The irreplaceable value of physical proximity in kinetic social bonding
Today we’re going to revisit my theory of kinetic social bonding and delve deeper into a part of the equation that I think is particularly relevant these days: time together.
To start, let’s quickly review the general theory of kinetic social bonding:
Kinetic social bonding: the theory that shared physical movement at higher speeds strengthens existing, and facilitates the development of new, social bonds.
I originally thought that spending time together might be a confounding factor, as I mentioned in the introductory article (provided in the link above):
Spatial expansion and time together: One additional and impactful part of this equation — which admittedly could disprove, or have more impact than kinetic social bonding — is the increased amount of time that you naturally have to spend together when moving at high speeds. Specifically, the amount of time you spend together could have a greater impact on strengthening social connections than the speed at which you’re traveling. On the other hand, it could be that the high speed facilitates an increased amount of time together, and the two factors combined lead to the stronger social connections that arise. Another way to think about it is that the speed is just a way to get to, create, or open a new door, to a unique time and place that you can share with someone else.
Essentially, I was concerned that time serves as the key variable, rather than shared movement, that strengthens social bonding. Now, I’ve changed my mind and believe they’re directly connected. The following breakdown explains why.
Time together as shared movement
Let’s split up the concept of time together into two components: 1) time, and 2) together.
Think of the first component, time, as its own form of movement: we live on the spinning and rotating planet we call Earth; as time goes by we all literally and physically, move through the universe.
So even if you’re sitting at a desk on your phone, lying on the couch watching TV, or sleeping in a comfy bed, you’re still moving to some degree.
Now let’s take a look at the second component: together. From a really broad perspective, since we’re all on the same planet, we’re all passing time in relative proximity.
So as I type these words, and as you read these words — even though we may be in different cities, states, countries or hemispheres — I like to think that we’re practicing a weird form of shared movement and kinetic social bonding.
Granted, it’s probably a really low level of kinetic social bonding, but it’s bonding just the same.
On the other hand, as you increase your physical proximity to another person, you’re increasing the degree to which you’re sharing time, sharing movement and thus bonding with that person.
Thus, if you want to maximize kinetic social bonding between two people, have them spend as much time, in the closest physical proximity, synchronously moving as fast as possible.
That said, with this new perspective of time together, you can still achieve some degree of kinetic social bonding by just hanging out and spending time in close proximity.
Another way to think about it is in terms of multivariate linear regression (for those of us who like math; others feel free to skip).
Let Y = B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3, where:
- Y = the kinetic social bond formed between two people;
- X1 = time, X2 = physical proximity, and X3 = velocity (predictor variables);
- B1, B2 and B3 are the slope coefficients, or unknown constants, such that Bj is the expected increase in Y for 1-unit increase in Xj with all other predictor variables held constant;
- And suppose that B2 > B3 > B1; or in other words: physical proximity has a stronger impact than velocity, which has a stronger impact than time.
In that equation — which admittedly is grossly oversimplified at this point, but still a fun way to think about it — you’ll get the highest Y value (kinetic social bond) when X1 (time), X2 (physical proximity), and X3 (velocity) are maximized.
At the same time (and this is my main point in this article) if X3 (velocity) is super low — like when your only movement is that of the spinning and rotating planet on which you sit — but your time together (X1 and X2 respectively) variables are both super high, then your resulting Y value (kinetic social bond) will still be greater than zero, and probably significantly greater than zero.
All that said, I imagine most of us already know this: you don’t need to run a multivariate linear regression model to see that you’re likely to form a stronger bond with someone the more time you spend with them.
So what?
Well, first, it’s just nice to appreciate these layers of interpersonal magic taking place right under our noses, say on a family road trip, chatting with the person next to you on a long flight, dancing at a party with a partner, hanging out in the backyard with friends, or just lazing on the couch all day with family.
The big insight for me is that whenever you’re spending time together, there’s always going to be some form of bonding that takes place, and that bond can be explained by the effects of shared movement, or kinetic social bonding.
Second, and particularly relevant now, is the flip side of that coin: the kinetic social bonding framework also reveals how the absence of those variables can be so destructive to bonding.
When one of them is gone, especially physical proximity, it’s tough to fill that void by increasing the other two variables. And, as I think the past couple months have shown, it’s impossible to fill the proximity void when it’s gone.
Virtual void
As much as technology has enabled us to keep in touch while maintaining physical distance, there’s no replacement for the real in-person thing.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m thankful for video conferencing, social media, text messages, phone calls, FaceTime, email, and the like, which help us all stay informed and communicative.
However, these channels don’t hold a candle to the benefits of physical proximity in the kinetic social bonding context.
Why? Because we’re trying to replace the most important variable — physical proximity — with virtual reality. And anyone who’s been in a long-distance relationship knows that you can talk and talk and talk over the phone, or video, or email, or text — but it’s still tough because you still feel worlds apart, because you are.
The beauty of kinetic social bonding is that it doesn’t require much thinking, scripting or social engineering. It just requires some level of action and togetherness. No need to force it with elaborate words or heavy cognitive lifting — the bonding just happens.
The sad part is that these days, while we’re physically separated and almost entirely dependent on virtual connections, our kinetic social bonding has no physical proximity to lean on. Instead we must rely on those other cognitive, arguably forced, variables — like words, implied meaning, tone of voice, and Likes — to build those social bonds.
Words and digital communications can be powerful; but in this context, they only go so far.
Kinetic social bonding is about shared action, not words; and when physical proximity is replaced with virtual connections and digital communications, the bond suffers.
There’s no substitute for spending time together.
So for now, while most of us are physically distancing, we’ll do what we can to virtually bridge the gap, and look forward to enjoying the magic of more time together in the future.