14 ms·

Poor-quality relationships linked to greater distress than too few relationships

182 points by EndXA 8y ago

austincheney 8y ago
I am glad there is research on this, but I find it rather curious this is somehow not common knowledge.
- rsimmonds 8y ago
  Same. That was my initial thought. Quality > quantity.
- dajohnson89 8y ago
  It might be obvious to some people. But with the advent of social networks, there's a certain pressure to have a large number of followers/likes/etc. It's well documented how unhealthy that can be.
- abrichr 8y ago
  To be clear: the point of a scientific study is to provide evidence for a hypothesis, regardless whether that hypothesis is common knowledge or not.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    Thank you for this. Everyone I've met who does research in social topics like this is endlessly frustrated by "well duh" reactions, especially on topics like social ills or discrimination. Beyond the simple fact of empiricism, having a study show this is valuable on a lot of practical levels: - Common knowledge is often wrong, so it's worth validating. - Common knowledge says "worse", but this starts to quantify the difference. (Maybe 10 crummy friendships are worse than 2 good friendships, but are they worse than 1? How much worse? Where does zero friendships fall?) - "Everybody knows" isn't and shouldn't be a basis for law or policy, so studies like this are citable evidence for the problem's existence and severity; "bad friendships are depressing" doesn't help us evaluate loneliness as a public health risk. (Similarly, replacing "those districts look stupid and have biased results" with a statistical measure of gerrymandering has been quite important in some recent court cases.) - Simple studies provide standard methodology and reference data for analyses and future work. There's a long history of people testing complex hypotheses like "can we fight loneliness using this intervention to help people make more friends?" which fall apart because they skipped foundational work like "is number of friends even a predictor of loneliness?" Honestly, I feel a bit relieved to see studies like this at the moment. With the replication crisis taking "well understood" results down like dominos, there's a lot to be said for going out and checking the really fundamental stuff.
- ergothus 8y ago
  While the article talks about loneliness and friendships, the headline contradicts a common saying: "Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all"
  - onion2k 8y ago
    The article isn't talking about romantic relationships.
    - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
      neither did I understand the parent comment as something that has to be romantic. e.g. I love my children, my friends, my dogs, my cat, ... none in a romantic way.
    - ergothus 8y ago
      ...which I literally acknowledged.
- hombre_fatal 8y ago
  There are a lot of "common sense" falsehoods though as well. Like sugar causing hyperactivity in children. What do you propose we do to disambiguate the bullshit from truth?
  - EGreg 8y ago
    That one is actually true. Sugar highs are a thing.
    - hombre_fatal 8y ago
      When I google "sugar high children", everything on the front page points to it being debunked, mainly due to the mid-90s studies.
      - grawprog 8y ago
        Tell ya what? Go hang out with some kids after you give them a bunch of sugar. Studies can say one thing, personal experience watching children turn into little demons that make you run all day before they get cranky and crash hard says otherwise.
        hombre_fatal 8y ago
        It's funny you mention that since here's how the top link (The Guardian) starts off: > People often get cross when you tell them there's no such thing as a sugar rush. Especially parents. They have witnessed, time and again, their offspring going ape at parties, after mainlining jelly and ice cream. But let's not get distracted trying to convince me the study is wrong with anecdotes. That's the point: even ubiquitous "common sense" that anyone would swear is right can be debunked.
        SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        > They have witnessed, time and again, their offspring going ape at parties, after mainlining jelly and ice cream. And I feel like there's another explanation for that - the party setting.
jstimpfle 8y ago
Title lacks; Didn't read. How poor? How many too few? Is there anything we can learn from this study? I have my doubts...
- louhike 8y ago
  Have you an example of a title where you could put all this information in 80 characters (the limit of HN)?
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  > How poor? How many too few? Is there anything we can learn from this study? I have my doubts... The article may contain the information you require. I'm curious as to the threshold you require as to that information, are you looking for an absolute minimum threshold of friends, and a succinct definition of a poor quality relationship in a title?
  - jstimpfle 8y ago
    I guess. Without tresholds the claim can go either way.
- onion2k 8y ago
  If the article title included all the information you want it'd be really long.
rofo1 8y ago
