Americans are choosing to be alone, but we should reverse that | Hacker News Reader

Americans are choosing to be alone, but we should reverse that

washingtonpost.com

250 pointsvwoolf370 comments

The fundamental force behind this is individualism. Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Every societal change has emphasized the individual right over the (real or perceived) benefit of the collective. This trend seems to accelerate and absolutely nothing that is happening in western society even remotely suggests a possible turnaround.

You can take action, like get a new hobby that is just an okay activity but the people are great. Work on becoming a kick-ass friend yourself and cook for people and all that good stuff. But you'll do all that against massive societal forces. A few decades back you'd join one of the few organizations or clubs that happened in your area, and instantly be in a reliable community (if you adapt a little - let's ignore all the downsides for a moment). Friends would hook you up with a partner who's as nerdy as you. When I was young random strangers had regularly great conversations on trains. A city street was a village, you knew everyone.

That is not coming back anytime soon.

>The fundamental force behind this is individualism. Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Every societal change has emphasized the individual right over the (real or perceived) benefit of the collective. This trend seems to accelerate and absolutely nothing that is happening in western society even remotely suggests a possible turnaround.

I've long captured this by saying that a society based around the individual is a contradiction.

I m somewhat surprised that big cities still exist and people aren't killing each other or run away

Believe it or not, big cities have pretty good quality of life and people who live there do actually have friends and social lives.

I grew up in the suburbs, and I've lived in big cities, urban areas in medium sized cities, and exurbs as well.

The cities aren't as different as non-urban people think. But also, they're better in a lot of the ways that most people would expect: more things to do, better food, better shopping. The only real downsides in my mind are less affordable real estate and higher local particle pollution.

By far my least favorite lifestyle of those choices was in the exurbs/rural areas. Incredibly boring, isolated, and it's not as quiet and tranquil as one might expect (you're probably near a highway where jake brakes are allowed or a 55 MPH country road).

Believe it or not, city areas seem to have better quality park space (because what most people who aren't into hardcore nature consider to be "a nice park" is usually quite heavily designed and built).

And, oh yeah, cities are where the jobs are.

> And, oh yeah, cities are where the jobs are.

We can and should change this as much as possible.

Why?

In short, equity. In longer form, a lot of people don't have the chance to leave their towns and that is in part due to opportunity, another way of looking at it is that extracting people out of their communities and consolidating them in cities isn't very equitable. Historically we've relied on colleges to give people a ticket out of where they come from. In the long term that does real damage to those communities. Instead of building them up, using that newly found prosperity, that wealth gets consolidated in cities. If we let people stay near their families, or wherever they prefer to stay, it gives people choice and creates a much more sustainable economic environment.

I think you misunderstand. Their families are already in cities. (And "cities" includes suburban areas)

This isn't 1800's America where most families are on rural subsistence farms.

People can choose to stay wherever they want, but the networks that make up the economy have to physically exist. Factories, warehouses, etc...look at a satellite view of the Chicago River from Goose Island down to Midway airport. It's a bunch of physical industrial infrastructure: warehouses, factories, railyards, etc. Do you propose these all instead spread out and get located in random middle-of-nowhere places where there are no employees, shops, restaurants, schools, etc?

Even data centers need to be near population centers. Why put us-east-1 near Roanoke and Lynchburg, VA instead of Roy, New Mexico?

We can't all just become remote knowledge worker hermits. Heck, we all saw how terrible remote learning is for children with the pandemic. [1]

[1] https://apnews.com/article/online-school-covid-learning-loss...

My family is not in a city, I do not misunderstand. A lot more than farmers live in rural areas.

The kind of take you have isn't unusual for HN though. Most people from HN have spent their entire lives in cities or suburbs, so their empathy is short.

As a numerical fact, over 80% of people in the US live in cities and suburbs.

I am going to go back to your original comment: you think we should change the fact that most jobs are in cities and suburbs.

I’m just being realistic here: that is not possible. The human population dispersing from cities and suburbs doesn’t make physical sense. You wouldn’t live in a rural area anymore if Manhattan decided to move out and go out to towns like yours. Your town would turn into a city in its own right.

Mumbai has 54,000 people per square mile. Texas has about 110 people per square mile. If Mumbai has a similar density to Texas, it would be roughly the size of Arizona, just for one city that only represents 1% of the population of India.

The fact that most people concentrate themselves into denser areas makes your rural lifestyle possible in the first place.

I am not sure what I’m supposed to have empathy for here. I never said that rural people are dumb or bad or that nobody should live in rural areas. I have plenty of empathy for humans in general. I personally don’t prefer rural life but I also don’t have any negative feelings toward anyone who wants to live that way.

I’m just being realistic: concentrated areas where humans live in communities has been our reality since nomadic hunter-gathering was replaced by agriculture.

> I’m just being realistic here: that is not possible. The human population dispersing from cities and suburbs doesn’t make physical sense. You wouldn’t live in a rural area anymore if Manhattan decided to move out and go out to towns like yours. Your town would turn into a city in its own right.

Good that you can read between the lines. That is the goal. Bring prosperity to these areas rather than extracting from them so regularly.

> The fact that most people concentrate themselves into denser areas makes your rural lifestyle possible in the first place.

Again, another HN fallacy. Rural is not a "lifestyle". Most people don't just move to a place where there's no ambulance services out of a "lifestyle choice". That line of thinking on HN as a default needs a swift and sharp death. Usually it's economic situations. If you start to drift away from the federal definition of rural, which is incredibly specific and not accurate to the average Americans definition, it includes a lot of small towns and cities. There's a lot of overlap as to why people live in those places and, again, it's generally not lifestyle.

> I am not sure what I’m supposed to have empathy for here. I never said that rural people are dumb or bad or that nobody should live in rural areas. I have plenty of empathy for humans in general. I personally don’t prefer rural life but I also don’t have any negative feelings toward anyone who wants to live that way.

Empathy isn't just a trait you have or don't have. Not only are there different kinds of empathy, but humans practice empathy selectively based on experience (largely). I'm saying it sounds like you lack perspective based on the things you've said, which often equates to a lack of empathy. Now, if you were raised in a city or suburb and have never left then that explains it. That doesn't make you awful or anything bad, at least in my view, if that's what you need to hear.

> I’m just being realistic: concentrated areas where humans live in communities has been our reality since nomadic hunter-gathering was replaced by agriculture.

Those tribes were how big? Nowhere near the density of tech cities or any city with the appropriate concentration of jobs I referenced. My idea is to spread the population out more and make better use of land and resources.

Society, and especially the tech business, has been trying. Computers, internet, broadband internet, conference calls, video calls, group video calls.

There are certain job occupations that only work when done at scale.

The ones I can point most directly to are service, retail, and healthcare. These need population densities in order to be efficient.

Unless you are looking at the classic old general store (or in the midwest - you do all your grocery shopping at Kwik Trip - the gas station), it is difficult to have a grocery store outside a city or town of sufficient size. Note that the prices and variety in the smaller stores are more than if you are able to go to a large store in a city.

Likewise, if you want to eat at a restaurant - sure, there are some that are in the "this is a restaurant located a 10 minute drive away from where you can see the window of your neighbor from your window". The norm for this, however, is in a town or city.

And then there's healthcare. Rural hospitals are failing. You don't find dentists on country roads.

These things (and more) 'conspire' to make it so that the services they offer are more efficiently done in a city and the ones in a city can out compete the ones that are located further away from others.

We can then bring up the carbon footprint of living outside a city. If you drive into a city to get goods ( https://ctl.mit.edu/sites/default/files/library/public/Dimit... ) that can be a hefty footprint that is exacerbated by not being able to use public transportation. Another look at it - https://www.treehugger.com/urban-or-rural-which-is-more-ener... :

> But a different picture emerges when you look at per capita consumption rates — cities have the lowest annual energy use per household (85.3 million Btu) and household member (33.7 million Btu) of all four categories. Rural areas consume about 95 million Btu per household each year, followed by towns (102 million) and suburbs (109 million).

And this then leads to that the jobs for the sectors of the economy where you need to physically be present somewhere (and that is a significant portion of them) are more efficient in a city. Coupled with the more efficent use of land and power with the city, this brings down the costs and maximizes the amount that a person makes... if they live in a city (all other things being equal).

The vaste majority of high paying jobs can be done remotely. I'm referring to lawyers, programmers, accountants, etc...

Rural areas are failing because we continue to extract wealth out of them. You actually get right up against talking about it in your wall of text but then just abruptly lose the thought.

Cities have much lower standard of living because no one can afford shelter. There’s too much traffic which means you can’t go anywhere except walking range. So there may actually be equal or less to do in the city simply because your range is so short. And crime is huge problem too, now more than ever

I know you're not making those statements in good faith, but I'll still push back against the absurd generalizations. Of the top 20 biggest cities in America, what you said only applies to a couple of them at most.

Of course, crime, housing costs and traffic (caused in large part by bad urban design) are real issues in American cities to varying degrees. But it's not as if all cities are lawless slums without any way to move about.

"Nobody goes there, it's too crowded"

Cities have much better hospitals than rural areas, and that's not going to change until super advanced robots are developed.

This is an american problem and an american choice that started with white flight in the 50s and a lack of investment into public transit to make it you don't need a car in the city. Many other countries do cities correctly, for cheaper, and far more social order. Most american cities are also not cities, except maybe the grandfathered in choice of NYC and SF somewhat.

I used to think the same think having lived in the suburbs my whole life, but once I moved to a city (San Francisco), I came to see that while there was certainly truth to the media hooplah, a lot of it was just hype designed to polarize us.

There is no substitute for seeing something with your own eyes!

I'll just wear myself out if I keep letting myself respond to feelings-based comments like yours with facts, like how NYC is below the national average in crime safety [1] and well below national average on obesity. [2]

I shouldn't exert myself pointing out that the average cost of a vehicle is about $5000 per year [3], which costs a lot more than the unlimited miles you can travel with a $75/month bus/train pass in Chicago. [4]

It would probably blow the minds of car-dwellers to find out that it only takes 20 minutes to walk a mile. [5]

[1] https://realestate.usnews.com/places/new-york/new-york-city/...

[2] https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/obesity.pa...

[3] https://www.move.org/average-cost-owning-a-car/

[4] https://www.transitchicago.com/fares/

[5] https://www.nike.com/a/how-long-does-it-take-to-walk-a-mile

> it only takes 20 minutes to walk a mile

Which means you have massive delays between stops, and can’t do much if you don’t have hours available.

You know in cities there's trains, buses, and cabs, right?

Especially in a city like NYC, essentially everything you need is within a mile. I live in Tokyo right now, and everything I need for daily life is within a quarter of a mile. I can get basically anywhere in the city in 30 minutes.

Awesome, you’ve named the features of the downtown of two of the densest and most expensive cities in the world.

You know cities aren’t all like that?

Tokyo doesn't really have a downtown, and what I described works for most of Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto and Sapporo. I think it mostly covers all 5 boroughs of NYC.

I lived without a car in SF for 10 years and I think it covers that city as well. A lot of international cities work the same way.

Big cities feel easier than ever to avoid the individualism trap in the US. Likely they have SOME public transportation, attract similar minded individuals, have vibrant social scenes involving food/drink and so make it easier to find friends and keep them.

Big cities are much more efficient - especially for the single person - than living further away.

Personal vehicles scale up to their passenger count. The single person with a car in the suburbs or rural effectively pays 4x more for the car than the family of four.

How do you get rid of the car? Live somewhere where public transportation or walking is the more efficient means of transportation - larger cities do this better than smaller ones.

Many aspects of managing a house are best done with more people. I've got a list of repairs that need at least three hands to do - but get put off because I've only got two. It would be much easier to live in a nice apartment closer to the urban center of the city.

Every other utility scales that way - more efficient to run power lines, roads, internet, water and sewage to single buildings that house multiple people than single houses kilometers from each other.

> I've long captured this by saying that a society based around the individual is a contradiction.

I don’t personally seen the contradiction here. Mutualism is orthogonal in many ways to individualism. Even the lone hermit had parents, acquired the basic skills form somewhere, and probably uses some tool(s) made by others.

Individualists can take on any number of voluntary social obligations. The ability to exit destructive obligations is a safety valve, and makes the carrying out of those obligations more meaningful in some ways.

Narratives, customs, culture, and shared interests all bind people regardless of their place on the scale of individualism to collectivism.

Individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive

<< That is not coming back anytime soon.

I am posting this as a person born and raised in a rather small community. I personally do not yearn for the good old days when 'everyone knew everyone' and there were things to do together. We did things together, because of geographical convenience and random chance. We had no other options so we did kids things. Granted, I was lucky to be included in that particular group, because they all were much, much smarter than me, but despite relatively pleasant memories, I enjoy my current situation much more.

<< When I was young random strangers had regularly great conversations on trains.

I accept that being extrovert and/or social is(was?) the default mode in polite society, but I think we can agree that not everyone is built the same way. I certainly do not talk to strangers bar some unusual turn of events that requires cooperation.

<< Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone.

Is that a bad thing? We can now individually decide the life we actually want to lead with minimal interplay between various mediators that would have been mandatory only decades ago. Should we not be celebrating this as a tremendous achievement of humanity as a whole?

Perhaps. But what are the long-term ramifications of continuing down this track? Does a society of individuals with low cohesion survive in the long run? What motivations to pull together and overcome any adversity that might come along exists? Is it worth it for a few generations of improved individual freedom, if that society doesn't hold together longer than that due to a lack of cohesion?

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” — Abraham Lincoln.

I have come to believe that social interaction is like exercising or eating your vegetables. Some people naturally enjoy it; some people don’t. Either way, you will be a healthier person if you do it.

everyone can learn to love their current situation. we are very adaptible species, but lack of interaction is also lack of opportunity and experience - sensory experience.

being guarded against strangers is a somewhat ingraned fear. but there is value to overcoming the fear , or at least it s worth knowing whether there is value.

somtimes the journey is worth more than the destination. surely it's great that we can travel faster in life and break barriers, but it often leads to lonely destinations which feel very meaningless.

It's not just leave-me-alone individualism. It's this new, belligerent "Toxic Individualism" that's taken hold, supported by recent technological change (such as social media) and recent political/cultural change (many examples). A regular individualist simply prefers to operate on their own, outside of society and ignore collective activities. This new breed of individualism is more focused on attacking society and making it harder for people to take cooperative, collective action. Regular individualists are about working for themselves, where Toxic Individualists are more about deliberately working against society. "I don't want to be part of society" has become "Society is bad and you shouldn't have it either". I don't think this should be celebrated.

The anti-natalist movement is a good example of this.

not at all. They are completely different things. We anti-natalists see child-making as torture and murder against an innocent -- if you see someone murdering an innocent, surely it's normal to speak out against it and try to stop it. Child making is not about parents; you are free to do whatever you do with your own life, not to involve someone else by force.

