50 ms·

America's loneliness epidemic: A systemic risk to organizations

300 points by laurex 8y ago

rifung 8y ago
> One might assume that the higher up the organization you go, the more connected you feel, but that isn’t necessarily the case. Research reported in Harvard Business Review found that half of CEOs report feeling lonely and 61% of those CEOs believed it hindered their performance. I wonder why people would assume that? I'd think being CEO would be the loneliest jobs.. You have no peers in your company; literally everyone is one of your reports. People on the same team can complain to teammates about their management. Managers can complain to other managers about their reports or their managers. Who does the CEO complain to? Probably their partners, other CEOs, friends, but either way it's most likely people outside of work.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- louthy 8y ago
  Only if you’re trying to keep some kind of aloof separation from the people you manage. There’s no reason a CEO can’t open up and be more inclusive. Things like asking for constructive criticism on your performance and then acting upon that will instill a level of trust that can then create a more open and inclusive working environment. I’m not a CEO, but I am a CTO/founder and me and the CEO/founder are the de facto joint heads of the organisation. I often say to my junior devs things like “don’t believe everything I say as gospel. There are lots of false prophets in our industry, so a healthy level of cinicism is good. If you think I’m wrong, don’t be afraid to say so”. This creates a perceived flatter structure that becomes more collaborative, which leads to a more social work environment. I can only assume it would help for those lonely at-the-top. The way I see management of people is this: trust your smart people to make good decisions, when there is disagreement or conflict the manager is there to be an arbiter and a guide toward the bigger vision of the organisation, not a dictator
  - rifung 8y ago
    > Only if you’re trying to keep some kind of aloof separation from the people you manage. There’s no reason a CEO can’t open up and be more inclusive. Things like asking for constructive criticism on your performance and then acting upon that will instill a level of trust that can then create a more open and inclusive working environment. I don't believe I stated anything that implied managers can't be inclusive as I think the opposite. I actually think that's a fundamental part of their job. I'm just skeptical managers and their reports can treat each other as equals because one of them has the power to terminate the other. Great managers can make that imbalance of power feel nonexistent, but it nevertheless exists, and the issue is you will never know when someone is being fully honest with your or not. I don't mean to imply that you do this, but sometimes bad managers seem to be unaware of this and get too friendly/cozy and it's actually a huge problem because they just keep doing things which make their reports uncomfortable but the reports are too afraid to speak up. I can only imagine that this is how a lot of sexual harassment begins.
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      can managers fire their direct reports at most companies? not sure how common this is, but at my (relatively small) company, my boss cannot simply decide to fire me. he would have to go to the director (my skip level) or possibly a VP to actually have hiring/firing authority. of course, he's been there a lot longer than me and could probably persuade them if I was underperforming or causing problems.
  - bubblewrap 8y ago
    I don't think it is a question of opening up. People won't share the same things with their boss that they share with their coworkers.
- ThrustVectoring 8y ago
  There's a generalized factor that makes it easier to both climb the corporate ladder and make interpersonal connections. On the other hand, it takes more and more effort to win at higher and higher levels of the org-chart tournament, leaving less time for outside hobbies that can foster a sense of belonging.
  - ianai 8y ago
    I don’t see CEOs being lonely outside of niche situations. Most are going to have to have some strong desire to tell many people what to do. I’m sure they wind up building a “community” around themselves both inside and out of work.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I think it’s pretty common to believe that life is better the more power and prestige you’ve got. Comparison: how many people are surprised when it turns out that a celebrity is miserable? You usually hear “but so many people love them, and they’re rich!”
- gingabriska 8y ago
  I disagree, CEO isn't a lonely job. You might not be more connected to your reports on personal level but you know quite a lot of other CEOs personally and might also have handful of executives working under you as your personal friends.
- granshaw 8y ago
  I too thought this was a given and have personally experienced it even just being a rung or two on the ladder. It makes total sense - what you do or don’t share or say becomes more important, the stakes are higher, and there’s just generally less people at your level to confide in
CharlesColeman 8y ago
This is a social problem in need of a technical solution. I'm waiting for a startup that can be accurately described as "Uber, but for real friends." Eventually they can phase out the contractors in favor of an ML/AI/ELIZA solution. /s
- tehsauce 8y ago
  This is satire right?
  - AlexandrB 8y ago
    It's marked as such (the "/s" at the end). But I didn't realize that it was satire until I got to the "/s". Which is scary.
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      > But I didn't realize that it was satire until I got to the "/s". Which is scary. Yeah, I'm only starting to really come to terms with how much technical culture has really twisted many important concepts to suit itself (and only itself), and has so normalized those distortions that your eyes just glide over the contradictions they create.
  - joker3 8y ago
    I guarantee you someone out there is thinking seriously about it.
    - daodedickinson 8y ago
      And even more people who think they are thinking seriously about it as they engineer sex slave robots and work to legalize more pimping.
  - spamizbad 8y ago
    His post is, but there's probably like 20 people working on VC pitches that aren't.
Animats 8y ago
There's an upside to loneliness for employers. Fewer distractions from the job. Less likely to mate and require higher insurance premiums for a spouse and children. Less likely to join a union or act as a a group against the employer.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > Less likely to mate and require higher insurance premiums for a spouse and children Lonely people are a tremendous risk to themselves and others, they do a lot of spontaneous dying and tend to get progressively worse at caring about doing their job. I've seen employee loneliness hurt company bottom lines, I don't think that's rare.
  - drivingmenuts 8y ago
    But are they as big a risk as married people with children or potential agitators or unionists? Is there even any objective data on this kind of comparison?
    - microcolonel 8y ago
      > But are they as big a risk as married people with children I don't have any objective data to offer in the middle of a workday, but conventionally, married breadwinners with children make for model employees.
      - gotts 8y ago
        Married couples going through divorce/infidelity/family/kids/health issues(which is not rare) is a tremendous risk as well, right? I don't understand why lonely people are automatically classified as a tremendous risk. I've experienced multiple times that exactly the opposite is often the case.
      - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
        Mostly because they can't take risks with their dependents.
gambler 8y ago
Calling what's happening with modern society "loneliness epidemic" is like saying that people in a building set on fire are "suffering from heat exposure and air pollution". A lot of social processes/constructions that make our society stable have been hijacked for profit or deliberately sabotaged for political gains. In both cases it's usually a product of extremely short-term thinking or highest forms of cynicism. Feeling disconnected is nothing more than an illusory side-effect of a whole host of other things.
- lostconfused 8y ago
  Need to call it something. Marx went with "estrangement". Alienation seems to be more commonly used today.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    Because I found it interesting, the wikipedia entry on Marx’s Theory of Alienation[1]. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienatio...
  - thescriptkiddie 8y ago
    Marx used the german word "Entfremdung", which can mean either "estrangement" or "alienation". In context, "Alienation" is the better translation.
- dev_dull 8y ago
  Another option other than malicious intent is that people are choosing to live this way even though they know it makes them unhappy. Where is the pressure to live differently? It used to come from family and community.
  - losteric 8y ago
    I don't think it's a matter of pressure or choice, my grandparents simply lived in a more social environment. Broad family trees, churches, guilds/unions, even free-range childhoods - gone or fading across the nation. Aside from work communities, the rest was mostly innate. You can't "choose" to live in a bigger family... but that environment, those pillars of socialization, were what fed into the smaller social niches.
mjevans 8y ago
What is the inverse of loneliness? Belonging, a sense of community and companionship. It is my perception that, at least in America and I suspect in many other places, competition pressure centered around places with strong "second place" (Job) opportunities combined with decades of civic mal-planning and treating symptoms (for some) rather than root causes (for all) have combined with a regressive tax/compensation structures to destroy the middle class and upward mobility. There are not enough "first places" near jobs. The cost of those places and the demands of the jobs combine to sour the time, energy, and opportunity left for "third places" (#1). Areas and activities where idle time is spent when seeking connections to others. Those places, at least for me, also tend to have a high barrier to participation/entry and very poor discover-ability. I theorize this might be related to the same issue described in another post, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19902782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19902782 where "the old Internet" had many small venues, who's main reason for existence was not profit, but the benefit of their "members" (users). They were private, intimate, locations where fans of a given thing could gather and learn more about that thing and themselves; with small local histories that allowed for safer exploration. A more stable place, where I had a real career I believed in, and a real home that I could start putting equity in to and around; a place where actual roots and structures and friends that would probably stay in the area also existed. That's what I feel we need to actually fight and win the battle against loneliness. #1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
- macawfish 8y ago
  I'm reminded of this poignant song by Peter Gabriel & Kate Bush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCRZLr9oRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCRZLr9oRw
  - xof711 8y ago
    There's a world to be discovered... Only takes the will to do so really...
- genema 8y ago
  Here is an interesting thought: in UX design and when building a startup we are encouraged to interact with users to learn what they want and need, then we craft the experience and values around that. Does this ever happen in civic planning? Do city planners ever talk to the public, to design experts, to community leaders? I honestly don't know, but I suspect the answer is NO. When I moved to Japan it was sort of strange to see residences and businesses in the same building. The longer I live here the clearer it becomes that zoning laws have a lot to do with good civic planning. Of course there are side effects to open zoning, communities don't always look as beautiful (but I think the blame also falls on planners / lack of community effort), but overall loose restrictions allow for more useful places. When I lived in Irvine, CA, I had to drive everywhere to do anything. The sad thing is many people choose communities like Irvine precisely because it is structured this way (I did initially). In truth, you can visually tell how depressed everyone is and how hard they try to make themselves feel better. Despite the average income being below 100k for couples, people are driving 50-130k cars, living in places they can barely afford all for the sake of image. I would argue that the image issue stems in large part from loneliness and a feeling of isolation. In all, I agree that perhaps the issue is not any one factor, but all of them combined. Rise of technology, fall of communities, poor civic planning, increasing income disparity are just the tip of the iceberg.