“From a societal perspective, and in the interests of reducing the burden of psychological distress, efforts should be made to enhance the quality of social connections as opposed to promoting the virtues of larger social networks.” They say this, but people with integrity are typically made fun of secretly or even publicly, declared dismissive and asocial, instead of positively recognized in any fashion. They are seen as "rude", as "expecting too much", and at every point of their life, it is as if the society is telling them: "let it go, drop down to our level". Not in those words, but with actions and with the general atmosphere of the society. A Seneca quote has reasoned with me for long time, I'll paraphrase it: you don't need a teacher for the vices! It seems as if people prefer what objectively causes them harm (to their mental health and otherwise). Lying, evil thoughts, friends envious of each other, talking behind their backs, unfaithfulness is more common than being a good person, trying to do your best in this world (which, I am sure, is not easy on anybody), be in a positive mood, if you can't help - at least don't interfere, and so on. We need to somehow improve our ethics and morals on our own, willingly. I know exactly what I did in my life: I read a lot of philosophy. I also come from a very honest family, so that had some impact I am sure. Compare this with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19238633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19238633 (Why Be Honest If Honesty Doesn't Pay)
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  You can be honest and not be rude. Being confrontational and blunt is orthogonal to being truthful.
  - rofo1 8y ago
    Oh absolutely! Not sure where I conveyed anything different, but I agree with you.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      > but people with integrity ... are seen as "rude" You seem to be drawing a line between having integrity and being seen as unpleasant.
openloop 8y ago
Ya don’t say.
samebreath 8y ago
I imagine this principle is solid up to a point of meeting a minimal set of connections. Did they happen to (try to) identify a safe minimum?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SolaceQuantum 8y ago
I find it pretty interesting that there appears to be a sliding scale of relationship quality and loneliness as listed in the study itself. It appears that regardless of one's introvertedness or social-mindedness or similar, all studied humans benefit from a wealth of genuinely enriching relationships. Although I'd like to see continued studies also if this extends to internet or long-distance relationships, and if they do not, the exact categorical/mathematical models of this disparity.
barberousse 8y ago
I've experienced this problem myself, low-quality relationships, and having acquitted myself of them in my early 30s, now in my mid-30s while I barely interact with anyone outside of work, I have to say, its striking how little has changed between entertaining those relationships and just being by myself.
xmlblog 8y ago
Confirmation of the old Spanish proverb: "es mejor estar solo que mal acompañado." https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/es%20mejor%20estar%20solo%20que%20mal%20acompa%C3%B1ado https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/es%20mejor%20estar%20s...
Gpetrium 8y ago
It seems to me that the 'holy grail' is a few high quality relationships coupled with a medium-large sized pool of 'outer-layer' relationships. When a couple of high quality relationships end (for whatever reason, including death), there is a decent size pool to go back to. The medium-large sized pool also allows you to choose the ones that make sense to stick with and remove accordingly. Most people find it hard to balance that, so they are likely better off to have a few high quality relationships without accounting for the outer layers
908087 8y ago
Social media cultivates poor quality relationships, and distress causes many to spend more time on social media in seek of "connection". It's the perfect feedback loop for "increasing engagement".
mindgam3 8y ago
This is especially true if you tend to have an insecure attachment style due to adverse childhood experiences (unstable home, toxic parenting, etc). Better to be securely attached to one person than weakly attached to 10, or even 100.
maxxxxx 8y ago
What can be really crushing is a problematic or toxic family member. For example an alcoholic. It's very hard to keep distance from a family member. I have experienced this myself for a few years and I know people whose lives are seriously disrupted by a toxic family member.
mmmmmmmmm 8y ago
"Cutting off your hands linked to greater distress than never having hands to begin with"
reading-at-work 8y ago
These results confirm my anecdotal experience. I moved across the country recently, leaving behind all meaningful relationships except for my SO who I moved with. My mental health quickly took a nosedive. I don't connect with anyone at my new job on a deep level, and despite my efforts so far I have no close friends outside of work either. At least now I know there's a study to confirm why I've been so depressed lately. That counts for something I guess.
XalvinX 8y ago
ya think?

