Researchers Confront an Epidemic of Loneliness | Hacker News Reader

Researchers Confront an Epidemic of Loneliness

nytimes.com

85 pointsbootload45 comments

I have a feeling that this is all related to the entry of women into the workplace. Don't get me wrong; patriarchy is oppression and it has to go- but I think there were a lot of jobs being done by women which are now being done by nobody, and among those are the jobs of maintaining social cohesion and networking and so forth, which are a lot easier to do if you and your friends are somewhere other than at work at the same time. But if you and your neighbors are not consistently at home and have free time at the same time, how would you get to know them? Also, if the jobs of doing housework and cooking now has to be done after work hours, when is there time to join a bowling league? We are all in debt up to the eyeballs and working too much - the loss of social cohesion is hardly surprising. I mean, patriarchy is a system that has been in place for literally thousands of years, until this generation. And we have nothing to replace it with. What really should be happening is that a) in households with two working people, the total combined hours worked by both should not exceed 40 hours and b) there should be some consistency to when those hours are, so that you and your friends can be home at the same time. If that doesn't happen, then we are going to start looking like Japan - sky high suicide rate, plunging birth rate.. Again, I'm not arguing that sexism or patriarchy was ever a good thing, I'm just saying that our current system of labor might not be sustainable now that it's going away.

Except for the fact that Japan actually has a very low rate of workplace participation for women, I agree with your comment.

Feminists actually talk about this a lot, using the term "emotional labor"[0]

It is a bit like how the decline of religiosity in the US has led to a decline in social participation. It's clear to me, at least, that whatever your opinion on these institutions (religion, patriarchy) there needs to be a movement to fix the void in civil society created by their decline.

I think about when I visited the Middle East and how I would often see men on "friend dates", i.e. having a coffee together or relaxing in the park. They would often be sitting close, even holding hands. It made me think about the strange distance men in the US have from each other and how lonely it is.

[0]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/08/women-gender-r...

Maybe it's just better to go on a date with someone you can see.

I generally agree and would say the root cause is that we are individually poorer and this is forcing both members of a partnership into the workforce to make up the difference.

If women worked and men all stayed home, did chores and social networking we would not be lonely again.

I don't think it has much to do with gender so much as "we have less free time." It just shows up as women working, but I don't think women working is the cause, merely a symptom.

Ah, but what if the fact that we are individually poorer mostly derives from supply and demand - in other words, if labor is more abundant, then the price paid by an employer for labor goes down? In that case it is plausible that the entry of women into the workplace could be part of what's causing the drop in wages as well. And in that case it's a self reinforcing feedback loop, since if everyone else has two people working then you have to do that too, just to maintain stable wages.

To be honest if the solution is that women or men need to stay at home, maybe the whole of western society just needs a rethink. I've been a stay at home partner (male) for a few months and it's pretty lonely to be honest.

On the other hand, travel to somewhere like South East Asia and I didn't seem to notice any kind of loneliness epidemic. Families live closer together and people seem to form small communities where they share things and help each other in other ways. While the basis for my argument is anecdotal, it's a very different place in which people seemed to have much richer social lives.

I wonder if it is also partially due to family structure in many western societies. Around mid twenties, it is generally expected to have a job and have moved out. Many move away from family and friends due to work/university. Or just live far enough away (but in the same city) that it makes it harder to have regular contact. Combined with the later average marriage age (from low twenties 40-50 years ago, now to late twenties to early 30's), as well as overwork/poor work life balance, people don't have the time/energy or even the means to socialise as much and create meaningful connections to others.

I'm pretty lonely. After years of moving around and making lots of 'disposable friends' - mostly work friends, I eventually settled in the burbs. The conversations out here are limited to the most superficial things: kids, weather, new restaurants, landscaping companies, etc. But, since most of us came from different places, took very different paths, there's huge cultural differences to overcome. And, there's almost no overlap in interests - so nothing to gather around.

Also, being a male seems to make it much more difficult - many of us are raised to be self-reliant, independent, reserved and undaunted. It's a sign of weakness for us to admit to loneliness. Plus, many are by biology competitive and view the other males as potential threats. Lots of the guys I meet are wearing masks, holding their cards close, sizing each other up, and trying to one-up the others. When I go to the coffee shops and see all the men sitting alone, it's depressing.

I live a life apart and I've extremely happy. Find something besides social interactions to give your life meaning. Find small ways to be kind and compassionate in the rare interactions you do have. Do things that put you near other people, even if you don't necessarily interact.

Don't think that your life is wanting because you don't socialize. If you strip away the veneers of culture, socialization is just a way to find identity, meaning and pass time. You can do all that on your own terms, and some of the wisest people in history have purposefully separated themselves to do just that.

For most, loneliness is not a choice, so whatever you just said is meaningless and will not work. It is not identity they are looking for, but actual socialisation. Most people are hardwired that way.

Being separated sometimes gives perspective, but... How many of those men were actually happy? If it's almost a cliché.