rchaud 8y ago
In some parts of Canada, the Red Cross sends volunteers to weekly check-ins in senior citizen communities. Nothing formal, just a friendly knock and a "how are you, need any help with anything today?" kind of conversation. How long before working adults needs something similar because the conversations they have, which take up the majority of their day are all so "productized" and artificial?
itsaidpens 8y ago
Any data if the suburbs and car culture contribute to this?
- daodedickinson 8y ago
  Urbanization certainly doesn't solve it.
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    Agreed. People riding busses and trains for 10+ hours per week aren't exactly in better shape than people with equivalent car commutes.
    - icsllaf 8y ago
      People living in sprawl and in nonwalkable places are more likely to be overweight, get less exercise, and spend less time walking https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629517/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629517/
      - humanrebar 7y ago
        I was talking about work life balance and discretionary time, not physical fitness. Also some people have physical abilities such that walking is not a valid lifestyle choice. For instance, two year olds. I'm pro-walkable spaces. But it's not across the board superior to other arrangements.
        icsllaf 7y ago
        Normally walkability also correlates with density of both businesses and houses which also encourages people to live closer to where they work. Compare that to a business park in the middle of the suburbs which requires a long distance commute to reach it. > For instance, two year olds. Probably easier to push a child on a stroller through a walkable area than to put it in a car and drive to a location. Less time-consuming and better for the environment as well. As well as walkable spaces being better for the elderly who can't legally drive and the handicapped who can't legally drive as well.
kashyapc 8y ago
Last night I read the "Happiness" chapter (no. 18) from Steven Pinker's fine book, Enlightenment Now, where he reviews data on loneliness in the US students (among two dozen other graphs in the first twenty chapters). Pinker implies social critics abuse the words "epidemic" and "crisis". After reviewing the downwards-sloping graph (plotted from 1978-2011) and more data, Pinker writes: [quote] Modern life, then, has not crushed our minds and bodies, turned us into atomized machines suffering from toxic levels of emptiness and isolation, or set us drifting apart without human contact or emotion. How did this misconception arise? Partly it came out of the social critic's standard formula for sowing panic: Here's an anecdote, therefore it's a trend, therefore it's a crisis. But partly came from genuine changes in how people interact. People see each other less in traditional venues like clubs, churches, unions, fraternal organizations, and dinner parties, and more in informal gatherings via digital media. They confide in fewer distant cousins but more in co-workers. They are less likely to have large numbers of friends but also less likely to want a large number of friends. But just because social life looks different today from the way it looked in the 1950s, it does not mean that humans, that quintessentially social species, have become any less social. [/quote]
- daodedickinson 8y ago
  Seems like Pinker is one of the few who can remain sanguine. He's not going to be able to persuade many.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    TBH, that quote is certainly not persuading me. I don't have lots of statistical data to look into, but I will say that myself and my peer group (gen X) at least seem much lonelier, with negative consequences, than my parents and their peer group. A lot of it is that it's just so much easier to be isolated today than in the past. When my parents moved in the past, they may have hired movers, but they stilled called me, my siblings, and some of their friends to help. I just get on thumbtack to find some help and then hire movers. When my parents were coming back from a flight, one of their kids would pick them up from the airport. I just take an Uber. Part of forming strong social relationships is a need to rely on other people. It's much easier to get by today without relying on anyone, and that can have significant negative side effects.
amznll 8y ago
At Amazon today on one their largest email lists there is a discussion of why you should not say "hi" or any other communication with a female at any time but especially when standing at an elevator inside the building. This position of loneliness is going to get worse before it gets better when the prevailing attitude is, don't talk to anyone.
- 2ad6466a 8y ago
  Better Solution: Hire more women (say 2 per man) and watch sexual harrasement complaints drop to zero.
- bubblewrap 8y ago
  Horrifying. I don't think I could stand working for such a company.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cced 8y ago
  Interesting. What is the logic behind not saying « hi » to females? I know that this is sexist, but I would at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Not being familiar with these email list, I’m unsure as to the general « feel » of these discussions. Can you provide more insight?
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > Interesting. What is the logic behind not saying « hi » to females? Refusing to speak with someone is the safest way to avoid the appearance of sexually harassing them.
    - bubblewrap 8y ago
      Not saying "hi" to women as a way of making women feel more welcome. Makes sense.
  - wes-k 8y ago
tathougies 8y ago
A lack of shared philosophy means there's no open, shared spaces. Like tonight, I'm going to a Knights of Columbus meeting. On Thursday, we're leading marriage prep at our church. On Monday, it's my men's club meeting. Later in the month, we're having a church BBQ. Most of the time, we're over socialized. For the elderly, we have a shut-ins ministry to visit them. For the poor, the Vincent de Paul society still goes two-by-two to all those who have asked. We've gotten rid of churches, replaced them with nothing particularly inspiring, and now we're wondering where all the social cohesion went. EDIT: I will point out that I'm not restricting myself only to churches here. I think, in the past, America also had this characteristic -- anyone who believed in American ideals and sought to further them was an American. De Tocqueville mentioned this quality of Americans (every American is a president) in his various writings on American social structure. Unfortunately with the rise of identity politics and ethnic factionalism, we've lost this notion of 'America as an idea', as is seen in the reluctance of people to serve on juries, for example.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  I really miss church. Having a day where you knew you'd meet up with friendly people, have a potluck after, and maybe head to the beach, go for a hike, etc. was really nice. It's a shame I was a fraud since I never truly believed, and eventually stopped pretending. I haven't found anything to fill that part of my life since.
  - karmelapple 8y ago
    How about volunteer with a group advocating for something you deeply support? Or how about Universal Unitarians?
  - 01100011 8y ago
    Atheism will always struggle to grow its ranks until it replaces the necessary features provided by religion. I'm an atheist/agnostic who spent a few years in a very cult-like christian denomination. I can say a lot of bad things about it, but it did help me to become more social and taught me a lot about the benefits of shared beliefs. Having a network of people to call on in times of need is priceless. Regular socialization and group participation helped me graduate from being an anti-social outcast. You can form groups around hobbies and activities, but the bonds just aren't strong enough to overcome our natural tendencies to judge others or take offense at the slightest indiscretions. I think a lot of people like me end up Unitarian Universalists just so they can gain some semblance of a community again.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
NTDF9 8y ago
Too much of our identity is tied to our employment. Add to it the fact that our economic system is inflationary (and badly measured at that), not working literally causes one to fall behind. So no one can actually take time off to do something different, cultivate lasting relationships, join a guitar club, play stupid games, travel, spend time with kids, spouses, family etc. without FOMO on inflation and career.
- molteanu 8y ago
  Nicely put! Did you notice that not even in sports can we relax and make lasting friendships and a relaxing atmosphere? If you didn't win, you went there for nothing. As a result, everybody seems to be concentrating on keeping score and winning and not on having a good time.
  - NTDF9 8y ago
    > Did you notice that not even in sports can we relax and make lasting friendships and a relaxing atmosphere? Team sports are different. They tend to create lasting friendships quite often. Not always but quite often. Same for music bands, tiny startups, backpacking groups etc.
xof711 8y ago
People should go out more... There's a life outside these walls!!
morsmodr 8y ago
I would like to make 2 points Firstly, In the past there were certain ways of being social - clubs, churches etc. But just because humans engage in a different form of being social doesn't immediately mean all is gone. It depends on whether the individual goes to meaningful meetup groups or whether he/she uses tinder and calls it social. There are way too many options and being distracted between many of these is true Secondly, Humans have had a social need, yes. That is how we evolved, yes. But evolution never stops, it is like walking on a slow gradient curve, each step is probably 1 or 2 generations. Why is human evolution viewed as static? Why is the declining need to be social today viewed as bad? Are we sure that people being alone are really feeling lonely? When change happens in the environment, side effects do show until the mind and body adapt to the new environment. We could well see a future (100-200 years from now) where a human isn't necessarily social because of the underlying need, that need could get quite minimized in future generations. That human could be social when he/she needs to and chooses to do so people of similar thinking / mind and could be by themselves for long periods of time. Why is this viewed as bad? Such humans could be extremely well suited for space travels because they can easily handle being by themselves rather than people who constantly need to be in groups to affirm their existence
- mistermann 8y ago
  Many things in life "could be" true, but with things such as this (human psychology related), it often takes very long time periods before the truth begins to show itself. This would be my reason for considering these major social changes as potentially bad, and certainly worthy of concern/attention/discussion.
john_teller02 8y ago
FTA ... Michael Lee Stallard, president and cofounder of Connection Culture Group, is a thought leader and speaker on how effective leaders boost human connection in team and organizational cultures to improve the health and performance of individuals and organizations. He is the author of "Connection Culture" and "Fired Up or Burned Out." To receive a 28-page "100 Ways to Connect" e-book, sample chapters of "Connection Culture," and Stallard's monthly email newsletter at no cost, sign up here. After all another marketing campaign to attack loneliness
voidhorse 8y ago
