I run 300 forums, and I had a startup for them. The lofty goal of the startup was to "cure loneliness" but I never told the users that.
My path to doing this was to encourage interest based communication, in a way that would allow them to take it offline. How? Well to make it interest + geography, i.e. horology nerds in Cumbria, cyclists in London, petrol heads in Cornwall, audiophiles in Suffolk.
By binding together an interest, and a geography, it naturally encourages trade, showing off, having a beer... and coming together. But not in a way that ever was to "cure loneliness" (which few people admit to feeling, and frankly most people find lonely people unattractive people from the perspective of wishing to hang out with someone like that).
By providing a space to share a passion, the forums brought people together.
I had to make our own software to achieve this, i.e. a forum with events built-in by default, etc. But it worked.
Except I couldn't get it funded beyond the crowd-funded angel round :shrug . But still, 250k monthly users, hundreds of marriages, tens of thousands of friendships, and still people meeting weekly for beer and chatting with others.
And like all love, when the lust is gone what remains is something special... these forums are evolving now, from the original interests, into just a group of friends for life.
If I were lonely today, I would say... identify a hobby or interest you could get into, start looking for entry things to dive in, and then look for groups on MeetUp, or forums online, that will help you find other people.
This is awesome. I've long felt a nostalgia for the close-knit forums I participated in as a kid. One was a worldwide group centered around an online game (CyberNations), the other was just a group of kids with similar interests in one metro area who met up occasionally. Both were vital for me in coping with feeling like I didn't fit in at all at school.
It's great to see that that kind of close, friendly, personal Internet dynamic didn't completely die with Facebook's rise.
Supports maybe, but doesn't encourage or promote them. The money is in the endless news feed from your 300+ acquaintances, not in quiet, thoughtful conversation between a group of close friends.
Of course it can't promote them. All of the best groups are secret, and with good reason. They are spread via word of mouth which allows group admins to vet new users. Facebook even added a flow to support a "before you join, submit your answers these questions" workflow.
Maybe that's not where the money is, but these private groups are so sticky that I don't currently see any alternative. People already know how to use Facebook, they don't know how to use Discord or Slack.
Facebook has currently bought out the entire advertising space of one of the downtown SF subway stations with ads for their groups product. Seems like they are trying to promote it.
When I was an awkward teenager with no social skills, one of the places I found a social ingroup was on a video game forum on AOL. Roughly the same group of mostly teenage boys posted to this forum for 2-3 years before we all gradually moved off AOL. But we would later reconnect through Facebook and I still consider these guys good friends of mine even though I've maybe only met 2 of them in person.
I feel like it would be appropriate to share some of these forums in this thread, I think the immediate need outweighs anyone calling it out as self-promotion.
Not all of them are applicable, the platform has also been used for forums that connect old-age pensioners homes (it's easy to use), and support networks for victims of domestic sexual and violent abuse in South London.
One of the newest is a sustainability forum for a group with a core around Cambridge but spread over the UK https://onething.is/
Some of the forums are private, and I'm fine with that as they can permission it the way they want and pull members from elsewhere as they see fit, i.e. the petrolheads in Cornwall.
But I help nurture and guide, and show them how to do it.
Without funding I've slowed everything down though. It's funded by donations from users across sites today, but expansion risks cost cliffs as I'm just below the threshold for a few services I would need to pay for (auth0 free tier) and don't have time to engineer my way out. With neither time or money spare, it's stagnated.
But if someone wants a startup idea... this does work. Not wildly profitable, but it works.
How did it make money? I'd barely scratched the surface, but conversation around interest contains a lot of intent to purchase, and there are classifieds and meetups. So it's affiliates, a challenge against eBay (people into an interest have emotional attachment to the items and would rather sell to others into the interest), and ticketing for events, etc. And because it's all a platform, one instance, the traditional highs costs associated with running a forum were avoided. Lower costs, and actual revenues :)
I love what I do for work now, but I still believe this was an idea that is good for society.
Any plans to open source / open core this software? I've always been interested in forum software (my first real web project was a Reddit clone in Flask and the complexities and edgecases abound - moderation tools, rate limiting, scaling write-load, finding the minimum front-end that doesn't make users puke).
The only thing that isn't is the very old puppet script that managed the deploy as it was rather bespoke for our setup.
To my own regret I focused far too much on making it an effective platform rather than an easy install, so that bit might feel gnarly but at least the errors are sane and guide you.
Our legal policies for forums on this platform (expensive to produce, but perfectly fitting a forum platform with minimal exposure for the platform owner/admin and minimal but some liability for a forum owner) https://github.com/microcosm-cc/legal
There is also a newer thing, I was (/am?) intending to replace the Django layer with a Go frontend and templating, and then moving the API into this, such that the forum could become a single binary install and thus gain a new lease of life: https://github.com/buro9/microcosm . Once in a while I chip away on that.
Just wanted to say that your microcosm code was a huge inspiration/invaluable reference when I was learning go and developing my own forum like thing. Thanks!
Platform is still active, the 250k monthly uniques is the current number.
But I haven't been able to do much other than keep it in maintenance mode for the last 4 years. I've let other forums be created and expanded it, but haven't had time to address it's flaws and improve it.
He is on a self-professed quest to cure loneliness, and seems to equate that with not having close friendships. I just want to make sure he is aware there is a distinction and not everyone classifies that way.
If so, I misread it. But going back I still can't see that interpretation.
> The lofty goal of the startup was to "cure loneliness" but I never told the users that.
And then he talks about building features for users to take their conversations offline. I mean maybe it was all for himself, but it seems like the goal was to get users to build long-lasting relationships.
Which is commendable, and I commend him for it. It sounds like an awesome project.
Introverts are often harassed with "why are you so quiet?" and "why don't you <do activity xyz>?" questions that seem innocent, but are actually attacks by people who are unable to let them be themselves.
The well meaning extrovert person who introduces you to someone by saying, this is x, he's really shy. Anyone had that, ever? They might as well dig a hole for you.
I’m an introvert. People drain me. I find fulfillment in the world around me and my hobbies. I’m on HN not to be social but to learn things. I don’t need validation from others.
I don’t hate human interaction either. I have friends. I just don’t NEED them, and don’t need to go seeking them or be especially close.
I would say you're the biological anomaly. Humans are social creatures. Much or our society is defined by our achievements as a group then individually. I would say the op very accurately describes a general problem.
Calling me a racist stinks of accusatory witch hunting. You can lose a job for this kind of thing and you dare to call me that? You don't go around accusing people people of smelling like a nazi yet you can go around saying that I smell like a racist?
Let me be utterly clear with you. I am not racist. Not one bone of my body is. And it is an extreme and personal insult to suggest that I am. There will be no further communication between us.
You second paragraph seems to continue onto an informed discussion that's not going to continue because of the immature comment in your first sentence.
i can wiggle my ears at will... most of the population can't... thats a biological anomaly.
This is an entirely different thing then Racism. Know the difference. Let's not let political correctness erase our ability to state things we believe to be biological facts.
If I were to say that you are an inferior race because you can or can't wiggle your ears and therefore must have inferior treatment.... THAT is racism. But the fact that I can wiggle my ears... well there's no denying that this ability is anomalous as I am simply describing a feature of reality as we know it..
Unfortunately most people don't realize or understand that almost all the variables of being human lies on a spectrum. This includes length, weight, body type, colour, gender, sexuality, gregariousness, aptitudes, interests, intelligence, etc.
Calling someone an anomaly for falling on one end of any of these traits is definitely ignorance and discrimination akin to racism.
Uh no it is not. I can wiggle my ears and I'm double jointed. That makes me and those features a biological anomaly because these feature are rare. There is no racism going on here because I am a statistical anomaly.
Let me be utterly clear again. In the real world, in reality as we know it. There will ALWAYS exist things that are outside of the norm. Things that are "anomalous." To deny the existence of anomalies, or to deny the existence of REALITY is WRONG. This is not racism. To let political correctness control your dialogue and beliefs is as ignorant as letting religion do the same.
You are making two grave errors in your interpretation of reality.
First, what part of nature says EVERYTHING human must be a spectrum? There is no hard rule about this AT all. Things can have binary states, trinary states OR CAN exist in a spectrum. For example. I have a penis. Many people do not. That is binary. Perhaps a hermaphrodite lives on a spectrum but the scientific reality is, that the hermaphrodite is so few in number that it is in actuality a statistical anomaly. Lets get even deeper. Your DNA has 2 types of chromosomes. An X and a Y chromosome. There is no W chromosome and therefore these two chromosomes are binary DO NOT exist in a SPECTRUM. Get it?
Second, you don't even know what a "spectrum" really is. Even in a "spectrum" there can be anomalies. If you know about statistics you'd know that spectrums are usually bell curves: A hump in the middle with two tails on both sides.... The hump in the middle of the bell curve is the most populous and most "normal" part of the spectrum and the tail ends are the most rare and therefore "anomalous."
What disgust me is the twisting of words by people who are ignorant. There is NOTHING wrong with being anomalous... an anomaly is neither wrong or right it is just a word that illustrates rarity. A person with an IQ of 342 is an anomaly on the tail tail end of the bell curve and while it is an anomaly there is nothing wrong with being crazy smart.
This accusatory BS of calling me a racist is disgusting and vile and gravely serious. You better take back your statements, what your saying is not trivial or true and is a deeply personal insult. My ancestors were asian americans and victims of white supremacy and racism. If you're white and calling me racist well...
Dude, it is really unhealthy to get this angry at an anonymous stranger on the internet. I have definitely become overly invested in internet conversations before and suffered needlessly because of it, so I can relate. I wish you the best.
P.S. Most people don't want to be called an "anomoly". It sounds quite negative. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that is how other people interpret it.
>P.S. Most people don't want to be called an "anomoly". It sounds quite negative. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that is how other people interpret it.
Ok maybe I made mistake here. But the reaction to my mistake is that they decided to call me a racist. The difference here is that although I did not mean to convey what you implied... @AstralStorm and @Hermandw meant what they said 110%.
They accused me of being racist.
There is no one more guilty of racism against my race then the white man. So unless any of you are not white... back off.
And I would say you are the victim of pro-extravert brainwashing.
The most shocking thing I've learned from the book "Quiet" that there was an general attitude towards intrawerts that they are somehow deficient, and, what's worse, actual discrimination against them at universities.
Being introvert does not mean you are antisocial, you just don't need to socialize that much.
It may be very enjoyable but it is also so draining.
There's no brainwashing going on. I myself am an introvert. I'm not discriminating. However despite being an introvert, i still do desire to interact with other people.
There is a social aspect to my and human nature that cannot be denied.
One example: 99% of introverts want to have sex with the opposite gender and interact with them despite your introversion. A good number also want to have kids and interact with those kids. You may value your "recharge" time but despite this most introverts also seek to socialize and interact with other people. It's a conflicting desire, but to be human is to be social, you cannot deny biology.
Look at the way humans live. We live in cities, towns or tribes. A very very small amount of us live in isolation outside of towns, tribes and cities. I would argue that most introverts live in a community and are unwilling to go far enough to live in total isolation. We are animals that live in groups. We are herd animals. My guess is that introversion stems from defensive instincts designed to deal with creatures outside of the herd.
As a man is pretty damn hard keeping friends after the age of 30, especially if you happen to go trough a divorce when suddenly more than half (if not more) of your friends get to “choose” the other side. Yeah, you get to ask your friends back from high-school or college out for a beer but chances are they’re also in a middle of a divorce or they’re too busy with family requirements (can’t blame them) or too stressed out because of work reasons. And then there are all those friends who have moved town or even country. All in all things are not so easy.