>you are free to do whatever you do with your own life, not to involve someone else by force.

are you a vegan?

What you call the the "toxic individualists" are simply another collective. Just one motivated by envy or nihilism.

I hesitated a little, but I started to wonder if you are onto something in general. As defined, that type of individualist would be something like a herd of cats. They are clearly a part of a group ( with their own slang, rites and forbidden actions ), but yet manage to maintain aura of individualism.

I am not sure I agree, but I think it is an interesting thought worth exploring further.

You're the only one introducing "Toxic Individualism" in this thread.

I wonder what do you mean by it?

Because, just as well, there's an aggressive collectivist movement which directly attacks individuals (and individual choices).

It's really easy to switch from "I like to do my things alone, let me be" to "society is evil" after having been made a pariah by the "collective".

It's also really easy, I'd say even more common, for people to be made a pariah because of their behavior and then blame the collective. You could say it's a hallmark of toxic individualism. Activism and narcissism is rampant in modern society now. The old guard of moral conformity no longer exists. That pendulum has already swung and the heros/villians have traded places. To be fair, its extremely rare for groups to own their bad behavior, but you can still find it in individuals. Perhaps a good example of toxic individualism is the way JK Rowling has been criticized by the LGBT community. She's the most prolific writer of today and she chose to empathize a social nuance over another. Where she deviated cause a lack of conformity to the individuals drawing their ire and getting her effectively cancelled from her own IP. This I think shows that toxic individualism empowers the few over the many based not on what is best or good for society but what the individuals deem necessary. It's frankly pathetic and needs stopped.

You reply makes no sense. On a grammatical and conceptual level.

>"It's this new, belligerent "Toxic Individualism" that's taken hold, supported by recent technological change (such as social media) and recent political/cultural change (many examples)."

I feel like this started with reality-tv which predates social media by a few years. I think reality-tv took poorly-behaved and uninteresting people and elevated them. I think this not only normalized bad behavior but even celebrated these people as special. It seems like this just primed the pump for what came after with social media. TikTok/FB/Instagram et al, seem to enable and encourage everyone to star in their own reality-tv shows where the mundane, banal and uncivil are treated as interesting and worthy of attention.

I think this analysis, and the analysis of the opinion article, jumps to too many conclusions.

This article says that the trend has started since 2013. In what way has American individualism changed since then? I would say it hasn't. How could American culture shift that much in less than 10 years in this specific span? I don't buy that explanation without more thorough study.

American individualism has existed far longer than the data in this article. We've been sitting in cars by ourselves since the mid-century. I am most skeptical about easy and simple explanations like the one you're describing.

For one thing, I'm looking through the data and I'm struggling to find the data that the chart is representing: https://www.bls.gov/tus/database/tustabs.htm

Is anyone else able to find it?

"I think this analysis, and the analysis of the opinion article, jumps to too many conclusions."

Definitely, especially because the article seems to avoid the elephant in the room. The US is amidst full on class warfare, the transfer of wealth from the poor and middleclass to the wealthy has been staggering, we never recovered from the 2008 crash, only rich people did.

The rich are grinding us to pieces and honestly I just dont think most of us have the energy to socialize anymore. Wages are less, no one has much money to spend on recreation, everybody is stressed about rent, healthcare, and their bosses being assholes and making them do the job of 3 people.

There are certainly other factors at play here but avoiding talking about this factor just torpedoes any intelligent discussion of ANYTHING related to quality of life in the US.

We had class warfare before, and collectivistic action (i.e. unions, strikes) was a logical and (somewhat?) successful solution to improve quality of life. Individualism as the underlying trend prevents those classic solutions and therefore individualistic solutions have to be found: Instead of just collectively asking for x% more salary, society tediously defines and articulates new instances of discrimination (which are ultimately violations on the individual level). Fixing various internal injustices leads to friction and is probably mostly a wealth transfer from different tiers of middle and lower classes. The powers that be therefore applaud and encourage individualism and thus further strenghten this trend.

I was thinking about this as well.

In short, spending time alone could also have to do with being beat down by work. Long hours, lower pay, worse benefits. Statistically, America's lower class is getting poorer.

I have to think it's easier to get together with friends and family more when you have more free time and disposable income.

But even this speculation is a jump to conclusions. I am very wary of articles like this that are quick to assign cause.

> We've been sitting in cars by ourselves since the mid-century.

Before that we've been riding horses by ourselves.

Before that we walked by ourselves.

American individualism has existed for a long time, but trends continue and accelerate. Recent trends to increase individualism:

- Influencers, streamers introduced and established 1-n relationships in society, somewhat replacing more organic 1-1 connections. People start mapping classic relationship-type emotions on what Onlyfans gives them.

- High quality smart phone cameras brought the selfie, the concept of frequently broadcasting a high quality picture of myself, rather than a more natural slice of life moment, picture of a group doing something, relying on another person to be available and willing to take a photo.

- continuing decline of newspapers and other general-audience media, replaced by chose-your-own-bubble media

- online dating becoming widespread, making people more selective, less patient to deal with random encounters; more random rejection, ghosting.

- the pandemic

- homeoffice

>Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone

This sounds deep and wise in the abstract, but I think it's important that we're talking about is, like, because there are washing machines now, you can show up places looking presentable without there being a woman in your home dedicated to washing your clothes all the time.

That was never necessary. You have always been able to pay someone to do your laundry.

Is there a problem with a woman dedicated to washing your laundry at home? Seems like women today have to go to work and do that in the evening anyways.

Yes, there is a problem with domestic labor being so demanding as to demand an entire human being's full time attention. That's why modernity is amazing.

Is it more meaningful if your labour is instead spent as a minute cog in a vast and faceless corporation? At least you can wear the clothes you wash.

Don’t get me wrong, washing machines are great, probably one of the greatest inventions ever. We now can lead meaningful and consequential lives, but newly potent sources of inconsequentiality have arisen.

It gives you better control over your life. Cause that wife was utterly and absolutely dependent on husband. There was nothing she could do to improve her life if there were issues. And if he was gone (say due to being sick, dead, in prison) she was utterly absolutely effed. If be beat her up, she was helpless. If he was emotionally manipulative she was helpless. If the marriage just sucked, both were trapped. If he was feeling responsible, he would not leave her in poverty and would stay with her despite her being jerk too.

The kind of murder where husband kills wife used to be waaay more frequent then it is now. It is one of reasons for lower murders clearance rate ... cause these were super easy to solve.

Still seems like a superior system for the overwhelming majority of people as compared to something that works for no one.

> But you'll do all that against massive societal forces.

What forces exactly?

> A few decades back you'd join one of the few organizations or clubs that happened in your area, and instantly be in a reliable community (if you adapt a little - let's ignore all the downsides for a moment).

I’ve joined two different clubs. One 7 years ago and one this year. Both have resulted in good friends, outings, and even trips to other states. There are more people who want to see more of me than I have time for.

> Friends would hook you up with a partner who's as nerdy as you.

I met my wife at a friend’s party 5 years ago.

> When I was young random strangers had regularly great conversations on trains. A city street was a village, you knew everyone.

I know my neighbors on both sides and across the street, and routinely have conversations with people I meet when I’m walking my dog.

> That is not coming back anytime soon.

I don’t think it’s gone anywhere. As far as I can see there are far more groups of people doing interesting things than I have time for. Mostly I’m turning down opportunities.

Out of curiosity, where do you live?

SF Bay Area

In the city or the vast suburbs of the peninsula / South Bay?

I have similar experiences as the top-comment. Moved to US in 2017, bought a house in suburbs of Seattle.. have great relationship with neighbors.. meet new people through kids' school. I went to houston for a short period and met some interesting people through meetup groups. I think some of it is just individual leanings - you need to adjust to be part of a community.

Exactly. I also have some enduring friendships - the longest having now lasted 14 years or so with people I met at meetup groups.

A crucial point that gets brought up on HN time and time again, is that you need to let yourself develop interests that are outside of work, and then you can meet people who share those interests.

Urban East Bay, with restaurants, cafes, groceries, bars etc, easily walkable from where I live.

> Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone.

Isn’t it more nuanced? In order for someone to not need a wife for laundry service, we rely on the manufacturer. We rely on electricity.

It seems like we become more tightly dependent (single directional graph) on more people in order to feel superficially less intertwined.

I think people need other people more than ever. We just might not need them to be our masters or servants.

> we rely on the manufacturer. We rely on electricity.

We rely on having money. And we rely on a mature economy where someone is willing to solve every problem in exchange for that money.

In an individualistic society, each person is expected to earn their own way and then pay to solve every problem they may have.

In more community-oriented societies, personal earnings are less important than a strong network of friends and family who can fulfill every need. Each person's income/wealth is contributing to the collective for whatever cannot be served internally.

This movement toward individualization correlates very strongly with the capitalism.

> In more community-oriented societies, personal earnings are less important than a strong network of friends and family who can fulfill every need.

and as this community grew, accounting for such "favours" between friends/family become more important, and thus, the need for unit of accounts - aka money. You'd end up replicating the current system when given long enough time and a large enough community.

The First 5000 Years of Debt has a lot to say about this. It’s not fact that every large group of people invents money

I'm following up a bit late but I wasn't referring to communism or nation-sized communities. I was referring to societies that tend to value community (ranging from brazil to china - look for countries where it's normal for aging parents to live with their children).

These societies tend to keep those communities smaller - immediate family plus some closer relatives and family friends. Then there are broader networks with shallower ties where business is favoured but money will usually change hands.

> This movement toward individualization correlates very strongly with the capitalism.

This idea never made sense to me. Capitalism is organized around people self-organizing to form companies. One man companies don't get much of anything done. There's nothing whatsoever about free markets and capitalism that prevents or discourages people working together.

BTW, even small voluntary collectives don't work. Jamestown didn't work, the first year the Pilgrims tried a collective didn't work, the kibbutzen in Israel doesn't work (they get subsidized by the government funded by taxes on capitalists).

> We rely on having money. And we rely on a mature economy where someone is willing to solve every problem in exchange for that money. [...] This movement toward individualization correlates very strongly with the capitalism.

Money as a facilitator for the exchange of goods and services long, long, long predates the rise of capitalism.

We are trading things and systems for social interaction; its a qualitative thing not really equivalent to how tightly coupled we are. We no longer need people at all, because we dont need (or even particularly want) to interact with a person in order to solve our needs.

I think another thing that's causing it is social media ... the thought of ...i want to have the perfect family too and post photos of such so I get tons of likes too for what I created (the picture of me with my beautiful family). If i cant achieve that i'll be alone.

That's just one thing yet not sure how big or small of a driver it is.

I feel like it's the opposite. This was caused by the destruction of individualism.

When people are individuals, you know the name of your butcher and which farm your wheat came from. Now it all comes from the collective and you can't participate in the process without being a drone. Working for Walmart is not the same as operating your own farm stand. You lack autonomy because decisions are made collectively by corporations and legislators, and that makes everything bland, homogeneous and fungible.

> makes everything bland, homogeneous and fungible.

which is what makes it cheap and available.

If you ran your own farm stand, the goods you produce would be some 2-5x more expensive than a factory farm could've sold for.

The modern wealth is predicated on such specialization and scaling. It's why artisanal products are so expensive.

Artisanal products are so expensive because we make them so.

By default if you buy something in a store, add 5% to the value by improving it and want to sell it on eBay, they'll charge sales tax on the full sale price even though you already paid sales tax on 95% of that. To avoid the double taxation you have to file paperwork, which most people don't know how to do, and pay filing fees, which eat into your already-meager profits.

If you want to sell things over the internet yourself, or accept digital payments in person, how do you avoid paying a fraction of the sale price that may exceed your margin to some payment intermediary that may capriciously choose to cut you off at any time with no recourse?

If you want to incorporate, your annual fee is the same one paid by Apple, but e.g. $500 is a lot more to you than it is to them.

Keep adding things like that up and individual-scale operations are no longer viable without charging thick margins and thereby having only the affluent as customers, which is what happened.

Artisanal products are expensive because human work is expensive. You can either have a machine that produces a million bland identical tea cups a day for a cost of a dollar per cup or you can have an expert potter produce two dozen artisanal tea cups a day. Even if the potter works for minimum wage and materials are free it's several times more expensive.

If human labor is so expensive then why do unskilled laborers have such trouble making a living?

You're ignoring the middle ground, because that's the thing that was destroyed. The expert potter is still in business selling bespoke products to millionaires.

It's the one who might have done it for 15% more than the mass produced product who is gone, because we added on top of that so much bureaucratic overhead that the final price ends up being 100%+ more instead of 15% more and that exceeds what ordinary customers are willing to pay.

> It's the one who might have done it for 15% more than the mass produced product who is gone, because we added on top of that so much bureaucratic overhead that the final price ends up being 100%+ more instead of 15% more and that exceeds what ordinary customers are willing to pay.

Why would you buy a product for 15% more, unless there's a compelling reason to do so? The mass produced ceramics are high quality, durable, come in a variety of shapes, colors, sizes, etc. People buy hand-made ceramics for the aesthetics, and to have something that's more unique.

I think you greatly underestimate how much cheaper mass produced goods are than artisan made goods. Op's choice of ceramics is really good. Machines can produce thousands of plates in the amount of time it takes an artisan potter to make dozens. The potter's source of clay may be limited, or they may have to pay a lot more because they buy in smaller quantities. They have to pay more for transportation for the same reason. They have to pay more for distribution for the same reason.

Bureaucratic overhead may play a part in this, but overall it's a small one that gets lost in the scale of mass production.

The nonexpert potter can't produce two dozen tea cups a day, driving up unit costs even further. I tried, it takes me at least two hours to make a crappy tea cup.

You don't need to incorporate to sell artisanal products. If you want to register a fictitious name for business purposes then you can do that for free or very cheap in most states.

You probably want limited liability if you're selling edible(/quaffable) goods though. At least in the UK, it seems to be common for markets to require it of stall applicants, along with business insurance in excess of £x (looked into it a while ago on a fanciful whim).

If you base everything on pure monetary value we're absolutely rocking it! If you start talking about quality of life, sustainability, mental health, ethics, &c. it's a whole other story.

You’re talking about a different type of effect where corporations killed all the small players and that’s very true but has nothing to do with the ideological individualism, at least not directly but could as well indirectly but let’s be clear what we’re discussing and if they’re intertwined let’s make that explicit. Individualism discussed here leads people to lonelinese and communities to vanish around them..

The issue with the comment I replied to is that it takes individualism to mean something like isolation, which is a straw man when that position has no advocates.

Individualism is something more like individual autonomy, which is in no way incompatible with individuals entering into voluntary associations with other members of the community -- as long as no one is forcing them to. But that's the thing we've destroyed through regulatory overhead and vertically integrated monopolies which force people into associations with entities they'd prefer not to be associated with and deprive them of their autonomy.