Loneliness is a consequence of your beliefs. If you believe that your beliefs cannot be changed, then you certainly won't be able to change. Why you would want to stay unhappy is beyond me, though.

I can tell you from my personal experience, I was lonely in the past, I'm not lonely anymore, and if anything I've become more isolated over time. My total interaction time with other people is on the order of about 2 hours a week. I'm crazy happy, I literally love my life and am excited for every new day. The difference is in my beliefs.

> But, since most of us came from different places, took very different paths, there's huge cultural differences to overcome.

See, in any other time up until say 1.5-2.5 decades ago (depending on your world location), this very fact would have been a wellspring of stimulating entertaining mildly-illuminating conversations from day to day. The prerequisite being "people feeling fundamentally / by-default at ease in something as primitively simple as just one anothers' company". I don't know why societies lose this and when. I do know that while they have it, they don't realize or notice it as anything special, that by the time it's gone, most don't remember it, and that it's quickly exhausted in the span of a decade to a generation or so. Then most of the few who have a vague awareness of "something's wrong now" quickly attribute it to "the wrath of gods" either literally or to some belief placeholder such as, chemtrails, bad nutrition, the monetary system, the consumerist society, peak fossil fuel decadence, private TV stations, video games, smartphones, their own aging, useless millenials etc and go on a crusade. Not helping in a fundamental sense.

> The prerequisite being "people feeling fundamentally / by-default at ease in something as primitively simple as just one anothers' company". I don't know why societies lose this and when.

This really resonates with me. I've traveled to the Netherlands twice in the past 3 years, spending most of my time outside of Amsterdam. This small, homogeneous place, to me, truly feels different. And I think the default "at-ease" is a big part of it.

It didn't feel strange at all that I made 3 Facebook friends from random strangers over there.

>many of us are raised to be self-reliant, independent, reserved and undaunted

I think this greatly depends on your environment. A lot of the guys I know had nothing of this in their upbringing. I think there overwhelmingly lots of guys today that are emotionally dependent on others, very outward on personal matters and opinions, and easily riled into emotion. Less than ever there's the expectation of the strong, stoic, leadership figure.

The one way I would say you're accurate is that societally and financially speaking, being a young man is harder than ever. There are no safety nets, which hasn't historically been a problem due to high labor demand that no longer exists.

1) I grew up a solitary person in what felt like the middle of nowhere and have always been force-fed that 'humans are social creatures' adage when people can't understand when I say I am not lonely. With the internet and improvements to independent-agency, I think we're beginning to see how anti-social humans really are. Existing alone, I do feel bored once in a while... but not lonely.

2) I believe many-if-not-most people surround themselves with others in order to improve their feelings about themselves. For instance many people jump from one relationship to another and as a result they never spend time with themselves, so they never learn who they are. I imagine that these people really do feel a crippling sense of loneliness... because it's the well they've been pulling self-worth from for their entire lives.

3) The article references how men are unlikely to call into a phone line for a sense of community and theorizes that it is likely because they're shouldering the burden. More likely that it's because talking to a complete stranger and asking about each other's day is superficial and/or vain. The wood shop is a much better/cooler idea... as learning a new hobby is a good way to get with new people.

The book "The Lonely American: Drifting Apart in the Twenty-first Century" by Jacqueline Olds explores this topic at length. I recommend it to anyone interested in a thorough (and at times, heart-wrenching) treatment of the topic.

Genuinely curious, is there a scientific definition of loneliness, and what parameters does it involve, since it's hardly black or white?

A national study released this year showed Sixty-five to 79 is the happiest age group for adults in the UK. Though this declined in the over-80s.

So what happens around the age of 80?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35471624

your friends start to die?

I used to be lonely\empty before deciding to follow Christ. I tried and did just about anything and everything to fill this void and nothing lasted. Giving my life over to Him literally changed my life. I'm convinced that we are all created to be in a relationship with Him and until we are we will constantly search for other ways to fill that void.

We all need to find meaning for our existence. I'm pleased that you've found one that makes you happy. Please consider that meaning is personal, and don't proselytize your way as a privileged one that should apply to all people. Take a moment when you make statements of that sort and ask yourself what your true motivations are.

Some people are lonely and looking for help. I've been there and this decision was the best thing that ever happened to me. I've seen it work for countless others. My motivation is simply to help others.

I appreciate that you want to help other people, but when you make blanket statements like that, it implies other meanings people have found are somehow inferior.

Through Jesus you gained a feeling that you are loved, that you exist as part of something larger than yourself, and your life has purpose. Those ultimate results are what you should be trying to lead people to. There's nothing wrong with sharing how the teachings of Jesus lead you there. Think of it this way - there are many paths to a destination, which one you should take depends on where you are starting your journey.

What an excellent response! You just summarized my exact feelings about his post better than I ever could!

Although I'm an atheist, I'll admit to considering going to church on a somewhat regular basis. Having an opportunity to commune with people in my community is a much higher consideration than actually believing in a higher power.