I’ve recently picked up the works of Vilem Flusser, a pretty underrated philosopher who touched on this subject in his 1983 book, Post-History. Much of what Flusser writes about is prescient, but in regard to increased loneliness in modern culture specifically, he argues that a major shift from dialogic forms (speaking with) of communication to strictly discursive forms (speaking to) is responsible. Even our so called “social media/social networks” are discursive and not dialogic—aimes more at telling people about ourselves than stimulating converstion. Part of this shift stems from specialization—when our interests are so highly individuated we have no shared grounds from which to speak, which reduces us to speaking about “pop culture” a shallow solutions to this growing gap in mutual experience. (Even this post is discursive, not dialogic, just like many of the other parents in this thread, since the technological collective communication mechanism doesn’t emulate real conversation—in online chats you’re already speaking to everyone and no one thanks to the veneer of anonymity/new identity a user name gives you, coupled with the guarantee that others in an online forum are coming from disparate backgrounds. The notion of an audience with shared values/cultural origins has dissolved and been replaced be a universal Everyman/Noman which in turn leads us toward the dissolution of community outside the realm of technical specialization.
- reubenswartz 8y ago
  This is a great point. And the irony is that the more discursive the environment is, the less people feel heard, the more loudly (at least metaphorically) they speak, in a vicious cycle. This doesn't fulfill the need for conversation and interaction. (Some people suggest that the rise in therapy for wealthy urban people is largely because this is the easiest way for some people to have someone actually listen to them. I don't know if it's true but it seems very sad.)
- petra 8y ago
  Great point. Are there any good solutions ? Any place to read about good solutions ?
- tenkabuto 8y ago
  I suspect that I started to misunderstand where you were coming from, but I think that I caught myself. --- I suspect that you're using the term "Everyman" in a different way than I'm used to it being used — as that every man is set apart from the rest. I'm used to it being used in the way that any man holds in common some/many characteristics, beliefs, and behaviors with all other men. > The notion of an audience with shared values/cultural origins has dissolved and been replaced be a universal Everyman/Noman which in turn leads us toward the dissolution of community outside the realm of technical specialization. Using my view of Everymanism, we would suspect that individualization would not necessarily move us away from shared values. We would need to distill out our similarities from our differences via discourse, and we would suspect that similarities would be found.
Inu 8y ago
The rise of secularism probably is a factor. The social function of religion was to create a link between people and to regulate and control their coexistence. It provided a set of collective rituals, customs, festivities. Take that away and what remains is essentially the family unit and the market forces.
- zanny 8y ago
  I think this might hint to one of the greater arguments for communism, which is functionally society as religion. That being said, I don't feel for a second that religion is the only way to fill that hole practically. But it requires a society that both recognizes the need for that social cohesion and institutionalizes that which can maintain it. 2 weeks paid vacation HOA quarter acre with a picket fence and blacked out windows mainstream American culture is definitely not trying to accomplish that.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  > Take that away and what remains is essentially the family unit and the market forces. Or what's left of them anyway. Seems like you left zero-sum tribalism and perpetual consumerist distraction off of your list.
astazangasta 8y ago
One clue as to why there is a problem might be in the framing of the article, where the individual's despair only matters because it might start to impinge on someone's bottom line. This is an old problem, called "alienation". Marx wrote about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation
luckydata 8y ago
We built our cities to isolate us, it's not that strange that we're now isolated. I was born and raised in Europe, came to the US when I got married, lived in California for the most part. My quality of life has dramatically worsened even as I make more money I've ever made. I attribute that to the lack of casual spaces for aggregation, to free time outside being limited almost exclusively to places where to sit down and eat, shopping or hiking. I don't walk to work, I don't have a neighborhood bar where I can stop after work and see my neighbors and shoot the shit, when my wife and kid left town for a weekend I was extremely lonely and I decided to garden. When I'm old and will not be able to drive anymore, this will get even worse. This country has built one of the worst lifestyles I've experienced in my life and it's not sustainable. I know it's difficult but the sooner we all realize we have built a bad place to thrive and we tear it down, the sooner we'll be happier.
- asdff 8y ago
  I'll agree, living in the suburbs would be soul crushing. That's why you live in a city and ditch the car commute.
  - luckydata 8y ago
    Not that easy in San Francisco with a family.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Maybe it depends on the city and your age/marital status. I found living in the city (DC) extremely lonely after having kids. Mostly 20-something professionals gunning their careers. Moved out to the suburbs and now actually have neighbors to talk to, ones with kids that’ll come over and have a beer while the kids run around. All the driving isn’t ideal, but I kind of like tooling around the mall. I agree some of the problems are uniquely American. Having to spend a million dollars on a house to afford to live in a decent urban school district in places like NYC or SF or DC fucks up really messes up important social networks. Even if you can afford it, you’re surrounded entirely and solely by other people who can afford it.
mirimir 8y ago
I'm sure that loneliness is depressing, unhealthy, debilitating, etc, etc, etc. For many people. Maybe even for most people. But I'm happiest when I'm doing something that's interesting and challenging. And when I'm focused, other people are mainly a distraction. So for me, a few friends are enough. Plus chatting online. Sharing what I know, and asking for help.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  If you have a few friends, you're not lonely.
11thEarlOfMar 8y ago
I sense that there is an exploitation of human nature at work in this. Fear and outrage get attention, and attention gets revenue. It's amazing the number of times that both liberal and conservative personalities are associated with the world's most horrific events because that triggers outrage and gains clicks, and then turns out to have been fabricated via 'recontexting'. Outrage drives polarization and polarization drives people apart. Fear drives caution and caution keeps people from getting together. At this point, the only antidote for loneliness is to be aware of it and develop the courage to introduce yourself to someone you don't know. And then try to start doing that on a regular basis.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  It's amazing the number of times that both liberal and conservative personalities are associated with the world's most horrific events because that triggers outrage and gains clicks, and then turns out to have been fabricated via 'recontexting'. What’s an example of this recontexting?
austincheney 8y ago
Could this loneliness be a primary factor in the increased sensitivity and fragility of younger generations? I also wonder if loneliness is a key factor in some people preferring lies and deceptions in exchange for kindness in their interpersonal relationships. I know this may sound strange expressed so directly, but I have seen numerous comments on HN claim exactly this preference very directly and clearly.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  I'm purely guessing here, but I think loneliness could be a factor in increased fragility. When you're fragile it's easier for people to hurt you and when you're hurt you get attention and consolation from others. This can alleviate the loneliness.
- LUmBULtERA 8y ago
  >the increased sensitivity and fragility of younger generations? Can you cite your source for this assertion? Thanks!
  - austincheney 8y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=2fnbXJeQCImKk74PwsOA-AE&q=young+people+fragile&oq=young+people+fragile&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1292.6105..6442...0.0..1.599.6114.2-8j10j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0j0i10j0i22i30.Z5MDGNHw_X4 https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=2fnbXJeQCImKk74Pw...
alexashka 8y ago
I'd replace 'lonely' with 'lacking perspective', due to life being unbelievably great. It's hard to know the difference - just go without hot water, electricity or much food for a few days and then see how much 'loneliness' bothers you. It's an epidemic of life being so incredible, that we're constantly bored and restless. Strong human connections are made through negative experiences, not ecstasy. You can't have an awesome life of doing nothing difficult, and yet have great close relationships. You have to choose. We have choice now - in the past, you had to suffer. Now, you can choose to, if you want. Most people are choosing to not and slowly degenerate into old age, with a bored half-smile on their face at best, cluelessly bitching about trivialities at worst. It's all fine - just remember, you have to choose to suffer, if you want to achieve a great life.
- watwut 8y ago
  People without water and electricity suffer from loneliness too. Always did. The churches have structures that provide company to sick and old for that reason. If you ever read books from previous eras including war times, they deal with loneliness a lot. Physical suffering does not make you not lonely. It just means it sux for more reasons then just one.
gingabriska 8y ago
Think a lot of people coming to US are immigrants. And some also come from countries where they had much tighter community and shared life. But they choose US because it allows for more individualistic freedom and upsides (as you don't have a socialist government who eats into your income/wealth through taxes in order to equalise the whole society), so people feel more rewarded here. Constitution guarantees strong property rights here and your land can't be taken away from you for "social good" like in most European countries. Obviously, with this in place there is no reason for an invidual to share his resources like land with any other person, because in his mind, it's his hardworking which got him those nice things and now no one but him as any right over them. This over time creates more loneliness as people don't really see benefit of dealing with you. If I share my ranch with my neighbors, obviously, they'll want to maintain good relationship with me but what if I don't even let them roam around it? Or shoot their dog if it tries to trespass? Now you see the problem? This system optimizes for greater individual gain but come with some side effects like loneliness as you live in a very competitive society, it gets hard to trust others. If you become way richer than your neighbor because your company did good, you might no longer want to make your neighbor part of your life because they can no longer relate to your problems and wonder that even tho this person have lot of money, how come this person isn't happy? As I understand those who are in US feel everyone must work to support themselves and government should not support anyone through tax revenue for them to sit at home and watch Netflix or play Xbox etc... They always had a choice between going back to home and living in a tightly knit society but they choose America only because the upsides are greater here and it attracts those who optimize for individual interest like individual freedom/wealth etc... Many of my American colleges do not understand why I was working for 30K euros a year back in Europe when I could easily get 100K job here in states. Pace of life is also quite fast in US. Now I don't mean that Americans walk 10x faster to work but that due to the large size of the market, if your product takes off - you can become very rich over a year or month and your life changes completely. Very few places have this ability to support entrepreneurs, sure in a third world country like India, if you become a celebrity, it might take a year to become very rich but what if you are an entrepreneur simply creating products in your garage or coding from a coffee shop? Nearly impossible and unheard of. I've lived in Europe, US and currently living in India (as wife is from India) and there is growing dissent in middle class here because government have been put lots of taxes on middle class and offering lots of benefit to poor people as a result middle class people don't feel justified in paying taxes and try various loopholes and under table tricks. It makes sense if you think India is large and size of poor population is large compared to the middle class who are getting taxed left and right. If you give them a chance, most will just love US and strong property rights US has. If you want to test this, simply ask people to cast their votes in a ballot. Do you feel like you are not getting benefits for the taxes you pay? If you only allow middle class in India to vote, you'll see a lot of them somewhere around 90% in non metro cities gonna vote, "yes". Only people in big city might feel differently as they really get some benefits like better transformer, 24/7 power and clean water etc... Even the villages are slowly getting empty and parents complain that the kids are not able to come to their place even on key celebrations like Diwali ( which is huge over here) Only difference is there is no party in India which supports individualistic views like we've in US.
