Life of solitude: A loneliness crisis is looming | Hacker News Reader

Life of solitude: A loneliness crisis is looming

theglobeandmail.com

164 pointsuladzislau161 comments

When I was in college a classmate of mine would come by every day or so to my dorm. He would just hang out, talking about class or whatever. I couldn't understand why he kept coming over, but I was too polite to mention anything.

Turns out, he came by because we were friends.

In fact, we had been friends the whole time, but I didn't know it! What I missed is that the stages between meeting people and friendship look a lot like hanging out. It seems quite arbitrary -- why this activity, this person? But the hanging out stage _is_ necessary. Unless you text them, knock on their door, set up a gaming night, or go on a road trip, it is hard to grow closer.

So the next time you meet someone remember they are probably like you: a bit nerdy, a bit lonely. Just reach out and spend time with them for no reason, and then maybe, someday, you'll discover that you too are friends.

I've known this for a long time (years). However, the recognition tends to keep getting pushed aside by new insights or concerns about my latest project work and to the detriment of making lasting connections. Thank you for putting it in such a succinct form that I must take lasting notice of it.

And sweet Sagan, that came out sounding a lot more clinical than I would like. At least that's probably just a product of exhaustion from several hours of karaoke with complete strangers. :)

Were you drunk? Drunk karaoke is best karaoke.

There wasn't any drinking, but that might have helped a little. :)

"My life is very monotonous," the fox said. "I hunt chickens; men hunt me. All the chickens are just alike, and all the men are just alike. And, in consequence, I am a little bored. But if you tame me, it will be as if the sun came to shine on my life. I shall know the sound of a step that will be different from all the others. Other steps send me hurrying back underneath the ground. Yours will call me, like music, out of my burrow. And then look: you see the grain-fields down yonder? I do not eat bread. Wheat is of no use to me. The wheat fields have nothing to say to me. And that is sad. But you have hair that is the color of gold. Think how wonderful that will be when you have tamed me! The grain, which is also golden, will bring me back the thought of you. And I shall love to listen to the wind in the wheat . . ."

The fox gazed at the little prince, for a long time.

"Please--tame me!" he said.

"I want to, very much," the little prince replied. "But I have not much time. I have friends to discover, and a great many things to understand."

"One only understands the things that one tames," said the fox. "Men have no more time to understand anything. They buy things all ready made at the shops. But there is no shop anywhere where one can buy friendship, and so men have no friends any more. If you want a friend, tame me . . ."

"What must I do, to tame you?" asked the little prince.

"You must be very patient," replied the fox. "First you will sit down at a little distance from me--like that--in the grass. I shall look at you out of the corner of my eye, and you will say nothing. Words are the source of misunderstandings. But you will sit a little closer to me, every day . . ."

The next day the little prince came back.

"It would have been better to come back at the same hour," said the fox. "If, for example, you come at four o'clock in the afternoon, then at three o'clock I shall begin to be happy. I shall feel happier and happier as the hour advances. At four o'clock, I shall already be worrying and jumping about. I shall show you how happy I am! But if you come at just any time, I shall never know at what hour my heart is to be ready to greet you . . . One must observe the proper rites . . ."

"What is a rite?" asked the little prince.

"Those also are actions too often neglected," said the fox. "They are what make one day different from other days, one hour from other hours. There is a rite, for example, among my hunters. Every Thursday they dance with the village girls. So Thursday is a wonderful day for me! I can take a walk as far as the vineyards. But if the hunters danced at just any time, every day would be like every other day, and I should never have any vacation at all."

Please, please tell us what that is from.

It's Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's "The Little Prince". Definitely worth a read!

I read it recently, and found it to be Atlas Shrugged for 5-year-olds. The only point of the story is to say: "YOU, the reader, being a child, are so much better and smarter than all these grown-up sheeple!!"

All told, I like the version at the end of this page[1] much better.

[1] http://the-toast.net/2013/08/02/texts-from-peter-pan-et-al/

The book is largely aimed at adults, I believe. The message is "you, the reader (and I, the author): remember that you were once a child. Remember what you've forgotten. Don't be like those I have criticized here. Live".

Are you speaking of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"?

>The only point of the story is to say: "YOU, the reader, being a child, are so much better and smarter than all these grown-up sheeple!!"

I'm 24 and it's still true. Being an adult is being able to handle responsibilities and take care of yourself in the world. Being a grown-up is being a prig whose soul died years ago.

> Being an adult is being able to handle responsibilities and take care of yourself in the world. Being a grown-up is being a prig whose soul died years ago.

A fair opinion, but I don't think the book makes that distinction.

The prince keeps heckling the narrator even when he's trying to fix his plane and head back to civilization. How is trying to escape near-certain death a "grown-up" thing, as opposed to being an "adult" thing?

"Now you must work. You must return to your engine. I will be waiting for you here. Come back tomorrow evening . . ."

(...)

"I am glad that you have found what was the matter with your engine," he said. "Now you can go back home--"

Thanks for pointing these out. Looks like I need to reread the book.

Could you please elaborate on how the quoted passages establish the distinction between grown-up and adult ? It might be the language barrier but I am not getting the point.

I think sometimes it is hard to understand people who are just in a different place to us. We have values, and those change over time, and they reflect the values of society, which change over time. Is someone living true to their values so bad?

>Is someone living true to their values so bad?

Are those values tolerable to me? To go straight to the absurd end, Adolf Hitler lived a life entirely in accordance with his values. Yet, hand me a time machine and I'll kill him myself.

Of course, if we want to talk about how to reconcile different people to each other when they have radically conflicting values, we've hit what might be called the Hard Problem of Meta-Ethics.

You're going to miss out on a lot of good things in life if you persist with this hyper-cynical attitude. How you managed to arrive at such a twisted misinterpretation is baffling, but it's a comment on you, not the book.

Definitely - one of the all-time classics. Before the Euro, Saint-Exupéry used to be on French money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:50francstexupery.jpg

I hear that the new translation (from French to English) is not as smooth as the original.

That book has me in tears every time.

In time new friends turn into the most important thing in life: old friends.

I've never really grasped the concept of "hanging out". I feel a get-together has to have a tangible purpose, be it solving a problem, playing a game, cooking or whatnot. Hanging out without a specific "agenda" has always felt forced, awkward and in the long term boring, resulting in me gradually withdrawing from most social circles I've found myself in. I guess I don't get the point of abstract friendship for its own sake.

