4 ms·

Fischer summarizes: A layperson might ask, What difference—besides diss’ing social scientists—does it make if these interesting articles about loneliness growi

Fischer summarizes: A layperson might ask, What difference—besides diss’ing social scientists—does it make if these interesting articles about loneliness growing are off a bit? First, they are off a lot. But more important, they are a critical distraction. Chatter about feelings (of mainly affluent folks) distracts us from the many real crises of our time—say, widened inequality, children growing up in criminally and chemically dangerous neighborhoods, the dissolution of job security for middle Americans, drug addiction, housing shortages (where the jobs are), a medical system mess, hyper-partisanship, and so on. That’s what makes the loneliness scare not just annoying but also another drag on serious problem-solving. Ahh the cruelty of science. I would agree that the claim Brooks, an op-ed writer, made is overblown and sensationalized a bit in order to get readers interested, but that doesn't make those who are indeed lonely, and those who the NY Times article focuses on, any less lonely or visible. It seems like the post's author is dismissing that there are lonely people out there because Brooks wrote something that overstates their numbers. As any social scientist would tell you, even the best numbers we have on these phenomena are problematic and incomplete.

msla 8y ago
It's a slightly higher-flown version of "We can't talk about your problems because other people have worse problems!" The problem with that idea, in addition to it being morally repugnant and utterly disdainful of human life, is that there's always a worse problem. Oh, you want to talk about polio? Malaria is a worse problem! Oh, you want to talk about income inequality? Access to abortion is a worse problem by far! It's a perfect way to shut down any discussion, simply by shouting "HEY, LOOK OVER THERE! WORSE PROBLEMS!" and claiming the moral high ground.
- noonespecial 8y ago
  It has a name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  People have limited attention and time. It's perfectly valid to point out how the media is withholding information and distracting from more serious things on purpose. Otherwise it is just bike shedding.
  - dmschulman 8y ago
    We need a good catchy term for the fallacy that "the media is reporting on X but not reporting at all about Y!". This is mostly confirmation bias since no one individual has the bandwidth or resources to look at every single story produced on every single topic on a single day. I tend to see people complain "this tragedy happened today and I don't see it being reported by the news!", implying that the media has something to hide or they value certain groups of people over others, but this is not a claim worth its salt. There are many reason, both from the organization's standpoint and from the individual's standpoint, why this claim isn't true. It's a weak argument that only serves the purpose of distracting from topics at hand.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      I believe you're describing a form of whataboutism.
    - zzzcpan 8y ago
      It's relatively easy to analyze media outlets, quantify and classify what kind of stories they publish, what kind of topics they focus on, what views they are pushing, etc. Definitely doesn't take much time. Few hours per day for a few days can get you very far. But you probably need some background on propaganda first, manufacturing consent, things like that. It doesn't change anything though. Media is still not going to focus on important problems. It exists to influence people, not to report on all the right things. And it's worth pointing this out.
joe_the_user 8y ago
It seems like the post's author is dismissing that there are lonely people out there because Brooks wrote something that overstates their numbers. Indeed. It should be clear that measuring loneliness is quite difficult given measuring any feeling is hard and given people may define "not lonely" relative to whatever they've experienced as that rather than some absolute criteria. Certainly, one might attribute the growing epidemic of opioid addiction and suicide to loneliness - or to despair but it seems reasonable to attribute it to something like that. And there's no reason loneliness, inequality and etc aren't connected problems. Once, one could point to those with lower incomes still having the vibrant social life of "the streets" but the poverty of those in outer suburbs does not necessarily generate that same situation.
- magduf 8y ago
  People have had to deal with desperate, impoverished lives throughout all of history, and usually managed to muddle through without committing suicide en masse or dying of drug addiction/overdose. People in the past most likely managed to deal with their poor circumstances because of social factors (i.e., they weren't lonely). Throw in an epidemic of loneliness and social isolation, as is common in modern urban/suburban life, and it's easy for even people in not-so-horrible circumstances to break under the strain.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    I believe the point Gelman is making is that there appears to be minimal evidence for the idea that there is a new epidemic of loneliness.
d0lph 8y ago
He seems to be addressing a specific claim, that loneliness is an epidemic and trending up, which doesn't seem to be the case. Sensationalized news is deception and in that sense, not news.
- pc2g4d 8y ago
  It actually seems like he's saying that the loneliness of affluent people doesn't matter because there are other problems in the world.
  - d0lph 8y ago
    The way I read it, it was more about using news to cover these stories, save the feelings of celebrities for tabloids and twitter. 90% of the article is about the stats being wrong.
JamesBarney 8y ago
The author never dismisses that lonely people are out there. He is specifically attacking the claim that loneliness is a new and quickly accelerating trend. even the best numbers we have on these phenomena are problematic and incomplete Sure but he does not say this. He says "In the 1980s, 20 percent of Americans said they were often lonely. Now it’s 40 percent. " Don't think that communication and discussion at a national levels becomes more difficult when people can just make up any numbers they want to support their point, and never have to correct them?

