiocy can't cognitively harass me.

Is it wrong to be so uninformed? I don't know. I think a lot about it and I haven't come to a satisfactory conclusion. By being uninformed I'm somewhat unable to fight against the "wrong" opinions, but maybe if I was informed my opinions wouldn't change a thing anyway.

My mental health is better off just accepting any idiotic laws my country passes instead of trying to "protest" (in the most useless sense of the word: tweeting about it) against them, for the most part.

<comment><USER9> > Is it wrong to be so uninformed?

I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I would say it is an expression of privilege. People who don't find their race, gender or identity regularly being touted as either some up and coming new social fad or the boogeyman to a given group that oppose them and the source of everything evil in the world or what have you can pretty safely disconnect from the discourse with no real ramifications to their lives.

So again, no I wouldn't say it's wrong, and hell, I have to disconnect occasionally too simply to keep my sanity. But I also say that from a similar position of privilege. I don't have lawmakers attempting to restrict my rights, my gender and race aren't an oppressed group. But, exercising privileges doesn't make you a bad person in my book so long as you're not fighting to maintain those privileges at the expense of others.

<comment><USER10> Disconnecting from people trying to push a so called 'culture war' on the general populous seems like a rational choice - as a white male, social media seems to tell me emphatically that I am _the_ problem. Similarly social media pundits from the other side are trying to blame all measure of economic and social ills on brown people/gay people/trans people.

Both narratives are patently false.

To touch very lightly on politics, we blame the poor for being poor, and the marginalized for being marginalized - the so called 'culture war' (and the outrage on both sides) is just another round of 'circuses and bread' to distract us from real issues and prevent any real change from happening.

<comment><USER9> Just as a minor correction: Nobody is telling you that _you specifically_ are the problem. The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" was built with you as the presumed default, and that confers to you tons of small benefits that fall into one of two categories:

1) Unfair advantages that allow you certain freedoms other groups don't have, that one could argue no one should have

2) Advantages that everyone should have, but due to being ethnic or female, they don't.

The best example I usually have for this is that when I'm pulled over by a cop for speeding, I'm annoyed to be sure and it's going to be a really bad inconvenience and probably a fair financial burden too. But I don't fear for my life. I'm not panicking on whether or not my vehicle will be searched or if the officer might plant something on me. That's not to say those things can't happen, but it's intrinsically _not on my mind at all_ , even though it could. And those things happen to other groups all the time.

<comment><USER11> If you're going to say that Western society was built with white males as the presumed default, you might want to also mention who the builders were.

And as a broader point, it also might be worth considering how Western society stacks up against all other societies to ever exist.

<comment><USER12> Slave labor built this country.

<comment><USER11> I don't see how such sweeping statements about the nature of a country are useful.

Slave labor was only one component of practically all great countries/empires. The West was the first to outlaw it.

The US in particular was built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past, including the moral worth of individual liberty.

<comment><USER13> How is the US _in particular_ built upon the hard-earned lessons of the past. Because it is younger?

This just sounds like more American exceptionalism that most of the world is tired of, and that includes many Americans.

<comment><USER11> The counterpoint to your second sentence is that most of the world would sacrifice much to migrate to the US.

<comment><USER13> Fine: USA, #1 when compared to developing nations.

Got an answer to my first sentence?

<comment><USER11> One example - the US Constitution draws from Ancient Greece and Rome, and is a response to the oppression of European monarchies.

Louis XIV: "I am the state." US Constitution: "We the people...secure the Blessings of Liberty"

That's no cosmetic difference.

<comment><USER14> Sure, that was a big deal in 1776. But there's nothing exceptional about being a liberal democracy today, and there are plenty of countries that are more free than the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When I quit I ended up reading books and watching TV for entertainment. I literally read over a million words of fiction (Worm) in one month with the spare time.

It was a lot more fulfilling, and I'll remember that time. While in contrast there are few social media moments I'll miss.

I had to actually force myself to get back into social media. I'm not sure what the author here means by withdrawal; there was maybe a period of 1 week trying to get back in, but it was over quickly.

One big thing that happened was the number of consulting contracts went down significantly and never recovered. I'm quite Facebook active and used to get two interview offers a month. In fact last month I got a huge opportunity that I would have gladly accepted if I wasn't committed to anything else.

I'd be happy if social media was just wiped out and we went back to socializing on forums and IRC.

<comment><USER16> The web serial Worm is amazing. The sequel, Ward, is really far along now and is even better IMO. You can catch up on [https://www.parahumans.net/](https://www.parahumans.net/)

The HN crowd would probably really like Worm in general. Basically a sci-fi superhero story with realistic uses of powers and complex characters. The protagonist has the powers of insect control and scalable multitasking.

<comment><USER17> I found the squeal hard to start because it was a struggle to remember how worm left off-- the end of worm was a real whirlwind, and I read it around the time it finished IIRC.

<comment><USER16> Good plot summaries of Worm to catch you up (Spoilers for Worm!):

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm_(web_serial)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm_\(web_serial\))

[https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/worm-chapter- synopsi...](https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/worm-chapter- synopsis.291627/)

You can skip the Glow Worm part of Ward if you want, it's bonus chapters for people who like reading really deeply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This write-up really ends up understating the benefits and "magical" things that actually did happen, but I fully approve of the understated approach. Hyping everything up is part of the problem. If something is beneficial, I shouldn't need to sell you on it; I can just tell you about it, and you can decide. (In fact it's almost an intrusion into your free will when I start persuading you, and it betrays some vested interest on my part.) That's why you don't brag about quitting social media. And why you quit social media in the first place is a related example of the same thing: If I'm a worthwhile and valid human being, I shouldn't need to sell you on me, and maintain this continual online sales platform for the "me" product. You can discover it on your own and maybe reach the conclusion that I'm awesome, or maybe not, but either way it's fine. Zen, baby. (I think the meditation helped more than he realizes LOL)

<comment><USER19> > If I'm a worthwhile and valid human being, I shouldn't need to sell you on > me, and maintain this continual online sales platform for the "me" product. > You can discover it on your own and maybe reach the conclusion that I'm > awesome, or maybe not, but either way it's fine.

Presuming that you aren't the type of person who spends all their time out in public giving talks or something, how are you expecting people to "discover" you? By chasing links from your work? By just bumping into you in the grocery store?

I'm pretty sure I'm a worthwhile human being, but, y'know, I'd like to have friends, and I'd _especially_ like to have friends that share interests with me, and are doing interesting things themselves. And I don't live in a place where those type of people are. So it'd be great if those friends found _me_... probably through the Internet. And how do I encourage that to happen? Well...

(None of which is to say that there's any reason to _consume_ social media. Only to publish to it. Though that creates a funny Nash equilibrium...)

<comment><USER18> Sure, I'm not saying it has no use case. If anything it sounds like you're using it for one of the classic things computers are used for - <USER2> creating data so others can run a query on it like any other CRUD app. The part I like a whole lot less is basically the part that's been there ever since we entered Eternal September!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Frankly I'm a little bored at these "quit social media" articles. They look sort of all the same to me. Quitting altogether is simple, because there's only one way to do it; quitting altogether. Moderation, on the other hand, is more interesting because there are a number of ways to moderate its use; not just limiting time but also limiting use cases. I'd like to know more about the latter.

<comment><USER21> Sometimes quitting something entirely is necessary to finally see, in relief, the place that it occupied in your life. After that balance is possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "I feel by far less distracted. My attention span feels more robust than it ever has."

I would consider this magical.

<comment><USER23> The author is playing the /r/mildlyinteresting card. /r/mildlyinteresting succeeded where /r/interesting did not because it tempered the expectations of visitors. People expecting a 10x productivity gain because they quit social media will surely be disappointed.

<comment><USER24> 10x? Sure, no.

But 1.1x? That's possible and still quite substantial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> As a side note, a hobby/hack I've found recently has really helped me decrease screen time.

I need to work a lot due to job circumstances, so I thought I could not afford screen off time.

But one thing I picked up is writing in a notebook. I realized that a lot of work, regardless of where you are on the totem, is planning ahead. Writing in a notebook for both work and personal introspection is very therapeutic and really helps me to focus and crystalize my thoughts. I've also bundled this with my work out sessions to pre-plan what I want to pontificate about. The general process has both helped decrease my screen time, increase my work productivity, and help me sleep better because I know that my frayed thoughts are on paper.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've been off Facebook for about a year now as well... Lets see the effects have been, a lot less options for dating, lost communication with a ton of various car parts companies and tuners (I was into a lot of car hobbies for a while), and overall I feel more alone then I did when I was on Facebook.