'Abstract friendship'? Only real, organic, laugh and cry friendship is worth having. I can't even imagine what an abstract friendship is - maybe 'liking' someone on Facebook?

Probably "abstract" wasn't the best term; "context free" maybe? As in, there's little common ground and few if any goal-driven activities involved. You don't "get together to do X", you just "hang out" or "meet up" without a particular reason in mind, and it basically boils down to everyday smalltalk, shooting the shit and mindless drinking. I guess that alone is rewarding enough for normal people and helps keep loneliness at bay but it doesn't do much for me.

this applies to me. I'm very alone pretty much most of the time. Not really had friends and not great at making them. For the last 11 months I've tried going out and being the most positive person I can, to be a friend to as many people as I can but I don't know if it's working or not. Just talking to people, listening to them, smiling at everyone.

It feels like I'm just a grinning idiot, that no one takes me seriously, that I have to completely change everything about me and who I am so before long I'm not the same person in the slightest; I have to pretend to be someone else.

I know I'm not the best person I can be but how much harder and longer do I have to fight to make it?

I hate the weekends and look forward to Mondays because I can go out and meet co-workers. Friday afternoons I fill with a heavy dread. It sounds ridiculous to talk about it out loud because it makes me sound so...high-school. I feel like a loser talking about it, now, just like how I felt like a loser in elementary through high school, and grad school. It feels dumb now. I'm an older man, now. I think most days people won't notice I'm gone until the bugs don't get fixed and a few years later they find me in my condo after I hung myself in the closet.

I hope all the upvotes you're receiving is evidence that we _do_ care.

Perhaps get into some multiplayer online games? They really helped me when I was feeling lonely -- especially if you start to play with a regular crowd and start to use voicecomm. It's fun, social, but not too social.

Try doing volunteer work on the weekends for some cause you care about. One it will get you out of the house and two you will meet people who may be like-minded but are different enough from your co-workers as to be more interesting.

I'd recommend also trying church. Not trying to push religion, but it's a way to get involved with a group of people who often organize social or community activities.

Serious question: do you (or anyone else) think it's immoral to go to church as an atheist just to meet people?

I get along really well with church people, but I simultaneously hate talking about religion.

Have you considered going to a Universalist Unitarian church?

Nah, I don't think it's immoral. I figure it's kind of like advertising; it's not dishonest of me to view an ad without intent to buy. The advertiser knows I probably won't, but I might- so they are satisfied simply having my eyeballs. Similarly, the church wants your ear. Give them your ear. If you aren't converted, that's fine, they had their chance, they had your ear, both parties get what they want.

And, maybe, in that spirit of exchange, throw a few dollars in the collection bowl. You enjoyed their HVAC for a few hours, and maybe even ate a little of their food.

If you don't want to go to church, many church communities have activities outside the services proper and often away from the church that you can become involved in. Those might be easier to participate in. For instance, in the area I'm in, the local Roman Catholic community has a young adult group. They do the bible study things, but also pure social activities and service activities. Joining that group led to joining a soccer team which greatly expanded my social circle in the area outside of coworkers (all much older than me at that job, 20+ years) and a small group of RPG buddies. Who I mostly didn't interact with outside the Saturday game, again mostly the age difference. Two were 5-10 years younger, the rest were 10-20 years older.

Most churches would (or should) welcome a non-believer! Going to church in your situation would not be sneaky or deceitful. Even if you are very very very sure that the service is not going to make you into a Christian, that does not matter since the church will be pretty sure of the opposite. Plus you're not taking anything away from anyone, there is no reason to feel guilty.

As shorthand advice: try to find a mission church in your area. A mission church expects newcomers from the area and should be welcoming. If on the off chance the church you attend feels unwelcoming for any reason you should try a different church. All churches are run by sinful humans and sometimes that works out better than others, sometimes not.

One thought is to get involved with outgoing church ministries (eg. soup kitchen visits, trash pickups, etc.) For example, my church has a program where during the summer, we visit impoverished area in our city, gather around in an apartment square (with permission of the apartment owners of course), and teach kids how to read by just reading books with them, playing games, etc.

If you're uncomfortable with ministry, you can probably find a community service project without a "hidden agenda." For example, the goal of the above project wasn't to turn the kids into "little christians;" rather the goal was just to keep their literacy skills up during the summer while school isn't in session.

As an athiest, by working with a project like that, you'd be able to help do good in the community while still feeling a sense of fellowship with the others. I'm sure the other churchgoers would appreciate the help for the event even though you don't intend on "converting" or whatever.

of course it's not immoral, but it may be dumb. There are "church people" everywhere, you don't need to go and listen to people doing something you hate to meet them.

However, my recommendation would be forget this idea of "church people" you have, it sounds unhealthy to me. Less labels.

I didn't really mean that religion itself or its discussion is distasteful, rather enunciating and defending my own views can be.

I'm not outspoken on the topic, so primarily these discussions have happened with my family, who seem disappointed.

I just find that I enjoy my time with Christians, particularly a Christian organization (which does amazing work and treats me better than maybe anyone ever has) for whom I maintain a website, and a pickup-basketball group that was held in a church each week. I'm not trying to support any "labels," rather it's just a personal observation.

I don't know if it's immoral, but I find the idea highly distasteful.

But it probably depends on your view on religion. Some atheists consider religion to be vague platitudes and fairy tales, and so for them going to church is a meaningless act. I consider Christianity at least to be a very compelling and plausible worldview (although still false), and so for me going to church would feel very wrong. In fact I go out of my way to avoid participating in any religious acts, although I'm happy to visit a church that accepts tourists as tourists.

Try the Unitarians, perhaps. They are very non-dogmatic. I don't think they would reject an atheist at all -- in fact a few of them might privately admit to agreeing with you.

I can confirm. I was raised in a Unitarian Universalist church, and there were a sizable minority (best guess is 10-20%) of adults who were mostly atheistic but wanted a deeper moral, spiritual, and ecological rooting than mainstream atheism provides.

Serious question: do you (or anyone else) think it's immoral to go to church as an atheist just to meet people?

My opinion, as an atheist who finds personal religiosity quite boring, but finds the cultural phenomena of religion rather interesting, is that most people who attend church do so for socialization rather than faith. Most people (not all) don't really know much about their own religion, they just participate in the rituals because that's what they've always done and they've had no reason to really question it. There are quite a lot of people who give lip service to their religion but live effectively secular lives. Challenge them on it and they will likely become defensive, but actions speak louder than words.

