Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Poor-quality relationships linked to greater distress than too few relationships (bps.org.uk)
182 points by EndXA 20 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 89 comments



“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 (Why Be Honest If Honesty Doesn't Pay)


> 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.


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.


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.


The way it was written, I'm reading between the lines that your parent comment is describing their own personal life experience, where they are the "person with integrity", and generalizing it to the world.

Going just a bit further, I would observe that people I have felt best modeled integrity... do not openly identify themselves as "someone of integrity". It's just something they do, it's just the way they are.


> 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.

Here is an anecdote going against this idea.

In my junior high school, the person responsible for discipline was a strong woman. She was notoriously strict, walked around with a baton, you definitely didn't want to cross her path when you were misbehaving. She was always treated with respect: she wouldn't have it any other way.

And guess what, everyone loved her. In her office was a collection of sticks, batons and baseball bats given to her by students as a parting gift. When she retired, she got an article in the local newspaper, the subtitle was "discipline is always accepted as long as it is just".

Just to make things clear in case it wasn't obvious: she didn't beat students, threatened to do so or used any kind of violence in general. The baton was mostly just for show.


> Here is an anecdote going against this idea.

I'm not sure this goes against his thoughts (and possible experiences) on the matter. In your example, you've established a figure that is in charge for maintaining 'Law and Order'. This person is responsible for creating the rules in which others live by in this (subset of) society.

I have found, over the years, that people respect rules when applied to everyone evenly. They even respect the person charged with dispensing those rules (evenly and fairly).

OP's sentiment, I think, applies to a 'Lord of the Rings' mentality. There are no set rules for behavior that are overseen. Groupthink, group pressure, dominating (if not vulgar) voices may tend to lead. Not unlike the film 'Idiocracy'.


(Lord of the Flies?)


So weird. I actually caught it and thought I fixed it before posting. Thanks! Yes, I actually meant Lord of the Flies.

sidenote: I often start commenting on my text editor and paste into forms.


People with low integrity do this drag others down thing. People with high integrity don't.

There are always going to be low-integrity people in the world. Obviously I agree it'd be great if there were a lower percentage, but the point is you're always going to have to seek out good people to associate with.

Luckily, low-integrity people usually make this way easier than they realize because while a few are subtle and crafty, most of them are not and have lots and lots of obvious tells. For example, if you want to know whether they will lie to you, watch what they do with others, and you'll see that many dishonest people not only lie but their lies aren't even very believable. Essentially, I'm saying you can use this tear down others behavior to your benefit: they are handing you information you need to decide who to (and who not to) trust and who to associate with closely.

On a side note, if you were raised in an environment that valued virtue, watch out for the trap of becoming judgmental or self-righteous. I know I had to face this in myself. Social groups praise people for being virtuous, and this is a legit social means to encourage virtue. But if you're not careful, you can catch yourself chasing virtue not for its own sake but for praise, to bolster your self-image, or to gain/preserve in-group status. Look at all these great things I do -- over and above what normal people do, in fact -- so I must be a great person, right? Or, look at all these great things I do, so you guys accept me, right?


Look at all these great things I do -- over and above what normal people do, in fact -- so I must be a great person, right?

I've heard rumors of groups of people falling so hard into this trap that they start trying to one-up each other by randomly donating a kidney. "After all, you can mostly live with just one..."


Looks like this kind of competition is beneficial to society—to the point of granting a new lease of life to gravely ill people—and should be encouraged.


There are levels of self-sacrifice that are way beyond what is productive. Giving up a vital organ for someone close is one thing, being a post mortem donor is great, but being peer pressured into putting your own life at risk is no better than being peer pressured into donating all of your productive assets to a cult leader. One person benefits but the net is negative.


You can be honest and not be rude. Being confrontational and blunt is orthogonal to being truthful.


Oh absolutely! Not sure where I conveyed anything different, but I agree with you.


> but people with integrity ... are seen as "rude"

You seem to be drawing a line between having integrity and being seen as unpleasant.


It's not wrong though, isn't it? Amount of confidence allowing someone not to avoid confrontation essentially makes some people feel unsafe, perceive it as unpleasant and causes hate response.


This assumes the only way to persuade someone to change their minds is via unpleasant confrontation. In my experience this is very rarely needed. You're right that a lot of confidence is required though, but it is the type that is rooted in truth and humility (rather than confidence from convincing yourself how great you are).


But then abandoning some integrity to not manipulate people is not a high bar anymore.


The very act of trying to convince someone is an act of manipulation, you can't divorce the two. Unless you're speaking simply to say your mind and without the desire to actually change something? Is that an act of integrity? Or is proclaiming what you believe for no other effect than to let people hear you an act of pride?


Holding a divergant opinion and expressing it is not necessarily an act of pride or manipulation.