I keep hearing about this ideological individualism, but I never see it explained except as a cause for bad things. Can someone give me an example?

I found the parent and your comment really insightful. I think they are right that technology has aided an individual in accomplishing things they would need others for, and one can more easily stand alone. I think you're absolutely right that the global perspective of online social media has made it difficult to build an identify that is your own. There are countless examples of others doing any interest you could to a better degree than yourself. It leads to a lot of self-doubt and isolation. I'm very happy to have the online resources we have today and would choose the muck of Facebook/Twitter/Youtube/etc over not having them any day of the week. However, I do recognize it was easier for me to take pride in my own ability and grow my own expertise in an area in "true isolation", disconnected from online humanity. Online groups to share your interests with - to me - do not feel as intimate as what some would turn to church or a community center for back in the 80s/90s.

We are alone and not special. I'm trying to explore the advantages of that. I certainly find myself in less drama in a community I can readily disconnect from.

As an anecdote: I had a friend in high school who regularly said he wanted 'to be remembered', that his greatest goal in life was to have his name be recorded in history. I thought he was somewhat arrogant, but he truly wanted to become an Alexander the Great figure.

I'm considering it my own goal to be someone forgettable. I want to find comfort/success without recognition.

That's not individualism, that's absence of scale.

Individuals didn't have problems achieving viable scale before collectives started imposing more fixed costs on everything than individual-scale operations could sustain.

You’re both very correct, in a sense. You’re looking at the problem from different perspectives.

If you ask me, it's because humans fucking suck to be around. Myself and yourself included, along with everyone else.

Marrying? Fuck that; pun intended. Friends? I can count the number of true friends I've ever had with one hand. Co-workers and comrades? Ultimately, we're just there to make ends meet. Societal collective (eg: neighborhoods, villages, towns)? Well, we're here talking about this because such things have become pieces of history.

I crave solitude, even if in practice that solitude relies on a handful of people and organizations that enable it (eg: supermarkets, gas stations, power company). Interacting with people fucking sucks balls, the less of it the better I say. I'd sooner deal with machines or our fellow animal peers.

The way I see it, back in the old days people tolerated being around each other because that was a hard requirement to long-term survival. But that is no longer the case, and given that relinquishment and freedom, I for one am going to take full advantage of that freedom and enjoy something my ancestors couldn't.

Of course, this also means I won't have any descendants to enjoy what I enjoy (or enjoy what I couldn't), but that's none of my concern because I don't care about leaving behind offspring in the first place. Individualism baby, everyone including Mother Nature can go pound sand.

Why do people suck to be around?

Many reasons, including but not limited to:

* People are two-faced. There is a distinct lack of sincerity in any human interaction compared to interacting with literally anything else. I know a machine is being honest with me, I know a dog or a cat is being honest with me, and I know a human is being dishonest with me.

* The needs and desires of one will not align with those of another. Groups of people must compromise, and compromises leave noone happy. This modern age of people being manipulated into division and strife by the bigger powers-that-be make this even worse.

* The desires of some to wield power leads to awkward and harmful social dynamics. Best to not get involved at all. For individualists, this is perhaps one of the biggest sticking points to socializing. Outside of professional obligations, nobody likes being told what to do.

* People need sufficient time alone to remain mentally healthy, even those who are mega extroverts. The problem is, most people do not understand this and become nuisances in life. Worse is when certain social arrangements (eg: a family) make distancing oneself practically impossible.

I think these are all good points, but they don't really apply to people categorically; but rather to some people in some situations.

For example, if half of the group wants pizza, and the other half wants BBQ, a compromise might make everyone happier if they value eating together over eating their preferred meal apart.

My mom grew up in a tiny village complete with religious conservatism. She got the hell out of Dodge and moved to the big city when she was 16.

Maybe this glib cynacism has something to do with it. The world, and the people in it, aren't all that great. Both can be cruel. Maybe we have to try to see the good in it all.

Individuals thrive in communities. Individualism is doing your thing.

What we have in the west (and increasingly the east) is the opposite: the creation of isolated cogs, educated to be mere cogs, following mass fashions, work as replacable units, and leave no mark of their existence.

Their "individuality" is reduced to consumerism, and is sold to them through chosing among ready made brands (of gadgets, clothes, cultural products). They're "invididually" part of market groups.

Those are, as you observe, better able to function alone than in the past (e.g. no need to cooperate to get it), but they also have no support group, and often not even family and friends to support them, and help them do anything and to allow them to be able to resist (work conditions, political pressure, etc).

They're not individuals, they're cogs with cookie cutter "identities". Nobody knows or cares who they are even - because each of them is as good as any other, just a unit to get some services of.

I live in a big city, but I'm terribly lonely.

- I live alone. - I work hybrid, but when I go into the office, it's more or less empty and I spend all my time on zoom calls. - My family lives far away. - I'm single.

Most weeks, my only social interaction is at the local bar, where I'm a regular, or various dates from apps. Excesses of both of these is unhealthy in different ways.

I've been pushing myself to go to meetups and hobby groups, but my hobbies are mostly solo ones (probably a bi-product of spending time alone), and I have terrible decision paralysis. It ends up being a lot of work, and not at all something I'm excited about or that seems _fun_.

I don't really have a solution here, but something tells me I'm not alone in being in this situation.

Sorry to hear about that difficult situation you are in. Sounds like it's more and more common these days.

If I could offer a suggestion... try a sport? Join a tennis club for example, and go to all the meetups.

If you don't like tennis, try something else!

If you go to the same bar all the time and haven't made friends there, try a different bar. And maybe consider those dates as opportunities to make friends in addition to romantic pursuits. A lot of my social group connected originally via dating apps.

I have some friends at the bar, and I'm definitely considered welcome as a regular, and always have a good time, etc. But they're mostly drinking buddies, and not much more outside of that, however I'd like to try harder to change that.

You should stop drinking so much

How do you know how much this person drinks? Sounds like you've got an axe to grind, but not with this particular stranger.

What do you imagine a friend is? Mostly they are drinking buddies, or <some shared activity> buddies. I have not had a friend in over 30 years who was anything more than someone I knew from an activity we both did or a place we both frequented.

People (especially men) pretty much stop having "deep" friendships once they are adults.

That's just an acquaintance, honestly.

I hope that's not true. Though I'll admit most of my deep male-male friendships date back to high school and new ones are very rare. Most new deeper friendships I've formed have been with women, who I think frankly make better friends.

Men can develop deep friendships with each other as adults, it "just" takes enough mutual interest and flexibility to spend a lot of time together. That is much harder if your time is already spoken for my family, a partner, children, work, hobbies, etc. Think of all those sitcom friends who just show up at each others' houses and hang out.

Friendship is fundamentally when two people want to spend time talking with each other (without an ulterior motive like sex or commerce).

Sitcoms are not real life and never were. They are made up situations designed to make writing funny scenes easy. Sitcoms are not how people actually ever socialized or behaved.

My wife's closest 10 or so friends are all from school era, 20+ years ago.

My close friends are all people I've met as an adult - I'd consider them deep friendships: we've travelled together, catch up regularly, know each others' parents and kids, discuss the issues of the world, etc.

But, like school, you need enough time around a common place or interest to develop all that. In my cases, it was usually shared, social offices or having friends in common.

Yeah, I feel like if you're someone who likes hanging out and talking to people at bars, you can probably do that at lots of bars and meet more new people. I don't think it's unusual to get to know a bunch of people but not form any major friendships (happens at workplaces all the time). You may just need more people in the mix to find those friendships. They're hard to find! Especially if you're a little older and maybe more discriminating about who you want to connect with and spend time with.

I'm in a similar situation in a very rural area, except probably worse to some degree. I do have a couple of family members local, but there's no bars, zero dating potential, no hobby groups, and no events for people my age whatsoever.

I've seriously considered moving to a city, but then I'll have to lose the tiny bit of social interaction I actually do have, my family. In some ways I want to believe I could build a better social life in a city and be happier since there's more opportunity on all fronts, but I don't actually believe that would be the case.

I've never even met my coworkers, my social life is non-existent. It's actually crazy to think it's even possible to end up in a situation like I have.

The loneliness has seriously messed with me mentally at this point and I really can't see things getting better anywhere I am. I'm not sure I could muster the will to move at this point anyway. I think I may be too far gone.

I don't have a fix for you, but I completely get where you're coming from.

That sounds hard to deal with! I haven't had the exact same experience, but I have spent periods of my life living in places where it was hard to build a social support structure.

One thing I noticed: it sounds like you're thinking in terms of the two most extreme decisions (stay "here" forever vs. "leave" your family to move to the city). You might be able to leverage your remote-work position to try different places, in case one of them might be a good fit for you.

Sublet an apartment or stay in a long-term AirBnB in a city that you're considering, and during that time (a couple of months, maybe?) dedicate significant energy to meeting people. If it doesn't work, then you have a better grasp on the reality of the situation - if it does, then you can extend your experiment from months to year(s).

mate honestly that sounds like you're cutting off your legs to save your toes.

you should take a backpacking holiday in a busy city somewhere (overseas?). If you have fun, try a working-holiday in a new city for a couple weeks. Maybe one you've been thinking of moving to?

just try it on. There's no downside.

I've done this before within the country and ultimately just found it extremely stressful. I could never get comfortable in the AirBNB, I constantly felt like I'd just shown up and invaded someone's apartment.

I absolutely hate traveling, I just want to live somewhere and for it to become home.

You're probably right about the cutting off legs part, though I've simply lost sight of an exit from my current situation. I own a house, I have responsibilities, and I'm burnt out from work. I actually had a plan in place to move before I burnt out, but that fucked up everything.

You need to take a break man. Change something. Fair call if you don’t like travel. Just go live anywhere else for a month. Pick a city and pretend it’s home. Rent your place out. If you like it make it 2 months. If it’s shit you’re just back to square 1, no big deal.

All the best

I don't know if qnt's suggestions are the right ones for you or not (that's for you to decide), but you know what?

I believe in your ability to make a better life for yourself.

You can do this.

Yeah, I think many social groups are suffering from bootstrap problems post covid.

Covid definitely was a game changer for us (I am married). It reduced the number of in-person contacts with people outside our household by an order of magnitude, decimated the number of car miles we drove, and changed our attitude to being at home. Even as Covid is now somewhat less of an issue, some of those habits have stuck.

Hey, can relate. Your situation seems tough, but you're right, you're not alone in this situation. Something I've noticed as I got older is just how isolating the US can be. The predominate culture is for children to go to college (oftentimes far away from family), then move to a city (again far away from family).

People don't go to church or other religious gatherings as often so people don't build community that way as much anymore.

And now that work is remote/hybrid, as you said, even when you go into the office there isn't much there. I think the US is really failing from an institutional level in that the only reliable way I have ever had of meeting new people was schooling. A dream of mine is that community centers become well funded and become just a place to hang out (like a library but with more activities) and can help facilitate bringing communities together and building those relationships.

But I hope something changes for you, and you do something to change it. Best of luck!

I (like other commenters) can understand where you coming from. There are, of course, lots of solutions if you are willing to try them.

Out of curiosity, have you tried the easy ones, like regularly inviting other folks over for a group dinner? Or joining a rec league, or a shared activity group?

The latter is nice, as it's a weekly forcing function.

>have you tried the easy ones, like regularly inviting other folks over for a group dinner?

Frankly, this made me laugh out loud.

1. Who am I going to invite? It's not like I have old connections to rekindle.

2. I have a tiny apartment and couldn't exactly host many guests. My table could theoretically sit four if I rearranged some things (the max it's ever had is 2)

3. Considering I'm not exactly a socialite now (It's been a while since I went to a dinner party or anything), I have absolutely zero confidence in hosting one myself.

So, maybe this is all in my head, but it doesn't seem easy to me at all.

You live in an apartment? Who else lives on your building? In a decent sized building I bet you’re not the only lonely person. Find the other ones, and create some social thing that’s easy to say yes to.

Dinner is straightforward. Other excuses include book clubs, movie viewings, crafts, community garden, volunteering, etc.

For a dinner, if your apartment is small, use a common space. If you don’t have a common room, do it outdoors. If you don’t have picnic tables, go to a park. If you don’t cook, have a potluck. If nobody cooks, order in.

Don’t allow yourself to give up before you start. Focus on:

(1) identify a pool of people worth interacting with (Eg neighbors, hobby enthusiasts, co-religionists)

(2.a) find where those people gather and join them

(2.b) if they don’t gather yet, convene them yourself in a way that is easy for them and you.

This whole thing is absolutely work though. 2.a is way easier than 2.b.

I think you are taking for granted a huge body of knowledge that some of us are lacking.

Hosting a dinner gathering is complicated. What foods do you serve? What time? Do you complete all the food prep before guests arrive? If you are chatting over appetizers, how do you invite your guests to the table for the main meal?

There's not just one right way to do these things, but if you're trying to host a dinner party for people who you're not already comfortable socializing with, each little thing can feel like "Am I doing this right? <panic>"

> "Am I doing this right? <panic>"

I can appreciate that. I also bet that everybody would appreciate the effort even if things didn’t proceed like a scene from a movie.

Yea, don't worry too much. If someone invited me into an almost empty apartment and gave me spaghetti and just seemed interested in talking to me I would be really appreciative. I have friends (some of whom who are really good cooks) but almost nobody that I don't already know puts effort into talking to me or becoming friends so that would feel super nice.

Order takeaway - it's perfectly acceptable with the right framing. We have people around quite regularly and I like cooking, but still defer to takeaway at times: you're busy, or getting home from work too late to cook, heard about a new restaurant and wanted to see how their [dish] compared to others.

Don't overthink it. If you start early, have a drink first. If you want people to move to the table, say "Hey - I'm starving. Let's sit and eat!" My step-mother-in-law, literally every dinner she hosts says after initial chitchat, "Can I interest you in a cleansing ale?" Haha.

If you're nervous about what you've made, say "This is the first time I've made this, so apologies in advance!" If you don't know what to start with, just buy good bread and good oil or fancy butter and no one is going to execute you for that - all you have to do then is slice the bread. Save any pressure for the main meal. For dessert, break out a fancy block of chocolate and make a "Laboured all day over this" joke. Amongst friends, no one gets fussed about this.

You could literally say, "You know, I've never hosted anyone for dinner. I made a resolution to get comfortable doing it and the year's almost over. I'm trying to get 2-3 people together for a practice run."

Or to a sociable person you have some rapport with: "I have a couple of friends I'd like to have around for dinner but honestly, I'm pretty hopeless and have no idea what I'm doing. Assuming you know what you're doing, can you show me through it?"

Or find another hapless rookie and give it a shot together. Promise each other it will be an awkward disaster, so the only way is up.

