There’s probably a case to make that we’re socializing more authentically, especially in a post-Covid world.
One of the first things I felt an autism diagnosis gave me was a lens to more accurately see the drain of “typical” socialization and instead prioritize moments with people that I could actually enjoy and benefit from. The point of socialization flips on its head when you don’t have a normalized box to answer to — it becomes focused on the person (people) inside the exchange, not the context in which the connection occurs.
This piece makes me think that neurodiverse groups have already been leading the way toward giving the rest of society permission to connect through authentic motivation (and, alternatively, choose confidently when a coffee date, a phone call or a party is not an immediate benefit or potentially a threat to stability).
It could just be me, but when I flipped the whole script in my head around socializing, I slowly began to thrive more. I could create mechanisms for real connection that I could actually feel and digest. A key part of socializing we often don’t consider: if you’re under duress even around people who love you, the benefits of the socialization will “slap against” you rather than integrate as a moment you knew you were loved or safe. But I digress…
Socialization is changing and I really enjoyed your piece, David. And for what it’s worth, toilet paper confetti parties would always get an instant RSVP from me.
Amanda, that's really interesting. Socialization categories that don't account for neurodiversity or for new technologies are missing a lot. There are a lot of conventional socialization events that are more obligatory than joyful as you point out.
Fascinating! As an introvert, the chore of attending a function is way down my list of enjoyable social interactions, whereas my half-hour telephone chat with my sister each night is right up there. Intriguing analyses which definitely need review. And yes, society and time spent on different activities has changed. A monthly FaceTime get together with friends is another highlight. As a retiree, life changed once paid work finished too.
Covid taught me that I like myself and I don't need "the group" (whatever one that is at the time for the situation) to be in the world. The polarization around being vaccinated and keeping others safe, around the hating of Trump and the necessary inability for nuance made me walk away from a lot of places. My experience, being a conservative, being in healthcare, owning my own business, meant that I had a lot of people telling me how everyone was bad and wrong and I was one of those people. Now that I am an adult, I know what's bad so no need to hang with people who think I am bad.
And at the root of socializing is the lack of many people I engage with that are unable to hold two things true. I work to see the other's experience, values, ideals as true for them and hold mine in kind regards as well. I don't feel much in life is black or white. So dwelling in the gray is where so few people I know can be with others. So I tend to be less on the fringes of thinking by not putting myself in those black or white thinking places.
I imagined you were. It takes a lot of safety and security to be able to tolerate the nuance. And maybe that's part of it. Covid made a lot of people feel unsafe. I am not sure people feel safe again like they did before. In my view of the world, it really highlighted how many people lacked good grounding. It makes my heart heavy. So much trauma in our pasts. Then throw a pandemic on that and the instability it made people feel sent us off wobbling around. Finding that even keel again hasn't seemed to have happened to enough extent yet. And the politics during these times and ongoing contribute to this as well I think.
Can I sneak in here and pick up your point about being able to see both sides of an argument or situation. I am naturally like that and it can be dangerous to admit it,as I've learned the hard way. Some people can interpret (and maliciously im sure) your acceptance of nuance as dishonesty or lack of principle. That's how honest politicians get eliminated isn't it. "What you said the other side might have made a good point there,can't have that,actual THINKING,out you go",but I found that people who say," see it from my point of view " then force you to capitulate and be the one at a loss. So now,even if I see it "from their point of view" clearly I do not admit this if it is going to be to my detriment. It's taken me a life time to learn this - being strategically unreasonable - but there are six year old kids who know it by instinct!
Jane I think that is spot on. I am trying to drum down on that idea as it's insightful. I also can feel what you mean. Someone says they see your pointpoint of view but only if their point/point of view Trump's yours. Wow. And the 6 year olds know this doesn't pass the sniff test. They probably can spot the more narcissistic person who would do that-basically entrap you then annihilate you and your point/point of view. And when you engage with someone who can really hold two differing points/points of view, the magic of relating really is felt viacerallt and with joy. Like a 6 year old. I love this part of the thread! You see it's so easy to withdraw from the world because, like you say, people are out to get you all the time. I spent a lot of time being shit down and deflated and show relating works. But the times it works, like this thread, is life affirmung. It's a bit of a catch 22. You don't engage, you don't get the joy of good relating. Engage and it comes with peril, at times. Thanks for your perspective here.
