New Evidence for the Necessity of Loneliness | Hacker News Reader

New Evidence for the Necessity of Loneliness

quantamagazine.org

93 pointsjonbaer29 comments

I really wish more startups focused on ending loneliness. It has to be the worst problem afflicting advanced countries, but it's all but ignored for fancy hi-tech stuff and anything that will make you're life slightly more convenient.

I've started Krewe (https://www.gokrewe.com/get_started) to help people make a group of friends in their neighborhood and build a strong local community, but I think there should be other companies who's focus is on fostering real personal interaction.

Indirectly the whole messaging and social media culture is built on this simple premise. There are a ton of companies doing it, just not how you would expect it.

Note: I know it causes more lonliness

Alas, it's much harder to sell something to people who are truly content.

This means most self-help organizations are either non-profit, bankrupt, or foster customer-dependence on their line of products or advice or books etc.

Loneliness is not a technical problem, a startup will not solve anything.

Evolving as a society will sove this, and for a society to evolve, its parts must evolve.

So the first step to end loneliness is to work on yourself.

Does every startup solve a technical problem?

Recently I've found myself a bit lonely at times due to changing circumstances and a lack of being introduced to other people that would like some more friends.

I have gone to a few meetups. Which is a technology based product. It has helped me meet people and end loneliness.

This has nothing to do with the evolution of society, as you put it.

Cool idea, but I doubt it will work. To end loneliness and build friendships, why not start with activities?

Organize locals, but for low paid(/volunteer) help with cleaning/cooking/gardening/computer support/driving lessons/etc. For busy/ill/lazy people?

Then, people can be introduced to each others.

If they have some activity/interest to talk about, it is easier to socialize with different types of people. I sincerely believe that every adult person on the planet knows about things I would love to hear about. Be it fishing, farming, literature or house maintenance.

(No, I'm not just trying to find good cleaning help. :-) )

Local community is a culture that you develop for centuries. If you don't know the Joe from two houses away, you don't know the Joe from two houses away, period.

I lived the last moments of the 'mahalle' culture in Istanbul, Turkey, held its hand while its cerebral activites stopped. Until a couple decades ago streets were full of kids and we didn't have any problem with it. Now we hardly let them out, we fear that they'll be kidnapped, fruited, etc., sometimes also realistically. How we came to this point?

The 'mahalle', that is the neighbourhood, is a culture developed over time and is based on the trust you derive from generations of sharing the same cultural and social sphere. This was disrupted three times in the last century, first by hostility towards the non-Turkish induced by nationalism, and its results, second, by mass migration towards the City caused by industrialisation, and lastly and currently with the 'walled communities' (1) and occidentialisation of work life, i.e. rapidly changing occupations and moving houses often. I guess the case for most of the US is similar (i.e. people don't get to share the same neighbourhood for that long), and under these circumstances a healthy local community is impossible to form, even if all the start-up eyes were turned on the problem, because it has a hard dependency on multigenerational relationships, and time spent together.

(1) a very interesting documentary by AlJazeera Turkey on this phenomenon exists.

I think it's not as easy as you think. People have grown to expect too much from each other, and are disappointed/disaffected more easily. A lot of social network technology exists exactly because we want to avoid directly confronting each other. Dating sites are easier, because attraction makes it easier. Making friends, not so much. E.g. HN has a generally nice community, but i bet most of us wouldn't get along with each other in real life.

Then there is also the cult of individualistic freedom, which almost by definition means less interest in others.

You have a great website there. I wonder, however, if proximity means anything nowadays. A long time ago, it used to be that neighbors were relatives, or part of the same tight knit cultural community. Nowadays people have scattered randomly, and almost the only common denominator between neighbors is their income bracket. I would like to see a startup going the opposite way , i.e. helping people who 'fit in' with each other to become real life neighbors.

I think you'd actually be surprised how good mature adults are at getting along with others, especially when they're not immediate neighbors or have to work together (ie things that cause conflict).

