Hacker News Reader

Comment by conistonwater | Hacker News Reader

I like the article, but I gotta ask: why the focus on "new research"? Is "old research" not good enough? I suppose it might not be, but some of it should really be at least brought up.

Here's a book from 1974 [1] by Robert Weiss, whose first (sample) chapter [2] reads very similar to the NYTimes piece, and covers many of the same issues, even before the internet was around. In particular, it draws the line (much more clearly than the NYTimes piece) between what it calls loneliness of emotional isolation and loneliness of social isolation, and, to me, its examples like the condition of married couples who moved far away are much more salient (and convincing) than reliance on surveys and dry statements like "loneliness can accelerate cognitive decline" and "increases risk of heart disease by 29%".

Am I missing something?

P.S. One cool thing I learned about from reading about Cacioppo's research is that when designing a survey about loneliness you can't ask questions like "do you feel lonely?" because it's much too ambiguous and people end up giving incoherent useless answers. I never thought something so basic could be so confusing to people.

[1] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/loneliness

[2] https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/...

View on HN

Right. It's not an issue of technology, for the most part, but it's the way American cities are designed. Instead of mixed-use walkable neighborhoods where people with a variety of incomes and backgrounds live, and stay put, we have suburban fortresses where people live in a box, never talk to their neighbors, drive a box to work, work in a box, then do it all over again.

The national highway system was great for a nation on the brink of all-out war. We needed to move troops, tanks, people, supplies quickly and efficiently. This system ended up being used to separate black people from working class whites. Naturally we have drug and violence problems in those communities that were segregated from the more educated and affluent white population.

Terrible. I wish I could be governor or something and make sure that we stop this. It makes me sad.

You could get involved in local politics, and maybe eventually even run for governor. Is there anything stopping you?

Exactly. If you want this stuff to change, stop waiting for others to do it, you can get involved and start changing things.

Yes. I have a high-paying job, a mortgage, and although I'm personable I don't see any starting point or path toward doing anything about it.

Volunteer with your preferred local political party. The path to getting into politics can start as easily as showing up until people know you, and having good ideas that enough people agree with. Your job as a politician would be to carry those ideas to the structures of power (town council, school board, whatever).

It's pretty time-consuming, but it's a big responsibility, making decisions that affect lots of people's lives. So, trade-offs.

Another reason not to do so is that it's a high-risk, low-reward endeavor.

We city apartment people aren't better at socializing with our neighbors, probably even worse. The stereotype that cities can be harsh and unfriendly is very much rooted in reality.

It very much depends on the city and even the specific part of the city. e.g. London, despite mostly being as you describe, has areas where there is a strong sense of community, even for new comers. Typically more working class areas.

I have lived in my Manhattan building for only 2 years. Know most of the other residents, the owners of neighborhood restaurants, local politicians, et cetera.

That said, I do not feel that expectation of social and civic engagement in San Francisco.

Yup. I've lived in SF since 2000 and every time I go to NYC it's way easier to connect with people. It's either I'm different when I'm in NYC or it's SF. Or maybe a bit of both but your comment resonates very strongly with me.

I've live on a cul-de-sac (back) in Extreme Flyover Country now for a whopping ... three months, and I met all the neighbors and chat with 'em often. People in stores are very open and will talk if spoken to.

I find driving my car is much more efficient than taking trains allowing me to make multiple stops thus talking with numerous people through out the day.

In Brazil, architects often build a social space into their apartments. It's a good idea and works really well, but the people have to want to socialise together in the first place.

I can imagine the sprawling suburbs would be really hard to live in, obvious benefits in lower cost housing and more green space but the isolation and need for a car seems pretty terrible.

I live in Barcelona and the majority of people live in flats/apartments, my apartment building is like a large family, mixture of retirees, families, young couples and mixed flats of people just out of university. Everyone knows each other and relies on each other, for our neighbours' 90th birthday almost the whole building (10 flats) took her cake and stayed and chatted and had fun. (My partner and myself are both foreigners here and we're still accepted into the culture and events like this. IMO it's really hard to overstate how crucial this sort of interaction and sense of belonging is in a large city. What intensifies this even more is in Barcelona the first floor of a lot of apartment buildings is where there are shops/bars/butchers/restaurants etc. For most of my food and leisure needs (including the gym for example) I don't need to go more than 400m, this also creates social situations where you bump into the same people and staff over and over creating a real village feel.

