5 ms·

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.

Same. That was my initial thought. Quality > quantity.

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.