
Poor-quality relationships linked to greater distress than too few relationships - EndXA
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/02/20/different-kinds-of-loneliness-having-poor-quality-relationships-is-associated-with-a-greater-toll-than-having-too-few/
======
rofo1
“From a societal perspective, and in the interests of reducing the burden of
psychological distress, efforts should be made to enhance the quality of
social connections as opposed to promoting the virtues of larger social
networks.”

They say this, but people with integrity are _typically_ made fun of secretly
or even publicly, declared dismissive and asocial, instead of positively
recognized in any fashion. They are seen as "rude", as "expecting too much",
and at every point of their life, it is as if the society is telling them:
"let it go, drop down to our level". Not in those words, but with actions and
with the general atmosphere of the society.

A Seneca quote has reasoned with me for long time, I'll paraphrase it: you
don't need a teacher for the vices!

It seems as if people prefer what objectively causes them harm (to their
mental health and otherwise).

Lying, evil thoughts, friends envious of each other, talking behind their
backs, unfaithfulness is more common than being a good person, trying to do
your best in this world (which, I am sure, is not easy on anybody), be in a
positive mood, if you can't help - at least don't interfere, and so on.

We need to somehow improve our ethics and morals on our own, willingly. I know
exactly what I did in my life: I read a lot of philosophy. I also come from a
very honest family, so that had some impact I am sure.

Compare this with
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19238633](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19238633)
(Why Be Honest If Honesty Doesn't Pay)

~~~
jancsika
> They say this, but people with integrity are typically made fun of secretly
> or even publicly, declared dismissive and asocial, instead of positively
> recognized in any fashion. They are seen as "rude", as "expecting too much",
> and at every point of their life, it is as if the society is telling them:
> "let it go, drop down to our level". Not in those words, but with actions
> and with the general atmosphere of the society.

Oh my gosh, that is such a grim set of generalizations. What possible evidence
do you have for those premises?

Is it possible you're thinking of the narrow set of people who have integrity
_and_ are public figures, then shifting to generalize to all people who have
integrity? Because there are plenty of areas of life where people with
integrity are not only valued but protected by their communities.

~~~
stingraycharles
Yeah it seems like the parent is thinking that being rude and blunt is the
only way to maintain integrity. It’s actually surprisingly easy to maintain
integrity and be a likeable person.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Just think of the the protagonist in "Shawshank Redemption". I don't mean
"look, how easy", but I would be surprised if most people don't respect that
character in some form. He doesn't hate others, he's not arrogant, he just
also doesn't give in, and I would say he holds on to integrity for his own as
well as everybodies' sake, not as something he wants just for himself to then
judge others with. Even if it ended differently, I think most people would
still say "good for him" for how he carries himself. Ultimately, I think
communities, at least smaller ones in real life that aren't dysfunctional, are
_really_ good at knowing where one's heart is at, and that matters more than
anything.

------
austincheney
I am glad there is research on this, but I find it rather curious this is
somehow not common knowledge.

~~~
hombre_fatal
There are a lot of "common sense" falsehoods though as well. Like sugar
causing hyperactivity in children. What do you propose we do to disambiguate
the bullshit from truth?

~~~
austincheney
> Like sugar causing hyperactivity in children.

I don't know about children, but its vaguely true about adults. Increased
sugar intake alters the fat burning process with the gift of quick energy
followed by a period of depression, a sugar low, that impacts body energy and
mental concentration. The resulting behavior is slowed/faulty decision making
and a desire for napping.

I suspect if this same metabolic change occurs in children it would slow a
child's mental concentration thereby allowing less controlled behavior, which
may present as hyper activity at the loss of self-reflection.

~~~
WhompingWindows
"alters the fat burning process"

Are you referring to the release of insulin in response to the intake of
sugar? I believe the sugar high may just be a myth perpetuated by both the
dopamine reward response, but also parents looking for explanations of
children's hyperactivity. Kids are simply de facto hyperactive, there are
disordered levels of hyperactivity, but simply: their motor cortex is
overdeveloped and overactive relative to their prefrontal cortical control
mechanisms (executive functions).