So, I think you'll find plenty of people at church who are looking for socialization and aren't particularly interested in dogma. I'd stay away from the more extremist sects (people that do snake-handling and speaking in tongues are there for more than just something to do on the weekend). FWIW, in college, my muslim friends were always having parties that had their mosque membership as a central connection (not "college parties" but more than just dinners) I never got preached at, but some discussions were over my head ... plus they also had the best food. My connection was a girlfriend who was an immigrant and essentially a secular muslim.

My opinion, as an atheist who finds personal religiosity quite boring... is that most people who attend church do so for socialization rather than faith. Most people (not all) don't really know much about their own religion, they just participate in the rituals because that's what they've always done and they've had no reason to really question it.

I've observed that, but I've never understood it. I was raised to go to church on Sundays, but I found it about as enjoyable as going to prison. As a child, adults would tell me that someday I would start to like going to church, but it never happened. I seem to lack whatever gene makes people begin to like things and continue doing them just out of habit.

As an irony, I was a good student in CCD (Catholic education) and I probably possess more knowledge about Catholicism and Christianity than those habitual church-goers. I like to know things, but I can't stand the tedious rituals. It just shows that knowledge of religion and actually practicing it are not related or perhaps negatively correlated.

One of the benefits of being an atheist IMO is not having to worry about unwittingly committing trivial sins. No one is keeping score.

Try Unitarian Universalism. They accept atheists, Wicca, Christians, etc. and do not try to convert theist beliefs. They are much more about living softly and helping others.

As it happens, aside from a church, I also attend a place of worship for another religion which I do not belong to, nor have/will I ever. But I attend as often as I can for cultural and social reasons, including participating in religious festivals. Never had a problem. I have never pretended to be something I am not.

It is not immoral at all. If someone asks, just say you are not a Christian and you are just checking the place out. Don't lie or pretend to be otherwise. None of the Churches I have been to would care if you are not a Christian, but if they do care, go to another church. Churches vary a lot in beliefs and culture. I would not try engage in religious debate to prove their God does not exist ... no religious folks like to hear that (and some may be very offended if done inside a church).

If you are young and near a college, go to a college-orientated church (just about any church close to a large campus).

You can always shoot me an email (profile). I'm always up for talking about nerdy stuff. Currently writing code for a robot as a I type this message.

This may sound kinda stupid, but when people ask you to send them an e-mail in a social setting, what are you expected to actually send? I've had a few times when there are people I've met who use the "send me an e-mail" line, but I never find something worth actually sending an e-mail about, and thus never get around to it.

i write "hello - we met @ <wherever> - my contact info is ______ - let's grab a coffee when you're free"

i add more if there was something more specific/interesting that we chatted about.

Hi,

Just dropping by to say hello. How are things going?

Regards,

$yourName

Please do just one thing: make an appointment with a therapist to see if you have depression.

At the risk of sounding negative, I've found that this is probably a waste of time, because most therapists are utter garbage...

And, it's really no surprise, really, if you look at the average salary for therapists. I imagine that most of the ones who could actually help you are running high-priced practices treating Arab princes and basketball players...naturally they are not going to be found in the provider directory for your insurance...if you even have insurance... (US perspective here)

At the risk of sounding positive, I've found therapy to not be a waste of time, despite therapists being generally mediocre.

As long as they're not an asshole, having someone listen to you and prompt you with questions is incredibly therapeutic. It also helps immensely that you can be confident about your privacy. Just getting it out sometimes is what you need. None of the therapists I dealt with when going through anxiety/depression issues really grokked what was going on in my head (my impression, but perhaps, like a parent, they really did know all along). However, a few 45 minute sessions of speaking and prompting got things off my chest, and my mind redirected on far more positive things than "I'm not good enough", "I'm going to die alone", "No one would miss me if I didn't wake up tomorrow" and other delightful thoughts.

As long as they're not an asshole, having someone listen to you and prompt you with questions is incredibly therapeutic.

That makes therapy sound like renting a friend. I don't mean that in a snarky way at all, maybe that's even a good definition in some cases.

I agree. I used to go to a therapists for depression and it helped a lot just talk but it was also like having a coach that gave you social exercises (starting small). I have a lot of friends but I feel like I can open up more to my therapists.

most therapists are utter garbage...

I don't have data on "most" therapists, and neither do you, but some therapists can immeasurably change your life for the better.

As for the cost, would you rather work on your inner life (which might bring professional success) or buy that new BMW? Only you can make that decision.

Also regarding cost, I found the cost with insurance to be very affordable. Perhaps my insurance is better than average, but I just paid the same copay I'd spend going to any other doctor ($20). And like going to any other doctor, when you're in pain (mental or physical), it's almost always best to just go and talk to them. The longer you delay the greater risk of it becoming worse, and a small fee to find out that you're ok or not ok is worth it. And when it's something like anxiety or depression, it can definitely get worse. Until you've accumulated more experience with it than anyone really wants (speaking from experience here), it's next to impossible to pull yourself out of it.

Very few employer-provided plans pay for long-term therapy.

If you do use insurance for short-term therapy, all sorts of red flags (aka DSM diagnoses) will forever be branded into your permanent medical record. Obamacare may change some of this - unclear.

In short, while getting therapy is good ... involving insurance is iffy.

Ah, the old negativity-masquerading-as-insight trick. HN really needs to do something about its implicit approval of such foolery tarted up as meaningful commentary.

Those exact same words apply to your comment. And to this one. :)

That's like saying intolerance of intolerance is intolerant.

In fact, I'd like to have simply said, "stop being an asshole", but that sort of direct, rude comment gets downvoted here on HN. Meanwhile, an extremely rude, condescending, dismissive, but roundabout comment stays neutral or is even upvoted.

That's true.

I think it could be interesting if people on HN actively tried to flip their negative comments into a point of discussion.

For example, if we instead said "You sound like you have stories to tell, do you have any experience with bad therapists? What could they have done better?" then the conversation could continue down a more interesting path.

That's a really good point, and something I'll have to think about in the future. I suppose an awful lot of online "discussions" are really sequential attempts at having the last word.

You're right, thanks for calling me out. I thought about deleting the comment. I was just complaining...usually, I can restrain myself, this time, I slipped.

Most of medicine is listening.

The rest is avoiding further damage -- there are right ways to listen and wrong ways to listen, after all.

That's the difference between an experienced therapist and a bad therapist, or between a trained therapist and an ordinary friend/colleague.

