
America's loneliness epidemic: A systemic risk to organizations - laurex
https://www.smartbrief.com/original/2019/05/americas-loneliness-epidemic-hidden-systemic-risk-organizations
======
luckydata
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
I'll agree, living in the suburbs would be soul crushing. That's why you live
in a city and ditch the car commute.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
lotsofpulp
People want to be surrounded by other people like them, consciously or
subconsciously. Whether it be under the guise of physical security, security
of their house’s sell price, security of their kids education, all of these
lead to the same place. Stratification by income/class/job security.

I don’t know if there is a good way to combat this, without restricting
people’s rights. People will sort by quality of school district when choosing
where to buy a home and live in the one best one they can afford, and that
correlates super well with parents’ socioeconomic class.

Reducing the income/wealth gap seems to be the only way on my opinion to
overcome this phenomenon.

------
reubenswartz
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.)

~~~
raverbashing
Boo Hoo. This sounds too much like social ludditism and "blaming it on
technology".

While, sure, a lot of shallow connections exist in social media, _it 's the
same in "the real world" as well_

Societies change, connections change.

People are using social networks as a stepping stone to deeper connections.
It's that simple. As in the past the main "social networks" were school,
church, hobbies, etc.

Which I think it's even better as I don't need to pretend to worship a deity
or do some hobby that's out of my comfort zone.

And calling people sounds ever more like this weird technological stepping
stone that's inferior to in person conversations and to texting/social network
interactions

~~~
lm28469
Why is there a loneliness epidemic if everything is equal and social media is
just as good as real connections ?

> Societies change, connections change.

Change doesn't mean change for the best. Asking questions is totally
reasonable when you look at the changes happening in the last decade. How come
people, teenagers especially, are feeling more lonely while they're infinitely
more connected than 20 years ago ? Why is suicide becoming the leading cause
of teenagers' death ? &c.

Looks like a lot of people think change = progress = good, without even
questioning it.

> I don't need to pretend to worship a deity

The irony is that technology is becoming a deity. "Don't question tech", "Tech
is good, always good", "We must thrive for technological advancement at all
cost", "Technical advancement is always progress", &c.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/education-43711606](https://www.bbc.com/news/education-43711606)

[https://www.prb.org/suicide-replaces-homicide-second-
leading...](https://www.prb.org/suicide-replaces-homicide-second-leading-
cause-death-among-us-teens/)

~~~
raverbashing
I never said the changes were exclusively for good, every change has good and
bad sides, but implying things are bad because they are different is just as
naive as saying changes are only for good

> Why is there a loneliness epidemic if everything is equal and social media
> is just as good as real connections ?

Maybe because of the several _other_ societal changes that happened even
before social media was invented? (Not saying it isn't part of the _current
scenario_ though)

------
mjevans
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)

~~~
genema
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.

~~~
jdavis703
Yes, planners talk to the general public. You can talk to them at your
planning commission if you want by going up to them and well taking to them...

Additionally if you raise a good point during public comment a planning
commissioner might even ask the planner to provide a response.

Also locally I know a lot of planners are pretty active on Twitter, so you can
talk with them that ways.

Lastly a lot of bad planning is driven by politics (the planners are just
staff who have to implement what the mayor and/or council says to do). If you
want to change bad urban planning change your city’s politics.

~~~
Mirioron
Isn't there a world of difference between UX designers going out to talk to
the users themselves as opposed to waiting for the users to come to talk to
them? It implies that there's a pretty strong self-selection bias.

~~~
indigochill
Yes. But how do you propose a city planner selects the right people to talk to
about urban planning?

The "users" (citizens) would first need to educate themselves on what's being
proposed and what impacts it might have. They also might not be representative
of the demographic actually being most affected. Maybe they just don't care.

By leaving it to citizens to self-select, you get the people who are motivated
and at least marginally more educated on the issue than some random Joe off
the street.

~~~
Mirioron
I don't see how these same points wouldn't apply to uses of software though.
Most users don't know anything about software or good UX design. You also run
the risk of surveying a demographic that's not the most impacted by the
change. The problems seem to be identical here.

------
voidhorse
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.

~~~
atupis
Social media where you "speak with" sounds fantastic, but how you would do it
Slack/IRC is one way do it, those have usually tightly knitted community but
there is definitely other more creative ways do that.

~~~
indigochill
IMO it's just a question of design emphasis. That is, Slack/IRC work well for
this kind of thing specifically because their rooms are created for the
discussion of some broad topic. Social media
(Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Instagram/etc) generally doesn't because it doesn't
have the same emphasis on topical discussions (Facebook groups being something
of an exception, although uptake is limited).

