The AirPods Effect
theescapenewsletter.com308 points by herbertl 19 hours ago
308 points by herbertl 19 hours ago
Yeah, great article. But it should get to the point.
The reason you need to physically remove yourself is because of the insane lunatics that blast trash music and do a dance while aggressively panhandling or screaming at you for trying to commute quitely on the train to work. A hallmark of daily life when I worked in SF and in NYC.
A great way to fix the fake problem would be to aggressively enforce the existing laws, starting with tickets, and if that doesn't work, incarceration. Apparently it's not politically correct to do that though so I guess we are all second class citizens who need to live in a low trust society where people are increasingly isolated.
Coming back to the states after traveling abroad is always astonishing. For all our wealth, it genuinely feels worse than somewhere like Brazil in many of our big cities
People can’t understand you can’t have both protecting the poor and not enforcing laws against the poor at the same time
To be fair when you live in a big city and you have to take the subway all the time, it just feels physically nice to remove the background noise whether it's the noise of the train itself or the musicians or the people asking loudly for money. I don't even have airpods, I have good old earplugs because I often too lazy to choose the soundtrack of my own life.
It's not that don't want to talk to unknown people, it's that it's more important for me to avoid the unpleasantness of it all. It's all relative of course, I'd take a fast, crowded train any day rather than having to do the good old accelerate-and-stop of a traffic jam/city intersections.
I live in a country with somewhat solid social net so I'd actually be in favor or preventing people to ask for money (loudly and in a pathos-optimized voice) in the train. It's generally people who are 1. having other income 2. drug addicts 3. mental issues or a combination of all that. I don't blame them but I wish there was a cruelty-free way of preventing them to do that because I don't think the amount of money they make is worth the amount of inconvenience they cause. Of course they are other ways of making the service better (more trains, closer to each other) but I believe the subway company is already hard at work on that.
My point I guess is that it doesn't take much for something to become an unpleasant experience (as anyone who's ever had a significant dose of LSD will tell you) and that's it's easy to blame people (individualistic, selfish blablabla) but system-thinking is how you solve that kind of issue (and it's not easy)
That's kind of the point the article is making though, isn't it?
You're making a choice to insulate yourself from your surroundings. That choice has effects on both you and your environment. You see it as a simple salve, but the poor souls you're choosing to ignore see it as a just another bourgeoisie wall.
I used to live in a prison. Headphones were a huge fighting issue. People who couldn't afford them would borrow, rent, or steal them. I never saw the point. Humans are a part of nature. I can sleep, eat, shower, and meditate just as well in the middle of a deadly riot (I was once asked by an officer to leave the dining area as they'd maced several people and everyone else had fled while I sat there calmly eating my institutional cheesy cardboard because I was more hungry than bothered by the mace) as I can in a forest or a dead silent bed room.
Embracing or shunning the society you live in is a choice. Choosing either has consequences. My choice means that I am often driven to action to contribute to systemic solutions to the pain I see in life. It isn't easy, but I don't think I could live with sticking my fingers in my ears and pretending it isn't happening.
> I can sleep, eat, shower, and meditate just as well in the middle of a deadly riot ... as I can in a forest or a dead silent bed room.
You should realize that there are people who can't do that.
There was a point in my life that I couldn't do that.
To suggest that it is impossible for a given individual is different from suggesting that it is difficult which is different still from suggesting that it is suggested.
I have personally benefitted massively from deconstructing the walls that my parents and peers suggested I build as a child. It was work to do, and is work yet to be done, but I value it.
I am no longer angry in traffic when "the jackass can't see I'm late" or whatever other silliness. I no longer dread the stench and noise of public transportation. Both are natural. Just the way humans are. Being perturbed by it is a choice that I've decided I could do without.
Minus some socio-behavioral-mental deviation from the norm, and even then considering advances that can be made with therapy...I just don't see it. Why should I be bothered by people on the train when I know that it is possible to just...not?
Surely the solution to this social problem, however, can't be "everyone should simply convert to my religion / achieve a higher state of mind where they're not bothered by any form of inconvenience, irritation, or interruption." If it comes to that, most people will continue to wear their AirPods. It's a non-answer.
Living in filth is not natural. Animals and primitive humans know how to keep themselves reasonably clean, to avoid attracting predators if nothing else. We seem to be regressing.
I'm not particularly bothered by those things either, but I'm a large man and people don't tend to mess with me much. I can afford to be casual about it (within reason). Not everyone has that luxury.
> There was a point in my life that I couldn't do that.
At some point of my life, I realized I can’t assume or rely on the idea that other people will enjoy living their lives like I do. So, what I find admirable and something to thrive might not be the thing they’re looking for.
Being able to do it in the middle of a riot is, absolutely, a hard-earned skill.
But it is, like so many of these things, a skill. You have to practice it.
I think that putting earbuds in and checking out of the world around you is a really awful thing to do as your default in life. As a "sometimes" thing it's fine, even healthy. There's a lot of talk of public transit in this thread. If people do it during riding transit, and not really at other times, I'm fine with that. But so many people have their earbuds in before they leave their front door, every day, every week, and they don't come back out.
And I think that's really, really unhealthy, for them and for the rest of us.
My son, for example, has sensory issues and cannot tune out anything. The "you have to practice it" is like telling a paraplegic that if they just exercise more they'd be able to walk. People are different and have different needs.
> And I think that's really, really unhealthy, for them and for the rest of us.
Or maybe it's not. Maybe the rest of the world is unhealthy and this is a way to reclaim some personal healthiness.
"When we argue for our limitations, we get to keep them."
-- Evelyn Waugh
Paraplegics don't have the use of their limbs. Acting as if "sensory issues" are in the same category is grossly insensitive.
You’re chastising the person above you for blocking out the world with headphones while bragging that you have honed skills over time to, due to desire and necessity, block out the world in your own head.
In any case, it doesn’t strike me as unreasonable to want to be unbothered, especially in particularly bothersome circumstances. You don’t owe anyone your attention, and the assumption that you do can and is weaponized by everyone from Zuckerberg to the fentanyl addict aggressively demanding your money.
I worked in Manhattan often in the 00s and early 10s. Have people forgotten what big city life was like before? Commuters did not randomly strike up conversations. It was an unspoken code you left each other alone. Especially in rush hour commutes. Everyone is waking up or tired after a day of work. It is more about having some personal space in a crowded environment for many. Not everyone processes or experiences that the same way either.
In a way you're right, but what you can do comes from a significantly high spiritual development level. For an average Joe it's quite abstract and maybe even unattainable in this life.
OTOH, there are people who get sensory overstimulated more easily. Add to that a foreign place, lot of people and chaos around, and even a neurotypical individual can feel anxious.
Putting on headphones and playing Chopin is much more effective than breathing and telling yourself "everythings gonna be ok" in a loop. At least in my experience.
I believe we wouldn't have a tenth of the chaos we are currently experiencing if people talked to their neighbors and fellow commuters more.
With or without headphones, people aren't just chatting around on the subway all the time. I love my headphones and I also chat with my neighbours.
This is just the same argument that has been repeated since the dawn of the walkman.
50 years ago when people weren't looking at their iPhones on the bus, they were reading the newspaper or a book. Not a lot has changed.
A buffer isn’t necessarily isolation or insulation.
You will have to explain. Headphones in work or street environments definitely function to minimize interactions with surrounding humans. I literally think twice before engaging with people wearing headphones and am rather oblivious to people around me when I'm wearing them unless someone is using physical gestures to get my attention.
If general public habits shift to the extent that the majority of people with headphones end up only using them for noise cancelling then my behavior would also shift accordingly.
> That's kind of the point the article is making though, isn't it?
I think the article pays lip service to this in a paragraph ("social crutch") but otherwise falls into the trap of "societal" pieces (Soft "Why can't we talk to each other anymore ? What is wrong with our cvilisation?")
In my opinion make it a safe enjoyable non-crowded ride and you'll get plenty of interactions.
> just another bourgeoisie wall.
You are not wrong in a way. The base of a lot of the kind of interaction the author of the piece is thinking about is a relatively equal social standing, otherwise there's too much at stake, on both sides. For example, I, a lower middle class man, would have little patience for someone telling me about how much fun they are having taking helicopter rides in the summer and I don't think they'd enjoy my rant about how landlords are evil. Of course I think there's a moral duty to lower yourself from your social standing to care for people who have it rougher than you but it's generally not exactly pleasant like a conversation with someone like-minded could be
Wow, was it a computer fraud abuse act thing, I mean claimed to be? Obviously nothing violent!
Thanks for sharing.
I plead guilty to financial fraud, thanks for the interest!
Curious how you project certain assumptions, though. Makes one curious about your own activities.