> In a decent sized building I bet you’re not the only lonely person.

Why do self-admitted lonely people not jump at every chance to be social? I think therein lies the rub.

It seems like nearly everyone has found themselves in this situation. Along, but unable to connect. I don't know what the answer is, but good luck.

You're definitely not alone, and it sucks that getting involved in stuff isn't "automatic." But there are lots of paths.

Amateur sport leagues are one good solution, if you played something in high school or college.

Improv comedy classes are another classic great one, for total beginners.

If you're in a big city, there's a shocking number of beginner classes if you look. Acting, pottery, ballet, baksetball, stand-up comedy, acro-yoga, all sorts of stuff. Mushroom foraging in the park, depending on the season.

It definitely takes some time to figure it out. (And sadly there's less now post-COVID as some stuff closed and never re-opened -- but there's still enough!) You're right it's a lot of work to research and go to, and you won't like 80% of it. But you'll quickly find the 20% you do, and you'll have funny horrible stories to tell about the other 80%. :)

As kid I spent time in an old fashioned Russian serf type village, where a bunch of families lived together and worked a bunch of strips of land. It was the best time I ever had. Everyone had a job to do, and they were happy to let you help. The tasks you were given seemed fulfilling and meaningful.

Today is horrible. Nobody lives with family or knows neighbors around here. No more church. There are some craft clubs, but what's the point? Anything you can make pales in comparison to what you can get for a couple of bucks from Amazon. Growing a garden also seems pointless when you see the local grocery store. There are a bunch of hobbies but they also seem pointless when you look at a few Youtube videos and see all the popular channels doing exactly what you would like to but a million times better.

Honestly if I didn't have a kid I'd probably hang up my hat, but I do need to figure out how to make sure the kid doesn't have this experience.

(p.s. moving back to the Russian serf village is not the solution, that place is now ruined, young people moved to the city, old people died off or drank themselves to death. One guy hung himself.)

If you can find a community garden, they're way better than the grocery. No offense or anything. Plus you get to meet your local community. I miss mine, now that I'm in the suburbs.

You might look into it. It fosters a lot more than just healthy food. It builds neighborhoods, reclaims land and makes friends in the community. They're great.

All of these suggestions are optional. The biggest part of community is it is a forced coexistence. Anything optional takes willpower and most people just will not do consistently.

Optional community is strictly superior to forced one. Cause you can get away if it becomes abusive.

For a small proportion of abused people. It usually works very well for 95%+ of the people in it. It’s definitely not worth throwing it in the trash for those kinds of numbers.

Why do you want to compare everything you do to what others are doing?

Allow yourself to do things that others do better.

You do not have to be the best.

You will enjoy life much more. Your kids will, too.

Further, your kids seeing you do these things will think you are the best at it or will be enthralled trying to emulate superior efforts with you. I can't paint. My painting efforts are embarrassing. My daughter, keen on painting, saw my horrific effort today and thought it was amazing. If we watched an artist on YouTube and then tried to paint together, she would absolutely enjoy that too.

If you don't have an internal appreciation of simple crafts (gardening, making something) then your children can help you find purpose in it.

Your memories of that Russian serf village are distorted and incomplete. Most subsistence farming work is far from being happy and fulfilling. Talk to adults who spent decades living that way. They might not have been lonely, but their lives were bleak in most other ways. Why do you think so many left as soon as they could? Why did those who remained turn into alcoholics?

Today is great.

Marx was wrong about some big things (innovation, depressions) and right about some big things - alienation, meaning destruction of community.

> There are some craft clubs, but what's the point? Anything you can make pales in comparison to what you can get for a couple of bucks from Amazon.

This is unhealthy.

> There are a bunch of hobbies but they also seem pointless when you look at a few Youtube videos and see all the popular channels doing exactly what you would like to but a million times better.

This is unhealthy.

Over a decade ago, I had to accept that I'll never be the best at anything or even better than huge swaths of people in my line of work or in my hobby, and that's perfectly okay. There's only one best in the world. Most people who play basketball will never ever come close to the NBA. Setting out with failure in mind (even when you're not in pursuit of perfection) is great. Pointless, dumb play is amazing.

When I was a kid, I didn't compare my Lego play time with others. Or the time I spent riding my bike down a hill and jumping off it onto the grass to professional stunt performers.

The end product isn't what you walk away with; it's the time you spend enjoying doing something.

(On the flip side, pick the project. You don't need to compost to plant a garden, and you don't need to learn how to shave sheep or spin yarn to learn knitting.)

> This is unhealthy.

And? How does one magically snap their fingers and change their hard-to-control brain? OP has a point in everything they're saying. Calling it unhealthy doesn't magically fix (inverse) their (very real/probably populous) perspective.

> How does one magically snap their fingers and change their hard-to-control brain?

There is no magic solution. But recognizing that there is a problem, it can be solved, and deciding to put effort into solving it are what it takes to fix it. This is step one.

Turn off YouTube and go do something.

Very simple, very effective.

Stop consuming that media.

Most mainstream (I use that term loosely; the internet has made a lot of things very accessible) hobbies have a lot of content producers. Some of them only make gorgeous things with expensive tools. There's always some producers who are more educational and show their mistakes and thought process.

I know "stop consuming addictive media" isn't trivially easy, but you get the added benefit of avoiding content that isn't as educationally beneficial.

>The end product isn't what you walk away with; it's the time you spend enjoying doing something.

Well, good luck enjoying anything when you're surrounded by environmental feedback that points to its futility.

Picking up hobbies so that you have a socially acceptable excuse to interact with to people is ass-backwards.

> Well, good luck enjoying anything when you're surrounded by environmental feedback that points to its futility.

You're only surrounded by this feedback if you already buy in to the ideology that if you're not The Best™ at something then it's not worth doing.

This is a very toxic perspective.

The millions of people who learn to program/woodwork/paint/cook/etc. by watching YouTube videos certainly don't buy into this ideology, and have no problem enjoying it. I think the issue less "environment feedback that points to futility" and more your own perspective here.

People have hobbies for many reasons, "socially acceptable excuse to interact with people" is just one of them, as is "demonstrate exceptional mastery".

> Picking up hobbies so that you have a socially acceptable excuse to interact with to people is ass-backwards.

It is and WAS most normal thing in the world. Some people did it subconsciously, them being interested I people lead them to be interested in the same things as those people are interested in. Others did it consciously "everyone seems to gather at pool, let's go to pool". Or just, "I am going to bake a cake to have excuse to give it to people and to get compliments".

Doing things and hobbies to be with others, to impress them was normal human behavior for millenia.

> moving back to the Russian serf village is not the solution, that place is now ruined, young people moved to the city, old people died off or drank themselves to death. One guy hung himself.

Is it possible that you have a distorted perception or memory of life in that village? If it was such a happy place, why did so many young people move away, why did old people drink so much, and why did one person commit suicide?

The same reason small towns all over the world are - times have changed, and drastically.

Folks have to leave in search of work, the old ways aren’t possible thanks to our smaller, more efficient world.

The brain-drain kills off the village and what’s left is a rotting corpse of what once was. Or at least the corpses from those deaths of despair.

> Growing a garden also seems pointless when you see the local grocery store.

Maybe a greenhouse would be needed, but you can grow backyard produce of much higher quality than is typical in grocery stores. Then offer it your neighbors. Some will show gratitude. Those are the ones to try to make friends of.

Big city seems to be the key. Loneliness is the default in a modern city, because we can. It used to be that daily needs led to friction that sometimes (if people were social enough) led to interaction (introverts were much less likely to engage so it usually took a lot of friction before interaction becomes possible). Schools (and universities) still provide the largest field for such interaction. Everything else has been largely automated away.

If we accept that this is a problem, then we should think about ways that force people to be near each other again, somewhat artificially. This is different than building a bar or making a meetup and expecting people to come - only the most extrovert want to go there.

The most important thing is removing cars. Get people to walk, you’ll visit more local places and see more local people rather than a random arrangement of people all over the place.

You’ll also bump in to people while walking which doesn’t happen in cars.

Two ideas for you to consider: 1. If you can, get a dog, it will force you to socialize, plus they will keep you company when it's just the two of you. 2. If you can, do one year remote in a traditionally friendly society. E.g I have a friend in Medellín, Colombia. 50% of her apartment building are expats, they do stuff all the time.

Try volunteer work, for example at an animal shelter.

Where meeting new people is hard and you may feel that you're intruding, the opposite is true for volunteer work. By design they need you, accept you and embrace you.

Don't overthink it. Do it.

My solution, and I respect its not for everyone, is learn to cook and start inviting people around for weekend lunch/dinners. I think this is more personal and better than heading to bars and restaurants.

I find this is a really good way to build a social network and become part of groups. It may be a little intimidating at first, but as it becomes regular, it's easier to add new people to an existing friend group than many new people together.

If people get along start expanding to other things. Weekends away or days trips to do hobby x. Bring new people in. Understand sometimes you have to move on from people that dont fit. But overall put in the effort to be the organiser.

I think people sometimes forget as an adult you often have to put in effort to build new relationships. It doesnt happen as organically as it did when you were young. There's huge value in it and we'll worth it I feel.

I definitely recommend meetups. I think the key is to accept that some will be duds, but keep trying. And don’t overspecialize.

I moved to a new big city a while back, and meetups (from Meetup.com but just because I don’t like FB) were a huge help. It was hard at first, I picked some really bad ones but then I found better ones. It’s still hit or miss but I know the good ones are out there.

I have ended up with one I go to regularly — for a topic I’m not even super interested in, but I’ve met very interesting people there. Plus one I used to go to that I could drop in on if I felt lonely, it’s not topic-based. I even lead one myself, once in a while, going to art shows: that’s pretty stressful for me but also rewarding. Enough so that I’ve thought about starting another, unrelated one.

In about a year of doing this, I have made two friends and am probably making a third, and I have a backlog of meetups I’d love to try out if my schedule shifts and I could go to them.

It felt a little weird in the beginning, because I’ve lived in a few different cities and always made friends randomly. Honestly I felt like a bit of a loser, like who goes to meetups? But as far as I could tell it was meetups or spend all my time in the bars, and I really didn’t want to get stuck in the latter groove. And there’s nothing loserish about recognizing your situation and working to improve it.

(A lot of meetups involve drinking anyway, so if you like bars it’s easy to combine.)

Good luck, I hope you find your people!

Vangelis's 25th Anniversary Blade Runner soundtrack was made for your life: https://youtu.be/73um9Dr3VDY?t=854

Yeah, the notion that people are _choosing_ to be alone makes me laugh. I think I'm even worse off than you, since I don't like drinking alone.

Well at least you’re getting dates on the bright side

I am with you. I just want to share that succeedsocially.com has a lot of straightforward advice in a clean, ad-free format. In particular it talks about social issues more likely to afflict HN readers ("I hate small talk" "nobody likes my niche interests" etc. <3) I've found it helpful personally, maybe someone here will too.

This isn't really an actionable response, but what I did in this situation was move to where my friends were. I'm lucky in that the majority of the people I met in college happen to live around a particular area of the country, so I transferred there after much pestering on their part over the last few years. I honestly haven't been this happy in years.

> something tells me I'm not alone in being in this situation.

You're not. All human society worldwide is optimized for isolation.

Compartmentalized. Even the more communal cultures (like Middle-Eastern or Asian with extended families living in the same household for multiple generations).

We have distinct "spheres" that may sometimes overlap a little but with almost no interfaces to mingle between them: Work, home, civilian, government, policing, shops, services, online, offline...

This is very common with the immigrants where I live. So many friends struggled with that in their first 3 years or so. They all end up making friends over time, and then the process becomes easier as they meet friends of friends.

There is not a specific method to it. You just hack at it until you find yourself surrounded by friends.

I made friends by connecting with people who worked on similar things. We invited each other for a drink and ended up hanging out. I've also met a lot of friends through other friends. Our groups just merged over time. It helps to be the one organising things and inviting others. I don't remember making many friends in meetups, but perhaps that's just me.

There's been a lot of talk recently about effects of loneliness and the "loneliness epidemic". What a lot of this lacks, including this article, is a good and correct definition of loneliness. They seem to use the lazy & inaccurate definition of "spending significant time alone", which is very different to being lonely. There's a lot of people who are now able to spend more time alone than before and are happy with that.

Some of the academics I've heard discussing this define loneliness as when a person's social interactions are significantly less than their desired amount of social interactions. It's an individual's perception, not measured time. That seems like a much better measurement as it takes into account human variability.

I agree. There's a big difference in being lonely and being alone. There's also a big difference between isolation and loneliness. You can be isolated but not lonely, and likewise you can be lonely and surrounded by folks.

The other facet here is that it's easier to choose loneliness than isolation, though it's less likely to be chosen directly. I feel like it's chosen indirectly by choosing avoidance of vulnerability. Vulnerability is the price you pay and risk you take to ameliorate loneliness.

Hardly anyone can fully become isolated. You have to work to live, and so by default you are forcefully un-isolated. Loneliness however can come about by avoiding being vulnerable with others. Men seem to be particularly susceptible to this avenue to loneliness.

For me a lot of loneliness is emotional distancing from others and especially from ourselves.

One thing I have really appreciated in the last few years - even though the naive interpretation, as you said, gets it backwards - is being able to avoid lots of non-enjoyable / productive “interactions”… things like being able to wait in my car to be called back for appointment, rather than sitting in a waiting area.

I’m still masking with a N95. I’m not super high risk, but I am at elevated risk AND I’ve managed to dodge catching it so far. As an autistic person, it’s a bit of a leveler (less so now that most proble have stopped) since a lot of those non-verbal cues are, well, masked. Similarly, I really appreciate that now many more places allow for text/email customer service… again, helpful since I’m not under time pressuew to communicate

Yes, blessed solitude; medieval writers were often longing for it. Personally I am a totally misanthropic reclusive hermit and I'm lovin' it!

It is a better definition, but it's still not complete. For example, if I'm talking to Fred about a movie we both saw, and Fred found it really funny and I found it really tragic, and I can't manage to get my point accross, I will feel lonely. That means that for me, increasing the amount of social interactions can make the problem worse, as that will reinforce that idea in my head that I can't be understood by other people.

This may start to explain why isolated people, esp elders, are so reluctant to reach out to others who are also isolated. You have to confront a lot of difference before you'll find any similarity.

It will probably be difficult to have any mainstream support of that idea, because allowing people to be alone and think by themselves goes against the society we’ve built for centuries.

Sure, the concept is praised. But even monks were supposed to live in small communities.

There’s of course the not so cynical take of people not bound by networks being harder to rope in a common direction. It’s supposed to be a virtue, but from a position of power it’s a pain in the side.

>There’s of course the not so cynical take of people not bound by networks being harder to rope in a common direction.