Fascinating ideas here. It does seem that the ATUS needs to update its categories but I suppose that would make it impossible to compare trends from past surveys. (Good thing I’m not a social scientist.) Totally agree that Zoom and FaceTime count as socializing. I’ve been in deeper Zoom conversations than many irl ones. I appreciate how these technologies allow me to be in touch with people who live far away. And with people I’ve only met here on Substack. Maybe a study of mirror neurons or something would show that irl and Zoom light up the same parts of our brains. Who knows? I had to smile - my husband and I have similar responses to mediocre TV. I tend to finish everything where he is fine with ditching. As for talking during a show, I wish! Question for you: is using IMDb considered cheating in your “find” game?
Julie, I thought I'd responded to you but now I can't find it. That would be a fascinating study of brain responses. IMDb confirmation : full credit. IMDb confirmation that the actor has been in a recent show we watched about a serial killer, for example, still a find but not as impressive.
I'm right there with you on TV time, having exactly the same kind of to and fro while watching. Where have we seen that actor before or since? What does this show remind us of? We're currently watching Mad Men, nearly two decades after the rest of the universe. (Can you believe it first aired in 2007?!)
I also see what you mean about parasocial relationships. I've made some really meaningful connections on Substack, but so far have met only one of those 'new' people in real life. I'd say I've been more – but differently – sociable since I joined Substack!
In real life the biggest relationships are with family, a few close friends, casual friendships at choir and Pilates, and those have stayed pretty much constant.
I just read an overly dramatic essay in NY Mag about a new parent 'afraid' that having her 18 month old see and 'talk' to her parents on FaceTime counted as screetnime and babies are not supposed to have screens, oh no what to DO!
It must be exhausting to be worried about everything, even about something this child won't remember.
Your points about the ways the survey doesn't measure exactly what is going on is interesting. I've replaced a lot of my TV time with reading all the many Substacks I receive. Does this count as reading or Internet time? Most of my TV time is spent with my husband, and when the kids were growing up we watched some shows together, but the survey would just count those as hours spent alone. And although formal dinner parties are not a thing we do anymore, we still meet friends for dinners and happy hours out at restaurants. What are we calling those occasions?
I also have tons of parasocial relationships with the authors of the many Substacks I read, especially when they reply to my comments (not a hint, David, as you've replied to previous comment of mine ;)
Pam, There are parents who are on the extremes of "screen time will ruin my child forever!" It makes no sense. The survey and the questions seem really susceptible to inaccuracies. And so many researchers rely upon it! And the categorizations are difficult.
For me, Substack-reading, writing, and commenting back and forth are all intellectual and social interactions. We'll know that Substack has really made it when it's a separate category in the ATUS.
Another factor is how I enjoy socialising as I get older. I find that I love dinner parties where I can really have a good conversation as opposed to large parties and events that I used to enjoy when I was a kid!
I would hate taking that kind of survey because I would feel so guilty of not being so good at socializing. But I feel all my socializing with other Substack writers is really a great thing for me and them. And it is easier to be socializing about things one cares about especially like life or how to best socialize or write or whatever. Socializing can be a lot about socializing indirectly like reading anybody on Substack and the trading messages on anything or what they wrote or even watching a favorite Netflix show like The Great Indian Kapil Show. It is a talk show but I think it is a socializing show for huge numbers of people in India and a lot of people in the U.S. and the rest of the world. Kapel is a very much loved Indian comedian who is amazingly quick. Unabashedly frank, silly, yet quickly serious and thoughtful then laugh your butt off funny both Kapel and his guests. Surveys would low rate it as unmeaningful television chat socializing but in a nondirect? form. French or German or British dialect or Hindi language spoken quickly might be a language barrier but not if spoken with almost very focused intent and good quick subtitles. So it's wonderful that there are so many forms and ways of socializing as Max demonstrates by throwing around pieces of toilet paper. Some day like Kapel, Max may have his very own The Great American Max Show.
