Sorta disconcerting (to me) the stuff that’s getting to the frontpage of hn lately

I found this piece somewhat refreshing.

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.

This piece struck a chord with me. It captured that feeling so precisely. I can't be more grateful he put it into words for me. I get it.

My wife will notice a change in me tonight. That's because I've taken on another advisor.

This does not seem very well tought out, gives off more of a frustrated teen vibe.

This post gives off the old "women shouldn't be reading or they'll get ideas" energy

Always has been

"Having lovers and friends is all good and fine, but I don't like yours, and you don't like mine" -- Eric Clapton

Was just about to write, there is no difference to how dating worked back in the day. Its just more online.

People have always been following influencers who will say anything in a partner is problematic for engagement metrics?

The closest thing I can think of to something like that were certain types of magazines but they'd come out monthly, you weren't steeped in it.

People actually date these kinda people? Why?

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.

Again an article painting an idealized picture of the past that never existed.

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.

Fair take.

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 socio-affective impact of unlimited internet seems to, also, be unlimited

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.

Right, books and gossip is exactly the same as modern tech and social media. Nothing to see

I do not agree with the articles framing but TV, books and friends can be shared, a social media feed isn’t.

In fact, I would guess the strongest relationships are those where those are shared.

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.

> 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.

Concept is good, but this doesn't seem very thought out, and the AI generated image doesn't help

"We are highly confident this text was AI generated"

96% AI generated according to gptzero.

Which I wouldn't mind, honestly, if it had something useful, insightful, or original to say.

In a way I'm glad it doesn't seem to be written by a human:

> What used to be a disagreement becomes “emotional labor.”

> A bad mood gets labeled “toxic energy.”

This sounds like someone who dismisses their partner's feelings as fragmented memes, and sees her as almost brain-washed by the algorithm.

It contrasts this against a time where a relationship was something entirely different, where he could know everyone she's interacting with.

> And it doesn’t stop there.

> She has friends.

God forbid...

If this was a person and not an AI, they would sound incredibly controlling. Maybe the "toxicity" and "red flag" ideas didn't form in a vacuum?

"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.)