Or don't. I feel for the poster, but I think that depression is given too much emphasis as a category. Psychologists have a justifiable low bar in defining such categories - for them a category's existence is justified by its usefulness. But outside the field of psychology, we should acknowledge that people do not neatly cluster into "depressed" and "not depressed".

If medicalizing (and I don't mean that term in a pejorative way) your problems works for you, then do that. Other people find other solutions to their problems, like self-help, or just prefer to live with them.

I'm not sure if this will help but two of my friends have found their significant others through this site. http://www.interpals.net/ Didn't work for me for some reason but it might work for you.

I did have a penpal for a while (someone I met in person but then moved away) which was awesome when I was travelling a lot.

Reminds me of this video: http://youtu.be/c6Bkr_udado about loneliness (and how technology has influenced this)

> Not really had friends and not great at making them.

Making friends is about a combination of exposure (meeting people) and sharing something (a hobby, where you grew up, etc.). Part of the process is that YOU have to be genuinely interested in THEM, and vice-versa.

Many people think that you have to be more interesting, but that's not exactly the case. You have to be more interested. And what's the best way to become more interested? Pursue new and different things! I'm going to sound like a broken record on this, but go travel. You'll meet more people in one week of staying in hostels in Thailand than you'll meet in your normal life in a year! Go hiking and backpacking (I've made many friends by getting involved in those). Take up rock climbing (extremely social) and yoga instead of lifting weights (I love the iron, too, but it's not social). As others have said, do some volunteer work. Take cooking classes. Learn to have a passion for cooking and for foods. Check meetup.com for dining groups in your area, where you can share your new passion for food.

Get out of your bubble. Note, I'm not saying to get out of your comfort zone. I think that's pushed too much by vapid people in order to subtly put themselves above others. However, by exploring new and different things, you will find that your comfort zone grows tremendously.

By the way, I've never really liked Fridays because I always feel too tired for activities that "normal" people seem to push (i.e. going out to bars with coworkers). You're not alone.

+1 for travel. I took to travel a couple of years back and it worked wonders. So much in fact that I had to cut back on travel and all the friends that I had accumulated. It started taking too much of time (though I enjoyed it).

It's about if you accept it or not. I work at home and don't have friends. Been in this situation for 2+ years and I'm really fine. Just try to find alternative stuff to do.

For example, hitting the gym not for gym sake but to reach a fitness level. Just set some simple life goals and concentrate on them.

I feel exactly like you - I'm a little bit deaf so any social gathering is an enormous strain to me (75% of my brain power is directed at just deciphering words) I also have awful, prolonged headaches that make me talk really slow - I've been lonely for most of my life, I still feel that way.

But it changed when i met a girl at my uni - i ignored her at the time (I thought i could do it all alone!). I only started talking with her after i got thrown out of the uni (mostly over Facebook). I had no idea, i still don't, why she is so kind to me. I fell for her.

And that's what made me come out of my shell - she actively tried to help me, but it was my will to do it that actually mattered. I changed and it somehow felt like I was dying, at least some part of me, and I still feel lost and confused - sometimes it is like a completely alien person took my place. But I don't pretend to be something i am not. I just have to come to terms with "new me", possibly still improve.

The point (sorry for confusing logic - writing on a phone):

1. Friends kind of happen (I mean true friend, those who you can trust and open to) - of course it takes a lot of work, often pain and anguish too - it isn't always that everything goes smoothly. But you can't just force friendship. My personal experience is that it is easiest to make friends at some kind of a trip - skiing, sailing, camping or rafting or whatever that takes it's participants out of the comfort zone - it weds out douchebags that are all mouth and no action and often brings out true character from others and that makes it easy to grow close to somebody

2. There is always hope. You can find your own Angel in the most ridiculous of circumstances

3. Maybe the changes are positive? (please don't take it as an affront) You have to think it over - "what can I change that drives others away, make them treat me seriously?"

"You can find your own Angel in the most ridiculous of circumstances"

I think it's dangerous to find salvation on 1 single person. Life is not black and white, and there's no "angels" in this world.

That's right. But then again, there are certain people out there who can change people in a positive way.

Additionally, I think it is important to actively seek people that could positively affect you. The case above sounds more like a lucky incident. Luck can happen but don't bank on it!

Well... I like the saying "When the student is ready, the master shows up". It's not about providence though.

Have you ever thought about joining local sports clubs? Preferably team sports as it's a great environment to meet people regularly and share a common interest, practice, participate in competitive activities against other teams. Well, I probably don't have to explain sports to you.

And even if you aren't a sports guy, depending on where you live you might be able to find a group of people interested in the most obscure activities. The point I'm making is just that it is a lot easier to make friends if you start by sharing interests and just regarding friendships as a natural byproduct instead of the primary goal.

Because this is the HN crowd, I would also suggest local Hackerspaces, trivia nights, poetry slams and even a Society for Creative Anachronism.

On the more extroverted side, there's always Toastmasters and debate clubs.

Late response, sorry.

Fake it until you make it. For me, the transformation took about 3 years.

How you talk changes how you think.

Out of ideas, I decided to I'd stop being angry by pretending to be happy. It started out sarcastically. How are you? Oh, I'm FANTASTIC, thank you for asking. People responded positively, which is a nice reinforcement. Fortunately, my sarcasm is too subtle for most people to key on.

I wasn't even aware that it was working. Then one day I woke and said "Wow, I'm FANTASTIC!" I had to do a double take. It was true. When did that happen? I have no idea when I crossed the tipping point from angry to happy.

Now being happy isn't always true. Just mostly true. And it helps.

So I encourage you to pretend to be whoever you want to be, until it becomes (more) true.

Happy Hunting.

I actually live a quite isolated existence. I dont really like most people and am very happy this way (I can read, program, play games, make music etc. in peace and not deal with the tediousness of having to interact with people I find boring) However, I do occasionally meet other people (maybe a bit like me in some ways) and we get on incredibly well. Every week or two when we feel sociable I will meet one of them for intense session of something. Also the people I really get on with could be any age/sex, one is a 50 yo man, another is a 20 yo girl.

How did you come to meet them? (if you don't mind me asking)

Np. College, work, house-sharing, school (one who I met over 20 years ago) Though I have gone to college twice and worked in many many jobs.

The most recent intense-friend I made was at a college halloween party the year before last. I'm am generally not into wasting time with people but when I do socialise I like to go to house parties and whatnot.