An important post-30 strategy that I use is to assume that all friends with children are prisoners in their own home. You know exactly where they are. You know they don't have plans. They are desperate for adult conversation. That means you can invite yourself over, bring takeout, and basically make their day. I'm coupled but this should work as a single.
Our parent friends say it's actually easier to be friends with child-free people because they don't have the complications of arranging around the kids. We arrive just as the kids are going to bed so that we can say a perfunctory hello and then usually leave by 10:30p.
It’s totally true. I actually started a little get together based on exactly that premise in my neighborhood.
Me and some other dads get together on Wednesday night at 9pm to step out and get 1 drink at a local pub. Usually doesn’t last more than an hour because we all have work the next day, but it gets us out after the kids are in bed on a day and time when none of us have scheduled plans.
It is fairly common for a man to marry a woman who does not like his friends. Then, the wife does not want the husband’s friends at their home. So, you cannot invite yourself over, and the man is so busy with giving his wife sufficient attention and with childraising that he cannot easily go out to meet his friends in another location.
I know lots and lots of people in very similar situations to what Mediterraneo described.
I’m not sure if I’d describe it as common, but having a partner who either directly, or passively aggressively, undermines your ability to maintain external friendships is a very real phenomenon.
It’s certainly not a healthy pattern, but it’s also pretty understandable. Relationships of all sorts need care and feeding. Sometimes intimate partner priorities push out friendships.
Different people experience this as more or less of a tragedy.
yeah that's really interesting, i'm wondering if you're in the US (or that's where your friends are)
in my experience in the US couples tend to basically turn into a military style cornered unit with an us vs the world attitude as soon as children come, where the focus becomes some mix of family:work to the exclusion of all other activities, to include hobbies, fitness, eating right, etc. i hear jokes about "date night" as if that's somehow abnormal, so it seems people have to move mountains just to get dinner together.
i wonder if in the US there just isn't any sort of community setup so couples feel like any energy shared outside that is somehow hostile to their survival, e.g., you hanging out with your friends means you're not "all in" on your family or something.
it could also be a signaling thing, e.g. if you signal you don't have time for friends, perhaps the world views you as really virtuous and family oriented.
The US and the UK (probably less so now than in the past) have a more extreme focus on the nuclear family than other countries.
There have been all sort of explanations offered from the Church promoting the nuclear family to reduce the power of extended family/clans to the black plague creating a housing surplus in England.
Part of it is the difficulty of the spread out suburban living situation. Growing up, most of my parents friends lived around 15-30 mins away by car. If they lived on the opposite side of town, an hour drive or so, we basically never saw them outside of big events like graduations or weddings.
In college, it was easy for me to maintain a lot of close knit relationships. No one was any farther than a 20 minute walk, usually half that, which made drinking pretty painless too. Bars, movies, food was all in between, and cheap.
Now I live in LA for grad school, and getting people in my classes to hang out on the weekends is like pulling teeth. As dense as the city is, it basically functions as one massive suburb from back east. Everyone is at least 20 minutes by car in every direction, there is zero parking, one of the worst bike lane networks in the U.S., and rarely a transit line. There's also the costs of doing literally anything. A night out could be $30 in ubers alone, and it doesn't help that I've yet to find a well drink in LA for under $10 that wasn't watered down. It's a recipe for apathy. At least hiking is free.
Not from US, have noticed this too. It’s to the point that I don’t even hit up most of my old US friends anymore, because to do so would feel like encroaching.
> if you experience this then you are: bad at setting your own boundaries, bad at mate selection, or bad at friend selection.
Indeed, many men are bad at some of those things. Attraction to a partner can be such a powerful motivation that one rushes to establish the relationship without thinking or caring about the effect it will have on one's social life. Then, once one is already married, there is a fairly widespread expectation that one’s social life has to acquiesce to what the spouse is comfortable with, and attempting to "set boundaries" in this matter would be inappropriate.
> Men are not victims here.
My post above concerned men because the linked article is about men, but it is people in general who are the victims here. I suspect that many women face the same problem in being unable to freely interact with their friends due to husbands who don't like their friend group.
I understand your perspective because I've been there but you can always start taking responsibility for codependence now by taking a hard look at how you place blame (regardless of your gender).
In most cases, both parties will contribute to the problem but someone needs to lead themselves and their partner out of the complementary neurosis and you do that by taking responsibility for your contribution then setting boundaries and working compassionately with the other person/people.
I don't even think it's people generally who are victims. I don't like victim mentality because it robs "the victim" of agency.
Definitely. A lot of people in these threads seem stuck when they aren't actually stuck. Not particularly surprising since that's all people all the time at least somewhere in their lives. But always worth reminding people that they have agency. Decent first stop if you are in patterns with your mate that make them out to be the enemy would be the book Crucial Conversations. A better first step would be therapy for yourself, followed by couples therapy. It's achievable to have a relationship where "I want X, how can we make this happen together?" is not a fraught conversation. Maybe the answer is an easy yes. Maybe the answer is that you need to bargain, offering something to get something. Maybe the answer is that your one friend is a jerk, but your other friend would be a welcome and hilarious guest. But nothing in that conversation should be scary if you put in a little bit of work on yourself and your relationship.
> Decent first stop if you are in patterns with your mate that make them out to be the enemy would be the book Crucial Conversations.
It is not necessarily a case of the husband considering his wife the enemy. It may well be that the husband is content enough with his marriage and parenthood that he simply accepts the wife’s dislike of having his friends over and other obstacles to socializing. Rather, the group that suffers from this circumstance is his former friends.
If you remain single, a noticeable part of the gradual loss of old friends in adulthood – as mentioned by others in this discussion – is your longtime friends getting married and then no longer being unable to maintain the friendship from their end. Obviously you cannot dictate to your friend and your friend’s spouse, and the onus is on you to look elsewhere for other sources of a social life, but it is natural to mourn the loss of a longtime friendship.
The wife doesn't have to like his friends, just respect him enough to allow him scope to choose who he associates with: That's surely the majority situation?
In our relationship we both don't really care for the friends of each other, it's just how it shook out and nothing we'd leave another over as we both allow each other as much time with our friends as wanted.
BUT this obviously reduces occasions to mingle anyway as it's just a bit awkward of a situation every time as it feels like we impose a burden on each other and our friends don't feel very welcomed in our home compared to other places.
We've just received our second son so it's currently time again to have all our friends come over which makes it very visible how uncomfortable this is.
Finding new friends is possible, but it is something that just has to fit in a schedule that barely has any space for even the bare necessities of life as parents.
If your wife doesn’t like your friends, there is usually a reason. Your friends may be not respecting the marriage or trying to get you to do the same types of things you did when you were single.
Child-free couples, unless of course you're talking playdates which is a social tree climb all its own. But single, disagree from experience. There's even a line from Nora Ephron's Heartburn, the book not the movie:
Exactly. My wife and I have a grown son and a 17 year old. We won’t go over to couples houses with small kids or go out to dinner with couples that don’t have reliable babysitters where they bring their kids along.
I never had small kids - my “sons” are my stepsons - they were 9 and 14 when I met my now wife. She feels the same way. She’s raised her kids and now she wants to do “adult” things without kids running around and interrupting us.
Something weird happened in middle class culture when it became uncouth for married persons to go out without the spouse to see friends. Being a single parent is rough, but there's no reason to avoid socializing if you have a spouse -- unless you are shy and hiding behind your spouse, or are content to lean on your spouse and kids for your whole social life (which is a huge risk of long-term downside potential)
Because women are not pieces of meat that can be processed and marinated before being consumed for a night of fun, regardless that both parties are seeking the same pleasure. the downvoted are not in this club and so they feel left out
> regardless that both parties are seeking the same pleasure
I see this a lot in the tech community.
People want to be allies of inclusiveness [in the context of corporate professionalism, while trying to apply it everywhere], but the current iteration of this results in still infantilizing women that make different choices and vicariously assuming they're victims when that woman's current aspirations have nothing to do with an executive role in a corporate environment. My non-compliance with that idea is easy to villify, people can choose to assume that I'm perhaps perpetuating some unilateral toxic masculinity, or something, distinct from what I and the other people involved perceive to be a respectful consensual environment. A reality is that context is important, people can exist in different modes and states and feel very respected.
I've had overwhelmingly positive experiences from approaching people with this understanding
It wouldn't be ok to refer to a woman as a piece of meat at say a corporate board meeting.
However, if you're at a savage orgy and everyone is naked and fucking it is hardly a faux pas to see a woman as just a piece of meat, hell it may even be desirable by the other party.
I sometimes wonder if I’m broken when I see comments like yours, which seem heartfelt and correct and as it should be (the desire for friendships that is). Maybe it’s because my wife and kids fill the void, but I just have no interest in making or maintaining friendships. My wife has a really cool coworker that tries to get me out of the house but i just kinda flop on him. I live in a secluded spot that you can’t see from the road and work from home 95% of the time.
I see it in my youngest daughter as well, and I do worry for her and am applying gentle pressure to get her to socialize...but I’m pretty much good to go. Maybe things will change down the road but I’m in my mid 40’s sooo.
>Maybe things will change down the road but I’m in my mid 40’s sooo.
My dad was like this, his free-time basically revolved around us kids when we were younger and we had a great time. Then we got a little older and I could tell he'd be a little disappointed when we'd be busy with friends/other stuff on the weekends, but we'd still be together most week nights. Then when we went off to college/adult life, he really had nothing to do. My mom had friends to hang out with, but for him, she was all he had really and I think at that point it was too weird/hard for him to branch out and make new friends.
I'm not saying you shouldn't put family first, but it's not a bad idea to maintain some relationships or else that empty nest is going to hit you HARD eventually.
I also really, really second this. I am currently studying and took some interest in how other parents managed the situation (because of how my parents dealt with it).
If your life revolves around your kids you have to keep in mind that this is not for life. Loosing all your hobbies and all your friends will lead to a bad awakening when you realize that your previously laughter-filled house is now quite, your children left for university and only you and your partner are sitting at the dinner table. Now the house is too big, there's nothing to do in the evenings and you're kinda lost.
A suprising amount of marriages failed and some parents really lost their way. When you don't have any real friends, friends that help when you struggle, it gets tough. You can't fill that void with half-assed hobbies. Eating out on wednesday and going to the gym on friday are probably not really helping.
Writing this, I think I realized something. I think one of the problems is that parents understimate the speed of change and are taken fully by suprise when they move out. One moment they are 16, quite grown up but you still notice the children in them. But then they turn 17 and then there's only one year left until they move out, until they live by their own and explore the world on their own. They maybe move to another city and that turns your complete life upside down. That's a rapid change and it's only 2 years.
I’m in my 40s also and I find most of my social needs are met by my wife. She has two groups of friends that she likes to spend time with but I’m okay spending time alone when she is out with her friends.
I have a couple of friends that we force ourselves to get together at least once every other month to at least have lunch but we are all in the same boat - married, jobs, hobbies, side projects or studying so we have to explicitly schedule it on our calendars.
I don’t think it is healthy to depend on only one person for your emotional support and my wife isn’t interested in hearing about the latest geeky stuff that we talk about it. I have another friend who is across the country but we try to catch up once a month.
This is an important point for jcims' situation: If you want your kids to get out, then get out yourself. You have to be a role model for getting out - both in the sense that the kids see that you had fun doing so and as a model for the skills used to master the situation (e.g. casually talking to people, gift culture, helping each other out and so on. The specifics obviously differ for different (sub-)cultures).
