Thank you very much for your input. > It doesn't mean not having any relationships but just because you're family doesn't mean you have to be constantly presen

Thank you very much for your input. > It doesn't mean not having any relationships but just because you're family doesn't mean you have to be constantly present in each other's lives. You have a point, for sure. I can imagine being this the case for people who can socialize well. Say you have only 2 options between living in a dysfunctional family environment and living completely by yourself with no friends, what then? It appears that solitary confinement, damages your brain[1]. I wonder if that applies to social isolation as well. It seems to be the case in prisons that you need to be around rapists and murderers to keep your brain somewhat engaged. (If you don't have any other option.) So maybe it is wrong to equate solitary confinement as "loneliness". Solitary confinement is much more taxing, I imagine. However, I think it is better to be around people in a physical sense. (Even if that means living with some unpleasant circumstances.) Gabor Mate implies that modern society is sick, and therefore we get sick. But it is the only society we have, I suppose. So it might be better than nothing. I am not disagreeing with you at all here. I can see your point. Nevertheless, I just wanted to bring up the case where people have social difficulties and if the family stress is somewhat manageable, then maybe it is better to be around them. And also keep in mind that I have no clue if the prison context is applicable to "free individuals". 1. https://academic.oup.com/book/35060/chapter-abstract/298995580?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/book/35060/chapter-abstract/2989955...