Here's a great shot of Eixample, a district in Barcelona divided by distinctive grids that lends itself to these 'micro' village communities. http://lh4.ggpht.com/-I28z_xwspR0/UdgqfgPxzCI/AAAAAAAAqCY/Mj...

Sorry that was quite the tangent to go off on!

I have often watched Barcelona's honeycomb structure in Google Maps. Didn't know it was home to a small-village-like atmosphere. That's an amazing thing.

I think it's cultural. I've lived in apartments and condos designed with nice common spaces (pool, clubhouse, lawn, chairs), and those areas were empty 95% of the time. At most, a couple of people swimming, or a guy taking a phone call.

We work all day, come home at 8pm, watch TV while surfing with phone, update Facebook, text a friend, go to bed. Repeat.

I think some people don't like being visible in a public space that includes "others". Maybe a feeling of being judged and feeling self-conscious as a result?

Go back 10,000 years and almost all people encountered would be people familiar to you. Any other instances would've been a potential stand-off. I'd guess it's a carry over from that.

the ones in my apartment really aren't compfy, and if you look closely, you quickly notice how much they cheaper out on everything

We may have identified the root cause of Social Isolation: Cheap lawn furniture. :-)

This is an extremely poor argument. Try starting a conversation on a Manhattan subway. The lack of boxes between you and your fellow commuters does not make it remotely acceptable to interact with them, nor should it.

It is much harder to meet friends who are separated by 5 miles of bus ride than 5 miles of freeway. It is much harder to actually hear each other at a crowded bar than someone's home, but only the very rich (or the suburban) can afford homes large enough to host gatherings. Economic circumstances may coerce interaction with roommates, but living with someone is more likely to destroy your friendship than strengthen it.

I think this is a cultural/attitude thing, not really a manifestation of urban planning.

> but living with someone is more likely to destroy your friendship than strengthen it.

Never live with someone you aren't prepared to hate. Nothing kills a friendship like becoming roommates.

i speak with strangers in bars all the time, seriously. I thought it's one of the reasons bars exists. Even most tinder-dates start in bars, because if it's not going anywhere there other people to talk to. You just might not get laid.

Can confirm, I met my spouse in a bar.

I also became good friends with a bartender who I met when she was serving me. She no longer bartends now that she's out of school but we still see each other all the time.

A lot of my friends now usually prefer to meet out rather than have someone come over. It takes the pressure off to be a host.

I must be going to the wrong bars. Everyone I go regularly has people minding their own business.

well, if i am not interested in keeping the conversation between me and the friends i am meeting or if i want to talk to strangers because they're late/i am in a foreign city etc. what works for me is to sit directly at the bar (is this correct english, i hope you understand what i mean). It's way easier to start a conversation there.

Yeah I prefer to sit at the bar (that's the correct phrase), but I think my problem is more what wott said. The bars I go to just have a "come with your group of friends and only talk to them" culture. Thus, me going alone doesn't really give me interaction other than a quick chat with the bartender.

I could be wrong but I feel like its generally more difficult to meet people at bars in small town, and its also tougher to fail fast.

Bars in big cities provide more opportunities but then I think people are generally seen as more "disposable" if that make sense.

This is coming from someone who also feels like they have been going to the wrong bars.

> I must be going to the wrong bars.

Very likely. There are bars where people go to be alone; bars were people go in a group to stay purely within their group; bars where people go to meet between regulars and are closed to newcomers; bars where people are opened to anyone, regulars or 5-minute newcomer; etc.

The most classy, and also often the most hyped ones are the coldest ones. The most popular are often the warmest... providing that you manage to get into the 'family' circle if it is a matter of regulars/locals; or that you belong to the same scene if it is a subculture oriented place.

