4 ms·

It's pretty obvious being isolated from real social and physical connection with other humans tends to have a severely negative impact on people's mental and ph

by themgt 14y ago

It's pretty obvious being isolated from real social and physical connection with other humans tends to have a severely negative impact on people's mental and physical health. It's really sad how America has built itself into a lonelier and lonelier society over the past decades.

sultezdukes 14y ago
It's pretty obvious being isolated from real social and physical connection with other humans tends to have a severely negative impact on people's mental and physical health No, it's not obvious. It's really sad how America has built itself into a lonelier and lonelier society over the past decades. That's just your experience.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > No, it's not obvious. Agreed. In fact, I would expect the opposite. Living by myself allows me to precisely meter how much time I spend with others and how much time I spend alone. If I want some human contact at the moment, then I go out and get some. If I don't, then I go home. The only way that this breaks down is if the amount of time I want to spend with other people is somehow detrimental to my health. Can I maintain this when all of my friends start getting married is another question...
  - dman 14y ago
    Wait till your friends start having children :)
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Aye. That will likely involve a lifestyle shift for me, but I figure I probably have a few more years until I have to worry about that.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - themgt 14y ago
        If you're not at an age where you've experienced the people around you "settling into" their default state, which tends to involve either/or marriage/kids for most people (in my experience, by the time people have hit 30-40), you really might want to consider the breadth of your perspective on social relations.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        @themgt (your comment is dead) The variety of people that I interact with socially is exactly the reason why I have not been socially starved by a few of them having kids. Four or five of them having kids is of little consequence to me. A majority of them having kids would be different. Were they all in a narrow age/maturity range, I would run the risk of that happening in a short period of time, but they are not. I think that anyone who finds themselves, seemingly overnight, in an "all my friends need to find babysitters" situation is really the one that needs to consider the breadth of their social engagement.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >Living by myself allows me to precisely meter how much time I spend with others and how much time I spend alone. If I want some human contact at the moment, then I go out and get some. If I don't, then I go home. Err, we are not taking about 20-somethings enjoying the xbox, pizza etc nights alone. We are talking about older people, devoid of social contact. People that cannot just "go out and get some". Think of that Eleanor Rigby lady.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > devoid of social contact I am suggesting that this is the important factor, not how many people are in your primary residence. Using the number of people that you live with as a proxy for your social contact seems flawed to me. You can live along and have a great deal of social contact, and you can nearly just as easily life in close proximity to others and have extremely minimal social contact.
- themgt 14y ago
  No, it's not obvious. Is this the monty python argument room? There's a vast amount of research into the negative effects of social isolation on humans and other mammals. Did you have something to add regarding this study, which is just one more drop in that huge bucket?
  - kyrias 14y ago
    Whether there's research about it or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's obvious or not.
pierdolony 14y ago
>It's really sad how America has built itself into a lonelier and lonelier society over the past decades. alone ≠ lonely. SHAME on you for failing to grasp that concept, and imbuing your personal emotional neediness on everyone. The emotions can be educated and developed, just like your physical body can be developed. You are praising your emotional immaturity as a virtue instead of the poverty it truly is. The hand you hold is the hand that holds you down. The strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. [ Ibsen, "The World as Will & Idea" ]
OGinparadise 14y ago
It's really sad how America has built itself into a lonelier and lonelier society over the past decades. But we have a second car and only $18k in credit card debt. The same thing is happening to societies that are experiencing urbanization. Not sure for how long this can go on...or what happened next.
- themgt 14y ago
  Except it's not at all due to urbanization. I would say it's more due (in part - the causality goes both ways) to the suburbanization in which the American ideal became to live in a big empty houses in the middle of nowhere with giant flat empty stretches of grass between you and other people. Young urban Americans are some of the few attempting to buck this trend, which the boomers heartily embraced. Why Americans were choosing to get away from each other when say, their counterparts in western european haven't been, and aren't living anywhere near such isolated, unhealthy lives, is a question worth asking.
  - HarryHirsch 14y ago
    > Why Americans were choosing to get away from each other when say, their counterparts in western european haven't been, and aren't living anywhere near such isolated, unhealthy lives, is a question worth asking. Indeed. When Lisbon was expanded in the 1960's the new neighourhoods were laid out so that people could walk to their local church and primary school. The model post-war development in the US was Lewittown. My theory is that it was the availability of cars that caused the difference. I do not think "white flight" (read: unskilled labor) played a part, both Portugal and America experienced urbanization in the interwar period.
    - BSousa 14y ago
      I can't speak about Lisbon as I'm not from there, but up north in Porto and surrounding areas, there hasn't been much planning at all. I live in a town (Ermesinde) that in 15 years went from less than 10,000 people to slightly less than 100,000. The only planning was: build as much as you can, even illegally. About 15% of the new buildings around 2000 were actually against the law (not following proper distance from others among other zoning problems) and were mostly approved based on kickbacks to gov officials. My parents were asked for these 'gloves' from officials when rebuilding some of their old apartments, and my own house wasn't licensed correctly to live on (I bought it used, previous owner/builder didn't obtain the licensing, had to do a lot of construction to get it to code. Talked with the lawyer, he saw the name of the person that signed the papers, said it was common for his work to be illegal as long as he was paid under the table)

by themgt 14y ago

sultezdukes 14y ago

It's pretty obvious being isolated from real social and physical connection with other humans tends to have a severely negative impact on people's mental and physical health No, it's not obvious. It's really sad how America has built itself into a lonelier and lonelier society over the past decades. That's just your experience.