Individualism is definitely part of the problem that contributes to loneliness. We've been bombarded with propaganda since we were children about the virtues of independence and self-reliance. Living on your own and not needing other people has been romanticized. But humans are so much happier around people, so that culture definitely needs to change.

I hope to make proximity mean something again. I don't think people need to be bound by anything to get along. Everyone has had a wealth of life experiences they can share. But their is something undeniably special about being able to walk around the neighborhood and come across people you're friends with. Or walk into a local pub on a whim and find a group of friends already there.

> along with others, especially when they're not immediate neighbors or have to work together

That doesn't really mean much. It's not that they do or don't get along, it's that no challenge presents itself to define if they get along or not. The ability to get along is defined by surviving that challenge.

>I don't think people need to be bound by anything to get along.

Then why does hardship or shared experience make more closely bound couples?

> Everyone has had a wealth of life experiences they can share.

But only a few of those are actually interesting. When you go down to a club, even though there are a lot of people there, statistically you'll only talk to a few. Technology, in it's ability to erase communication distance, brings you closer to many more interesting people even though you don't see them.

Does your startup account for age/interests/education of its participants? I can't imagine a 21-year old Marketing Intern and retired 70 year old would form strong bonds.

> the pain of being alone motivates us to seek the safety of companionship,

Yes.

> which in turn benefits the species by encouraging group cooperation and protection.

Yet, a fear-driven cooperation and protection is bollocks compared to a spirited one (as illustrated by the French expressions bien dans ma peau and joie de vivre).

Perhaps you could elaborate on that? I know what both expressions mean but I have no idea what it is that you think they illustrate about cooperation, loneliness, etc.

One is fear-driven, and thus highly dependent on other people's granting of validation. The other is self-generated spirited enjoyment of anything one might do, with little dependance on the validation provided by other people.

Essentially, the difference is to do with which set of emotions are being dominant: loneliness/ validation/ approval-seeking versus enjoyment/ spiritedness/ play.

Think of the fun inherent in hobbyist programming, but extended to life at large.

Another French expression to go along would be Sartre's "Hell is other people". Which is the reason I choose to distance myself from people.

Withdrawal is a common reaction to stress (loneliness). However a reaction is not necessarily a solution.

A lot of people who isolate themselves can be perfectly normal and it can be a valid solution to the source of their stress. Deep thinking, introspection and creativity thrives without interruption.

It depends on the individual.

The only solution that is worth its name is the utter or virtual absence of the problem (loneliness) it is intended to solve, otherwise it is a second-rate one.

Withdrawal, no matter how "valid" and "normal" as deemed by a segment of society, does not fall under that felicitous characterization.

Do the people that withdraw generally demonstrate bien dans ma peau and joie de vivre?

> Do the people that withdraw generally demonstrate bien dans ma peau and joie de vivre?

Generally, no.

But if someone withdrew to a monastery to seek enlightenment then this question lacks significance. Withdrawal can be a tool that allows us to control envy, desire, distraction and other aspects of human existence which can be destructive or a mental nuisance.

How would you posit your question to an existential nihilist? To them it would have no meaning.

> Generally, no.

Then, no matter how “valid” and “normal” their modus operandi may be it is of no relevance to someone looking to enjoy life (bien dans ma peau and joie de vivre) instead of wasting time — and it is indeed such a waste of life, don’t you think — feeling alone or withdrawing (via dissociating from the said loneliness).

> How would you posit your question to an existential nihilist? To them it would have no meaning.

It takes the naiveté (innocence/ unsophistication; not gullibility) of a child to want to enjoy life. Nihilists, and spiritualists, are too sophisticated for that.

Withdrawal can be a solution to stress and cauterized is correct in saying it depends on the person. I know I don't speak for the general case, but for me personally time alone withdrawn from other people is absolutely essential to experience the joy of life and feeling good about myself. That is not to say that I don't enjoy time with family and friends, but I become morose and listless if I go too long without withdrawing from people.

