
Americans Are a Lonely Lot, and Young People Bear the Heaviest Burden - sudouser
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/01/606588504/americans-are-a-lonely-lot-and-young-people-bear-the-heaviest-burden
======
fogzen
Best thing I did for my social life was stop working in tech and using tech as
much as possible. I visit the same cafe every morning and now know all the
regulars. I stopped buying groceries online and go to the store now. I call
friends instead of texting and plan outings. I ride a bike and stop to chat
with people wherever I go. I don’t watch TV, or play video games. I go the
bookstore (only one left in my city) instead of Amazon, and I chat with people
in the bookstore.

I now deeply regret working as a software engineer in my 20s, as I’ve realized
it contributed massively to my loneliness. Which is sad because I used to be
so excited about technology and now I see it as the biggest trend in reducing
quality of life.

It seems the more interactions that are mediated by technology the less human
contact we have.

~~~
arthurmerlin
What do you do when your friends don't pick up, or if they aren't willing to
go on outings with you? I think the biggest contributor to my loneliness is
that no one seems to like me. I reach out to hang out, and usually, get
rejected.

~~~
stillsut
This will seem counter-intuitive but work on opening up _strangers_ in public
places, and your friends will end up gravitating towards you.

Gladwell observed in _Tipping Point_ that most peoples' social circle is
usually created by one high connection "maven" who connects many low
connection end nodes. You want to try to move closer to how that maven
operates.

Concretely: If you go out with a friend, and end up becoming buddies with the
waitress, and then also know of an after party you can bring the friend to, by
virtue of your network, you will constantly be getting solicited to hang out.
Even more quantitatively: if you can average +2 casual connections per day
when you try, you'll be doing very well. But two connections in a day is very
difficult for most people on HN; you'll have to work and experiment on how to
achieve that.

~~~
taurath
I call those social connectors - one of the biggest differences I’ve seen
having moved from California to the PNW is that they have large groups with
absolutely no connectors. Having usually been one (but between groups), it’s
signifcantly detracted from the quality of relationships here - it takes so
much effort to get “into” a group because there is no front door, just a long
slow osmosis by proximity.

~~~
stillsut
Reminds me of the parable of the two shoe salesmen in Africa [0]. The point
being, if there's all these isolated, lonely cliques, there's actually a huge
opportunity for someone who can consistently connect with others starting out
as a stranger.

[0]:[http://johnassaraf.com/goal-achieving-2/a-tale-of-two-
shoe-s...](http://johnassaraf.com/goal-achieving-2/a-tale-of-two-shoe-
salesmen)

~~~
taurath
The opportunity is there but in seattle you definitely have a huge barrier -
people will instantly mistrust you if you do anything other than the slow and
steady route.

------
grasshopperpurp
>328\. If for company you find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good
life, you should, overcoming all impediments, keep his company joyously and
mindfully.

329\. If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a
good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a
lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone.

330\. Better it is to live alone; there is no fellowship with a fool. Live
alone and do no evil; be carefree like and elephant in the elephant forest.

[https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/dp23.htm](https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/dp23.htm)

~~~
checkyoursudo
My problem is def that I do not have enough alone time. I used to have enough
alone time before I had kids.

Between work, wife, kids, friends, family, and various drains on my time,
squeezing in some quality alone time has become increasingly difficult.

Therefore, I have had to turn my stoicism onto detaching from my former desire
for alone-ness (not the same as loneliness, I know).

If anyone knows how to make more time for being alone when you have young
kids, let me know! :) I suspect I will mostly have to look forward to that
some time in the future.

~~~
rb808
My favorite task is now doing the grocery shopping by myself. A whole hour of
wandering the aisles filling up the trolley in (relative) peace and quiet. One
of the highlights of the week and its supposed to be a chore.

~~~
fossuser
Comments like this make it seem like it's absolutely miserable to have a
family.

~~~
notauser
It is miserable having a young family.

The first two years of having a child have been 70% crap, 20% sleep, 10%
rewarding moments.

There are a couple of up-sides:

\- The rewarding moments are pretty cool, and there are more all the time.

\- You don't appreciate free time until you have none. I no longer
procrastinate and overall I think I get more things done than I did with
unlimited free time.

------
whitepoplar
I think we're lonely because we have too many choices. When I can go to any
meetup, any concert, any social function, any _whatever_ , it makes me less
likely to make friends, not more.

Looking at my own experience, I didn't even particularly like my friends when
I first met them. Several of them seemed outright repulsive. It took several
months of being in the same "sticky" social situation to bond--long periods of
time in the same school, sport, club, neighborhood, etc. If I had the
opportunity to transplant myself into another social situation after the first
day/week, I'd never have made any of those friendships.

How can we keep the same group of people stuck together for a sufficient
amount of time? I think that's the secret for creating friendships and curing
loneliness.

~~~
graphitezepp
It really is ALL about getting stuck together with people. Friendship is more
about familiarity and mutual understanding than similar tastes or whatever
initial compatibility people over value. Anecdotally some of my most
meaningful friendships are people I legitimately hated but were forced to
learn how to get along with.

~~~
billmalarky
> Friendship is more about familiarity and mutual understanding than similar
> tastes or whatever initial compatibility people over value.

This is exactly how Data interprets friendship. I'm not sure what my point is
other than I've been hooked on Star Trek TNG recently. I can't get enough ever
since I realized it isn't a show about space and aliens -- it's a show in
which the entire premise seems to be simply a story of fascinating
interrelationships that form when a diverse team faces unique problems. I LOVE
IT.

------
Xeoncross
> nearly 50 percent of respondents reporting that they feel alone or left out

Self-centeredness runs high these days. Us young people want the world to
cater to us. However, two self-centered people don't get along that great.

If I want to make friends, then I have to choose to actively put time and
energy into someone else; sometimes without getting much back.

The most lonely I've ever been (or ever seen someone else), is when I am
totally self-focused - spending all my time on my plans and situation and
looking for ways people can fit into those plans.

This isn't the only problem, but it's certainly a player.