Few who paid their debt to society and moved on are excited about random strangers wanting to do their own petty little performative mock show trials to sit in smug judgement over them. Please stop.
Almost as if there's a limit to how many demands strangers can reasonably place on a person before we as a society agree that the person should put up boundaries (like, say, putting on headphones and outright ignoring the demands) and even go out of our way to encourage strangers to respect those boundaries.
I'm not calling you out, IncandescentGas, you're right and you're doing a good thing. I'm just saying its ironic that you jump to the defense of somebody who has made it clear that they don't believe others deserve the same courtesy you are providing them.
No defence needed in my case. I made a mistake and paid my price. I feel bad for people who are so bored and miserable in their own lives that they feel the need to elevate themselves by trying to diminish me.
It's too bad that they don't live more fulfilling lives that don't require them to feel the need to attempt to insult people.
I agree with this comment.
Noise canceling headphones is the only reason I’m able to use the bus in SF. The author writes from Germany, which has reasonable social etiquette in place in most cities. That social contract just doesn’t exist in large parts of America. In Chicago, they have a real problem with people smoking on public transportation. They don’t make noise canceling headphones for your lungs yet.
The people wearing headphones all day aren’t the ones “losing touch with their neighbors”… no, it’s just that their neighbors are assholes, and they just want to get through the day.
> They don’t make noise canceling headphones for your lungs yet.
Well, they literally do, they’re just absurd:
I wear my AirPods Pro on the train largely for hearing protection. The DC Metro is loud, with or without people making noise in the train. Different train systems have different levels of loud, but when the Metro is flying through a tunnel it is quite loud.
I also often have them in while walking around the city for this purpose as well. I usually have the noise canceling off, but if an ambulance or something is coming my way, I quickly click the AirPod to put them into noise canceling mode.
The metro is a much less stressful experience for me with noise cancellation on. Without them the noise in tunnels just makes me anxious. The outside tracks are all fine without them though.
And for walking around - it's the traffic noise that bothers me, not people. Traffic noise can just be so loud along some roads (and at certain times of day) that it makes me not want to walk at all.
It's not just a social or class issue. A lot of women wear headphones to discourage creepy men from hitting on them or sexually harassing them. The HN crowd skews toward young men and I think many of you don't understand that some women get this constantly on public transit.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, this is a real issue. I'm not a woman, but I'm a gay man and the same thing happens walking through Boystown or at the gym. Headphones have a near-100% success rate at deflecting unwanted advances.
Headphones also give an 'excuse'. Some men become really pissy and unstable if they think you're ignoring them, but if you have visible headphones, then you have the excuse of not hearing them.
[flagged]
Unwelcome attention is unwelcome attention. The only charitable exceptions might be children and adults with developmental disabilities, who allowably don’t know any better.
>adults with developmental disabilities, who allowably don’t know any better.
> it just feels physically nice to remove the background noise whether it's the noise
I thought about it and I found that after so many years my mind can just fade the noise out and I doesn't bother me at all. It also helped me to hear selectively. On the other hand, when I wear noise cancelling headphones it feels weird, like detached from the reality I am present.
Only place I prefer to wear them is open plan office. Too many conversations and many grab attention needlessly.
What I find interesting is that the article seems to imply that wearing earbuds to isolate is somewhat "unnatural" (for lack of a better term).
However it does not take into account that the kind of social interactions where people wear earbuds (i.e. loud and busy environments with many strangers, often physically closer than comfortable) is unnatural to begin with.
For me, isolating myself acoustically is a way to normalize such environments back to a more "natural" setting.
Funny how new technology is unnatural but old technology, (that existed before we were born, like cars, streets, subways) are “natural”.
Douglas Adams summed it up eloquently:
“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
Yes! When walking along busy streets, I put my airpods on without music just to remove some of the car noise.
I do the same when visiting large metropolitan areas! I don't want to be completely deaf, but reducing all the high-pitched noises and rumbling really makes my perception see/hear the environment more calmly.
Interesting .. when we first moved to my current house we knew it was a quiet neighbourhood, helped by being set back from the main road. What I wasn't prepared for was the absolute silence in the early morning - it was what I imagine deafness would be like, if earbuds can achieve something approaching that, then take my money.
Exactly.
Noise cancelling is a treasure.
And what I really like about them is the ease of use.
The moment I start talking to someone, automagically the NC is paused as well as any audio you were listening to.
It sounds so easy but is really running smoothly. Over time Apple really perfected the workings.
This blend is what makes them so valuable for me. I don’t have to manually do anything, simply speak and interact without having to touch them.
This is what bothered me really well, especially at work. Headset on, headset off - not anymore.
And people now don’t feel neglected when you keep the Pods in your ear.
Social reconditioning was part of the problem so to say. This tool is now accepted.
Well deserved. I am buying another pair of the AirPods Pro. I want a bit of safety after I temporarily lost one ear pod - I felt so disturbed, suddenly not being able to enjoy freedom acoustically anymore. Just to make sure and switch between them.
> And people now don’t feel neglected when you keep the Pods in your ear.
I disagree with this. Pods in ears are essentially a "do not disturb" sign for most people. Being around people who regularly have the "do not disturb" sign feels neglecting. People who might initiate conversation don't know if they will even be heard if they try to talk, so why bother. I would rather be alone than in a room of people who are actively ignoring each other.
I dislike the NC pause because it often awkwardly unpauses when someone is replying to you. I just pop the earbuds out when I start talking. To me, speaking with earbuds in is rude, and I want to show the courtesy to the person I'm talking to that they have my attention.
>> The moment I start talking to someone, automagically the NC is paused as well as any audio you were listening to.
This is one of those features I thought would be great and unfortunately had to disable in minutes. If you ever listen to music and sing along, even for a few seconds, the volume cuts because it thinks you're talking to someone. It's a shame. There's so many really great AirPods features and I feel like I've had to disable almost all of them for one reason or another.
>> And people now don’t feel neglected when you keep the Pods in your ear. Social reconditioning was part of the problem so to say. This tool is now accepted.
I think it'll get there eventually but it's still far from accepted in my opinion. Maybe if you're ordering at a Starbucks or something but if someone was trying to have a conversation with my with AirPods in I'd consider it rude. And even if it's becomes widely accepted I think it'll still have some mild stigma (equivalent to wearing sunglasses when having a conversation unless the sun is in your eyes).
> The moment I start talking to someone, automagically the NC is paused as well as any audio you were listening to.
When I'm listening to music, the music helps form my sense of time. It is deeply jarring to have the music pause for a few minutes and then start as though in 'music-land' no time had passed.
I'd be happier if the music volume went to zero but the song/track kept progressing.
They seem to have done so much work on the magic behaviors of the airpods (most of which I don’t have occasions to use) but they still work worse than a $35 pair of Ankers when it comes to just connecting, staying connected, and playing music without issue.
They’re especially flaky if you’re using them with apples watch.
I spent a few bucks on the pros, and the phone, and the watch, and the mini, and the tv, and the laptops. I shouldn’t be leaving that ecosystems ear buds in the drawer because the borderline disposable ones off amazon are the pair that “just work”.
The "always works" is the only reason I am using Airpods.
I have never had earbuds that are consistent in the way they connect in any circumstances. I have had Bose, high end Sony, Anker, and there are often times when you need it to connect in a rush and it forces you to shut down the device, the bluetooth on the phone, and waste 30 seconds that feel like 5 minutes.
It works especially well when switching between devices, from iPhone to iPad to Mac and so on. I’ve never had the same seamless experience with other brands which often require you to re-pair just to switch.
I used to be a huge Audio Technica fan but I can’t go back anymore.
Complete opposite experience. Moved to the Apple ecosystem including the watch, and the seamlessness of how airpods work with them all had me give away all my other earbuds - even though the airpods do not have the best sound quality. The convenience of everything just working had me never reaching for anything else.
I have plenty of complaints about Apple, but the Airpods experience is one the stickiest user experiences they have and would be one of the harder things to give up if I moved back to Android.
Are you sure you haven't got a faulty pair? Mine switch seamlessly between devices. I bought a bluetooth speaker recently and using it is hell on earth comparatively. The number of times I have to find the device it last connected to and disconnect before I can connect the one I actually want is absurd.
Agreed. Unrelated pro-tip: wearing them while riding a motorcycle. Reduces fatigue and transforms a rough experience into almost luxurious. Highly recommended.
Stupidly dangerous and (in my country) illegal.
Please retract your comment and don't encourage such stupidity.
EDIT: Since this is being misinterpreted... Earplugs that deaden sound are fine and encouraged on a motorbike, playing music in your ears is what masks other sound and is both stupid and illegal.