And it also depends also on you. And not necessarily as you expect. I am amongst the most introverted, shy, less talkative persons ever, and yet bartenders and regulars generally great me by calling my name on my 2nd or 3rd visit in a bar while some mates who've been coming to the same place dozens of times in are given the cold shoulder (I have plenty of examples like this, it was quite funny sometimes to see how upset by the situation my mate was :-).

How would you explain your good luck? Do you think it will work for other people?

I don't know the parent commenter, but I am confident he or she would not characterize that as luck.

Here's a book that can help you stop thinking it has anything to do with luck:

How to Talk to Anyone: 92 Little Tricks for Big Success in Relationships [1]

[1] https://amazon.com/How-Talk-Anyone-Success-Relationships/dp/...

I would also add, if getting-to-know-you conversation is difficult for you, memorize a list of about 10 basic questions (do you have any siblings, did you grow up here, what's something you really enjoyed about the last year, etc). Ask people these and be ready to share your answers, and it'll become pretty clear when someone wants to be your friend.

I too have made friends with strangers I've met in bars, as well as with servers and bartenders at places I've been a regular.

This makes me sad because I don't go to bars. Not sure what to do when I don't drink. Shy as fuck too, sucks.

https://www.meetup.com/

You don't have to drink alcohol at bar. I have plenty of friends who don't consume alcohol, but have no problems going out and order non-alcoholic cocktail, juice, tea etc. Sure, it depends on a place a lot -- there are places where people go to chat and meet new people and there are places where people go to drink until passing out, so find the one that suits you..

I don't often drink, maybe twice a year and I've been given the advice you just gave the previous poster. The truth is drunk people are insufferable while sober I don't recommend anyone do this.

Well, as I said, it depends on a place. I usually go to places where people are going to play board games, pool, foosball etc. while getting few beers, not drink themselves unconsciously.

To each their own of course, but I find even mildly impaired people annoying. You don't realize how much an effect a few beers can have alcohol is deceptive that way, that's why you see people down a bottle of vodka and get behind the wheel. They honestly believe that they are fine to drive.

A tip if you do decide to try this advice, don't let anyone know you aren't drinking. Not only will you often get accosted "Come on buddy just one!", but at the end of the night you will often be pressured to become some sort of unpaid Uber.

Club soda with a lime in a regular drink glass instead of a water cup. Everyone will assume it's a vodka club.

I actually usually don't mind being a DD, only because keeping drunk drivers off the road is a net benefit to society. I usually don't have to go much out of my way either as nobody lives very far away. Of course, if I were expected to do this all the time I'd be annoyed.

For sure some people are extremely obnoxious when they drink, especially heavily, myself included (which is a reason I don't like getting drunk - I try to stay mildly buzzed if I do drink, but usually I don't at socal gatherings, unless they are major social gatherings, and I even usually only drink water at bars) but the vast majority of people are fine after a couple brews. Most people stop getting blasted at around 25 or so anyways.

Your attitude indicates to me that if your perception of someone changes when they've had a beer, just because they've had a beer, rather than their actual behavior. I don't mean to be rude when I say that - I can understand. I used to not be able to stand being around people when they were drinking. I avoided anywhere where I thought there may be alcohol... but that was because I grew up with an abusive alcoholic father and I was projecting my hatred of my father onto other people. It wasn't until years later I learned to be comfortable around social drinking. I learned to realize that my father did the things he did because he is a bad person, not because alcohol somehow forced him to.

As I said in another post, I actually ended up meeting the person I ended up marrying in a bar!

(I also did start drinking myself later on.)

To be clear I don't want to put you down or anything, just sharing my perspective.

Three pints is already drunk, not mildly impaired or "buzzed" (for the average human). Even two pints in an hour and most humans shouldn't be driving.

I have been to too many bars over the decades.

I usually went because I wanted to meet someone new. I had very mixed results. While I had mixed results; people did seem to interact with eachother. Yes--it was small talk, but interaction.

Fast forward to today. The smart phone seems to have just ruined the experience all together.