reubenswartz 8y ago
Just as modern technology has given us cheap, convenient fast food that isn't very nourishing, it's also given us cheap, easy "social" interactions that don't provide real connection. Social media is a nice compliment to, but not a good replacement for real conversations. "Success" often seems to correlate with cutting yourself off-- having a nice house with a big TV, a car that takes you to and from your job with minimal interaction with other people, and if people do have a few minutes of free time, they are often nose down in their phones, not taking to people around them. Especially after you have kids, it's easier to pull up Game of Thrones on your phone than head out to meet people. Is it any wonder that many people know more about what's going on in Westeros than in their own community? A few years ago I started paying more attention to what I eat, which has been great physically. Over the past year or so I've tried to be more intentional about relationships and conversations. As an introvert, it was weird at first, but it's been amazing. I actually look forward to calling people. (I call it my "Reconnection Challenge" and you can start by calling 2 people per day-- outside of your "have to" calls. Try it.)
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Just as modern technology has given us cheap, convenient fast food that isn't very nourishing, it's also given us cheap, easy "social" interactions that don't provide real connection. And just as it is somewhat difficult to get experts to agree what authentically nutritious food would actually be, it is also difficult to sort "shallow" social interactions from deep social interactions. Back when the Internet was young and I was working as a contract programmer in the mid-West, I met a young woman who was engaged to marry a man she'd met over the net and had not physically seen. In ways, it seemed impressive since it seemed to imply a mental connection rather than a physical. Today, social networks are universal and universally denigrated in favor of immediate personal relationships. I'm not sure such a simple return is possible or desirable.
  - indigochill 8y ago
    I am a big believer in online relationships. Most of my relationships, friendships and otherwise, have been there. I even got engaged to someone I met online (though we did meet in person a couple times first). However, it's not difficult at all to sort between shallow and deep social interactions. There's a massive difference between social media interactions and the interactions core to a deep relationship. I'll enumerate some examples here: Social Media: * Like * Write short reply * ...? Meaningful relationship: * Long talks (over phone, email, forums, whatever) * Discussion of intimate topics (not suitable for the public space of social media!) * Sharing experiences (and not in the "look what I did" sense of social media, but in the actually doing things together sense of, say, a gamer clan) * Some semblance of shared beliefs or interests (the focus of a forum, perhaps) So by all means let's continue building relationships online. But let's never confuse the shallow-as-possible interactions of social media with actually connecting to another human on any more than the most superficial level.
badrabbit 8y ago
Curious,any reason why I see similar articles on HN? The topic resonates strongly with me, is it especially a problem with tech workers?
vonnik 8y ago
It's probably worthwhile to point out that the trend toward remote work poses real risks to remote workers by increasing their physical isolation. I work at a remote-first company, and I've worked remotely for other organizations, and the high-bandwidth, spontaneous and accidental interactions and information sharing, the sense of togetherness, are distinctly absent in a lot of remote work, regardless of such benefits as avoiding a commute.
forgetme2020 8y ago
This article struck a chord with me. I am a middle aged immigrant in the tech industry battling loneliness since I was about 15. Outwardly I probably seem to be doing ok. While I see a lot about the challenges to public health and society by the loneliness epidemic, I haven't been able to find much in the way of what lonely people can do do build community especially in the atheist / agnostic realm. Over the course of reading the comments, I found a few resources that I've compiled, please pile on if you know of others Sunday Assembly https://www.sundayassembly.com/ https://www.sundayassembly.com/ Unitarian Universalist churches https://www.uua.org/ https://www.uua.org/ Meetups https://www.meetup.com https://www.meetup.com - I've tried several meetups but nothing has really stuck as in finding people who consistently come for an activity and the opportunity to connect more deeply As I think about it for someone like myself I am looking for more "church without the religion" outlets than say activity groups like say hiking etc because i find the activity groups more focused on the activity than generally making friends that you can call on for any kind of emergency, real world problem
gingabriska 8y ago
Once I found a really bright employee and I asked him, why don't you talk more and socialize more? He said well once I did exactly that and someone with large follower count on twitter made mockery of my views since then I keep my personal opinion to myself. Another one told me, that he doesn't really have a lot in common with people around him and that he considers online community where people are exactly interested in what he likes requires lot less mental overhead. Due to social media follower count, some people love to pick out others and insult them on social media only because they happen to have a different opinion, here you don't even need to hold on wrong opinion - holding a different opinion does the job. Before internet/social media, there were very few and expensive ways to get together with people across the geographic boundaries so you always had to please people around you and sometimes get them interested in the things you like, to have fun with them. But this changed with internet, now you can choose some very obscure topic and you'll find other people who are interested in the same thing several clicks away. And your mom is sick at home and can't go to supermarket for shopping? No problem, Amazon home delivery is one click away. Before that, you had to keep a friend who lived close to you and also help him and keep him happy so that he helped you when you need him, like buying some stuff for your mom while she's sick and you are away. Due to technology, there is simply less need of friends etc... And many don't consider it a good ROI over their time to keep friends. I heard it several times in valley, if you want a friend, get a dog.
- Simon_says 8y ago
  > if you want a friend, get a dog. I have no doubt it was said by plenty of people in the Valley, but that's an old quote about D.C..
- ok_coo 8y ago
  I find this observation interesting because, in my own biased perspective, people are finding it more and more difficult to compromise. And maybe that's because we're not forced to compromise with people to live our lives anymore. We can surround ourselves with people who believe what we do and if we don't want to interact with anyone, we can just order stuff online. Creating and existing in our own little bubbles.
- 7y ago
temp99990 8y ago
I suspect the loneliness epidemic will be a catalyst for worshipping of AI gods in the not so distant future, which is a bit unsettling but seems inevitable.
skookumchuck 8y ago
I miss living in the dorms in college. Sure my standard of living is much higher now, but I think I was happier in the dorms surrounded by interesting people.
raubtier 8y ago
The last decades has truly been a race to the bottom. Disguised as success and freedom. In various degrees has the westerner abolished the family, the local community and the church on the altar of individualism. The funny thing is that when the shit hits the fan, all those who has rejected this the most, will be the one doing least bad. The ones most despised by the elite and inner city folks.
atoav 8y ago
Alibaba/aliExpress specifically had studies that singles spend more money online. That is why they introduced the singles day and made it such an event. Loneliness is a problem, but we need to be aware that there are entities who specifically profit from a culture of solitude: “And there I was.. Alone with my ads, looking at made up pictures of other people’s lifes.” We are in the middle of the creation of a perfect consumer, which has to have a hole in themselves that can never be filled, a itch that never goes away when scratched, in constant need. And arguably there is solid economic incentive to go further down that road.
w_t_payne 8y ago
There is one facet to this which I find interesting -- and that's how disconnected we become from the emotional impact of our decisions. In a small closed community, we cannot help but be part of a system of social and emotional feedback. The decisions that we make have consequences, and this is very much the social environment that we have evolved for (confined to prehistory for obvious reasons). Those feedback loops have been largely severed in "modern" (i.e. last few thousand years) large-scale, urbanized, literate societies -- a fundamental change in the control systems that govern human behavior. With so many of us running partially open-loop ... is it any wonder that we see a proliferation of pathological behaviors? Can our latest (early 21st century) technology help to restore some of those connections? To help us get feedback on the impact of our speech, our writing, our choices? Could this help us re-establish an earlier, more natural way of relating and connecting to our fellow human beings?
- spiralx 7y ago
  I think a lot of this has to do with the lack of stable groups of a size that enables social effects and feedback to dominate - things like guilt, shame and reciprocity. Without this sort of group interactions become much more stressful and we don't feel like we belong. https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-media-affect-math-dunbar-number-friendships https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-med...
maxheadroom 8y ago
Reminds me of stories like these[0]. :( [0] - https://www.oddee.com/item_98735.aspx https://www.oddee.com/item_98735.aspx
justaguyhere 8y ago
Is this limited to US? How about Canada, Australia, England etc? Anyone who lived in US and one of these first world countries care to comment?
m23khan 7y ago
can't comment on this topic as whole but I would like to chime in from IT perspective -- lot of folks in IT industry with educational background in Computer Science or Mathematics tend to have anti social / cold / weird personalities. Maybe Universities and Colleges should incorporate 2 courses on how to act more social / warm as part of their curriculum.
scottlocklin 7y ago
This article is one of the most disgustingly bugman things I've ever read. It doesn't matter that America is a soul crushing gladiatorial pit; a miserable scramble over a few crumbs tossed us by the reptilians at the top, it matters that American corporate efficiency may be at risk. Virtually everything about modern American life is alienating, mostly because of this mindset and the downstream products of it. But if it were good for corporate efficiency, I'm pretty sure Harvard Business School types would be all for it.
edisonjoao 7y ago
this is why I'm working on this http://foxie.cool http://foxie.cool we need an easier and simpler way to interact with the world around us!