Really depends on how they are being worn. If they are on without any sound being played its fine. Ear plugs are highly encouraged while riding a motorcycle and after a decade plus of riding I have never thought ear plugs along with a headset prevented me from hearing whats going on around me.
Maybe it is your own misinterpretation as the parent never said they were playing music on them. You might not realize just how loud the wind noise is on a bike, you are not exactly hearing your surroundings music or not. Most if not all of your awareness on a motorcycle is coming from your eyes not ears, so hard to really say its stupid.
There's just a tiny step from wearing noise canceling earphones with no music playing, to pressing a button and blaring Bat out of Hell while you speed down the mountainside.
In any case, it's irrelevant - as far as I know, wearing headphones or earphones while driving a motorcycle is illegal whether or not you happen to be playing music in them, because how would anyone else know? If you get in an accident and get charged with distracted driving, that's on you. If you want earplugs, just wear them. They're much cheaper and more effective than sound cancelling headphones if you genuinely just want to block noise.
Not sure what your trying to a argue but it simply depends on the local laws but from a safety perspective I cannot think of many opportunities the sound would save you as it’s already loud enough from wind noise alone. I ride with a comm system that I play media over and trying to be reflective of my past and I don’t see it. Not really advocating one way or the other like yourself, I don’t have that strong of a feeling about that law but from purely a safety aspect I don’t fully agree with the opinion. If you don’t want to wear ear protection just don’t wear it. It’s your ears.
> I ride with a comm system that I play media over and trying to be reflective of my past and I don’t see it.
One risk is your focus going from what's on the road to what's coming into your ears.
This may have some useful mental aspects if you're doing a long-distance drudgery ride down Route 66 with nothing much happening in between pitstops, but it's another thing on I-5 or I-95 with all sorts of chaotic lane changes going on.
Visual awareness is much more important for safety than sound especially once your at speed. Distracted driving is completely different and can happen anywhere. We should be arguing that cars should not have any speakers if that’s the case.
> We should be arguing that cars should not have any speakers if that’s the case.
Even speaking with passengers has been shown to increase traffic incidents:
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13698...
* https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/1899-15
* https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
It's a debate spectrum / sliding scale on how society wants to go, but at the very least one should be aware of the risk factors and be mindful of where your attention is.
> I cannot think of many opportunities the sound would save you as it’s already loud enough from wind noise alone
I am a bit stunned reading this.. Is this a common perspective of motorcyclists?
What is the stunning part? It’s not so much a perspective but pretty common safety advice, visual awareness is much more important than sound while operating a motorcycle. I suspect the gap is from folks who have only driven a car so there can be a sense of shock.
Like all things it does depend on where you ride and the general driving culture. In America that’s how I ride but in Vietnam it’s very different. Road rules are not as often followed and honking is common to make yourself known, usually while there I wear lower db reduction ear protection.
I am also not saying that there is zero opportunity to hear a horn but already on a motorcycle you have to have so much more awareness that I don’t find that sounds are all that helpful. It absolutely applies to driving a car too, after driving a motorcycle for a while I am as shocked as you just how unaware drivers are of their surroundings.
Keep in mind at around 35mph you can easily hit 85-90db from the wind. I do think ear protection actually helps identifying sounds but I still argue the hearing part is not that helpful.
I am not trying to say you have to follow my methods but folks calling for criminal punishment and shaming are a bit too far as the safety benefit from hearing is quite minimal depending on the driving culture.
> I am a bit stunned reading this.. Is this a common perspective of motorcyclists?
No.
For example, every beginner-advice thread in /r/motorcycle has a highly-upvoted comment(s) recommending ear protection, including many folks stating they wish they had started using it earlier.
And even if it is conceded that sound may not save you from other vehicles, ear pro(tection) reduces the health risk of hearing loss that would effect other aspects of your life.
At highway speeds, the wind is loud. The engine is often loud even with a factory exhaust. The only audible signal that's likely to matter is a car horn, and those are loud enough to hear over music at reasonable volume.
Cars are quieter, and hearing other vehicles is more likely. If anyone shouldn't listen to music, it's car drivers, not motorcyclists.
Since the advent of EVs, its not a safety issue imo. When Tesla's first came out, and the first adopters were all people that wanted to drive FAST, I was often surprised by them, especially since I always rode slightly faster than traffic as a safety mitigation technique. I quickly learned to use my eyes more.
My eyes are my ears and you cannot rely on sound to know who or what might be coming up from behind you. Mirrors and head on a swivel are way more important.
It’s been a thing since the Prius allowed driving with the engine off with parents complaining that the Prius is a silent killer of kids because they couldn’t hear them coming.
Deaf people manage to get licenses with no problem. My hearing was never tested to get my license, unlike my eyesight.
Deaf people have a lifetime of training (hopefully) and experience dealing with things like this in ways the are appropriate for their situation
> Deaf people have a lifetime of training (hopefully) and experience
Not every deaf person is born that way, mate.
I wear earplugs and play music via Cardo while riding nearly every single day. It's fine.
Let's be realistic - noise cancelling isn't a perfect technology. I rode with my AirPods for a short period of time and could still hear everything I needed to. The only reason I switched is because they're uncomfortable in a helmet.
My earbuds have a setting to allow for outside noises. Wearing them while walking, I often hear cars and other people well before I see them. Even with louder music, I still hear them. I can hold a conversation with people without taking them out. I don't wear them without music, though, because my own breathing is also louder and irritating.
If I have the noise cancelling turned on, it would be downright unsafe.
While it is likely illegal in many places, it isn't everywhere and the safety risk depends on what sort of equipment you have.
Is using headphones on a bike with music on or not somehow different from driving in a Lexus with music on or not?
Yeah, it’s definitely higher risk.
When riding a motorcycle, you’ll encounter people that don’t see you almost every trip. The same is not true in a car.
Riding a bike is just a 100% engagement thing with higher risks and lower margins for error, for all kinds of reasons. And it’s not just traffic, minor pavement imperfections become relevant, the necessary skill floor is also higher. It just demands more attention, straight up.
In a car, you shouldn’t, and it’s not without risk, but you CAN occasionally get away with minor distractions: adjusting the radio, seat, etc. That just doesn’t work on a bike as well. I’m failing to properly articulate the why, but it really is fundamentally different in some ways. I’ve spent many years doing both, and the bike just demands more of your attention resources, independent of your vulnerability in the event of an accident.
Noise cancellation headphones that will block out loud things or ambulances approaching you, sitting exposed on a motor strapped to two wheels at a high speed? Yes. That is different from driving in a Lexus.
The ambulance with the bright flashing lights? ANC doesn't dim your eyes. This is absolute nonsense.
I drive a car and ride a bicycle and an e-bike in Miami. The ANC isn’t that magical, I hear plenty of out of the algorithm noises (ambulances, etc). Head on a swivel and look straight.
well, one comes with a pretty strong safety cage, so there is that difference.
At least in Germany I think wearing headphones in ANY vehicle is against the law, even a bicycle, and even if you’re not listening to music (IANAL).
That’s wrong. Wearing headphones is not banned. Isolating yourself to a degree where you cannot hear warning signals (emergency vehicles, car horns) is (10 € fine), though that’s not the same as being able to hear all traffic sounds (which would be non-sensical, given that cars are and have been for a very long time quite sound isolating. Horns and emergency vehicles are two of the only things that really get through.)
In practice this means that police won’t do anything about people wearing headphones. Wearing them is totally fine. However, if you get into an accident you might get a larger part of the blame if it’s determined that you not hearing so well contributed to the accident. (The rules of the road do have a general clause that you need to pay sufficient attention – so anything distracting might get you to shoulder more of a blame in case of an accident, even if it isn’t explicitly banned. Use common sense …)
As I said, cars are inherently quite isolating, so car-centric maniacs better try not to legislate my right to wear headphones while riding the bike aways while they sit in their sound dampened boxes, casually overtaking me with too little distance.
(I strongly suggest to never turn on noise isolation while riding the human powered kind of bike and I also recommend either turning on the pass-through mode or just putting in the earphone on the side away from the road.)
It's been decades since I've ridden motorcyles but as I recall the helmet usually had foam padding over the ears and that was adequate for wind and noise reduction.
It is not illegal in every country. Further, wind noise and exhaust are too loud to hear anything anyway, so having music on and navigation is a bonus.
That's completely untrue, speaking as someone who drives a motorcycle every day, at least if you're not driving some horrible (to everyone around you) 500cc beast, you can hear things just fine. Especially horns, trucks, busses etc.
Speaking as someone who has raced, commuted and has run multiple iron butts. Only really true at low speeds and if you are not wearing ear protection (which is a choice). Once earpro is in and you are going a decent speed there is really not much to be heard. Have never found hearing to save me from situations. If someone is honking that I am in danger I am probably already in it.
