It presents a thought I have not thought about before. Whether, as some other commenters suggest, the hypothesis that you are dating an ecosystem, has always been true is a different question.
This article is peiced to tug at emotional heartstrings.
Of course people are complex systems. When have you ever felt the thoughts:
"I am the same person I was last year, therefore people should treat me as such and not consider my growth, changes, or nuance."
"My partner is the exact same person they where when I married them, therefore I do not need to pay attention to their growth, changes, or nuance."
You realized these things before you read the piece, but like me, found solace in seeing this "author" rationalize it as not our fault, but instead the fault of the new society/the other.
Which...is certainly not wise for sake of self-growth.
Yup. And the writing style gives big divorced dad (but with a phil degree) energy... but I think there's something interesting in the rough to poke at.
It's a velocity + availability "no Tom Brokaw" argument as applied to relationships. Like the question it's poking at "if an ecosystem can radicalize a person, what are its effects on a relationship?" is at least interesting to consider.
lol, my wording on the internet makes me sound harsher than I am in person.
I do think that's a good question to ponder and one I hope I'm thoughtful enough to consider in my future relationships. If it were my idea I would keep growing it into something, but that's just me.
> The Instagram explore page that shapes her taste. The vocabulary borrowed from her favorite online therapist. Micro-influencers she follows without thinking. The TikTok algorithm that nudges her mood. The attachment style she diagnosed herself with.
> What used to be a disagreement becomes “emotional labor.” A bad mood gets labeled “toxic energy.”
Forgetting to text becomes “avoidant attachment.” Opinions from friends, refreshed by the hour.
Smells like the angst of some recently dumped man. The girl is a slave to the whims of tik tok candy therapists but the boy is influenced by "ghosts." Please.
What this post is hitting upon correctly is that people are products of their environment, and trying to perfectly separate the two is impossible.
But hasn't this always been the case? What is personality if not a weighted summation of the content they consume? Before the feeds and the algorithm it was books and gossips.
I'm pretty sure GP was being sarcastic. These things are very obviously not the same. You give one example, but another is algorithmic engagement - this has been most extensively studied in kids and teens but it affects everyone.
I made this point elsewhere in thread, but another difference is the daily content aspect of online influencers. Instead of reading one or two shallow, vapid articles a month about "what's wrong with your relationship" they are seeing new content every day, and they are mostly seeing the content that is upsetting the most people.
I mean horoscopes have been a thing for a while or very conservative religious people. Same thing. "Don't do that, dont do this" type of content has existed way before the internet.
"People and consciousness are bundles of their own experiences, and cannot be broken down to static systems. more @ 11."
Nothing in this "Article" is based in any fact or input-causality examination that was (before) unclear. Just a person putting esoteric emotional reasoning on a blog.
(And of course, my own comment here breaks HN good-faith commenting rules. But c'mon.)