It's the opposite. People who are isolated are easier to control. Populations that are isolated find it harder to organize against people in positions of power. If you occupy the upper rungs of the societal ladder, you don't need to be a part of a social group, because your power (from wealth, politics, etc.) can be exercised unilaterally. The only check to their power comes from the people on the bottom rungs of the ladder banding together.

It’s more complex.

When people belong to a group you don’t have to target individuals, you can deal with the group. For instance the audience of a specific magazine can be reached through that magazine, members of an union will follow the union’s decisions, etc. You might need to fight the influencers of the group to have them align with your interests, but that’s only a few people vs multiple thousands of individuals.

A different way to look at it: cults and ideologies also try to rally isolated individuals as they are easier to target, but in the end they need them part of the group to be manipulated, they can’t stay stray sheeps doing what they want in the wilderness.

Good point. Not forming families or being part of a tight community seems to be a start to define it better.

I'd expect there to be a high correlation. People willingly choose to spend less time with friends and devote themselves to activities when the choice is easy because those activities are almost completely fulfilling, except occasionally when they aren't fulfilling anymore but the person is still alone.

On the other hand there are people who can't bear to be alone at all. Which seems like a different issue.

Another thing is in developed countries with domestic ZPG, like US, Japan, Italy, etc. Even if people didn't want to be alone, having none or fewer children means necessarily some will be alone even if they prefer not to.

The easiest place to feel lonely is in a big crowd.

$BIG_CITY is where to go when one wants to be completely alone.

Agreed.

I would offer the word “solitude” to describe willful time alone.

I think an additional thing being missed in loneliness, as described by the article, is that it doesn't consider that talking to someone via text chat or phone call is not that different in terms of fulfilling social interaction needs.

By the article's definition, I'm an extremely lonely person because I very rarely physically spend time with others.

But looking at pure social interaction, I speak to all of my family for hours every week and have been essentially constantly talking with a couple of online friends (who also share my interests very closely) for several years now, which would be completely unrealistic in-person. So I get lots of social interaction and it's all the sort that I really value. As a result I wouldn't really consider myself to be lonely.

Even when I did have a mainly in-person friend group, it was hard to meet outside of school since everyone has their own things to take care of, so it was usually easier for everyone to just interact via more remote-friendly means.

I the last few years I had to move contries a few times and basically rebuild my entire social circle each time – and it made me aware how much of finding friends is just a matter of logistics. I think that much of the loneliness problem comes down to people just not having a process that helps them meet new friends.

In most places, there's a surprising amount of events where you can meet new people. For me it was open boardgame nights – the difficult part was actually beating the inertia and going there, but once I did, I think I made about an average of one new friend per two outings, as long as I remembered to message them afterwards.

There really is a massive gulf between small-town friend-making strategies and big-city friend-making strategies.

In a small town you can form a friend group by osmosis, because there's exactly two churches, exactly two bars, exactly one grocery store, so you see everyone regularly and, furthermore, you have no choice who to socialize with, and you know everyone else also has no choice who to socialize with, so you all might as well socialize together and be "friends" even if you don't really actually like each other all that much. You'll be cordial with everyone, but gossip runs rampant and even your best friend might be cruel to you when out of earshot.

In a big city, it's the opposite. You can be desperately lonely despite being surrounded by throngs of people at all times. To make friends, you have to really try and put yourself out there. It's hard. But once you do, you may find it more fulfilling, because instead of settling for people who were merely there, you've filtered the city to people who share your interests and found people who you actually want to be around, and you know the people who want to be around you aren't just doing it out of a dearth of options. Higher risk, higher reward.

> ... so you all might as well socialize together and be "friends" even if you don't really actually like each other all that much.

Learning to get along with other people, not just the people you like, and not just the people in your "in-group", is a massively important social skill.

American urbanites tend stick out here in Japan precisely for this reason. They only associate with each other and complain constantly about how Japan is "so backwards" compared to back home. There's no olive bar at the supermarket, there's no vegan meat, etc.

Folks from non-Anglosphere countries -- urban or rural -- usually integrate far better, at least as much as one can in Japan.

> ... but gossip runs rampant and even your best friend might be cruel to you when out of earshot.

This happens all the time in cities. San Francisco was full of the most empty-smiling, gossip-spreading, stab-you-in-the-back people I've encountered in my life.

Here in Nevada City, I ran a D&D game pre-Covid. Restarting afterwards has been frustrating despite me putting considerable effort into flyering at local cafes and advertising on Meetup and Facebook.

I was speaking to a friend runs a local yoga studio and event center, a lot of in-person is simply struggling.

Also, it doesn't that Meetup.com is now broken in many ways - for example, it won't give me messages on my phone.

COVID decimated our local live Poker league, we'd regularly have multi-table tournaments 2019 and earlier. That obviously had to stop with the pandemic, and now, as the pandemic is slowing (but not over), nobody is around anymore. They've either lost interest or many of them have simply moved away because of remote work.

Not being lonely used to be automatic as society forced you to interact and meet with lots of people just to function.

Religion might force you to church where you meet most of the community regularly. It goes far beyond just the purpose of religion. You'll know about every life event of every member, learn about businesses in the community, might meet new friends or even a spouse. The only social institute that comes close is school but school is not forever.

To stay in touch with friends, you were forced to actually go to them.

To look up information, you were forced to go to a library.

To discover music, forced to go to a record shop.

To eat whilst not cooking, forced to go to a restaurant.

Top enjoy photography or whichever other hobby, forced to go to a hobby club.

So without religion and post-school, as you maximally use all technology and conveniences available, you're now not meeting anybody. Unless you purposefully organize it. The defaults changed.

Not to mention, the specialization and unbundling of each of these into separate aspects becomes a business opportunity to the point that if enough people decide to pay to play, the orignal free versions lose a critical mass of support and cease to exist. Thus, it becomes less and less possible to participate socially without participating in monetary exchange. This represents a financial barrier to social participation and all of the second-order effects that entails.

Spot on.

Church in this context is a third place, the place outside of work and home.

Church is one option

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place

There aren’t a lot of good examples that can replace church. Church was literally a forced outing for everyone once a week. A barbershop or pub is not even close to being the same thing.

I agree none of the other examples are as ubiquitous, I also don't like the examples where there is an expectation you pay at some point.

Just GP described the concept without naming it.

Wrong. My college chemistry textbook had a small aside about an important organic chemist in the 1920s who was responsible for many foundational organic chemistry techniques and theories. I forget his name. The blurb ended with his death — he committed suicide after lamenting that his friends always had female partners on the weekends while he, on the other hand, was always alone. The man died of loneliness in the 1920s. Later editions of the textbook removed the blurb entirely… how stupid and foolish.

If you have an amazing personality then you will want to hang out all the time and have lots of sex and everyone will oblige you because you’re fun to be around. It doesn’t matter what the context is. Yeah, if you’re one member of a 25 person Inuit tribe, you won’t be lonely ever. But just because a bunch of people in the USA are narcissistic idiots who are intolerable to be around doesn’t mean anything about the way the world is going.

Seems to me he was not alone, as he had friends and spent time with them.

Is this example conflating 'alone' to the seperate issue of him being unable to find a sexual partner?

Also generally I'm sure there will be outlier examples of 'see he was alone in the past' but I feel we have to approach these from a 'generally' view to understand the bigger picture as examples of one may be good for context, but can tend to be used as a confirmation bias of sorts against a bigger picture.

I think technology is fundamentally opposed to the human experience. What will happen when AGI agents are more empathetic, caring, attentive, funny, supportive, soul-nourishing than any human could ever be? On every level that a human can enjoy and appreciate the company of another human, computers will do it better. It’s like the concept of infinity… you are forced to accept all these strange outcomes that are logically sound but make no sense. That is what AGI will be and AGI is the logical end of technology. There is no humanity at end of that road. And the outcome is very bad overall. But that doesn’t change the fact that people have been lonely a long time and there are more reasons for loneliness than technology. Better to see clearly regardless of the context.

Stop intelligent machines!

That is the future for AGI under capitalism. (See "Her" 2013 movie.)

A different path is for sufficiently advanced technology to help humans connect with each other and strengthen those connections, like organizing playdates for children (of course subtly enough that it doesn't come off as infantilizing). I don't think that can coexist with the attention economy though.

date someone who doesn't speak your language. Then, you're forced to use an AGI translator app to talk to one another. Thankfully, the app also adjusts the tone of what you're saying to come off empathetic and caring whilst translating

Honestly? That "blurb" sounds more like bullying than it does an actual commentary on what likely was the truth.

For those curious who this is, it's Wallace Carothers, the inventor of Nylon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Carothers

>narcissistic idiots who are intolerable to be around

>want to hang out all the time and have lots of sex and everyone will oblige you

Same people.

Even with religion it's entirely possible to be a good religious person without ever really interacting with anyone. Suit up, go to Mass/Worship/Synagogue/Whatever, do the prayers, etc, smile at people, leave. (The joke is "doing something religiously" means for only an hour on Sunday, after all.)

You have to work at it (though to be fair, it seems every religious group will have the person who will start conversations with anyone) - but you have to work at it anywhere.

One recommendations I'd make is don't look for "age group" things - because this will often overlap with people looking for dating partners, and that can be all sorts of confusing and messy. Be open to joining or working with groups that contain people older, younger, or of all ages.

Disagree. I was absolutely miserable when I was forced to meet with people in real life, although I enjoyed some interactions, deep down I never liked hanging out with them. Unless you are very lucky and born in a location where you can easily find like-minded people or if your personality is suited for meeting random people and not having any preferences in friends (kind of people who can be friends with anyone they meet), then being forced to meet people is hell. I'd rather have online friends that have similar interests/sense of humor etc... Than have forced and shallow "real" relationships where I have to change who I am in order to fit in.

There is absolutely no problem with spending time alone, I believe more people should move towards a place where being alone isn't anxiety inducing(easier said than done). Taking a walk alone(no headphones, just your thoughts), spending a couple hours reading a book, going to a restaurant and having a meal by yourself, working on a passion project...these things can be really liberating!

Instead our collective alone time is spent with faces stuck in phones and short form media content, as we constantly compare our lives to whatever the latest celebrity is doing, slowly numbing ourself to our own potential and uniqueness.

The issue is that people are not willingly alone, not that they aren't comfortable being alone.

You would be surprised how many people can't stand to be in their own thoughts.

Most people that I know beyond a certain friendship threshold have told me similar. And with how noisy every space is, from the public gas stations with screens to the private smartphone apps brimming with ads, we're getting more and more out of practice with being with ourselves.

Not just the US but Europe too.

I’m not religious but more and more I think that church (as an institution) had an actual positive effect on local communities. At least as a "force" to keep people together, have a community space etc. A space where you can meet and talk with others. My parents are Anglicans and I always liked the little tea and biscuits after each service. These things matter.

It is not just churches, at least in the US there used to be all kinds of community groups around different things, these all seem to be disappearing. Things like Mens/Womens Fraternal Organizations, Miltary / VA organizations, or even something like Bowling leagues etc. While none of these have disappeared completely it does seem their membership numbers are decreasing in a similar way to churches

A lot of those fraternal organizations require having some religious belief or "belief in a higher power." I'd considered joining a couple, but was dissuaded when I read that in their rules.

As a counterpoint, we still have school (the effect including parents), our job, local markets, local bars, local events (library talks, festivals, “neighborhood day”, national holidays celebrations etc).

Occasions to meet people abound for most people interested to, and we make a conscious choice to not go, or at least not bound in these events to keep people out of our private spheres.

Yes, churches do have positive effects on the cohesion of a community. The problem is that the corruption of the churches has countered their positive effects with negative effects and soured people on the church as an institution. In theory, there's no reason we can't have communities with strong senses of cohesion without deferring to a church, but you have to actually build such a thing and not merely rely one to spring up out of nothing. If you're lucky, perhaps you have a church in your community that hasn't been irrevocably co-opted by authoritarians.

People have left churches for a plethora of reasons, many of which stem from the church itself being corrupt. But moreover, as you mentioned people want a sense of community without and of the accountability that Church asks.

You don’t want to tithe because you don’t trust leadership with your money.

You don’t want to be told you’re doing things wrong, or to fix some of your sins.

You don’t want a judgmental group of people who think they are better than you.

You don’t want people who say they are generous but ignore the homeless and needy around them.

You want community without the worshiping God part. You want total freedom without guilt. And you want everything you do to be accepted without judgement.

The Church doesn’t exist to stroke egos or to center around a common interest (like a hobby). It supposed to be a place where broken people come and try to look more like Jesus. Even the Pharisees were corrupt. Corruption in the church isn’t new.

I think the positive impacts of the church aren’t publicized like the negatives are, just like any other large community, so like many people just take the worst and throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are good churches. There are good people. And money is honestly accounted for and used by churches.

I highly encourage lonely people to try church. But don’t just walk in thinking it’s perfect or that everyone there is to serve you hand and foot for just attending. It’s more of a hospital with patients that are committed to seeing each other get better.

> But moreover, as you mentioned people want a sense of community without and of the accountability that Church asks.

Do churches ask for accountability or conformity?

> You want community without the worshiping God part. You want total freedom without guilt. And you want everything you do to be accepted without judgement.

I believe you are strawmanning here. People who don't attend church experience guilt and have a moral compass likely in equal measure to churchgoers. The judgement that people wish to avoid is the kind that denies LGBTQ people's humanity, among other issues.

Accountability is a core tenant of Christianity. In the end you are accountable for everything you say and do, or don’t do.

There’s bound to be conformity in the way people grow or change under a given framework which is what Churches provide for everyone attending. Conformity as a whole is not the goal otherwise we wouldn’t have different denominations and expressions of worship.

It makes me sad that many online conversations become the Church vs. LGBTQ. I know this is a sensitive subject and the source of much pain. My main point is not to discuss that at length but rather to point to what this article and thread address which is ways the Church can help with loneliness.

I did not mean to intentionally straw man, if I did forgive me. When I spoke of ‘you’ it was a metaphorical as a general person who might not want church and less targeting the OP directly.

I agree with their points I mainly wanted to provide another perspective in hopes that readers might give the Church another chance. We have failed and will continue to in many ways, but I’ve seen the good outweigh the bad.

There are any number of clubs, associations, etc., that you can join to get some of the same effects.

Fortunately as a socially coy software engineer with limited social skills, I've somehow managed to find a partner with similar interests who gets me. However, after dating in New York for a few years, even with more candor my conversion rate to a third date from Hinge was 5%. This is based on around 40 dates in 2021. For some reason, dating is more palatable for skinny weird guys on the east coast?

Women have insane standards these days, for men who make less than $100k or don't already have a very strong social circle the options are dismal. I had women ghost me or leave the table when they realized I didn't work in finance, made less than $400k or wasn't willing to spend $250 on the first date. Fortunately, only in one instance did someone "bring a friend".