But this is an honest way to live, I used to just sit there and scroll through other peoples lives peering through them as if I was somehow a part of whatever they were doing. It was a fake reality.

<comment><AUTHOR> Out of that loneliness comes the fuel to change how you handle your life. Eventually you'll want to avoid it by interacting with humans in real life, which is normal and healthy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Social media is about getting attention via free, easy to use, and highly distributed platforms. It has _very little_ to do with being social or staying in touch with friends and _everything_ with being a mini media business with the goal of growing your following and influence enough to make money (somehow). Social media is simply a free performance.

Unless you're building a personal brand or selling something the work required to achieve growth it doesn't make sense for most people.

You're better off making group chats and using private iCloud Photos albums to be _social_ than posting on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

<comment><USER28> This.

I'm using social media to build a personal brand and raise my professional profile. None of my personal life makes it into any of the channels I publish to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think this posts discussion of "why do we take photos" is really great and deserves more consideration. I've not had any form of social media account for over 8 years and something I notice is that I just take waaay fewer photos than everyone else I know. A few on vacation or when I see something stupid I can turn into a pun or a joke. Seriously maybe 3-5 photos per month.

I love living this way and consider it healthy and normal for a wide variety of people in most modern life circumstances. I think the need to take dozens of photos of vacation/meal/baby/lifestyle is seriously a universally bad mental state for humans, and one that people will stubbornly try in vain to argue is somehow acceptable or ok.

If sitting is the new smoking, then social media photo sharing is the new vaping.

<comment><USER30> This is interesting, because I do not have social media but take a TON of pictures and videos of my kids (4 years old and 4.months old).... I send some to family via group texts, but most just sit on my phone/computer/cloud until I look at them.

I take so many for a few reasons. One, I think they are crazy cute and want to take pictures and videos when I see them doing cute things. Two, my 4 year old loves looking at them... she wants to see videos of herself all the time, and cracks up seeing herself as a baby.

Three, I don't do a baby book but want to be able to remember how they were at these ages when they are older. It is already trippy/fun to look at pictures and videos of my daughter at 4 months and compare them to her baby brother now. It is fun to watch old videos and see the first bits and pieces of the kid I love now.

99% of the pictures and videos haven't been looked at by anyone but me and my daughter, but I am SO glad I have them.

<comment><USER31> What's your backup strategy? I'm paranoid of losing my pictures. I have one regular backup drive, one offsite backup drive I sync once a week and several cloud backups.

<comment><USER30> I am also paranoid... I copy all the photos to my computer hard drive every few days, and use backblaze to back up my hard drive. I also have a local backup drive.

I also periodically upload archives of my photos and videos to Amazon glacier

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I did it for a year too! deleted fb/insta/twitter accounts for a year.

a lot of good things happened. 1\. Never bothered about taking photos for everyshit I did. 2\. A lot of white space and time I got, to be empty. Not sure if I used them enough. But white space yes! 100% 3\. I never grazed useless info off the feed.

in the middle of the year, i tried an experiment. created a twitter/fb accounts and followed some of the useful accounts. browsed for 1 hour. and then closed twitter/fb and tried to recollect all the info I gathered in this 1 hour. And trustme, it was huge. really huge.

X got married. Y had a job change. Z disappointment about something. A's vacation. B's witty remark on C.

then i immedietly deleted my account, coz none of these were useful for me. I was never interested in what other poeple's life about.

Another 6 months passed. I realized only thing I missed was the option for events, and groups where u can post.

coz i play fifa on xbox one. to find teammates.. ofcourse the best place is on fb. To sell something. Even to reach out to somebody for help at sometime, fb is the best.

so finally after 1 year, I created twitter/fb accounts. and I never posted any photos or my personal stuff.

Just add 30 friends in fb. the most important ones. u know.. and no more. but i can unfollow some of them. ANd posted all info in groups, and got teammates right away for Fifa.

and also, if I want to reach out someone, its just one step away.

Twitter, follow all useful ppl mostly tech/football/humor

and now i dont feel overwhelmed at all.

Everytime i open fb, i ll not get enough updates.

The key idea, how to be in it and not get overwhelmed. How to be in it an use it the way u want it.

P.S Insta -> never felt like going back. absolutely boring and useless for me personally.

<comment><USER33> I have a question for you. When you recreated the account on facebook, did you got your old timeline back? And if so, did they try to fill the missing year with photos you were in that were uploaded to their servers or some other information they picked on you while you were gone? (I closed my account 7 years ago and I'm curious to know what happens)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Good read, but this part seemed interestingly backward from my own experience: _" You know what else is exhausting? Pretending to care about people you don't give a shit about."_

I've definitely been in situations where I had to pretend to care about people I don't give a shit about. They have been 100% in my face-to-face real life. On FB I'm perfectly allowed to care only minimally about the people I want to care minimally about, and unfriend or hide or block the people I actually don't give a shit about, and pay attention to the people I want to keep up with. At a party or an art opening or standing in line or whatever? It's harder to escape other people.

(Which is fine, of course, and good for us to sometimes engage in that way; it's just diametrically opposite from the author's pithy claim.)

</comment><comment><USER35> This bit hit me hard:

"You know what else is exhausting? Pretending to care about people you don't give a shit about. Maybe you're just a better person than I am and you genuinely and deeply care about everyone you are 'friends' with on Facebook. I didn't. "

<comment><USER36> This was one of the reasons that pushed my of Facebook, in the end, my newsfeed was heavily filtered because I don't care that one my friends bought a new phone, or checked in into a shopping mall. I'll probably miss some more important life events, but I would argue that if they don't share that with me in person, we weren't really friends in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I might quit soon too. To be honest - seeing my peers buying homes (with, of course, no discussion about how they made it happen), getting married, traveling a lot, enjoying nice things, and having kids is kinda putting a sour taste in my mouth. It's a very biased feed. It's basically an endless feed of the highest points of everyone in your entire social circle. I do some of it but I tend to balance it out with, "I don't think I'm ever gonna fucking make it in this area."

Social media is a bit like the news but on the opposite side of the spectrum. "Yes, yes, I get it. The world is ending." I care but I don't care to where I need to have it shoved in my face where I'm going to do things to make the world even worse. (What good is a world that survives if it is full of anxiety?)

I'm not reading the general news generally anymore when I can and maybe I'll transfer that to social media soon. (Today was a bad day - a peer of mine who is younger than me just bought a place in SF; I'm struggling to make it in a 400sqft in-law unit) I notice I feel better and it's not like anything I missed is of real substantial importance to my daily life. It's just filler. I know my core political philosophy - so it's not like it'll affect my voting decision much. Reminds me of the article someone posted in response to the 8 year old dying. Something about ignoring the bullshit in life because you don't have time for it. You don't have time for bullshit and most of social media and the news is full of bullshit. I think it could be really great but most of the time... it's just bullshit. Here it is - life is short: [http://www.paulgraham.com/vb.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/vb.html)

<comment><USER38> Do you think your peers were able to purchase homes through means not accessible to you? Not to speculate on your circumstances, but it's truly something how many people I know making six figures that choose to rent these days (in competitive, expensive housing markets). One possibility might be, we become so accustomed to renting. I can't imagine developing my career further, and then all of a sudden in 5 years, having to care for a lawn, home maintenance, etc. on top of the demands of work.

I also wouldn't discount the number of people who might be house poor: banks will give you loans for far more than a financially savvy person would suggest taking (e.g, only borrow up to 2/3rd's of the maximum amount a bank will give), to keep flexibility in your budget.

To tie this to social media: what we see isn't reality. You're "competing" with their curated self versus your own. You may see the purchases, but certainly not the debt coming with it. The people with the best-looking lives on social media probably don't have the healthiest of finances, unless you're following truly wealthy people.

<comment><USER37> Banks will definitely loan out crazy stuff. But it's not very common, from my knowledge, to buy a $1m+ home with less than 20-30% down. (You have to pay PMI and a really high mortgage then anyway) To have a few hundred thousand dollars lying around before you're 28 is pretty remarkable. Especially if you aren't at FAANG.