Absolutely your choice not to wear hearing protection though. Eventually you will get naturally immune to it.
> If someone is honking that I am in danger I am probably already in it.
This is an incredibly dumb and dangerous attitude to hold and you need to rethink things if you've become so overconfident in your driving because you've raced or done "iron butts", whatever those are. Driving on real roads isn't like racing and you need to separate your attitudes and driving styles in each situation before your arrogance causes an accident. Remember that it's not just your life on the line but the other innocent people around you too.
No need to take that kind of tone. It’s condescending when you have not even defended your position beyond talking down to me.
As I said elsewhere, it depends on driving culture and where you are located in the world. It’s not a hard and fast rule. In America sound serves little safety though I can still hear car horns generally speaking with earpro on. In Vietnam because of the culture, organized chaos and usage of horns I will usually opt for low db ear protection. Semis will absolutely honk and run you over there. Since you consider a 500cc a beast I can generally pinpoint your location and understandable why you think like you do.
In both situations though, most of your safety is still from strong visual awareness.
You’re failing the shibboleths though. You don’t drive a motorcycle, you ride one. A 500cc bike is low mid range, not a beast. You can’t hear rolling or engine noise of cars, trucks or busses over 50kph if you’re wearing a helmet.
Further, sound deadened cars with the stereo on an appreciable level also aren’t conducive to perceiving what’s around you.
Speaking as someone who commuted on 600 twins and 300 singles for years, if you’re wearing hearing protection and listening to some tunes and navigation hints you’re fine. Just ride defensively like you should, and make sure you’re not over doing it on the volume.
Have you driven a 500cc? Modern supersport and adventure bikes have very quiet exhausts. Any loud exhaust you hear on your commute is usually somebody who put an aftermarket muffler on their 125cc bike.
If that's illegal than cars with closed windows would be illegal too. Even more so if they have the radio on. As a cyclist I keep having issues with car drivers not hearing anything happening outside of their vehicle (not a bell, not yelling, not a bicycle hooter). That's like wearing headphones or earplugs and still is considered normal. I'd love if everyone would be required to drive a cabrio.
Agreed. The people who complain about earphones while riding/driving/cycling are older and grew up in an era where they had advertisements on television warning people not to do that. The actual risk is fairly minimal. As you point out: modern cars are designed to be super quiet. Just use some common sense.
Cars are much more safe in a crash (surrounded with a steel frame, airbags, safety belt...) and also safer while driving (better mirrors, bigger and easier to see).
I use the bike, and I know for a fact that almost any crash with a car means me in a coffin. I need all my senses at 100%, can't afford the luxury of listening to music or wear shorts for example.
Cars are only safer in a crash if you are inside the car. They are a big problem for anyone they crash into. That's why it's so very important that you see and hear everything happening around you. Why should the once with more mass and speed have the luxury of listening to music?
hence the term ‘cager’ - once you experience the phenomena from a bicycle or motorcycle it becomes obvious.
Why stop people from winning Darwin awards?
A lot of motorcyclists are the scum of society in other ways. Probably higher levels of domestic violence than the police.
You want to wear airpods while on the motorcycle? If this is an unironic idea you are having, indulge!
In your opinion, how hard should somebody beat their wife to deserve an extremely painful death or being mutilated for a lifetime?
If this is what you fancy, your local emergency services will probably welcome you to come along with them for a day, so that you can laugh and jeer at people while they are dying or dead.
> A lot of motorcyclists are the scum of society in other ways.
Speaking as a hairy-arsed biker, this comment makes me feel proud :-)
You should be wearing ear protection in any case. The fact that the AirPods have a published SNL is a bonus.
> Agreed. Unrelated pro-tip: wearing them while riding a motorcycle. Reduces fatigue and transforms a rough experience into almost luxurious. Highly recommended.
What kind of NRR rating, active or passive, do they have?
I wear disposable foam plugs when riding, and haven't ever considered using the AirPods I have. I find the sound of the machine part of the experience of riding and wouldn't really want to get rid of it; I treat the moto sound as a kind of white noise that's different that everything else in my life (though this is with a short-ish commute, and not long-distance drudgery).
If I wanted music or comms I would probably lean more towards ear plugs plus a Cardo/Sena unit. Or perhaps something with an official ANSI/CSA NRR rating, like Isotunes.
Use a model of in-ear phones which let you still hear the low frequency rumbling of the motor. That's the pleasant part of the noise anyway.
When I got my (admittedly car) license they made it clear that's illegal. Hasn't stopped people from doing it but yeah don't. Maybe get a quieter exhaust
It's illegal in a few places in the US, but not everywhere. It's definitely not illegal to put in a few kW of amplifiers and a few square feet of speakers, and often not even a problem to turn them all the way up and stop whole areas from hearing anything.
Those loudspeakers on wheels at volume are illegal in many places -what’s not happening is police caring enough to make arrests. Maybe other jurisdictions will take a cue from Las Vegas and begin enforcing laws to protect normal people from teenagers and adult idiots who still think they’re teenagers taking over streets.
Arrests seem like overkill. Ask them to stop, issue a fine, whatever. Sure I get you're asking for any enforcement at all. But hyperbole has a polarizing effect on discourse we should try to avoid, IMHO.
Yes, I agree, but really we shouldn't even be comparing "arrests" and "fine". The latter is a punishment, and the former is a practical measure to prevent a future crime (such as destruction of evidence) or to prevent someone from evading justice (by destroying evidence, hiding or leaving the country, for example). Obviously some police forces do use arrests and searches and confiscation of "evidence" as a form of extrajudicial punishment but that shouldn't be allowed.
Arrest? No, but if you've done illegal modifications to your ride then being forced to get it from the impound lot seems fairer to me compared to a ticket you can pay at your convenience.
In this case, it's not the modification that is potentially illegal, but instead the noise that it can make.
A big-honking stereo system isn't illegal to have at home or in a car in any jurisdiction I'm aware of, but there can be limits on how loudly it is used.
A stereo is a lot like a hammer in this way: Anyone can have a hammer. There's plenty of legal things a person can use a hammer for, and also plenty of illegal things as well. But the hammer itself, of any size, is A-OK.
There can even be time limits on when hammering is allowed[1].
[1]: I was involved in fire remediation after a friend's house burned. There was a lot of work to do, and we were working very late. The police showed up and politely told us that we'd need to keep it quiet until morning and suggested that they would find some way to make us quiet down if we didn't. We stopped hammering and tossing things into the dumpster at 11PM after that incident.
Earplugs are pretty common on a motorcycle. The issue is not the exhaust, its the wind which gets to damaging levels at pretty low speeds.
wouldnt the helmet prevent that ?
The helmet protects the ears from direct airflow noise, but it also extends out into the high-speed airflow much more than ears do.
The overall picture is that a helmet’s thick material blocks high frequencies. But it exacerbates and amplifies low frequency sound and white noise. As well, a helmet confuses the ear’s capabilities for identifying direction of sound that’s incoming
If a helmet is helpful is a question of how fast the motorcycle is moving and what kinds of sounds the rider needs to hear.
It’s complicated, but wearing no helmet might be safer at low speeds because the driver is more aware. No helmet, is undoubtedly not safer at high speed because brains are fragile
Edit: a simple experiment for anyone is to put on a full size motorcycle helmet anywhere, and then you can understand how much your hearing is dampened by it. But I guess it’s probably no worse than the experience of someone driving a car, which is soundproof by design
Not at all. 30-40mph you can hit around 90 db inside the helmet. You’re not that much better with a helmet off either. Air moving over surfaces is loud, if not the helmet you are going to get it from the wind hitting your ears.
There are certainly helmets that try to optimize for noise but there is no single one fix beyond ear plugs.
Fully agree that its dumb but even on my electric motorcycle at sub-highway speeds, the wind noise was the only thing I could hear.
You're revealing that you have never rode a motorbike with your comment.
Riders need to use ear protection within the helmet unless they want to become deaf in the future, because of the wind noise.
So you're making noise for everyone else, while enjoying silence yourself?
There’s this thing called wind that makes noise and also other vehicles on the road as well. Did you ever consider that?
You're right, my comment is unfair. In my defense, I've had my sleep interrupted several times recently by motorcyclists trying to make as much noise as possible, so I'm a little ornery ;)
In Europe it's strictly forbidden to wear headphones under the helmet. In case of a fall the in-ear device could cause grave injuries. Wearing a recent helmet and protective gloves with hardened knuckles is of course mandatory. But many helmets are equipped with bluetooth speakers and mike, of course.