300 points by laurex 8y ago

> One might assume that the higher up the organization you go, the more connected you feel, but that isn’t necessarily the case. Research reported in Harvard Business Review found that half of CEOs report feeling lonely and 61% of those CEOs believed it hindered their performance. I wonder why people would assume that? I'd think being CEO would be the loneliest jobs.. You have no peers in your company; literally everyone is one of your reports. People on the same team can complain to teammates about their management. Managers can complain to other managers about their reports or their managers. Who does the CEO complain to? Probably their partners, other CEOs, friends, but either way it's most likely people outside of work.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
louthy 8y ago
Only if you’re trying to keep some kind of aloof separation from the people you manage. There’s no reason a CEO can’t open up and be more inclusive. Things like asking for constructive criticism on your performance and then acting upon that will instill a level of trust that can then create a more open and inclusive working environment. I’m not a CEO, but I am a CTO/founder and me and the CEO/founder are the de facto joint heads of the organisation. I often say to my junior devs things like “don’t believe everything I say as gospel. There are lots of false prophets in our industry, so a healthy level of cinicism is good. If you think I’m wrong, don’t be afraid to say so”. This creates a perceived flatter structure that becomes more collaborative, which leads to a more social work environment. I can only assume it would help for those lonely at-the-top. The way I see management of people is this: trust your smart people to make good decisions, when there is disagreement or conflict the manager is there to be an arbiter and a guide toward the bigger vision of the organisation, not a dictator
- rifung 8y ago
  > Only if you’re trying to keep some kind of aloof separation from the people you manage. There’s no reason a CEO can’t open up and be more inclusive. Things like asking for constructive criticism on your performance and then acting upon that will instill a level of trust that can then create a more open and inclusive working environment. I don't believe I stated anything that implied managers can't be inclusive as I think the opposite. I actually think that's a fundamental part of their job. I'm just skeptical managers and their reports can treat each other as equals because one of them has the power to terminate the other. Great managers can make that imbalance of power feel nonexistent, but it nevertheless exists, and the issue is you will never know when someone is being fully honest with your or not. I don't mean to imply that you do this, but sometimes bad managers seem to be unaware of this and get too friendly/cozy and it's actually a huge problem because they just keep doing things which make their reports uncomfortable but the reports are too afraid to speak up. I can only imagine that this is how a lot of sexual harassment begins.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    can managers fire their direct reports at most companies? not sure how common this is, but at my (relatively small) company, my boss cannot simply decide to fire me. he would have to go to the director (my skip level) or possibly a VP to actually have hiring/firing authority. of course, he's been there a lot longer than me and could probably persuade them if I was underperforming or causing problems.
- bubblewrap 8y ago
  I don't think it is a question of opening up. People won't share the same things with their boss that they share with their coworkers.
ThrustVectoring 8y ago
There's a generalized factor that makes it easier to both climb the corporate ladder and make interpersonal connections. On the other hand, it takes more and more effort to win at higher and higher levels of the org-chart tournament, leaving less time for outside hobbies that can foster a sense of belonging.
- ianai 8y ago
  I don’t see CEOs being lonely outside of niche situations. Most are going to have to have some strong desire to tell many people what to do. I’m sure they wind up building a “community” around themselves both inside and out of work.
village-idiot 8y ago
I think it’s pretty common to believe that life is better the more power and prestige you’ve got. Comparison: how many people are surprised when it turns out that a celebrity is miserable? You usually hear “but so many people love them, and they’re rich!”
gingabriska 8y ago
I disagree, CEO isn't a lonely job. You might not be more connected to your reports on personal level but you know quite a lot of other CEOs personally and might also have handful of executives working under you as your personal friends.
granshaw 8y ago
I too thought this was a given and have personally experienced it even just being a rung or two on the ladder. It makes total sense - what you do or don’t share or say becomes more important, the stakes are higher, and there’s just generally less people at your level to confide in

CharlesColeman 8y ago

This is a social problem in need of a technical solution. I'm waiting for a startup that can be accurately described as "Uber, but for real friends." Eventually they can phase out the contractors in favor of an ML/AI/ELIZA solution. /s

tehsauce 8y ago
This is satire right?
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  It's marked as such (the "/s" at the end). But I didn't realize that it was satire until I got to the "/s". Which is scary.
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > But I didn't realize that it was satire until I got to the "/s". Which is scary. Yeah, I'm only starting to really come to terms with how much technical culture has really twisted many important concepts to suit itself (and only itself), and has so normalized those distortions that your eyes just glide over the contradictions they create.
- joker3 8y ago
  I guarantee you someone out there is thinking seriously about it.
  - daodedickinson 8y ago
    And even more people who think they are thinking seriously about it as they engineer sex slave robots and work to legalize more pimping.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  His post is, but there's probably like 20 people working on VC pitches that aren't.

Animats 8y ago

There's an upside to loneliness for employers. Fewer distractions from the job. Less likely to mate and require higher insurance premiums for a spouse and children. Less likely to join a union or act as a a group against the employer.

microcolonel 8y ago
> Less likely to mate and require higher insurance premiums for a spouse and children Lonely people are a tremendous risk to themselves and others, they do a lot of spontaneous dying and tend to get progressively worse at caring about doing their job. I've seen employee loneliness hurt company bottom lines, I don't think that's rare.
- drivingmenuts 8y ago
  But are they as big a risk as married people with children or potential agitators or unionists? Is there even any objective data on this kind of comparison?
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > But are they as big a risk as married people with children I don't have any objective data to offer in the middle of a workday, but conventionally, married breadwinners with children make for model employees.
    - gotts 8y ago
      Married couples going through divorce/infidelity/family/kids/health issues(which is not rare) is a tremendous risk as well, right? I don't understand why lonely people are automatically classified as a tremendous risk. I've experienced multiple times that exactly the opposite is often the case.
    - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
      Mostly because they can't take risks with their dependents.

gambler 8y ago

Calling what's happening with modern society "loneliness epidemic" is like saying that people in a building set on fire are "suffering from heat exposure and air pollution". A lot of social processes/constructions that make our society stable have been hijacked for profit or deliberately sabotaged for political gains. In both cases it's usually a product of extremely short-term thinking or highest forms of cynicism. Feeling disconnected is nothing more than an illusory side-effect of a whole host of other things.

lostconfused 8y ago
Need to call it something. Marx went with "estrangement". Alienation seems to be more commonly used today.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  Because I found it interesting, the wikipedia entry on Marx’s Theory of Alienation[1]. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienatio...
- thescriptkiddie 8y ago
  Marx used the german word "Entfremdung", which can mean either "estrangement" or "alienation". In context, "Alienation" is the better translation.
dev_dull 8y ago
Another option other than malicious intent is that people are choosing to live this way even though they know it makes them unhappy. Where is the pressure to live differently? It used to come from family and community.
- losteric 8y ago
  I don't think it's a matter of pressure or choice, my grandparents simply lived in a more social environment. Broad family trees, churches, guilds/unions, even free-range childhoods - gone or fading across the nation. Aside from work communities, the rest was mostly innate. You can't "choose" to live in a bigger family... but that environment, those pillars of socialization, were what fed into the smaller social niches.

mjevans 8y ago

What is the inverse of loneliness? Belonging, a sense of community and companionship. It is my perception that, at least in America and I suspect in many other places, competition pressure centered around places with strong "second place" (Job) opportunities combined with decades of civic mal-planning and treating symptoms (for some) rather than root causes (for all) have combined with a regressive tax/compensation structures to destroy the middle class and upward mobility. There are not enough "first places" near jobs. The cost of those places and the demands of the jobs combine to sour the time, energy, and opportunity left for "third places" (#1). Areas and activities where idle time is spent when seeking connections to others. Those places, at least for me, also tend to have a high barrier to participation/entry and very poor discover-ability. I theorize this might be related to the same issue described in another post, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19902782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19902782 where "the old Internet" had many small venues, who's main reason for existence was not profit, but the benefit of their "members" (users). They were private, intimate, locations where fans of a given thing could gather and learn more about that thing and themselves; with small local histories that allowed for safer exploration. A more stable place, where I had a real career I believed in, and a real home that I could start putting equity in to and around; a place where actual roots and structures and friends that would probably stay in the area also existed. That's what I feel we need to actually fight and win the battle against loneliness. #1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place

macawfish 8y ago
I'm reminded of this poignant song by Peter Gabriel & Kate Bush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCRZLr9oRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCRZLr9oRw
- xof711 8y ago
  There's a world to be discovered... Only takes the will to do so really...
genema 8y ago
Here is an interesting thought: in UX design and when building a startup we are encouraged to interact with users to learn what they want and need, then we craft the experience and values around that. Does this ever happen in civic planning? Do city planners ever talk to the public, to design experts, to community leaders? I honestly don't know, but I suspect the answer is NO. When I moved to Japan it was sort of strange to see residences and businesses in the same building. The longer I live here the clearer it becomes that zoning laws have a lot to do with good civic planning. Of course there are side effects to open zoning, communities don't always look as beautiful (but I think the blame also falls on planners / lack of community effort), but overall loose restrictions allow for more useful places. When I lived in Irvine, CA, I had to drive everywhere to do anything. The sad thing is many people choose communities like Irvine precisely because it is structured this way (I did initially). In truth, you can visually tell how depressed everyone is and how hard they try to make themselves feel better. Despite the average income being below 100k for couples, people are driving 50-130k cars, living in places they can barely afford all for the sake of image. I would argue that the image issue stems in large part from loneliness and a feeling of isolation. In all, I agree that perhaps the issue is not any one factor, but all of them combined. Rise of technology, fall of communities, poor civic planning, increasing income disparity are just the tip of the iceberg.

