>"seven were nonsocial and positive (pleasant scenery) and seven were nonsocial and negative (snakes)"
This seems kinda flawed as far as designing the experiment to present threat and non-threat stimulii. If you're an agoraphobic serpentophile then you're not seeing things the same, surely. People are going to be on a spectrum of finding scenery panoramas to be hugely positive to finding them hugely negative??
What strikes me is that "Dr. Cacioppo" (whichever of the couple that is) doesn't seem to have a clue what loneliness is like, nor having no friends. All the suggestions assume you have time and money to spend too; perhaps that's right for a WSJ audience. "Accept social invitations, even if you don’t feel like going out." seems quite clueless, are their people who're lonely but are getting social invitations and have friends they can call and make plans with?
The abstract suggests a moderately interesting preliminary finding, assuming the ten lonely people didn't also respond faster to the other stimulii. A wider study to confirm the result and then a new experiment to establish causation seem like the next moves (if they can be funded). You'd probably need a longitudinal study to see if speed of response to "social threats" changes as people become, or perceive themselves to be, more/less lonely.
> assuming the ten lonely people didn't also respond faster to the other stimuli
Yes, that's important to control in a properly performed experiment. I don't have the access to the whole paper, maybe somebody who does will write here with more details.
> doesn't seem to have a clue what loneliness is like, nor having no friends. All the suggestions assume you have time and money to spend too; perhaps that's right for a WSJ audience. "Accept social invitations, even if you don’t feel like going out." seems quite clueless
It seems you are the one who reads that as "time and money." I read this only as, if somebody calls you to come out and play, don't say "thanks I'll rather play with myself." (heh) And typically we have more opportunities to do something than we accept or even recognize as such. Yes, it's hard to do anything but the work if our work week is 80 work hours, but it's also something that we have to care about and not use as an excuse for doing nothing but the work and as the only purpose of our lives. The article also mentions "get your calendar out and map out your social life."
> "Dr. Cacioppo" (whichever of the couple that is)
It's in the article: "John Cacioppo, professor of psychology, psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience and director of the Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience at the University of Chicago."
I literally have no money to have a social life, I could get more money but that would require less time. Around work, caring for family and other duties there's no time left and no energy left to make the huge effort of finding someone to kickback with.
But yes, making a conscious effort not to shrink back at an opportunity is good - the general feel however is that they're addressing people who socialise, who have a cadre of friends but who feel lonely. Perhaps this group exists(?) but it seems it would be a thin sliver compared to the group who feel lonely because they haven't friends and don't have a social life at all.
Per the last point "two new studies by the husband and wife research team John and Stephanie Cacioppo, psychologists at the University of Chicago". Perhaps she's a professor or other title but when referencing in subsequent paras I think it's necessary to specify Dr John Cacioppo (or whatever)?
People are going to be on a spectrum of finding scenery panoramas to be hugely positive to finding them hugely negative??
People are going to be distributed along pretty much any spectrum that you can imagine. The value of statistical concepts like distributions is not in providing certitude but providing a way to quantify and manage your uncertainty. This is why it's not a big deal that people lie on surveys - lies cancel each other out or stick out like a sore thumb depending on whether they're perverse or systematic.
Incidentally I like snakes a lot but that doesn't mean I consider them trustworthy :-)
No doubt they were relying on previous research showing that these things would be positive|negative stimulii to a high degree of certainty for all participants.
>"seven were nonsocial and positive (pleasant scenery) and seven were nonsocial and negative (snakes)"
This seems kinda flawed as far as designing the experiment to present threat and non-threat stimulii. If you're an agoraphobic serpentophile then you're not seeing things the same, surely. People are going to be on a spectrum of finding scenery panoramas to be hugely positive to finding them hugely negative??
What strikes me is that "Dr. Cacioppo" (whichever of the couple that is) doesn't seem to have a clue what loneliness is like, nor having no friends. All the suggestions assume you have time and money to spend too; perhaps that's right for a WSJ audience. "Accept social invitations, even if you don’t feel like going out." seems quite clueless, are their people who're lonely but are getting social invitations and have friends they can call and make plans with?
The abstract suggests a moderately interesting preliminary finding, assuming the ten lonely people didn't also respond faster to the other stimulii. A wider study to confirm the result and then a new experiment to establish causation seem like the next moves (if they can be funded). You'd probably need a longitudinal study to see if speed of response to "social threats" changes as people become, or perceive themselves to be, more/less lonely.