I can blame myself--I'm not the same social person? I've aged? I don't find people and their stories as interesting? Blah--blah--blah?

I don't know? I do know that Phone Stare is really played out. It seems like everyone is engrossed in that screen?

The last time I was out, I was in an Irish themed bar in San Francisco. The older Bartender was asked a question by a patron. "This place is dead?"

He then said, "Maybe you should put the phone away? Plus, the led light brings out all the fine lines around the eyes?"

Yea--it was kinda rude, but he said it in a joking way, and with that Irish accent it came across as kinda endearing. Someting a father might say?

The phone eventually went into the bag. A person sat next to her, and asked her if he could buy her a drink. They talked, and talked. They genuinely seemed content--

I walked out, and it seemed like 90% of the patrons were still staring into that screen. All looked kinda misserable. I thought--what could be so interesting? A fifteen dollar drink, and waste the time on the screen?

I don't know if we are going to put the phone away, but I hope I'm still around if that day comes.

(I understand pulling out the phone if your socially awkward, or shy, but after awhile of Staring into the Abyss, put it away? And yes, if your at lunch putting together that huge business deal; I get it, but most of us just arn't that important. You're in a bar because your lonely. Admit it! Own it! Life is short--no one is judging you, nor cares. That phone is a huge turn off on so many levels. This goes two fold for guys.)

Go up to the person staring at their phone and say all that :) "you're lonely, admit it! That's why you're here!" Haha.

15 dollar drinks !!?!

>The last time I was out, I was in an Irish themed bar in San Francisco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_pub#North_America

A typical "Irish pub" these days is usually the bar equivalent of Applebee's. However, the bartender in your story definitely sounded legit. :)

I find that small, established live music venues that operate a bar regardless of shows tend to be far more "real". There's usually only a few of these in any given major metropolitan area.

The phone stare ratio is far lower than average, but you run into the opposite problem: everyone knows everyone, and you're the outsider. Of course, that's usually a healthy sign that just indicates the place is worth becoming a regular at.

Try small bars.

Where do you live?

In NYC I feel much more welcome talking to strangers in bars than I do in London.

Philadelphia

Many people who live in small apartments can and do host social gatherings. In my experience, how frequently someone hosts gatherings has more to do with their personality than the size of their living space.

Can confirm, I've been to many social gatherings hosted in Manhattan studios.

Sometimes it's even more fun and cozy in a tiny apartment.

In a big house, the party often naturally squeezes into the kitchen, leaving the handful of introverts to sit quietly in the living room.

Haha! those introverts... sitting quietly, are actually talking one-to-one on some random deep subject.

Sure. That's not inconsistent with my observation.

Having your own studio in Manhattan puts you so far into stratospheric income (or a family heirloom rent controlled lease) that we may as well be talking about the problems of private jet owners.

I'm talking about the kind of people who have to choose between part of a shared apartment in a conveniently transit-connected part of SF/Manhattan, or their own studio/1-bedroom somewhere with low density and poor transit. Y'know, software engineers making $100k.

Owning maybe, but you can totally rent a studio in Manhattan on a software engineer's salary. [0]http://streeteasy.com/for-rent/manhattan/price:-2500%7Cbeds%...

Ehhhhh... What? All my NYC friends are below average in income. None are software engineers and of course they all rent. Their housing costs are probably a very significant part of their income as well, but I've seen a lot of higher income people do the same with McMansions. A few ended up moving to Brooklyn too for cheaper rent.

I don't live in the NY metro area but I visit several times a year since I got friends there. I always crash on the couch.

I vary rarely socialize with people with high income because, one, I grew up poor so most of my childhood friends are still below average in income but more importantly I find it very difficult to relate to people who grew up well off. Sometimes I hear my co-workers talk and I feel I am living on a different planet.

As far as shared housing, yes, 99% of college kids live in shared housing and the vast majority of them still socialize.

I've hosted plenty of social gatherings in my shit apartment in Provo. it doesn't have to be fancy to be fun.

