How to be alone: the difference between loneliness and solitude
medium.com
medium.com
Without even communicating with others, even if there are known people in physical proximity, many people feel connected just by being “lurkers” in their favorite corners of the Internet. This is not like passive watching of (live) TV, but is a bit more of a controlled and conscious exercise. So connectedness (as an oppposite of loneliness) is not just about actively interacting with others, but being in a place where relatable people exist. The same applies to outings too. Just being anywhere where other people seem to be is enough to feel it.
Might actually be a genuinely novel mode of interaction (if we can really call it "interaction").
Thank you. You've just given words to the je ne sais quoi that's hung around me when it comes to enjoying city living as a complete introvert.
I feel like I know many of you common posters, though you may never have known I existed up until reading this comment.
I had never really noticed or explored this phenomenon until you had mentioned it above.
In the very beginning it could sometimes be very lonely even though I've known I was an introvert since junior high. The worst times were indeed when there was nothing to do. I have to confess the biggest motivator it took for me to evolve and embrace solitude was to realize my fellow medical students had lives of their own and my entire relevance to them was based on what I could fix for them, not who I was. This made me very bitter for awhile, but it also made me determined not to base my happiness on what anyone else thought. It was a lot easier in my second apartment where I had more room and a better layout for hobbies and many of these hobbies I found still bring me enjoyment today. I learned to be one on my own.
It is helpful my wife is also an introvert and we had been friends online for awhile before we dated, so she understood this perspective fairly instinctively.
I find this rather presumptuous. Whales are highly intelligent animals. To allege that they can't be lonely erodes author's credibility.
I wonder , what about longer periods of time ? How long can you be alone, without something to do and enjoy it ? And what's the context ?
This is very true. Although I am not yet content to sit on a bench doing nothing (I'd prefer to read), solitude is a wonderful hiatus from the physical attachments that are sometimes needed in life. Making friends can often be a clashing of egos which eventually dissolves until you can see each other in a deeper way-- but before that, in a room full of people at a conference for example, all is just masks and shields and feints, the social game, which just comes down to beating around the bush. It's hard not to play the game, but the more comfortable I am in solitude, the more comfortable I am in subverting the game. I'm more honest now, willing to show people I am vulnerable without manipulation, that I am confident without arrogance, and I've formed deeper connections with others as a result. When you are authentic around others in the same way you are with yourself in solitude, the "right people" just come. I have found a lot of like-minded people this way, and having that enhances that inspiration and connection to "the massive pulsating power of our universe ".
I think there's a balance here, and cultivating some amount of loneliness -- not solitude -- is also good. For example, two people in my life are "Alice" and "Bob", who have been married for decades. Alice once told me that one of Bob's great weaknesses was that he'd been alone for too long in his teens and 20s. This had benefits: Bob's social needs are low to non-existent, and while he has loving family and friends, he enjoys sustained solitude. For example, weeks of overseas travel where nobody knows him and he doesn't talk much are great fun for him.
The downside was that he got too used to this. Engaging with other people is messy and hard to control. If you don't have that gnawing bit inside that's hungry for attention and connection, it's easy to decide all that mess isn't worth it. That can hurt people who need those connections more, as they may feel themselves weak or pathetic by comparison. Relationships with other people can become strained if you are at least approximately self-sufficient.
Briefly, my point is most people need (or at least want) to be needed. Somebody who's truly content with solitude isn't going to put that need out there, so relationships with such a person might be more difficult. Of course, too much need is another problem. But a little need seems good.
(This point is pretty tailored to the HN community, which appears to have a lot of stoicism and solitude devotees. I like both too, but I think the point above is worth remembering. The mutual exchange of vulnerabilities is an important component of close friendships.)
I agree, and I'd add to your definition to say that the ultimate bonding occurs through finding joy in the mutual exchange of vulnerabilities.
For example, last night my wife and I were not seeing eye to eye on how we saw our future. I was busy trying to make her see my side, but it wasn't until I was willing to give up and do things her way that she came around and agreed with my perspective.
It was not because I was wrong, it was because I wasn't recognizing her point of view, and that made her feel vulnerable. The joy we experienced mutually at recognizing one another's vulnerabilities is still–the next morning–a sublime feeling, the ultimate experience in life perhaps.