rchaud 8y ago

In some parts of Canada, the Red Cross sends volunteers to weekly check-ins in senior citizen communities. Nothing formal, just a friendly knock and a "how are you, need any help with anything today?" kind of conversation. How long before working adults needs something similar because the conversations they have, which take up the majority of their day are all so "productized" and artificial?

itsaidpens 8y ago

Any data if the suburbs and car culture contribute to this?

daodedickinson 8y ago
Urbanization certainly doesn't solve it.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  Agreed. People riding busses and trains for 10+ hours per week aren't exactly in better shape than people with equivalent car commutes.
  - icsllaf 8y ago
    People living in sprawl and in nonwalkable places are more likely to be overweight, get less exercise, and spend less time walking https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629517/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629517/
    - humanrebar 7y ago
      I was talking about work life balance and discretionary time, not physical fitness. Also some people have physical abilities such that walking is not a valid lifestyle choice. For instance, two year olds. I'm pro-walkable spaces. But it's not across the board superior to other arrangements.
      - icsllaf 7y ago
        Normally walkability also correlates with density of both businesses and houses which also encourages people to live closer to where they work. Compare that to a business park in the middle of the suburbs which requires a long distance commute to reach it. > For instance, two year olds. Probably easier to push a child on a stroller through a walkable area than to put it in a car and drive to a location. Less time-consuming and better for the environment as well. As well as walkable spaces being better for the elderly who can't legally drive and the handicapped who can't legally drive as well.

kashyapc 8y ago

Last night I read the "Happiness" chapter (no. 18) from Steven Pinker's fine book, Enlightenment Now, where he reviews data on loneliness in the US students (among two dozen other graphs in the first twenty chapters). Pinker implies social critics abuse the words "epidemic" and "crisis". After reviewing the downwards-sloping graph (plotted from 1978-2011) and more data, Pinker writes: [quote] Modern life, then, has not crushed our minds and bodies, turned us into atomized machines suffering from toxic levels of emptiness and isolation, or set us drifting apart without human contact or emotion. How did this misconception arise? Partly it came out of the social critic's standard formula for sowing panic: Here's an anecdote, therefore it's a trend, therefore it's a crisis. But partly came from genuine changes in how people interact. People see each other less in traditional venues like clubs, churches, unions, fraternal organizations, and dinner parties, and more in informal gatherings via digital media. They confide in fewer distant cousins but more in co-workers. They are less likely to have large numbers of friends but also less likely to want a large number of friends. But just because social life looks different today from the way it looked in the 1950s, it does not mean that humans, that quintessentially social species, have become any less social. [/quote]

daodedickinson 8y ago
Seems like Pinker is one of the few who can remain sanguine. He's not going to be able to persuade many.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  TBH, that quote is certainly not persuading me. I don't have lots of statistical data to look into, but I will say that myself and my peer group (gen X) at least seem much lonelier, with negative consequences, than my parents and their peer group. A lot of it is that it's just so much easier to be isolated today than in the past. When my parents moved in the past, they may have hired movers, but they stilled called me, my siblings, and some of their friends to help. I just get on thumbtack to find some help and then hire movers. When my parents were coming back from a flight, one of their kids would pick them up from the airport. I just take an Uber. Part of forming strong social relationships is a need to rely on other people. It's much easier to get by today without relying on anyone, and that can have significant negative side effects.

amznll 8y ago

At Amazon today on one their largest email lists there is a discussion of why you should not say "hi" or any other communication with a female at any time but especially when standing at an elevator inside the building. This position of loneliness is going to get worse before it gets better when the prevailing attitude is, don't talk to anyone.

2ad6466a 8y ago
Better Solution: Hire more women (say 2 per man) and watch sexual harrasement complaints drop to zero.
bubblewrap 8y ago
Horrifying. I don't think I could stand working for such a company.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cced 8y ago
Interesting. What is the logic behind not saying « hi » to females? I know that this is sexist, but I would at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Not being familiar with these email list, I’m unsure as to the general « feel » of these discussions. Can you provide more insight?
- philwelch 8y ago
  > Interesting. What is the logic behind not saying « hi » to females? Refusing to speak with someone is the safest way to avoid the appearance of sexually harassing them.
  - bubblewrap 8y ago
    Not saying "hi" to women as a way of making women feel more welcome. Makes sense.
- wes-k 8y ago

tathougies 8y ago

A lack of shared philosophy means there's no open, shared spaces. Like tonight, I'm going to a Knights of Columbus meeting. On Thursday, we're leading marriage prep at our church. On Monday, it's my men's club meeting. Later in the month, we're having a church BBQ. Most of the time, we're over socialized. For the elderly, we have a shut-ins ministry to visit them. For the poor, the Vincent de Paul society still goes two-by-two to all those who have asked. We've gotten rid of churches, replaced them with nothing particularly inspiring, and now we're wondering where all the social cohesion went. EDIT: I will point out that I'm not restricting myself only to churches here. I think, in the past, America also had this characteristic -- anyone who believed in American ideals and sought to further them was an American. De Tocqueville mentioned this quality of Americans (every American is a president) in his various writings on American social structure. Unfortunately with the rise of identity politics and ethnic factionalism, we've lost this notion of 'America as an idea', as is seen in the reluctance of people to serve on juries, for example.

CalRobert 8y ago
I really miss church. Having a day where you knew you'd meet up with friendly people, have a potluck after, and maybe head to the beach, go for a hike, etc. was really nice. It's a shame I was a fraud since I never truly believed, and eventually stopped pretending. I haven't found anything to fill that part of my life since.
- karmelapple 8y ago
  How about volunteer with a group advocating for something you deeply support? Or how about Universal Unitarians?
- 01100011 8y ago
  Atheism will always struggle to grow its ranks until it replaces the necessary features provided by religion. I'm an atheist/agnostic who spent a few years in a very cult-like christian denomination. I can say a lot of bad things about it, but it did help me to become more social and taught me a lot about the benefits of shared beliefs. Having a network of people to call on in times of need is priceless. Regular socialization and group participation helped me graduate from being an anti-social outcast. You can form groups around hobbies and activities, but the bonds just aren't strong enough to overcome our natural tendencies to judge others or take offense at the slightest indiscretions. I think a lot of people like me end up Unitarian Universalists just so they can gain some semblance of a community again.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

NTDF9 8y ago

Too much of our identity is tied to our employment. Add to it the fact that our economic system is inflationary (and badly measured at that), not working literally causes one to fall behind. So no one can actually take time off to do something different, cultivate lasting relationships, join a guitar club, play stupid games, travel, spend time with kids, spouses, family etc. without FOMO on inflation and career.

molteanu 8y ago
Nicely put! Did you notice that not even in sports can we relax and make lasting friendships and a relaxing atmosphere? If you didn't win, you went there for nothing. As a result, everybody seems to be concentrating on keeping score and winning and not on having a good time.
- NTDF9 8y ago
  > Did you notice that not even in sports can we relax and make lasting friendships and a relaxing atmosphere? Team sports are different. They tend to create lasting friendships quite often. Not always but quite often. Same for music bands, tiny startups, backpacking groups etc.

xof711 8y ago

People should go out more... There's a life outside these walls!!

morsmodr 8y ago

I would like to make 2 points Firstly, In the past there were certain ways of being social - clubs, churches etc. But just because humans engage in a different form of being social doesn't immediately mean all is gone. It depends on whether the individual goes to meaningful meetup groups or whether he/she uses tinder and calls it social. There are way too many options and being distracted between many of these is true Secondly, Humans have had a social need, yes. That is how we evolved, yes. But evolution never stops, it is like walking on a slow gradient curve, each step is probably 1 or 2 generations. Why is human evolution viewed as static? Why is the declining need to be social today viewed as bad? Are we sure that people being alone are really feeling lonely? When change happens in the environment, side effects do show until the mind and body adapt to the new environment. We could well see a future (100-200 years from now) where a human isn't necessarily social because of the underlying need, that need could get quite minimized in future generations. That human could be social when he/she needs to and chooses to do so people of similar thinking / mind and could be by themselves for long periods of time. Why is this viewed as bad? Such humans could be extremely well suited for space travels because they can easily handle being by themselves rather than people who constantly need to be in groups to affirm their existence

mistermann 8y ago
Many things in life "could be" true, but with things such as this (human psychology related), it often takes very long time periods before the truth begins to show itself. This would be my reason for considering these major social changes as potentially bad, and certainly worthy of concern/attention/discussion.

john_teller02 8y ago

FTA ... Michael Lee Stallard, president and cofounder of Connection Culture Group, is a thought leader and speaker on how effective leaders boost human connection in team and organizational cultures to improve the health and performance of individuals and organizations. He is the author of "Connection Culture" and "Fired Up or Burned Out." To receive a 28-page "100 Ways to Connect" e-book, sample chapters of "Connection Culture," and Stallard's monthly email newsletter at no cost, sign up here. After all another marketing campaign to attack loneliness

voidhorse 8y ago

I’ve recently picked up the works of Vilem Flusser, a pretty underrated philosopher who touched on this subject in his 1983 book, Post-History. Much of what Flusser writes about is prescient, but in regard to increased loneliness in modern culture specifically, he argues that a major shift from dialogic forms (speaking with) of communication to strictly discursive forms (speaking to) is responsible. Even our so called “social media/social networks” are discursive and not dialogic—aimes more at telling people about ourselves than stimulating converstion. Part of this shift stems from specialization—when our interests are so highly individuated we have no shared grounds from which to speak, which reduces us to speaking about “pop culture” a shallow solutions to this growing gap in mutual experience. (Even this post is discursive, not dialogic, just like many of the other parents in this thread, since the technological collective communication mechanism doesn’t emulate real conversation—in online chats you’re already speaking to everyone and no one thanks to the veneer of anonymity/new identity a user name gives you, coupled with the guarantee that others in an online forum are coming from disparate backgrounds. The notion of an audience with shared values/cultural origins has dissolved and been replaced be a universal Everyman/Noman which in turn leads us toward the dissolution of community outside the realm of technical specialization.