~~~
supernovae
Young kids are full of themselves, that's for sure. Being a selfish little
prick is what teenagedom is about. Usually though, it should fade out and
people generally become more socially aware and conscious of their
surroundings.

However, I'm seeing quite the opposite. I'm 40+ years old and I'm astounded at
how many assholes there are of big babies who overcompensate for everything by
being a big prick. At least teenagers have an excuse, but what we define as
"Adult" these days escape me.

I'd say us middle age are more to blame for the loneliness perpetuating our
obsession with things, work, and lifestyles... none of which have done
ANYTHING to bring humanity closer together...

Look at the Xbox for example. I have people who hate me because I play games
on the xbox. Why? Look at phones, People will assume your identity and
personality on whether you own an iPhone or an Android and which expensive
model you can buy. Look at cars - your car describes how manly you are. No one
buys a Jeep to go explore the country anymore, they buy a Jeep to show how
manly they are and to go instagram pictures of places they have been and how
much money they dumped in their vehicle that could have gone where they are
stock from the factory.

Feeling alone or left out, stop giving a shit what phone people own, what
consoles they play, what OS they run, what movies they like, what politics
they adhere to and start giving more shits about how YOU feel and how YOU
convey yourself to the world and how YOU should be a better member of society.

~~~
jm__87
I went through a period of time where I had a hard time making friends and I
think it mostly had to do with my own attitude. Partly it was me not being
friendly enough (too tired, not feeling great myself) to others and partly it
was me not giving other people enough of a chance (assuming they were
jerks/morons at the outset instead of the more likely situation that they have
their own stuff going on, or maybe they assumed I would be a jerk before
talking to me so I have to show them I'm not). I imagine people just don't
have as much time/energy as they get older and become a bit more cynical, both
of which would be impediments to making new friends.

~~~
supernovae
Being default jerk/cynical is a shame - and I'm not sure how we got here as
things have gotten better - just seems we hold on to the worst rather than
focus on the best.

I'll admit, I'm cynical when it comes politics now so I write off people I
know I'd normally have no problem with and it's a damn shame we've come to
this as a society.

I think its a symptom of us not tackling real issues and working on the real
human condition... It's about "my taxes" "my money" "my freedom"... we have
lower taxes, more freedom and more money than ever before and yet it's not
good enough.

So we don't solve health insurance, housing, population, education or anything
that can be a real benefit to humans not being lonely and we focus entirely on
what makes us lonely - "me me me... money money money"

~~~
jm__87
Yeah, I'm not certain this isn't how people are by default when encountering
someone they view to belong to a different "tribe". The problem in North
America may be that we are too individualistic and don't focus enough on what
we all have in common.

Of course you can work on overriding your default behavior as well, but part
of losing the cynicism is recognizing we all struggle with things in our lives
and we all have things we care about. I feel good relationships are founded on
trying to have some compassion for other people's struggles and trying to
respect what other people care about.

------
djsumdog
It doesn't look like there's a distinction between friendship loneliness and
romantic loneliness in the article (not sure if there's one in the actual
studies).

I'd hypothesis that the difficulty for most isn't making friends (meetups or
shared interest groups like dancing, knitting, boardgames, kickboxing, group
instrument lessons, etc), but in partnerships.

I think people are really afraid today. Dating sites/apps seem to make it
worse, reducing individuals to a photo as a primary interest mechanism.

I'm really curious of the huge disparity between men/women messaging one
another on such platforms. Women tend to get inundated with messages where as
men are typically responsible for initiating. Some platforms try to flip this
around like Bumble, but it doesn't seem to really change the dynamic at all
(some men get tons of responses while the rest get zero).

There just isn't enough depth in this article to draw out any real conclusions
about loneliness, the various types of alone-ness and what to do about it.

~~~
majormajor
> I'd hypothesis that the difficulty for most isn't making friends (meetups or
> shared interest groups like dancing, knitting, boardgames, kickboxing, group
> instrument lessons, etc), but in partnerships.

I've mostly seen the opposite. People whose social lives were centered around
dating and meeting people through that, who then settled down, and now don't
know how to make just "friend" friends.

Would the two have the same root cause? That's an interesting question - many
claim that "tech" (in the abstract, or in the specific eg "facebook likes")
are responsible for both, but I don't really buy it.

I don't know what historical rate information we have, but there have always
been _some_ loners. They have an easier-to-access platform today, does that
skew our perception?

~~~
eun34ntueon
This matches my experience. People get married, settle down, and then the
people they mainly interact with are coworkers and parents of their children.
If those people don't have a reasonable sampling of people that match your
interests, you don't have a lot of opportunities to make friends elsewhere.
Meetups are often full of people trying to hook up, so not always useful for
people already in a relationship. Plus, just having a single shared interest
like knitting, dancing, or kickboxing isn't really a lot to hang a
relationship on.

~~~
malvosenior
To the GP's point though, are the married people who have less friends the
lonely ones? The article doesn't specify and from my own experience I'm much
less lonely now with a significant other and less friends than I was when I
was single and had many friends.