msla 8y ago

It's a slightly higher-flown version of "We can't talk about your problems because other people have worse problems!" The problem with that idea, in addition to it being morally repugnant and utterly disdainful of human life, is that there's always a worse problem. Oh, you want to talk about polio? Malaria is a worse problem! Oh, you want to talk about income inequality? Access to abortion is a worse problem by far! It's a perfect way to shut down any discussion, simply by shouting "HEY, LOOK OVER THERE! WORSE PROBLEMS!" and claiming the moral high ground.

noonespecial 8y ago
It has a name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
zzzcpan 8y ago
People have limited attention and time. It's perfectly valid to point out how the media is withholding information and distracting from more serious things on purpose. Otherwise it is just bike shedding.
- dmschulman 8y ago
  We need a good catchy term for the fallacy that "the media is reporting on X but not reporting at all about Y!". This is mostly confirmation bias since no one individual has the bandwidth or resources to look at every single story produced on every single topic on a single day. I tend to see people complain "this tragedy happened today and I don't see it being reported by the news!", implying that the media has something to hide or they value certain groups of people over others, but this is not a claim worth its salt. There are many reason, both from the organization's standpoint and from the individual's standpoint, why this claim isn't true. It's a weak argument that only serves the purpose of distracting from topics at hand.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    I believe you're describing a form of whataboutism.
  - zzzcpan 8y ago
    It's relatively easy to analyze media outlets, quantify and classify what kind of stories they publish, what kind of topics they focus on, what views they are pushing, etc. Definitely doesn't take much time. Few hours per day for a few days can get you very far. But you probably need some background on propaganda first, manufacturing consent, things like that. It doesn't change anything though. Media is still not going to focus on important problems. It exists to influence people, not to report on all the right things. And it's worth pointing this out.

joe_the_user 8y ago

It seems like the post's author is dismissing that there are lonely people out there because Brooks wrote something that overstates their numbers. Indeed. It should be clear that measuring loneliness is quite difficult given measuring any feeling is hard and given people may define "not lonely" relative to whatever they've experienced as that rather than some absolute criteria. Certainly, one might attribute the growing epidemic of opioid addiction and suicide to loneliness - or to despair but it seems reasonable to attribute it to something like that. And there's no reason loneliness, inequality and etc aren't connected problems. Once, one could point to those with lower incomes still having the vibrant social life of "the streets" but the poverty of those in outer suburbs does not necessarily generate that same situation.

magduf 8y ago
People have had to deal with desperate, impoverished lives throughout all of history, and usually managed to muddle through without committing suicide en masse or dying of drug addiction/overdose. People in the past most likely managed to deal with their poor circumstances because of social factors (i.e., they weren't lonely). Throw in an epidemic of loneliness and social isolation, as is common in modern urban/suburban life, and it's easy for even people in not-so-horrible circumstances to break under the strain.
- Kalium 8y ago
  I believe the point Gelman is making is that there appears to be minimal evidence for the idea that there is a new epidemic of loneliness.

d0lph 8y ago

He seems to be addressing a specific claim, that loneliness is an epidemic and trending up, which doesn't seem to be the case. Sensationalized news is deception and in that sense, not news.

pc2g4d 8y ago
It actually seems like he's saying that the loneliness of affluent people doesn't matter because there are other problems in the world.
- d0lph 8y ago
  The way I read it, it was more about using news to cover these stories, save the feelings of celebrities for tabloids and twitter. 90% of the article is about the stats being wrong.

JamesBarney 8y ago

The author never dismisses that lonely people are out there. He is specifically attacking the claim that loneliness is a new and quickly accelerating trend. even the best numbers we have on these phenomena are problematic and incomplete Sure but he does not say this. He says "In the 1980s, 20 percent of Americans said they were often lonely. Now it’s 40 percent. " Don't think that communication and discussion at a national levels becomes more difficult when people can just make up any numbers they want to support their point, and never have to correct them?