> In Europe it's strictly forbidden to wear headphones under the helmet.
No it's not.
> protective gloves with hardened knuckles is of course mandatory
No it's not.
Being able to hear your surroundings on a motorcycle or bicycle seems very important for safety to me. Filtering that out feels dangerous.
In the Netherlands they banned wearing earplugs/headphones on bicycles for this reason (as well as using your device). Whether that's enforced / enforceable is another matter though.
On a motorcycle you need hearing protection due to wind noise, but good plugs will filter out the louder noises, not so much important ones.
On a pedal bike, it's very important because you are most likely to be hit by cars from behind. Motorcycles move much faster, and most riders wear helmets as well, already impacting hearing. The road noise and wind is very loud, try rolling down the window in a car on the freeway and imagine that on .your whole body.
Had a close call with a cyclist going the same direction as me. She veered over in my direction as I was overtaking and was rather startled to see me, as she was wearing Airpods.
>you are most likely to be hit by cars from behind
Do you have a source for this info? It contradicts what I've read about the subject.
Just personal and anecdotal experience, and also that bike lanes usually move with traffic rather than against it.
As a cyclist, I find sound such a poor signal I'd consider it optional. Too many threats are silent and sound is too late, misleadingly bounces of other surfaces and generally poorly correlated with significance.
Safe cycling is all about vision. If you can't see it's safe, it's not. It isn't simply seeing imminent threats but predicting them e.g. identifying drivers that aren't paying attention and where a car could suddenly emerge like blind turnings, car doors, pedestrians and such, and countering with appropriate caution / road position.
If you find noise useful, IMHO it means you aren't sufficiently aware of your environment.
I cycle every day, and sound is definitely important; you need to plan ahead when you hear an ambulance approaching, for example. Plus, your brain processes things you see much better if there's a sound it can correlate the movement with.
There is practically nothing to hear that matters for your safety on a motorcycle at highway speeds. An ambulance you will hear even with headphones.
Sorry but no! On my corner of the world it's not allowed but more importantly it's dangerous. When riding your bike you must have all your senses fully engaged. First day I got on my new ride my dad gave me a piece of biker wisdom: You are the weakest and smallest vehicle () on the road, watch out and drive like nobody can see you or cares about you.
() Bicycles and other light vehicles excluded
I ride with AirPods on, no content playing, just transparency mode. It cuts harsh wind noise, maintains 3D acoustics, and keeps me safer as a result. They’re a hearing aid for me in this case.
You may want to get some passive ear protection though, active noise canceling is not the same as noise protection.
Unless you drive slowly, I find that driving at 60 kph max is still comfortable on the ears.
No, riding for a long time without ear protection will damage your ears. Ear plugs at least are recommended. I am not hearing anything over the wind and engine noise anyway.
> (i.e. loud and busy environments with many strangers, often physically closer than comfortable) is unnatural to begin with.
That's very natural when it comes to life in an urban setting. Love it or hate it, we wouldn't have been here now (I'm talking from a civilizational pov) without us humans moving into the cities.
I think the argument is that the urban setting itself is ancestrally unnatural. Only a tiny proportion of humans lived in areas full of strangers in close proximity until the last hundred or two hundred years, which is not long enough for any related changes to spread widely given generation length.
> I think the argument is that the urban setting itself is ancestrally unnatural.
That was my point, yes.
I would even argue that being surrounded by people is a natural state. Being isolated in a suburban home or an automobile is probably just as unnatural as being “surrounded by strangers”.
Our ancient ancestors probably did all of the following within eyesight and earshot of around 40 people:
- Eating
- Drinking
- Defecating
- Fornicating
- Bathing
- Exercising
Edit: I’m also deeply fascinated by the ability of historical sociolinguistics to give us insight into cultural attitudes towards different topics. Consider the evolution of and the attitude towards the expletives “fuck” and “Jesus Christ!”
But those 40 people were likely more or less consistent and known to you and you also had direct or implied trust built up with them.
That's fundamentally different from an anonymous mass of people in a city. I've seen and heard much more than 40 people (many of them different every day) before I even reach the office in the morning.
Two extremes, equally unnatural, was simply my point.
Either you have to trick your mind that the people who are going about the same rituals with you shoulder-to-shoulder are part of the same tribe as you: using the same bus, coffee shop, elevator.
Or you have to trick your mind that being completely alone and going hours, sometimes days, without opening your mouth to communicate with someone or exercise the part of your brain that reads facial cues or even smell the hormones of another human (good or bad) is also somehow okay.
Having done both (2 major metros, as well as suburban and WFH life), I’ve found the former to be easier for me, personally. I also find suburban and rural people to be generally more misanthropic than urban people, which of course has some selection bias. Exurban people seem to be the most misanthropic, by far (shout out Dallas-Fort Worth).
But the point is, being surrounded by people day-in and day-out doesn’t seem to me to make people misanthropic on aggregate - otherwise cities would be an even worse place to exist. It’s the humans that make it bearable.
> we wouldn't have been here now (I'm talking from a civilizational pov) without us humans moving into the cities.
What do you have in mind specifically?
Edit: I'm aware that statistically, there's more inventions in metropolitan areas. However I'm not sure how much of that we can really attribute to causal effects that are unique to cities, especially today. Obviously, many universities are in metropolitan areas, but on the other hand, we have many tools for remote collaboration that we didn't have 200 years ago. So I'm not sure if cities are not an outdated concept.
Strongly feeling a need to isolate yourself is not healthy and unnatural.
This varies enormously by where you live.
I live out in the countryside. If I run into someone in the road, I will nod my head, maybe introduce myself, and maybe chat, if the other person is interested. (To be fair, I know about 80% of the people I see in the road.) This is normal behavior. Sometimes, two cars will pass each other and stop to talk.
I have also lived in the city. If a stranger wants to talk to me in the city, either they're looking for directions (happy to help!), or they are deeply confused about appropriate social behavior in crowded spaces. In the latter case, I'm lucky if the stranger-with-no-boundaries merely wants to warn me about the dangers of the lizard people. So I've learned to ignore strangers.
> If a stranger wants to talk to me in the city, either they're looking for directions (happy to help!), or they are deeply confused about appropriate social behavior in crowded spaces
A neat summary of the article.
Talk to the old fogies in said city and they will saddle you with complaints of how people used to say good morning, how are you doing, etc. It didn’t used to be this way. Alas, we probably won’t be talking to the old fogies either.
We used to have a much more rigid system of social enforcement - for good and for bad. People used to feel bad when they did things society disliked. It had real consequences. People knew what you did and you wouldn't be invited to events or be hired. The downside was that people who lived alternative lifestyles (such as those who were gay) were also ostracised.
Unfortunately we threw the baby out with the bathwater, and decided that all actions are equally socially acceptable and there should be no social repercussions for living "differently."
This is why I prefer smaller, culturally homogenous communities. We all understand the rules and we generally abide.
> People knew what you did and you wouldn't be invited to events or be hired.
I feel like this has almost never been true in big cities: it's impossible to know everyone and unless they made the news for what they did word wouldn't travel very far.
Besides that, I also haven't observed what you're describing in both the smaller communities and the cities I've lived in. People absolutely do still get socially ostracized all the time in real life.
You're just taking the Western code of social conduct as "normal". Human interaction is completely normal and natural.
Isolating yourself in certain situations isn't the same as not having human interaction and sticking 10 million humans in a small area and expecting them to always interact with all of the others is in no way normal or natural. Sometimes interacting with ~100ish people (within an order of magnitude) over your month is natural. Too many is both exhausting and diluting of the meaning, too few is lonely and over isolating.
You're trying to follow an out-of-date map. Our technology-infused growth of the past 50 years has produced more widespread mental illness and psycopathy than someone in the 80's could have even imagined. At this point in our societal evolution, you cannot assume that HUMANS THEMSELVES are either normal or natural.
Human interaction, sure. Human interaction with complete strangers, 10 inches away from you, enclosed in a metal tube you cannot escape from easily... not so much.
Just because you personally disagree with something does not make it a universal wrong.
Thinking so is immature and unwise behavior.
For a non-solitary species that requires almost 2 decades for self-sufficiency, isolation is not a question of personal opinion, it is fundamental.
But we are talking about a temporary and situational isolation here. I'm not wearing Airpods when I meet family or friends.
Well, let's just say my needs changed a bit over the next two decades.. yours did not?
This is a very un-nuanced and combative take on a lot of people's lives. It reminds me of it being socially acceptable for the extrovert to say to the introvert, "Why don't you talk more?" while it is not acceptable for the introvert to say to the extrovert, "Why don't you talk less?"