So to create social media that lends itself this direction, take the focus
away from individual expression in a bubble and put the focus on topics, just
like Slack/IRC/forums/BBSes do/did.

Google+ was actually a step in this direction and was the home to a number of
topic-focused communities as a result, but Google wasn't prepared to follow
through. Maybe someone else will.

------
rifung
> 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.

~~~
louthy
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
> 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
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.

------
kashyapc
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]

~~~
irrational
Wait, people confide in coworkers? I've had some coworkers for 18 years. I'm
fairly certain they don't know anything about me beyond what I'm working on
currently. Why would I ever tell a coworker private information about myself?

~~~
jniedrauer
> Why would I ever tell a coworker private information about myself?

Because you've spent most of your waking hours with them every day for a third
of your life and we're social creatures.

If I didn't make friends with my coworkers, I wouldn't have friends.

------
Inu
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.

~~~
humanrebar
> 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.

------
alexashka
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
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.

------
rchaud
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?

------
atoav
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.

------
Animats
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
> _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
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
> _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
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.

------
forgetme2020
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

------
tathougies
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
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.

~~~
01100011
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.

~~~
fjsolwmv
Unitarian Universalisy is exactly the church for atheists who see the value in
the non religious parts of church. The problem is most people don't understand
the value of this, so most people won't get it unless they are driven to it by
religion, and religious people tend to not notice that religion isn't the main
reason the good parts of church are good.

Religion is to church like the stone is to stone soup, including the part
where dirt on the stone can mess up the soup.

~~~
tathougies
> religious people tend to not notice that religion isn't the main reason the
> good parts of church are good.

I strongly disagree with this statement. While I am quite involved in my
church now, and think that's great. A belief in God (independent of a
congregation, and at times, in spite of the congregation) has kept me sane at
the worst points in my life.

I get that you do not see the value in this -- that is your right of course.
However, please do not project your feelings on religious people.

~~~
nitrogen
_However, please do not project your feelings on religious people._

As a formerly very devoutly religious person, I have to say I agree with the
parent comment that religion is the worst part of organized religion. I have
been much happier (and to your point, "saner") since I stopped believing. One
of the things I definitely understand but don't miss is the defensiveness that
comes out when someone says they are better off without religious belief.

Returning to the main topic of loneliness/community, I think we can have a
sense of shared purpose without needing a sense of higher purpose. I hope we
can find a way as a society to rebuild the carrot of strong communities
without needing the threat of loss of salvation as stick.

~~~
humanrebar
> One of the things I definitely understand but don't miss is the
> defensiveness that comes out when someone says they are better off without
> religious belief.

The "defensiveness" wasn't in response to an expression of personal experience
as you claim.

The pull out quote was characterizing a diverse group of people, including
scientists, scholars, and former atheists, as somehow oblivious. I think
patronizing hand-waving about defensiveness is unfair.

------
w_t_payne
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
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-
med...](https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-media-affect-
math-dunbar-number-friendships)

------
NTDF9
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
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
> 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.

------
11thEarlOfMar
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
_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?

------
scottlocklin
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.

------
badrabbit
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
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.

------
astazangasta
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)

------
temp99990
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.

------
mirimir
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
If you have a few friends, you're not lonely.

------
xof711
People should go out more... There's a life outside these walls!!

------
maxheadroom
Reminds me of stories like these[0]. :(

[0] -
[https://www.oddee.com/item_98735.aspx](https://www.oddee.com/item_98735.aspx)

------
justaguyhere
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
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.

------
austincheney
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.

~~~
LUmBULtERA
>the increased sensitivity and fragility of younger generations?

Can you cite your source for this assertion? Thanks!

------
edisonjoao
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!

------
gambler
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.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Illusory side effect?

Not at all illusory to my mind. We've never been more disconnected _from
people_ as we become ever more connected _to the net._ And that, is
_certainly_ not where I thought we'd end up or were even heading for most of
the time I've worked in tech.

Society has had 40 years being persuaded to believe in the cult of the
individual and that society and community does not exist, and did not matter
anyway. All that real terms GDP growth gives fewer and fewer community
services and resources because of reasons - political dogma and artificial
commercialisation mostly.

Just about every resource, amenity, hobby and club my parents would recognise,
and had locally, has been commercialised, consolidated and centralised.
There's now fewer of them, and so they're further and further apart. Now it
needs transport, and planning. Pubs, clubs, shops and small music venues are
closing in record numbers, and besides who can afford (time or money) to go
out any more? So Netflix and chill.

Now add apps that try to make every single human interaction no longer
actually need human interaction. No need to talk to someone in a bar, or when
meeting friends to get a date, we got Tinder marketing images to swipe, and
instant messaging to avoid making a call or visit.