I suspect the lack of pair bonding and childbirth is driving the majority of
the reported loneliness.

~~~
WorldMaker
The question though is the overall social fabric less lonely? Maybe you
benefit by being strongly coupled, but suddenly those "many friends" you had
when you were single is utterly impacted by the shift. How many of those
friends were only friends with each other through your connection and maybe
aren't connected today? How many friends are lonelier without as much
interaction with you?

To some extent modern culture has presented us this model of single-family
homes and strongly coupled people against the world, and certainly it might
minimize loneliness for the strong couples, but does it maximize loneliness
for everyone else?

There's a lot to wonder if we've lost something in losing some of the classic
"village model" of multiple families and individuals all in close proximity
and relationship to each other in multi-family homes. Especially when you
start to include individuals that for one reason or another don't "fit" into
more traditional "Hollywood" couple relationship roles (asexual and/or
aromantic folks don't always fit neatly into a strongly-bound couple role, as
one obvious example to me; differently abled people have other challenges;
etc).

Furthermore, a focus on strong coupling discounts the network effects of
looser coupling. You may not feel hardly lonely at all always having your
significant other around, but that may only be a "local maximum" state. Your
maximal happiness may rely on both the reliability of a tight couple and a
network of other friends filling other relationship needs. The long tail of
strong couple problems from active therapy needs to cheating and divorce rates
seems to suggest that it very much could be a local maximum "trap".

Anecdotally, I do feel like an individual that can't win in a game of strong
coupling, and it does irk me that the suggestion is simply "be part of a
couple". Hollywood and dating companies throw a lot of money at trying to tell
people like me that this is the only solution, and it certainly seems like
it's not a (workable) solution at all.

------
vinceguidry
It's hard to learn how to spend time with others. Once the external reasons
are gone, (mostly school) you're left with the uncomfortable reality that a
social life doesn't just make itself. Tools like social media give us more
choice, but choice can only lead the horse to water. You have to take a step
outside your comfort zone if you want to actually have friends.

I got lucky in some respects, I generally disliked my military coworkers, and
I didn't want to only have them in my socializing pool, so I started spending
lots of time off base. The habit stuck, and to this day I spend weekend
mornings socializing at a coffee shop.

But I can see how lots of people get stuck in a rut of unfulfilling computer
friendships and worse, Internet romances. Much as we bemoan the role of social
media, I suspect the real issue is that lots of Americans just have higher
standards for who they'll spend time with, and just as 15-20 years ago, most
people still don't work on their social skills.

Used to be, even if you didn't agree with someone politically, you could still
have an amicable conversation. Nowadays it seems like a lost art, nobody wants
to even try. Everyone wants dead assurance that they're not "wasting their
time."

All this is to say, I'm not all that sympathetic to the "epidemic" of
loneliness, especially in young people, it feels like just another form of
entitlement. Connecting with others is hard. Do it anyway.

~~~
dkoubsky
I like this a lot. I also believe that taking complete responsibility for all
of the issues in your life (some call it extreme ownership) is better than the
inverse. If everything is your fault then at least you can try to change it,
but if nothing is your fault then you're hopeless.

------
danans
> The survey also found that working too little or too much is also associated
> with the experience of loneliness, suggesting that our workplaces are an
> important source of our social relationships and also that work-life balance
> is important for avoiding loneliness.

This paragraph hints at what might be a significant factor in increased
loneliness: A lack of community. Community can be a workplace or it could be a
neighborhood, but in both it's a place where you feel like you and your
colleagues/neighbors "have each-others' back". It's not even important that
you are all best friends, just that you trust each-other enough.

These two, work and home, are of particular importance vs the other venues
that we inhabit, because for most people, our time is spent either working, or
in the neighborhood in which we live. If neither provides a trusting-enough
sense of community, you don't have much time left in your life to find that
elsewhere.

But for many people a trusted community is inaccessible for a variety of
social, cultural, and economic reasons. Many (most?) workplaces don't offer a
sense of community (which is fine, they shouldn't have to if that's not what
their workers are seeking), and many people - especially younger adults - live
in neighborhoods where they don't know many people around them.

~~~
borplk
Yes and the remaining one (and often the only one) is family.

For many people workplace and neighbourhood have no sense of community at all
and if you are single as well effectively you have no one to fall back to.

Sure you can go to a coffee shop with your gym friend or coworker once in a
while but when you seriously need someone like if you get sick or need a
shoulder to cry on it's not going to work with people with whom you don't have
a intimate high priority relationship like partner or family.

~~~
jboles
Could this be related to the recent rise in tribalism and identity politics in
American culture? In the sense that, without genuine connections to other
people, some people focus on superficial characteristics as a way of
belonging?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Could this be related to the recent rise in tribalism and identity politics
> in American culture?

No, because there is no recent rise in tribalism and identity politics in
American culture. There is a recent rise in people who aren't sociologists,
political scientists, and lay observers with intense interest in those fields
_talking_ about the tribalism and identity politics that have long prominently
featured in American culture, but that's not the same thing.

------
bradlys
It sounds like a lot of people feel like they're missing out. This could be
because so many on social media are trying to imitate the image of that
lifefaker website that came up here recently. It's no surprise that the 18-22
age group feels the worst. They're the ones cultivating this fake life image
the most!

If you're connected to 500 people and each person has 2-3 days a year that are
"lifefaker" worthy... then it's pretty obvious how you'd feel left out. Each
day you'll see 5 amazing posts that make you feel like you're living a
terrible life. This is pretty standard stuff. It's standard by young people to
not share sad things or things that won't fetch a lot of likes or envy. It's
common to post things that aren't even happening now or recently but to share
moments from the past that were great even if your life is pretty crap at the
moment. It's about creating the image that your life is fantastic even if it
really isn't.

~~~
com2kid
Even worse than this, people start optimizing their life to be lifefaker
worthy.

My wife and I bought a drone for, honestly, just this purpose, and as has been
repeatedly mentioned, more and more restaurants plate their food to look good
photo'd and posted online.

The local cherry blossom season is over crowded with people taking pictures,
some of them bring out DSLRs just for the occasion. There is a local tulip
festival that has changed over the years from admiring nature to being a great
photo op.

The world is becoming optimizing for photo ops, it is now pretty easy to get
in more than 2-3 photo-perfect days a year.