The means they were able to do it through were likely rich family (no one here of course will say their family is rich) and high paying job ($300k+/yr). Both of which I am not in (for my position in my region). I'm at a startup. Watching my peers, who are not in companies like mine, just skyrocket in wealth is rather discouraging. It's even more harsh because it's usually a couple who are sky rocketing and I'm just sitting here with a SO who will never make anything substantial. Love them to bits but the lack of financial contribution is practically suicide here.

I know everything isn't perfect. It's curated. But the point is that often their highs are way higher than mine. I already know their lows are nothing like mine because I know a lot of the people well enough to know that much.

Side note about home buying: a lot of statistics online about homes being bought for x and what kind and where and all that. But there's very little information on who is buying and what they're doing with the home!

I only recently discovered that all the homes being bought under $1m in the Bay area aren't being owner inhabited. They're all being converted into rentals and as investment property. It explains why East Palo Alto hasn't gentrified.

<comment><USER39> I was able to amass ~$500k+ in liquid assets before 27 with a combination of attending a top college, not having any college loans when I graduated (worked hard all through college to make sure this was the case - parents are not wealthy), working at a startup that grew significantly for several years (significant equity upside), and investing everything I possibly could into the stock market over the past few years (greatest bull run in the country's history).

I also paid <$1500 a month for rent in SF for many years by living in converted rooms or having room-mates to keep costs low (relative to market rates). Many of my peers were paying >$2.5k-$3k to have their own spot. I was keeping expenses low and aggressively investing the difference in companies whose trajectories were all but inevitable in my opinion (+ some broad market index funds which have also done extremely well).

The weird thing about money is that once you get the flywheel turning (not easy), it compounds like magic given that you've made some good decisions.

My intent here isn't to boast. I figured you might appreciate a specific example of circumstances leading to building a modest level of wealth as a 20-something software engineer.

Involved was a lot of hard work, luck, timing, right place (SF), right company, good decisions, help from others, sacrifice, obsession, and a bunch of other things but I'll spare you the boring details. You could boil it _all_ down to luck if you'd like - but that's a bit too cynical for my tastes.

<comment><USER37> I appreciate it - I think I would like the boring details as those tend to be the things that I find super important. Similar to the "the yada yada" episode from Seinfeld.

My story isn't far different from you. It just lacks the happier parts. Just want to show how similar we are and how much those happier parts matter. Which some could perceive as luck. I attended a "top college" (by program at least). I worked through college on top of having a full ride (government). After college, I slept on an air mattress to save $$$ (don't do it) and then a 25 year old one because I got it for free. I chose the cheapest possible everything forever. Drove my $4000 car into the ground until it was crashed into. Never paid more than $50 for a piece of furniture. I spent maybe $100/month on food. I lived very cheaply for 8+ years with minor splurges on things. (I still live in a 400sqft in-law unit that used to be a workshop ffs - I definitely don't live lavishly) But - in the end, I can't save enough because my income isn't high enough. I gave up on penny pinching because I realized it was futile for this area. No one is buying the <=$1m homes that I could afford with years of penny pinching and saving _and_ then living in them. (It's all investment property) Therefore, the neighborhoods never gentrify and are crap. My SO says even if I buy one - she won't move into it because we'll get stabbed, robbed, or, worse, have to live there without it gentrifying. So, homes that are actually gentrifying or nice are closer to $1.5m+. Therefore - I'd have to save about $700k+ in order to be able to qualify for the mortgage (decade+ of penny pinching saving then). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that's a terrible move financially. (Putting basically all of your money into a house - not a very diversified portfolio...)

But ya know what - I see my peers who are living lavishly (buying brand new Porsches - living in luxury 2-bedroom apartments by themselves - buying all the new things - going on ski trips and whatever vacations)... It doesn't affect them. They're still buying the damn house! It's cause they're at $400-500-600k+ and not the <$200k I'm making.

Gotta join FAANG or some startup that's about to go public. The income disparity is just massive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The thing I have found to be extremely helpful is to very carefully curate who who I follow - in particular I don't friend/follow anyone I have any sort of regular f2f interactions with - family, coworkers, neighbors. I use it exclusively to keep up with out-of-state friends, others involved with the same sort of niche hobbies, that sort of thing. Avoids sooo much drama.

<comment><USER41> Interesting approach. I have to wonder though, if such a thoughtful strategy is needed to stay sane what else is unhealthy?

<comment><USER42> I always thought the way the parent poster uses social media is the way it's supposed to to be used. That's the only way I've ever used it.

<comment><USER41> I'm not so sure that's the real design. Any application I use tries to addict me to it. I think it is more for people to show off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Neat, I quit Facebook over 5 years ago and never looked back.

JOMO saved my mental health when I realized I'd never be invited to every get- together. You learn who really cares about your once you dip out of the world's easiest connectivity network... when people actually have to put in just a bit more effort to get a hold of you.

Group SMS never gets old and I don't feel like big-brother is always watching, when in reality, they very well could be but it feels far less invasive.

</comment><comment><USER44> If this persons definition of social media is only Facebook and Instagram then I removed social media for the last 3 or more years.

Removing these (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) were nothing and easy for me. I just logged out and never bothered to log in. I haven't bothered with these in years.

Now, not visiting places like Reddit, maybe Hacker News, and consider removing other similar like internet communities for a year as well was a lot harder and still is at times. So, I have delegated to limit myself for now and not make an account. At least I try.

I found myself having trouble of finding something to read while I eat dinner every night, so I try to only limit myself to reading and browsing Reddit while I eat dinner each night for example.

However, my Hacker News addiction continues.

</comment><comment><USER45> I quit social media four years ago and all that happened is I got 3 hours per day of my life back.

<comment><USER46> Best reason to quit I've seen in this thread.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Isn't hacker news social media? Karma points are no different from retweets or likes surely? And then isn't reading nyt's comment section _social_ "media" too? At what point is engaging with media that has some collaboration from peers different from the big three social sites? Should there be a case made for quitting these too?

<comment><USER48> It's an unpopular opinion here, but you are absolutely right.

<comment><USER49> It's perplexing to me. I view HN as _obviously_ being a social media, and (for me) the most time consuming one of them all.

Edit: Now that I think about it, HN is the only social media that I don't find it delivers enough value compared to my time spent on it (it does deliver value - it's just that it's a big time sink). I'm pretty happy with the time/value ratio of Facebook and (more recently) Twitter. It's probably because the ability to carefully curate what you see on FB and Twitter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> None of the top comments respond to or discuss the actual content in the post (e.g. "my ..."), and instead focus on their own anecdotal experiences, based on the headline or social media in general.

this also is mirrors the lack of discussion and engagement often associated with social media.

<comment><USER21> Everyone's just waiting for an excuse to talk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I quit posting and checking Facebook roughly a year ago (I still have an account for event invitations, but I've disabled all other notifications and uninstalled the app). I still have an Instagram account, and page through the feed once or twice a week (in the past, it was usually a few times a day), but I haven't posted in about six months.

I'm less anxious and stressed out, and generally less annoyed at people around me. My initial reason for avoiding FB was because I was tired of being bombarded by rageful posts about politics and social justice issues (regardless of whether or not I agreed with those posts) day in and day out.

On occasion, after asking a friend a specific question about their life, they're surprised I don't know the answer already because they'd posted about it on FB. I then have to explain that I haven't checked FB (aside from events) in a year. No one has even come close to complaining about having to tell me something separately; people generally enjoy talking about themselves, especially when prompted, so that shouldn't be a surprise.

I still take a similar quantity of photos, even though I don't post them anywhere anymore. I do share photos taken during a group activity/trip/outing, but privately, through Google Photos, and only to the people who were there.

When I flip through Instagram, I'm definitely less engaged than I used to be. I don't really comment anymore unless I have something substantive to say/ask, and I usually don't bother to "like" anything.

I have several healthy in-person friend groups, and some remote ones. I hear about what's going on with my friends in person, or via smaller group chats or one-on-one texting. I certainly don't see all the other things my random FB "friends" (at ~1100, of course the majority of them are acquaintances at most) are posting about their lives, but I find I don't really miss it. While it might be a novelty to see what some random old high school or college classmate is doing day-to-day, I'd much rather turn that limited energy and brain space toward my closer friends.