Maybe I'm just getting too old but _I miss_ friends calling every week or so
just to talk crap for 30 minutes. That got spaced ever wider - now
comparatively rare - everyone's on fucking facebook or working on their
instagram image. Calls are _far_ more likely to feel intrusive. The other half
can talk for England, but spends a fraction of the time on calls compared to
10 or 20 years ago.

Any more disconnected and there'll be a moat around everyone's houses.
Convince me it's all illusory. :)

~~~
filoleg
To offer a counter-point: for me, all those social networks and internet in
general facilitated some of the most meaningful friendships of my life. Mind
you, I am talking about real-life friendships, not just "internet friends"
kind of stuff.

For example, two of my closest friends that I hang out with on the order of
multiple times a week (dinners, concerts, sports games, etc.), I would have
probably never met them if it wasn't for the common facebook groups. We don't
even use FB that much (I log in about once every couple of days for 5-10
minutes at most), but I definitely attribute a chunk of the success of our
friendship to FB. That's how we met, that's how we find new events and things
to do (oh, your acquaintance X liked that new art exhibit opening on the
museum FB page, you would probably be interested in checking that out with
your friends!).

Also, I don't know where you live, but in my area, things are only getting
better in terms of places for meaningful socialization. New small niche bars,
concert venues, and hobby places (hacker spaces/libraries/garage co-ops/hobby-
specific clubs/etc.) open up at a regular rate and seem to attract a lot of
people, many of which become regulars. I talk to bartenders quite often, and
most of them seem to echo that sentiment.

>we got [...] instant messaging to avoid making a call or visit.

Maybe if someone uses messaging as a REPLACEMENT to hanging out in person,
they never wanted to hang out in the first place? To me, that sounds like a
good thing, because in this scenario, messaging cuts out forced in-person
interactions of low quality.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
I've made plenty of real-life friends online too - difficult not to when
you've transitioned through BBS's and everything since.

Social is the point it got less social, and more about algorithm of outrage
and reaction - of the knee-jerk kind, oh, messaging and scheduling. Or
sometimes trying to give carefully perfect posed glimpses into imperfect
lives. More like movie of the life and marketing themselves than the life. Of
course that's simply amplifying the bad tendencies of people as well as good,
but it has brought a change in quality too.

If it's just me reaching dinosaur age, well the kids and friends seem far less
satisfied with their lot than I ever remember anyone at their age - whilst
still claiming to be mainly happy. I'm not even going to try and pick that
apart here. :)

> things are only getting better in terms of places for meaningful
> socialization in my area

High streets are struggling, and it's not just retail - so I'm not sure where
you are! Locally, and if the media is to be believed, everywhere that is not
central London is losing all those sorts of amenities at similar rates.
Libraries rate a special mention - they have been decimated everywhere,
including London. Sure, it's not quite a cultural desert, but considering the
growth of the town you'd hope there would be more not fewer venues and
choices. I can venture further afield to a major city centre and find plenty
of bars and restaurants, but even there fewer choices overall. Far more chance
of 5 identikit Weatherspoons in place of the interesting, and great,
independents.

> they never wanted to hang out in the first place

I suppose I walked into that. :p Thing is, it's not just me - I hear many
muttering similarly at work, or when we do meet up, and we _are_ talking on a
post of an epidemic of loneliness after all. Everyone seems to be spread more
and more thinly. Drowning, not waving?

But you generally know easily enough when people have moved on, lost interest,
or are blanking you - that's something qualitatively different.

------
amznll
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.

~~~
cced
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?

~~~
wes-k
Is this person just being nice? Are they going to follow me? This is on my
daily commute, is this going to become a thing? Does this person have an
agenda?

We may feel it is a simple and kind gesture but it isn’t. Because woman are
harassed so freaking much they basically always have to be on guard. Never
know when a nice person will turn into a creep or worse turn into an
assailant.

(It was only through my partner telling me her experiences that I learned
these things)

~~~
bubblewrap
People who feel like that should seek therapy. Seriously.

------
gingabriska
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.

~~~
ok_coo
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.

------
skookumchuck
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.

------
CharlesColeman
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
This is satire right?

~~~
AlexandrB
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
> 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.

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

~~~
daodedickinson
Urbanization certainly doesn't solve it.

~~~
humanrebar
Agreed. People riding busses and trains for 10+ hours per week aren't exactly
in better shape than people with equivalent car commutes.

~~~
icsllaf
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
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
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.

------
gingabriska
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.

~~~
pertymcpert
A lot of people move back as well. I see it all the time now, it’s just not
worth it.

~~~
thewarrior
What’s not worth it ? Moving back or staying in the US ?

~~~
pertymcpert
Life here in the US.

------
morsmodr
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
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.

