>I haven't heard it before.
You learned something, today.
Edit: As far as learning something, the GGP's citations were nonsense, as I pointed out. What has anyone offered, other than a demonstration of the fundamentals of misapplying statistics.
nobody's worrying about you, rest assured.
Social interactions don’t thrive when negative emotions are present.
People want to feel good about what they are doing.
Even the used car salesman that wants to be your friend knows this… bring good energy to HN as well.
I don't even see something negative in what I posted - it's pretty positive to me. I didn't say, 'we're all going to die' or say something fatalistic (like the comment I originally responded to).
Unless you mean 'negative' is 'disagrees', which of course badly is miscontrued in open intellectual debate, especially on HN.
> nobody's worrying about you, rest assured.
That seems pretty negative! :)
I haven't heard it before.
> We have a much harder time connecting socially without some sort of shared activity or action.
You might have a harder time doing that; other men have different experiences. The average man has brown eyes and is 1.72m tall; does that mean your eyes and height are that way? It's certainly an error to take statistical generalizations and apply them to individuals - one of the first things you learn in statistics.
Also, the studies you cited don't address this issue. The psychcentral link is about memory research. The other looks at social relationships, but doesn't look at this aspect of them. Do you actually know of any research?
> incredbly personal
Don't bother with the ad hominem distractions.