Regarding news, I get a daily politics newsletter in my email inbox, so I can restrict that to a small chunk of time and only pursue things further if I want to. For other types of news, I have to seek it out specifically, which works well for me.

</comment><comment><USER52> > I made a resolution in September of 2018 that I would quit social media > indefinitely.

I had my phone die years back on my way to a social event after a combination of a facebook app bug that sapped battery and leaving my charger in other vehicle. I was so aggravated with the app that I deleted it. Never installed it again. Think this was 2016/17? After a few weeks I also deleted my instagram. Then again, I wasn't into the social media thing so I only had those two accounts and didn't post much. Never had or saw a need for twitter or whatsapp. Deleted instagram and facebook account was slimmed down to just a few pictures and I keep in touch with some family through it. I maybe visit facebook via web once or twice a month.

We've painted ourselves into a social anxiety corner as we removed the actual social aspect and replaced it with a poorly designed html implementation. You want to be social and have friends? Then call and hang out with people without feeling the need to post about it or sit in front of someone scrolling and endless sea of nothing.

</comment><comment><USER53> The title is kind of clickbaity, but the most important note in this write-up is the following:

> I don't see myself ever going back to social media. I don't see the point of > it, and after leaving for a while, and getting a good outside look, it seems > like an abusive relationship – millions of workers generating data for tech- > giants to crunch through and make money off of.

</comment><comment><USER54> You'd laugh at me, but I am still using a LiveJournal clone - Dreamwidth. This pre-social network is quite comfortable to be in. It is, so-to say, non- invasive. You'd never see a post from someone you didn't subscribe to. There are no ads. No mental viruses to pick-up. Just what a social media is meant to be for ordinary people to keep in touch with some friends. And of course there is no mobile client to ring a dozen times a hour. I just read my friends list when it is comfortable for me.

And I visit my facebook account weekly, via desktop browser, only to see what's up with my friends hanging up there.

I very seldom do likes, as I know that my likes could show up in my friends' feeds. There are NO notifications from social network or media on my phone. I call it "information hygiene".

And yes, like others mentioned, I've got A LOT of spare time for books, hobbies, movies etc.

</comment><comment><USER55> \- Was very active on twitter. Haven't opened the app in a while. \- Linkedin is just my CV don't use the social stuff on it.

Besides being a software engineer I have a custom motorcycle shop. We use Instagram/Facebook and also my personal account gets more updates since I have the shop. If I wouldn't have a business that uses these platforms as lead generation I wouldn't' be using them either.

Between these two Instagram sucks. People just scroll through it and don't interact that much. Mostly other Instagram channels re-use motorcycle builds from the actual builders without attributing. They are more popular as it's easy to follow them as they post builds daily and people need their fix.

Our facebook is growing fast and interactions grow on it too. As platform its a bit better and people coming to our shop most of the times know us from facebook.

<comment><USER56> > Besides being a software engineer I have a custom motorcycle shop.

Software engineer _AND_ owner of a custom motorcycle shop? Now _THAT_ is a cool set of livelihoods!! As far as jobs go, you are my new hero!

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> My main beef with social media is that you can't have a decent conversation with anyone. Partially because everyone builds a network of like minded people and has little to no tolerance at all to opposite views, and partially due to the real name policy, all conversations seem to derail quite easily. Then you have sites like LinkedIn where everyone presents himself like they invented the cure for cancer. People seem so fixated on being right and pompous to the point that there's no real fun anymore in interaction. And if I can't discuss with strangers I don't see any point of joining social media sites. For me communities is all there is on sites like that.

</comment><comment><USER58> > the sole reason I have taken photos is to share them via social media

That's quite a realization. I think it's true for a lot of people though and it's part of why people experience the best times of their life through a 6" display.

<comment><USER59> My experience is that rest of the world has moved on to group chats and sharing a lot there

In the US my experience is that tail end millenials and gen Z are gravitating to group chats too. Pretty much just millenials and older and the subset of those with no international friends are the people stuck on the public oversharing train. And some women that could pass in a forever 21 catalogue.

<comment><USER60> Yeah I totally see this trend too. I think there's a reasonable hybrid model between private group chats and traditional social networking (i.e. photo albums, events, payments, posts, etc).

In fact, I've been working on this idea for a while now and just launched on HN a few hours ago! [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20933272](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20933272). It's definitely a response to current trends of people leaving social media due to negative effects on social and mental health. I saw this happening to my friend groups first hand and knew something had to change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I used to go on Facebook quite a lot, and then suddenly I just stopped. I haven't deleted my profile (a lot easier to find people I've lost touch with than trying to get a phone number or something) but for some reason it just doesn't tempt me, and it's very surprising. I'm on Reddit & YouTube far too much (and I would be here too much too if the front page weren't nearly so slow in comparison). I really just don't understand.

</comment><comment><USER62> The first time I quit social media, the strangest part of the experience was figuring out what to do with my random observations. Maybe I'd have a clever though, or see an interesting sight to photograph, and my old instinct was to share immediately. Without social media, I had to relearn how to let go and allow my thoughts fade into nothing. I'm glad I went through that--really showed me how my brain was being rewired in ways I don't care for.

</comment><comment><USER63> A couple years ago I moved across Canada for work, and even after a couple years I still haven't met a ton of people here that aren't coworkers. And none of the people I met, I met over facebook. It was always through Meetup or Reddit. So long ago I uninstalled Facebook from my phone, and I have a localhost line to prevent my computer from going to the site. My phone has facebook messenger on it, and that's as far as I go, since that's how I stay in touch with most of my friends in BC. The messenger only option is fantastic, and taken even further by turning off those stupid floating chat bubbles. I can talk to them, but cannot see anything they post.

Do I feel like I missed anything about the people I care about? Yeah I kind of do, but mostly it's FOMO from seeing all my friends continue to do backpacking trips while I'm working in southern Ontario, so that's circumstantial. But on the whole? I couldn't care less. I had to turn off the localhost rule to sell some stuff on Marketplace, and I browsed my news feed for the first time in over a year, and it was a nightmare hellscape of stuff I just couldn't care less about. Better off with the filter.

</comment><comment><USER64> Main complaint with Facebook is how rigid the friendships are. There are people I'm friends with on Facebook that I haven't spoken to in ten years. But it feels weird to delete them. For some reason it feels natural to add everyone you know, even if you've only ever spoken to them for a single evening. To put it another way the edges of the Facebook friend graph don't have weights where the IRL graph does.

</comment><comment><USER65> There is tendency to cynically comment "Yet another..." but I don't see how repetition makes this any less relevant. Social media seems to have clearly negative effect on most people. Herd animals have deep fear of being left out and that keeps people using them. They create little or no value.

If you have to send mail or message to people you want to interact with, it's more personal and works better.

<comment><USER66> What I find truly curious is how many people on HN (a social media) seem to agree that social media is bad.

I know this is anecdotal, but HN is the cause of a lot more of the bad things from social media in my life than Facebook is. Because I only use Facebook to organise events, meaning I log on two or three times a month. On the flip side I've just wasted five minutes of my life replying to you. I mean no offence by that, but there is fair chance we won't even talk here because you may not see my reply (and I might not see yours if you do), and we'll certainly never speak to each other again.

I think this blog-entry is insightful and well written, but are we going to remember it in two hours, or is it just another "baby picture" on the HN news feed?

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> HN HoD? I got 503 Service Unavailable.

Archived version: [https://web.archive.org/web/20190911012911/https://joshcsimm...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190911012911/https://joshcsimmons.com/2019/09/10/i-quit- social-media-for-a-year-and-nothing-magical-happened/)

</comment><comment><USER68> I got all my teenage bullshit out on detroit.freenet.org. Now I'm farming HN points.

16 year old me is _so disappointed_ in 45 year old me.

</comment><comment><USER69> For those on Windows, and who want a quick way to purge their Facebook data, I wrote a tool (that was favourably received on HN when I originally announced it) :

[http://www.jaruzel.com/blog/how-i-erased-5000-facebook- comme...](http://www.jaruzel.com/blog/how-i-erased-5000-facebook-comments-and- likes)

</comment><comment><USER70> I guess it depends on what magical means, but the _Mental Health Benefits, Enhanced Interpersonal Relationships and Presence_ the author lists after the conclusion do seem magical to me.

Having time to stop, think and/or have a conversation with another human being is a magical experience nowadays.