As they explain, living in such close proximity to thousands of strangers is also not how we evolved. The earphones are an adaptive strategy. Like masks on public transport during pandemics. We don't have to adapt to modern society, but we can make it more pleasant in various ways, depending on our preferences.
I'd agree in general terms, but I don't think city life or existing in busy and noisy spaces is either. Isolating as described (by putting on noise-canceling earphones) is a way to manage and reduce sensory input to something within your own control.
Some people are comfortable with that, some people (say they) are used to it, but a lot of people find that blocking it out works better for them.
> …not healthy and unnatural
I don’t think you can say this categorically without taking context and a myriad of facets of one’s socio-emotional situation into consideration.
> (i.e. loud and busy environments with many strangers, often physically closer than comfortable) is unnatural to begin with.
What is unnatural about this? We have plenty of anthropological evidence that humans have been doing massive festivals for at least many thousands of years i.e. people voluntarily gathering together with strangers in loud and busy environments with all sorts of sounds and smells.
We still have festival type experiences: concerts, street festivals, gatherings in a park, church, etc. None of them particularly look like the bus.
For one, when and where this was the case, it was probably once a year or so.* Not daily or weekly.
Furthermore, the "voluntarily" bit plays a big role as well. If I were to go to a big festival (as you can guess, I wouldn't), then I guess I would be fine with the people. But that's not the same as commuting IMHO, where I'm together with lots of people involuntarily.
* it's an interesting topic actually, so if you have any sources, I'd like to read them.
We have anthropological evidence that humans lived like sardines in a can 24/7? Where?
Ah yes, that natural many-thousand-year-old massive festival tradition we all know and love: the twice-daily subway ride. Good comparison.
After reading about the default mode network here a few times recently, I think missing out on all that critical "daydreaming" time is a bigger problem. I've stopped listening to things while I'm out walking, and I've noticed a lot more solutions and ideas coming to me. The DMN seems to fall into a similar area as meditation (remember when that was all the rage among tech leaders?); the lowered input noise gives the brain time to clear things out.
I often put AirPods in and turn the noise cancellation on, but don't play any audio. Many other commenters mention the same thing.
Different people have different levels of ability to filter out background noise. Some people can focus and ignore the outside world so much that you have to wave a hand in front of their face if you need their attention. Other people can't help but parse background conversations and noises all around them.
Noise cancelling headphones level the playing field for people in the second category: It allows them to dial down the distractions and focus like the first group when their environment is fighting hard against it.
Even listening to background music has the same effect for many people. Music, especially familiar music, is not necessarily engaging enough to pull people out of their relaxed states and focus on the music.
I'm a big fan of having noise cancelling earphones in with no music or audio when going for a walk. It's amazing how it forces you to think as you say and brings a kind of clarity.
I am a big fan of walking around in nature (even parks) enjoying nature sounds. It positively affects my mood. Bird sounds are my favorite, but while in bed I love the rain outside.
Same! To the point that when I'm home I'm usually playing outdoor ambient noise mimicking that.
No doubt this website has a better range of sounds, but this is also built into iOS/MacOS as an accessibility feature which means you can use it even when offline.
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/mac-help/mchl3061cdc6/...
ooooo thank you for this link!!! its weirdly hard for me to find ones i like on youtube. this huge for me haha
Everything has its moments :) Most of the times I like complete silence, so often I sit up until 3-4 so I can sit on the balcony for 10/15 minutes in complete silence. Other times walking in nature hearing the environment and animals brings a lot of mindfulness and introspection. I've been nostalgic for the sounds of a running train in the past too, or just the rumble of living next to a busy plaza, but too much of that would be annoying too.
I guess ultimately variety is what I like :)
I miss daydreaming too. In younger years, I often had boring, repetitive work but I could daydream the full day. Then as more you need the brain for work, as less time you have to daydream. Now I have really cool work, but I can't daydream at all. Even I use mostly public transportation (train) and have my headphones with me, I rarely use they. I kind like to hear and feel the people around me.
In high school and college I worked at a Christmas tree farm, and eventually was also a landscaper/hardscaper, caring for, digging up and planting trees, and building retaining walls and patios. At the time it made for good motivation to keep doing well in school, as the hours were long, and while easy for a fit 18-22 year old, definitely back breaking kind of stuff.
However, looking back on it I miss those weeks and months on end of having 6+ hours a day to be outside, working my body, but doing tasks that let my mind wander all over. No doubt those years of daydreaming helped me become the person I am today, and everybody has to grow up at some point, but I do wish I could get more of that back into my daily life. In fact, I think a large part of my current path towards early retirement is just to have that sort of time back.
Just any time in your day where you’re not bombarded with external input is getting very rare
> After reading about the default mode network here a few times recently, I think missing out on all that critical "daydreaming" time is a bigger problem.
Part of the reason why I listen to music and scroll my phone is to get some peace from the default mode network.
I don't feel like I would do it as often if my mind didn't insist on being busy all the time.
> The DMN seems to fall into a similar area as meditation (remember when that was all the rage among tech leaders?); the lowered input noise gives the brain time to clear things out.
I am not skilled enough in that department to say anything with certainty. But formal meditation is about intentionally focusing the mind, and the talkative mind or whatever it is called in the buddhist traditions is probably this default mode network. Which is the first obstacle; being able to focus on the meditation object without having your attention hijacked because oh what's for dinner, did I send that email, but what about that other email, oh but I couldn't log in on my phone, oh by the way that phone is also annoying in terms of that related thing, but I should stop using my phone as much anyway what about getting one of those dual SIM cards that I read about on HN.
In my experience, it's probably healthier for the mind to have the DMN active more than someone who can distract themselves all the time do. But to me DMT looks to meditation like sunbathing looks to a day's hike (yeah you're outside for both of these activities but).
I'll take the opportunity to add that there are as many meditative goals and techniques as there are cultures.
What you are describing is likely closest to certain forms of zazen, in which one tries to focus on just one thing or no-thing in order to quiet the mind.
However, just as common, is the various vipassana schools in which one attempts to gain specific insight through specific observation.
In the former, enlightenment comes from still states, in the latter from evolving states.
Then of course there are many visualization and trance traditions, though those are more common the further west you go from SEA.
All that is to say that not all meditation is simple sitting. There are walking meditations, dancing meditations, chanting meditations, visualizations, prayer, etc. And while they differ in technique, they all have the goal of achieving some specific state of mind.
I've done the exact same. I frequently take walks and walk places and often used that time for an audio book or podcast. A zen revelation has been taking these walks and not bringing my phone. It's my daily meditation.
Yeah, I have noticed this as well. When I’m trying to solve a difficult problem, it seems that way more ideas arrive to me unprompted when I take a break from heavy listening.
> The DMN seems to fall into a similar area as meditation
I'm curious about the relationship between mind wandering as exploration leading to insight and mind wandering as rumination. It seems like DMN is more associated with the latter. Its association with meditation likely comes from studies like the below.
Meditation leads to reduced default mode network activity beyond an active task
ADHD + Airpods means that I'm often putting them in, and stepping out of the house and completely forgetting to put something on. I'll just walk around with the noise cancelling on and it's super nice in a busy city.
I don't remember any time in my life where it ever felt normal to me to randomly talk to strangers. I went to London when I was a teenager and was made uncomfortable by how chatty the cab drivers were. Later, I worked at a startup and my boss was preternaturally gifted at chatting up strangers, which he did habitually in every setting we were in when we traveled; on the plane, on the bus from the airport, &c. I remember feeling like he was a freak of nature.
And I'm not an introvert!
All of this long predates Airpods.
I think this is a cultural difference, not a technological shift.
> I don't remember any time in my life where it ever felt normal to me to randomly talk to strangers. [...] And I'm not an introvert!
Life's so interesting sometimes! I consider myself an introvert, and I don't remember any point in time where it ever felt abnormal to talk randomly to the humans ("strangers") around you, regardless if you know them or not. We're both humans, why not see who the other one right next to you are? :) Maybe I'm just "too curious".
It was kind of confusing growing up in Sweden, where most people don't share this idea, so of course it felt really isolating when almost zero strangers actually engage even a tiny bit. Luckily, I figured out I lived in the wrong country relatively quick, and now live in a country (Spain) much more aligned with my own mindset, and having the time of my life chatting with everyone and everything, and they even respond back!
why do you consider yourself an introvert if you enjoy chatting with everyone and everything?
I fit this description too. I consider myself an introvert (that is, more introverted than extroverted; very few people are exclusively one or the other) because I need to be alone to recharge. When my "social battery" is full, I eagerly start conversations with strangers, and even when it is drained I'm comfortable talking to people, though I might not desire to.