I reckon for me to find one of these special people who I click with is just a statistical probability, I might find one every few 1000 people I meet, so it makes sense to go to events and meet as many people as possible. I was actually going to suggest any big event where you and everyone else are likely to be drunk is a great way to meet lots of people.

Also its handy if one of my good friends is also really generally sociable, then I will meet people/find out about parties and stuff through them.

They do suffer a slight attrition rate as, for example, a few have moved to different countries for work. The cool thing is if one had been gone for years when we do meet up again it is like no time has passed.

I have 2 in the city I live in atm. Which is fine. Only need 1 imo, but if I had 0 I think I would start feeling lonely.

I think you're right on with the probability of personalities clicking. I'm a pretty outgoing person, but I've only met a handful of people in my lifetime who I genuinely enjoy being around. I think I'm pretty lucky that I happened to meet them, or maybe we just gravitated towards each other.

Meeting people every week or two is having isolated existence? I often don't see my closest (and pretty much only) friends for few months.

Yeah that happens to me too. Every week or two is probably the most frequent. I dont mind that, I know when we do meet up it will be fun! and in the meantime I can spend more time working on my many projects. Though if I really feel like meeting up I will make a big effort and keep bugging them until we do.

As I think the article points out somewhere, loneliness and being alone are different things...you can feel lonely in a crowded room, and all that. You have people to interact with when loneliness starts creeping in...so good! It just sounds like your threshold for isolation turning into actual loneliness is higher than most people.

I think my threshold is pretty similar, but the danger comes in when those few people you have to interact with move away or otherwise become unavailable, then it can become hard to meet new people because you're so out of practice.

Yeah, see my comment below. It was really amazing and life-affirming to meet my new friend 2 years ago, but if you just keep a baseline level of meeting new people I think its statistically likely you will meet one. This does mean u have to go to events and things with lots of people, but only once every few months + it can involve something you love like music or games or whatever.

> I think my threshold is pretty similar, but the danger comes in when those few people you have to interact with move away or otherwise become unavailable, then it can become hard to meet new people because you're so out of practice.

I moved away from everyone I know, I have no friends currently. It really, really sucks.

Part of the problem is that loneliness has a terrible feedback loop. Isolation makes you bitter and desperate and then nobody wants to be around you. Do it too long and your culture starts diverging from the main and connecting with new people is like crossing a river.

Then that culture is broken.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Very much so. Most people would be on the right track if they were to hide from most of what the modern world has to offer.

How convenient for you, chomsky, godel, bertrand russell, dirac, von neumann, montaigne, francis bacon, stoics, and almost all classical great humans to modern great humans had friends and were at least somewhat social give me a break. I know it must be comfortable for you, they're all sick and I'm not so now I don't have to be uncomfortable and try a little.

I am quite sure that if someone told them that they had to drop their work or being in order to be friends, they would have found a different friend.

The point is that it is OK to have a different culture, OK to be you, OK to be a light unto yourself. You will find friends, probably more. You do not have to adopt the culture forced upon you if it is not yours.

I can be in the game and interacting with my neighbours, co-workers, students to try to change things. I can combine with like minded people and try to amplify my influence. I can use the rather tinny megaphone the Internet gives me to spread critical thinking beyond my local environment (through the thin broth of text and argument as opposed to the rich stew of shared action and problem solving). In the process, I may have to compromise some of my thinking but not, I find, the core values.

Or I can sit out the game and polish my wellness.

I think the former is better for me.

This is completely true. One thing that can break the feedback loop is to tap into something that made you happy when you were young and then find some group that does that activity.One thing I do is skateboard at a public park. Everyone is very individualistic so it appeals to that personality trait but at the same time you're loosely part of a group and engaged in an activity that inherently fires endorphins. This definitely secretes over when I'm outside of that environment.

I've tried this in various forms and had very mixed results.

Nostalgia can be a really tricky thing and can lead to some unhappy roads.

Overall though I find that what I used to do doesn't really suit me anymore and finding out what my passions are now (which is very hard) is more rewarding than chasing the passions of my youth.

Its not about 'chasing' your youth. Its just about trying to capture those feelings and displacing them toward something different that is more 'adult' and in the present.

While I've made plenty of bad decisions myself, I think a large part of why I've always been extremely lonely and isolated is that I was raised with very little sense of family or community. Growing up an only child, my parents apparently never thought it was worth me meeting the 80% of my cousins that lived in the same country, but somewhat far away. My parents themselves had scant friends or associates (at least during my memory) and hardly ever anyone over to visit the house.

That's why if I'm ever somehow in the position to have a child of my own, I won't be able to. I wouldn't trust my ability to raise anything but an ice cold stranger.

for what its worth, I think that since you know how bad it is, you know the true value in keeping in contact and thus will work for it more and be a better parent because of it.

I have to spend conscious effort to maintain my network of friends and its hard for me because its not automatic and not something I was brought up to do. I inevitably drop the ball sometimes and forget someone and have to get back into contact and reestablish our friendship. Because I know what lonliness does to me and I don't want to ever be that way again.

So if I am ever lucky enough to have my own child, I am certain I will do all I can to make sure they never feel the same. I will fight so no child of mine will ever have to bare the scars that I bare, and that resolve will make me a better parent.

This. Relationships take effort. Often, one will think "Why should I make the effort? Why should I make the move? The other person has not contacted me?" But it is better to make the move and contact other people. Because a friend has not contacted you for a while does not mean they don't want to keep contact. They may be feeling lonely and down or overwhelmed.

I'm mostly just feeling that other people have plans no matter how trivial and I don't want to interrupt them or force them to interact with me out of politness.

Other people absolutely have plans. They have them all the time. They have those plans because someone called them up and made those plans.

Get used to hearing no. The only way to do that is to be told no a lot. The only way to be told no is to ask in the first place.

It's not easy. It's still not easy for me. I go through long phases where I've given up and refuse to invite people to things or tell them about things I'm going to because I'm unwilling to deal with the feeling of frustration that comes with their being busy or having plans. And then I pick myself back up and ask them and sometimes they are busy or they do have plans. And that sucks. And I make another go at it and hey, they're free that evening! It can happen! And suddenly that evening turns into a great evening.

So ask. Call them up and ask. Or text them. Or email them. They're slightly less likely to respond, but for different people, those media work better. Try to do the leg work for them: the less thinking they have to do, the easier it is to say yes.

I'm not afraid of hearing no. I'd be relived to hear no. I don't want to cause them to say yes when they don't want to just because they like me or they think they should.