The role model thing is often overlooked when parenting. If you want your kids to do sports, let them see you doing sports etc.
I sort of agree with this but my parents constantly had people over when I was a kid. That and my oldest daughter is a raging socialite at college, lead RA, secretary for the university student govt, just got invited to box seats with the university executive leadership for a football game, has 3-4 friend groups and a core couple deep friends that she meets constantly.
A little nature a little nurture, but to be clear I do agree with you that it's better to model than not.
Yes, we are in full agreement here :) The parental role model part won't override the Big Five in most cases. Parental behaviour does help in expanding the possibilty space a bit, though (e.g. an extravert can - to a certain degree - learn to relax while being alone and vice versa).
The other caveeat I conveniently ignored is that parents are usually adults, so the image they provide is for adult behaviour. Kids won't necessarily transfer that fully into their current situation. It does shape their inner image of adult behaviour, though (which starts to become more relevant as the kids enter the early teenager years).
> I sometimes wonder if I’m broken when I see comments like yours,
Or maybe other people have the wisdom to know that the kids will move out, the job will change, and that looking past the present moment and planning for the future includes developing hobbies and relationships outside of your immediate family
Think about it this way. If you find friends that vibe well with you, you're reducing the pressure on your family later in life to keep you connected. It is a real concern.
The risk is what you'll do when your kids are grown and move out. I definitely recommend, for your own mental health, to build some kind of other life outside your kids before it hits you like a ton of bricks.
You're not broken. If your family is your number one interest and responsibility, then you're doing life correctly. Don't let anyone else tell you differently.
Just be careful not to smother your family with your interest in them. I've met some parents with broken relationships with their kids because they failed to recognize that they needed some space as they got older.
Yes my family is my number one interest, but not my only interest. My (step) sons who loved to spend time with me when we met and they were 9 and 14 - now one doesn’t live with us and the other is 17 with his own friends and interests.
My wife’s interests and my interests are well enough aligned that we like spending time together, but she has her own interests and own set of female friends.
What is interesting is that most people understand the concept of a plan B when it comes to things like what university they will attend, their careers, their financial safety nets, etc. But they assume their marriage will last forever. As you imply, it’s a big mistake.
I don't think my marriage would be as good if I went into it with an exit plan.
For instance, it would be easier for some things, especially huge things, to be "her problem" instead of "our problem" if I had an escape hatch present in my subconscious.
I think that making the husband socially dependent on the wife is bad for the same reasons making the wife financially dependent on the husband is. You can say that it goes against the spirit of marriage, but I'd say that those things makes people stay in unhealthy relationships.
I was more saying that people don't vow to be together "until I get a few promotions, you get fat, or I contract chronic FOMO-itis". Those who have expectations like that tend to be hurting themselves too.
In this area, their mom. As i said elsewhere my oldest really couldn’t be more social. I just think our youngest isn’t catching that same wave so I’m stepping up my efforts to round out what she sees.
The problem is that it’s going to be fake, which gets back to the core of my question.
You're not broken. I've always been the kind of person who's happy to have one to three close friends, and that's it. After getting married, I stopped feeling any need to reach out and try to make new connections.
There may be value to the perspectives given by others as to the value of making friends now before the kids grow up, but I just wanted to chime in and reassure you that you're not the only one who feels no need right now. :)
> I sometimes wonder if I’m broken when I see comments like yours
I'd wager a guess that most of us feel broken, some way or another. But that's just a guess; I imagine that some psychology or sociology journal has empirical data on that.
But even if you're an outlier, it seems like you're pretty content and not making other people miserable, so I wouldn't really call that "broken".
My parents were like this. I ended up feeling resentful of their attitude as a kid. They whenever I changed schools, it took me a long time to make friends because I didn't have good examples to follow. Even when I did, I always felt like the odd one out because all my friends parents hung out together, but I wasn't invited since my parents had no social interests.
I moved to another country at the age of 30, which meant the number of friends I had dropped to 0.
What worked for me was starting dancing tango, where I built a newer, better and larger network than the one I previously had. I guess this can apply to any social activity where you can interact with people, be it social dancing or coocking classes.
This is amazing, it really shows character that you take action to solve your problems and are successful in doing so.
So please know that this is not aimed at you personally...
But...
I am so freaking sick of people recommending others to pickup either salsa or tango! Not of the people that recommend this themselves but are there really no other options? Tango/salsa classes seem to get recommended again, again and again, I get that it's a fun activity with a good gender balance, forced interaction and just enough tension to naturally provide a fun atmosphere but is there nothing else??
There are like a million activities. Martial arts, team sports, crossfit. Volunteer work, soup kitchens, helping children and those with special needs, respite care. Outdoors activities like hiking groups. Oddball niche hobby groups like fan clubs.
Like whatever. Some of those are more gender balanced than others but the basic premise is get out there into a group and do something that scares you a little based around a common activity.
Things like this feel "hard" to do because of emotional resistance, it's actually super simple and straightforward from a logistical standpoint.
If you see people in public doing something, try joining them. I discovered Archery that way, and others have joined my esperanto group like that. The important thing is to not drive between two destinations all the time. Sometimes try travelling in other ways or dawdling through the retail places and there's a good chance to find something.
> I am so freaking sick of people recommending others to pickup either salsa or tango! Not of the people that recommend this themselves but are there really no other options? Tango/salsa classes seem to get recommended again, again and again, I get that it's a fun activity with a good gender balance, forced interaction and just enough tension to naturally provide a fun atmosphere but is there nothing else?
Tons. Most cities will have a social club with a range of activities.
Go look on meetup for "social" club type things, or choose a sport and Google for clubs, or whatever. Boardgame clubs, programmer meetups, kayaking, rambling, rock climbing, etc.
Volunteering is another option for meeting people.
Second volunteering. I moved to a completely different city with no friends and I felt purpose and community the moment I started doing volunteer work, everything a lonely person could ask for!
It doesn't have to be your favorite thing, it just has to be better than being lonely. Lots of people will be there actively or casually looking for new friends - there's nothing stopping you from going for a month then suggesting to a group that you check out some new activity next week.
I did this with Crossfit. Met people very similar to me who like beer, football (soccer), video games and got my diet and fitness together at the same time (except the beer:)
I did the same. Moved abroad in my mid 20s, effectively restarting my life in several respects. It can be hard to make new friends when you're in your late 30s/early 40s, but I'm ok with just a few.
The unsettling thing is how normal your comment makes divorce sound, and how much statistics back that up. As if it's just a thing that is an expected part of life.
People need to stop getting married, or at least not so early. Marriage is a very intensive (and rewarding) commitment that I think most modern people cannot make. Instead, foster relationships that matter for as long as they matter.
I was in a serious relationship from 19-25. These things end because people change a lot in those years. We both graduated and went in different directions. Which I think is perfectly fine. Relationships will change. You can absolutely start new ones. Join pretty much any club that meets in person. Commit time to those who enrich your life, cut loose those who harm it.
Here's the thing: divorce is much less common in first time marriages than in all other marriages. That is to say, divorce is much more common among those who have divorced already.
While relationships can change, those in them can chose to grow together or to grow apart. Well, it's not always a choice, but the sense of fatalism regarding change isn't necessarily warranted.
The issue is that people end up at age 40 with no ltr, no marriage, and no kids, and end up as fodder for this article. Because it gets a lot harder to find your ltr then; women generally are at the "last chance kid" stage and have been around the block, so LTR steve usually gets a very cold eye unless he sees the light and wants a marriage too.
So if they don't marry and then decide to split up after a long time, how is that really different from the same happening to s married couple? It's not the word "divorce" that makes the breakup painful.
>Marriage is a very intensive (and rewarding) commitment that I think most modern people cannot make
If we're going to make generalizations about whole generations of people then: I wouldn't call staying in an abusive relationship because of stigma of being divorced to be a positive of the past or a sign of commitment.
This is an American thing. I'm European, 27 and I'm regularly shocked after conversing with people my age on the other continent casually mentioning their 'husband' or 'wife and kids'.
Even without going through a divorce it's hard. Most of my friends over the years and I have mostly lost touch other than happy birthdays and the occasional 'hey what's going on? We should hang out some time when we're both not busy' But, understandably, people are tired or busy with things and it never really works out. My coworker's lives are all pretty different from mine. Either they're young, early 20's and I can't really relate to them and they're doing their thing or they're older and spend their time with their families. I've tried making friends online in different places, it sort of ends up being the same though, you talk for a while frequently, then you both get busy or whatever.
I moved to Japan when I was 39 and because I decided to stay here, it basically meant losing all my close friends (well, they are still friends, of course -- but it's not a "Let's hang out on a Wednesday night" type of friendship anymore).
When I first moved to Japan, I spent a lot of time trying to make friends. Because there are a lot of lonely expats, I found it easy to do. However, there was one thing that I didn't really take into account: the main thing we had in common was loneliness.
Over time, the relationships didn't work out. I even had some really bizarre (and extremely troubling) experiences with people denouncing and shunning me because I decided to adopt Japanese culture (apparently a betrayal of my original culture and appropriation of my adopted culture -- some people really are seriously screwed up.... :-( ).
What I realised was that when I was young, because the population of potential friends is large, I could choose friends who liked me for who I was. When I moved to this new population, the only potential friends I had (especially with my lack of Japanese language skill at the time) were being picked out of a population of lonely people. Most of them didn't care about me. Some of them even hated me (even the idea of me was repugnant to them). It is seriously weird to have "friends" that hate you.
Being alone is definitely better than being in an abusive relationship, IMHO (though it takes quite a lot of effort to see this). I realised that it was virtually impossible for me to find real friends the way I had been approaching it. It was best to just hang out with people I enjoyed and to stay away from people I didn't enjoy -- even if that meant being alone.
It can be tough, but really I think the secret is to just fill your life with activities that you enjoy and that bring you closer to other people with similar interests. Eventually you will happen to meet someone who is in a similar place to you. But if not, at least you are having a good time in the process.
I think this can be a cultural phenomenal, and what culture enforces who or how we ought to act at a certain age. I've traveled a lot in Europe. And it is amazing different kinds interesting people you meet. It makes movies and netflix boring.
I find people there tend to maintain more close relationship male and female. I person know someone way beyond his 30's, have many many groups of close personal male and female friends. He once told me that having these close relationship and maintaining them has tremendously improved his quality of his life and it is something he would NOT trade for any amount of money in the world.
The idea that one must marry at certain age have career at certain age is insane. Do what you like when you want to do it. Timing is important.
I see why friends who are busy with family would not have time to go out, but those in the middle of a divorce should be prime material for drowning a few beers together.
There is an incredible amount of stress following a divorce. What will happen with the kids. Where will everyone live. Can I afford to live the same life style. Who will our friends choose. And probably 100 things I have forgotten. I was not the same person after divorcing for I would say about 3 years. I felt out of place. Lost. Certainly not wanting to go grab a beer. It was not a celebration and if anything for a long time one feels like they had failed at something. So I can see how anyone going through a divorce is high risk for social isolation.
It is not just the US. 10 hour workdays (officially 7.8, but if you would actually 'just' do that and skip the 8am or the 6pm meetings you will not be keeping up with the Joneses and pay the piper) and spend 2-3 hours in commuting each day doesn't leave much for hobbies.
Meetings outside the working hours?! Where is this common?
Here we work 9-6, but even in the places I've worked on where unpaid overtime was common (otherwise you wouldn't keep up with the workload), no manager would have the gall to schedule regular meetings outside working hours.