</comment><comment><USER71> This is an unpopular opinion. But social media tends to exacerbate our own insecurities. So maybe dealing with the underlying problem is much a healthier way to solve social media addiction ? Also these dramatic measures like quit all social media is simply telling yourself "oh look, I am going to do this dramatic thing. I am taking action" without actually understanding that there's a middle-ground where you regulate your use and continue to reap some of the minimal benefits that social media has. Holding the middle-ground of regulated use is much harder, but definitely worth trying.

</comment><comment><USER72> While it seems like nothing, the peace in my life is much greater with less influence from the gamified social media emotion casino. I am closer to where I feel like I need to be, whatever that may mean. Ymmv. Enjoy life.

</comment><comment><USER73> I'm not sure whether this is just post college life but I feel like social media has really reduced the amount of direct interaction between people, both via phone / computer, and in real life.

I don't really care to passively consume what my friends are doing, or broadcast to them what I'm doing; I want to interact with them.

Thus could be a millennial issue though - the next generation seems to use Snapchat and iMessage for much more direct interaction.

</comment><comment><USER74> I'm sure the 1000 days of meditation he experimented with, had a lot more impact on his mind/body/soul than his Social fasting. But a blend of both for most I think would be ideal. [https://joshcsimmons.com/2019/05/21/meditaton- practice/](https://joshcsimmons.com/2019/05/21/meditaton-practice/)

</comment><comment><USER75> This is the best headline I've seen for a while. It was such a welcome contrast to the usual sales pitch that I laughed hard for a good minute.

</comment><comment><USER76> > The only logical reason I could figure for why this is done, is to make you > feel bad about having a lower number than other people, otherwise why would > they bother broadcasting this number, proudly at the top of your profile > page, to other users?

The reason probably is so that people connect more and see more stuff from other people, and stay active on the network.

partialrecall: Of course it's motivated by profit.

<comment><USER77> Is that motivated by a desire to help the user, or does the social network have a more selfish motivation for driving user engagement? I think it's more the later than the former, though I expect the social network to pretend it's the former.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> For those worried they will become uninformed by disconnecting from news and social media. I highly recommend reading/listening to long-form history works. You can gain a lot of perspective and understanding from learning about what has happened in the past and you might be surprised by how useful such information is for being informed about what is happening at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER79> Writing yet another I quit social media and now my life is better but dishonestly saying in the title that nothing happened is clickbaitey

<comment><USER80> Right away in the first paragraph too. So much hypocrisy. Right alongside "I hate clickbait, and here are 10 reasons you should too."

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> I've been 2 years without Facebook, Instagram and others. I've kept my Twitter account, but I barely use it. When i quit Facebook and Instagram I noticed relief. Instant relief and huge amount of batery life. I also found out who were my true friends, they write me to my whatsapp or telegram or write emails. The rest where like fake friends.

</comment><comment><USER82> I didn't sign up for Facebook until 2007 I think. It was only to keep in touch with friends from the military.

Since then I've made friends with people that I know, but no one beyond that. So I don't fall into the trap that a lot of other people seem to fall into (including the author).

That said, I think social media is something all of us can use a lot less of.

</comment><comment><USER48> I mainly use social media when waiting for the bus, on the metro, etc. It's nice to get some updates, but I very rarely share anything so I never fish for likes or compare myself to others. But I'm so happy that I grew up in the 80s-90s, I can't imagine how stressful it would be to have social media as a 12-15 year old...

</comment><comment><USER83> Interesting, I have noticed ("excuse based") defensive mechanism when it comes to this topic ...

most people I have witnessed start to use very poor arguments of why they want to stay on social networks ... very similar to people with "un-noticed" alcohol problem.

But yes, nothing magical happend without it. Just maybe realization how stupid it is.

<comment><USER84> Nothing magical happening is what's supposed to happen. I've seen lower stress levels simply because I'm not as connected to the news and political cycle. But that's also because I only check once a week. It's the new normal, which isn't magical, because it was also the old normal.

<comment><USER85> > I've seen lower stress levels simply because I'm not as connected to the > news and political cycle.

Wouldn't that qualify as something magical happening?

<comment><USER84> I'd more define it as a return to normality. It sure doesn't feel magical. There's still stress in my life, just not dumb stuff like having to listen to my cousin go on anti vax rants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> I stayed away from most social media sites and use mostly chat/email to stay in contact with friends. So I can relate to the point of having fewer and better relationships, but I found that you have to be more active for that to work. If you don't feel comfortable reaching out to people you will get lonely as well.

</comment><comment><USER87> ""Why do I take photos?""

This is a good question, and imo an underrated answer is to use them for digital journaling. I use an app called Journey which lets you make entries and attach photos to them, and this justifies taking photos to sort of help spur memories of fun events and such.

</comment><comment><USER88> I ditched Facebook long ago, Twitter has waaayyy to much politics and I'm leaning toward closing down LinkedIn because it has gotten bad lately with too much news and ads... it'd already be closed if I hadn't gotten my last three or four jobs from it.

</comment><comment><USER89> Unfollowed everyone on Facebook and now just use it as a rolodex. No more pointless scrolling through the news feed. Have done this for 2, maybe 3 years. There are browser extensions you can get that unfollow everyone.

</comment><comment><USER90> [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/foxie/id1369279200](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/foxie/id1369279200) check this one out

</comment><comment><USER91> I'm 47 and thinking of starting up! Nothing magical has happened either.

</comment><comment><USER92> Great experience, but I just can't say goodbye to facebook, it just magnetically drags me in. I understand all the mechanisms for displaying relevant posts and ads, but I can not resist viewing them.

</comment><comment><USER93> Quite Facebook back in the early days once I realized it was making me hate my own life.

Haven't looked back and I'd like to think I've spent that time doing something better.

In reality I probably just filled that time with Netflix...

</comment><comment><USER94> The article said he decided to quit THIS MONTH! Does that really justify an article on Sept 10th?

Edit: it seems like that was a typo in the article if he says he was off for a whole year. Pretty big typo, though.

</comment><comment><USER95> I hate people. Getting rid of social media was amazing. No more people!

</comment><comment><USER96> I don't know. I thought about quitting social media a lot, but I still think being a member of developer communities is something I want and need for my job and passion.

</comment><comment><USER97> I wrote about this a few years ago too! [https://link.medium.com/UUBEJ4ZOSZ](https://link.medium.com/UUBEJ4ZOSZ)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, thanks for reading. It's late here but excited to read comments tomorrow. Please be patient with the site, it's getting the HN hug and keeps going offline.

</comment><comment><USER98> >I don't think I have a lot of friends but it doesn't bug me at all. I actively maintain (and I mean actively) about 10 friendships not including family

I have like 1, or 2.

</comment><comment><USER99> I wish I could do the same, to be honest.

In my job, I'm required every day to consume a lot of information from many different platforms.

It turned me into Content Junkey

</comment><comment><USER100> I really like ello, I have no friends but still get a few random likes and views on the bs I see that feels artsy

</comment><comment><USER101> Nothing magical, but he seems pretty pleased with the results. He's not returning to social media.

</comment><comment><USER102> He made the resolution this month? Poring, not pouring. Clued in to?

And that was just in the first few paragraphs.

</comment><comment><USER103> _sigh_ Too bad this is now the special case. While I agree this is me just having a get off my lawn moment, I liked it better when you just talked to your friends on the phone. With lands lines, and all their beautiful fidelity.

But, can't be a Luddite. It's here to stay, like smoking, and I tolerate it as such.

<comment><USER104> I hear ya. By my rough calculation, I lived for about 33 years without social media. It was nice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> +5 years here and still not missing anything about social media whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER106> One magical thing happened: your site broke. Good problems, etc.

</comment><comment><USER107> Op looks like your server quit in you too. Getting 503 error.

</comment><comment><USER108> biggest reason to quit: time. all those 30 second to 5 min checks add up through the days/months/years.

</comment><comment><USER109> Sounds like a poor millennial affliction.

</comment><comment><USER110> I quit social media and posted about it on social media and got a whole bunch of likes and retweets.

</comment><comment><USER111> Can't read because the site got HN'ed but upvoted anyway. _shrugs_

</comment><comment><USER112> > I made a resolution in September of 2019 that I would quit social media > indefinitely.

good start.