It all depends on the subject - I can talk about cooking, climate change, collapse, film for hours. As for sports, gossip, celebrities, I clam up. Ditto for any talk that's status seeking or not curious and bi-directional.
Introvert doesn't mean one doesn't enjoy socializing, just that one needs quiet down time to recharge from it. Extroverts tend to be energized by socialization. It's also not always so cleanly binary, either.
I really hate that introversion gets conflated with social anxiety or misanthropy on the internet.
I’ve strange news from the business world. That ability to talk to strangers and be conversational with various topics is actually making him a rather successful boss/business-person. Remember, not just talking, but the far better one is the ability to listen, and take genuine curiosity in the other person’s stories.
I learned, and am still learning, to start with very subtle conversations in contextual proximity to the person without shocking/surprising them. And then, I mostly try to listen more and try to guide them to talk more. You will be surprised at how many a lot are eager to talk to someone, if they are being listented to.
I'm sure that's true but not everyone is cut out to be a "business-person". I certainly am not. Same with boss, I'm not a team player at all.
I don't mind small talk sometimes but there has to be some kind of common ground. For example with conservative family-first suit types I have nothing to talk about and it feels awkward to make conversation, but with the leather/mesh/blue hair alt/goth types I can talk for hors.
>For example with conservative family-first suit types
"hey man, how're the kids?" "Is your wife recovering from [illness] you mentioned last week?" "man, have heard the music on the radio lately?" "what kind of music do you like?" "can I ask you a personal question, what was the hardest part of getting the success you have?" "did you know you wanted to be a boss/manager when you were a kid? No? Oh, you wanted to be an astronaut? Oh man, no way, have you seen the crazy stuff spacex is doing with re-useable rockets? We're getting so close to (relevant sci-fi from when he was a kid)"
You've just got to have an open mind, which you'd think you'd have given your conversational partner preferences.
"SpaceX is a fraud. Its all about control. That's why in the future you'll be eating bugs because it's Greta Thunberg".
I am only partly paraphrasing actual conversation with my father in-law.
I cannot stress enough that what you think will work here doesn't: literally every topic will be pivoted towards a rant about which groups are destroying the future (all of them), or how it's all a conspiracy or how they are plotting against you.
You've invented a conversation you think works. I have lived a damn decade of the list of "safe" topics endlessly shrinking, and the punchline is same: 30 damn minutes of alternately being told some half remembered conspiracy theory from Facebook or asking for agreement that group are bad.
That scifi concept from when they were kid? Well they are lying about that for money of course.
It is exhausting to deal with over and over again.
You can lean in to that though. I live in a rural county with 22k people in the entire county.
But you're painting two different pictures as if they are the same. The suited family type and the conspiracy theorist are different people.
Were I to know that I were dealing with a conspiracy theorist, the pivot is "I wish I could pay as little tax as rich people do (knowing fully well that they often pay far more than I do" or "yeah, it's crazy how the rich always abuse the little guy" or "what would you do if you were in their position (the same? ah well, at least it's understandable. Different, there, you see, there are good people like you and I left to fight the fight!) Or, hell, just for funsies you can play Conspiracy Olympics in which you try to outgun and outthink their own wild ideas. "Oh yeah, well 'spacex is a fraud' is exactly what a russian sleeper agent would say!"
I'll admit that there have been a small number of people that I simply could not connect with on any level, but working in non-profits and with volunteers, you get used to people's quirks and figure out how to work with them on their level. And what's more, you'll often end up being considered one of their few friends or even just "one of the good ones in their book" because so many people are just completely dismissive of them because they don't like their ideas.
You're engaging in exactly the kind of behavior that many of them complain about, their "no one cares, everyone's out to get me" mentality is only enforced by your "it is not possible for me to talk to or associate with these people". You are in fact one of the they that is plotting to remove this demographic from your own reality. It is not a stretch for them to imagine that you would prefer that they did not exist.
Kindness is not complicated.
It's equally tiring hearing about how every problem in society is a result of capitalism and how conservatives are all facists and are scheming for a way to bring back concentration camps and want to deport everyone who doesn't have three generations of native-born ancestors.
There are fringe kooks at all edges of the spectrum and they are all tiring and boring.
But most guys on the train wearing a suit are just normal people who have to dress like that because their work requires it.
Assuming you have nothing in common with someone because of how they dress is just prejudice with better aesthetics :/
The suit guy probably has more interesting stories than you'd expect if you gave him thirty seconds.
If someone wears a suit they have a reason for it, it's not something people do because they like the feel of it. Because they're really restrictive, expensive and feel horrible. They do it to impress others or to fit in in business. Or when they're trying to sell something.
I'm more comfortable among other outliers.
You think the green haired folks are doing it because bleaching and dyeing their hair is just super duper fun? They're doing it for the same reasons: attention, approval, to fit in with their peers, trying to sell their identity to their peers.
If your suits feel bad you’re probably not wearing the right suits. They are expensive though, that’s definitely true, so it does reveal some of their preferences.
How much money do I need to get a suit that’s not miserable in 90f+ humid heat where even stepping outside in shorts and a t-shirt has you sweating after a few minutes?
I don't think it's necessarily the suit in that case. As a Florida resident, however, I like my Tommy Bahama suit's breathability but it might not be formal enough for every occasion. There's also some "super breathable" suit that I see being advertised a lot, but I haven't tried one of those.
It’s legit funny who you’re responding to with this exhortation on how to be a successful boss / business-person.
Talking to strangers is a skill. You can practice it! I've made a point of trying to practice, albeit halfheartedly, and even though it's difficult for me, because I like it when other people try to talk to me.
Earbuds stop this practice dead in its tracks. You can't deny that.
Talking to strangers is a skill. You can practice it! I've made a point of trying to practice, albeit halfheartedly, and even though it's difficult for me, because I like it when other people try to talk to me.
It is definitely something one can learn. I also like it very much. Most people are just very nice and love chatting a bit as well (just be respectful of their time and know when to bow out).
There are also other functions that purely having a good time. E.g. when you are in a train with reserved seats, striking op a conversation is also a good way of gauging whether it's ok to leave your bags when you leave your seat to grab a drink or some food. Also, people feel more responsible looking after your stuff once you have socialized a bit.
For me it's not super-difficult. I came from a small village where it is normal to greet people and maybe chat, even if you don't know them.
> Most people are just very nice and love chatting a bit as well
In my experience, this depends on the context. Everywhere I've lived the only time strangers try to talk to me is to either a) ask for directions (1%) or b) beg for money (99%).
I see people in these comments suggesting we should just say no thanks I don't want to chat -- I'd have to repeat that a dozen times a day. It's exhausting and I don't gain anything from it. I figure these folks must live in totally different locations.
> I came from a small village where it is normal to greet people and maybe chat, even if you don't know them.
Yeah, I could see that. If my village/city wasn't plagued by petition beggars or money beggars or merchant beggars I'd probably be more interested in engaging.
> I like it when other people try to talk to me.
Probably an unpopular point on HN, but this is very gendered. There's a lot of women who don't want to be chatted up who wear headphones, and therefore a lot of men who are annoyed at this visible signal that the woman doesn't want to listen to them.
We can leave room for "not wearing headphones is a signal that you're open to talk" without having to pressure people who aren't.
> There's a lot of women who don't want to be chatted up who wear headphones
This is true, but so is the opposite! I think the most important thing is to be kind and receptive. It's fine to start a conversation with a women wearing headphones, just take it in stride and don't be weird about it if she isn't interested in talking. I do this (with men and women) a lot.
It is true that women are more likely to be approached by creeps, and due to the physical differences between the sexes women are at higher risk in such situations. That said, we shouldn't dismiss women as too delicate or whatever to chat with. They're people!
> therefore a lot of men who are annoyed at this visible signal that the woman doesn't want to listen to them
I mean I'm sure there's a guy somewhere who's annoyed by this, but "a lot of men who are annoyed" feels like making up a group of people to be angry at.
Given how the media amplify things, it could perhaps be literally just one guy, but FWIW I too have heard of the phenomenon pjc50 described.
> Given how the media amplify things, it could perhaps be literally just one guy
If you go to popular tourist spots in Europe there’s usually that one guy who’s trying to scam everyone who passes by. It only takes one to be a huge nuisance.
yep. Just like it only takes a few prolific spammers to ruin email, it only takes a few antisocial con men to make "talking to strangers" seem like an imposition.
Sure, there are plenty of guys who are nuisances in all sorts of situations, but are there lots of guys who are angry that women use headphones?
Agree with the first part, very important! Not the second, however.
I joined my local fitness gym some months ago and use it to connect to people in the small town I moved to. Almost every time I'm there I manage to chat to someone briefly, and 50% of them have earpods in. Most of them now look up and greet me when we pass and multiple have up to me on other days to chat afterwards.