I don't get it then - you asked when do people have meetings outside normal working hours as if it was some sort of travesty that nobody would 'have the gall' to do, and now you're saying it's absolutely fine you just move your hours around...
2-3 hours commuting is not the norm. The average commute in the US is around 25 minutes each way, so roughly 1 hour total. Super-long commutes are almost non-existent outside a handful of metro areas.
If you’re dealing with a very long commute, it might be worth it to move to a different metro, even if it requires a substantial pay cut. I think most people under-estimate the negative impact that a long commute has on their life.
Hobbies might not be sufficient for a social life.
I used to train seriously in mixed-martial arts. While I had no issue with any of my training mates, I also had zero interest in hanging out with them. Likewise for other, strictly cerebral, activities.
Maybe not as in 'having a beer at each others houses', but when you go to each others fights as a team, go to seminars/camps together, or just work through your fight prep together at 4 or 6 week periods at a time, you develop bonds that cannot be described any other way than 'friendships', wouldn't you say? I mean sure, training 2 to 5 times a week in the gym, saying hi when you come in and see you when you leave doesn't give you that, but you can't be a complete fighter without friendships. I mean if dripping sweat into another guys mouth and rubbing all over each other wearing tights doesn't build friendships, what does?
One thing that is valuable is activities with downtime where you’re forced to get to know one another outside of the activity. If you do something like martial arts or rowing (which I do), it’s when you travel for competitions that you bond. Activities like skiiing where you share housing for the season gives downtimebto get to know people between the activity. Hiking and camping is another good one where you spend time at the campsite at the end of the day preparing food together.
>especially if you happen to go trough a divorce when suddenly more than half (if not more) of your friends get to “choose” the other side. Yeah, you get to ask your friends back from high-school or college out for a beer but chances are they’re also in a middle of a divorce
That's really interesting, because so few of my friends are even married at that age. But a lot of that may be where you're from.
I think part of the problem is that social media, and Facebook in particular, has cheapened the meaning of the word "friend."
I see people on HN all the time saying that they have better friends far away via social media than they have in their own neighborhoods and offices. It's popular inside the tech bubble to believe that digital communication is as good or better than real communication, but it isn't.
That's a lesson one of my family members is learning right now, and the rest of us by proxy.
She was walking to work one day and got run over by a car. Living in a different state, 1,300 miles from her family, she didn't bother making new friends because she could still communicate digitally with the people already in her online relationship cloud.
But where are they in her time of need? When she needs actual friends, not social media friends? None of her Facebook "friends" are going to go to her apartment and bring clean underwear and toiletries to her in the hospital. None of her Twitter followers are going to move her car so she doesn't accumulate tickets over the next six months when the street sweepers and snow plows come. None of her Instagram people are coming to see her, to comfort her, to see how she's doing and just talk to her during visiting hours.
When she regained the use of one hand, she started looking at social media again, and realized it is all so hollow. Talk, platitudes, and shameless self-promotion does not make a real relationship.
When she comes out of this, I hope she realizes the value of real human-to-human connections. But because she's as addicted to social media as the companies want her to be, I believe she will relapse into the void of fake friendships once again.
I'm not sure I buy your explanation at all. Social media may make distant friends feel closer, but I don't think this explains the lack of close friends. I understand that this is a data point of 1, but this article and the HN comments all ring true to me, and I hardly ever use social media.
Most of my not very close friends also don't use social media. A friend of mine tried creating a group on facebook to help coordinate social events for a group of dads and almost universally the wives ended up RSVPing for their respective husband.
When we ended up getting together we ended up talking about work and our houses and all the different things we're doing. Men have a tendency to communicate differently (IMO society has trained us to do so) than women. When my wife gets together with her friends they talk about how they're feeling about things and their relationships. This leads to men having a tendency to have more superficial relationships.
It feels like a probable reason. Imagine moving to another place while still keeping exactly the same contact with the same people in the old place and imagine doing the same, with no contact of the same people.
In the later case, you will most likely force yourself out to meet and engage with people because eventually you will long it. You might not need a lot of it, but seems human really need at least some other human contact (most of us at least).
In the first case, you get human contact, but only the surface. Would probably take you way longer to realize you need that in-person human contact.
Can’t find it right now, but I recall some research showing that friendship for men is basically with whatever other men you’re around the most. If you’re a man and want more friends, you probably need to get a new job. Or make a long-term commitment to showing up to the same place where other men are also committed to showing up (AA meetings, church, sports team, etc). Or just be friends with the husbands of your wife’s friends.
The good news is you don’t need a sparkling wit or anything, you just have to show up.
> some research showing that friendship for women is basically with whatever other women you’re around the most. If you’re a woman and want more friends, you probably need to get a new job. Or make a long-term commitment to showing up to the same place where other women are also committed to showing up (AA meetings, church, sports team, etc). Or just be friends with the wifes of your husband’s friends.
I replaced "men" with "women" and it still feels true. Think this is just in general how humans build friendships with each other. Maybe also add "making an effort to hang out with your already existing friends friends"
No, it does not work like that. I can say "I love your earrings" and have nice friendly idle conversation about bullshit. It takes waaay more to get a friend you can really talk with or open up.
The equivalent is a guy saying something about soccer and the two having nice idle chat about match or something. Not a friend, but conversation happened.
Not earrings, but I’ve done it with clothing, hairstyles, jewelry, etc. and it’s brought out us being friends. I don’t think it’s that uncommon between men.
At the same time, I’ve met women that haven’t made as many friends with other women, and find it hard to do so. I don’t know if it’s so clear-cut like that.
Or perhaps men and women are innately different after hundreds of thousands of generations of sexually dimorphic evolution, and this affects the manner in which they socialize?
It seems we've brainwashed an entire generation into believing that all differences in male and female are purely social constructs - which is total nonsense.
My experience has been that men and women have far more things in common than we have things in difference. There are of course differences between men and women, but I think that if I had a rigid belief that how men and women socialize was this large, unbreachable, genetically determined gulf, I would have lost out on a lot of really great friendships and relationships.
We don't think much about evolution or biological determinism on so many other subjects - for example, we were hunter-gatherers for most of our history, but we don't seem to discuss that very much in our post-agriculture society, or think that it limits us from building civilizations the way we do today. So why say on this subject that we are biologically limited in this specific way?
I'm not saying that there is no difference between men or women at all, you're jumping to conclusions here, way too quickly.
From my point of view, this particular social behavior doesn't seem to differ too much though, but I would agree with you that there are other behaviors/attributes that are very different between men or women.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned: 'Friends' in your teens and twenties are often really about having someone to hang around with while looking for a mate. So you won't look like a lone loser at the club, or in social situations, or so that you get to meet members of the opposite/preferred sex through the group.
Once people get married and have kids, all of that falls away, and so do the 'friends'. You don't hook up with new people, because either they want partners to ride shotgun with them while hunting for a mate, or they are set up too. What's left are people you have a real connection with, usually people you were friends with since you were kids, and those few family members you can stand being around. For many, that is a small to non-existing group. What's left is your wife and kids, and honestly? The best company there is, IMHO. And I am not worried about what I will do when the kids leave and my wife divorces me, silly me.
> One thing I haven't seen mentioned: 'Friends' in your teens and twenties are often really about having someone to hang around with while looking for a mate. So you won't look like a lone loser at the club, or in social situations, or so that you get to meet members of the opposite/preferred sex through the group.
I have never thought of my friends that way. Nor have I ever met someone who gave me the impression they thought of their friends that way. Maybe not everyone thinks life revolves around "looking for a mate"?
I can attest that I had a couple of such friends. I didn’t realize it at the time but once you get a girlfriend, they just fall away (I didn’t analyze as to why but fall away they do).
I do think fondly of some of them. I’m grateful for having met them and for all the fun.
Here's an easy solution guys - make friends with more women.
A couple years ago my wife asked for a divorce (we are still married but separated). It was very much a wake up call that I was very dependent upon her emotionally and I had neglected my other friendships. I did two things. I invested myself in some old friends from high school and college, but as none of them are living in my city, I realized that I really needed to invest in new friends.
Several friends that I did have were runners, and they suggested that I join one or two local running clubs which I did. I wasn't and am still not a "runner", but now I have so many friends I don't know what to do with myself. I am I'm as happy as I've ever been in terms of having friends with whom to socialize. There are presumably clubs like that in every city. Obviously would help to be a runner, but like I said, I am not. I run for social reasons not because I enjoy it.
Another interesting thing with socializing in middle-age is that 4/5 of my friends now are women. I think that's because women make better friends. They are more outgoing. They are more emotionally aware. They're more willing to invest in friendships. I think guy friendships are harder because of social expectations of of what a male friendship is - especially if like me you don't enjoy drinking or spectator sports.
To be frank, this rings a bit like “How to beat depression? Just be happier!”
Of the “lonely men” I know most are the type who simply don’t put themselves out there to make friends in the first place. For some this is problematic, for a select few this is self imposed.
As a guy, at least for friendship, I have no reservations about “putting myself out there.” You’d be surprised how many folks you meet can’t or won’t, but are normal folks and great friends once that initial obstacle is overcome.
At the end of the day, different strokes for different folks. If you make better friends with women, get at it.
I was of the type that didn't put myself out there. Certainly I had to get over that first. I have male friends who are lonely, and I keep saying that you do need to get outside your comfort zone.
>>>I think guy friendships are harder because of social expectations of of what a male friendship is - especially if like me you don't enjoy drinking or spectator sports.
What kind of men have you tried to socialize with that you feel "male friendship" largely = drinking and sports?
I don't drink, and I hate sports. Most of the dudes I know are on the same wavelength, and I don't think they were that hard to find. They are content to go to a coffee shop or other business and shoot the shit about [cars; investing; tech; gaming; politics] while trying to meet more women (in other words, regardless of how many women they already have in their sex life, they are ALWAYS screening new applicants). Only one guy I can think of has female friends he socializes with that he's NOT also banging or used to bang.
"Women have platonic friends. Men don't have platonic friends, we just have women we haven't f---'d yet. As soon as I figure this out, I'm in there!" --Chris Rock [1]
I agree. As single person, it was much easier having female friends. I was much more comfortable having deep emotional platonic female friends. I don’t like doing most “guy stuff”. I don’t care about sports, but I’m very comfortable taking certain types of non dancy fitness classes - I use to teach them. But most of my female friends then were people who trusted me implicitly because I knew then from high school and college. I couldn’t imagine finding myself single again and making new female friends who didn’t immediately think that I couldn’t just want a platonic friendship.
So much this! I am happily married but my wife understands that I tend to connect better with female friends than males. It took some time for me to reject the social taboo of a married male hanging out with platonic women friends but I’ve been so much happier for it.
I don't think there is a social taboo - I think it's more of a self-imposed taboo because we've been told forever that men and woman can't just be friends. I've found that if you are clear that you just want to be friends then there is no discomfort, and they will treat you nearly exactly the same as they treat there female friends. They will share their feelings, their concerns, their aspirations. That what needs to happen to be good friends. And you need to share also!
Oh, and be prepared for lots of these friends sending signals that they would like to be more than friends. How you handle that is obviously up to you.
> Oh, and be prepared for lots of these friends sending signals that they would like to be more than friends. How you handle that is obviously up to you.
That’s exactly why it’s difficult. This doesn’t happen with my male friends.
The issue with having “platonic” female friends is that it can easily lead to emotionally infidelity and trust issues anytime there is a hint of any issues with your marriage. Maintaining a healthy marriage is hard enough without bringing in that complication. My only female friends these days are married and we are “couple friends”.