jlgreco 14y ago
> No, it's not obvious. Agreed. In fact, I would expect the opposite. Living by myself allows me to precisely meter how much time I spend with others and how much time I spend alone. If I want some human contact at the moment, then I go out and get some. If I don't, then I go home. The only way that this breaks down is if the amount of time I want to spend with other people is somehow detrimental to my health. Can I maintain this when all of my friends start getting married is another question...
- dman 14y ago
  Wait till your friends start having children :)
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Aye. That will likely involve a lifestyle shift for me, but I figure I probably have a few more years until I have to worry about that.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - themgt 14y ago
      If you're not at an age where you've experienced the people around you "settling into" their default state, which tends to involve either/or marriage/kids for most people (in my experience, by the time people have hit 30-40), you really might want to consider the breadth of your perspective on social relations.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      @themgt (your comment is dead) The variety of people that I interact with socially is exactly the reason why I have not been socially starved by a few of them having kids. Four or five of them having kids is of little consequence to me. A majority of them having kids would be different. Were they all in a narrow age/maturity range, I would run the risk of that happening in a short period of time, but they are not. I think that anyone who finds themselves, seemingly overnight, in an "all my friends need to find babysitters" situation is really the one that needs to consider the breadth of their social engagement.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >Living by myself allows me to precisely meter how much time I spend with others and how much time I spend alone. If I want some human contact at the moment, then I go out and get some. If I don't, then I go home. Err, we are not taking about 20-somethings enjoying the xbox, pizza etc nights alone. We are talking about older people, devoid of social contact. People that cannot just "go out and get some". Think of that Eleanor Rigby lady.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > devoid of social contact I am suggesting that this is the important factor, not how many people are in your primary residence. Using the number of people that you live with as a proxy for your social contact seems flawed to me. You can live along and have a great deal of social contact, and you can nearly just as easily life in close proximity to others and have extremely minimal social contact.
themgt 14y ago
No, it's not obvious. Is this the monty python argument room? There's a vast amount of research into the negative effects of social isolation on humans and other mammals. Did you have something to add regarding this study, which is just one more drop in that huge bucket?
- kyrias 14y ago
  Whether there's research about it or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's obvious or not.

pierdolony 14y ago

>It's really sad how America has built itself into a lonelier and lonelier society over the past decades. alone ≠ lonely. SHAME on you for failing to grasp that concept, and imbuing your personal emotional neediness on everyone. The emotions can be educated and developed, just like your physical body can be developed. You are praising your emotional immaturity as a virtue instead of the poverty it truly is. The hand you hold is the hand that holds you down. The strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. [ Ibsen, "The World as Will & Idea" ]

OGinparadise 14y ago

It's really sad how America has built itself into a lonelier and lonelier society over the past decades. But we have a second car and only $18k in credit card debt. The same thing is happening to societies that are experiencing urbanization. Not sure for how long this can go on...or what happened next.

themgt 14y ago
Except it's not at all due to urbanization. I would say it's more due (in part - the causality goes both ways) to the suburbanization in which the American ideal became to live in a big empty houses in the middle of nowhere with giant flat empty stretches of grass between you and other people. Young urban Americans are some of the few attempting to buck this trend, which the boomers heartily embraced. Why Americans were choosing to get away from each other when say, their counterparts in western european haven't been, and aren't living anywhere near such isolated, unhealthy lives, is a question worth asking.
- HarryHirsch 14y ago
  > Why Americans were choosing to get away from each other when say, their counterparts in western european haven't been, and aren't living anywhere near such isolated, unhealthy lives, is a question worth asking. Indeed. When Lisbon was expanded in the 1960's the new neighourhoods were laid out so that people could walk to their local church and primary school. The model post-war development in the US was Lewittown. My theory is that it was the availability of cars that caused the difference. I do not think "white flight" (read: unskilled labor) played a part, both Portugal and America experienced urbanization in the interwar period.
  - BSousa 14y ago
    I can't speak about Lisbon as I'm not from there, but up north in Porto and surrounding areas, there hasn't been much planning at all. I live in a town (Ermesinde) that in 15 years went from less than 10,000 people to slightly less than 100,000. The only planning was: build as much as you can, even illegally. About 15% of the new buildings around 2000 were actually against the law (not following proper distance from others among other zoning problems) and were mostly approved based on kickbacks to gov officials. My parents were asked for these 'gloves' from officials when rebuilding some of their old apartments, and my own house wasn't licensed correctly to live on (I bought it used, previous owner/builder didn't obtain the licensing, had to do a lot of construction to get it to code. Talked with the lawyer, he saw the name of the person that signed the papers, said it was common for his work to be illegal as long as he was paid under the table)