Also most of my plans do not come from people calling me.

I guess my reservation towards calling other people comes from not wanting to cause trouble to other people just like the ones they would have caused me if they called me.

I have no objection to call my friends when I need information or a thing they probably won't mind lending me and would say they mind if they did.

I probably need contact with people but I don't like it. It's like when you know you need to eat but you don't realy have the apetite.

> I don't want to cause them to say yes when they don't want to just because they like me

But that's the only reason they would say yes. Unless they're just using you as a source of information or as someone who can lend them a thing.

Are you afraid that people like you? That they think they should like you?

I feel that the right response here is to link you to Aristotle's conception of friendship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia

You seem to have nothing but friendships of utility. Your friends are people who can give you information or lend you things, and who trouble you when they call upon you for the pleasure of your company. That's the kind of friendship a lobbyist talks about having with the local senator.

So true. I have three emails in my inbox right now, all from people that I haven't heard from in weeks or months, but only there because I made a point of following up for the sake of following up. Now we're back in touch and chatting again!

If I could figure out how to "scale" this correctly for my romantic relationships (and I emphasize the "balance" part), I'd be set.

I spent most of my childhood on my own and I don't have a particularly close family.

I've had friends and girlfriends that partially extended me into their families, but those ties never seem to last and it's always painful to let go.

Being part of a close family is the only thing I really want in life, or have ever really wanted. It's also something that I can't seem to get. This brings me to tears often.

I feel unbelievably isolated from other people and in a negative feedback loop that I can't get out of. I work from home and have few friends who I don't see very often. I haven't had a relationship in nearly a decade and don't even really know how to be affectionate with other people anymore. I don't hug people. I went on a group trip with some friends earlier this year and in all the pictures I'm standing slightly away from everyone. My self-image is in the toilet.

Lonliness is killing me.

Try taking up community dance lessons. They're usually offered as municipal activities for free or very cheaply. If you're male, you'll never be without partners, as there are usually always more women to men, so some women may dance the mens part to even it out. And it worked for my dad, he went from not knowing dance, to volunteering there often, to dating and now a second marriage. As a somewhat lonely person myself, this showed me that in life, there are indeed second chances. And life is what you make of it. Try new things.

That's why if I'm ever somehow in the position to have a child of my own, I won't be able to. I wouldn't trust my ability to raise anything but an ice cold stranger.

No fate but what we make.

(Ok, it seems kinda stupid to quote Terminator, but there is some truth in there.)

In poor countries, like India, you have no privacy at all. The overreaction, in rich countries like the US, is to buy privacy the richer you get.

But Americans take it to extremes, buying huge houses that allow them to go days without interacting with another person. In fact, not having to deal with other people is considered a desirable luxury. Sit at home and eat and watch TV and shop. I know people who drive (down their very, very long driveway) just to get to the front gate and mailbox.

The Indian situation is probably closer to our evolutionary roots.

As a recent college graduate in the US, this is exactly how I feel.

In college, there was very little privacy. I shared a room with a roommate, and that room was one of two in a shared suite, with two other people in the other room and a common bathroom shared by all four people.

I now share a 2br apartment with a roommate. I have a private bedroom, but a shared living room and kitchen.

My apartment happens to be in the shadow of a very rich neighborhood, and the grandest homes here are secluded far off the road, often completely invisible to passersby, hidden behind dense foliage. They signal their existence to you through their formidable and ostentatious gates, but beyond that you have no glimpse of the private estate of the totally unknown and unseen owner. The owner has spent a vast sum of money--enough for most people to retire on, if not doubly or even triply so--just to build a completely private oasis in the heart of the city.

For a lot of people here, that is the end-game: make millions, then spend most of it hiding yourself from the rest of the world.

If you're interested in this phenomenon, you might like Paul Fussell's Class: A Guide Through the American Status System

http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/course/status.htm

Thank you for linking this. This was a very insightful read.

You are conflating loneliness (the feeling) with isolation (the physical separation).

They are positively correlated. TFA suggests that physical separation contributes to loneliness.

I read it twice and I don't see any such suggestion in the article. Rather it cites a study that actually suggests the opposite:

> Forty per cent of high-rise dwellers felt lonely, almost twice the number (22 per cent) living in detached homes.

As a child (1960s) in a working class neighbourhood in the Liverpool area (UK), we lived in small terraced houses and lived very close to the neighbours. The children played in the road (hardly any cars) and in a park and on the beach (not the cleanest). During our long summer days (52.5 degrees North) we had the whole day down the beach. Basic safety: we stuck together and avoided strangers, but we spoke to known adults such as bargemen, ferrymen, train drivers, tug crew &c

Now I see children in nurseries behind substantial railings (safeguarding). They are protected from any contact with adults who are not in the immediate family. The family may or may not know the neighbours at all as modern housing seems to be designed to reduce contact - placement of doors &c. Playing on the street is impossible as your street is almost certainly a rat run for commuters.

I think I'm seeing real changes not just remembering my childhood with rose tinted glasses. I certainly see the effects in the 17/8 year olds I teach for one class. They have no idea about how adults live and communicate.

The children played in the road (hardly any cars) and in a park

Now I see children in nurseries behind substantial railings

The family may or may not know the neighbours at all

There's a separate issue which reveals itself in what you say but which wasn't specifically addressed.

A big reason for less community cohesion nowadays is that no longer are large numbers of parents staying at home and interacting in the community while looking after their kids. Instead, the majority are going to work and putting their kids in nurseries instead.

I live in Lincolnshire where many of the villages used to have thriving communities and shops, yet are now commuter villages and everyone has to drive to town to buy things instead.

The reason? There aren't hundreds of (mostly) mothers milling around acting as the glue for the village communities. Instead, they're all out at work and the kids are in the nurseries in town.

This isn't a particularly politically correct point to make, however, since obviously mothers should be free to work if they wish, but the movement of millions of mothers from daily community life into the workforce has had a serious impact on modern British society.

We have gone from women not having the freedom to work to women not having the freedom to not work.

Occasionally I come across a statement that succinctly explains some complex cultural phenomenon as well as or better than an entire book could. This is one of those statements.

Maybe commuting is the problem as much as women working?

I always feel that many in the U.S., by far my largest cultural exposure, consider a false stoicism as mature and wise. I find it closed and boring. Many may be doing this due to being rewarded for keeping your mouth shut and punished for sticking out. It also seems that too large of a percentage who don't do this are predators, in one way or another. This makes it worse.