<comment><USER113> I am pretty sure that's a typo and they mean 2018.

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> I quit Facebook for a few years, it didn't do anything to my life one way or another, except maybe put me in a group of people others had to reach out "out of band" to invite to things, which practically meant I had to hear about events second hand or not go to things.

The emotional vitriol inspired by social media is completely unfounded. You can make it whatever experience you want; people just like to complain.

This article should be titled, "I don't know how to use social media so I gave up on it."

<comment><USER115> Yes! I've never used FB, and refuse to, as a result I miss all sorts of notification of things occurring because everyone seems to assume everyone does use it. Drives me nuts!

<comment><USER84> I keep hearing this, but all my friends just text me. I'm under 30 too. Maybe it's just that I have a small friend group. Though even my grad department informs me of events. We're all fairly close though, so maybe that makes a difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER116> Am I wrong for stating that a social mediate is basically trying to say nothing happened to get more "atta-boys" from the social media empire at large?

I mean what you focus on is what has power. Social media doesn't deserve the power or respect that academia has, nor will it ever.Enforce social media to be purely academic and I might feel differently.

</comment><comment><USER117> Why was the title changed to remove the "and nothing magical happened" part, @mods?

</comment><comment><USER59> > the people that were going to come, were going to come anyways.

This is the same for you aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews

You'll keep in touch with the ones you actually care about and vice versa

</comment><comment><USER118> Can't read the article Simmons. What the fuck dude?

<comment><USER119> Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it repeatedly, and we ban accounts that post like that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment>


Youngest Person to Attract Venture Capital - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/9649209/Teenager-launches-Apple-iPhone-app-after-raising-1m-from-investors.html

<comment><USER2> I haven't heard of the application, but if it works well I would surely use it. I think that we will be hearing more about him in the future.</comment>


How Geniuses Think - <AUTHOR> http://www.creativitypost.com/create/how_geniuses_think <comment><USER3> A reasonable book covering some of this topic is _Origins of Genius_ by Dean Keith Simonton.

Unfortunately, aside from being excessively wordy and light on supporting evidence for some of its assertions, it suffers from the same problem as this article and most of the comments here: people can't agree on what a genius is.

Debates about the foundations of genius are meaningless until we get a better idea of what a genius is. Some people, like this article's author, try to limit the term just to those people in history that have made significant advances in some field or another. But, then they cherry-pick their examples, usually from a list of their personal heroes, and then try to draw some conclusions from that.

Feynman wasn't a household name until really just a few years ago. Citing him as an example of a genius, and then going further to say that he was ("acknowledged by many to be") the last great American genius, is supremely silly. There are brilliant people right now working in every field; what do you think the odds are that, many years from now, after their death, at least one of them might be regarded as a genius by someone writing next century's version of this same article?

On the other end of the spectrum, you have Mensa, a worldwide organization of self-described geniuses, who even have a very serious test to keep out all of the non-geniuses. Should they not be regarded as geniuses? Why or why not?

If we're going to spend any time on utterly vacuous navel-gazing like this ... I think we ought to at least agree first on a useful definition for the thing we're trying to discuss.

<comment><USER4> _Mensa, a worldwide organization of self-described geniuses ... Should they not be regarded as geniuses? Why or why not?_

The condition for membership of Mensa is that you score "at or above the 98th percentile on certain standardised IQ or other approved intelligence tests" [1]. I don't think it makes sense to refer to the 140 million potential members of Mensa as "geniuses" no matter what your definition of genius is.

Also, if it's true that Richard Feynman's IQ was around 122, then he wouldn't have qualified for membership of Mensa.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International#Membership_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International#Membership_requirement)

<comment><USER5> > Also, if it's true that Richard Feynman's IQ was around 122, then he > wouldn't have qualified for membership of Mensa.

Just for a second this gave a lesser mind like me some hope, but this IQ test may have been stressing verbal over mathematical ability.

"Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test. He also reportedly had the highest scores on record on the math/physics graduate admission exams at Princeton."

[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next- einstei...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next- einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding- another)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Think of 'genius' as something you get for free.

You can make up for that lack to a certain extent by applying yourself. A person applying themselves with merely average innate ability more often than not will outperform a person born with some windfall. This goes for money, brains, the lot. Apply yourself, that's half the battle.

Plenty of people never learn to apply themselves and that includes plenty of geniuses and people born into wealth.

The best part: whether or not you apply yourself is under _your_ control. What you're born with is the luck of the draw.

And knowing a few things will make it that much easier to learn a bit more, knowledge begets more knowledge and insight.

<comment><USER7> cf. _Talent is overrated_ Geof Colvin, 2008 & "Deliberate Practice" in _the making of an expert_ , Harvard Business Review, K Anders Ericsson, 2008 [http://www.coachingmanagement.nl/The%20Making%20of%20an%20Ex...](http://www.coachingmanagement.nl/The%20Making%20of%20an%20Expert.pdf)

<comment><USER8> And hard work oversold.

<comment><USER9> Thank you. I've been quite sceptical of 10000 hours of Deliberate Practice, etc; esp. after seeing Tiger Woods play golf at the age of two : <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxPmzIKBris>

It's been a long standing tradition to oversell the power of hard work. I believe the word for it is "hopium".

<comment><USER8> hopium, I like it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Genius is a sort of myth. For example, people seem to have the idea that before Charles Darwin, biology was in a dark age without any ideas other than intelligent design or some such. Well, no, Darwin was actually relatively unoriginal in his ideas about evolution, which was already commonplace in biological circles. He really just added a bit of sciency-but-not-quite- scientific rigor and coined the term "natural selection", then got famous for it.

I know several drastically unsuccessful people who exhibit the traits in this article. None of them have stumbled upon an idea or work that would cause society to label them a genius.

I don't think a genius is very different from any other person. It's just that a genius gets lucky with their novel ideas. Society calls them geniuses really just because people know their names.

I guess my gripe is simply that genius is a social phenomenon, not a trait of an individual, and that it's really quite embarrassing that everyone goes around licking the metaphorical feet of everyone they can think of who did something interesting, or "genius".

That said, I do think this is an interesting article, and knowing how to think like a "genius" is probably worth quite a lot.

<comment><USER11> > _Darwin was actually relatively unoriginal in his ideas about evolution, > which was already commonplace in biological circles. He really just added a > bit of sciency-but-not-quite-scientific rigor and coined the term "natural > selection", then got famous for it._

That's entirely unfair. Darwin spent his whole life furiously gathering evidence from everywhere he could and communicating with the rest of the biology community worldwide. If you read any of his books (the most fun, I think, is the Voyage of the Beagle) the constant probing and questioning shines through. The man made hypotheses about everything he saw and tested them where he could, or suggested possible tests even when they were beyond him. The character I see when I read Darwin is a passionately curious, perceptive, insightful, and careful man.

To call, for instance, The Origin of Species, one of the most remarkable presentations of evidence of the 19th century, "sciencey-but-not-scientific" is to project modern standards onto the past. There were certainly other people with similar ideas in the biology community (Wallace for one), but they weren't anywhere close to mainstream. Darwin's evidence in The Origin, however, was overwhelming. And It stands up remarkably well today; some parts could certainly use updates after 150 more years of inquiry by many more people with better tools, but it's mostly very good.

<comment><USER12> There actually exists some "hard-wired" geniuses, but not the kind of genius we would use to describe e.g. Darwin. See <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd1gywPOibg>

edit: Found a better reference: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhuman>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What an empty and contentless post!

It isn't that we should dismiss the unique contributions of people like "Einstein, Edison, daVinci, Darwin, Picassos, Michelangelo, Galileo, Freud, Mozart et all". These individuals certainly made contributions beyond what be measured by a number-of-manipulations-per-second IQ test and some of these approaches can even be somewhat systematized as "lateral thinking", "wholistic thinking" "getting outside the box" and variety of others.

But lumping these high-performing individuals together with the single _glittering generality_ "genius" leaves us less enlightened for the trouble. Edison and Einstein, for example, were worlds apart and while we can find commonalities between them, we can find commonalities between any two people. And there we are. At another logical level, a "genius" confronted with some given problem might say "what do these things have in common" yes but a moron, an opportunist and a lazy thinker might do the same. One more try folks.

<comment><USER14> Do you disagree with the effort in trying to find the commonalities between high-performing people, or merely the stated results?