To say that it is an extremely poor argument (as though I was giving an argument) is a bit hyperbolic. I'm not a proponent of the style of urban living you find in mega-cities either, though I'll propose that they are a superior alternative to somewhere like, say, Atlanta.

Your argument is poor, too. I see people starting conversations in subways all the time, and occasionally start them myself. I've never regretted it. Driving back from work in a bunch of cars, it's of course impossible, and it's amazing how easy it is to get angry with other drivers.

It's easier to meet people in a city, where the 5 miles of a bus ride can cover a neighborhood of a hundred thousand people and hundreds of venues to meet them, while the freeway ride in a suburb will cover less than ten thousand. And what does living with someone have to do with it? We're talking about interacting with people outside your house. I think US urban planning has certainly sucked, and the sprawl will hurt us socially as well as economically.

>I see people starting conversations in subways all the time

Where? In New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, the only people who do that are begging, preaching, or rambling incoherently. The sense of community I'll observe on a public transit vehicle is when something has gone wrong, or when everyone shares a look of relief after someone who was trying to start unwanted interactions has left. Granted there are some magical moments like the sax battle [0] that could never happen on a freeway, but did any of those people exchange contact information or form any lasting connection?

There are people who will sit down next to you and start talking. Groups of friends traveling together will "rescue" each other from these interactions. People traveling solo will just get off and move to another car, or wait for the next train. The mood afterword is "can you believe that creep?" not "wow aren't we so connected!"

> It's easier to meet people in a city,

From a pure numbers perspective, there are more people to meet per unit area. But are there more people to meet per travel minute by fastest viable means? I doubt it. If we accept 50 minutes (time for a walk to bus to train journey from mid south side to near north side Chicago by CTA), well, that is 50 miles at 60mph.

If my friend lives in a distant suburb it is not a problem, I can drive to his home in 10 minutes. If my friend lives in a distant urban neighborhood, I'm looking at a 50-minute 3-segment public transit journey.

You also have less free time living in a public-transit-oriented city. A New Yorker whose primary mode is the subway spends 90 minutes per day commuting [1]. A national average car commuter spends just 51 [2]. What would you do with an extra 3 hours per week? I'd see friends more often.

> And what does living with someone have to do with it?

Parent claims it is a problem that people live in separate boxes. Density does prevent this, in that real estate contention means relatively few people can afford their own box, but I claim that roommates of economic necessity don't actually strengthen social ties that well, and may weaken them.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_9IMZcbKHQ

[1] http://origin-states.politico.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazo...

[2] https://project.wnyc.org/commute-times-us/embed.html#5.00/42...

If you're the type of person who thinks it's creepy for a random stranger to start a conversation with you, a random stranger (who's not a creep) will never start a conversation with you.

Just chiming in as another New Yorker who has spent lots of time on the subway and seen/overheard plenty of random interactions and conversations between strangers that aren't at all 'creepy' or one-sided. It's not that common, but definitely happens occasionally if you take the train a lot.

> Where? In New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, the only people who do that are begging, preaching, or rambling incoherently.

Agree with the other replies to you; I've had lovely chats with people on the subway in literally all three of the cities when I've visited. Also at the laundromat, or at a bar, at a museum, and other places.

> ...did any of those people exchange contact information or form any lasting connection?

I never made a lifelong friend from these conversations (though I have received business cards or other contact info), but I got a sense that I mattered to a stranger, even if only for a little bit. That's certainly part of what the article is talking about.

> The mood afterword is "can you believe that creep?" not "wow aren't we so connected!"

I can genuinely tell you that many conversations I've had did not end with either side thinking the other was creepy.

Of course, I've avoided conversations with people who I felt were creepy. Typically, these conversations happen when the person is speaking to me and I've given pretty clear body and vocal language that I am not interested in speaking.

I do my best to initiate chatting only with people who show interest in talking. Having an idea of who's interested in that takes practice, and some other identification skill I have a hard time describing, but which would likely fit the definition of "emotional intelligence."