The best place that I have found people to open up and be themselves within a day, is at a bar. Even if they just got there and have not had a bit to drink.

I find almost everyone interesting if they open up. I am an introvert by nature, so it doesn't bother me much. If I was more extrovert, I would probably be going mad.

I always feel that many in the U.S., by far my largest cultural exposure, consider a false stoicism as mature and wise.

That's a trait we inherited from our cultural progenitors the British. And in general we don't take it to the extremes they do. On the broad spectrum of human cultures, Americans are fairly "chummy" and open, or at least seeming openness is encouraged. The problem is, we expect others to be open, but we also expect them to be like ourselves. So we punish people who open up and turn out to be different. So they clam up.

The best place that I have found people to open up and be themselves within a day, is at a bar. Even if they just got there and have not had a bit to drink.

You think American bars are good? Try Japanese bars. American bars, to me, are usually noisy, crowded affairs where it is difficult to even say a few words to someone let alone have a conversation. This is particularly true where I live (Boston area), where the bars are often packed for the Red Sox/Patriots/Celtics/Bruins games. But the bars I went to in Japan were tiny and intimate. Only five or six people could be in there drinking at once and it is far easier to strike up a conversation. Particularly if you are a Westerner.

Japanese society is about as serious and as punishing of individuality as it gets in the developed world. The Japanese bar scene is thus correspondingly lively and full of sincerity, even in tiny bars where there's barely any room to move your elbows.

Mind, even though Americans are usually considered pretty loud and open, there are even those of us who are too loud and open for America.

Though I did have an easier time in California and New York than in Massachusetts. Hmm...

So what can we do to fix this?

I mean, we're hackers, right? We build things that solve problems.

What can we build to solve this problem?

Some initial thoughts:

1) Personally, I've observed that video chat comes a lot closer to genuine human contact than anything else digital. Better video chat technology would be useful. Also, ChatRoulette but not terrible?

2) Infoproducts - perhaps it's time for an update of "How To Win Friends And Influence People" with more emphasis on the "Win Friends" part? There's a surprising lack of solid information on how to actually make contact with human beings.

3) There are loads of dating sites out there, but no friend-making sites. It's gotta be a solvable problem at least to the (terrible but usable) extent that dating sites have solved the finding-a-partner problem.

4) Nootropics? Cranial stimulation? Brain-training for chronically lonely people? Something even crazier?

Creating an ad system where you post what you can offer to do and what you want, like an offer and demand system, and allow to search by location.

Orient this on activities and jobs, and allow people to post their interests so that people can find people that have the same interests in the area. You'd only need to ask users what they want to share, and disallow for people to search beyond their area.

I think this has been tried, although I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head.

It'd be really interesting to find out why it didn't work well.

I think it's a niche market because it would deal with businesses, and also with people who are lonely which is the subject of the article.

I don't think it would really be a success at first, but the fact facebook never tried something like that always frustrated me. I guess they did not implement it because they don't want to put complex features like this, and that's understandable. But sometimes an economy can work much better when detailed information is available about what's around your home, which is not the case today. Companies do use advertisement, but single individuals don't and companies don't wait for people to search for their product, and I'm sure there are ways to advertise yourself if you skip the dating stuff, and let everyone post their interests so it can searched and found by people around you. Advertisement only gives voice to people who can afford it because there are too few room for it.

The real problem here is the number of participants (you need a big sample if you want users to find matches) and how it cannot be datamined.

I think it would work if it was anonymised and if it would encourage private talks.

I don't understand why google did not try that, they know how to effectively sort data by topic and category.

I wish more hackers would understand that you don't fix sociological problems with technology.

1) The Pill. The washing machine. The various reductions in mortality in childhood and childbirth. And hundreds more.

Technology and society are inextricably linked. Democracy, for example, is significantly enabled by technology, as is the liberation of women from servitude.

2) I said "can we fix this?". I didn't say anything about using technology to do it.

For example, my original point #2 - a book ain't exactly a technological advancement at this point, but it might be one of the things that would help most.

Gee whiz, if only there were some kind of worldwide computer network where everyone could meet people who share common interests -- for free!

Someone get on that, please.

I've been on the internet for a while and that's worked for me maybe once, and it was by mere coincidence.

You ever tried making friends on the internet? It's the single most surefire way to be bombarded with comments about your sexual orientation.

The article mentions Portland as an example of city planning which encourages interaction and social cohesion. Are there any other examples that spring to mind for U.S. cities? I'm looking to relocate and this is high on the list for me.

Makes me wonder if we can trace the origins of Portland as a "blogger mecca" to this kind of planning.

Austin Texas is pretty friendly, also many community events. So is the Philippines for that matter

Portland has a high suicide rate.

Grey skies for 7 months will do that.

As much as we like to think cities are 'planned' for this type of things, they're not, and humans can find patterns in anything. Cities form the way they do through many drivers, and 'planning for social cohesion' is a minute one - if it even exists.

This is a big reason why we created http://happen.io. Facebook mimics real-world connections and puts them in cyberspace, but studies show it makes people feel more isolated. We wanted to create something for people to improve their real-world connections, not just their digital connections.

Happen.io makes it so that individuals can add their own events (like parties, celebrations, nights-out, family get togethers, club meetings, block parties, etc) and post them for others to find and save in their own list. Events can be public or private, for a group or not. It's mobile optimized so that people can use it on the go, not cooped up in their apartment.

It doesn't take much to feel a sense of connection. I think it really just takes a few good friends and a few groups to feel a part of. But a lot of people are missing that, and sites like Facebook and others sometimes turn into a place to show off how great their life is, not a way to meet new people or find real activities to do with others.

Why can't there be a place that just shows you things going on near you that others are invited to? With all this tech to connect people, how come people 100 yards away from each other never meet or get to know each other? How come it's so hard to find something to do or people to be with outside a list of your facebook friends? Why isn't there a place for an regular person to post their activities and events so that other regular people can find them and make new friends?

That's what we are trying to make happen at happen.io. It's sort of a long-tail event platform. There's already eventbrite for ticketed events, but this is for any event, including small get-togethers. And there's facebook and other event sites that use facebook's social graph, but that makes it so you only see events of your friends, not just whatever may interest you regardless of who set up the event.

It really is a disappointment in this digital world we become more connected to devices but less connected to each other. We need to turn that around.