~~~
ahtu123
Seattle?

~~~
com2kid
Correct! :)

There is only about 4 photo appropriate months around here, but getting a
world class photo on any summer day is pretty much child's play.

------
jernfrost
I am Norwegian and I believe we also have problems with loneliness in
Scandinavia, but perhaps not this severe. While living in the US I did in fact
feel very lonely. It was easy to make lots of friends, but most friendships
felt fairly shallow. I felt people in America was so into putting on a facade
all the time rather than showing their true self and their vulnerabilities.

It could of course just be a cultural difference, the place I was in or
whatever. But regardless it was one of the reasons I left the US. I've been
able to find deeper friendships in other countries. Although no place has it
been so quick to make friends as in the US, getting invited to people's home
etc. So Americans are easy to be around and fun to hang around.

But when you are alone in a country without family, you feel a need to have
some really close friends.

~~~
randomwhatever
I might be biased, but try north of Portugal. You have that quick friendliness
you get in the USA, but after a few times, they will have no worries opening
up to you with any problem or life situation.

ps: I'm from there, and lived in most of Europe and various places in
Portugal, even when I was away from Porto for 4 years, coming back, I made a
bunch of new friends (and reconnected with older ones) that I have a deep
connection with!

------
centra1985
It can be really hard for adults to make new friends, especially if they move
to a new city/State for work etc which is contributing towards loneliness.
Lots of apps like GirlCrew are popping up to help combat loneliness among
adults in the US, particularly women aged 25-40. For many the loneliness comes
from the fact that all their friends have got married/settled down and they
are the last singleton in the group.

~~~
mkirklions
I think if you force yourself to 'go out' and join activities you enjoy, its
easy to meet new people.

The next step is following up with the new people.

My advice- Be okay with failure. Most people will not follow up, but the ones
that do are keepers. 9/10 people will let you down, find the 10%.

~~~
pm90
This is excellent advice. Its really just about trying to spend time doing
what you enjoy with other people who enjoy it too. Can be biking, running,
video games, dancing, hiking or some sport. The activity makes it enjoyable,
sharing with others even more so.

------
DanielBMarkham
I had an interesting conversation earlier today.

Let's say that we are in a small team, maybe five or six people. One person
comes to work sad, upset.

Nothing has to be said. We stop what we're doing and help, right? We're not
schmucks. We take time to listen, we reassure the person they're important, we
celebrate their being part of our group.

Now let's expand the scale several orders of magnitude and change the medium.
We are now part of some online system: Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, whatever.
There are tens of millions of people all in one big virtual room.

Somebody mentions they are upset online. When we see something wrong or
something we care about online, we type things in -- somewhere. We feel moved
to act. Without something being said, the feelings don't exist to us.

Does that really do what it's supposed to be doing? I know our motivations are
good, and in many cases there are fine words provided, but are we really
helping and caring about people simply because we're tweeting, retweeting,
hashtagging, typing our personal stories in, and so forth?

Is a text message saying "You are important to us" the same as going over to
somebody, giving them a hug, having them look around the room at people who
care about them, and telling them same thing?

Assuming it is, there's huge bunch of people involved. On any one day, a
million people could be living out some horrible experience because of
something in their lives. How could we know unless they type things in, and
what kinds of things are those folks going to feel if they type things in and
nobody responds?

I don't know which is worse. Maybe this type of communication is effectively
showing our feelings and makes a difference -- and some people are just going
to be ignored. Or maybe it's just so much self-stimulation, telling ourselves
we're somehow doing something of importance when in fact all we're doing is
making various people internet famous from day to day.

We tech folks keep assuming that human communication somehow all boils down to
bits moving over a wire. That may be a terribly lossy way of looking at it.

~~~
eun34ntueon
> are we really helping and caring about people simply because we're tweeting,
> retweeting, hashtagging, typing our personal stories in, and so forth?

I think the people in the #metoo movement would say that, yes, simply getting
the support of a retweet, or being able to tweet about an experience you had
that hurt you is very useful and helpful.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Let me tell you how my conversation happened. I stepped away from Twitter for
several months. It was always such a dumpster fire. But I had been making
these little funny memes about this book I did. Where would I put them? So I
went back to see what it was like. (#info_ops hashtag if you're interested)

I saw a couple of friends making a joke about gendered pronouns. I think
people trying to control languages are silly, whether it's the Academy
Franchaise or some other group. I love language. I collect idioms and quirks
of various languages. It's emergent, unpredictable, uncontrollable. That's why
it fascinates me.

But this is not something I joke about because some people find the topic
terribly serious.

So I saw this tweet between a couple of friends talking about trying to remove
gender. Without thinking much, I tweeted to them "Perhaps you should make a
manual. Dang! Did it again!" and didn't think any more of it.

I woke up this morning with 40+ notifications on Twitter. Holy cow! My hashtag
thing has really taken off!

Nope. It was thousands and thousands of people hearing my name first because
of that joke.

I apologized. I tried to mute the conversation. Finally I deleted the Tweet.
Suddenly I was in the middle of a discussion around women in tech -- as an
example of some jackass who could take things seriously enough.

It still continues.

I had quite a rant about it this morning. My friend pointed out that women in
tech was a good cause. It is worthy of discussion. I agree. But this did not
feel like a good experience to me. I had spent a lot of time trying entertain
and engage people with little pictures and nobody cared. (Fine with me). But
accidentally entering a conversation with a lot of emotion already loaded in?
I had attention I didn't want. Yikes!

We started talking about cause and effect. The interplay of emotions, intent,
and actions among large groups. The internet is turning life from being
active, participatory, and requiring observation to one of simple cause and
effect. I create this stimulus. I get this result.

I think #metoo has been a great thing. Way overdue. But you're answering a
different question. You're answering the question about do some groups overall
find social use out of the net? I hope so. I think they do. That's a top-down
question and answer. My question was bottom-up and more in line with the
article. Does reducing our communication to typing and bits moving around,
overt and binary stimulus-response in a tightly-controlled pipe make for each
person becoming a slightly better person the more it is done? Or is it
fundamentally isolating and cruel, no matter what the content or who is doing
it?

------
Mikho
Social networks made this happen. They give a feeling of inclusion and
conversation while they are just a surrogate and imitation of a real human
connection. Previously one had to make itself go out to meet real people and
train itself to be social in real life -- being alone at home was too lonely.

Today sitting in front of a screen with a beer in a kitchen and participating
in some absolutely irrelevant to our life flame with people one doesn't know
and doesn't care about gives a perverted sense of socialization and inclusion.
But at the end of a day, a person stays alone without real friends.

Instead, it'd be better to invite friends to go to a bar or a bicycle ride --
but it's so tempting and effortless to just go online and just sit on a sofa.

Wonder how the next generation is even going to breed.

------
acd
The open question is what technology replaces?

For example what does social media replace? Does it replace real in person
interaction between friends? Does it replace calling someone with text? Does
it replace opportunities to meet up and connect in person?

What does Netflix and streaming video apps replace, did it replace going with
your friends to the video store renting a movie together?

What does online shopping replace? Does it replace real human interaction
asking someone in a physical store for advice what to purchase?

These questions are going to get more real as we get more robotics and
automation around us.

If you work remote most of the time, then all interactions will be through
online chat rooms. Coworking is a solution to that.