Socializing on Facetime, Zoom, etc is sort of like reducing language to 163 characters. The message gets across but the nuance is lost. On Zoom, we see a face and perhaps a torso, but we miss the subtleties of behavior that create a good deal of the overall impression of the interaction, and if we do that enough, we lose depth. In addition, in personal interaction, there isn't the hold of the screen so there will be a good deal of movement, again most of it subtle, that tells us which topics are interesting, which less so, how the person with whom we are speaking is actually reacting to our behavior, etc, etc. Abbreviating language creates a similar semi-artificial interaction that leaves us way short of appreciating the full nature of the exchange. Again, we lose nuance and depth. (Is it any wonder that Trump loves to communicate that way?) In other words, the less we interact with actual people, the less sophisticated we become as social beings, to say nothing of growing dumber. For people far way, Zoom is certainly better than just a phone call, but it is hardly a replacement for personal contact.
Of course that's true. The telephone was a boon, as was Skype. The problem is, as it was with the telephone, is that these devices often become used instead of personal contact rather in addition to. That leads to a phenomenon for many people where they grow more and more unwilling and maybe even more unable to interact personally because distance seems easier.
TV time is definitely couple time here, and my husband takes curating seriously. As for Zooming, I’m surprised at the warmth two like-minded people can create on a screen. I now have an important friend I may never meet in what’s known as “the real world.” Where Zoom falls woefully short is in groups. It’s hard to present to a group when you can’t watch body language and facial expressions.
I’ve started listening to my favorite substack subscriptions through the app while walking or commuting, and I love that you’ve started narrating yours with your voice! All the others are read with AI, and while I still like that because I’m getting my favorite authors’ content, I love hearing your voice reading your work because it’s so much more personal.
What an interesting case of technology posing dilemmas for methodology in longitudinal social science research!
I'm a Millennial, and I know the term "parasocial relationship" as an epithet to describe interactions with celebrities -- actors, athletes, garden-variety influencers -- on social media. Or more precisely, an excessive and unseemly emotional investment in the lives of these people who are merely appearing to talk directly to you, as one of their innumerable audience, on Instagram or whatever other platform. And of course, there's much hand-wringing over how that's a feature and not a bug of these platforms: celebrities cultivate faux-personal relationships with their adoring audience in order to drive "engagement" ("buy this thing!" "come to my next concert/game!"), but the traffic is only one-way and they don't really care about their fans beyond wanting to stay in their good graces. People's neural pathways are hijacked by these sorts of interactions and that's extremely bad, especially for developing adolescent brains, etc.
I think that's completely different from listening to a podcast discussion, which is meant to have an audience just like you at home, and where the speakers aren't pretending to engage you directly. Also vastly different from becoming invested in the characters that Proust brings to life in his writing. Those seem like very healthy habits of media consumption. Actually, it's sad that the latter sort seems to have fallen by the wayside these days.
Thanks for the comment Felice. I wonder where there's a crossover from parasocial as an epithet to a different type of interaction. Clearly when it's two way, that's different. Fictional characters seem different. When actors and actresses inhabit roles, I find myself being emotionally involved with them. In a great show like The Wire, I remember feeling a lot of emotions about various characters. That feels closer to fiction.
There have been movies about parasocial relationships that turn violent. The King of Comedy with Robert DeNiro is a really good one.
The song "Stan" by Eminem.
It's really an interesting area to explore and think about, especially with the advent of AI "friends."
Ah yes, “Stan”! That came out when I was a preteen (did you let your kids listen to the explicit versions of Eminem songs? :) my immigrant parents didn’t know any better!), and I think I was mostly aware of how creepy and disturbed the guy’s obsession was. It wasn’t exactly meant to be a subtle portrait, after all.
I think any quality TV show will succeed in getting viewers truly invested in not just the plot — needing to know what happens next — but also the characters as actual people inhabiting the fictional (even if closely based on reality, as in The Wire) cinematic world that is built.