To remain silent is often to implictly agree with an assumed group consensus.


Indeed. I'd say this is almost always the case. People apply Cunningham's Law without realizing it. That manager you hear confidently stating their project idea? There's a good chance they aren't really sure about it, but assume someone will push back if it's wrong. The same applies to behaviour; speaking back is often what it takes for the other person to back down from unethical behaviour.


> Is that an act of integrity? Or is proclaiming what you believe for no other effect than to let people hear you an act of pride?

Being proud of one's integrity doesn't actually diminish it, except in the eyes of those who are looking for reasons to diminish or relabel it anyway.


Arguably, not considering strategic approaches in maintaining social ties and fostering greater community is also abandoning one's integrity as a social animal.


That's only if you assume that confrontations are necessarily rude.


I would argue that most people do see it exactly that way. Even if a confrontation is handled extremely well, from the little data I have (what I've seen) most people are so terrified of confrontation at all that it is almost always seen as rude or disruptive.


Well, of course it's disruptive. That's the point. You are trying to force a change in someone's behavior. But it doesn't have to be adversarial. You can have disagreements but still try to work together. In fact, I would say it is extremely important to try to do that in almost every circumstance. Even if you are confronting someone who is not an ally, it's best to try to do it in a way which is strong and firm but also doesn't make them into more of an enemy any more than necessary.


No you can't. A non-negligible minority of the population will conflate "inconvenient to me" statements or actions with "rude" statements or actions. Standing up for what you believe or what's right or what's correct by definition necessitates conflict with whoever you're standing up to and sometimes people take it personally.


I have no idea what you're talking about. Precisely 0% of this resonates with me. None of my friends are this way. I'd say I avoid people who act this way, but it's never even really been an issue. I hear about that kind of stuff outside of my circle, but it's not part of my reality.

This sounds like it's potentially coming from a place of difficulty with social cues perhaps?


We cannot improve our ethics and morals on our own. I've certainly found that true in my own life. Even when I read or write philosophy, the truth is, I'm only doing it to feel superior to people: pride and vanity. The only thing that has helped for me was to embrace the one belief system which starts from the axiom that no-one can fix their moral and ethical shortcomings by their own willpower. That belief system is Christianity. It's counter-intuitive and almost paradoxical, but it really does seem like working from the assumption, "Everyone is totally depraved (even the holiest men)", is the only way to make any progress against depravity!


I'm having trouble making the leap from "enhance the quality of your relationships rather than the quantity of relationships" to "people with integrity are typically made fun of". What is your line of reasoning?


It's a great question. I would have asked the same. I think that a quality relationship is based on trust, respect, loyalty, kindness and understanding. Be it friendship or a romantic one.

As mentioned, I have generalized my thoughts based on what I see around me. People lack these (some or all of them) qualities enormously! If you ask me for a "proof" here, I am afraid I cannot provide one, nor anyone studying social sciences can. I can only talk from what I observe, so the surroundings will have an impact of any conclusions I am afraid.

With that said, and the simple fact that virtues and vices don't go hand in hand and they don't tolerate each other, I conclude most of my reasoning. La Rochefoucauld said "Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue", and it will always be so. That's why I judge people by what they do, not what they say, and how much they smile to my face.

You cannot talk about honesty, if you are dishonest. Doesn't matter that you are smiling. Doesn't matter that you are not dishonest (yet) with me. You cannot talk about loyalty if you are unfaithful.

I mean, you technically can (are able), but that just reeks of hypocrisy.

Typically, if you go against the flow, or make your stance known on these fronts, you'll come to the same realization I think. It's as if people don't like being "judged" (for lack of a better word), even though they might be in the wrong. They would rather make sure they are not judged than do something to better themselves.

So the only option left for them is to "shoot the messenger", e.g. use social skills to diminish his value in any way possible ("asocial", "rude", "unpleasant", etc.)


> 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.

Is there a source backing any of this up?


Uh, what the hell are you talking about?

It sounds like you are crutching on "integrity" when perhaps you need a more unbiased analysis of why you have been made fun of secretly or even publicly, declared dismissive and asocial, instead of positively recognized in any fashion.

You aren't seen as rude because you just have too much integrity. This is such a narcissistic view of the world. I mean just based on this post that you wrote I can tell you that your problems do not stem from an overload of virtue.


Oh, I wasn't talking about me (in that paragraph). Maybe it wasn't clear.

(If you want, we can talk about me, I have no problems with that - I think I am unusually lucky in this department though :), based on everything I see around. But I also spent my life building quality relationships with people, even before I really know what I was doing)

It's something I've noted that people do. It might just be my surroundings.