182 points by EndXA 8y ago

austincheney 8y ago

I am glad there is research on this, but I find it rather curious this is somehow not common knowledge.

rsimmonds 8y ago
Same. That was my initial thought. Quality > quantity.
dajohnson89 8y ago
It might be obvious to some people. But with the advent of social networks, there's a certain pressure to have a large number of followers/likes/etc. It's well documented how unhealthy that can be.
abrichr 8y ago
To be clear: the point of a scientific study is to provide evidence for a hypothesis, regardless whether that hypothesis is common knowledge or not.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  Thank you for this. Everyone I've met who does research in social topics like this is endlessly frustrated by "well duh" reactions, especially on topics like social ills or discrimination. Beyond the simple fact of empiricism, having a study show this is valuable on a lot of practical levels: - Common knowledge is often wrong, so it's worth validating. - Common knowledge says "worse", but this starts to quantify the difference. (Maybe 10 crummy friendships are worse than 2 good friendships, but are they worse than 1? How much worse? Where does zero friendships fall?) - "Everybody knows" isn't and shouldn't be a basis for law or policy, so studies like this are citable evidence for the problem's existence and severity; "bad friendships are depressing" doesn't help us evaluate loneliness as a public health risk. (Similarly, replacing "those districts look stupid and have biased results" with a statistical measure of gerrymandering has been quite important in some recent court cases.) - Simple studies provide standard methodology and reference data for analyses and future work. There's a long history of people testing complex hypotheses like "can we fight loneliness using this intervention to help people make more friends?" which fall apart because they skipped foundational work like "is number of friends even a predictor of loneliness?" Honestly, I feel a bit relieved to see studies like this at the moment. With the replication crisis taking "well understood" results down like dominos, there's a lot to be said for going out and checking the really fundamental stuff.
ergothus 8y ago
While the article talks about loneliness and friendships, the headline contradicts a common saying: "Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all"
- onion2k 8y ago
  The article isn't talking about romantic relationships.
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    neither did I understand the parent comment as something that has to be romantic. e.g. I love my children, my friends, my dogs, my cat, ... none in a romantic way.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    ...which I literally acknowledged.
hombre_fatal 8y ago
There are a lot of "common sense" falsehoods though as well. Like sugar causing hyperactivity in children. What do you propose we do to disambiguate the bullshit from truth?
- EGreg 8y ago
  That one is actually true. Sugar highs are a thing.
  - hombre_fatal 8y ago
    When I google "sugar high children", everything on the front page points to it being debunked, mainly due to the mid-90s studies.
    - grawprog 8y ago
      Tell ya what? Go hang out with some kids after you give them a bunch of sugar. Studies can say one thing, personal experience watching children turn into little demons that make you run all day before they get cranky and crash hard says otherwise.
      - hombre_fatal 8y ago
        It's funny you mention that since here's how the top link (The Guardian) starts off: > People often get cross when you tell them there's no such thing as a sugar rush. Especially parents. They have witnessed, time and again, their offspring going ape at parties, after mainlining jelly and ice cream. But let's not get distracted trying to convince me the study is wrong with anecdotes. That's the point: even ubiquitous "common sense" that anyone would swear is right can be debunked.
        SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        > They have witnessed, time and again, their offspring going ape at parties, after mainlining jelly and ice cream. And I feel like there's another explanation for that - the party setting.

jstimpfle 8y ago

Title lacks; Didn't read. How poor? How many too few? Is there anything we can learn from this study? I have my doubts...

louhike 8y ago
Have you an example of a title where you could put all this information in 80 characters (the limit of HN)?
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
> How poor? How many too few? Is there anything we can learn from this study? I have my doubts... The article may contain the information you require. I'm curious as to the threshold you require as to that information, are you looking for an absolute minimum threshold of friends, and a succinct definition of a poor quality relationship in a title?
- jstimpfle 8y ago
  I guess. Without tresholds the claim can go either way.
onion2k 8y ago
If the article title included all the information you want it'd be really long.