Where it gets strange to me is when fictional worlds spawn entire online communities — fandoms — that extrapolate on them and want to make them their own. This partly explains the backlash when JK Rowling “came out” as not exactly pro-trans: many self-professed misfit kids had constructed their own alternate unrealities where various characters had certain relationships, sexual orientations, etc. that were never mentioned in the books, and felt like the HP universe — or their own expanded personalized version of it — was a home to them. So it felt like a deep betrayal to them when they learned that the actual creator of that universe harbored views that they strongly disagreed with.
I love this inquiry David! I heard from many people in the chronic illness and disability communities during the pandemic that they felt closer and more engaged with people than they ever had prior to the pandemic. And the reason? Zoom and FT. For example, my friend and artist Elizabeth Jameson lives with severe MS, is a quadriplegic, and therefore is limited to where and when she can be social. But when the world became social online, she was finally able to say yes to so much more. It’s time we look more closely at the value of screen relationships (even the ones that are para or entertainment.) 😉
Thanks for the comment Kimberly. Amanda Hinton mentioned in a comment the boon to the neurodivergent of these new technologies enabling socialization. We tend to hear about the downsides of things so much more than the upsides and I think that's true with on-line interactions.
In my opinion, you must be in person to know a person. However, after you get to know a person (face to face), "face timing can help you not forget what they look like :)
There’s probably a case to make that we’re socializing more authentically, especially in a post-Covid world.
One of the first things I felt an autism diagnosis gave me was a lens to more accurately see the drain of “typical” socialization and instead prioritize moments with people that I could actually enjoy and benefit from. The point of socialization flips on its head when you don’t have a normalized box to answer to — it becomes focused on the person (people) inside the exchange, not the context in which the connection occurs.
This piece makes me think that neurodiverse groups have already been leading the way toward giving the rest of society permission to connect through authentic motivation (and, alternatively, choose confidently when a coffee date, a phone call or a party is not an immediate benefit or potentially a threat to stability).
It could just be me, but when I flipped the whole script in my head around socializing, I slowly began to thrive more. I could create mechanisms for real connection that I could actually feel and digest. A key part of socializing we often don’t consider: if you’re under duress even around people who love you, the benefits of the socialization will “slap against” you rather than integrate as a moment you knew you were loved or safe. But I digress…
Socialization is changing and I really enjoyed your piece, David. And for what it’s worth, toilet paper confetti parties would always get an instant RSVP from me.
Amanda, that's really interesting. Socialization categories that don't account for neurodiversity or for new technologies are missing a lot. There are a lot of conventional socialization events that are more obligatory than joyful as you point out.
Fascinating! As an introvert, the chore of attending a function is way down my list of enjoyable social interactions, whereas my half-hour telephone chat with my sister each night is right up there. Intriguing analyses which definitely need review. And yes, society and time spent on different activities has changed. A monthly FaceTime get together with friends is another highlight. As a retiree, life changed once paid work finished too.
Beth, I agree. Calls and FaceTimes can be very meaningful.
Covid taught me that I like myself and I don't need "the group" (whatever one that is at the time for the situation) to be in the world. The polarization around being vaccinated and keeping others safe, around the hating of Trump and the necessary inability for nuance made me walk away from a lot of places. My experience, being a conservative, being in healthcare, owning my own business, meant that I had a lot of people telling me how everyone was bad and wrong and I was one of those people. Now that I am an adult, I know what's bad so no need to hang with people who think I am bad.
And at the root of socializing is the lack of many people I engage with that are unable to hold two things true. I work to see the other's experience, values, ideals as true for them and hold mine in kind regards as well. I don't feel much in life is black or white. So dwelling in the gray is where so few people I know can be with others. So I tend to be less on the fringes of thinking by not putting myself in those black or white thinking places.
I am pro-nuance!