This may be good advice in general but it’s not a problem for us. I have a pretty good radar for when emotional intimacy starts to cross a line and I’m comfortable communicating boundaries.
> Here's an easy solution guys - make friends with more women
I'm male. And I'm going to say that most of the women I know would prefer you didn't offer this advice. Women frequently do a ton of emotional labor for men and receive little back. There's already quite a bit of imbalance. Many men rely on the women in their life for support rather than the men.
Most women I know do enjoy their male friends but still wish the men in their lives had more male friends.
Sorry, I know this will trigger some folks, but this is exactly why I never understood the backlash against "toxic masculinity" that I see from (male) friends whenever the term comes up. Who said it's supposed to be toxic only for others?
Being a stereotypically "manly" man would prevent me in particular from expressing some of the things that make me feel the least lonely, from simple things like cooking and being proud of having made some simple art or handicraft, to hugging friends when I feel down, or being able to vent frustration, fear and other negative feelings in a non-violent way. And I'm not even marginalized by any means. Straight white European tech bro, really.
In essence, if I felt bound to any common stereotype of "Man: as seen on TV" I'd be barred from having meaningful connections with those I call friends.
I think it's mostly due to the phrase "toxic masculinity"; it's far too easy to misunderstand it as "masculinity is toxic" - and it doesn't help when someone asks for examples; stuff like stoicism and strength can come up. These aren't toxic. I've also spoken to people who actually believe independence (and wanting to be independent) is toxic.
As this is mostly a branding problem, I want to say I recently came across the phrase "Man Box"[1]. That might be a better phrase to use?
It isn't really a branding problem. "Toxic masculinity" consists of an adjective and a noun - the former modifying the latter and therefore describing a trait which applies to a subset of the latter. It's common English. A "red apple" isn't easy to misunderstand as "all apples are red." A "hot plate" doesn't imply all plates are always hot.
People who misunderstand this phrase refuse to do so even when the proper definition is given to them. It's not simple misunderstanding, as simple misunderstandings can be simply corrected, but willful ignorance. You can argue for hours and explain in excruciating detail that "toxic masculinity" doesn't mean "all masculinity is toxic," providing sources to that end, and at the end of the day people will still stand firm and refuse to accept it.
>As this is mostly a branding problem, I want to say I recently came across the phrase "Man Box"[1]. That might be a better phrase to use?
Case in point. This site describes exactly what toxic masculinity actually is and what it actually means. But we need a "better phrase" because feminists used the other one and therefore it's tainted? Despite the fact that toxic masculinity as a term originated in the men's rights movement and as a concept is hardly alien to male culture? We can have a conversation about the possible negative aspects of male culture and masculine identity, but we just can't say the bad words with the girl cooties on them?
The problem isn't branding, it's men refusing to accept that any concept they consider "feminist" could be rooted in anything but hate and misogyny. Modern male culture needs to mature and move past the victim complex its built around itself and see the common ground it has with feminists.
In this great alternative universe people would also not misunderstand "illegal immigration" to mean all immigrants or extremist to mean all Muslims. It's common English. Is it not odd that when people talk about deporting all the illegal immigrants, some think that implies all immigrants? When there was an executive order to ban all extremists from traveling, even judges interpreted it as a Muslim ban and they are usually pretty good with the English language.
When people see explicitly hostility they interpret it as hostility. That is common English.
It is most certainly a branding problem. Most men hate the term 'toxic masculinity' and react poorly to it because it usually comes along with obscene generalizations about how men (all of them) are doing everything wrong and must fix themselves. Which especially makes men mad if they're discussing some close-to-home topics, like male suicide or loneliness. In that context, even though it's probably not victim-blaming and done in good faith, such comments can really come off as accusatory.
If toxic masculinity exists, then surely there should be some examples of toxic femininity? Can you provide some such examples? Or is it only masculine traits that can be toxic?
>>>Being a stereotypically "manly" man would prevent me in particular from expressing some of the things that make me feel the least lonely, from simple things like cooking
HUH?!?!?! Who's giving you the impression that cooking is unmanly? Every man should know how to prepare healthy and tasty meals, not only for his own nutrition objectives (like meal prep in support of a fitness regimen), but women also find it attractive.
Yeah I agree that cooking is the one most accepted in western countries right now. However, in many households it's still predominantly the woman who cooks day to day. Men tend to reserve that for dating, special occasions, or as the token "see I'm doing my share" thing.
>which I never understood the backlash against toxic masculinity" that I see from (male) friends whenever the term comes up. Who said it's supposed to be toxic only for others?
Because toxic masculinity is an exaggerated catch-all boogey man used online to shame men for their innate nature, taking for granted that society functions better if we act more like females.
Conversations around toxic masculinity typically implicitly deny thousands of years of sexually dimorphic specialization by blank slateists. What's more, it's men who get the blame for the socially reinforced aspect of this so called toxicity, with the conversation universally denying the role that female sexual selection plays in reinforcing these behaviors - women are innately drawn to masculinity, and to a large extent what is and is not culturally masculine is not limited social pressure. Men and women evolved with differently shaded psychologies. Why do you think male and female norms have so much overlap across almost all cultures? And have for thousands of years?
This is the post I've finally decided to start an alt HN account for.
I'm one of those men with no close friends. Or any friends, for what it's worth. I've had a few people in my life that I had very good friendships at a time, but all of them now live very far and we don't maintain any contact.
I'm married and my wife covers all my emotional needs. While I realize how dysfunctional such state of affairs is, I just can't bring myself to approach new people. Every time I'm in even remotely social situation, all I wanna do is to go home and be alone most of the time.
Even when I do find people with similar interests, I never pursue the connection and follow up. I do realize that total lack of social exposure makes me a dull, boring person and forming connections will become even more difficult as time goes by.
I’m thinking of starting a cryptoparty in a few of the cities I regularly inhabit to teach and meet more people, after being inspired by Snowden’s book. Seems like a good way to improve my communities and also meet interesting people.
I'm in a weird position where I feel like I've both got this figured out, and yet totally don't.
Ping me (email in profile) if you wanna grab a beer around Seattle some time. Bonus points if it's West Seattle. I'm busy with house projects at the moment, but otherwise wrenching on a Datsun in my spare time.
This is basically a promotion since I'm the organizer. I'm hosting a developer's conference called Handmade Seattle this November, where lots of cool and personal coding projects will be showcased. You could show up with no expectations of making connections, but, you never know.
I just switched from a job where I could work from home anytime I wanted (which meant everyone on my team did so 100% of the time) to a job that requires everyone to be in the office 90% of the time because I want more face-to-face human interaction in my life. The convenience was great but, on the whole, it made me less happy.
I've been working from home for nearly five years now; it's been fantastically convenient while I raise my daughters.
While I have found that my adult social interactions are severely limited, I am no worse off than my old friends; one of whom remarked that after moving to Montreal he's seeing friends and family just as often as he did before.
Where I find adult interaction is in more traditional venues: I made an effort to get to know my neighbours, and am acquainted with some staff and patrons at the local pub.
The key was not to rely on scheduled events; too many adults will ghost or reject because they feel too busy or weary to attend. Impromptu social interaction works better; have a beer with your neigh bour.
Talking about the weather, remarking on their gardens, and wishing them happiness and good health; these are all acceptable openers.
Most people love to talk about themselves, so if they give you some personal information it's safe to inquire further about it, most of the time. Cut it off before you turn it into an interrogation.
I start a new job on Wednesday for this exact reason. My remote gig was awesome until the depression kicked in. I didn't know that about myself; I need to physically be around other people.
I've had the complete opposite experience. For a while, I was in a situation where I went into the office one or two days a week, and worked from home the rest of the time - now I work from home one day a week, sometimes not at all.
It's made me really, really hate dealing with other people, and when I go home, I want to go out in the woods or work in my garage or basement, completely, blessedly alone.
Human interaction is great if it is voluntary and purposeful, but when it is just a shitty default constant, it's a prison.
Isolation at the job is a problem too. As a programmer in a famous startup who’s grown to thousands employees, we discussed by Slack and didn’t shake hands in the office. I felt less lonely alone at home than at the office...
So I became independent and the same happened at the first coworking: More lonely when surrounded with « commercial friends ». The second coworking had a great group spirit and I deeply loved them, but unfortunately they also didn’t like my capitalist stances (most of them were employed) or the fact that I don’t adhere to ideas like « men can’t do two things at once, while women can » so they ended up rejecting me (it perhaps has to do with autistic traits I have, I don’t seem to say what the group wants me to say, when it is demonstrably false). So again: in a group, if you feel no solidarity from the group, then you’re alone.
It got better since I accepted loneliness as a part of life. Because searching and not finding was definitely my most heartbreaking period. But it definitely feels like I’m in a hole and reducing my prospects in life.
I’ve been going to the gym at least 4 days a week for years. Unless you’re into a specific niche thing it’s hard to socialize. I’ve found it easier to talk to others after getting into powerlifting.
Most people at the gym have headphones in and are grinding out a workout as quickly as they can because they’re busy. At least that’s how it feels in SF.
Oh sorry I didn't mean that kind of gym. I joined a martial arts (muay Thai) gym and it was a great life changer.
I don't want to fight, but I train hard with actual fighters and it's very bonding.
Sharing "pain" and passion with others created common ground with people that I had very little in common in the beginning (i.e. non tech, different age)
I only see a couple mentions of religious organizations, but it's worth pointing out that churches and other religious organizations put an enormous amount of effort into making meaningful friendships convenient and healthy, including casual events, lectures, classes, study groups, and group volunteer activities. I'm not positive that the amount of attention given men in particular is comparable to children, women, couples, or families, but it's common enough to be normal to have men-specific activities, groups, and events.
Point being, church participation rates are much lower for men (ironically so, when men are out in men-filled bars looking for female companionship). I believe men leave (or don't try) churches thinking there was/is nothing for them, and then struggle with isolation and lack of respect.
Of course, churches themselves have a lot of work to do to actually incorporate these realities into their teaching and culture. It's more common for churches to treat men as extra flawed or lazy instead of unaware of these problems.
Church is so judgmental and limiting of the types of activities you can enjoy and you have to be so careful you follow the church norms. I’ll call up one of my friends and say - “hey. Let’s go out and drink, cuss, and tell lies”. I can’t very well do that with church folks. Let alone argue against church doctrine when it comes to drinking, premarital sex (I am married now), homosexuality, etc.
I grew up going to what would now be considered an “evangelical church” and going to a Christian school. Even the non crazy ones that I see on Facebook are still way too straight laced for me.
I think you are conflating judgemental attitudes and having standards at all. You don't have to be a deist to think getting sloppy drunk and lying is lame.
And my experience is that actual church folks, not the "church is my country club" types are actually pretty welcoming. But, yeah, if you show up to service high, someone might ask you to leave. I don't consider that a moral or humanitarian failing. On the contrary, it's usually about protecting people more than self righteousness.
It’s not getting sloppy drunk, it’s even having a few drinks. “Telling lies” is also short hand for “talking shit” and you taking things to the extreme (drinking == “getting sloppy drunk”) and taking “telling lies” literally, kind of proves my point.
When I’m out with my friends or we are playing cards and we are talking trash to each other, I’m not concerned with “having standards”, we are going to cuss, drop some f-bombs, make off color jokes about ourselves, etc and not have to worry about offending someone’s sensibilities.