# # #

Here's a little chestnut similar to what btmorex mentioned:

A young couple moved to a new town, and upon driving up to their new home for the first time, saw their neighbors outside. After a few pleasantries, the young couple asked, "So, we're wondering, what are the people like around here? Is it a good place to live?"

The neighbor paused, then said, "What were your neighbors like at your last town?"

The young couple agreed, "they were great!"

The neighbor, audibly relieved, said, "well they'll be great here, too."

# # #

What you look for and expect from others will greatly color your experiences. I figure most people are generally friendly, and I tend to be able to recognize when someone wants to chat... and they likely see my desire for a friendly chat, too.

This is a fair observation; Manhattan always feel to me very impersonal. However, I think the parent comment is referring to the Interstate Highway System construction in the '50s (and the broader 'Urban Renewal' movement of that era), which razed many of the dense neighborhoods in smaller cities to make room for highway construction. The relevant comparison isn't Manhattan to Scarsdale but the life one could once live in Hartford or Newark to how those cities are today.

Even if conversations with strangers isn't a normal thing, it does happen - I have multiple friends who've dated people they met in subway cars.

The point is that crossing paths is naturally going to lead to more spontaneous interactions. All else equal, driving alone and living in silo'd suburban houses means less interactions with strangers compared to living in an apartment in NYC.

I grew up in the suburbs and now live in Manhattan. I meet a lot more people in Manhattan than I ever did in the suburbs, and this is the main reason why I have no intention of moving back to the suburbs.

I'll also add that I spent my youth living in both suburban America and rural Japan. I made a lot more friends and had a lot more fun in Japan largely because I could get anywhere via walking or biking. In America I was dependent on adults driving me everywhere, so I spent way more time alone playing videogames in my house.

Your last paragraph struck home for me. I had a very similar experience, except it was rural central Africa and suburban America. The only friends I have in America are from college where (guess what?) there were a lot of people my age living within walking/biking distances.

Just a small town girl, living in a lonely world, she took the midnight train goin' anywhere...

Just a city boy, born and raised in south Detroit, he took the midnight train going anywhere...

people in new york ~love~ to chit chat, including on the subway. The weekends are especially full of casual talk since not everyone is busy commuting.

I've seen this brought up many times before but I disagree completely that American cities' designs are the culprit. I enjoy visiting my family in their "suburban fortresses" out in the Midwest where you have to drive a car to get anywhere. I enjoy it because it gives me a chance to recover from the crippling social isolation that comes with living in a city with roommates, taking buses everywhere, walking around in crowds, and generally being surrounded by people who don't care about you.

The way I see it, the level of community involvement and social interaction in general have almost nothing to do with infrastructure, unless you decide to go full-on hermit in the mountains. It matters what people are in your life, not just how many are in your proximity.

I leave the house far more thanks to Uber. There are cool things happening, but it requires me to drive and I hate driving.

> I enjoy visiting my family

> surrounded by people who don't care about you

That's the difference. Not city vs. suburban. Where are the people that care about you and that you care about? That's where you will feel less socially isolated.

I'd bet that if you went to a suburbia that doesn't contain your family, you'd feel just as isolated as you do in the city.

Not necessarily family. Having some good old friends can serve as a seed to start connecting with other folks in the community.

> It matters what people are in your life, not just how many are in your proximity.

It matters how many of the people you meet actually know you.

Terrible. I wish I could be governor or something and make sure that we stop this. It makes me sad.

How would you stop this as governor? I have a feeling your solution would be far worse than the problem you're trying to solve.

Uuuuuuh... call out the National Guard?

knock knock knock <opens door> "Huh?"

"I'm Sergeant Jones with the 665th Airborne. Our records show you haven't been out all week. Come with us, sir... "

It'd be different if he handed you a beer first, I guess.

I would build mixed-use development neighborhoods, and create spaces where people would be able to meet together for events, etc. I'd move highways that go straight through the downtown area and reroute them around the city. I'd make cities more walk/bike/subway/bus - able and work on smart regulation that would allow for mixed-use development so people could work-live-play in different areas.

I'd also fix the schools. But that's a much larger discussion.