I imagined you were. It takes a lot of safety and security to be able to tolerate the nuance. And maybe that's part of it. Covid made a lot of people feel unsafe. I am not sure people feel safe again like they did before. In my view of the world, it really highlighted how many people lacked good grounding. It makes my heart heavy. So much trauma in our pasts. Then throw a pandemic on that and the instability it made people feel sent us off wobbling around. Finding that even keel again hasn't seemed to have happened to enough extent yet. And the politics during these times and ongoing contribute to this as well I think.
Can I sneak in here and pick up your point about being able to see both sides of an argument or situation. I am naturally like that and it can be dangerous to admit it,as I've learned the hard way. Some people can interpret (and maliciously im sure) your acceptance of nuance as dishonesty or lack of principle. That's how honest politicians get eliminated isn't it. "What you said the other side might have made a good point there,can't have that,actual THINKING,out you go",but I found that people who say," see it from my point of view " then force you to capitulate and be the one at a loss. So now,even if I see it "from their point of view" clearly I do not admit this if it is going to be to my detriment. It's taken me a life time to learn this - being strategically unreasonable - but there are six year old kids who know it by instinct!
Jane I think that is spot on. I am trying to drum down on that idea as it's insightful. I also can feel what you mean. Someone says they see your pointpoint of view but only if their point/point of view Trump's yours. Wow. And the 6 year olds know this doesn't pass the sniff test. They probably can spot the more narcissistic person who would do that-basically entrap you then annihilate you and your point/point of view. And when you engage with someone who can really hold two differing points/points of view, the magic of relating really is felt viacerallt and with joy. Like a 6 year old. I love this part of the thread! You see it's so easy to withdraw from the world because, like you say, people are out to get you all the time. I spent a lot of time being shit down and deflated and show relating works. But the times it works, like this thread, is life affirmung. It's a bit of a catch 22. You don't engage, you don't get the joy of good relating. Engage and it comes with peril, at times. Thanks for your perspective here.
Fascinating ideas here. It does seem that the ATUS needs to update its categories but I suppose that would make it impossible to compare trends from past surveys. (Good thing I’m not a social scientist.) Totally agree that Zoom and FaceTime count as socializing. I’ve been in deeper Zoom conversations than many irl ones. I appreciate how these technologies allow me to be in touch with people who live far away. And with people I’ve only met here on Substack. Maybe a study of mirror neurons or something would show that irl and Zoom light up the same parts of our brains. Who knows? I had to smile - my husband and I have similar responses to mediocre TV. I tend to finish everything where he is fine with ditching. As for talking during a show, I wish! Question for you: is using IMDb considered cheating in your “find” game?
Julie, I thought I'd responded to you but now I can't find it. That would be a fascinating study of brain responses. IMDb confirmation : full credit. IMDb confirmation that the actor has been in a recent show we watched about a serial killer, for example, still a find but not as impressive.
Fair. I’m a habitual IMDb user. I love figuring out why that actor is familiar and what I’ve seen them in. Whatever did we do before it?
I'm right there with you on TV time, having exactly the same kind of to and fro while watching. Where have we seen that actor before or since? What does this show remind us of? We're currently watching Mad Men, nearly two decades after the rest of the universe. (Can you believe it first aired in 2007?!)
I also see what you mean about parasocial relationships. I've made some really meaningful connections on Substack, but so far have met only one of those 'new' people in real life. I'd say I've been more – but differently – sociable since I joined Substack!
In real life the biggest relationships are with family, a few close friends, casual friendships at choir and Pilates, and those have stayed pretty much constant.
Wendy, I'm envious that you get to watch Mad Men for the first time. TV can be very social!
I just read an overly dramatic essay in NY Mag about a new parent 'afraid' that having her 18 month old see and 'talk' to her parents on FaceTime counted as screetnime and babies are not supposed to have screens, oh no what to DO!
It must be exhausting to be worried about everything, even about something this child won't remember.
Your points about the ways the survey doesn't measure exactly what is going on is interesting. I've replaced a lot of my TV time with reading all the many Substacks I receive. Does this count as reading or Internet time? Most of my TV time is spent with my husband, and when the kids were growing up we watched some shows together, but the survey would just count those as hours spent alone. And although formal dinner parties are not a thing we do anymore, we still meet friends for dinners and happy hours out at restaurants. What are we calling those occasions?