It’s like going to an all you can eat Brazilian Steakhouse with a holier than thou vegan who I know from past experience is card carrying member of PETA. Why would I put myself around that when I am trying to enjoy myself? I have to put on enough of a false face at work and cater to corporate norms.
As far as being “welcoming” not only would too many churches not be welcoming of a non straight couple (I am straight), according to surveys, 20% of evangelical churches still think interracial marriage is a sin.
It's a bit disappointing that community and belief system have to be intertwined. If one changes (you change beliefs, or your local community doesn't suit you), the other suffers (you lose your friends, or you have to pretend to believe something you don't).
I used to be devoutly religious through my mid twenties. In hindsight that was a mistake for me personally because the community surrounding that religion didn't suit me, and eventually discovered flaws in the belief system that led me to become an atheist. I missed many opportunities in life by trying to make that religion work for me for far too long.
So it's true that if you find a belief and community that work for you in the same place that it can be great, but I wish there were more options like that independent of belief.
Good community takes work and consistency among other things. Often you put in hard work, end up personally worse off, but everyone else benefits. Often, the connection between action and benefit are very disconnected.
Point being, at least in my experience, it's not possible to separate belief from community. Things like prioritizing forgiveness do not make both intellectual and emotional sense. At least not enough to keep families together, let alone groups less officially affiliated.
One of the big problems I find is that when I call or text my male friends they often fail to respond. My female friends always respond. I've had multiple discussions with my male friends about this and my conclusion is that they are mostly overwhelmed with the responsibilities and demands of being a modern man. Friendship falls low on the priority list. I, like many men, want more camaraderie but it takes work that's difficult to commit to.
I've had the same experience with my group of friends. I know it's a small sample size, but I wonder of that's a common contrast for most folks my age.
When I message/call/text/email my mail friends, I know there's a 1h-24h time window before I get a response. And that's if the message prompts a response. Otherwise, they'll address it next time in person, or just let it fly by. On the other hand, my female friends respond much quicker.
At the same time, I see my current girlfriend ALWAYS on her phone. There's always someone she's in contact with - because it's a priority for her to respond. My male friends when hanging out, are almost never texting/chatting on their phone unless something immediate demands attention. It's an interesting tradeoff
For some of my friends, I _know_ they are not overwhelmed with responsibility. But sometimes they just don't feel like it or are busy with other friends who I don't know. That's frustrating. I want to shake them. But sometimes I do it too and realize "Oh this is what my friends probably like when they don't respond."
For me I think the biggest barrier is housing proximity. All my friends live in different suburbs, which means on the weekend that's a 30m drive each way, and it's worse afterwork on the weekday. Sucks.
Decades ago three people independently said to me, "I've known you a long time but I don't feel I know the real you." I saw I was the common element so decided to change.
I learned social and emotional skills, which took years of social and emotional work. It didn't cost time or money, but since I was used to intellectual learning, I often felt hopeless, confused, and other emotions I'd never felt from learning. Most things I tried didn't work, but some did and I kept at it.
After a few years I found myself saying how nearly all my relationships after that work were better than nearly any relationship before -- with friends, family, girlfriends, coworkers.
I've concluded that the problem wasn't my work situation or social structures, but that no one taught me social and emotional skills of self-awareness and relationships. In the past, we learned them through things like sports, arts, free play, and other performance-based activities -- the things schools increasingly cut in favor of things amenable to standardized tests. I don't mean art history or art appreciation, but creating and expressing yourself where others will judge your painting, recital, stage performance, etc and you learn to handle it. Nor do I mean sports where adults control everything, but challenging yourself to improve, recovering from loss and failure, etc.
My publisher framed my book Leadership Step by Stephttps://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Step-Become-Person-Others/... as a business book, since it will probably sell more that way, but it's the book version of the course I teach at NYU to develop these skills. My point is anyone can learn social and emotional skills. When you do, relationships improve and increase in number when you want. People who do the exercises consistently tell me they thought they couldn't learn these things, especially not in a classroom. I felt that way when I learned them. I wish I'd learned them as a child, but it's never too late to learn them.
If you're an average single man the world hates you. The public considers you a liability that has to be written off in order to stay consistent and most people expect you to hurt them in some way.
He is talking about the UK. There is a huge bias against single males here.
To give one example: the number and size of tax benefits aimed at families is massive. Spending on these is something like £33bn...that may or may not sound huge to you but the total NHS budget (i.e. healthcare costs for 70-80m people) is ~£115bn.
Not everyone thinks this. But it is definitely far to say that is the general view (and it is why Daily Mail skews female, which basically doesn't happen with right-wing news outside the UK).
This is silly and naive. Tax benefits for families exist to help and encourage families. Society is better off when people can afford to raise a family. To twist it into an anti single man view is way off base.
Yes, when a powerful, politically active group forces another less powerful, politically inactive group to subsidise them it is definitely not discriminatory. You should tell that to India, those idiots thought making them pay for their own colonisation was bad...their society was better off. I can see now, it is so obvious.
> Society is better off when people can afford to raise a family.
Alternate theory: society is better off when people act like adults, and raise a family when they can afford to do so. No subsidies. No govt holding your hand. Even if you ignore the fiscal effect - it is huge because it is politically impossible to cut welfare that such a substantial amount of people receive, that is why govt spending in areas serving truly vulnerable people like care had to be slashed so aggressively - that is not what the policy is intended to do.
The (original) focus of the policy was to increase labour force participation amongst single parents. This worked. But, as you are showing, it has become something totally different. And it is now a big feeding trough for a huge share of the population (something like 10%+ of the working population receive WTCs).
Govt is not there for social engineering, it is there to help people who cannot help themselves. If someone is poor then they should get help. And this should be through focused policy that is aimed at poverty, not these insanely complex systems that backfire (tax credits are the prime example of this kind of policy). The system we have now means that the govt cannot actually take care of people who need help because of the obscene cost (again, tax credits alone are 30% of the NHS budget) of helping those who don't (but now feel deserving because they are helping society or whatever bollocks you are trying to say).
It is extraordinary to totally ignore how this policy has actually worked out (esp. the cost and esp. against the original aims), offer some half-baked inaccurate theory of govt (govt should be involved in the sex lives of citizens), and then call an interpretation that is based in reality naive...but that is basically where we are with govt spending now. Greedy middle-class people scraping the bottom of the poor person's barrel.
Gov certainly has to incentivize good behavior, at the very least in areas gov will pay for down the line. That's easily the case for family planing, as children are an option to support the elderly. And then gov also doesn't have to let all the "evil brown people" into the country to staff hospitals and nursing service, so you can even pretend this to be about national security.
So yeah, i also think there are many strongly held but badly justified beliefs in your post. Not everything is black or white. There is a huge leap from "gov incentivizes families" to "world is against single males because apparently some shitty tabloid is" and equating the two misses many shades of gray.
It is impressive that you feel justified in making no arguments but will try to bring down people who do. Are you British by any chance?
Inability to argue? Check. Inability to reason? Check. Becomes defensive when asked to think about closely held but illogical views? Check. Judges a person's argument based on their identity/background (I am assuming that is what "who told you" is about)? Check.
Uh, no, not British. Nor do I really know what your background is? Are you British?
I’ll confess I was kind of trolling in asking you what pundit you get your stuff from, but I’ll be really frank here. Your post reads as sort of obsessive and out of touch. You’re bringing in talking points to support your anger but they’re really not related. You’ve taken a very benign issue and reframed it as a huge deal. Then you went very aggressive in what seems to be some sort of anti-British worldview.
You’re trying to position yourself as a better intellectual but it really, really doesn’t appear that way to others.
Saying things like I can’t argue, reason, and am unwilling to put up an argument is a really aggressive thing to say, and I’m not sure if you understand that you’ve set up a really tiresome premise for having a conversation.
Yes. I am not sure exactly what proof you are expecting but that is all the proof that exists (for obvious reasons, surveys do not generally ask specifically...do you hate X group of people? In the UK, saying that you do has legal implications besides anything else).
It is equally true to say this of lone single female parents but that doesn't appear to have quite the same effect on tilting the Daily Mail crowd (because poor powerless women aren't seen as a threat whereas young single males are).
I read here that loneliness is a significant problem for people in general within the modern world, and somewhat moreso for men. Headline seems a bit clickbaity, as the issue is clearly not exclusive, and the percentage difference relatively small.
Agreed that it's clickbaity. I already felt bad for the (smaller) proportion of women who would be turned off by this headline, and then when you read the actual article, it's 12% of women and "almost one in five which would be 20%) of men.
So, men's rate is not even double womens'.
Don't get me wrong, both numbers are serious, and I agree it's a lot harder for us men. It's just that, particularly in the case of such an isolating feeling, excluding people and minimizing them is truly damaging.
You are illustrating the problem which is that men are “not allowed” to have problems.
There are plenty of things, such as unrealistic body image portrayed by the media, that affect both men and women, yet women claim it exclusively as theirs, because men aren’t supposed to. Can’t men have a thing?
This way of putting things, as if groups like "women" or "men" were clubs with decision making processes, is absurd and only serves to cause division and infighting.
Call it emergent behavior then; whether through uncoordinated coordination of the media/marketing world, or uncoordinated coordination of peer/social pressures, these expectations exist.
I have literally been shut down in a conversation, in person, at work, more than once, because I was a white male in tech.
It certainly takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to figure that a problem that disproportionately affects men is another example of men excluding women from something...
Why do you think that? As a man I think we are the victims of our culture where as a man you need to be tough and not reach for help or chat about things.
While at the same time a counter-culture push exists for men to refuse all of that or risk getting called out as "toxic" and/or "mysogonistic" over some of the most mundane behaviors.
Yes, this is the important part. A lot of men lack the tools to be able to go through a hard situation but instead turn into drugs, violence or other negative coping mechanisms.
I think when I feel lonely I watch old TV shows like Star Trek or House and a ton of youtube (mostly educational/scientific channels) I avoid drinking, I only got drunk 2 times in my life , without intending it, and a lot of unhappy feelings surfaced, I seen this in my father too, maybe other get violent but me I get extremely sad (last time was 15 years ago so now I would probably be 10x worse)
That's funny. My first thought was that the narrative being fed here was "men are victims of the patriarchy", and my second thought that maybe The Times would now on be considered "a platform for the man's rights movement's narratives".
Once upon a time under the patriarchy, men’s social clubs were a common phenomena, but then it became unacceptable for such places to exist because of “power structures” yada yada yada. It’s not a coincidence that loneliness for men rose as spaces for men declined.
> It’s not a coincidence that loneliness for men rose as spaces for men declined.
This assumes that men can only congregate in "spaces" which exclude women, which is obviously untrue. I also assumes that men primarily socialized in such spaces to begin with, despite them also typically discriminating by class and race, as well as gender.
That such spaces have declined should have no effect on the ability of men to congregate and form relationships with one another. Gaming as a culture, which is primarily (albeit not exclusively) male-oriented, wouldn't exist otherwise, as one example.
>>>This assumes that men can only congregate in "spaces" which exclude women, which is obviously untrue.
While male-exclusive bonding isn't men's ONLY option/method, it most definitely yields different results than any gender-integrated environment. Anyone who has spent time in an all-male combat arms unit can attest to this.
>>>That such spaces have declined should have no effect on the ability of men to congregate and form relationships with one another.
Should we eliminate female-only spaces as well? If not, why? A subsection of feminists have fought to keep bathrooms exclusive to biological females. Why does the Girl Scouts still exist if the Boy Scouts has been gender-integrated? Women must be deriving some sort of bonding utility out female-exclusive zones. Why shouldn't men also have such options?