~~~
eezurr
Your thoughts reflect my own questions about technology. I feel every year, a
tiny bit of my agency is chipped away through automation or simplification.

I feel like every (in person) human interaction we have refreshes our ability
to communicate and connect with people, and probably makes the brain happy on
some primal/chemical level.

Bit by bit, these brief interactions are being removed from our lives (self
checkouts, online shopping, google maps/GPS, online dating etc). I thought
having more time to focus on myself would be great--and it was, on the
surface. But now I see great importance in smiling and saying hello to a
cashier, or stopping a stranger to ask for directions. The eye contact.. the
warmth of another human. It's really important.

------
BadassFractal
Being a secular founder in tech seems exceptionally lonely. Especially when it
comes to dating.

You don't have school or church as traditional recurring ways to network with
people with your values. You cannot make friends at work (they're your
employees, not your buddies, you might have to let them go any day, and often
you do), you cannot date at work, and that's the one thing you spend 10-12
hours a day at. Most of social gatherings within your sphere of influence
(tech and entrepreneurship) are very male-dominated as well. And you live in
the Bay, where you relocated for work, losing your existing network. Your
family and old friends are possibly thousands of miles away. And the Bay is
again all about tech and a skewed gender ratio.

Even when you do make friends and expand your social circle, it's always more
men.

You're stuck with the rather soul-sucking process of online dating and
spending hours swiping on strangers who are about as jaded about the process
as you are.

I suppose you have to find a co-ed hobby and hope that one day you run into
someone who's a match through that. But realistically, how many new people
will you meet through that?

------
0x4f3759df
Possible causes:

Death of retail: No social record stores, no social book stores, arcades

Internet everywhere: People on laptops at coffeehouse, on mobile phones at bus
stop / checkout

Bad Transit/Urbanism/Public policy: Streets for cars, no plazas like the
Italians, can't drink a bottle of wine in a public park

~~~
djsumdog
How many people really met in record stores or arcades? I'd usually just go
there with friends. I knew one person who met their husband in a comic book
store.

As for transit, that is a huge US problem for sure. But don't blame the
Internet or phones. Look at videos from the 50s/60s and you'll see just as
many people silent on the train/tram/bus reading magazines or newspapers. By
the 80s they'd have newspapers and the nerds would have walkmans. By the 90s
it was more common for even-non nerdy types to carry discmans and now,
everyone wears headphones. But that's always been there, it's not really new.

------
austincheney
> It finds that loneliness is widespread in America, with nearly 50 percent of
> respondents reporting that they feel alone or left out always or sometimes.

I know this is going to sound a bit hostile to younger generations, but
perhaps if they put their phones down and stopped looking at screens they
would see the person sitting across the room. Perhaps they might even talk to
that person.

~~~
OnMyPhone
Seeing people glued to their phones while out somewhere social infuriates me
to no end. If that's their thing, then so be it. At least they're usually
quiet while doing it. But hearing them bitch about their shitty social life
while not even looking up on their phone to look at the person across from
them (who's usually on their phone too) boggles my mind.

I have noticed this happens more to younger people, but I have seen quite a
fair share of older people doing the same thing.

The good thing about seeing this in public is that I feel like a jackass if I
think about doing it. So I just leave my phone in my car or at home when I'm
with someone.

------
ProAm
Im skeptical of any study run by an insurance company.

~~~
deweller
Health insurance providers have every incentive to make people healthier - or
at least use medical services less.

~~~
_jal
No, they have every incentive to reduce claims. That is not the same as making
people healthier.

~~~
bradenb
You're right about their incentive, but in this case it's the right thing for
the wrong reason. I don't think it makes the article invalid.

------
davidw
This is something I miss about Italy. It was just easier to meet people. I
don't know if it's just that people are more sociable, that spaces make it
easier (not everyone is walled off in their car/suburban house all the time)
or what.

~~~
_jal
> not everyone is walled off in their car/suburban house all the time

I can't compare to Italy, but I find suburban US bleaker and more isolating
than I did living in Germany. My suggestion would be to go to your nearest
urban area. Even the worst car-centric US cities have walkable parts - in a
pinch, figure out where the local college is to start.

Apologies to those who like them, but suburbs are culture-deprived
wastelands[1]. Go somewhere where people actually want to engage with the
world and you'll have better luck.

[1] Obviously, I like cities. But even rural life is better - much cheaper,
and instead of the illusion of privacy, you can actually be _alone_.

------
dageshi
I would say it's a lot easier to distract yourself than it ever has been
before.

~~~
phil248
No doubt, but it's also much easier to find a date, find an activity group,
find an online community for shared interests, and stay in touch with distant
friends and relatives.

------
LastZactionHero
Anyone wanna grab a beer?