I also have tons of parasocial relationships with the authors of the many Substacks I read, especially when they reply to my comments (not a hint, David, as you've replied to previous comment of mine ;)
Pam, There are parents who are on the extremes of "screen time will ruin my child forever!" It makes no sense. The survey and the questions seem really susceptible to inaccuracies. And so many researchers rely upon it! And the categorizations are difficult.
For me, Substack-reading, writing, and commenting back and forth are all intellectual and social interactions. We'll know that Substack has really made it when it's a separate category in the ATUS.
Another factor is how I enjoy socialising as I get older. I find that I love dinner parties where I can really have a good conversation as opposed to large parties and events that I used to enjoy when I was a kid!
Hi Jonathan. About to send you a text.
I would hate taking that kind of survey because I would feel so guilty of not being so good at socializing. But I feel all my socializing with other Substack writers is really a great thing for me and them. And it is easier to be socializing about things one cares about especially like life or how to best socialize or write or whatever. Socializing can be a lot about socializing indirectly like reading anybody on Substack and the trading messages on anything or what they wrote or even watching a favorite Netflix show like The Great Indian Kapil Show. It is a talk show but I think it is a socializing show for huge numbers of people in India and a lot of people in the U.S. and the rest of the world. Kapel is a very much loved Indian comedian who is amazingly quick. Unabashedly frank, silly, yet quickly serious and thoughtful then laugh your butt off funny both Kapel and his guests. Surveys would low rate it as unmeaningful television chat socializing but in a nondirect? form. French or German or British dialect or Hindi language spoken quickly might be a language barrier but not if spoken with almost very focused intent and good quick subtitles. So it's wonderful that there are so many forms and ways of socializing as Max demonstrates by throwing around pieces of toilet paper. Some day like Kapel, Max may have his very own The Great American Max Show.
Thanks Larry. I will tell Max's parents!
Socializing on Facetime, Zoom, etc is sort of like reducing language to 163 characters. The message gets across but the nuance is lost. On Zoom, we see a face and perhaps a torso, but we miss the subtleties of behavior that create a good deal of the overall impression of the interaction, and if we do that enough, we lose depth. In addition, in personal interaction, there isn't the hold of the screen so there will be a good deal of movement, again most of it subtle, that tells us which topics are interesting, which less so, how the person with whom we are speaking is actually reacting to our behavior, etc, etc. Abbreviating language creates a similar semi-artificial interaction that leaves us way short of appreciating the full nature of the exchange. Again, we lose nuance and depth. (Is it any wonder that Trump loves to communicate that way?) In other words, the less we interact with actual people, the less sophisticated we become as social beings, to say nothing of growing dumber. For people far way, Zoom is certainly better than just a phone call, but it is hardly a replacement for personal contact.
All things equal, in person is better. But sometimes it's impossible.
Of course that's true. The telephone was a boon, as was Skype. The problem is, as it was with the telephone, is that these devices often become used instead of personal contact rather in addition to. That leads to a phenomenon for many people where they grow more and more unwilling and maybe even more unable to interact personally because distance seems easier.
We are making more of an effort to socialize less via digital and more in person when possible. It forces us to put away the phones and be present.
BTW, highly recommend the British series, Dept Q, on Netflix.
Molly, We loved Dept. Q. One of our favorites this year.
TV time is definitely couple time here, and my husband takes curating seriously. As for Zooming, I’m surprised at the warmth two like-minded people can create on a screen. I now have an important friend I may never meet in what’s known as “the real world.” Where Zoom falls woefully short is in groups. It’s hard to present to a group when you can’t watch body language and facial expressions.
Rona,
I agree. Two people are ideal for a Zoom conversation. We need to compare show recommendations.
Teaser: Ludwig, a British comedy/mystery.
I’ve started listening to my favorite substack subscriptions through the app while walking or commuting, and I love that you’ve started narrating yours with your voice! All the others are read with AI, and while I still like that because I’m getting my favorite authors’ content, I love hearing your voice reading your work because it’s so much more personal.