Humans are tremendously varied, and in any group that is comfortable with solitude you will probably end up with representatives from many different sources of motivation for that. For everyone, though, I think there is definite benefit in either seeking to know one's self better or in seeking to understand the outlook other people have. By default we pretty much assume that everyone is mostly like us and this shortsightedness can lead to some pretty nasty evaluations of others who act in ways incongruous with the evaluators own worldview.
The article mentions that we invest a great deal in teaching children how to be social, but fail to prepare them for being alone. I would argue that we don't do a very good job with teaching kids to be social either, but we do certainly invest a great deal more on that side of things. It's one of those sorts of things that would be very difficult to change. If the parent or other teacher is not comfortable with solitude themselves, the only way to equip a child with a better capacity for it would require the teacher to actively teach things that they personally do not feel to be true. Very many parents, it seems to me anyway, are not emotionally mature enough to tackle this. A child which is comfortable with and who seeks solitude is literally worrisome for most parents today. That's the "loner", the "quiet one" that all of the lists of 'warning signs' for everything from suicide to school shootings are topped with.
That is probably because success in society requires socialization. A child eschewing social interaction for solitude is missing the opportunity to fail socially when stakes are relatively low (even if they feel world-ending to the child). I don't want my child to go play with friends because I'm concerned about suicide or school shootings. I want my child to go out and play because I'm concerned about career networks, personal safety, and a lasting support network outside of me.
This sounds like me. I once went to a week long conference where I realized at the end that during the entire week I could count on 2 hands the number of words I had spoken to other people during that time. I don't have the desire or need to speak with other people. I'm happy with my own thoughts. Or as Jane Austen wrote, "Her own thoughts and reflections were habitually her best companions."
I used to believe this about myself too. Then one day I came to the profound realization that I do in fact have both the need and the desire to talk to others. I had just been suppressing it by using my own thoughts as a distraction.
If you think things like "Engaging with other people is messy and hard to control." - this is an introverted viewpoint. The assumption you are making is that engaging with people is draining, you need something to push you to do it or... you just won't.
I'm in a weird space - I'm an extrovert, but I functioned as an Introvert for most of my life. I'm transgender, so as a child and a young adult, I put constant and tremendous energy into conforming to my assigned at birth gender. It made every social interaction, especially with strangers, feel like a drain. I would much rather be at home playing video games where I could play characters I identified with or where gender was not a factor at all. It's part of what drew me to engineering to begin with; computers neither knew nor cared about your gender.
I'm not like that at all now. I go to large gatherings where I know nobody and walk out with new friends. I go to clubs, I date heavily, I dress flashy, I'm constantly interacting with new people and even an awkward mess of an interaction is a good story to tell. Even the video games I play are mostly so I can talk to other people about them. Engaging with other people doesn't feel messy at all to me.
What makes this really relevant is - growing up introverted, my choice of career (as an engineer) and historically friends has left me surrounded by introverts. Who totally misunderstand our motivations sometimes.
For instance, becoming a manager - going to meetings and interacting with people all day? That sounds like the dream. But when I say that it catches people off guard; doesn't every engineer hate those parts of management? Isn't the only upside of being a manager the ability to make decisions?
Or when recruiters are pitching jobs to me, all I really care about is the people, the position, how I'll interact with my coworkers day to day. I can learn a new tech stack. I can and have moved anywhere from front end to devops. But the reality is that if I don't like the people, if I don't have a social engagement to the work - ideally with a lot of pairing, mentoring, and other opportunities for social interaction - I'll lose motivation. Remote only is my worst nightmare, and "we split the work up and go off to our desks for a few days" drives me nuts. But the social environment is almost never pitched.
But Engineering is full of introverts, so it is a context where, for once, the extroverts are the rare and misunderstood breed :P.
For me, the upside is in coaching and growing talent, or finding the right chemistry to enable work otherwise not possible.
[edit: I’m strongly introverted, but love this part of management]
Well then that makes two of us. Watching the junior people grow is among my favorite things. I have seriously considered teaching as a profession though economic incentives are what they are.
It's very refreshing to see such a viewpoint on chemistry. I've never even seen the chemistry be considered in any staffing or team decision (at least openly), or a manager put effort into fixing a broken relationship. It feels like interpersonal chemistry is almost entirely ignored in favor of skill set or basic resource allocation.