~~~
alexandercrohde
Are you in NYC?

~~~
levim
I am and would be down to grab a beer

~~~
alexandercrohde
Cool. Could you send an email to the address on my profile?

~~~
ahstilde
I can't find an email in your profile, friend.

~~~
alexandercrohde
My mistake. I have one entered, but I guess the email field is private. I've
corrected it now

------
chiefalchemist
> ", with nearly 50 percent of respondents reporting that they feel alone or
> left out always or sometimes."

> "The survey found that the average loneliness score in America is 44, which
> suggests that "most Americans are considered lonely,"

Certainly, mental health has been ignored for far too long. That said, there
seems to be a lack of context here.

\- Is this an increase or decrease?

\- How does it compare to other countries / cultures?

\- Was this over time, or a snap shot, that would (I would think) be
influenced by the current mental state of the person giving the answer?

I don't mean to sound cold and lacking in empathy but without transparency my
first reaction is: C'est la vie. Life, by definition has highs and lows.

I'm not doubting there are people who need treatment / attention. On the other
hand, the way this seems to be executed and presented feels like a pitch for
more funding, etc.

p.s. Why was it / is it called the Loneliness Index? Or was that a self-
fulfilling prophesy? Is that part of the pitch for attention?

------
EdSharkey
I think young boys are being treated terribly. I am so disturbed by this and
am to the point where I feel compelled to intercede in the emotional life of a
troubled young relative of mine.

In my opinion, the problem is that we're no longer celebrating masculinity,
but rather it seems we trash it at every opportunity nowadays.

Not sure how much that weighs on the loneliness problem, but I suspect having
young men not acting like men isn't helping with our collective well-being and
sociability.

~~~
s73v3r_
I think we're trashing the toxic masculinity. The idea that men should always
be stoic; should not have any feelings, and are supposed to be the epitome of
manliness and power.

~~~
EdSharkey
I think the "toxic masculinity" label isn't being heard by young males quite
the way you intend. Drumming the word 'toxic' in front of 'masculinity' and a
lot of kids are going to believe, "it's poisonous to be male". That's because
kids lack the insights and knowledge to think beyond the literal meanings of
those words. I wonder if you think there won't be consequences to your words?
I wonder what you think the consequences might be?

I hope you'll be pleased to learn that aggressive tendencies can encouraged,
shepherded, and focused towards the positive. So, perhaps "unfocused
aggression" is the more politically correct negative label you were searching
for? Your word choice is too full of hurt. (I'm sorry if some men have hurt
you.)

It's not a spite thing, but we just cannot let your feelings win the day, and
you have to lose this fight for all our sakes. We want our men to be
aggressive, competent, and noble creatures after all. We'll silence your
"toxic masculinity" messages at every opportunity with our powerful charm and
energy. We'll show our young men how to be the boss and love our women too. ;)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Drumming the word 'toxic' in front of 'masculinity' and a lot of kids are
> going to believe, "it's poisonous to be male". That's because kids lack the
> insights and knowledge to think beyond the literal meanings of those words.

The _literal_ meaning of the words is “a subset of the traits traditionally
associated with men that is toxic”, not “being male, which is inherently
toxic”, as you seem to have interpreted it, which both incorrectly understands
the literal meaning of masculinity, and incorrectly understands the literal
meaning of applying an adjective to modify a noun: my two year old son has
little trouble understanding that the phrase “red cars” refers to the subset
of cars which are red rather than asserting that all cars are red.

So, even to the extent that young people might be unable to see past the
literal meaning of words, the literal meaning here is exactly what is
intended, and entirely unlike the decidedly non-literal interpretation you've
misrepresented as the literal meaning.

> We want our men to be aggressive

We _who_?

~~~
EdSharkey
> The literal meaning of the words is “a subset of the traits traditionally
> associated with men that is toxic”.

You are being pedantic. Kids won't hit Wikipedia to get the full nuance of
your preferred labels.

I haven't misrepresented anything. Have you ever asked kids if they've heard
the term 'toxic masculinity' used and if they have, what they think it
means/how it makes them feel? You're going to get some shockingly low
resolution answers.

> We who?

As much 'we' as we can get. On this board, that might tend towards the royal
we. ;) Consider that aggression has a positive application. Mastery and
domination can occur in and over the self first and then outward in the world
as required next, and that's the 'good' kind of aggression we like to foster.
Self-control is learned, and boys need guidance channeling their instinct for
achievement towards applicable skills development.

I welcome questions like yours though as it spurs these illuminating
discussions. I'm hoping you can appreciate a different but logically
consistent and legitimate worldview from your own.

I want to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative just as much as
the next person. I suspect you and I view typical male attributes differently
where you might seek to suppress rather than celebrate/foster appropriately.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You are being pedantic.

No, the core of the objection is the way adjectives apply to nouns in a way
that even toddlers correctly understand without difficulty. Even without a
nuanced understanding of “maleness” vs. “masculinity” (which, honestly, I
think most kids who have any understanding of what “toxic” means in any sense
wouldn't need to look up), modifying a noun with an adjective normally means
you are referring to an instance of the the thing named by the noun which also
has the trait described by the adjective, not that all instances of the thing
named by the noun have that trait.

If I say that colorblind people have problems with a certain site design, it
doesn't mean, literally or otherwise, that all people are colorblind, and if I
say toxic masculinity produces certain social problems, it doesn't mean either
that all masculinity is toxic or that all problems are social. That's just not
the way adjectives work, and even very young kids have no problem at all
understanding that.

~~~
EdSharkey
You are absolutely being pedantic. But more importantly, you're no longer
making complete sense:

> if I say toxic masculinity produces certain social problems, it doesn't mean
> either that all masculinity is toxic ...

That is your opinion. That's a taking a very nuanced view.

"Toxic masculinity" is not a specifically addressed term and therefore it may
be interpreted as a universal male trait by the young listener.

> ... or that all problems are social

This makes toxic masculinity even worse by your own definition: the toxicity
might be understood as a natural and unalterable part of the poor little guy.