Become an alcoholic... Join AA.. Boom!!! More friends than you can imagine :)
In all seriousness... I hear this all the time in the rooms... loneliness is a killer. What's crazy is I have a sponsee, who specifically wanted to get sober cause the loneliness was driving him insane. Any reason to get sober and stay is a good reason in my book.
I recently got married in my 30s, and I had a difficult time choosing who to be my groomsmen, because while I do have quite a few people I could call good friends, I no longer had anyone stick out that I could really call a "close" friend or a "best" friend.
We get together and mostly do activities, like play games or watch movies or go out to eat, and we will help each other out if someone needs it, but I don't really feel too comfortable opening up to them emotionally (well, nothing super personal at least).
I don't really feel lonely, and can talk about most things with my spouse, but I miss having alternate opinions on things.
I especially miss when I had like 20 people on instant messenger that I could have private conversations with on any given evening like I did 20 years ago, because it seems like no one does that anymore, at least not my age. Or at least it seems harder for me to find those people, at least.
Facebook Messenger has the problem where everyone is always online but you can't tell if they're online because they want to chat or online because they're checking their news feed.
I sometimes feel guilty having the few friends I do, because I feel I can never give them enough time, between work and family commitments.
Work is the easy one - it’s easy to say “I’m done working today because I want to spend more time with my family”. It’s not so easy to say “I’m done with family time today because I want to spend more time with my friends”. I’m conditioned to feel selfish at such thoughts.
The article states 18% of men had no close friends, significantly higher than women at 12%. Honestly that’s doesn’t sound hugely different to me. For every two women with none, there’s three men with none. The gap is a bit smaller for best friends too.
It's not: 32% for men, 24% for women. Also, this attitude is why "men are the disposable gender" is a thing. Real problems that are correlated with men are dismissed and ignored as not significant.
It’s not that significant though. For every 4 men with no best friend there are 3 women in the same position. If being a man is so difficult, this is a small part of it relative to being a woman; and I would wager that women do better here simply because they put in more effort.
Acknowledging a real problem facing men is not the same as claiming "being a man is so difficult," and you immediately jumping to that conclusion makes me question your motives.
Do you also dismiss the assertion that women make 75% of the wage men do solely because men put in more effort? By your own words, this should also not be significant but many people would argue the opposite.
That... isn’t true. Men are not x% more productive across the board, nor do they put in y% more effort across the board.
If you disagree with the premise that women put more effort into social relationships be my guest. But there’s another aspect at play here whereby your friends are largely chosen by you whereas your salary is chosen for you. They’re not the same.
Could this also have something to do with how men define “close” vs women? Women are better at being emotionally vulnerable with friends so they may be able to obtain a deeper relationship faster. Co-workers and gym buddy’s might be considered close friends by women whereas they will never crack surface level interactions for men.
Pay is not the same for a variety of reasons. You have one employer, you have infinite potential friends. Pay concerns are also normalized to things like your job, your education, and experience.
If men have fewer friends then must be because they don’t know how to make new friends, they don’t put in the effort to make new friends, or they don’t have the time to make new friends.
While the latter may be a genuine concern, women are almost certainly likely to have less spare time due to the various societal requirements on them. So it’s probably a mix of the first two.
I don’t see it being a large barrier. Some men like the image of self sufficiency and don’t seek new friends. But plenty don’t. So if you’re a man desiring to make new friends I find it hard to believe that you are unable to find the opportunities.
Total isolation is literal torture and is why we should discontinue solitary confinement in our prison system. That fact is relevant to this discussion, we're only talking about a matter of degree.
These trends are set in contrast to times when fraternal organizations provided a kind of social fabric that isn't the norm now.
For men who are recognizing that social isolation is a long term risk in their lives and want to do something about it, I heartily recommend looking into these organizations. They're a mixed bag, like anything, but a bunch of guys who can hold anything together for decades should make anyone's list of options to investigate.
I think Church and religion can also fill a similar role. As someone who isn't active in any religion, I notice that coworkers who are tend to have a lot of social activities and presumably friends as a result of their participation.
As a gay male, I often have an additional wrinkle - in the Masonic orders, Eagles, Elks, or Moose Lodge, I feel I would be the odd man out in these situation.
I was in the Masons for a number of years and I was surprised to read your post. I'm quite sure that some of the Masons were gay. It didn't matter any. The only time that I could see someone feeling like the odd man out is where there are events for couples and you didn't feel comfortable bringing a guest. This would be more true for the Shriners than say the Blue Lodge (plain Masonic lodge).
I recently became an Odd Fellow and I still feel the same with respect to whether a member is gay or not. The big difference with the Odd Fellows is that both men and women can be (and are) members. The Masonic orders are only for men.
In any case, I wouldn't write them off completely due to your concern.
To clarify, I also know a few gay men in lodges, sexuality isn't an issue there.
Being recognized as a good guy by a bunch of other guys is no small feat. Someone who is trustworthy, kind, fair minded, honest, with only moderate conceits, good natured, charitable, and magnanimous is rare to begin with. I think if someone has these qualities, there is very, very little that will stand in their way.
Good points. It seems like Knights of Columbus is one of the strongest today. Their membership is predicated on being Catholic and probably having some level of involvement with the associated church parish.
> The figures prompted charities to urge men to reach out by dedicating more time to hobbies and socialising in an attempt to stop hundreds of thousands living in isolation.
Rather than urge men, would it not make more sense to urge charities and hobby organizations to do out reach programs towards getting more men to join? It is what IT sector and the education system has been doing lately in order to increase minority numbers.
I’ve moved around a lot since college, and have had to build a social network from scratch a few times with varying degrees of success.
While the advice to join a social activity centered around a shared interest is solid, it’s not sufficient by itself for making friends. Bridging the gap between hanging out for a given activity to hanging out more generally to being actual friends with someone is hard.
Make one friend that is just down to show up. With at least one friend that you can consistently count on to show up, you can start inviting other potential friends to things and build out your social circle. You have to be open to rejection and to a bit of awkwardness that comes with two semi strangers hanging out. But with one anchor friend it becomes so much easier to make more and it’s the one piece of advice I wish I’d come across sooner.
I find it interesting that men seem to be at the polar ends of the friendship spectrum. When lonely, they are the most lonely, and also when they have friendship claim higher levels of trust in those relationships than women would.
Women who express feelings of loneliness tend to have more human connections than men expressing similar feelings.
Women claiming to have good friendships still do not indicate high levels of trust like men reporting that they have good friendships.
I wonder why though?
It’s like men are either destined to be lone wolves or a tight knit squad.
Is being lonely really that bad? I like being lonely, not that it makes me happy, as a matter of fact it may be opposite but I really didn't like when I was not lonely (or) say when I had to socialise, indulge in the small-talk just for the sake of it; I felt like having to constantly fake emotions and have insincere conversations.
I've almost completely cut off any realtime communication and my current lifestyle seems like a luxury which I had been missing earlier. This has helped me to focus on things which I would like to do.
You are describing being "alone", not being "lonely".
Lonely, is defined as "sad because one has no friends or company". Which I would say is unfortunately common in the modern world, where we believe the internet to connect people, but in reality it socially isolates.
Alone, simply meaning "having no one else present", is not that bad, no, until you start to feel lonely. I enjoy alone time for the same reasons you describe. However, too much of it leads to feelings of loneliness.
An ironic aside. I think many people, deep down, would rather feel slightly annoyed by turning down or avoiding social situations with friends, than to not have those situations available to them in the first place.
You're correct, by your definition I'm both alone and lonely. Lonely makes me sad but has improved productivity, where as socializing gave me what I would describe as 'Short term happiness which seemed fake & ridden with guilt later'.
That doesn't sound like a very healthy outlook on life. Trading social belonging for productivity is a Faustian deal if I've ever seen one, and a deal likely to lead to burnout and depression.
If socializing leaves you ridden with guilt for lost productivity, I'd recommend a paradigm shift.
Not guilty for lost productivity, but for having to fake emotions, showing interest in conversations which I have no real interest and most of all feeling powerless to cure problems of people when they tell about it.
Food for thought. Have you tried interacting socially without faking your emotions, pretending to be interested in things you aren't, and not trying to cure other peoples' problems?
I was running a startup quite successfully for 5 years as a single founder, single executive from an environment without a startup ecosystem. I recruited and trained employees personally; productivity became a necessity and a habit.
Had to close the startup due to physical health problems, now that I'm rebuilding my life I guess productivity has become more important.
Of course productivity is important, but it isn't an end in itself. Neither are high incomes or appearences of success. If you are lonely and have to sacrifice your health you really have to start thinking about what it is all for.
I agree completely, I'm cautious about physical health now and doesn't trade it for anything. But, that has resulted in me having very little time for productive work and hence I'm in a situation where I need to optimise every bit for it.
It is fun to be productive. Being the best performer on your team can make work very enjoyable. Also it is not fun to be unproductive. Being the worst performer on your team can make work very stressful.
Also it helps with promotions and therefore money if you work at a decent place. If you work on your own project your productivity matters even more.
More so when you're physically challenged, having interests which are alien to the locality and with opinions which are not synonymous with the society.
Don't move out of desperation, though, with no clear head. Moving costs energy (and money) as well. So be sure, that the new place is a better fit for you.
On the other hand .. do not overthink it. If you find a new place and it feels good - do it.
I moved this year with my pregnant wife from hell to maybe not paradiese, but pretty close, compared to the last place. It was a very sudden decision, quite close to birth and then action, action, action.
But it was worth it, staying in the safe, but miserable comfort we had there .. it would have been misery.
Now I enjoy ever day running woth my baby through the forest...
I feel the real reason really is just lack of time. It takes a serious amount of time to make and maintain a friendship.
This comes to a point with a family because you have so little extra time that you're very careful to use it wisely. To spend the hours hanging out and getting to know 10 strangers well enough that 1 may become a close friend is just a hard trade-off to make.
As another comment said, it makes one feel selfish. Especially, when that was time you could have spent with your wife and kids. It's hard.
The other thing I think we humans really end up dealing with is being alone. As you age, you simply have fewer and fewer friends. They die. You have less to offer to younger folks and are less mobile to get out. If anything, I think perfecting the ability to make friends would be handy. But I think in doing so, those friends would likely not be "deep" relationships...which gets back again to time.
An idea I've had in my head for the past week or two, mainly because I have several projects that I just keep "not getting around to".:
I think there is a difference between free time and idle time.
Free time is when you could be doing something that has been back-burnered, such as a project around the house, or getting together with friends.
Idle time is when there is nothing going on, but you are sort "on call" as it were (particularly in my case in the context of having young kids around). These are the times when you do lazy things like watch TV or surf the internet.
Most of productivity "hacking" is probably just making an effort to convert more "idle time" into "free time", which is easy in some ways, but non-trivial in others. I think the distinction between the two is very helpful in considering why people say they don't have any time, but still manage to find time to do all sort of unproductive things. If you are simply idle, it's partly because you fully expect that you could be called away to do something else at any moment. To have free time, you need to consciously block off that time from other obligations.
friendship should be a part of life. you shouldn't need to set aside time for your friends, they could come over while u re cooking or stay casually over lunch. It used to be a lot more like that in the past. I think the past decades have switched to an almost ceremonial way of life where helicopter parenting consumes the entirety of family life and everything else has been abandoned
I don't have a single friend who I could ask to meet for a drink/socially. When I was 20 I had numerous close friends, but no wife and family, which have now replaced my friends.
The relationship I have with my family I feel is much higher quality than I had with my friends.