It could be argued that instead of a higher power being the inspiration of your improved state, it could be that having the opportunity to be with other people, or being a part of a group, could be the more important ingredient in your experiences

I can respect that. I grew up playing sports and I've never been short on friends so I don't think that was it. It's hard to explain but just felt like a void in my life that nothing else filled.

That might work for some people. But there are some of us who prefer to socialize with someone who we can see, hear, talk to, laugh/play with and touch

Glad to know you know what I need.

Article focuses on senior citizens. But loneliness is far from only senior people problem. More and more young and middle age men and women are lonely in western world. Maybe this will be a step towards trying to do something about young people loneliness too, as lonely young people have even worse impact on society than lonely old people.

Young people can walk and drive longer distances, and so normally have less reason to remain lonely, I would guess.

Do lonely young people continue to be lonely mainly because they don't know how to initiate social interaction? Or because they don't realize that companionship is what they need?

> Young people can walk and drive longer distances, and so normally have less reason to remain lonely, I would guess.

Where would a young person walk or drive to, if there is no-one to visit?

> Do lonely young people continue to be lonely mainly because they don't know how to initiate social interaction?

That's probably part of it. One can't walk up to random people and introduce oneself without being seen as some sort of creep or weirdo, after all.

> Or because they don't realize that companionship is what they need?

That probably doesn't help either.

But are those the two main reasons? Or is there some other cause that I'm not considering?

I suspect many lonelies don't conform to the conventional "nuclear family" which makes it harder to find social outlets. Or they're older and/or divorced.

It seems to me like there used to be a lot more clubs and interest groups meeting regularly 20 years ago. In my area (near Philly) all the meetups seem to take place near our downtown metro area, creating travel constraints which make it hard for someone without a car to attend. And even then, most clubs meet only once a month, which doesn't make for much human contact.

I suspect the availability of interest groups on the web/net has diminished the demand to meet in person, which no doubt contributes to the loss of interpersonal bonding.

> companionship is what they need

I'm 40ish and married right now, but throughout my life I've alternated between being solitary and living with people. My take on it is that both are psychologically stressful in different ways. I've wondered once or twice whether it would be better to have some kind of drug or therapy that helps a person be content with being alone rather than assuming that companionship is going to be a magic bullet for everyone.

Part of the problem is that our culture strongly encourages social contribution and development of identity via social mechanisms. We stigmatize non-contribution and individual identity using labels like crazy, weirdo, freak and degenerate.

Isolating non-conformists wouldn't need medication and therapy if people respected them in the first place.

Yeah, that stigma seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon. Reading something like Dickens there's far more tolerance of eccentricity on many axes. (That might be just Dickens himself, of course, but I doubt it.)

Fuchemol (hermitin HCl) is FDA-approved to reduce your inconvenient cravings for social contact. Known side effects include repetitive meals, speaking to inanimate objects or animals, excessive self-stimulation, and dying alone. Talk to your doctor about whether the anti-loneliness pill might work for you today!

Clearly, some people exist that do not care much for the annoying habits of other humans. And some humans can't go a single day without reassuring themselves that they exist through the mirror of another person.

There must be some form of biochemical factor that determines an appropriate level of social interaction for any specific person, or we would not see the variation. Thus, it is only a matter of time before the specific receptor is identified, and a drug found that targets it without unpleasant side-effects.

Such a drug might be useful for future manned space industry. It reduces the number of variables required. If your pioneer crews don't necessarily have to interact socially to remain psychologically stable, you don't have to be quite as careful to ensure their social compatibility. They can all do their work, then go to their racks, swallow their pill, put on headphones, and thoroughly ignore each other for years on end.

> Known side effects include repetitive meals, speaking to inanimate objects or animals, excessive self-stimulation, and dying alone.

On the other hand, your relationship could just as easily prevent you from writing a book, or getting a Master's degree, or traveling when and where you want, because you're spending every night at your clingy girlfriend's house eating popcorn and watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

One thing I've been thinking about is how the terms of social relation have been changing rapidly, and we don't have tools or forms for managing them any more. In order to communicate, form bonds, etc., we need common terms, things we can agree on the meaning of, and those have eroded - our moral systems have decayed as people move away from religion, our communication styles change every few years, national boundaries weaken, our communities become atomized by changing market forces.

The upshot is confusion - more of us know less about how we should behave, where we should look for community, who we should talk to and how.

Religion may play part, but one of main reasons is economic independence. If a couple of decades ago people had to cooperate to just survive, at least where I live, now many are financially independent and can survive perfectly without outside assistance. This reduces the need for social interaction and even seeking partner.

Another big reason I'd say is vast availability of solitary entertainment through TV and Internet that further reduced need for interaction.

It only reduces one axis of need for it. The other still stands or they wouldn't feel lonely.

Welcome to being a social mammal.

Both

the TV consensus has been breached. Now suffer the existential pain!

What is "the TV consensus?" Google does not turn up anything useful for this term.

Perhaps they meant the idealized dollhouse of mutual buddies seen in various shows and sitcoms?

It's hard to make weekly shows about lonely people with only one permanent cast member...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com