I think most of us would agree that they've changed society for the worse. It pains me as a starry-eyed techie kid from the 90s that this is what we've done. Life was so much better before social media.
People do in fact have life-changing experiences through social contact. I.e. by having conversations and meeting people of kinds they hadn’t previously experienced.
It’s therefore reasonable to expect, just by the numbers, that a novel social platform with millions of users interacting can create or facilitate such experiences for some people.
> This logic seems to be flawed on the face of it.
It is really not. If your reaction to finding out about clubhouse, is to breakdown crying, about the new voice chat app that you have found, then you almost certainly have mental issues that you should try to resolve.
> by having conversations and meeting people
Thats great. But if your reaction to this, is to talk about this like it is a new religion that you have joined, then you almost certainly have legitimate issues in your life, that you should seek professional help for.
Its a voice chat app. That is fine to like it. But having a coming to jesus moment, means that you are almost certainly mentally ill, and need help.
> just by the numbers
Yes, I am sure that just by the numbers, that there have been multiple people who will talk about the new voice chat app, like it is the greatest thing to ever come into their life, and they will break down crying while talking about it, as if it their new cult/religion that they have joined.
But that is the problem. Those people need professional help.
I’m not sure where you are getting the impression that people are having religious experiences on clubhouse. Care to share your sources for that?
As for crying as a result of positive social contact, why do you think that is abnormal?
People cry on FaceTime or Zoom calls, or the phone as a normal part of social interaction what makes you think they wouldn’t cry sometimes through interactions on clubhouse?
Are you a mental health profession?
I’d be curious to know what diagnostic criteria or research models you are using to determine that people should seek help.
Social media is revolutionary for many people. It can be inspirational in both good and bad ways. Without social media, the Black Lives Matter movement wouldn't be as wide-reaching, but then again neither would ISIS. I would say these two examples have changed many lives.
Sigh.... Not sure why it is so hard for people to understand my point. But lets try again with another example.
Lets say that you met someone who just learned about chocolate chip cookies. And they like chocolate chip cookies. They like them so much, that they break down crying, every time they talk cookies. Their entire life is now a cookie lifestyle. They have found a new cookie religion.
What would you think of this person? Personally, I would think that this person is mentally ill and needs to seek professional help.
This is an analogy here. Take everything that I said, about this cookie person, and apply it to clubhouse.
Sometimes, it legitimately feels like people are talking about clubhouse, in the same way as this hypothetically mentally ill cookie person.
Do you understand the problem here, of why it would be both a problem, for someone to talk about cookies, or clubhouse, in this way that I have described?
> They like them so much, that they break down crying, every time they talk cookies.
Who actually does this?
It seems like you are seeing this behavior a lot so it should be easy to find an example.
> Their entire life is now a cookie lifestyle.
A lot of people who join social clubs spend a lot of time at them. That’s not particularly unusual. I don’t see why it would be different for a virtual social club, especially at a time when in-person social experiences are more scarce.
It is of course possible that clubhouse selects for people with a kind of mental illness or personality type, but you aren’t making any case for that - you just saying ‘it’ is a problem.
I am being a tab bit hyperbolic, in order to get people to, at the very least, concede the point, that there is some level of obsession with a new voice chat app that is unhealthy.
Because it seems like people are almost being intentionally obtuse, and are intentionally misinterpreting my point, in bad faith, in order to win some "debate" that nobody was ever having.
If you are willing to agree, that absolutely people could be too obsessed with a voice chat app, then that is my point.
It is unfortunate that I have to explain this in such extreme terms, in order for people to understand the point I am trying to make. But here we are.
If you want an example, you can just look at the blog post that someone else made about clubhouse, in this very hacker news thread, that described clubhouse in terms, that, although are not as extreme as the hyperbolic example that I gave, should at the very least get you to understand the point I am trying to make here, about... shall we say... at least a moderate amount of unhealthy levels of obsession.
In this blog post, the person describes how they have literally lived in "isolation" for a decade, and that there were time periods, where they did not speak to another human for months.
And they use this personal example, of literal isolation for a decade, to describe how clubhouse, changed their life, or something.
Like I said, I was being a tad hyperbolic before, but when we are talking about people writing about clubhouse, who spent their life in isolation for a decade, you should be able to understand the point I am trying to make here.
You have posted a link to a person who has chosen to live in isolation for more than a decade to satisfy their own curiosity - which obviously has nothing to do with clubhouse. It’s not really clear why that’s relevant to anything.
Why would it be so surprising that clubhouse would change such a person’s life?
Clearly this person’s choices are unusual, but I don’t really see how you deduce anything about clubhouse or its users in general.
> It’s not really clear why that’s relevant to anything.
It is relevant, because you asked for an example. This was a blogpost about clubhouse, and they are using their insane, personal experience, of living in isolation for a decade, to satisfy their curiosity, as some situation that is related to clubhouse, according to them.