“Economics basically says you should be concerned about your own short-term interests. There’s more division in society, more segmentation; there’s less identity with a national or global persona, but rather on the family or the individual. People aren’t as loyal to their employers, and employers are certainly not as loyal to their workers.”

I thought that mainstream economics has been moving towards the other direction. More socialized policies, more emphasis on the collective that individual property right and rights in general, ever expanding role of goverent in the name of greater good for the society at the cost of individuals etc.

I don't buy this mechanistic explanation. Society has gone through progressive levels of specialization and this has never been a problem before, so either there's a really drastic "nonlinear" effect, or there's something different about this society.

My personal suspicion is that it has more to do with people broadly thinking that "others" are not good enough for them.

It's ok that you don't buy what I say.

What bothers me though is academics like the one I quoted making asinine statements as if it holds any water. It's just a pure speculation.

Could you elaborate on your suspicion?

Yes, it's a bit of an extrapolation. For my social time, I go social dancing. I still get a little bit lonely from time to time but I don't think it's all that bad. But in any case, what I see happening is that when people get rather good (or even if they don't; if they THINK they are rather good) they stop dancing with people who are not as good as them. Since it's an activity where being social is also coupled to having a skill; that's an easy habit to get into, as you're encouraged to "dance up". In any case, invariable the people who don't "dance down" isolate themselves and wind up alienated from the community.

Increasingly we're becoming a credentialed society; while social strata are not necessarily inherited, there is definitely class-based stratification that people tend to not breach. It's totally rediculous; there's a guy who empties the trash bins at the end of the day at the lab I work in. He's a smart guy and super resourceful (he owns his own business, so he would have been eaten alive otherwise). And most of the PhDs are just... not friendly towards him. Why not? Is it below their station in life to interact with him?

> And most of the PhDs are just... not friendly towards him. Why not?

Insecurity. "They're not as good as me, I will be seen as lesser for associating with them."

Personally, I automatically distrust people who won't bullshit with a taxi driver or exchange quick comments about the local sports teams with a delivery guy (and no, you don't have to like sports to do that).

Well to be fair, I used to make small talk with taxi drivers, but when I noticed a sizable portion of those talks devolve into idiotic racist rambling I just stopped. Sorry to those who aren't stupid. (I'm a white male so maybe they just thought I'd be receptive to their 'the foreigners are taking our jobs' (I use the word 'foreigners' here where in reality they mostly used other words unsuitable for polite company) complaints because I tried to start some friendly chatter about their job or the weather or what was in the newspaper that morning?)

Look, I'm not advocating social stratification, but I understand the drivers that cause it, and 'insecurity' or 'they think they're better' are just a small portion of them.

> In the West, we live faster, higher in the air, farther from our workplaces, and more singly than at any time in the past.

Nothing in life is free. 'We' have to pay for our new lifestyle.

Maybe there could be a new kind of social network, one where in order to maintain your online friendship connections, you have to occasionally/physically get together with your friends and if it doesn't happen it means that the connection doesn't really mean anything so you gradually lose it. This would automatically accomplish what some people with hundreds of fb friends try to do by cleaning up their friend list by asking those who want to remain friends to reply.

In my late twenties, a combination of things helped me somewhat (I am still lonely, but not nearly as much)

* Psychotherapy (it takes time to find a therapist that clicks, though)

* Antidepressants

* Not trying to hide it from my colleagues / family (the period when I did that was a miserable one)

* A few well-intentioned friends from work

* Family support

* This guide : http://www.succeedsocially.com/

* Meetup et al.

If you don't mind me asking, which antidepressant, and what effect does it have on you? Considering getting on them myself.

My 7 year old nephew can't tell the difference yet between the carefully scripted dialogues we hear on TV and the impromptu ones we hear face to face.

Social media has enriched our online-interactions at the expensive of face-to-face.

We can find exactly the person we want to talk to - virtually, and maybe in person - why deal with anyone else?

Loneliness, it turns out, is as bad for your health as smoking, or being obese. The research that Prof. Cacioppo has done with colleagues also adds to the growing body of work that shows how bad loneliness can be for your health. It shows that loneliness suppresses the immune system and cardiovascular function, and increases the amount of stress hormone the body produces. It causes wear and tear on a cellular level, and impairs sleep. As he writes in his book Loneliness, "these changes in physiology are compounded in ways that may be hastening millions of people to an early grave."

Can anyone link to any research supporting these claims?

It's generally weird to me that newspapers articles seem to be exempt from the expectation to cite their sources.

They also consider themselves exempt from the common practice that text in quotes contains sentences the people quoted have actually said or written.

I.e., the author may as well have pulled it out of her ass, and you would be none the wiser. That's old school quality journalism for you.

Yeah this is pretty absurd. I've been "quoted" a few times in newspapers and they got my statements completely wrong. Just flat out changed the wording (and therefore meaning) of what I said.

The Globe and Mail is as authoritative and reputable as they get, but this isn't saying much. The media is just a shit show in general.

Having said that, even more pathetic is people who get their information from internet forums asking journalists to cite sources.

The authority hierarchy goes like this: Academic writing > Books by credentialed people > YouTube videos by credentialed people > Websites by credentialed people > Newspapers > Yahoo! Answers > Hacker News comments > Wikipedia.

Crowd-sourcing citations, conventional wisdom, and syllabi seems rather distinct from "the authority hierarchy", and the ROI is far more massive the further up that food chain you are, right? probably worth keeping in mind...

They got it from an anonymous source, obviously. ;-)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cacioppo+loneliness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loneliness#Effects A start.

> Chronic loneliness can be a serious, life-threatening health condition. At least one study has empirically correlated it with an increased risk of cancer, especially for those who hide their loneliness from the outside world,[34] and it is also associated with increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.[35]

I really don't follow the argument: living in major city also increases cancer risk, in order to justify calling loneliness “life-threatening health condition” one should really provide more relevant information.

The starting point is to google: cacioppo loneliness <smoking>

These searches turn up a bunch of widely-cited papers.

The reason for this: as a modern Western society, we no longer have much in common, we no longer have communal rituals, and we share very little in values. Thus people drift apart and worse, "friendship" has come to be an act of convenience.

Exactly. I'm surprised, this comment is not further up. If you are all about self-actualization, keep pushing your limits and experience new things, it is hard to maintain deep friendships if your friends don't move in the same direction and at similar speed. Same problem with romantic relationships. We're so much about individuality that we become incompatible with the majority of people. For many its not about being shy, or a lack social skills but that we like to do our own thing and easily end up lonely because of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com