For example, I had a coworker I simply could not get along with (and the feeling was mutual). We were on a two person team so all of my work went through that coworker. I told my boss (repeatedly, over the course of most of a year) that I would rather work with anyone else in the company, and I needed to do so at least some because I was getting burned out. His solution was to make that coworker (on our two person team) my boss, since he didn't have time to manage the relationship.
It made sense from a pure resource point of view; the relationship was showing signs of needing managing and not getting it, so by promoting a new manager, that would happen. There were two of us in a somewhat isolated area, and nobody else really had the skill set for that area, so technically we were the best match.
But it totally ignored the people chemistry - the fact that the two of us would argue for hours over the most ridiculous things (quite visibly), and both feared the other's reaction to any work we did. I don't question my coworker's competence, we were simply on opposite ends of ideological extremes on too many things for that to ever have worked. It would have been far better to have me switch roles, split my time, train someone on the skills needed, just about anything else. The actual solution, naturally, felt like a slap to the face.
You imply a downside for Bob in his avoidance of shared-vulnerability-relationship, you didn't explicitly state it - you said it hurts others who have expectations over him. Maybe the details of their marriage, which are none of my business, are where the answer is - but my question is: what is the downside for him?
This sounds like me. I prefer — have learned to prefer — solitude, and prefer to enter human interaction only when I can withdraw from it at will without any awkwardness.
"The mutual exchange of vulnerabilities" often ends in bitterness, especially in cultures where putting yourself in a vulnerable position is seen as naiveté and the "streetwise" are ready to take advantage of those who do the former.
If I (or anyone) is happier in solitude than in interacting with person X, it strikes me as quite patronizing to come to the conclusion that 'gosh, they may feel weak, better throw them a bone.' It simply means that the two people in question should probably seek out others to meet their respective companionship needs.
Self-sufficient people are not 'defective' any more than more social types are. People who are self-actualized do not owe more social people anything, any more than someone who craves social activity should force themselves into loneliness to meet the more independent person's wishes. They're just different personalities, and both have their own value.
>The mutual exchange of vulnerabilities is an important component of close friendships.
I do not think this is a universal. This has never been the case in any of my friendships, and I am not a misanthrope. I feel lucky to be able to say that I have lifelong, close friends, whose company I greatly enjoy. What we all have in common, even though we are all very different people, is enough comfort and trust in one another to be able to speak our minds freely, without any reservations, even when we know the other will disagree. The discussions that come of it are treasures.
It is just that I chafe at the word neediness. Speaking just for myself- If I were to suddenly succumb to the Bus Factor, I know all of my friends would be just fine. Sad, but fine. They don't 'need' me. (This is not a self-esteem issue- the same is true in reverse.) But this actually makes me feel good, in the sense that I have trust in them to carry on doing the things we all enjoy, even if something bad happens to any one of us. We still improve each other's lives while we're here! I feel that this is a healthy form of peer relationship. Compare that to a situation where someone genuinely 'needs' something about our relationship. At that point, it becomes more of a caretaker role, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't personally see it as nearly as comforting, in either direction.
I've lived the solo traveler lifestyle for nearly 4 years and I think this fits the portrait of most other solo travelers that I've encountered. But there's a bit more to it.
The article talks of solitude vs loneliness. I think that the word solitude does not even do enough justice to that longing. I've had people ask me if I don't feel lonely by traveling the way I do and what I answer is that I feel free. Freedom is the term that describes this state with the most accuracy.
In my experience solo travelers are comfortable socializing as long as their freedom is not threatened. For instance, I've resided in guesthouses where other travelers would stay for extended periods, weeks, months, sometimes years even. Similarly I've worked in coworking spaces where I've met other solo travelers. In all such instances they connect with others, engage in and even organize events and gatherings, etc. The bonds are genuine and can even be quite profound, like meeting a kindred spirit. A little community can effectively form. A community of people, sometimes alone, together. There's an implicit understanding though that we're just sharing a moment, people don't impose their agenda onto you. If you don't feel like joining the hiking party to the lake, you can just stay home with little guilt other than what you might be missing out on. Else strap on your boots and off you go. but Everyone has their own path and is writing their own story. You're the only one to know when it's time for you to close a chapter and start a new one. And when the time comes and you announce to friends that you feel like moving on to new adventures, nobody wonders why. People just get you. It's your time to go. Come departure day, hugs and kisses are exchanged, contact information shared, tentative plans to reconnect in some tentative future and place are made, all with no guarantee or obligation. Then it's Godspeed and Happy Trails to you!