I'm almost 30, and to be honest, outside of friends I see every few weeks and my partner most forms of socializing seem incredibly trite and like a waste of time. I also stopped drinking because of my health and it just no longer being appealing. Meetups seem fake, and usually end up being people who pretend to be friends.

After college I joined a really cool small social "club" for young entrepreneurs (unfortunately it's no longer) and it was great. Consistent friends I'd see 3-4 nights a week etc etc. However, once it folded basically nobody stayed in touch - ended up being kind of fake friends :( .

Good luck out there friends :)

You’re a very physically attractive man if you managed to get 40 dates in one year.

Your experience will be nothing like that of an average looking man.

That doesn't seem like it makes it better

It’s definitely grim out there for most young men these days. I’m 32 and make the money those girls are looking for but I can’t get a date to save my life cause I don’t have the looks. (Average in almost all aspects)

I’ve made offers to my friends that I’d pay them anywhere from $10k-$1m if they found me someone I ended up marrying. No one has taken it up - they know how bad the dating market is and that there’s zero shot.

Jesus. Don't you think that you're creating a perverse incentive for your friends to hook you up with just about anybody with no regard for whether they're a good fit/decent human being?

They’d like to but they can’t find anyone who’d do it anyway. Moot point about incentives if no one is willing to date you at all.

Physical attraction is everything these days.

I get the sense from your response that your self esteem is hurting. I don't know anything about you nor what you look like, but keeping fit and being mindful about what you wear goes a long way in my experience, both in terms of your confidence and attraction from other people.

Nah - I have very high self esteem. I just happen to not be good looking.

It’s boomer-talk to think that people don’t care about looks these days. The way people date has changed.

I'm maybe a 6/10 on a good day. I went bald at 24 and chronically have black circles under my eyes. First dates don't really count, conversion is what counts.

Somehow, you can be somewhat successful in NYC if you're a skinny 5' 10" man, but it rarely leads to a real relationship, especially if you dislike drinking / partying.

"I had women ghost me or leave the table when they realized I didn't work in finance"

I've dated extensively in SF and NYC and never had anything close to that kind of experience. To me, it's all about being deliberate and particular about who you go out with before you go out with them.

>Spending less time with friends is not a best practice by most standards, and it might contribute to other troubling social trends — isolation, worsening mental health (particularly among adolescents), rising aggressive behavior and violent crime.

In typical, low-effort WP fashion, these are just unsubstantiated claims. Why not take the few minutes to do some actual journalism... ah, because WP.

I'm not sold on the truth of these claims, though I am interested and willing to be influenced as to whether this is something truly concerning. Articles like this do nothing to further convince me.

YEah the whole tone of the article is that there is something wrong with lonely people . That's not really helping them

There is a problem with lonely people by definition. Now being alone/by yourself/solitude is completely acceptable.

I would put this down to a growing part of the population feels financially insecure.

As you grow older, spending quality time with people also requires spending $. If you are barely making some savings, you probably won't feel comfortable in scaling up your social life.

It is surprising that the author recognizes the time period/age group...

> These new habits are startling — and a striking departure from the past. Just a decade ago, the average American spent roughly the same amount of time with friends as Americans in the 1960s or 1970s.

...but cannot (does not dare to?) make the correlation that financial insecurity has exploded.

This, and time poverty

I made this exact point in this thread elsewhere. It is gross negligence to not even consider peoples finances and stress from lack of said finances as effecting how much we socialize.

Who the hell has the energy to socialize these days? I get paid less and less, my boss acts like I am selfish for wanting a raise while simultaneously expecting me to do 3 peoples job, and its crushingly depressing thinking about how I will likely never have enough to retire or live a comfortable life in old age.

Who the hell is surprised that people are just sitting at home?

US society is being torn apart by the rich, and almost every social issue we have in this country is directly connected to that.

Look at the recent rail strike, some of those workers only get something like 40 days off a year, that is INCLUDING their "weekends". It is absolutely out of control how badly the average american is being crushed by a society with so much wealth and knowledge.

My friend group is pretty economically diverse and also cost-conscious, and most of our social activities are free or nearly-free. We hang out in public parks, get together in each other's homes, and go hiking, camping, or to beaches. Optionally, you can put out some cheese and crackers and a cheap bottle of wine, and now you're all having a nice time together for $20.

I'm well-off these days, but I still enjoy doing free/cheap stuff, because I'm there to hang out with my friends, and they're the same friends whether we're sitting on a blanket in a park, or eating three michelin stars. I highly recommend suggesting free activities to your friends, if they're currently in the habit of going out to bars and restaurants and other $$$ activities. Just try it! Maybe you'll all like it.

Try that when you're working 3 part time jobs at 70 hrs/wk to make ends meet, because most cities in this country are horribly expensive (especially housing/rent/etc).

I can understand the time-poor argument made by another commenter, but otherwise you're right - there are loads of social options that are inexpensive. Have a couple of drinks while watching TV/movie/sport at home, meet up and go for a walk, cook together, meet at a pub for the lunch special, etc.

What a fantastically low-effort op-ed. Not only is there complete hand-waiving of the negative effects of being alone - literally, there is no evidence given whatsoever of how being alone might be harmful to us - but the article just abruptly ends a couple paragraphs after this. There is literally no "Here's why" to follow up on the title ("Here’s why we should reverse that.").

It's like both the writer and the editor just... forgot to include the second half of the article. Did the guy have a stroke and die at the keyboard and they decided to print what he'd gotten through?

Meanwhile, the comments section is chock full of people debating the merits of something with no evidence. This is why journalism is supposed to be held to a higher standards. The human chickens will cluck-cluck-cluck about anything you put in front of them that seems mildly controversial. Maybe that's the point of this kind of shoddy writing. Generates comments/engagement without saying anything of value.

Maybe familiarity has bred contempt? We have more insights - accurate or not - into each other. The internet has placed us all closer together and more visible to one another where previously we could stay in our social bubbles and communities. Part of why it was easier to get along with people even less than a decade ago was there was a social distance, where that we were different made us more open to one another, and now that we are all in the same single power struggle, our circles have reduced their radii. The whole ideological thing has made us repulsive to one another by saying we are in a zero sum power struggle for equality, somehow against one another. Our differences are no longer complementary, they are intersectional and oppositional, and from what I can tell, almost irreconcilable. If you want to reverse this trend, just ask yourself if you have judged someone, and then look at what reversing that will take.

Guilty as charged! Turning 30 soon, just shed the last remnants of my prior organically grown social circle, having judged so many people for their emotional callousness, sloppy thinking, and lazy ethics. Most of these days I don't even have anyone to talk to, which is why I've taken once again to that most inadvisable endeavour of writing my thoughts on the Internet!

I literally know one or two people who treat others with essential kindness and strive to make their lives meaningful. I wish I had more ways of giving back, because if it wasn't for being able to talk with them once in a while, I'd seriously be doubting my sanity right now. At the same time, it's just not right to lean too much on them - there's only so much anyone can do for your existential problems. So once in a while we share a moment of "yeah bro, I see it too, things are going downhill in a profound and horrifying way, but it's OK, we know we won't let it get to us and we'll figure it out eventually". And that's about as much relating to people that I do these days.

Could I choose to "unjudge" the people who I've held to what apparently these days is an unrealistically high standard? Easy, I've had many opportunities to try it! People can be quite forgiving of past misunderstandings, the problem is that they don't seem to learn from their mistakes a whole lot. I'm like, "okay, this person might not really be so great, but they're not a horrible person either, so let's give myself a chance to share some sort of meaningful experience with them!". It goes alright for a while, then I end up having to unilaterally struggle to maintain a basic mutual comfort zone while trying to dissuade poor attempts at gaslighting. (Apparently, it's considered "toxic" to tell others when their behavior is causing harm or distress?)

Somehow it's becoming very difficult these days to be a decent person - as defined by the bare minimum of not engaging in violence or manipulative behavior because you treat others like human beings - and be social at the same time. I remember when the Internet used to provide opportunities for just that. Right now it's doing the opposite; who would've thought that a marriage of mass media and the Cold War military-industrial complex would naturally act to set people apart. People are bombarded with so much emotionally charged but otherwise completely nonsensical information which has nothing to do with real life, that if you somehow fall through the cracks of that whole shared hallucination, you're effectively a pariah.

> You can help reverse these trends today without waiting for the researchers and policymakers to figure it all out. It’s the holidays: Don’t skip Thanksgiving with your family. Go to that holiday party (or throw one yourself). Go hang out with friends for coffee, or a hike, or in a museum, or a concert — whatever. You will feel better, create memories, boost your health, stumble across valuable information — and so will your companions.

So it's not "we should reverse that" but "you should reverse that". I'm always suspicious of text filled with "we", "us" , "our" where the group is never well defined. This is an opinion piece, written by an economist, that finds it "safe to assume" things. It is also notable that the author never really justifies that Americans chose to be alone, they just did.

All in all, I think it's too light to be taken seriously. For example, is this the first time in history that people are spending more time alone? If not, can we find some events or context that caused this? What were the consequences? Did things change? How? What breaks my heart is that there's a good chance someone, somewhere has spent a lot of time and energy studying this topic and sharing the results for everyone to benefit, but instead here's a piece trying to make people feel guilty about actions they may not have control over.

When post like these come around, it's always someone saying how they resonate and feel isolated or lonely and then someone suggesting how they can get out more, or do dinner parties or host gatherings/play-dates or whatever. Usually, if they're not doing it already, they're probably not the type to know how or feel comfortable (like myself) but would probably attend if the opportunity came around. There seems to be a mix of extroverts here who seem able to pull this off and other types who would do things once someone else took the initiative to make it happen, especially if it was relevant. I'm guessing a lot of people on this site have things in common.

What I'm getting at, is it reminded me of the flyertalk[0] forums. Some Frequent Flyers host these things called DOs/meet-ups[1][2][3] at the hubs they fly into or their base cities. Maybe Hacker News could use something like that. A lot of people seem to like travel, or have disposable income, or could just set it up in their region so it's close to drive. Just seems like a lot of people here already have things in-common, including a lack of being able to meet new friends. Personally, I'm not the type that knows anything about how to host gatherings. But, from the sounds of things, there might be some here who excel at it.

[0] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trending.php

[1] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/communitybuzz/1015875-consol...

[2] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/communitybuzz/2006931-sea-me...

[3] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-canada-aeroplan/2013877-...

Americans are mean to each other. We didn’t used to be. Various explanations exist. Isolation like many behaviors can be thought of as a defense mechanism, a reaction. Solutions are obvious. What made us different in the past?

A political identity based on belligerence, narcissism, and toxic individualism, has taken root and replaced religion for a great many people. Not that religion was all that great, but the current "everyone for themselves and fuck anyone who is not like me" movement is a hell of a lot worse. For these people, isolation is not a defense mechanism, it's a core value. They're against anything that diminishes the Individual, like collective action and cooperating for the good of society.

>What made us different in the past?

Social conformity enforced through rigid Christian indoctrination, centralized media propaganda and racial segregation. It's easy to be nice to each other when everyone around you looks like you do, thinks like you do and agrees with your politics.

The breakdown of American social cohesion can be traced to at least three related factors - the deconstruction of white supremacy due to the increase in political and cultural power of people outside the white, heteronormative Christian conservative complex, the internet decentralizing mainstream, corporate controlled media as a means of propagandizing and reinforcing the consensus narrative of American exceptionalism, and late capitalism destroying a lot of consumer social interaction like going to the movies, dance halls, etc - because many people no longer have the time or money to engage in physical interaction with other people outside of the workplace, whereas the internet offers forms of interaction that are relatively free.

Robert Putnam already explained why this is happening but since it's not an acceptable answer, we march on and pretend to be mystified.

Could you spell out more what you mean?

Presumably https://www.tesd.net/cms/lib/PA01001259/Centricity/Domain/11...

Ironic given it’s from 1995. I assume the WaPo article imagines that was a golden age

Well Putnam's book suggested that it was a longstanding trend that just kept getting worse, so each decade would be a golden age compared to what came later.

I’ve been reading Jacques Ellul’s The Technological Society lately (1960s), and it was absolutely an issue back then, according to him.

Would still like to hear the precis.

Bowling Alone was very well received when it came out, but there has been another thread of articles that have been more controversial. I believe a relevant title is:

E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century

The punchline has been that, if you are not careful, increasing diversity can lead to decreased trust in society, and with it, decreased social capital. The idea is that nobody feels really safe (in a social sense), and so you see a pattern of withdrawal.

I think this is a challenge that he wants liberal societies to successfully address. It's a warning when he says it, not a call for homogeneity.

The key to avoiding distrust is by systemically avoiding segregation. There's nothing wrong with diversity itself.

I believe this is in line with "contact theory", the naive version of which Putnam's statistics seem to refute. Unsegregated areas usually have lower trust, at least in the short term.

But.

Categorizations change over time, and many lines that used to be important no longer are. So he holds out hope that the same blurring can occur to the lines that matter today.

He suggests that the formation of higher identity -- perhaps a civic nationalism like we see in Ukraine -- is the way forward. The main positive example he can point to that spans current lines, and not obsolete ones, is the Army, which arguably does just that. To a lesser extent, he also mentions the Catholic Church, which -- like Islam, I will add -- provides a higher identity that spans ethnicities.

I've heard some other authors make similar calls, e.g. Francis Fukuyama.

As a generality, I'm wary of leaning too heavily on a single author's philosophy, especially in social sciences. In that regard, I don't agree with everything Putnam puts forward.

It's a bit odd seeing that in the context of 'Mountain_Skies's claims. Putnam is very noncommittal about his suggested possible causes, with the notable exception of blaming television — but blaming technology for social isolation is neither new nor reasonably possible to ignore in 2022 — although the included response to Putnam (which frankly mischaracterizes his argument) does show that he created quite a stir when he originally published the article.

So what actions do you propose to reverse it?

Can you elaborate on what they said?

I assume he's referring to the book Bowling Alone, an excellent read even if its thesis is a bit dated.

“He then asked: "Why is US social capital eroding?" and discussed several possible causes.[1] He believed that the "movement of women into the workforce"[1] and other demographic changes had an impact on the number of individuals engaging in civic associations. He also discussed the "re-potting hypothesis", that people become less engaged when they frequently move towns, but found that Americans actually moved towns less frequently than in previous decades.[1][3] He did suggest that suburbanization, economics and time pressures had some effect, though he noted that average working hours had shortened. He concluded the main cause was technology "individualizing" people's leisure time via television and the Internet, suspecting that "virtual reality helmets" would carry this further in the future.[1]”

Via Wikipedia

People don't need each other any more. Turns out need was half of what brought us together. What is there to do, really?

>it's not an acceptable answer, we march on and pretend to be mystified.