Friends (like family) can be hard work, maintaining friendships takes time and effort and I'm not willing to put in that effort, and I'm cool with that.
I think it is too simplistic to say having no close friends is good or bad, it depends on your outlook.
I think making friends is similar to wealth. Easier to make friends once you already have friends than if you have nobody. I think men specifically suffer from this dynamic because they're more closed in communication than women.
I see several people suggesting that men should get more hobbies in order to meet with other guys, the issue is, hobbies don't form deep friendships (much of the time). You just end up talking about the hobby and nothing else. At least that's how I feel. Talking about anything more than the hobby suddenly becomes unusual.
My experience is that a hobby gives a pretense for communication – which is an opportunity for depth, but not a guarantee.
"Oh yeah, X guitar is so sick" is a shallow conversation.
vs
"Yeah, I've always had a soft spot for the strat. My best friend's dad was a luthier, and I'd always be in his shop when things got rough at home"
Now you've got an opportunity to talk about something a little more real. A somewhat dark example, but... I find that returns on depth are a function of vulnerability invested. Tastefully, of course. Don't puke your trauma on the first date. But it's fear of opening up, at least in my experience, that keeps male relationships in the HobbyZone.
I’m very uncomfortable talking about anything in my personal life besides shallow platitudes with almost anyone. The two guys I can talk about personal issues with I’ve known for 27 and 10 years respectively.
For instance with these two, we talk about everything - our marriages, our careers and even what we make and what we have saved. I would never talk to most people about that type of stuff. Among other reasons there is a certain taboo about it and you have to worry about jealousy, but one is a software developer and we have worked together at three separate jobs and the other is a well compensated manager at one of the big tech companies.
My wife and I both have to be careful about sharing even the smallest things about our lives like our vacations, our hobbies, etc because we are better off financially than most of our friends and family - not bragging as a software engineer and part of a dual income couple , statistically we would be.
And the typical male loves talking about sports. I really don’t care about sports as far as having any type of team affiliation. I can watch sports for the athleticism.
This is a symptom of something. While it is not easy to identify a specific underlying cause, I think if you’re not socialized at a young age in how to make friends or you don’t come from a large, extended family, it is nearly impossible to make meaningful relationships with others. Hobbies and social clubs are fine, but they can be transactional and transitory. Even with your spouse and kids and their friends/family, these relationships can be transactional. You’ll have a hard time communicating beyond words, sharing at a higher level.
I think this is a side affect of no longer having long term careers with a single company. It's harder to build solid relationships when you move every couple of years and change companies. You just don't get to know people as well.
Even at 25, I'm starting to find a lot of "adult" social "events" incredibly contrived and stuffy. Relationships after college and in business are different and I'm immensely okay with that. I still have great friends that I've met through common activities but we're usually incredibly focused on said activity and that's why we get together, not just gathering for the sake of gathering.
Living in a big city quickly became something I didn't see value in after my social life made this kind of shift. I also stopped drinking and stopping seeing much value in "signaling" wealth / success to others. "going out" with people I work with is simply unprofessional and weird (not because I don't drink) and frankly I'm confused why my generation actively tries to facilitate these kinds of overlapping "friendships".
I completely understand when friends of mine tell me they're just too tired or don't have the energy to hang out. I do find it offensive when their reason is "my girlfriend / wife said I have to do this" etc.
This is likely exacerbated by the trends towards single family homes. A few generations ago, when you lived together with aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, parents, grand parents, great grand parents, there's always someone to interact with. But nowadays, if your spouse is at work and your children are at school or some activity, there's nobody around. The situation is even worse when you are single. I think the trend of loneliness will increase due to technology unless the stigma in current society of living with your family goes away, but I'm not holding out much hope for that.
you have unlimited time when you are single, just join some activity and very to know people and it can work with someone, good luck finding time with family, especially with small children
What's holding them back though? Yeah people work a lot today, but they still do have free time. They spend all that time dating? Gaming? Family? Spending time with family is healthy , but, all the free time ? that s too much, and it was probably never like that in history (at least for men). Men spend 0 time in former male spaces too. And finding hobbies you dont like just as an excuse to meet people feels forced and fake. Modern city lifestyle is hostile to friendships.
well I moved to completely different city in different country two years ago, on top of that I work from home 100% of time, on top of that I have two small children. do you really think I have energy for close friend? I am happy to rest in evening and not work during weekend, so I can spend more time with children. there is basically no time for friends of hobbies some people recommend to make friends (if I had energy in first place)
so you can count me as one of those 18% guys. it's just stupid not take into consideration other factors, it's very different for single and/or childless people and for married folks with children, I would like to see difference in statistics for these two groups
my present socialization is just reddit, Twitter and some other mother in playground I like to hang out
Very interesting numbers. Of those men who indicated that it was difficult to find friends, 26% responded that the reason was that they didn't feel that they needed friends. Only 14% of women responded the same. (Page 43)
Others have commented that the gender gap in having no friends is much smaller then the headline implies, and this difference may account for a good chunk of it.
Some of the comments here are taking about just “male friends”...point here is about “close friend” not juts friends. I think its difficult to make close friends in the digital world where you never see real side of the people
ah, looks like admins fixed the title. this comment is in relation to the title the article uses: "All the lonely people ... are men", which is unsupported by the data in the self-same article.
Maybe this isn't a universal viewpoint, but to me if the concern is to increase social connections amongst men, it seems odd to lump that in with hobbies like it's some bonus goal.
I know there are some hobbies that force you into a social situation but most hobbies seem a consumer of time in a reasonably solitary way and thus would further reduce any opportunity to socialise in the scarce hours when one is not working, asleep or traveling to work.
Bored and lonely are two very different things. "It's okay to be bored" is about disconnecting from the constant feed of entertainment and information, not about isolating yourself from other human beings.
This very difficult to interpret, esp. as the article has over-simplified things for reporting purposes. How many of the respondents without friends wanted to be that way? Was family counted as friends? And what counts as a friend anyway?
I think this is a symptom of a few things: dehomogenisation of interests and urban sprawl, exacerbated by income requirements and children. From my understanding: In the country, you integrate, or you're isolated. It's pretty much always sports, and it's the lowest common denominator.
In the past 100 years, as people have moved to the city, and as knowledge has diversified, there's this implicit promise that the city will allow you to find others with your interests. In the earlier years, say at University, this holds true. Young people who don't have many other commitments and are supposed to be there anyway, are able to find their own "tribe". At this time, travel time isn't an issue. As people start having to go to work, and travel time is now utilised for breadwinning, there's not as much time and energy slack left over for maintaining in person relationships. Then having children exacerbates this.
So, now you don't talk to your neighbours because people do not group their housing arrangements around their interests, but around market pressures.
So with sprawl, now everyone has to commute to see their friends. People also have to commute to go about their daily business such as grocery shopping. This means that you can't just "swing by" someone else's house, because they might not be there and you've wasted your time. So we ring ahead. This information sharing to be time efficient became an anxiety of "am I bothering X", which now means those calls don't happen as often either. Now everything has to be scheduled, and anyone who can't fit it in is screwed.
There's also one more keyword which I think isn't mentioned here enough. Career. I have felt guilty at times for doing my utmost to maintain my one free night a week to meet our friends meetup schedule. We shouldn't feel this. The pressure for careers and work cuts too often cuts out the final bit of capacity we have left to maintain even some relationships.
So in summary, people who have common interests are spread out by market forces, increasing commute times, forcing scheduling of time together, and that possibility is then snuffed out by the pressures of needing and income or looking after children.
Rehomogenisation of interests is unlikely to happen, and probably shouldn't. Children aren't going away. So that means the two points to address are: Urban sprawl and career pressures. There needs to be more government oversight that is not completely undermined by corporate interests (I'm sure most large corporations would be more than happy if your work mates were the only human contact you had). That government oversight needs to strengthen the regulations around building of decent apartment complexes, not cash cows, because we want people to live in them, not rush out to the edges of suburbia because they can only afford either a garbage apartment or to move out to the suburban edge. Career pressures are best addressed by increasing people's job mobility. People who are anxious about losing their job do not have mobility. If someones workplace is unreasonable about their time, they're going to frequently be unable to schedule things with friends.
Article is behind a paywall, so I wonder if it addresses what portion of these men find this to be a problem.
I have never had close friends other than whoever was my significant other at the time. This is more than sufficient for me, and I don't think it's unhealthy at all. Some people just aren't social.
I wonder if this has a lot to do with the economic system we live under. Marx wrote a lot about the alienation of labor, and one form of alienation was alienation from fellow workers. I wonder if we surveyed company executives or small business owners whether you'd find a different breakdown.
I spent 6 years in a job, lunched with the same few colleagues most days, thought they were good friends, knew their partners, met up out of work, that kind of thing. Left to start own business ... None of them offered any support, nor visited, nor anything. Completely floored me, I thought I had good friends at work.
One colleague, a very loose acquaintance, visited a couple of times, asked after us; I need to find that person and thank them ... [people I knew through a club, who happened to work in the same place continued to be friends however.]
Anyway, I'm now working with some of those people again, and talking with them it feels like they're friends... but in retrospect I think for them I was just like background noise to their jobs?
So, at least for me "carry on being friends" was the expectation but I was miles off.
The term "friend" is pretty worthless anymore, atleast compared to the definition I adhere to.
What most people call "friends" I'd call aquantiences but I prefer fewer high quality relationships than a large quantity of casual passings. I don't and never have valued such casual fleeting relationships of any kind outside those in the workplace (those are necessary to function in a modern workplace). I'd hardly call those folks friends: most are merely professional aquanteinces or colleagues, nothing more.
Good friends are and have always been difficult to come by. Many prefer loneliness with casual meaningless relationships than the work it takes to foster strong friendships. I'll never understand it but I was taught the value of meaningful human relationships exceed most other frivolities we often occupy ourselves with and it's been one of the most important aspects I followed through life as far as happiness is concerned.
What is the point of posting articles that are behind paywalls? Why isn't it against HN rules? Is it a test of just how many people actually try to read the articles they're responding to?
Somehow we just all “decided” that two parent families, where we work jobs we hate (and that if we get fired we’re on our own), where the social space is dominated by corporate interests, where if we get sick we are forced into poverty - this is society. Of course everyone is alone and terrified.
I disagree with the apparent premise (article's paywalled) that having no friends means you are lonely.
I have no friends that I'm not also in a romantic relationship with, and I wouldn't call myself lonely at all outside of a rare fleeting feeling here and there.
My path to doing this was to encourage interest based communication, in a way that would allow them to take it offline. How? Well to make it interest + geography, i.e. horology nerds in Cumbria, cyclists in London, petrol heads in Cornwall, audiophiles in Suffolk.
By binding together an interest, and a geography, it naturally encourages trade, showing off, having a beer... and coming together. But not in a way that ever was to "cure loneliness" (which few people admit to feeling, and frankly most people find lonely people unattractive people from the perspective of wishing to hang out with someone like that).
By providing a space to share a passion, the forums brought people together.
I had to make our own software to achieve this, i.e. a forum with events built-in by default, etc. But it worked.
Except I couldn't get it funded beyond the crowd-funded angel round :shrug . But still, 250k monthly users, hundreds of marriages, tens of thousands of friendships, and still people meeting weekly for beer and chatting with others.
And like all love, when the lust is gone what remains is something special... these forums are evolving now, from the original interests, into just a group of friends for life.
If I were lonely today, I would say... identify a hobby or interest you could get into, start looking for entry things to dive in, and then look for groups on MeetUp, or forums online, that will help you find other people.