I've also witnessed the bitterness that can develop when such solo travelers find themselves paired up for extended periods with someone who does not share those independent inclinations. Which could be what "Alice" was labeling a weakness.
Though more recently I've started to see this behavior as a defense mechanism against predatory people. I've been an observer of many dinner table conversations among rent-seeking types, which slowly erodes away my faith in people (the current commander-in-chief of the US is the perfect physical manifestation of this type of thinking - the "I was here first so now I can extract wealth from society" mentality. And it works, because people are eager to pay for luxury real estate)
But I digress. And digression is a consequence of solitude since you are not frequently bouncing ideas between other people. It can become a self imposed echo chamber, rationalizing things the way you want without a reality check.
As pessimistic as I sound, I know that there are many pure, selfless people in the world. Lots of them have YouTube channels that I'll check up on every few weeks. I want to find more of them and shower them with resources.
Apologies for the stream of consciousness format. Apparently I'm leaning more towards loneliness than solitude at the moment, and this article is a prompt to share something outside of my own head.
Wow, that actually resonates with my own actions. I like people, but I'm always wary of the costs of interacting with them.
Solitude isn't lonely because you're spending time with yourself - it's a self-imposed retreat in order to write, code, make music, build or reflect. As a result, it's often self-actualizing and you like this version of yourself very much.
Loneliness, conversely - especially the kind which manifests despite being in a crowded room - can stem from the feeling that one belongs in a different place, with different people, doing different things. For this is this it? type of loneliness, increased solitude, paradoxically, is often the way to escape it.
I went from lonely entrepreneur to my social bar overflowing into the red zone, where any additional social obligation is a sacrifice of me time. I love my partner, he is the best person ever, but he can't be everything, like sharing my passion about period poverty as much as I can hahaha. I have a loving tribe of wonderful partner, family, and friends but I'm still searching for weirdos like me, entrepreneurs that are more interested in building sustainable and ethical business practices than making money. In that sense, I crave solitude but I still feel lonely, like I'm missing out on very meaningful relationships with people with similar goals and passions.
Blaise Pascal
This makes us incredibly week as well, totally dependent on others to feel good.
What is the source? We don't understand (yet) but it's an interesting clue that the things other people like about you aren't necessarily the things you like about yourself.
Needing to be alone after school or work is not quite the same as being alone 24/7 for months.
Yes that is a different kind of solitude, this is more of a distinction between people who are part of society but with minimal social interaction, and those who seek maximal interaction and have some kind of dysfunction without it (e.g depression).
I'm more part of the former group, I don't usually seek out social interaction but don't shun it either. I enjoy interesting conversations with people but I never feel lonely in their absence. I suspect this may have more to do with what else fills a persons life, rather than some deeper psychological difference (or some crude dichotomy such as introvert vs extrovert as many probably attribute it to).
Over time, we lose part but not all of that need, in different ways, depending on the interpersonal dynamic with our parents. A healthy person's end result is a healthy balance of dependence: too much can be limiting to a person's own agency, while too little means a miserable, lonely existence.
It's not weak to be dependent on others. On the contrary, it requires emotional strength — a strength which is built. Typically by families, but sometimes by close friends, caregivers, or significant others.
>We can’t allow ourselves a moment of self-inflicted boredom.
>We’re scared of where this boredom will take us.
>Of what we will hear in our heads if we lapse into true silence: hopes, dreams, shame, embarrassment… Fear of failure.
>We want to be entertained, constantly. The alternative — introspection — intimidates us.
I don't know about this one. I'm sure it's different for everyone, but boredom to me comes from "being entertained". My inspiration to "do" rather than to "be" comes from introspection. I'm rarely satisfied unless I'm learning about something or contributing to something-- and usually I like to do this alone, because I know what I like to learn and contribute and only I can do that best. Everything goes wrong when I seek out entertainment, so I usually don't.
These lines are kind of patronizing, or feel that way. Not everyone seeks out online psuedo-connection because they're afraid of being alone; some of us, most of us, have an idea of our direction in life, know what we're doing and why.
Maybe the article is a message to those who actually feel lonely. I'm not sure. But I disagree with a few sentiments.
Friends and companions get you gone,
'Tis my desire to be alone;
Ne'er well but when my thoughts and I
Do domineer in privacy.