On many social topics, your opinion, expressed with this attitude, is almost always not true to the implied extent. Usually it's an exaggeration born of bitterness/frustration. In this case, the significant issue is not that people "pretend" anything or are just idiots who won't accept The Truth. It's that they either disagree with a hypothesized reason for the problem, or, frequently, agree with the hypothesis but disagree with the implied or stated solution, which is much more reasonable than the person in the picture you're painting.

https://archive.ph/Mxlj4

My area's birth rate is approaching Japan's. Although this was always a bit of a lonely place, being alone is now almost unavoidable. Choosing to be alone and being used to being alone look and feel like the same thing, but their root cause is different.

What I (non-US) observed:

non-U.S. people when talking about their own medical issues: I have this medical issue, I wonder if I should see a doctor, the cause may be this.

U.S. people when talking about their own medical issues: I had this medical issue, I saw a doctor, and the cause was this.

non-U.S. people when talking about their own divorce: I am thinking about divorcing my wife/husband.

U.S. people when talking about their own divorce: We divorced last week.

Could you please state your point more explicitly?

Maybe that people outside the us involve others more in decision making and rely on them for support. And in the US people decide things on their own and their conversations are just storytelling. Not sure if that is what the commenter was going for, just a guess

>U.S. people when talking about their own medical issues: I had this medical issue, I saw a doctor, and the cause was this.

I would put more US people in the former camp; especially when you consider that a trip to the doctor can become a surprise bill of the thousands for many.

Did you have equally intimate relationships with your US and non-US friends?

Telling someone a fact that happened in your life is not especially intimate. Like if I had a surgery or got married/divorced, I would tell basically anyone who asked. It's a vastly more intimate experience to consult with a friend - for me it would be a very close friend - about an ongoing crisis in my life. I don't usually ask casual friends for their input on my relationship problems or scary medical issues. Though if I do, that's usually part of building a closer friendship.

My girlfriend and I moved into a small apartment building and got 4 other families with kids to move into the other units. We’re trying to create a more supportive and social environment for us and our daughter: chicagofamilyhousing.org

This isn't much, and i posted about it last week, but if you feel lonely working at home , join our chat to work with friends using the pomodoro technique. Can be 20 minutes or 45 minutes session and it somehow feels good to be focused with company. And it's no longer called pomochat but remoteyo: https://remoteyo.com

Tangentially related, the urban planning focused YouTube channel "Not Just Bikes" recently did a video on the decline of the "third place" (i.e., places other than home and work) in American cities: https://youtu.be/VvdQ381K5xg

If being alone works for you and it is time you feel you need, do it. There is nothing wrong with being an Introvert.

You are mixing together 3 things which are wildly different

- loneliness

- solitude

- introverts

As is the article, and almost everyone talking about the topic.

Governments should subsidize in-person interactions -- especially for adults. Darts, trivia, volleyball, book club, escape rooms, group therapy. These kind of things would help bring more people together and could help reverse trends of isolated experiences like doomscrolling, social media envy, etc.

why would they? What short time votes would they get from this? Is it more than whatever is raging in the cultural war?

It's a good thing people are choosing to be alone instead of in unmerited relationships and dates that don't get anywhere. I have already spent too much time on dating websites and awkward social events trying to get to know people and none of them worked out. Society has changed and old norms don't apply anymore. People are more career-focused and would rather spend time with themselves than with someone with who they don't have anything in common.

The ratio of women compared to men on dating websites says a lot. Hence, women are choosing to be picky and men have no option but to be accepting of everything. This didn't work out in the long run and we are seeing its effects.

Welcome to reality.

This is because more and more people are moving to cities.

When you are in a city, you have everything at your fingertips. You don't like your current friends? No problem, 1 million people live here, I can find more.

When you are in a rural area, you live in a town of 1,000 people, you know everyone and everyone knows you. You can't be alone. You can't go out and find new friends. You can't find a new plumber or electrician - there's only one of each in town.

Rural areas have much more connectiveness, but not urban areas. There are so many people, I really don't care about the people who live 2 doors down. In a rural community, you do.

Of course, not all people in rural or urban areas are like this, but generally yeah.

I remember one time, after living only in a large city for 2 years and never leaving it, I went to a rural area and went for a walk along this street. Some dude was walking the other way. He smiled at me and said "Hello." My immediate reaction was, "What do you want? I don't have any money to give you." That was my automatic thought. I knew he wasn't a panhandler, that is a city thing, and the rural area I went to was upper middle class rural area. But that was my first thought. "Why are you talking to me, what do you want, I have no money to give you."

Kind of shocked this trend applied to parents during the pandemic. With daycares and schools shut-down I have no idea how parents not only got alone time but the trend went upward.

I had coworkers who were desperate for an excuse to go to the office during the pandemic to get away from the chaos at home.

I don't want to disagree with this kind of article because it's talking about a real issue, but it pretty much takes a couple concrete numbers and tries asserting that they are just "facts of life". For example:

> The percentage decline is also similar for the young and old; however, given how much time young people spend with friends, the absolute decline among Americans age 15 to 19 is staggering.

This "given how much time young people spend with friends" just sounds off to me, like it's supposed to be some sort of constant value, and that human nature, social dynamics, etc are fixed to historical quantities.

On the one hand, should young people spend more time with friends? Probably. But on the other hand, this sort of "facts of life" type of assertion comes off as manipulative

>manipulative

It's an opinion piece, and worse from the Washington Compost. It's going to be as manipulative as water is wet.

What is loneliness people speak of? I am alone and I don't feel like I am missing out on anything. I am happy and content. I have fun. I am fine just entertaining myself or going out to do things. I'd say I am by myself 95% of the time of every day.

Is loneliness related to depression?

A few thoughts:

1. The internet means we have many forms of entertainment available without needing to go anywhere.

2. Many of those are social activities, even though we are physically alone. This is completely different from being totally isolated (as implied by the article).

3. The declining economic situation affects the ability of people to pursue leisure activities that would involve actually going somewhere that we might meet up with others.

I believe that within a few years, comfortable AR and VR goggles and glasses will come out, and they will pick up mass adoption. This will lead to a huge increase in social activities, and they will be almost equivalent to truly being in person, especially once eye-tracking becomes popular. Virtual environments and AR teleportation using things like neural radiance fields will be quite realistic.

"The bad economy means you can't meet people in real life. But soon, everyone will buy VR goggles and hang out on rented servers!"

Am I mis-understanding something here? Just go on a hike, walking is free.

> Just go on a hike, walking is free.

If the webshits on here could work out a way to monetize hiking, they will.

It won't be long until some drone based sky billboard company emerges from the ether, strongarms/bribes local government into allowing its exclusive use, and then you are tracked as you walk your hiking trail by a herd of advertising drones that cost just a dime less than the hypothetical number they generate from your annoyed, halfway focused attention.

It's coming. I hope some good people here on HN are working on an open source 3d printed EMP cannon.

https://blog.onepeloton.com/hike-workouts/

One word: Fitbit.

Your reply is disingenuous because it implies that you truly think that there aren't a large number of social engagements that involve purchases. There are, such as restaurants, bars, facilities like bowling, trips, etc. Of course people can go on a hike. I am saying that the other stuff is less accessible for many people during an economic downturn.

You actually meet people going out walking?

That is a pretty nightmarish scenario you're predicting, there, was that sarcasm?

People didn't read into it fairly, they deliberately misread what I was saying. I was not saying that people won't go back to meeting in person. I am saying that the online meetings will become more realistic.

I probably should not waste time commenting. Total lack of imagination or fairness in interpreting comments.

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to make anyone feel bad (that was not sarcasm). But, I really am concerned about the amount of screen isolation already in evidence (I say, as I type this onto my laptop), and I'm not sure why we would want more temptations to increase that.

Is currently life not nightmarish for meaningful amounts of people?

Admittedly this doesn't solve a lot of fundamental problems, but we might not be able to/not want to, and at least it will help some people?

I find this very hard to believe. Real interactions are so rich, how could these goggles even hope to get there in a few years?

What is having dinner together if you didn’t even eat the same? And this is the most banal example I could think of.

I’d sooner become an actual hermit than to share a soggy McD burger over VR.

Come on, social interactions will be like all of us at a masquerade party. What could be more personal?

No, its not the most banal, its the one that most obviously doesn't translate.

Of course its not the same as being in person. But it can be much closer than people realize.

As I said, eye-tracking will be built in, so there will be eye contact. The environment renderings and avatars will be realistic. You can already do really interesting interactions such as table tennis and tabletop RPG games such as Demeo.

This is like optimising porn over actually having sex. It’s ridiculous.

All the robots and goggles can’t hope to recreate the real thing.

And this is way harder to solve than dinner.

Bad example. Porn these days is a super-stimulus, and for many can be better than the real thing - little to no costs and effort required, has all the upsides, and none of the downsides.

I imagine this would be great for disabled/chronically ill people who otherwise don't have the time/energy to reliably do this kind of stuff irl

(Or people that are otherwise unable to find people they relate with irl, for whatever reason)

I could honestly see it happening. Something like VRchat is never going to replicate IRL socialization, but it's close enough that it could fill a huge gap for a lot of people.

VR socialization might not be great, but like the BigMac is to food it might be just good enough for many.

> 2. Many of those are social activities, even though we are physically alone. This is completely different from being totally isolated (as implied by the article).

This is also completely different from being physically with others.

I’m wondering if “time alone” includes time spent virtually, with friends.

I know it’s not the same as actually being in the same physical place, as others, but, for instance, gamers spend a ton of time together. Probably more than they would IRL.

People can’t compete with the infinite entertainment quality of the phone.

These trends aren’t surprising.

This and internet addiction are definitely more responsible than people are letting on. Also the unwillingness a lot of people have to commit and/or start families. And especially the negative marketing done towards women with respect to having children.

What exactly is the "negative marketing" that you think is manipulating women into having fewer children?

How it's expensive, how it will ruin your career, how it will destroy your body, etc. Talk to gen-Z women, many of them are inundated with this kind of thinking.

It is expensive and it is true that building most careers becomes more difficult if you take extended time off. And some women do experience extreme changes to their body. That "kind of thinking" sounds entirely fact-based, not "negative".

Seems a bit one-sided, no?

I think most people grow up with intense, sometimes overwhelming pressure to marry and start a family. Having some facts discussed on the other side of that argument seems useful and long overdue.

I mean, it's a wonder women still choose to have children. I see it is a triumph of the human spirit, because through a purely capitalist and individualist lenses having children doesn't make much sense.

Does not make much sense for a woman. Until recently, with the advent of a relatively safe society and without birth control options, they basically had no say in having children.

Now, we get to find out the market price (excluding long term externalities) of birthing a child (and child #2, 3, 4, 5, etc) without the fact of being physically weaker tilting the scales.

Hmmm... not sure I would agree.

“Quality” is a strong word but you’re onto something. If there’s nothing to do at home, you have to go… somewhere. If there’s endless amusement at home, even if it makes you feel dead inside, you can put off the hard work of going out in the real world and meeting new people.

So the Internet/streaming becomes a crutch.

The day there's a large enough internet outage will feel like awaking from the Matrix.

Not for /r/DataHoarder/s. All entertainment cached locally bb. B)

.. advocate of the solitary human here. we do not need to change anything. period.

Yorokobe shonen, no one really cares and public health policies won't establish next week (or year or decade) some sort of mandatory social club activity with cops ringing at your door to make you go. You can stay alone in peace.

also advocate of the solitary human, we need to make life not so ridiculously expensive and have meaningful social safety nets that aren't just really good friends/family

walking on a tightrope without a net, or a very weak net, is awful

Joe Haldeman's The Forever War and Forever Peace series of novels chronicle this with pretty decent speculation.

He goes from war, to loneliness, to very low birth rates in society to rising same sex unions, to interesting alternative unions -- all designed by the governments of the time to support the martial future society.

A fascinating pair of books to read that speculate on the future.

(Please don't downvote me for talking about the damn books)

As long as you have your phone, you are never alone.

We have conquered boredom, or, as some countries say, "timepass".

I need to answer this because I solved this problem as a super introvert. This reply will get buried.

Quite honestly, I realized I was boring and my life was boring. I had a boring job with no travel that didn’t involve meeting anyone interesting.

I quit my boring career and deliberately filtered for:

- has a technical element but not software development - travel, or interact with a lot of people as a result of the job - has some interesting exciting, creative element

If your life sucks. It sucks. I used to be hyper depressed and tried all these superficial mental self motivation techniques, dating apps, meetups, social groups. It felt totally forced and fake.

A lot of people on here said it already: if you are going to a meet up or other event to try to make friends as an introvert. It feels desperate, unnatural, forced and wrong. It doesn’t work because you are doing it out of desperation and bring desperate, negative feelings into it and it doesn’t leave you relaxed and able to connect properly with a bunch of strangers who you are trying to force yourself to talk to.

At one point I finally had enough. I said fuck this I am not living like this. It lead me to be way more selective about jobs; I filtered the shit out of every boring ass job. If it was some job sitting inside typing computer codes I didn’t want it. There are unlimited supply.

If you want to meet women, work on things related to climate, sustainability and impact. Seriously.

You guys are a bunch of boring fucks programming database software. Women don’t want to hear it. Women care about impact and social causes. If I had to do it over again as a developer, I’d pick a job with an impact, climate, sustainability or democracy or emerging markets element. Unlimited interesting and educated women in those fields to talk to.

Further more, your job is no longer fucking boring.

Sorry - you can transition programming skills into fields with a real world impact and your social circle will automatically explode and suddenly you will be hyper interesting and meet a ton of women and people who are passionate and care.

It might hurt to hear - but undifferentiated introverted nerd number 40 million is like krypontite to females. You have nothing going on inside your soul that is creative.

Women are emotions. If you are programming rust on embedded systems, that is not sexy. Your friends will be boring. Your life will be boring: you will be boring.

So I solved it by moving into an externally facing role That mixed programming with customer and other interactions.

Life doesn’t happen behind a desk. I looked in the mirror and I made the call: My life sucks. I need to fix it.

Once you realize your life sucks and you are boring, take six months to find a better job which bakes in the above.

Can’t help you otherwise.

Another great piece of advice is to find immigrants. Americans are not friendly. People in middle America are also more friendly.

I met my wife through a secretary who was a super extroverted person.

You know what I did? I asked her for help.

If you can find female friends, ask them for help. If you can’t make friends with a single woman, an extroverted one, without it being about how she looks that’s another problem.

Learn to make friends with women without trying to have sec with them. Women will get you other women.

I hear you.

I've been having similar thoughts about my software engineering career. A lot of people who are not in the field might think that it's great being able to work from home, having freedom during the day etc.