The messaging is just sloppy and is quite frankly hurtful, possibly
intentionally, though not by you. You've partially conceded this sloppiness in
your response even without my cajoling.

~~~
dragonwriter
> > if I say toxic masculinity produces certain social problems, it doesn't
> mean either that all masculinity is toxic ...

> That is your opinion

It's just the normal literal meaning of adjectives modifying nouns.

> That's a taking a very nuanced view.

No, it's not. It's the simple literal meaning. Reading any more into such a
construct is a non-literal reading which involves some (perhaps incorrectly
inferred) nuance.

> This makes toxic masculinity even worse by your own definition:

I have presented no definition by which this barely-coherent claim is true.

~~~
EdSharkey
You've made such an odd assertion though, I thought I was misreading you.
Please forgive my confusion.

You seem to be saying that applying grammar rules to literal word definitions
should provide 100% of the information conveyed in a conversation.

The phrase "toxic masculinity" is only a small piece of information in related
conversations between people.

There's context, body language, tone, emotional states, memory of past
conversations, number of participants, etc that provides all the meaning to
the conversation.

Are you not confronting the issue in terms of real human communications
especially regarding kids and choosing only to discuss word meanings? That's
not very helpful. :shrug:

------
zitterbewegung
I go to Meetups to make friends and influence people. It has basically become
more and more of my social life as time goes on.

~~~
cjmoran
Meetups are great because usually nobody's counting on you to be there (no
pressure for introverts like me), but after you've attended enough there will
always be someone there who you already know and can introduce you to others.

I don't go to software meetups, though. I get enough of that stuff from
working/side projects/etc. Nothing against them, I just feel that filling my
free/social time with more programming content might cause me to burn out even
faster than I already am. My suggestion: find a meetup for something
completely unrelated to your work, like bicycling, board/video games, camping.

~~~
zitterbewegung
I find that the programming meetups counteract burn out .

Making friends in the industry means they know the stuff you are going
through. The other thing is that if you dislike your job it’s a great way to
get a new one.

------
notadoc
Engaging in social media is largely an anti-social activity.

How many times have you been in a restaurant, bar, or other public space, and
noticed groups of people all staring at their phones on 'social' media, rather
than engaging in the actual social situation around them? Or how many times
have you been at someones house, or even in your own home, and looked to find
a child, friend, partner, family member, staring at their phone, rather than
engaging with the real world? How many times has that person been you, staring
blindly into the screen rather than engaging with actual humans around you?

~~~
djsumdog
Rarely.

Like people might check their phone if they get a message or need to respond
to a spouse. But the majority of my friends, if in a bar or shop or party,
rarely ever look at their phones .. unless a good several minutes go by and no
one talks to them and it's a way to avoid boredom or awkwardness.

I mean people look at them when they're alone on a bus or train, but I mean
before that we just looked at books or magazines. It's like a better book or
magazine that's interactive.

~~~
cjmoran
I agree, I think people are putting too much stock in this idea that "phones
and social media are killing real social interaction!"

It's definitely true that _some_ people have issues "unplugging." One fried of
mine comes to mind; I'll go get dinner with this guy and he'll stare at his
iPhone grinding away at some mobile MMO or messaging other friends the entire
time, while I'm left to eat my food in near silence (until he finds some
_hilarious_ image or video I absolutely need to see, at which point his phone
gets thrust in my face). I can even ask the dude a question or make some
remark and watch him miss it completely, only to ask "oh did you say
something?" about 2 minutes later.

People like my friend need some kind of intervention for sure, but I'm not
convinced that a majority of people behave like this. I'm very social and this
is the only friend I can name with this sort of problem.

------
kadenshep
And what if a significant portion of these people are actually just terrible
people to hang out with in sociable contexts? I see a lot of discussion around
blaming tech, or even funnily enough thinking that males aren't somehow
allowed to be masculine is the cause for this (well, maybe it's related,
though not for reasons the OP wants it to be).

I see it as the opposite. The U.S. with the newer generations is maturing,
socially. We don't just associate with people because of where they're from,
what they look like (for the most part), or who they want to have in their
bed. What I think we're getting better at judging is the actual
characteristics of substance that make hanging out with people great.
Anecdotally, I know of a few people that I would from an outside perspective
consider "lonely." They have a few notable characteristics that make them
undesirable to hang out with, let alone be in a relationship with. Maybe it's
their politics, maybe it's how they act when it's just them and another in a
room, maybe they're just a pretty big bore (due to having a mediocre job, no
hobbies, etc).

That's something I don't see being mentioned in great detail. It's just kind
of ignored that the people reporting loneliness might just be socially
irredeemable (at the moment, anyone can change). Why do these reporters of
loneliness deserve the social energy of other people when they can't
comparably contribute, or even in some cases actively devalue the social
meetings for other groups of people?

There are definitely contributing factors like: how our cities are built,
transportation infrastructure, how much we have to work, etc. But I'm willing
to wager that a decent portion of people who report loneliness might just have
themselves to blame.

------
thepra
I was born in the 90s, and I feel pity seeing my generation adults feeling
unhappy because of loneliness, I can perceive happiness in both ways, alone or
not, why many other people can't?

------
mc32
Unless we do a comprehensive comparative study across countries, this will be
like trying to determine if you’re upside down while spinning in space. You
have no concurrent frame of reference other than historical.

Is the trend American only, part of the consequences of an economic system, a
society, progress in general, etc.

------
coldtea
> _More than half of survey respondents — 54 percent — said they always or
> sometimes feel that no one knows them well. Fifty-six percent reported they
> sometimes or always felt like the people around them "are not necessarily
> with them." And 2 in 5 felt like "they lack companionship," that their
> "relationships aren't meaningful" and that they "are isolated from others."_

Well, chasing money and success as ultimate goals, glorifying individualism,
being hell bent on branding oneself and selling it, valuing consumerism, and
closing into comfort zones etc., comes with a cost.

~~~
ForRealsies
South Korea has had the highest suicide rate in the industrialized world for
eight consecutive years. Their culture doesn't glorify/promote individualism,
but conformity.

I would argue that "chasing money and success" is a trademark characteristic
of what young people AREN'T doing, yet this study states they are the
Loneliness age group.