I agree that they may not have the whole answer here, but it's a whole lot better than any random commonality between any two people (e.g. they both like the color blue, or they both lived in the US).

I think there's some insight here, even if you just take the idea of how high- performers think ("productively" rather than "reproductively"). I definitely believe most things I see are a result of reproductive thinking (many of my own thoughts included), and I have many times more respect for things that have come out of "productive" thinking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Richard Feynman, who many acknowledge to be the last great American genius > (his IQ was a merely respectable 122).

I've always wanted a quick, one-line, anecdote as to why IQ is bullshit. I think I just found it.

<comment><USER16> If the IQ test is bullshit, this anecdote and your reasoning aren't good reasons to conclude that for several reasons, and to mention a few:

1\. It may not be true that he had an IQ of 122

2\. A score of 122 is still kind of high

3\. If it were wrong in one case it doesn't invalidate it, especially since we're talking about a Nobel prize winner in physics

4\. If he did take a test, that was several decades ago and I'd imagine the test has evolved from then

5\. This test may have not been good for Feynman since he is much better in science and math

On another point, I think the author is incorrectly using Feynman as a person of average intelligence when it's obvious he was very much well above average in math being that he was a Putnam Fellow.

>He obtained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in mathematics and physics—an unprecedented feat—but did rather poorly on the history and English portions. [0]

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Early_life>

<comment><USER14> There's so much misinformation about what the IQ test is for. It has become common understanding that it's a measure of intelligence (or ability, or potential), however it was never created for that nor ever intended to be that. In addition, intelligence is often seen as a fixed thing. Any reasonable and practical definition of intelligence is in complete contradiction to this idea.

Study after study shows that an apparent talent (or intelligence) in one moment does not correlate with future potential talent, intelligence, or general potential for achievement in anything.

So to add to your point -- who knows when Feynman took the test and got a 122, and who knows which test he even took -- to me this point decreases any commonly understood value of the IQ test to an even greater extent.

Quote from Alfred Binet (creator of the first IQ test) himself: "I have not sought in the above lines to sketch a method of measuring, in the physical sense of the word, but only a method of classification of individuals. The procedures which I have indicated will, if perfected, come to classify a person before or after such another person or such another series of persons; but I do not believe that one may measure one of the intellectual aptitudes in the sense that one measures length or a capacity. Thus, when a person studied can retain seven figures after a single audition, one can class him, from the point of his memory for figures, after the individual who retains eight figures under the same conditions, and before those who retain six. It is a classification, not a measurement…we do not measure, we classify."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In the text it states that " _Genius often comes from finding a new perspective that no one else has taken_ ".

I think this is clear and people not even considered geniuses can also perform this feat. The defining part is that geniuses seem to come by those alternatives so easily, its just always there. So for example if we devote years to programming we can tell ourselves OK, if i have a problem invoke all my years of experience and look at this problem from many different angles, we can formulate and combine our thinking into something unique that even surprises ourselves because the combination of all the data we we know to get this new idea is far greater then adding the single idea's and pieces of data that we have. Over time we can build on that to get better ideas.

But if i say ok, i know the method of thinking like X helps me do great things when im programming and i try to do the same for say math problems, if i havnt had the experience no matter what I tell myself, i just can not look at the problem from different perspectives or if i do, its not such a great leap, its incremental. Its still step by step, A->B not to A->C, it still follows a logical thought process and we do not surprise ourselves by our solution

For the genius it seems after reading something once or by some method unknown (and having no experience) they can still have all those different perspectives. Then it leaves us normal people thinking, how did they get from A->C without going through the normal steps A->B->C ... this is specially the case when the individual is very young and has managed to soak that information without college or any formal learning ...

<comment><USER18> I think a lot of people have their difference of perspective socialized out of them at a pretty young age. My oldest son has a long list of differences from the norm. I was very tolerant if his oddities. Then I got really sick and a) actively avoided being inculcated with the conventional view of my problem and b) bounced a lot of ideas off my son, who knows way more science than I know and was never broken to fit the normal social mold. Then I gradually got well. So I think it is very possible to cultivate that different point of view.

<comment><USER17> Yeh thats true, but i think the key is (as you suggested) he had many differences/oddities from the beginning (a very young age), you being a good father didnt tell him to change or fit the normal mold but encouraged that differences in thought. If that different way of thinking for your son are signs of genius then you cultivated it but its origins can not be explained or learnt by trying to think in the same way .... which frankly sucks.

I guess we can try and get so far, but for most normal people, we can do it to an extent in our field of expertise but still somewhat bound by previously learnt data that needs to be accumulated over a substantial period of time to get that A->C thinking .. without it problems in a differing field are still just solved step by step.

<comment><USER18> Sorry to not be clear. I meant that _I_ figured out how to get myself well, in part by intentionally avoiding the conventional views of my condition. My son was enormously helpful and my academic record is reasonably respectable. But it was very much a conscious choice on my part to find another answer in part by intentionally putting on blinders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've long thought that the model of "genius" as a "really smart person" was a hopelessly flawed model. There are simply too many different kinds and measures of "smartness" to collapse all of them under such a simple umbrella.

For example, consider the notion that IQ is a measure of capacity. To wit, let's use an extended and natural analogy -- a container.

Consider a notional container measured only by its depth.

A yard of beer is 36 inches (~91.5cm) tall and most people would consider this a lot of beer. This plays out in people who are extreme specialists -- extremely knowledgeable in only one or two areas. But are they geniuses?

So we have to consider breadth. I have a large mixing bowl I use when marinating meat that's about 26 inches (66.04cm) across, and most people would consider it to hold a lot of meat. This plays out in people who are extreme generalists, not particularly good in any one area, but can cut across disciplines easily.

Yet both containers pale when compared to a 55 gallon (~208.2L) drum in terms of volume. Yet the drum is not as tall as the yard of beer and not as wide as my marinating bowl!

But volume is not the only thing that matters!

I wouldn't pour molten steel into any of the containers above. And I've used stoneware that cracks when used with extremely cold liquids.

What about containers with different compartments that can hold both?

We also know about people who have perfect recall but almost no creativity, and creative geniuses that can barely remember their own name.

Can somebody who is a generalist only know about several topics or can they synthesize it into something new and novel?

How about the person that, regardless of depth or breadth, can see far reaching implications -- second, third, forth degree effects -- when new information is presented? Or the extreme tactical thinker that can react to new things with extreme speed?

Napoleon and Einstein are both commonly regarded as geniuses, but the nature of their intelligence couldn't be more different.

<comment><USER20> I totally agree and in fact I would go further to say that the notion of 'genius' is nothing more than an inchoate, rudimentary classification system used to group together successes or extremes in the realm of mental pursuits. Handy when you want to evince notions of extreme-ness but since there are thousands of different possible mental pursuits, the term is basically meaningless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> First you have to define what you mean by "genius", preferably in some way that is at least generally consistent with the commonly understood meanings. Then you have to assemble an unbiased set (very difficult) of people that fit your definition. Then you have to see what styles of thought that you _didn't explicitly or implicitly filter for by your definition_ are also largely (and disproportionately) present in your set of geniuses.

Then after you have found you styles of thought dominant among geniuses, you have to see if they actually work as predictors.

I don't feel that the author of this article did these things.

</comment><comment><USER22> This article lists a few characteristics that intelligent and successful (for some definition thereof) people have. The characteristics seem to be neither necessary nor sufficient and the examples are clearly cherry-picked. If there's any scientific or research basis for asserting them, the author hasn't shared.

It's like the author looked a some intelligent people and superficially extracted their secret. It's like looking at a successful company and concluding that the reason for their success is that almost everyone is titled an Associate rather than their flat hierarchy.

<comment><USER23> That's basically the premise of Good to Great and Built to Last.

<comment><USER24> Has there ever been a book or news article that actually made an attempt to randomly sample individuals/companies and tease out relationships between some hypothesized factor and outcome?

It doesn't even seem like you have to be much of a genius to do this...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This article is quite interesting.

I thought it was good that the author restricted himself to a description of genius traits, instead of implying that applying these traits would make one a genius. At least, until the summary, where he threw that out the window.

It's important to not engage in some kind of magic thinking here: altering your behavior patterns to match "genius" behavior is self-defeating. When one is dealing with the kind of outlier that a genius represents, wholesale emulation is an insufficient strategy to duplicate their success.