This is my opinion.

You seem to have many misunderstandings on the power that Governors have. Real life isn't Simcity.

I could change zoning laws and provide tax incentives. Those work pretty well.

The vast majority of zoning laws are done at the local level. You'd actually be better off running for mayor of some city. It's much better to do what you're proposing at a local level anyway.

A lot of that funding comes from the federal government. Basically anything involving roads has to come from Washington because roads are so damn expensive to build and maintain.

You'd probably have better luck as a senator.

It's also the way American culture is: as a society of individuals with little obligation to their communities outside of work and family.

I know the whole stereotype of suburban isolation is popular, but I have never found it to be true. I have lived in cities, small towns, and in suburbia. I found suburban folk knew their neighbors the most. In the city, people ignore each other. In small towns, you know everyone, but almost too much so. But in the suburbs, we knew everyone within about 5 homes, and the kids would go out and play together, we'd have dinners together, see each other at the parks... it was a community. It was the stereotype of talking across the fence to your neighbor as you both did yard work.

I'm not defending suburbia... I don't like it in general, and now have a small homestead in a small town, but my dislike of suburbia does NOT stem from social isolation.

Just the same, there are city neighborhoods where everyone down the block knows one another and whose families spend time together often, and suburban neighborhoods falling into crime and dysfunction where few community bonds exist.

Neither of these is proof that one is inherently better than the other, just that there are many dependent factors which can change the fabric of a neighborhood in any setting. That's the point of the entire field of urban studies existing; to understand what makes these types of places happen. As you would expect, many of the communities that we have in reality don't implement the best solutions that have been discovered due to local resistance, funding issues, misguided political mandates, etc.

> it's the way American cities are designed. Instead of mixed-use walkable neighborhoods where people with a variety of incomes and backgrounds live, and stay put, we have suburban fortresses where people live in a box, never talk to their neighbors, drive a box to work, work in a box, then do it all over again.

That's not the highways fault in any way. Walkable neighborhoods are expensive, and most Americans are too poor to afford anything like that.

You can't jump in early, because you'll just get gentrified out as soon as decent density & transit exist. You can't jump in after, because the costs are 3x to 50x higher. If your not wealthy, it's a loose-loose situation. That's why walkable neighborhoods can't maintain their "variety of incomes and backgrounds".

If anyone could afford to put their family in walkable NYC / San Francisco / Seattle / etc, many more would choose to do it. But until high-quality safe family housing in walkable neighborhoods drops to $150k - $250k, it's just not going to happen.

Suburbs don't happen because people love looking at asphalt. Suburbs can be made cheap, safe and affordable for regular middle-class people. Dense urban housing is almost never affordable, even in tiny little towns with no zoning or permitting in low-cost-of-living places like the Midwest.

Until people honestly address the exploding high costs of density (and not just blame "red tape" or "design" or "subsidy" for it), that won't change and suburbs will continue to get built.

Older research is generally given less credence than newer research because of certain assumptions which may or may not be accurate:

* That the researchers looked into previous research, examined those results, and are either replicating them (thus adding extra evidence to those hypothesis), or have found some sort of flaw in how the research was gathered.

* That the researches have, in their research, looked into multiple previous studies, including the old one you referenced, and synthesized them all for their new research.

* It's often been shown that older research studies are flawed in some way, especially in certain fields, such as nutrition, so older studies should be held suspect (really the newer studies should be held with just as much skepticism, but they never are)

Again, the assumptions that this is done is not necessarily what happened in reality, but without media or laypeople doing their own research into things (and neither have time for that), it's usually a useful greedy heuristic to assume newer research is better and more accurate than older research.

>'I gotta ask: why the focus on "new research"?'

I think this passage is key, I had not heard this postulated before:

"New research suggests that loneliness is not necessarily the result of poor social skills or lack of social support, but can be caused in part by unusual sensitivity to social cues. Lonely people are more likely to perceive ambiguous social cues negatively, and enter a self-preservation mind-set — worsening the problem."