reubenswartz 8y ago
This is a great point. And the irony is that the more discursive the environment is, the less people feel heard, the more loudly (at least metaphorically) they speak, in a vicious cycle. This doesn't fulfill the need for conversation and interaction. (Some people suggest that the rise in therapy for wealthy urban people is largely because this is the easiest way for some people to have someone actually listen to them. I don't know if it's true but it seems very sad.)
petra 8y ago
Great point. Are there any good solutions ? Any place to read about good solutions ?
tenkabuto 8y ago
I suspect that I started to misunderstand where you were coming from, but I think that I caught myself. --- I suspect that you're using the term "Everyman" in a different way than I'm used to it being used — as that every man is set apart from the rest. I'm used to it being used in the way that any man holds in common some/many characteristics, beliefs, and behaviors with all other men. > The notion of an audience with shared values/cultural origins has dissolved and been replaced be a universal Everyman/Noman which in turn leads us toward the dissolution of community outside the realm of technical specialization. Using my view of Everymanism, we would suspect that individualization would not necessarily move us away from shared values. We would need to distill out our similarities from our differences via discourse, and we would suspect that similarities would be found.

Inu 8y ago

The rise of secularism probably is a factor. The social function of religion was to create a link between people and to regulate and control their coexistence. It provided a set of collective rituals, customs, festivities. Take that away and what remains is essentially the family unit and the market forces.

zanny 8y ago
I think this might hint to one of the greater arguments for communism, which is functionally society as religion. That being said, I don't feel for a second that religion is the only way to fill that hole practically. But it requires a society that both recognizes the need for that social cohesion and institutionalizes that which can maintain it. 2 weeks paid vacation HOA quarter acre with a picket fence and blacked out windows mainstream American culture is definitely not trying to accomplish that.
humanrebar 8y ago
> Take that away and what remains is essentially the family unit and the market forces. Or what's left of them anyway. Seems like you left zero-sum tribalism and perpetual consumerist distraction off of your list.

astazangasta 8y ago

One clue as to why there is a problem might be in the framing of the article, where the individual's despair only matters because it might start to impinge on someone's bottom line. This is an old problem, called "alienation". Marx wrote about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation

luckydata 8y ago

We built our cities to isolate us, it's not that strange that we're now isolated. I was born and raised in Europe, came to the US when I got married, lived in California for the most part. My quality of life has dramatically worsened even as I make more money I've ever made. I attribute that to the lack of casual spaces for aggregation, to free time outside being limited almost exclusively to places where to sit down and eat, shopping or hiking. I don't walk to work, I don't have a neighborhood bar where I can stop after work and see my neighbors and shoot the shit, when my wife and kid left town for a weekend I was extremely lonely and I decided to garden. When I'm old and will not be able to drive anymore, this will get even worse. This country has built one of the worst lifestyles I've experienced in my life and it's not sustainable. I know it's difficult but the sooner we all realize we have built a bad place to thrive and we tear it down, the sooner we'll be happier.

asdff 8y ago
I'll agree, living in the suburbs would be soul crushing. That's why you live in a city and ditch the car commute.
- luckydata 8y ago
  Not that easy in San Francisco with a family.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Maybe it depends on the city and your age/marital status. I found living in the city (DC) extremely lonely after having kids. Mostly 20-something professionals gunning their careers. Moved out to the suburbs and now actually have neighbors to talk to, ones with kids that’ll come over and have a beer while the kids run around. All the driving isn’t ideal, but I kind of like tooling around the mall. I agree some of the problems are uniquely American. Having to spend a million dollars on a house to afford to live in a decent urban school district in places like NYC or SF or DC fucks up really messes up important social networks. Even if you can afford it, you’re surrounded entirely and solely by other people who can afford it.

mirimir 8y ago

I'm sure that loneliness is depressing, unhealthy, debilitating, etc, etc, etc. For many people. Maybe even for most people. But I'm happiest when I'm doing something that's interesting and challenging. And when I'm focused, other people are mainly a distraction. So for me, a few friends are enough. Plus chatting online. Sharing what I know, and asking for help.

BurningFrog 8y ago
If you have a few friends, you're not lonely.

11thEarlOfMar 8y ago

I sense that there is an exploitation of human nature at work in this. Fear and outrage get attention, and attention gets revenue. It's amazing the number of times that both liberal and conservative personalities are associated with the world's most horrific events because that triggers outrage and gains clicks, and then turns out to have been fabricated via 'recontexting'. Outrage drives polarization and polarization drives people apart. Fear drives caution and caution keeps people from getting together. At this point, the only antidote for loneliness is to be aware of it and develop the courage to introduce yourself to someone you don't know. And then try to start doing that on a regular basis.

solidsnack9000 8y ago
It's amazing the number of times that both liberal and conservative personalities are associated with the world's most horrific events because that triggers outrage and gains clicks, and then turns out to have been fabricated via 'recontexting'. What’s an example of this recontexting?

austincheney 8y ago

Could this loneliness be a primary factor in the increased sensitivity and fragility of younger generations? I also wonder if loneliness is a key factor in some people preferring lies and deceptions in exchange for kindness in their interpersonal relationships. I know this may sound strange expressed so directly, but I have seen numerous comments on HN claim exactly this preference very directly and clearly.

Mirioron 8y ago
I'm purely guessing here, but I think loneliness could be a factor in increased fragility. When you're fragile it's easier for people to hurt you and when you're hurt you get attention and consolation from others. This can alleviate the loneliness.
LUmBULtERA 8y ago
>the increased sensitivity and fragility of younger generations? Can you cite your source for this assertion? Thanks!
- austincheney 8y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=2fnbXJeQCImKk74PwsOA-AE&q=young+people+fragile&oq=young+people+fragile&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1292.6105..6442...0.0..1.599.6114.2-8j10j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0j0i10j0i22i30.Z5MDGNHw_X4 https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=2fnbXJeQCImKk74Pw...

alexashka 8y ago

I'd replace 'lonely' with 'lacking perspective', due to life being unbelievably great. It's hard to know the difference - just go without hot water, electricity or much food for a few days and then see how much 'loneliness' bothers you. It's an epidemic of life being so incredible, that we're constantly bored and restless. Strong human connections are made through negative experiences, not ecstasy. You can't have an awesome life of doing nothing difficult, and yet have great close relationships. You have to choose. We have choice now - in the past, you had to suffer. Now, you can choose to, if you want. Most people are choosing to not and slowly degenerate into old age, with a bored half-smile on their face at best, cluelessly bitching about trivialities at worst. It's all fine - just remember, you have to choose to suffer, if you want to achieve a great life.

watwut 8y ago
People without water and electricity suffer from loneliness too. Always did. The churches have structures that provide company to sick and old for that reason. If you ever read books from previous eras including war times, they deal with loneliness a lot. Physical suffering does not make you not lonely. It just means it sux for more reasons then just one.

gingabriska 8y ago

Think a lot of people coming to US are immigrants. And some also come from countries where they had much tighter community and shared life. But they choose US because it allows for more individualistic freedom and upsides (as you don't have a socialist government who eats into your income/wealth through taxes in order to equalise the whole society), so people feel more rewarded here. Constitution guarantees strong property rights here and your land can't be taken away from you for "social good" like in most European countries. Obviously, with this in place there is no reason for an invidual to share his resources like land with any other person, because in his mind, it's his hardworking which got him those nice things and now no one but him as any right over them. This over time creates more loneliness as people don't really see benefit of dealing with you. If I share my ranch with my neighbors, obviously, they'll want to maintain good relationship with me but what if I don't even let them roam around it? Or shoot their dog if it tries to trespass? Now you see the problem? This system optimizes for greater individual gain but come with some side effects like loneliness as you live in a very competitive society, it gets hard to trust others. If you become way richer than your neighbor because your company did good, you might no longer want to make your neighbor part of your life because they can no longer relate to your problems and wonder that even tho this person have lot of money, how come this person isn't happy? As I understand those who are in US feel everyone must work to support themselves and government should not support anyone through tax revenue for them to sit at home and watch Netflix or play Xbox etc... They always had a choice between going back to home and living in a tightly knit society but they choose America only because the upsides are greater here and it attracts those who optimize for individual interest like individual freedom/wealth etc... Many of my American colleges do not understand why I was working for 30K euros a year back in Europe when I could easily get 100K job here in states. Pace of life is also quite fast in US. Now I don't mean that Americans walk 10x faster to work but that due to the large size of the market, if your product takes off - you can become very rich over a year or month and your life changes completely. Very few places have this ability to support entrepreneurs, sure in a third world country like India, if you become a celebrity, it might take a year to become very rich but what if you are an entrepreneur simply creating products in your garage or coding from a coffee shop? Nearly impossible and unheard of. I've lived in Europe, US and currently living in India (as wife is from India) and there is growing dissent in middle class here because government have been put lots of taxes on middle class and offering lots of benefit to poor people as a result middle class people don't feel justified in paying taxes and try various loopholes and under table tricks. It makes sense if you think India is large and size of poor population is large compared to the middle class who are getting taxed left and right. If you give them a chance, most will just love US and strong property rights US has. If you want to test this, simply ask people to cast their votes in a ballot. Do you feel like you are not getting benefits for the taxes you pay? If you only allow middle class in India to vote, you'll see a lot of them somewhere around 90% in non metro cities gonna vote, "yes". Only people in big city might feel differently as they really get some benefits like better transformer, 24/7 power and clean water etc... Even the villages are slowly getting empty and parents complain that the kids are not able to come to their place even on key celebrations like Diwali ( which is huge over here) Only difference is there is no party in India which supports individualistic views like we've in US.

