| ▲ | hasbot 3 days ago |
| The linked article is a summary of a much longer article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00088-3). From the conclusion of the original article: > Shared reality fosters social connections between people and increases confidence in one’s knowledge because it is corroborated by others. While lonely individuals report feeling disconnected from others in terms of their interests and ideas it was previously unclear to what extent this is true with respect to the zeitgeist—defined here as the widely shared perceptions between members of contemporary culture. I kinda get what they were looking for but knowledge and description of "celebrities" seems like a poor metric for many reasons including somebody just not interested in celebrities. For example, one can be lonely but online all day and so very connected to the "zeitgeist." Or one can have many interactions with other people but never discuss
celebrities. But, ignoring all that, the headline suggested that loneliness alters something in the brain akin to how blindness alters ones view of reality. Or maybe it's the different way of thinking and talking that leads to loneliness. |
|
| ▲ | alistairSH 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Justin Bieber, Ellen DeGeneres, Kim Kardashian, Barack Obama, and Mark Zuckerberg The celebs in the test. I'm not sure I could say anything meaningful about Bieber other than he's a pop star from Canada. Similar for Kardashian - Instagram influencer with lots of cosmetic surgery and makeup. Is the test expecting me to know other details beyond the completely inane and superficial? It would be even worse if they tested on athletes. I haven't watched any of the big US sports in decades. NFL, NBA, MLB - no clue. I guess I could answer a few questions about World Tour cyclists, but that's not likely to be on a test outside of Belgium or Italy. |
| |
| ▲ | xnyan 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree with you, so I did some quick research and: Bieber is very well known by the general population, Kardashians moreso. A large majority (70%+) watch a moderate to significant amount of live sports on TV. Anecdotally, interacting with normal people at my job agrees with this. We're the non-neurotypical people they're talking about. | | |
| ▲ | stult 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 30% of the population is plenty for making friends. If choosing not to watch a lot of TV makes someone non-neurotypical, that’s a pretty scary standard. 75% of the population in the US is overweight or obese. Are we defining people with healthy weight as non-neurotypical too now? |
| |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I keep up with the Cardassians, so I guess I'd flunk this test quite spectacularly. | | |
| ▲ | gilleain 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I wonder how the responses would be to "Describe Gul Dukat to someone who doesn't know him" | | |
| ▲ | em-bee 3 days ago | parent [-] | | but see, we got our own celebrities and a way to talk about them. doesn't that kind of confirm the idea? the problem is just that the content of the test is to limited. every group has their own language and people not in that group have a different one. | | |
| ▲ | shiroiushi 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >we got our own celebrities and a way to talk about them Maybe, but Gul Dukat isn't a celebrity, he's a character. The study isn't asking people about <character from currently popular movie or TV show>, but about real, living celebrities. If they asked about the #1 character in Bridgerton, whoever that is, that I think would be comparable. It also doesn't help that they're mainly asking about current celebrities. A 60-year-old doesn't give a shit about the Kardashians or Justin Bieber. Obama probably. But some celebrity who was big 30-40 years ago would be of much more interest to them. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Unless you know them personally, there's almost no difference between a celebrity and a well-known fictional character. Either way, you're learning a crafted story about a person that doesn't really exist. Kim Kardashian the person is a real human, but Kim Kardashian the celebrity is just as real a person as Dukat, a Gul in Cardassian Union. | |
| ▲ | bitwize 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Maybe, but Gul Dukat isn't a celebrity, he's a character. That line can get blurry; see for instance Hatsune Miku. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ta12653421 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is one thing with Bieber i can remember which somehow resonates to HN: in this movie "never say never" (?), its from 2011/2012 IIRC(?), you see a perfect example how social media marketing is working. (at least, Vaynerchuck said this once that this appears in the movie!:) | |
| ▲ | PrismCrystal 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Traveling across the developing world, I have been astonished at how many women even in countries with limited English skills follow the Kardashians (and the young men follow Andrew Tate). Yes, on one hand celebrities are silly, but on the other hand they have a global societal impact that nerds like us might not appreciate. |
|
|
| ▲ | tomcam 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My kids grew up with no TV and no Internet until they were 12 or so. When they applied at a Microsoft-area private school one question asked what celebrity they like and why. They knew of none and didn’t even know the word celebrity. |
| |
| ▲ | zx90 a day ago | parent [-] | | There is a minor but growing trend of schools (even whole countries, see Australia) banning social media or smartphones for under-16s. I tentatively agree. Are your kids now overly impressed/influenced by celebrities or influencers? Do they build and value close relationships among themselves and others? |
|
|
| ▲ | wigglyartichoke 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| All this stuff can very much lead to depression, and there seems to plenty of evidence that depression changes the brain There's a reason emotional security is 3rd on the Maslow Hierarchy, after food and physical security |
| |
| ▲ | hasbot 3 days ago | parent [-] | | All what stuff? I don't understand how your comment relates to mine (or even the article). It feels like you're trying to correct me but I have no idea on what. Skimming through the other comments, I see numerous other criticisms of this article and study that you've ignored. I'm genuinely curious about why, of all the other comments, you chose to respond to mine. |
|