It was mostly generalized, but if I do this exercise in my head - think about all people I know, all relationships between them (friends, romantic, etc.), I still end up with the same conclusion. People are really not that nice to each other, so it's no wonder that the mental health would be suffering as this study portraits.

From the people that I know, the ones I think are really honest, good, well-mannered people, they all seem to struggle relationship-wise. And precisely those ones are deemed as too difficult, etc. even though they aren't that much different.

Ah, it seems as it is really sensitive topic :)


I don't know why my perception of the world seems so different, but my view of things is that people are generally nice to each other, and for the most part I can get along with anyone that I cross paths with in daily life (even if I wouldn't exactly want to be friends with them).


You don't usually disagree with people or confront them with a different set of beliefs. If you do that then even if you're gentle you'll find a lot of vitriol being thrown at you. Just look at political discourse online. Go to a left wing subreddit and try making some (reasonable) right wing points. You'll probably get a lot of undue flak.


Ah, come on. Making generalizations about the entire world (population: 7,600,000,000) based on some subreddits? Or even a subset of online political arguments?

Look, if you get out there, and talk politics with people in person, in real life, you'll find that people are pretty reasonable. Their beliefs may be strange, but those are shaped by a massive amount of powerful outside factors. Yes, you have to go into it with an open mind, and find how to phrase your ideas in a way that they don't sound like an attack on the other person, but it's not too hard.

I have strong as well as unusual political beliefs, which you would imagine to be a problem. But of hundreds of political discussions, I've managed to have a reasonable discussion perhaps 98% of the time. I've talked with people who have political beliefs as radical as you can imagine: not simply hardcore Trump and Hillary supporters, but also people who:

- want to kill anyone who owns a business

- think <insert group here> is subhuman

- are strong anarcho-capitalists

- want to kill anyone who is <thing I am>

- support political executions

- think the world is controlled by an elite cabal of actors

Admittedly, most of these conversations are over hours or days, not years - if I was, say, roommates with them then I imagine things would be a bit trickier. But still, I've had long friendships with people who have very, very radical political beliefs in the opposite direction from mine.


I'm talking about real life, not arguing on the Internet. Of course if you seek out arguments on the Internet, then you will find them.

Also, I'm sure our definition of reasonable differs.


> From the people that I know, the ones I think are really honest, good, well-mannered people, they all seem to struggle relationship-wise. And precisely those ones are deemed as too difficult, etc. even though they aren't that much different.

Hmm. That really doesn't match my experience.

I'm lucky enough to know a handful of people who are really pure, kind, good-hearted people, and they all seem to get through life pretty well. Sure, some of them have endured severe challenges in life, but those would have happened regardless of who they were as a person (mostly not "winning the lottery at birth" aka growing up poorer or in the "wrong" place.)

Yes, people consider them different, but they consider them different in a good way, and they are very loved people.

I suspect that it's a number of other factors causing what you've seen. Ultimately, I just don't understand - why would most of the world dislike a good person because they're a good person? That seems like a really strange world.


Human evolution favors liars, cheaters, manipulators and hypocrites.

The altruistic masses are reared like cattle to serve the interests of the wealthy.

Good people tend to help everyone indiscriminately but evil people only help other evil people (not by explicit intention, but simply in the shared, win-at-all-cost pursuit of selfish interests; which happens to be the favorite activity of evil people). That is why evil people rule the world.


...and your opinion has been already questioned. Anyway, it's great to meet somebody with your attitude, even if online. Only if there were more people like you!


> 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.

I'm in my 30s and I have never witnessed this. Usually it's on a different axis: how blunt the person is.


"unfaithfulness is more common than being a good person"

Source?


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


To be clear: the point of a scientific study is to provide evidence for a hypothesis, regardless whether that hypothesis is common knowledge or not.


Thank you for this. Everyone I've met who does research in social topics like this is endlessly frustrated by "well duh" reactions, especially on topics like social ills or discrimination.

Beyond the simple fact of empiricism, having a study show this is valuable on a lot of practical levels:

- Common knowledge is often wrong, so it's worth validating.

- Common knowledge says "worse", but this starts to quantify the difference. (Maybe 10 crummy friendships are worse than 2 good friendships, but are they worse than 1? How much worse? Where does zero friendships fall?)

- "Everybody knows" isn't and shouldn't be a basis for law or policy, so studies like this are citable evidence for the problem's existence and severity; "bad friendships are depressing" doesn't help us evaluate loneliness as a public health risk. (Similarly, replacing "those districts look stupid and have biased results" with a statistical measure of gerrymandering has been quite important in some recent court cases.)

- Simple studies provide standard methodology and reference data for analyses and future work. There's a long history of people testing complex hypotheses like "can we fight loneliness using this intervention to help people make more friends?" which fall apart because they skipped foundational work like "is number of friends even a predictor of loneliness?"

