3 ms·

1) I'm going to guess that what my grandparents meant by "lonely" isn't quite what my generation or yours, means. I think we use this as a relative term - "less

1) I'm going to guess that what my grandparents meant by "lonely" isn't quite what my generation or yours, means. I think we use this as a relative term - "less connected than other people" to at least some extent. So that might skew longitudinal statistics. If you only had two friends to talk to (almost every day) in the village back then, you were lonely, and probably being ostracized to boot. 2) To a significant extent, it's possible to translate "I'm lonely" into "I'm too disgusted with the ethics, crudity, vile political opinions, manners, dress, accents, musical tastes, spiritual nonsense, etc of the people I meet these days to go out of my way to meet them again, thanks." This may be a downside to diversity (for those too-easily put off), or a reflection of the fact that we're all social climbers, who are too optimistic about our "social value" in the eyes of all the other social climbers, I don't know. After all, almost all of us have solutions to loneliness handy if we aren't at all picky about our company. And back in the day, you couldn't be - your village was your world. A hidden factor, IMHO, is the rapidity of cultural change. Last long enough (age 28 in my case) and you are necessarily a time-traveller, in a foreign culture to a large extent, and it hurts mightily to know that your tribe has moved on; but it has (unless you joined an uber-traditional church or cult as a youth.) If you opt to deny this, as many do, your world is gonna shrink and keep shrinking from that point on. You're gonna miss a lot of fun, too. PS - volunteer. PPS - I'm not 28, that's just how old I was when I realized I wasn't part of "the younger generation" anymore, and had to decide fast whether my generations' taste in everything was going to be forever supreme in my head, or to start making an effort to see what the real kids were up to, and whether I might like any of that, too. I chose the latter and bless that day.

yakubin 8y ago
> 1) I'm going to guess that what my grandparents meant by "lonely" isn't quite what my generation or yours, means. I think we use this as a relative term - "less connected than other people" to at least some extent. So that might skew longitudinal statistics. If you only had two friends to talk to (almost every day) in the village back then, you were lonely, and probably being ostracized to boot. As I understand it, „loneliness” in the article is understood as the feeling of loneliness, not a measure of how sociable you are. You can be lonely while continually being around people which you have relationships with which look warm on the surface, but don’t give you much of a satisfaction. I think it is the case with a lot of people suffering from depression.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  I agree with everything you say, and don't see it as contradicting anything I've said. [I ain't saying I couldn't have been clearer.] Note that our feelings are influenced greatly by social comparisons. For example, those whose immediate neighbors are all poorer than they feel much happier than those who are richer but the poorest in their immediate neighborhood. As Buddha said, expectations tend to rule feelings. Modern society, both for dating and friendships, sets up false expectations ("The Illusion of Choice"), that often leave us without partners. Some combination of finding a crowd you like better, and lowering your expectations has to suffice: or nothing will.
  - yakubin 8y ago
    Then it seems I misunderstood you in the first place. I agree with you.
- creep 8y ago
  This is just speculation-- but to jump on your point, I suspect one of the reasons the rate of depression and loneliness is highest in males is because male friendships are often more guarded (less warm or emotionally close).
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    I'm not disagreeing - and am speculating as well - but this lack of intimacy might not matter if we males were cooperating in groups a lot (other than by emessage), say on a hunt; but we just don't do that anymore. I think my grandfather's male friendships were shallow-but-substantive meaning not intimate and squishy, but based on hard cooperative tasks, often physical such as "branding parties" on farms. Even as a kid these seemed to me to be all-shop-talk relationships, often. But they did find them satisfying, they knew they could rely on these guys in a pinch. Whereas I'm not at all sure that the guys I share my squishy feelings with would be there for me in a pinch.
    - bytematic 8y ago
watwut 8y ago
Are you sure that majority of grandparents generation in United States lived in close knit rural villages where having two friends surely means you are ostracized? Grandparents generation lived through world war, end of great migration of blacks, were adult through civil rights fights and had TV. American men went over the sea and even Easter European existing close knit village were destroyed by fighting, hunger, repressions, just to be later disrupt by communism.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  Nope. Which is why I haven't said that. But even in cities, people did move less then, and did rely on their neighbors more, due to poverty if nothing else. As it happens, one set of my grandparents lived on a farm with no neighbors within something like four miles; the other, in a few small farming villages with maybe 32 people.
  - creep 8y ago
    My grandparents on both sides lived in shack-house farms, far from any villages or towns or whatnot. This was after the family moved to Canada. They had large families (6+ kids), which was also common, and I suspect it was hard to be lonely surrounded closely by so many brothers and sisters and daughters and sons.

yakubin 8y ago

> 1) I'm going to guess that what my grandparents meant by "lonely" isn't quite what my generation or yours, means. I think we use this as a relative term - "less connected than other people" to at least some extent. So that might skew longitudinal statistics. If you only had two friends to talk to (almost every day) in the village back then, you were lonely, and probably being ostracized to boot. As I understand it, „loneliness” in the article is understood as the feeling of loneliness, not a measure of how sociable you are. You can be lonely while continually being around people which you have relationships with which look warm on the surface, but don’t give you much of a satisfaction. I think it is the case with a lot of people suffering from depression.

Nomentatus 8y ago
I agree with everything you say, and don't see it as contradicting anything I've said. [I ain't saying I couldn't have been clearer.] Note that our feelings are influenced greatly by social comparisons. For example, those whose immediate neighbors are all poorer than they feel much happier than those who are richer but the poorest in their immediate neighborhood. As Buddha said, expectations tend to rule feelings. Modern society, both for dating and friendships, sets up false expectations ("The Illusion of Choice"), that often leave us without partners. Some combination of finding a crowd you like better, and lowering your expectations has to suffice: or nothing will.
- yakubin 8y ago
  Then it seems I misunderstood you in the first place. I agree with you.
creep 8y ago
This is just speculation-- but to jump on your point, I suspect one of the reasons the rate of depression and loneliness is highest in males is because male friendships are often more guarded (less warm or emotionally close).
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  I'm not disagreeing - and am speculating as well - but this lack of intimacy might not matter if we males were cooperating in groups a lot (other than by emessage), say on a hunt; but we just don't do that anymore. I think my grandfather's male friendships were shallow-but-substantive meaning not intimate and squishy, but based on hard cooperative tasks, often physical such as "branding parties" on farms. Even as a kid these seemed to me to be all-shop-talk relationships, often. But they did find them satisfying, they knew they could rely on these guys in a pinch. Whereas I'm not at all sure that the guys I share my squishy feelings with would be there for me in a pinch.
  - bytematic 8y ago

watwut 8y ago

Are you sure that majority of grandparents generation in United States lived in close knit rural villages where having two friends surely means you are ostracized? Grandparents generation lived through world war, end of great migration of blacks, were adult through civil rights fights and had TV. American men went over the sea and even Easter European existing close knit village were destroyed by fighting, hunger, repressions, just to be later disrupt by communism.

Nomentatus 8y ago
Nope. Which is why I haven't said that. But even in cities, people did move less then, and did rely on their neighbors more, due to poverty if nothing else. As it happens, one set of my grandparents lived on a farm with no neighbors within something like four miles; the other, in a few small farming villages with maybe 32 people.
- creep 8y ago
  My grandparents on both sides lived in shack-house farms, far from any villages or towns or whatnot. This was after the family moved to Canada. They had large families (6+ kids), which was also common, and I suspect it was hard to be lonely surrounded closely by so many brothers and sisters and daughters and sons.