How about just living, and learning to deal with, the rest of society.
I have one neighbor that I'm really close to - yay! I can borrow their wheelbarrow, or they can borrow my sprinkler attachment, without asking, and return it promptly (to remain friends!). We watch each other's dogs on vacation. All of this is much easier than if I had to use a farther-away friend.
But my other neighbors are just ... small-f friends. Friendly. I would even consider asking them to borrow a cup of sugar.
But as nice as it would be to have ALL my besties nearby, we do just fine with phone calls, texts, social media, and seeing each other at events.
I do agree with the advantage of incremental change. I suck at completing big tasks. But if I view each step as a small task, I can get there.
I don't understand why most comments here are perversely interpreting the goals of the article. Obviously you have different life and relationship philosophies, no need to knock people doing it the way they want.
Also, I'm the one who watches my closest-friend neighbor's kids in emergency sitations. I've pointed out that physically+emotionally close relationship ARE important.
I don't recall the article, but I remember reading an anecdotal piece where someone talked about how they met up with either their close friend or sibling like 10x more once they moved from 20 minutes away to a few houses down the street. It was like once every day or 2 vs once every two weeks.
When did "need" become a pre-requisite for doing something you "love"?
In this case, hanging out as adults in a way that reflects many happy childhoods. Where your best friends were all walking distance. Where you could do things spontaneously with them. Spontaneously and regularly do nothing with them (i.e. hang out while doing whatever each of you were going to do anyway).
Look up Ikigai. It's often visualized with a Venn diagram. The point being, the more positive facets that cover your work or life, the more profoundly happy/satisfied you are likely to be. There is no reason to stop adding facets such as "live my daily life with my best friends".
My partner and I moved into a house on a pretty secluded street of a very suburban township. There are 5 houses on the block. We're friendly with everyone but we're all in very different periods of our lives. Two of the houses have younger kids, one has older kids, and one is empty nesters. They're all super nice and we're friendly, but none of them are coming over to lift heavy weights in the garage while Creed is blasting.
Tell me when and where, I'll bring the pre-workout.
This is simply a response to a lack of resources (time, energy, etc) to develop deep relationships during the stage of life when one can afford permanent housing. Modernity has made this harder than ever before.
If this doesn't apply to you, consider yourself truly privileged.
It's a stage of life where you should be branching out and meeting 'other' people, not just surrounding yourself with college buddies, and further cloistering yourself in that bubble.
There's a strong implicit assumption here that stranger neighbors are not 'like' people. For the most part, this is not correct. If you buy a $2m home, your neighbor likely also has a $2m home, is also well educated, also has a high-paying job (probably in a similar field to you) and more likely to be the same race as you.
Same if you buy a $100,000 home.
The less you know about your neighbors, the better. They could be whoever you want them to be.
Venture out into the world, and stay in touch with good friends. Simple?
Second, living in community of close friends is a massive improvement in quality of life for everyone involved. This is as much biological as it is spiritual. You can either do that by becoming close to strangers that live nearby or living nearby people that are already close to you. Given that the average adult from the US moves over 11 times[1] in their life, the solution is self evident.
Lastly, using tribalism here is misguided. That implies a in and out group. Why use that word instead of 'communalism' which implies helping each other.
1. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-times-the-aver...
I wonder what the responses would be if you asked the people in this "bestie row", their raw opinions on concepts like "diversity", "inclusivity", or whatever.
puttycat•6h ago
See Kenneth Stanley's book Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25670869-why-greatness-c...
lovestory•6h ago
michaelsbradley•4h ago
---
EDIT: changed wording from “multiple times” to “a few times” to be more clear.
nine_k•4h ago
michaelsbradley•4h ago
I’ve seen many (seemingly informed) mentions of the jj cli tool in the last year — not unreasonable to conclude interest in it is growing among folks here, and enough to pique my curiosity.
I responded to:
ChrisMarshallNY•6h ago
[0] https://littlegreenviper.com/evolutionary-design-specificati...
ants_everywhere•3h ago
Yes there is, there's a fitness function, both in biological evolution and evolutionary algorithms
IAmBroom•2h ago
layer8•1h ago
layer8•1h ago
You could argue that mutation isn’t inevitable, but its presence and degree is subject to natural selection as well.
_lex•2h ago