reubenswartz 8y ago

Just as modern technology has given us cheap, convenient fast food that isn't very nourishing, it's also given us cheap, easy "social" interactions that don't provide real connection. Social media is a nice compliment to, but not a good replacement for real conversations. "Success" often seems to correlate with cutting yourself off-- having a nice house with a big TV, a car that takes you to and from your job with minimal interaction with other people, and if people do have a few minutes of free time, they are often nose down in their phones, not taking to people around them. Especially after you have kids, it's easier to pull up Game of Thrones on your phone than head out to meet people. Is it any wonder that many people know more about what's going on in Westeros than in their own community? A few years ago I started paying more attention to what I eat, which has been great physically. Over the past year or so I've tried to be more intentional about relationships and conversations. As an introvert, it was weird at first, but it's been amazing. I actually look forward to calling people. (I call it my "Reconnection Challenge" and you can start by calling 2 people per day-- outside of your "have to" calls. Try it.)

joe_the_user 8y ago
Just as modern technology has given us cheap, convenient fast food that isn't very nourishing, it's also given us cheap, easy "social" interactions that don't provide real connection. And just as it is somewhat difficult to get experts to agree what authentically nutritious food would actually be, it is also difficult to sort "shallow" social interactions from deep social interactions. Back when the Internet was young and I was working as a contract programmer in the mid-West, I met a young woman who was engaged to marry a man she'd met over the net and had not physically seen. In ways, it seemed impressive since it seemed to imply a mental connection rather than a physical. Today, social networks are universal and universally denigrated in favor of immediate personal relationships. I'm not sure such a simple return is possible or desirable.
- indigochill 8y ago
  I am a big believer in online relationships. Most of my relationships, friendships and otherwise, have been there. I even got engaged to someone I met online (though we did meet in person a couple times first). However, it's not difficult at all to sort between shallow and deep social interactions. There's a massive difference between social media interactions and the interactions core to a deep relationship. I'll enumerate some examples here: Social Media: * Like * Write short reply * ...? Meaningful relationship: * Long talks (over phone, email, forums, whatever) * Discussion of intimate topics (not suitable for the public space of social media!) * Sharing experiences (and not in the "look what I did" sense of social media, but in the actually doing things together sense of, say, a gamer clan) * Some semblance of shared beliefs or interests (the focus of a forum, perhaps) So by all means let's continue building relationships online. But let's never confuse the shallow-as-possible interactions of social media with actually connecting to another human on any more than the most superficial level.

badrabbit 8y ago

Curious,any reason why I see similar articles on HN? The topic resonates strongly with me, is it especially a problem with tech workers?

vonnik 8y ago

It's probably worthwhile to point out that the trend toward remote work poses real risks to remote workers by increasing their physical isolation. I work at a remote-first company, and I've worked remotely for other organizations, and the high-bandwidth, spontaneous and accidental interactions and information sharing, the sense of togetherness, are distinctly absent in a lot of remote work, regardless of such benefits as avoiding a commute.

forgetme2020 8y ago

This article struck a chord with me. I am a middle aged immigrant in the tech industry battling loneliness since I was about 15. Outwardly I probably seem to be doing ok. While I see a lot about the challenges to public health and society by the loneliness epidemic, I haven't been able to find much in the way of what lonely people can do do build community especially in the atheist / agnostic realm. Over the course of reading the comments, I found a few resources that I've compiled, please pile on if you know of others Sunday Assembly https://www.sundayassembly.com/ https://www.sundayassembly.com/ Unitarian Universalist churches https://www.uua.org/ https://www.uua.org/ Meetups https://www.meetup.com https://www.meetup.com - I've tried several meetups but nothing has really stuck as in finding people who consistently come for an activity and the opportunity to connect more deeply As I think about it for someone like myself I am looking for more "church without the religion" outlets than say activity groups like say hiking etc because i find the activity groups more focused on the activity than generally making friends that you can call on for any kind of emergency, real world problem

gingabriska 8y ago

Once I found a really bright employee and I asked him, why don't you talk more and socialize more? He said well once I did exactly that and someone with large follower count on twitter made mockery of my views since then I keep my personal opinion to myself. Another one told me, that he doesn't really have a lot in common with people around him and that he considers online community where people are exactly interested in what he likes requires lot less mental overhead. Due to social media follower count, some people love to pick out others and insult them on social media only because they happen to have a different opinion, here you don't even need to hold on wrong opinion - holding a different opinion does the job. Before internet/social media, there were very few and expensive ways to get together with people across the geographic boundaries so you always had to please people around you and sometimes get them interested in the things you like, to have fun with them. But this changed with internet, now you can choose some very obscure topic and you'll find other people who are interested in the same thing several clicks away. And your mom is sick at home and can't go to supermarket for shopping? No problem, Amazon home delivery is one click away. Before that, you had to keep a friend who lived close to you and also help him and keep him happy so that he helped you when you need him, like buying some stuff for your mom while she's sick and you are away. Due to technology, there is simply less need of friends etc... And many don't consider it a good ROI over their time to keep friends. I heard it several times in valley, if you want a friend, get a dog.

Simon_says 8y ago
> if you want a friend, get a dog. I have no doubt it was said by plenty of people in the Valley, but that's an old quote about D.C..
ok_coo 8y ago
I find this observation interesting because, in my own biased perspective, people are finding it more and more difficult to compromise. And maybe that's because we're not forced to compromise with people to live our lives anymore. We can surround ourselves with people who believe what we do and if we don't want to interact with anyone, we can just order stuff online. Creating and existing in our own little bubbles.
7y ago

temp99990 8y ago

I suspect the loneliness epidemic will be a catalyst for worshipping of AI gods in the not so distant future, which is a bit unsettling but seems inevitable.

skookumchuck 8y ago

I miss living in the dorms in college. Sure my standard of living is much higher now, but I think I was happier in the dorms surrounded by interesting people.

raubtier 8y ago

The last decades has truly been a race to the bottom. Disguised as success and freedom. In various degrees has the westerner abolished the family, the local community and the church on the altar of individualism. The funny thing is that when the shit hits the fan, all those who has rejected this the most, will be the one doing least bad. The ones most despised by the elite and inner city folks.

atoav 8y ago

Alibaba/aliExpress specifically had studies that singles spend more money online. That is why they introduced the singles day and made it such an event. Loneliness is a problem, but we need to be aware that there are entities who specifically profit from a culture of solitude: “And there I was.. Alone with my ads, looking at made up pictures of other people’s lifes.” We are in the middle of the creation of a perfect consumer, which has to have a hole in themselves that can never be filled, a itch that never goes away when scratched, in constant need. And arguably there is solid economic incentive to go further down that road.

w_t_payne 8y ago

There is one facet to this which I find interesting -- and that's how disconnected we become from the emotional impact of our decisions. In a small closed community, we cannot help but be part of a system of social and emotional feedback. The decisions that we make have consequences, and this is very much the social environment that we have evolved for (confined to prehistory for obvious reasons). Those feedback loops have been largely severed in "modern" (i.e. last few thousand years) large-scale, urbanized, literate societies -- a fundamental change in the control systems that govern human behavior. With so many of us running partially open-loop ... is it any wonder that we see a proliferation of pathological behaviors? Can our latest (early 21st century) technology help to restore some of those connections? To help us get feedback on the impact of our speech, our writing, our choices? Could this help us re-establish an earlier, more natural way of relating and connecting to our fellow human beings?

spiralx 7y ago
I think a lot of this has to do with the lack of stable groups of a size that enables social effects and feedback to dominate - things like guilt, shame and reciprocity. Without this sort of group interactions become much more stressful and we don't feel like we belong. https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-media-affect-math-dunbar-number-friendships https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-med...

maxheadroom 8y ago

Reminds me of stories like these[0]. :( [0] - https://www.oddee.com/item_98735.aspx https://www.oddee.com/item_98735.aspx

justaguyhere 8y ago

Is this limited to US? How about Canada, Australia, England etc? Anyone who lived in US and one of these first world countries care to comment?

m23khan 7y ago

can't comment on this topic as whole but I would like to chime in from IT perspective -- lot of folks in IT industry with educational background in Computer Science or Mathematics tend to have anti social / cold / weird personalities. Maybe Universities and Colleges should incorporate 2 courses on how to act more social / warm as part of their curriculum.

scottlocklin 7y ago

This article is one of the most disgustingly bugman things I've ever read. It doesn't matter that America is a soul crushing gladiatorial pit; a miserable scramble over a few crumbs tossed us by the reptilians at the top, it matters that American corporate efficiency may be at risk. Virtually everything about modern American life is alienating, mostly because of this mindset and the downstream products of it. But if it were good for corporate efficiency, I'm pretty sure Harvard Business School types would be all for it.

edisonjoao 7y ago

this is why I'm working on this http://foxie.cool http://foxie.cool we need an easier and simpler way to interact with the world around us!