That is crazy. That is insane. And I should not have to explain to you why that is the case.
If someone is talking about clubhouse this way, then I have absolutely no problem, with describing such a blog post, as my example of unhealthy levels of obsession.
> Clearly this person’s choices are unusual
You asked for an example, and I gave you one that satifies what you asked for. I am glad you agree that this is an example of unusual behavior.
> and they are using their insane, personal experience, of living in isolation for a decade, to satisfy their curiosity, as some situation that is related to clubhouse, according to them.
I didn’t see them suggest that their choice to isolate was somehow related to clubhouse. What gave you that idea?
> That is crazy. That is insane. And I should not have to explain to you why that is the case.
Unfortunately I think you may need to. What exactly are you saying is insane? The person who wrote that piece?
> their choice to isolate was somehow related to clubhouse
> What gave you that idea?
The way that it is related to their writing/blog post about clubhouse, is that they put it in their writing/blog, about clubhouse.
> The person who wrote that piece?
Yes. As you noted, their choices are "unusual", to put it lightly. I am glad that you agree and that I have provided a good example, of someone who does "unusual" things, talking about clubhouse in this way.
These are the people who I am talking about. The people who do "unusual" things like spend a literal decade in isolation, and then using their experience, in their writings about clubhouse.
You asked for an example, and I gave you one. Glad you agree that I have given you this example.
You already agreed that their choice, to spend a decade in isolation, was unusual.
If we want to use a euphemism, and it looks like I will have to do so given how you are acting, I'll just stick with that position, that you agreed is the case.
Spending a decade in isolation is pretty "unusual", and you have already agreed that this is the case.
So I'll just have to stick with the word that you already agreed to call it, given that you are unwilling to understand basically anything that I am saying.
Both you and I agree, that this is pretty darn "unusual". And if that is the only word that you will concede describes the situation, then I guess I am ok with simply saying that their decisions are pretty darn "unusual", and we'll just use that as the euphemism, and the example that you asked for.
Ok, well lets just go with that then. When people who do things like spend a decade in isolation, and then use that example in the writings about clubhouse, well that is what I am talking about.
There is no need to talk about a voicechat app, in this way, or take such a person seriously, as a normal example, of a normal opinion on a voice chat app.
Are you saying that you cannot think of any way or argument, as for why a person's opinion on social interaction, and social apps, would be invalidated in any way, due to the fact that they are an individual who chose to spent a decade in isolation?
You really cannot come up with any reasons yourself, as for why their opinion, could be at least a little bit suspect, or why it could be OK to dismiss their opinion on these topics, given that they chose to spend a decade in isolation?
Generally, when having a conversation with someone, and they ask 1 million questions, that they should know the answer to, my only conclusion that I will be able to reach is that they are acting in bad faith.
> it’s not clear how this piece is related to your earlier comments
You truly cannot think of any parallels, or ways, in which the analogy is related, between these types of behavior? C'mon. I know you can think this through here.
These are simple statements here. I know you can figure this out.
You asked a dozen questions of me, and then the moment I ask a single question to you, you dodge it completely.
C'mon dude. Stop. You should understand how extremely bad faith that is.
Unfortunately, if you are unwilling, or unable, to state a single reason yourself, as for the issues with someone who spent a decade in isolation, might be at least a little bit suspect regarding their opinions of social interaction, then I cannot help you, and nothing that I say is going to be able to adequately explain anything to you, because you are likely acting in bad faith.
Here is some advice for you. The next time you are trying to interact with someone about a topic, you should not act in such bad faith with others, as it is difficult to have a conversation with a person such as yourself.
> You asked a dozen questions of me, and then the moment I ask a single question to you, you dodge it completely.
The single question to me being you asking if I can guess why you think the person is insane?
My answer would be that you there is a narrow range of behavior you feel safe with, and that you find anything unusual to be threatening and so you label it as insane as a way to distance yourself from it.
However this is just a generic guess that I would make about anyone who used the word insane without qualification.
It’s not personal to you.
That’s why I’m asking you the question -
I’d be surprised if a generic guess is correct.
> My answer would be that you there is a narrow range of behavior you feel safe with, and that you find anything unusual to be threatening
Alright, well you didn't give a good answer.
Unfortunately, if you cannot figure out as for why someone who spent a decade in social isolation, might perhaps not be the best person to talk about normal social interactions (given that isolation is literally directly related to the question of social interactions and experience), then I can't help you.
> if I can guess why you think the person is insane
You can read my previous post/question. Do you understand how you have dishonestly just rephrased my question, in a way that I did not ask?
Do you understand how it is hard to take anything you say in good faith, when you were not able to figure out that a person who spent 10 years in social isolation, may not have a normal social experience, and therefore might not be the best person to get opinions about social topics, if we are looking for the opinion from a person who has a normal social experience?
They have changed society.
Something can be both simple and revolutionary.