~~~
CodeMage
It's almost as if you could arrive to similar results in different ways, not
only one...

Seriously, though, your comment seems to assume South Korean suicide rate is
motivated by loneliness. If that's the case, you might want to give the rest
of us an argument to support that assumption.

------
adamnemecek
"Millennials are killing socialness."

~~~
djsumdog
I like to refer to Adam ruins everything on Millennials:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFwok9SlQQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFwok9SlQQ)

TL;DW Generational titles (Boomers, Gen X, Y, whatever) are invented by
authors to sell books. They never bring people up and are always used to tear
people down. Everything said about Millennials has been said about every
generation ever. You can take a Time magazine cover from the 50s about the
entitled generation and slap a modern photo on it and it's the same damn
thing. It's lazy.

Millennials are the most diverse of any generation. That's about all you can
really say, other than we're the most in debt and most likely to take unpaid
internships compared to any previous generation. It's a straw man and it needs
to die.

~~~
nylonstrung
I agree with what you have said but there's also no denying that the amount of
time at formative ages spent on social media and the internet is
unquestionably greater than past generations.

I have trouble believing that hasn't contributed to some idiosyncratic issues
that weren't seen in other generations (as well as benefits)

~~~
drchickensalad
And that might only increase in the future

------
kiviuq
This is the price for Americas individualism I guess.

------
Codewyn
I have an idea: lonely young people can volunteer to spend their time with
lonely old people (who there are far more of) instead of having a pity party.

------
bhnmmhmd
Loneliness is: \- When you try so hard to make friends and still they ignore
you.

\- When you know you have some really good qualities and characteristics, but
are not appreciated for them.

\- When you realize you're not important to other people; whether you go to
school/work/university tomorrow or not doesn't affect others and they won't
notice.

\- When you see all those couples around you and in the street, and think
about "what's wrong with me?" and "why don't I have something like that?"

\- When you realize you've put in too much effort and enthusiasm to help
people and make contact with them, but haven't received much in return; as if
you were just a tool for them.

\- When you just want to spend your time with a person and realize they don't
like spending their time with you.

\- When you are too alone that you don't even know where to begin in order to
stop being lonely.

This is what f __king loneliness feels like.

~~~
s73v3r_
"\- When you see all those couples around you and in the street, and think
about "what's wrong with me?" and "why don't I have something like that?""

Unfortunately, and I count myself in this, a lot of people are unwilling to
take that deep look inside to be able to answer that question.

~~~
eezurr
You dont necessarily have to take a deep look into yourself. Instead, imagine
meeting yourself and ask yourself whether or not the person you are now is
worth putting time and commitment into. If not, why not? Then work on fixing
the parts of you that you dont connect with.

~~~
mjevans
By definition (and I share the original post's issues above), a subject in
this state is already far enough out of calibration that they cannot self-
diagnose issues, let alone work towards correcting them. Also, maybe there
aren't actual problems with the subject themselves, but rather with the
environment in which they are trying to operate.

As with so many things, any defects must be measured from a wider scope within
which comparisons can be made. Corrections can also be incredibly difficult or
just costly, if a positive direction can even be identified.

~~~
ytNumbers
If a guy is very lonely, his chances with women will be nearly zero because he
will reek of desperation (and women can smell that a mile away). Fixing a
tough situation like that requires a lot of time, effort, and courage. One
method for overcoming loneliness is to take some dance lessons and learn to
dance. Dance provides an in-your-face experience with plenty of women which
should go a long way towards ending that vibe of lonely desperation.

------
asperous
Non text-only link: [https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2018/05/01/6065885...](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2018/05/01/606588504/americans-are-a-lonely-lot-and-young-people-bear-
the-heaviest-burden)

~~~
dang
Url changed to that from
[https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=606588504](https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=606588504).

------
frgtpsswrdlame
Well we've rooted our political thought in individualism for decades.
Politicians and market actors have viewed people as atomistic and so society
has been shaped to reflect that view. Perhaps we are now far enough away from
the threat of communism that we can realize there is a balance to be had
between the individual and the collective.

~~~
oh_sigh
'American individualism' has always been focused on the community, but in a
peer to peer connected sense versus a top-down hierarchical sense. It's not
like we consider been who just trudge into the woods and live like a hermit to
be living the American dream.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
That's my point though, it's a view of community as composed of the atomistic
unit: the individual. Even your language, 'peer to peer' portrays the
community as composed of individuals. I think that individuals are just as
composed of their communities as their communities are composed of
individuals, there is no 'atomistic' unit to society.

Even Tocqueville wrote about it:

 _there are more and more people who though neither rich nor powerful enough
to have much hold over others, have gained or kept enough wealth and enough
understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and
hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of
themselves in isolation and imagine that their whole destiny is in their
hands._

and later:

 _Each man is forever thrown back on himself alone, and there is danger that
he may be shut up in the solitude of his own heart._

The hermit isn't just someone who lives in the woods. It's someone who lives
in the woods and _doesn 't come down._ A hermit is someone who opts out of the
obligations of community. To that extent I think most of us are hermits now.
How many groups other than family and the closest friends does the average
person now feel a strong obligation to? I'd say very few.

------
Karishma1234
Would love to see the data split by race. My bet is that this is a white and
asian people specific problem and not applicable to Hispanics and Blacks.

~~~
ttonkytonk
Can you explain why?

------
sudouser
But hey, Facebook is getting everyone connected®

------
Esperaux
interesting maybe as the amount of people who feel lonely rises we will see
more horrific attacks with motivation similar to the Toronto attacker and
Elliot Rodgers.