rofo1 8y ago

“From a societal perspective, and in the interests of reducing the burden of psychological distress, efforts should be made to enhance the quality of social connections as opposed to promoting the virtues of larger social networks.” They say this, but people with integrity are typically made fun of secretly or even publicly, declared dismissive and asocial, instead of positively recognized in any fashion. They are seen as "rude", as "expecting too much", and at every point of their life, it is as if the society is telling them: "let it go, drop down to our level". Not in those words, but with actions and with the general atmosphere of the society. A Seneca quote has reasoned with me for long time, I'll paraphrase it: you don't need a teacher for the vices! It seems as if people prefer what objectively causes them harm (to their mental health and otherwise). Lying, evil thoughts, friends envious of each other, talking behind their backs, unfaithfulness is more common than being a good person, trying to do your best in this world (which, I am sure, is not easy on anybody), be in a positive mood, if you can't help - at least don't interfere, and so on. We need to somehow improve our ethics and morals on our own, willingly. I know exactly what I did in my life: I read a lot of philosophy. I also come from a very honest family, so that had some impact I am sure. Compare this with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19238633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19238633 (Why Be Honest If Honesty Doesn't Pay)

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
You can be honest and not be rude. Being confrontational and blunt is orthogonal to being truthful.
- rofo1 8y ago
  Oh absolutely! Not sure where I conveyed anything different, but I agree with you.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    > but people with integrity ... are seen as "rude" You seem to be drawing a line between having integrity and being seen as unpleasant.

openloop 8y ago

Ya don’t say.

samebreath 8y ago

I imagine this principle is solid up to a point of meeting a minimal set of connections. Did they happen to (try to) identify a safe minimum?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

SolaceQuantum 8y ago

I find it pretty interesting that there appears to be a sliding scale of relationship quality and loneliness as listed in the study itself. It appears that regardless of one's introvertedness or social-mindedness or similar, all studied humans benefit from a wealth of genuinely enriching relationships. Although I'd like to see continued studies also if this extends to internet or long-distance relationships, and if they do not, the exact categorical/mathematical models of this disparity.

barberousse 8y ago

I've experienced this problem myself, low-quality relationships, and having acquitted myself of them in my early 30s, now in my mid-30s while I barely interact with anyone outside of work, I have to say, its striking how little has changed between entertaining those relationships and just being by myself.

xmlblog 8y ago

Confirmation of the old Spanish proverb: "es mejor estar solo que mal acompañado." https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/es%20mejor%20estar%20solo%20que%20mal%20acompa%C3%B1ado https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/es%20mejor%20estar%20s...

Gpetrium 8y ago

It seems to me that the 'holy grail' is a few high quality relationships coupled with a medium-large sized pool of 'outer-layer' relationships. When a couple of high quality relationships end (for whatever reason, including death), there is a decent size pool to go back to. The medium-large sized pool also allows you to choose the ones that make sense to stick with and remove accordingly. Most people find it hard to balance that, so they are likely better off to have a few high quality relationships without accounting for the outer layers

908087 8y ago

Social media cultivates poor quality relationships, and distress causes many to spend more time on social media in seek of "connection". It's the perfect feedback loop for "increasing engagement".

mindgam3 8y ago

This is especially true if you tend to have an insecure attachment style due to adverse childhood experiences (unstable home, toxic parenting, etc). Better to be securely attached to one person than weakly attached to 10, or even 100.

maxxxxx 8y ago

What can be really crushing is a problematic or toxic family member. For example an alcoholic. It's very hard to keep distance from a family member. I have experienced this myself for a few years and I know people whose lives are seriously disrupted by a toxic family member.

mmmmmmmmm 8y ago

"Cutting off your hands linked to greater distress than never having hands to begin with"

reading-at-work 8y ago

These results confirm my anecdotal experience. I moved across the country recently, leaving behind all meaningful relationships except for my SO who I moved with. My mental health quickly took a nosedive. I don't connect with anyone at my new job on a deep level, and despite my efforts so far I have no close friends outside of work either. At least now I know there's a study to confirm why I've been so depressed lately. That counts for something I guess.

XalvinX 8y ago

ya think?