I get frustrated when I read articles like this and comments like yours. I understand intellectually and through secondhand experience of others how crippling loneliness and isolation can be for most people. However, I can honestly say that I have no memories of ever having felt "lonely" in the way described as the article and I know myself well enough to know what makes me happy. Telling me that because my life doesn't fit your pattern I must be unhappy is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

> Telling me that because my life doesn't fit your pattern I must be unhappy is a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

No, what I’m telling you is that because your goal is evidently not to enjoy life no matter what — you’d rather feel morose and listless and frustrated at times — your solutions (withdrawal) are of no relevance to someone whose goal is to enjoy life no matter what (bien dans ma peau and joie de vivre).

It is a such simple thing, no?

You really are presumptuous, aren't you? OK. Let's assume my goal is not to be morose and listless, but to enjoy life no matter what. What is your suggestion?

> You really are presumptuous, aren't you?

Indeed not, and the irony of you asking the question is not lost on me. I am not telling you what to do (thereby failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate) — your goal is evidently not to enjoy life no matter what (you’d rather feel morose and listless and frustrated at times) — rather I’m conveying that what you, the nihilists and the spiritualists are doing (withdrawal) is a second-rate solution for the purpose of enjoying life no matter what.

Is it really that difficult to grasp such a simple thing?

> Let's assume my goal is not to be morose and listless, but to enjoy life no matter what. What is your suggestion?

To not withdraw, of course, as a reaction to stress is not the same as a solution to (ending of) it.

For an introvert, aloneness does not necessarily imply loneliness. Introverts can be lonely too - but we often need to be alone. Knowing there are specific people out there who will want to spend time with you again when you're ready to engage can be enough to stave off loneliness for an extreme introvert even through very long periods of aloneness.

While I’m wary of what people who categorize themselves as “introverts” claim, my comment above was about social withdrawal as a response to loneliness; and further about how a response (reaction) to stress is not necessarily a solution.

Why, we are social animals, whose kids and elders can't survive alone. No surprise that there is appropriate machinery in the brain, or rather that machinery gives rise to what we call empathy, parental care, altruism, family and in-group bonds, etc.

Apart from that, other people are constant source of problems, distraction, annoyance, due to their narcissistic tendencies to assert themselves, to show off, to gain attention, to validate their inflated self-esteem, their extremely annoying primitive and rude attempts to manipulate, use, cheat, take advantage of others, etc. Truly "Hell is other people".

Moreover, they tend to validate everyone according to their artificial, biased socially constructed "norms", which leads to hegemony of mediocrity and much uglier things, like hunweibins and similar cancer-like social formations.

So, the balance is subtle - as long as we are dependent of each other for survival, which reflects each and every clan or tribal societies, we are OK. But since we have forsed to live in too much crowded, overpopulated, highly competitive urban areas of post-infustrialized societies, everything is doomed. The only thing Marx got right is alienation.)

Back to loneliness. Loneliness is a prerequisite for any intellectual or spiritual (which is an ancient word of intelligence) achievement. Less other people - less worries, less distractions, tension, noise, pressure, cruelty, violence. That's why everywhere in the world monasteries has walls and no academics work in Starbucks.

Loneliness should be understood as necessity, like privacy and embraced. Unless you are a brick in the wall, a living cell, a soldier or a drone.

I might be reading this wrong but their evidence seems like its not consistent and they explain this away with this speculation.

"Neurons are somehow tapping into that subjective social experience of the mouse, and only producing a significant effect on the behavior of mice who perhaps previously valued their social connections, rather than those who did not"

So what exactly is the proof ?

They also explain that this might lead to two possibilities social vs antisocial mice . How did they even come up with these possibilities surely from their own experience and understanding of the world.So they are starting on with hypothesis that they came up with and end up with inconsistent results and claim that as proof.

tl;dr

hypothesis1: loneliness corresponds to dopamine -> not conclusive -> hypothesis2: results explained by social position of mouse -> further testing needed

Reply on news.ycombinator.com