Thanks Sachi. I've come to enjoy doing the recording.
Say Nothing on Hulu
That seems like a good one we haven't seen yet. Thanks.
Craig,
We started watching and think it's a great show. So thank you for what I like to call a "binge-gift."
What an interesting case of technology posing dilemmas for methodology in longitudinal social science research!
I'm a Millennial, and I know the term "parasocial relationship" as an epithet to describe interactions with celebrities -- actors, athletes, garden-variety influencers -- on social media. Or more precisely, an excessive and unseemly emotional investment in the lives of these people who are merely appearing to talk directly to you, as one of their innumerable audience, on Instagram or whatever other platform. And of course, there's much hand-wringing over how that's a feature and not a bug of these platforms: celebrities cultivate faux-personal relationships with their adoring audience in order to drive "engagement" ("buy this thing!" "come to my next concert/game!"), but the traffic is only one-way and they don't really care about their fans beyond wanting to stay in their good graces. People's neural pathways are hijacked by these sorts of interactions and that's extremely bad, especially for developing adolescent brains, etc.
I think that's completely different from listening to a podcast discussion, which is meant to have an audience just like you at home, and where the speakers aren't pretending to engage you directly. Also vastly different from becoming invested in the characters that Proust brings to life in his writing. Those seem like very healthy habits of media consumption. Actually, it's sad that the latter sort seems to have fallen by the wayside these days.
Thanks for the comment Felice. I wonder where there's a crossover from parasocial as an epithet to a different type of interaction. Clearly when it's two way, that's different. Fictional characters seem different. When actors and actresses inhabit roles, I find myself being emotionally involved with them. In a great show like The Wire, I remember feeling a lot of emotions about various characters. That feels closer to fiction.
There have been movies about parasocial relationships that turn violent. The King of Comedy with Robert DeNiro is a really good one.
The song "Stan" by Eminem.
It's really an interesting area to explore and think about, especially with the advent of AI "friends."
Ah yes, “Stan”! That came out when I was a preteen (did you let your kids listen to the explicit versions of Eminem songs? :) my immigrant parents didn’t know any better!), and I think I was mostly aware of how creepy and disturbed the guy’s obsession was. It wasn’t exactly meant to be a subtle portrait, after all.
I think any quality TV show will succeed in getting viewers truly invested in not just the plot — needing to know what happens next — but also the characters as actual people inhabiting the fictional (even if closely based on reality, as in The Wire) cinematic world that is built.
Where it gets strange to me is when fictional worlds spawn entire online communities — fandoms — that extrapolate on them and want to make them their own. This partly explains the backlash when JK Rowling “came out” as not exactly pro-trans: many self-professed misfit kids had constructed their own alternate unrealities where various characters had certain relationships, sexual orientations, etc. that were never mentioned in the books, and felt like the HP universe — or their own expanded personalized version of it — was a home to them. So it felt like a deep betrayal to them when they learned that the actual creator of that universe harbored views that they strongly disagreed with.
The issue of AI “companions” is definitely a strange and pressing one. I can’t find a ProPublica article that I thought was where I read about the case, but have you seen this? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/oct/23/character-ai-chatbot-sewell-setzer-death
I love this inquiry David! I heard from many people in the chronic illness and disability communities during the pandemic that they felt closer and more engaged with people than they ever had prior to the pandemic. And the reason? Zoom and FT. For example, my friend and artist Elizabeth Jameson lives with severe MS, is a quadriplegic, and therefore is limited to where and when she can be social. But when the world became social online, she was finally able to say yes to so much more. It’s time we look more closely at the value of screen relationships (even the ones that are para or entertainment.) 😉
Thanks for the comment Kimberly. Amanda Hinton mentioned in a comment the boon to the neurodivergent of these new technologies enabling socialization. We tend to hear about the downsides of things so much more than the upsides and I think that's true with on-line interactions.
In my opinion, you must be in person to know a person. However, after you get to know a person (face to face), "face timing can help you not forget what they look like :)