In my view though, there's a huge cost to having a job like this. Software engineering jobs tend to be quite alienating, boring to the engineer and uninteresting to other people. My partner (who's in a creative industry) would always have something to say after a day at work. Me? It was pretty much always 'well I was programming most of the day, nothing happened really and I hardly even spoke to anyone'.

I think I'm close to the point of saying fuck it. What I do besides work doesn't change the fact that a day job should be about more than this. It's also quite striking to me that you mentioned careers with impact (climate etc.) as I've been thinking about creating a business around those topics. It's either that or maybe change careers entirely, but I'm sure I won't be a software engineer working like this for much longer.

>Women are emotions. If you are programming rust on embedded systems, that is not sexy. Your friends will be boring. Your life will be boring: you will be boring.

>So I solved it by moving into an externally facing role That mixed programming with customer and other interactions.

What did this do for you? Did you get new friends, hobbies, etc?

Not all women are into activism. In fact, as an older guy (who has been through a number of relationships in my younger days) I'd advise a guy to strongly avoid those who are into activism. For the same types of reasons I'd avoid overly religious women. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with beliefs on social justice or religious beliefs, but women who get too carried away with these things tend to have other issues in my experience that they are externalizing. They will make your life hell, particularly as they age. And you will be continually measured and judged by whatever thing they glommed onto.

Look for a women that wants to be a mother if that is what you are into.

Otherwise, just a good person with good sense and an even temper who can somewhat keep their life together and who gives you love and who you can love back. Someone who is happy and cares about others is best.

But I do tend to agree on "computer people". They aren't usually who I chose to hang with in off hours for the reasons you mention.

Nobody is choosing to be alone. People have become more evil and good people are isolating themselves to keep themselves safe.

What kind of danger do you believe these "good people" face?

Is there a better way to get a lot of comments on this site than posting any article that says “…people… should do…”?

Working remote has the potential to reverse this, but it will take time. When I had the opportunity to choose where to live around 10 years ago, I chose a city with many of my friends in it. Now if only house prices would drop a bit to make it easier to increase mobility/liquidity...

Having a dog I have meet a lot of people in my neighborhood, so dogs are a cure of loneliness.

If they spend time on Facebook or in an online game talking to friends, is it considered alone? Maybe just definition of "alone" changed, as people replaced physical proximity communication with electronic one?

the article doesn't seem attribute the desire to be alone to anything, other than saying that it got a lot more common during the pandemic, but I can say why I prefer to be alone: no judgement, no one makes fun of me, no one takes advantage of me, and no one steals from me.

the one and only bad thing for me is that being lonely sucks. I am not lonely, but I probably will be in a decade's time. being alone adds up over time.

there is no such thing as a "friend." there are only people who will pretend to be a partner or friend in order to make it easier for them to steal from you unnoticed.

people are a toxin and a terrible species of creature.

Why do you anticipate you will be lonely in a decade's time(but not currently)? And do you think you are a toxin based on your observation of the general species?

unfortunately, humans are a social species and the toll of being alone adds up over time. I try to avoid people so that I don't darken their day and they don't darken mine. I consider staying away from others a very small gift to them.

people are mean, selfish assholes and are by default competitive and adversarial, by nature.

we are a doomed species, and are unworthy of existence, in my opinion.

Sounds like you're in a dark place. I hope things improve.

Thanks for sharing, human history is indeed littered with brutal events and these things build further hate for future generations, if they choose not to let go of the past.

Despite that, the world and the universe has almost unlimited beauty, but it is ultimately up to an individual person to find and see it.

When I was walking under a cloud, it really helped year-to-year to pay someone to listen and talk through my thoughts and feelings.

I'm not under a cloud.

I have paid for therapy for 20 years.

the world is filled to the top with people who lie, cheat, and steal, because those things are easier than working, waiting, and being nice.

the earth is a hellscape full of people waiting to feed on everything you have.

Ah, I see. Well, I hope you find peace and pleasure in your solitude.

When in doubt, read some Tolstoy:

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Twenty-three_Tales/Two_Old_...

This is pretty relatable. Not sure I'd say "unworthy", as that's hard to measure. Instead, I'd just say that consciousness seems to lead directly and inevitably to misery. And following Qohelet from thousands of years ago, those who are no longer conscious, or never were, are the best off.

We'll all be dead quite soon. In the meantime, I enjoy going out into nature a bit (waterfalls are great), and more reliably, having a pet. I think this is the best that this world has to offer. Godspeed.

That is not a good world view. I imagine you've been through a lot to get to the point where you feel like that. Have you tried finding a friend group that has a mutual hobby to bond over?

it is an accurate world view, in my experience. friends and partners are in no way worth it. I lose every time and the pain is too much.

how everyone does it is unknown to me. life isn't just hell, it's torture. noting gained and constant emotional pain.

they do it through a lot of medication and anesthetics and sedatives that get them through the day

Not sure if you mean it seriously or not. Not even sure to what degree this is accurate, but definitely to some, because coffee is probably[0] most common form of self-medication on the planet, followed by cigarettes, and then alcohol and weed are two well-known anesthetics and sedatives.

It's somewhat common view that coffee is the one legal performance drug almost everyone uses to keep up with their job demands, but it's less recognized that it can - and likely is - used to cope with other people. Alcohol is definitely used for the latter.

----

[0] - Feels obviously true, by a far margin, but the world is big and I haven't exactly done a study.

It sounds, and I say this in genuine concern, that you may benefit from getting professional help with your mood and perceptions.

[Depression lies to you] “Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain that can have a resounding impact on how we view the world and how we think the world views us.”

If you had a higher quality of life you wouldn't feel this way and like friends and partners arent worth it.

You deserve a higher quality of life

the reason it hurts, ironically, is because you haven't grieved/let go of what you wish friends/society were like instead

It's like a partial 'loss of innocence' limbo, puts you in a weird danger zone that is more vulnerable than either polarity

-- actual innocence (i.e. children) rightly elicits strong protection and guidance

-- completed loss of innocence/full acceptance/adult cynicism is being totally okay (and no longer upset or bitter) with the world not owing you anything and there being invisible unfair rules of status games everywhere.

These people are adults climbing the status games they're born into and earning points at their own pace are basically happy and making progress, even modestly or fake/meaninglessly (consumer goods etc)

Getting stuck somewhere between these stages, tho, is painful because every human interaction pokes at an open wound.

(I'm working thru this myself so I empathize)

If you can't stop seeing beyond the game, wishing for a different cards, bitter at the rules being a certain way for your society/geography/time, being contradictory, or changing too quickly etc, you won't be good at the game because your spirit is essentially undercutting you at every play. "Your heart isn't in it" so to speak.

It's how the most sensitive see-thru-the-matrix type children end up when they grow too old for anyone to care, because they just won't let go of how they (idealistically) wanted it to be. A rare amount of these people also have amazing talents, so their insights combine to create art, but the vast majority that can't outgrow it or sublimate it basically just get stuck.

There comes a point where you decide you have to play the best you can with real spirit of society as you find it, so as to win the prizes available.

I remember once I finally handled myself well at a party, was the right amount of cute girl/ charming/ sophisticated/ intriguing/ status signaling stuff to kinda prove to myself I could put the effort in.

And what was discouraging was not that it was 'fake' which was my original juvenile complaint, but rather that the prize for doing really well at a social game is ...being invited to another party to play again next time.

This prize is everything to some people (who can turn each game into endless secondary benefits/opportunity) but pretty disappointing to other types who keep wishing the prize was different, deeper, or magical somehow

They could make themselves play and win if only the prizes were better...

on the other side of the spectrum, it's like how young natural 'politicians' can fully see that socializing is transactional and instead of being upset their thinking attunes to those invisible lines of power like a duck to water: wow the world is one big competition, wow that's so neat, hmm lets see, what do i have to offer and what can you do for me?

there is something to at least seeing with curiosity other people's survival strategies and emotional different reactions to the lay of the land, so to speak. Not to become them, but at least to see the options.

You know how therapy people say acceptance is letting go of the hope for a better past?

in a way, lonely/cynical/bitter people have to let go of their hope for a better game.

Hell is other people, heh? You're being downvoted for what I think is an obvious reason, but seeing as your comment says what it does, maybe you are not aware.

You cannot love without risking a heartbreak, and you cannot experience friendship without risking a betrayal or a slow drift apart. But a friendship or a love do not have to be defined by the fact that they end, or how they end, and instead appreciated by the good moments they provide you. Your life will also end, and it is not a waste because of that, it is still worth living, so I'd encourage you to be more trustworthy and enjoy the ride a bit more.

If you always have problems with other people, other people aren't the problem

this is exactly the response I expected, and it has been delivered right on time.

you have proven my point: humans are assholes, and see whatever they need to see to justify how they treat others. you have taken 0.5 seconds of time to believe that you have figured out my problem, in it's entirety, and then made that statement in order to feel superior to me by telling me that it's my fault.

do you really, really think that this has not occurred to me? that I have not taken steps for years to address it? I have. for 20 years I have paid for professional help, and nothing in this situation has changed except me.

for some reason, you felt compelled to tell me that you fully understand the situation that I am living in and that I do not understand the situation I am living in. you are a perfect illustration of the problem I am describing.

thanks, I guess. I expected exactly this and you gladly provided it.

Funny, when discussing many situations such as poverty, career opportunities, or physical health issues, negative experiences leading to a pessimistic outlook is usually accepted, and met with acknowledgement of inequalities or systemic issues. Suggesting otherwise is sometimes even taboo.

But attempt to share the same kind of experience-informed outlook on friendship and sociality, and the same empathy is rare. This outlook seems to deeply bother people who presumably have had positive experiences.

The means of reconciling this bothersome viewpoint seems to be either insistence on a supposed “friendship meritocracy” (just do these things and have a happy attitude and you’ll find friends!) or by skipping straight to vitriol. The response is fascinating in its own right, really.

In parent's defense, you are posting on a public forum introducing a position that is likely to create some level of pushback. Note that you use categorical language like:

<< there is no such thing as a "friend."

which could draw an uncharitable take.

I can't say I completely disagree, but there are literally billions humans on this earth. I would like to think at least one token good human exists?

> there is no such thing as a "friend." there are only people who will pretend to be a partner or friend in order to make it easier for them to steal from you unnoticed

Um. No. A thousand times, "no." Yes, there are people that will steal from you and there are people who will pretend to be your friend. Friends totally exist.

We recently moved and our old neighbors and friends are taking care of the yard for us while it sells. For no other reason than to help. When we arrived to the new house, a new neighbor came over to help unload the truck just to help out. We've been here months and aside from casual greetings, that has been the extent to our relationship -- not a friend (yet!) and still not having other motivations. I help people when and where I can whenever. I once had an oncoming car flip and nearly collide with me. I stopped, helped them out, and waited for the tow truck and gave them a ride home, just because they needed some help. I never saw them again.

I'm sorry that your experiences have jaded your view. Know that your experiences are not universal. Maybe you need a new environment.

I don't think you're describing friends there, that's more like being a good human being. Friends demand a certain kind of loyalty, an involvement with their personal lives, and personal beliefs. Friends seem to slowly pull you in as one of their family members, and that is a big commitment. If it works out then you have a good friend, but more often than not people are raised differently and slowly drift away. I'm only describing good friends here. There are also bad friends who have only their own interests in mind, often consciously manipulative.

Good friends are a privilege. It requires time, effort, and resources, which directly correlate to the kind of friends you will have. Many people cannot afford good friendships, especially if you grow up in a broken household. So it's not so much that friends are a solution to a problem, but rather it's a reward for being successful.

> We recently moved and our old neighbors and friends are taking care of the yard for us while it sells. For no other reason than to help. When we arrived to the new house, a new neighbor came over to help unload the truck just to help out.

when people help me move they have always gone through my boxes before lifting them up. multiple things go missing every time I enlist help moving.

once a neighbor asked to watch the house while I was gone for two weeks. sure, thanks! I came back to a destroyed house and people showing up late at night for weeks asking "is this the party house". my neighbor moved out while I was away for that two weeks and gave the keys to someone else, and told them to "go nuts", I was later informed.

anyone with a list of positive experiences with other people is ... well they're not on the planet that I'm on.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that all people are a toxin, but a lot are, that's for sure.

Why should we reverse it? I'm much more comfortable being alone than having to fit in with what society accepts as proper nowadays. Not to mention how untrustworthy most communities are nowadays.

YES!

I could enumerate the enumerable reasons that have been dancing around and torturing my mind for the last years, but frankly I'm exhausted of trying to explain myself. This stuff should be obvious to people.

This spends a lot of time on stats about how much time alone but just seems to rely on the assumption that alone time is bad. Where’s the backing for why we “should” reverse this?

The problem is, climate change makes everyone feel guilty for even being alive. It is like there isn't enough space and everyone wants everyone else to exit the space.

Winston Wu has written many articles about the fact that Americans are socially disconnected from each other on his site HappierAbroad.com

>it seems safe to assume that the decline of our social lives is a worrisome development.

Gee ok, could we get any basis for that at all?

>Because people said they like things with their friends

When did they say that? Presumably before we all changed our preference, resulting in changed behaviour.

The Unabomber was right.

"The Unabomber Manifesto will shape the 21st century the way the Communist Manifesto shaped the 20th. I don’t agree with the conclusions in either, but they state the problem well." -- George Hotz

There’s nothing wrong with being alone. Being alone creates stress and stress brings mental and physical illness. Once they find a way to block stress, it won’t matter. ISR. Etc.

If you want to be around people just get a job. If you want more intimate contact, get a job that brings that. Work at a daycare center and you’ll start to crave loneliness.

Loneliness is a liberal thing. Move to the Midwest. People just blurt out whatever they think. They get married at 18 almost as a rule and stay together. They involve themselves in the business of others without asking permission. The idea that loneliness is the new way of the world is just what people in the liberal bubble are seeing.

Please don’t try to make literally everything about politics and political teams. Applying politics everywhere is getting us into a hell of a mess.

I say what I see. I don’t make anything to be anything. Liberal thinking vs conservative thinking is very old and has much deeper roots than “people making it about teams.” It’s a way of thinking. I personally believe that it’s largely genetic. Is been like this since the Neolithic. Modern American politics aren’t fundamentally different than roundheads vs cavaliers. And yes, loneliness is definitely a problem that is a liberal problem. After living in both worlds that’s my observation.

Well I’m glad there are so few conservatives worldwide and throughout history who are lonely! A lot less people to worry about then.

> Loneliness is a liberal thing.

tell that to the decidedly-unliberal areas of the country that are tearing themselves apart with meth and pills

Being alone can be bad even if it doesn't cause stress. Being around friends and building relationships is it's own goal and reward.

Switching from a career you've invested years into isn't a great solution. Working in a people facing job won't solve the need for long term relationships and I'd say most coworkers are often not interested (if they are even in remotely the same age/interest group at all).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com