4 ms·

A 2021 US census found that the average American spent 2 hours 45 minutes with their friends per week. A decade before that it was 6.5. It's probably been repla

A 2021 US census found that the average American spent 2 hours 45 minutes with their friends per week. A decade before that it was 6.5. It's probably been replaced by online interaction, but it is online interaction that feels so lonely.

nine_k 2y ago
Were it not for online interactions, I'd be disconnected from 90% of my friends 99% of the time, and would likely have fewer friends.
- flerchin 2y ago
  Perhaps you'd make local friends, and a found family.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Not only I first met my wife online, I proposed her online. We originally lived thousands of miles away, and had near zero probability to physically meet by chance. We're together for more than quarter of a century.
- jmward01 2y ago
  The data says otherwise. It says the lack of online interaction would spur you and your friends to meet up more in person, or for you to seek out friends that you could see in person. You can't take just one part of 'if this didn't exist' and assume nothing else would change.
  - mihaic 2y ago
    Just what I wanted to say as well, but I guess people really are bad at making counterfactual judgements.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    Indeed. This is especially the case for men who seem to have abandoned the concept of creating clubs and other male spaces to hang out, and instead of fixing that problem have merely gotten very jealous of the small communities that HAVE built spaces and clubs to the point of vindictiveness. No kids, the "Fresh and Fit" podcast is not a replacement for what we used to have. Spending hours crying about how women are the worst is just not a productive, pro-social, or beneficial use of your time. Real life doesn't prioritize hate so much, but on the internet, hate is so much more effective at driving engagement, it's the only thing available without immense effort.
  - cgriswald 2y ago
    > The data says otherwise. Cite the data. I imagine it does not support your certainty that this individual would react in the way you describe. Even in the absence of any other information you can probably only claim to know with some probability less than 1. I’m not just being pedantic here. This is a gross misapplication of the results of a study. It also ignores the extra knowledge he has about himself.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  How can you possibly know -- if (as seems likely) in your entire adult life, you've never known a world not mediated by online interactions? Do you think that in the pre-internet world, people had 90 percent less contact with their friends than they do now?
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Enough of my adult life occurred during the time when significant chunks of population, often the overwhelming majority, were offline. I could very well compare. Somebody's reachability online, or at least via email or fidonet messages, radically improved the chances of continued contact and regular face-to-face meetings, whether it originated offline or online. The world not mediated by online connectivity was radically narrower. It required physical proximity (usually the same neighborhod, sometimes the same city), and exchanging phone numbers, an approximation of "online", was crucial for most longer-term relationships.
  - soco 2y ago
    We can also compare with our parents and the amount of friends they have and meet. They don't know how to use the internet enough and are not used to treat internet friends as friends, so they are a very good control group. How much time they spend with friends, beyond the rare birthday parties? How often do they call each other? Or the famous "going to church" argument - church which is once a week and takes 2 hours where most of it you don't interact with anybody just sit and listen. Plus after a certain age most of their old friends are gone and that loneliness hits hard because there's no replacement process.
julianeon 2y ago
This is exactly the kind of claim the article should've rebutted, if it's a myth. If they can't (because it's true) that makes it seem like there is a loneliness epidemic.

nine_k 2y ago

Were it not for online interactions, I'd be disconnected from 90% of my friends 99% of the time, and would likely have fewer friends.

flerchin 2y ago
Perhaps you'd make local friends, and a found family.
- nine_k 2y ago
  Not only I first met my wife online, I proposed her online. We originally lived thousands of miles away, and had near zero probability to physically meet by chance. We're together for more than quarter of a century.
jmward01 2y ago
The data says otherwise. It says the lack of online interaction would spur you and your friends to meet up more in person, or for you to seek out friends that you could see in person. You can't take just one part of 'if this didn't exist' and assume nothing else would change.
- mihaic 2y ago
  Just what I wanted to say as well, but I guess people really are bad at making counterfactual judgements.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Indeed. This is especially the case for men who seem to have abandoned the concept of creating clubs and other male spaces to hang out, and instead of fixing that problem have merely gotten very jealous of the small communities that HAVE built spaces and clubs to the point of vindictiveness. No kids, the "Fresh and Fit" podcast is not a replacement for what we used to have. Spending hours crying about how women are the worst is just not a productive, pro-social, or beneficial use of your time. Real life doesn't prioritize hate so much, but on the internet, hate is so much more effective at driving engagement, it's the only thing available without immense effort.
- cgriswald 2y ago
  > The data says otherwise. Cite the data. I imagine it does not support your certainty that this individual would react in the way you describe. Even in the absence of any other information you can probably only claim to know with some probability less than 1. I’m not just being pedantic here. This is a gross misapplication of the results of a study. It also ignores the extra knowledge he has about himself.
aguaviva 2y ago
How can you possibly know -- if (as seems likely) in your entire adult life, you've never known a world not mediated by online interactions? Do you think that in the pre-internet world, people had 90 percent less contact with their friends than they do now?
- nine_k 2y ago
  Enough of my adult life occurred during the time when significant chunks of population, often the overwhelming majority, were offline. I could very well compare. Somebody's reachability online, or at least via email or fidonet messages, radically improved the chances of continued contact and regular face-to-face meetings, whether it originated offline or online. The world not mediated by online connectivity was radically narrower. It required physical proximity (usually the same neighborhod, sometimes the same city), and exchanging phone numbers, an approximation of "online", was crucial for most longer-term relationships.
- soco 2y ago
  We can also compare with our parents and the amount of friends they have and meet. They don't know how to use the internet enough and are not used to treat internet friends as friends, so they are a very good control group. How much time they spend with friends, beyond the rare birthday parties? How often do they call each other? Or the famous "going to church" argument - church which is once a week and takes 2 hours where most of it you don't interact with anybody just sit and listen. Plus after a certain age most of their old friends are gone and that loneliness hits hard because there's no replacement process.

julianeon 2y ago

This is exactly the kind of claim the article should've rebutted, if it's a myth. If they can't (because it's true) that makes it seem like there is a loneliness epidemic.