~~~
austincheney
Yes, sugar is metabolized by insulin while fat is metabolized by the liver.
Sugar does trigger a dopamine response much stronger than cocaine addiction
(this is medically observed), but the dopamine effect is orthogonal to the
different metabolic response.

This difference in metabolism is due to physiology. It is not a myth. The
implications of the difference are that energy created through the insulin
process is immediately available and the unused remainder of energy after use
is stored as fat. Fat in take, on the other hand, stores energy as fat the
body thinks it will need and dumps the rest. Fat becomes energy when stored
fat is metabolized in the liver resulting in slow but more consistent energy.
Understanding that difference is significant to dropping weight.

~~~
WhompingWindows
It's not correct to say sugar is metabolized by insulin, though. Cells in the
pancreas detect increased blood sugar levels, which then leads to subsequent
insulin release, which tells different kind of cells across the body to intake
sugar and store energy in various ways. Those cells then may store sugar into
fatty acids or glycogen, though it's been a while since I reviewed the
biochemistry.

------
SolaceQuantum
I find it pretty interesting that there appears to be a sliding scale of
relationship quality and loneliness as listed in the study itself. It appears
that regardless of one's introvertedness or social-mindedness or similar, all
studied humans benefit from a wealth of genuinely enriching relationships.

Although I'd like to see continued studies also if this extends to internet or
long-distance relationships, and if they do not, the exact
categorical/mathematical models of this disparity.

------
mindgam3
This is especially true if you tend to have an insecure attachment style due
to adverse childhood experiences (unstable home, toxic parenting, etc). Better
to be securely attached to one person than weakly attached to 10, or even 100.

------
xmlblog
Confirmation of the old Spanish proverb: "es mejor estar solo que mal
acompañado."
[https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/es%20mejor%20estar%20s...](https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/es%20mejor%20estar%20solo%20que%20mal%20acompa%C3%B1ado)

------
908087
Social media cultivates poor quality relationships, and distress causes many
to spend more time on social media in seek of "connection".

It's the perfect feedback loop for "increasing engagement".

------
Gpetrium
It seems to me that the 'holy grail' is a few high quality relationships
coupled with a medium-large sized pool of 'outer-layer' relationships. When a
couple of high quality relationships end (for whatever reason, including
death), there is a decent size pool to go back to. The medium-large sized pool
also allows you to choose the ones that make sense to stick with and remove
accordingly.

Most people find it hard to balance that, so they are likely better off to
have a few high quality relationships without accounting for the outer layers

------
reading-at-work
These results confirm my anecdotal experience. I moved across the country
recently, leaving behind all meaningful relationships except for my SO who I
moved with. My mental health quickly took a nosedive. I don't connect with
anyone at my new job on a deep level, and despite my efforts so far I have no
close friends outside of work either.

At least now I know there's a study to confirm _why_ I've been so depressed
lately. That counts for something I guess.

------
samebreath
I imagine this principle is solid up to a point of meeting a minimal set of
connections. Did they happen to (try to) identify a safe minimum?

------
barberousse
I've experienced this problem myself, low-quality relationships, and having
acquitted myself of them in my early 30s, now in my mid-30s while I barely
interact with anyone outside of work, I have to say, its striking how little
has changed between entertaining those relationships and just being by myself.

------
maxxxxx
What can be really crushing is a problematic or toxic family member. For
example an alcoholic. It's very hard to keep distance from a family member.

I have experienced this myself for a few years and I know people whose lives
are seriously disrupted by a toxic family member.

------
jstimpfle
Title lacks; Didn't read. How poor? How many too few? Is there anything we can
learn from this study? I have my doubts...

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
> How poor? How many too few? Is there anything we can learn from this study?
> I have my doubts...

The article may contain the information you require.

I'm curious as to the threshold you require as to that information, are you
looking for an absolute minimum threshold of friends, and a succinct
definition of a poor quality relationship in a title?

~~~
jstimpfle
I guess. Without tresholds the claim can go either way.