Totally agree. I think the internet and social media have just exacerbated the existing problem that society is fracturing into countless splinter groups, with no tolerance for any of the others' views, and it's really difficult to find and keep up with those handful of people you can actually tolerate enough to keep a close social bond with. I don't think that it takes a degree in sociology, or a controlled study, to see this happening. As for WHY, my own, personal theory is that "we" (the US) came together to support the war effort in the forties in a way that the world had never experienced before or since, and it's all been a snowballing disassociation since, made worse as a reaction TO the perceived stifling effect of the dominant societal norm of that day.

FWIW communities coming together in times of emergency is a pretty universal experience, not unique to the US in the 1940's (the UK's home front experience during WW2 [1] is cited as an example most often I think). A book I've been meaning to read for a while is "A Paradise Built in Hell" by Rebecca Solnit. From the Washington Post review [2]:

"Her book is worth reading for its storytelling alone. But what makes it even more fascinating is Solnit's demonstration that disasters give rise to small, temporary utopias in which the best of human nature emerges and a remarkable spirit of generosity and cooperation takes over. 'Disaster,' she writes, 'along with moments of social upheaval, is when the shackles of conventional belief and role fall away and the possibilities open up.' People suffering unimaginable misfortune often revert not to savagery but to an almost beatific selflessness, comforting themselves in extremis by aiding others. Solnit cites many examples of those who remember a disaster as, paradoxically, one of the great moments of their lives. The reaction is similar to that of some who recall the Great Depression as a time of spiritual and social richness."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front_during_World_War_II...

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08...

> why the focus on "new research"? Is "old research" not good enough?

Because the NYT is a newspaper and they need a reason to publish a news article. This is known as a "hook." The hook in cases like this will be something new being published. It's hard to hook readers by announcing: What we've known since the 1970s still holds true. Just doesn't work.

Yep, same reason Taylor Swift has so many breakup songs. They sell. The NYT has so many words to push per release and they have to come from a variety of topics.

> Is "old research" not good enough?

Indeed.. while waiting for the new research to come out, read Marcus Aurelius, Erich Fromm and Hannah Arendt. Maybe throw in some Roman and Greek classics. That should "help a bit".

The problem isn't that we don't know how to live well and healthy and sleep soundly, it's that we want to be healthy and sleep soundly without living that way. We don't want to be simply just and honest and go from there. Well, joke's on us, the truth remains where it is, waiting for dithering people to stop being scared of it.

I think that been undergoing a number of changes - including (but not limited to) the increase in urbanization (moving away from close small communities), increase in movement (relatives spread across the country/globe), increase in secularism (decrease in religious communities), and more access to personal entertainment (see the end of the Chautauqua movement), that have definitely caused us to be more isolated and have less of a sense of community. We are still trying to adapt to - or even be aware of - the changes we have been undergoing and the implications of it.

It seems like a sense of community is extremely important for a society, particularly with the connection there seems to be between community and happiness (my understanding is that much of the happiness that religious people get is from the community, for example). Still, I haven't seen a great idea as to how one can be fostered (though there are some decent ideas about what you as an individual can do to get a better sense).

It's because loneliness is much more prevalent now than in 1974. It's no longer exotic but a condition sometimes voluntarily chosen and supported by modern technologies in 2016.

Also we used to think that heart disease risk is mostly tied to diet and exercise. But it's still the #1 killer in the United States. So every protective or risk factor needs to be considered. As such, new research linking heart disease, CVD, CHD to loneliness, friendship or marriage is interesting.

And It doesn't stop there. Loneliness is also tied to breast cancer, lymphoma and obesity : http://outcomereference.com/causes/59

That's not to say that loneliness causes those things. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that lonely people are more likely to be depressed and sedentary. Many diseases follow from being depressed and sedentary.

My folks were Silent Generation,and I think we're a lot less lonely than they were. And face it, I like being alone. I haven't felt lonely since college, and I think that was mostly performance anxiety.

Or Putnam's "Bowling Alone"

That was an excellent book. It was also a prescient book as it predates social media and the smart phone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com