It's a skill and part of that skill is being able to give people an out of the chat if they don't feel for it, not interrupting at a bad time (mid set in a gym setting). My starter is usually a quick question with a "thank you so much, I'm new here" and if they reach for earpods to put back as they say you welcome, perfect you don't keep going. For the ones who want to chat keep them off and respond or ask something in return.
So headphones/earpods can be a barrier but for me it's a useful barrier and a clear signal, which helps both parties.
> Talking to strangers is a skill. You can practice it!
This is HN mate!
You need to design an app so people can practice it. (Alternately, rant something about "pick up artists").
The app should just disable your phone for the day so you have nothing to do but interact with the world.
We used to advocate governments turning off the internet on Friday nights and redirecting all WWW traffic to a test-card that says "Go to the pub".
> Earbuds stop this practice dead in its tracks. You can't deny that.
Yes it's a signal. For you to go find someone else to talk to :)
That doesn't mean I'm antisocial, there's just places where I go to be open to talk to people. Like bars, meetups, stuff like that. And places where I'm just to get from A to B and I don't want to. Usually when I'm in public transport I'm going to/from the office and I'm stressed because I deeply hate working in the office since Corona (no more fixed desks etc). So I need my space.
> I like it when other people try to talk to me.
I don’t.
Skill issue I'm afraid ;)
(Said as someone who used to feel the same way, before I discovered the joys of talking to strangers.)
I don’t mind talking to strangers, I’m actually a very chatty and genial person. Some would even say that I don’t know how to shut up. I just don’t want people (strangers or otherwise) to interrupt me at times when I don’t want to talk.
My question is, why do you think you’re entitled to consume strangers’ time?
I just pretend I haven't noticed they have earbuds in and start talking to them. Virtually everyone seems happy to have an interaction, I get the feeling people are a bit starved for random friendly contact.
I don't wear AirPods/headphones of any sort in public but I don't like talking to strangers while out and about and get very uncomfortable since it's almost always someone trying to get something from me.
But every time someone does randomly talk to me, I smile and laugh and I'm very cordial. Because people who approach strangers generally get quite angry when they're outright shot down. That doesn't at all mean I'm happy to talk. A smile is often just a defensive response.
Just trying to spread a little cheer and human connection, getting angry is the last thing I'd do.
> Virtually everyone seems happy to have an interaction
If a stranger bothers me while I have my headphones on I may act friendly and polite, but I am actually very irritated.
I would get very irritated by such behavior. One reason I wear earbuds is to signal that I don't want to get talked to.
Have you tried simply telling people you don't want to talk?
"Sorry mate, I'm reading" is hardly difficult.
Why would you initiate talk with me in the first place, when we're in a situation where I have not explicitly chosen contact with you? (say on a train)
Also reading something would be a clear signal (also to me) that a person doesn't want to get disturbed.
When I have to tell you that I don't want to talk, you have already disturbed me. So, taking the cues here clearly is on you, not on me, at least in my opinion.
Edit: To clarify a bit, I'm talking about places with involuntary social contact, like for example a train or a grocery store. I go on a train because I have to get somewhere, not because I want to interact with people. It would be a different scenario say in a bar.
If you are in a public space, I think it's totally fair game to initiate talk. It's also totally fair game to signal that you aren't interested.
This is actually very difficult for a significant number of people. Some people really struggle with saying "no" or enforcing boundaries, some people are very wary of negative interactions with strangers. If you are relying on people to explicitly push back on you, rather than reading more subtle queues, you are quite likely adding stress to someone's day.
I think most will pick up on subtle cues. That said, there is nothing wrong with being direct. And for those people who struggle with saying no, well, practice makes perfect.
If you're reading it's kinda obvious, and it's pretty annoying to be interrupted.
So you are bad at reading signs. And that "seems happy" may be just "are too polite to punch you".
You may like it, others may not. I hate when random strangers talk to me. Unless you are skilled to distinguish willing from not, you are training your skill at the expense of others.
Kind of black and white. I think everyone agrees to not chat up strangers sitting reading books, listening to music or whatever, but if you're idle, what's the harm in saying "No thanks, I don't want to chat" or something similar if someone asks you something?
And yes, of course don't try to speak with people who obviously don't want to be spoken to. Quick way to find out, is to ask "Can I ask you a question?" and then you leave space both for the people who don't want to chat, and the ones that do :)
I used to judge that based on people's faces, but the faces lie a lot, and some people basically default to looking pissed off, while they can be very warm people, and also vice-versa, so in the end asking up front seems to be the nicest way for everyone to be OK with it.
My take, is that this effect has removed a lot of the micro communications we make - not necessarily random conversations. It’s taken away random moments that may trigger a short small conversation with strangers.
In part it’s taking away the shared experience in public and making it “my” experience.
Completely anecdotal story, me and a friend had completely different experiences going to Portugal. We're both Brazilians so language, food, culture aren't barriers, he's very talkative and would joke and try to interact with random people in the street or restaurants. He had a terrible experience, hated the country, vowed to never come back, said he wasn't welcomed anywhere, people were rude, even waitresses.
I'm more of a "talk when talk is needed" person but still social. i don't really interact with strangers in the street and I assume business social interactions (like restaurants) are just that, business, so I'm polite but i'm not going to crack a joke with someone i've never seen before and will likely never see again. My experience was the complete opposite, loved Portugal, would easily move there if salaries weren't shit, people were nice, i felt welcomed anywhere i went, might have been the only place outside of Brazil i have really felt at home.
I think its important to NOT BE RUDE with the random people you meet in the street but I also see no reason so strike a conversation with them. If I happen to see something that picks up my interest, like a band shirt, book i like or something like that, i might bring it up if we're going to stay in the same place for long, but starting a conversation out of nowhere just isn't a thing for me.
Sure, but when the only reason I had those random moments with strangers were because they wanted them, and refusing to engage is considered "rude", I'd argue that it already was just someone else's "my" experience before, just "shared" because of societal peer pressure. What changed is that now I have a way to actually assert my boundaries without being the rude one.
I think it's a mistake to conflate passive signaling with asserting oneself, and whether you like the interaction you might have otherwise had or not (as long as it's not clearly harassment or something) it would be rude to ignore people in public whether that rudeness is delegated to technology or not. It's just another way of turning up one's nose, and it's a gross way to operate imo. If you don't like the people you'd interact with, it seems to me like it should be a personal goal to find a place to work or live that's more palatable from that perspective. If you go about life preferring to pre-emptively refuse interaction with people passively, I'm not aware of a better word than "rude".
You say “as long as it's not clearly harassment” as if that is uncommon. Outside of giving directions at train stations, the times when a stranger has started talking to me in public have been almost universally negative. Often times it starts as a friendly conversation before the harassment or begging for money or scamming starts. Other times the people just start out crazy or harassing.
I feel like your conception that “ignoring people either consciously or through technology is rude” makes more sense in higher social trust situations. Like at a party or a bar, where bad actors are less dense and there is an expectation of socializing.
I think your attitude that going out in public is tacitly opting into interactions with strangers is a much more gross way to operate. The assumption that it's easy to just politely decline a conversation (and that not doing so in the form of a conversation itself) seems like an extremely narrow-minded point of view based on your own subjective experience. You're conflating social anxiety with the desire to "assert oneself", when it's closer the opposite; socially anxious people quite often don't want to assert themselves, which is exactly why the "just politely decline" strategy is misses the mark so badly. The fact that wearing the earbuds opts out of that passively rather than actively is the entire reason it's desirable.
In one of my other comments in this thread, I explicitly called out that this desire has nothing to do with like or dislike of the people who I might have social pressure to interact with. Some people find social interaction a net expenditure of energy even with people they like, and having to do that repeatedly throughout the day because I want to go to the doctor or something and society has decided that it's "rude" if I don't engage with literally anyone who happens to want to talk to me when I'm in public is honestly just silly. It's not like I'm keeping the earbuds in and refusing to talk to anyone when checking in at the waiting room; I just don't care to have to have a chat with my Uber driver or strangers on the subway while I'm out, and it's ridiculous to imply that I should just never go in public if I don't feel the way you do.
Wow, it’s wild that you think you have a right to the attention of strangers with whom you have no business. How is it rude to wish to go about one’s day unbothered?
I think if you are in public, you can't expect to be in private. You can try, but it obviously doesn't always work and we are exposed to all types when out of the house.
This has nothing to do with expectation of privacy. Private setting or public setting, it’s rude to bother people who are busy.
Some of you are unwell.
I am unwell; I have ADHD and if someone interrupts me it takes me a long time to get back on track. It’s very inconsiderate.