No Gem, no treasure like to this,
'Tis my delight, my crown, my bliss.
All my joys to this are folly,
Naught so sweet as melancholy.
'Tis my sole plague to be alone,
I am a beast, a monster grown,
I will no light nor company,
I find it now my misery.
The scene is turn'd, my joys are gone,
Fear, discontent, and sorrows come.
All my griefs to this are jolly,
Naught so fierce as melancholy.I think the skill of being alone with one's thoughts has become rarer and more valuable with each passing year.
Being creative is the opposite of embracing the boredom because you're fighting it by being creative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfwqx7MaPog
liked its open ended invitation to investigate 'life' and what it is to be alone in our body.
Though more recently I've started to see this behavior as a defense mechanism against predatory people. I've been an observer of many dinner table conversations among rent-seeking types, which slowly erodes away my faith in people (the current commander-in-chief of the US is the perfect physical manifestation of this type of thinking - the "I was here first so now I can extract wealth from society" mentality. And it works, because people are eager to pay for luxury real estate)
But I digress. And digression is a consequence of solitude since you are not frequently bouncing ideas between other people. It can become a self imposed echo chamber, rationalizing things the way you want without a reality check.
As pessimistic as I sound, I know that there are many pure, selfless people in the world. Lots of them have YouTube channels that I'll check up on every few weeks. I want to find more of them and shower them with resources.
Apologies for the stream of consciousness format. Apparently I'm leaning more towards loneliness than solitude at the moment, and this article is a prompt to share something outside of my own head.
The best thing to do, IMHO, is to look inside and ask yourself what it is you want to feel less lonely:
- Are you feeling lonely because you are escaping a feeling or because you need to connect and you cannot? - Is there something you can do today so your future self is not feeling lonely? - Can you focus on upcoming engagements to feel comfortable being alone today? - Are there people you can text a quick "hi" to fill that sense of longing, even just momentarily? - Are there little pleasures that you've been neglecting that might only be done when you're alone?
It's not simple but the idea of looking inwards is easier than pretending to be a whale. ;)
On the contrary, any social animal can get lonely. There's a wide range of behavior in the socialization of animal species. Even slime moulds are highly social. What is considered healthy or helpful social behavior varies, both by species and by groups. Therefore, trying to extrapolate lessons about human social behavior from the frequency of whale calls may not be very useful.
Loneliness is an unpleasant experience caused by a biological motivator to seek out social contact. If you're a social animal and you don't have contact with social animals when you would normally want it, you will feel some form of loneliness. Loneliness is subjective because it is a symptom of a subject's need not being fulfilled, and those needs can vary.
Solitude is more complex than loneliness. Solitude is the state of being secluded or isolated, and may or may not be chosen. When compared to loneliness, it can be considered a positive, whereas loneliness is a negative.
While loneliness is a symptom of a lack of social connection, solitude has a vast array of features. Prolonged solitude can cause mental instability such as hallucination, time distortion, psychosis, and other negative physiological reactions. But solitude can also enhance self-esteem and creativity and be personally gratifying.
"How to be satisfied with being alone" could be more simply described as the ability to understand a particular need and how to deal with it. You may not be able to eliminate the need, because you don't necessarily have full control over the thoughts in your head, nor your situation. Mental illness and physical isolation, for example, can prevent you from eliminating the need for social connection. A child, adolescent, or teen also doesn't have much agency, and can have difficulty managing their thought processes. But an adult with full agency and who is mentally healthy can probably address their symptoms of loneliness.
So, how to be alone? I would say, first learn to understand why you are lonely, and whether this need serves a useful purpose. Then, find healthy ways to choose to experience solitude, and make it personally fulfilling. That's my take on it, anyway.
Loneliness is not knowing anyone who still talks to you after you disembark.
I'd like a citation.
https://mobile.twitter.com/meaningness/status/97139760655443...
The author wildly mixes statistic sources with inspirational tinder-quotes, mentions research about that abnormal whale, than boils it down to grandma-psychology and does a general bad job separating "my opinion", "read somewhere" and "credible source".
In a similar fashion, comments here confusing anecdotes with science and vice versa. Of course loneliness is compared to network-cryptography a wider experienced phenomenon and can be discussed on a personal level if you declare that, but I find it very hard to extract anything of value here...