<comment><USER26> Well, in the summary he cites some evidence that "geniusness" can be learned, at least if your teacher himself is a genius. "J. J. Thompson and Ernest Rutherford between them trained seventeen Nobel laureates" - quite a coincidence.

<comment><USER27> Of course, they were the top people in their fields and so attracted the top students. Having good people coming in helps with a person's production of great people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have been working and thinking in many of these ways but as I am not prolific at creating revolutionary ideas I suspect that this mindset is not enough for genius to arise. The article also lacks consideration over the positional requirements for acclaim.

There is an extra strategy that is missing and I feel is of utmost importance. You must be in the habit of normalizing your knowledge. You need to generalise and compose ideas into principles. Without doing so, it is extremely difficult to quickly and correctly compose and verify new ideas, draw relationships between them, and visualize at the appropriate level of abstraction.

Does anybody else keep a text file of recurring patterns that occur in thought, biology, architecture and nature?

</comment><comment><USER29> First of all, IQ tests are bullshit.

Second, everyone can be a "genius" as long as they put a lot of work into anything. It doesn't take much to become better than the average person - <USER2> just have to be slightly better.

Once you start working on something for a long time and thinking about it more than 50% (arbitrary, but about right) of all your waking time, your brain will dedicate a big part of its new neurons and synapses towards that, leading to new thought that would've otherwise never occurred.

Genius also directly relates to discipline - if you don't have the self- control (whether through willpower or some sort of OCD-like disorder) to learn and create something, anything, you'll be just average.

<comment><USER29> P.S. Just my opinion, please don't downvote (or downvote just this comment, it's separated for that reason): I don't believe creativity in arts equals genius. I find that most of the expensive pictures of old plain and simply suck and are only popular/expensive because of their exclusivity and because the people who can afford them are willing to pay that price (I understand that - I would probably want to buy the first painting a human ever made).

I don't mean Leonardo Da Vinci and others who created new processes for painting - I mean specifically the squares, buckets of paint on canvas and Picasso-like LSD-induced paintings, which are just works of art, not genius. Any decent artist with Photoshop can do better nowadays.

<comment><USER30> I was recently at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, and I saw many paintings that were, in my view, works of genius. One in particular was a 19th century, full-length portrait of what was clearly a bored teenager. That is, I could clearly tell, through facial expression and posture, that this young woman was _bored_. My claim is that the artist who made it had a genius-level understanding of how to paint people. He had to be able to consciously recognize the visual cues that most of us unconsciously process, and he had to be able to convey that in paint. Because of the thought processes required to create it, I consider it a work of genius.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "GENIUSES PRODUCE"

IMO that's the best section of the article. Einstein learned by failing and reiterating. That's exactly the type of mentality that entrepreneurs should have.

</comment><comment><USER32> The "making lots of stuff whether it's good or not" is my biggest issue - frankly, being prolific results in faster iteration on ideas, which contributes to genius.

I find that I tend to self-edit before I've even started on something, which prevents me from doing what I want. I chalk this up to over-ambitious perfectionism, which is a negative trait in this case.

</comment><comment><USER33> A more in-depth exploration of the topic is in _Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention_ by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

[http://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Flow-Psychology- Discovery-I...](http://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Flow-Psychology-Discovery- Invention/dp/0060928204)

</comment><comment><USER18> Re finding a needle in a haystack: On an email list for parents of gifted kids, some folks shared the unconventional "mom, you are a retard" reactions of bright kids to this proverbial problem. The one I recall: Set the haystack on fire. The needle will survive but the hay will not.

</comment><comment><USER34> Genius is just a word. As someone said before, we're all geniuses. It's all about your willpower to use it, train it, or not.

It's often not even about working hard, training hard, or something. It's just having a proper state of mind, and the right conditions.

As simple as it sounds, it's complicated. If it was simple, we'd all be happy right now. Not because we'd feel like geniuses but because we'd be able to achieve _anything_ we want.

Even thus, some points of the article correlate with having a proper state of mind, for example, you need to be able to think out of the box (note: you don't need 3 f. paragraphs to express that idea). You need to attempt to have a complete understanding of things, from every angle.

But all this still boils down to will power and proper conditions.

My 2 genius cents anyway.

</comment><comment><USER35> All these comments seem to be missing the point.. Sure these aren't the traits that make up 'genius, sure 'genius' probably can't even be quantified or reduced to this level, but nonetheless these are all qualities we can learn from and adapt as we pursue our own paths.

</comment><comment><USER24> I stopped reading when they quoted Freud as a genius.

<comment><USER36> You have to consider how things were before Freud before dismissing him. Before Freud there was no idea that the mind subconsciously processed information. Although his ideas of how psychology works were very "infantile", they were the first attempt to investigate the subconscious, thus revolutionary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I think Genius is the ability to take two different ideas, merge them, and come up with a new idea: invention through prediction. Children are amazing at this until it is torn out of them via the education system, peers and adults (in general).

<comment><USER34> I think a lot is due to side effects, such as the need to fit in / be like everyone else. The easiness of following what's already there, basically, the laziness of the mind.

The laziness of the mind which so many of us are taking advantage of to control people, as it's so easy to let others think on your behalf.

And then again, this makes you right: the education system was made precisely for this. The education system might be actually one of those "genius" ideas.

By formatting people and putting some barriers in their minds, you make them controllable and productive, and thus, you may actually advance humanity in some ways. But at which cost?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I really like the point that there are often more than one possibly "right answers" and many people look to give the same answer everyone else is giving.

..others, look for other, strange, non traditional right answers. I like those people.

</comment><comment><USER39> Most of these geniuses also fall under 10% of the worlds' population : Lefties.

</comment><comment><USER40> No mention of polyphasic sleeping?

</comment><comment><USER41> I tend to phrase this as intelligence by attitude.

You get people who are bright, but have virtually no curiousity and who stay within their specialism of knowledge, often due to setting a high value on others views, so not wanting to look stupid.

Conversely you also get creative and determined slow people. And they will thrash the merely bright in almost any problem that contains significant depths.

</comment><comment><USER42> I don't know what a "genius" really is, unless it just means someone who's a) prolific in an intellectual field, b) releases high quality work and c) maybe contributed to a fairly "revolutionary" understanding of their field.

But it's unlikely that Feynman is "the last great American genius". Maybe the most well-known example is Chomsky (but there are no doubt many others), and he answers his emails quickly. So, it's not like we necessarily have to pore through notebooks and quips of dead people, guessing at their mental states.

<comment><USER43> Au contraire, i think, just like really great art, it's easy for an average person like me to identify genius when we see it.

<comment><USER44> Except that generally, the average person knows little about the inner workings of things.

It is easy for the average person to believe that building Twitter was hard, though surely it was. Our ability to understand things decidedly maps to things we can already understand.

To give a completely made up scenario about how this might have gone:

Stupid person: "Wow. Building twitter is hard. You type on a website and something comes to my phone. AMAZING."

Average person: "Eh. They probably just use some sort of service. I mean, if I can send a text, why is it amazing that somebody else can?"

Smarter-than-average person: "Twitter is down again? WTH? How hard is it to keep a website up? My Wordpress blog has never crashed, and all the posts in it are WAY more than 140 characters."

Smart person: "Yeah, I can see how scaling to x-thousand reads and x-hundred writes per second IS a big task. I guess you have to put in a really beefy database server to handle the writes and distribute the reads out to slaves, then do all your queries from there."

Smarter person: "If we get rid of relational database stores altogether, we can scale these records much better, and our only upper limit is memory."

etc.

Yes, it's a completely contrived example and I'm sure I probably insulted everyone who's ever done any Twitter-based naval-gazing, but that's what it is.

In short though, the average person is more easily fooled into thinking things are brilliant when in reality, they're made by equally average people who have studied in that particular field more than they have.

<comment><USER43> Twitter s not genius, it's great incremental technology. Wolfram alpha is genius</comment></comment></comment></comment>


6th Grade Visits Ancient Rome, Thanks to Google Expedition – 360video.directory - <AUTHOR> http://360video.directory/2016/01/16/6th-grade-visits-ancient-rome-thanks-to-google-expedition/ <comment><USER2> clickbait site that makes you click through to the actual site via minimized URL... and that site doesn't even give more info, let alone the Rome content.</comment>