Honestly, I feel a bit relieved to see studies like this at the moment. With the replication crisis taking "well understood" results down like dominos, there's a lot to be said for going out and checking the really fundamental stuff.


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?


> 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.


"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).


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.


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.


That one is actually true. Sugar highs are a thing.


When I google "sugar high children", everything on the front page points to it being debunked, mainly due to the mid-90s studies.


"Through various experiments over the years, scientists have discovered that no substantial evidence exists to support the claim that sugar causes hyperactivity." (1)

"Nonetheless, other experiments show that sugar may at least influence behavior. Dr. Wesnes conducted a study in which he found that having a large amount of sugar for breakfast led to a severe deterioration of attention span when compared to having no breakfast or eating whole grain cereal. Dr. Tamborlane, also from Yale, reported that children given sugar had higher levels of adrenaline. A possible explanation for this effect is that since sugar is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, blood sugar rises quickly, which can lead to higher adrenaline levels and thus symptoms similar to those associated with hyperactivity. Furthermore, children with ADHD also tend to have higher levels of insulin." (1)

(1) http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar...


Yep just like scientists couldn’t find a link between smoking and anything either. People laughed at the doctor who washed his hands. They said Earth is at most 100 Million years old. And so on.

That was physics and biology and here you are talking about correlation studies??

My comment was designed to stimulate discussion about this exact issue. Not because I really had a strong position. What if studies show one thing and other studies can’t reproduce the effect? What if something IS true despite current studies “debunking” it?


The quote above was an example as such: "Nonetheless, other experiments show that sugar may at least influence behavior. Dr. Wesnes conducted a study in which he found that having a large amount of sugar for breakfast led to a severe deterioration of attention span"


Tell ya what? Go hang out with some kids after you give them a bunch of sugar. Studies can say one thing, personal experience watching children turn into little demons that make you run all day before they get cranky and crash hard says otherwise.


It's funny you mention that since here's how the top link (The Guardian) starts off:

> People often get cross when you tell them there's no such thing as a sugar rush. Especially parents. They have witnessed, time and again, their offspring going ape at parties, after mainlining jelly and ice cream.

But let's not get distracted trying to convince me the study is wrong with anecdotes. That's the point: even ubiquitous "common sense" that anyone would swear is right can be debunked.


> They have witnessed, time and again, their offspring going ape at parties, after mainlining jelly and ice cream.

And I feel like there's another explanation for that - the party setting.


Indeed. At home i notice no difference at all when my kids eat candy. And at parties they get wild before the candy is handed out.

Also kids are different of course.


I wasn't saying the study was wrong, it's more it doesn't matter if it is or not. Just try it yourself. Find a kid, give the child some candy, pop, or other high sugar thing and hang out with them for a few hours, then draw your own conclusion.

What does it matter what some study says when every kid i've ever seen get a bunch of sugar acts the same way? Studies mean nothing when you're with kids hyped up on sugar.

And honestly, I don't really eat sugar, when I have some pop or eat candy, I notice the way it makes me feel. It doesn't make me hyper, but it makes me antsy and twitchy.


> Find a kid, give the child some candy, pop, or other high sugar thing and hang out with them for a few hours, then draw your own conclusion.

I've done this. I didn't notice any difference. I suspect the difference people notice is down to their lack of skill at parenting rather than anything to do with sugar.


Hypothesis: being around crummy adults leads both to lots of sugar and to bad behavior.


I've done this numerous times. It's all placebo and literally the point of the original comment.

Things that seems common sense AND you see them happen anecdotally all the time can still be wrong.


Finding a kid, giving the child some candy, pop, or other high sugar thing and hanging out with them for a few hours is by no means a sensible way to draw any reasonable conclusions. Isn't it pretty obvious?


Or, just put a bunch of kids together and get them playing.


"Personal experience" can be biased too: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02168088


Haha, if this was the metric, I'd be an antivaxxer too.


It might be obvious to some people. But with the advent of social networks, there's a certain pressure to have a large number of followers/likes/etc. It's well documented how unhealthy that can be.


While the article talks about loneliness and friendships, the headline contradicts a common saying: "Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all"


The article isn't talking about romantic relationships.


...which I literally acknowledged.


neither did I understand the parent comment as something that has to be romantic. e.g. I love my children, my friends, my dogs, my cat, ... none in a romantic way.


Same.

That was my initial thought.

Quality > quantity.


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.


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.


Confirmation of the old Spanish proverb: "es mejor estar solo que mal acompañado." https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/es%20mejor%20estar%20s...


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".


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


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.


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?


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.


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.


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


Have you an example of a title where you could put all this information in 80 characters (the limit of HN)?


If the article title included all the information you want it'd be really long.


> 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?


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




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: