Yes. Some people on the internet were also advocating for a return to the office because people could not stand the loneliness anymore and need to interact socially. I had to point out that this was symptomatic of a poor social/family life [outside of work].
If someone is lonely working remotely and they miss humans, it is a sign the only humans they interacted with were colleagues. It's also a sign of what the person could try and improve.
I don’t follow. Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socialization?
I genuinely feel the opposite. Relying on your few off hours to satisfy your innate human need for socialization places an unhealthy demand on your off hours, not to mention an unfair demand on your friends and family.
I am now forced to spend 8 hours a day in my home office not speaking to anyone other than Slack and the occasional Zoom and the loneliness is somehow my fault for not having an active enough social life to counteract this? What about rest and reflection?
This is an infuriating argument. Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals.
It's fine and healthy to be social at work. But I'm not sure if it's healthy to hang all of your life's needs on work. The bonds you form from work are usually temporary and conditional upon continuing to perform well at work. This can add a lot of pressure: you can lose your coworkers and your "friends" in one fell swoop.
The bonds I form outside of work are simply because we enjoy eachother's company. Or a shared hobby. Something that doesn't require me to be at the top of my performance. As long as I don't do something ridiculously inappropriate, they will still be my friends.
Seems a little dangerous to completely rely on work for socialization. In my opinion most work relationship are pretty shallow and not meaningful long-term. When you leave a company, your entire social circle is going to be up-ended.
> Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socialization?
I think because the primary goal is to work. Socialization is a plus, but it will never be your main focus, as mentioned above you will not build meaningful relationships (I mean, not entire impossible, just not as likely).
> Relying on your few off hours to satisfy your innate human need for socialization places an unhealthy demand on your off hours, not to mention an unfair demand on your friends and family.
I don't think it's an unfair demand to want to spend time with friends and family (that is the point of them). Anyone that is thinking that is probably not someone you want to be spending time with...
> Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals.
I think this is what wife/kids are for. I can't speak for others, but it works for me! 99.9% of my time out of work is with them, and have never felt lonely. Not everyone is in that position I suppose, but then friends would have to fill that gap.
I only need superficial socialization most of the time though. It's kind of silly to think everyone needs deeply engaging social time for 99% of their life. My close friends are all busy and successful we talk and see each other every couple of weeks and months but I rather like the superficial socialization to fill the gap and liked being able to go home to escape all of it if I wanted.
> Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals.
I am not a social animal, I think you'll find the 'non social humans' to be a larger group than you imagine. Just because we have 'do' doesn't mean we all are.
I also enjoy time alone a little too much. I don't care to make much of an effort to socialize. Sometimes I wish I cared more, but meh. Still, I am a social animal. I live in a city, with other animals. I make sounds that other animals understand, and I can understand them too. I wear my emotional state on my face and I can perceive the emotional state of others by looking at them. I rely on my community to meet my basic needs, trading my services for food, shelter, and other things that please me. I am a human, a social animal.
I guess this all depends on what we call 'social' in this sense. If we take such a broad definition that interaction is the basis of defining a 'social animal' there is nothing on the planet that isnt a social thing. Which is why I simplified the definition down to "requiring socialization to thrive" which clearly is not the case for us as a species.
Because you'll change employer, maybe frequently, and most of your relationships with colleagues will fall away when you do, where relationships with friends are lifelong.
WFH allows me to see more of my partner and my real friends in my local area, removing wasted commuting time into the bargain.
Don't take it as a personal accusation - it's great, and lucky for you, that you get that kind of energy from your work and from your relationship with your colleagues. I've had jobs and colleagues like that too.
But fundamentally, your employer - the other party in your most basic work relationship (between you and the company that employs you) - does see you as being "there to work".
And the moment you switch jobs, or get moved into another business unit, or get laid off, those social relationships with your (now-former) coworkers aren't automatically there during the work day. If you want to preserve them, guess what? You're looking at using those off hours.
I understand your argument a bit better if you're treating socialization like caffeine or something - a purely functional hit of dopamine that gets you through the day. But I think that's maybe a fundamental disagreement on the premise of social life.
But it is somewhat true. The point of being in the office is to get work done. You're being paid to do work, and in the past, part of that was a requirement you be in the office some portion of the time. You were in the office _to work_. It's not to say you may not have other things you like about the office, but the reason the company bought an office and requires you to be there is to work.
Which leads to the other side of this. I want my time in the office to be about work. I don't mind socializing some, and I like my coworkers well enough, but we hired them because they were good at their jobs and didn't seem like bad people to be around. Not because I thought they'd be good friends, or have similar hobbies to me. Because of that, given the choice, I'd rather spend social time with the group of friends I have cultivated myself, instead of having my coworkers try to force a connection just because we sit near each other at the office.
I don't go to work to support someone's else's lack of a social life outside of work, and just because I was required by my job to be in the same room as you doesn't mean you can/should expect me to like you as more than someone I work with. There's plenty of coworkers I like and some I'm actually friends with, but also plenty of people who try to use the conditions of our mutual employment to fill in for friendships they didn't develop outside of work.
>There's plenty of coworkers I like and some I'm actually friends with, but also plenty of people who try to use the conditions of our mutual employment to fill in for friendships they didn't develop outside of work.
That seems an uncharitable way to put it. People only make friends in general by putting themselves out there and making an effort. Is the difference between those two groups merely that the 'actual friends' are the ones who you ended up liking rather than having to pretend to like?
I mostly mean it to be people who try to push for "team events" or "team lunches" or "team happy hours", even when some or most of the team make it clear that they're not interested. Often this is accompanied by shaming/annoyance if you're not interested in joining in.
I don't mind people trying to make friends at work, and often I don't even dislike the people who annoy me like this, I just don't like them as much as they seem to like the idea of spending time with me. There's a gap between people I like making smalltalk with before a meeting or while I'm taking a break to get coffee, and people I want to have a dedicated social time with.
If you want to make friends at work, don't use the mechanisms of my employment to coerce me into spending time with you.
Of course it's not, and neither mine. My goal in life is also not "to be in an office" either. But when I am in one, I'm there for work. The office is a workspace, that's literally the point of it...
If you were paid and work there, but every time you did something that looked like socialising someone would come over and tell you to stop, reminding you that you are there to solely to work, would you stay there?
If you'd leave, you are probably not there solely to work.
It's not an either or. You can have a great social life outside of work and still want and enjoy great relationships with colleagues. Yeah maybe they don't last once you leave, that doesn't mean they're not valuable!
I agree, and it's not wrong to find social value in your workplace.
But I think it's probably not healthy if it's all you have, or even relied upon as "primary" when it can change out from under you in a matter of hours.
I have changed “local area” much more often than workplace in my career so far. I feel like in an average inner city office where many people are likely to have moved around for work, especially amongst younger people, it's probably not the case that they have a healthy group of lifelong friends already in their local area.
> Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socialization?
Work socialization is fine, but I'd cautious making it your primary source. What happens when you change jobs? It can also make it hard to remain professional at work.
> Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals.
Maybe, but I and many others seem perfectly fine with less and/or different social interaction. Personally, I'm more of a few, but deeper friendship person than many shallow relationships person. I'm perfectly happy being home with my wife and dogs.
Office socialisation is hell for me. I'm probably autistic, but I would prefer socialising with people with whom I share a common interest. My coworkers are not those people. We collaborate, not comingle.
> Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone
Humans were also never intended to be forced to somehow "produce money" with other humans.
"Being a social animal" for millennia meant finding your role in a relatively small group of people who shared your basic values about survival and mores, and that you could observe and befriend (or fight) over a literal lifetime, while carrying out tasks that were directly linked to your survival. That differs significantly from industrialized societies. People you work with don't necessary share anything with you. Socialization has become rote and fake. Your tasks are often meaningless to you.
This creates a feeling of alienation and powerlessness in a lot of people. For them, staying at home meant reconnecting with tasks that carry actual meaning (improving their home, looking after their loved ones, etc). Their socialization might have actually increased.
Obviously, if you found the pre-covid arrangement meaningful and life-fulfilling, now you're unhappy that it was taken away from you.
Then and now it all comes down to just “people near you”. You didn’t choose your village mates, you were born into it. You have more flexibility now, but you’re still just working with people you didn’t choose.
Finding your role in a relatively small group of people describes most of my experience working in offices. You share the time and experiences doing some thing you have to do, not something you want to do. Locating sustenance or making copies, it’s same same. It’s an activity you do because you have to, not because you chose to.
Additionally, you have things in common by socializing, not the reverse.
But "back then" you would likely get to know them much more than you do your work colleagues. Note I'm not saying it was better, but it was definitely closer than the average work relationship today. You'd likely know their children and their relatives, share festivities etc. You can do that with workmates now but it's entirely optional, whereas before it effectively wasn't. And you would do it over decades.
> Locating sustenance or making copies, it’s same same
Your belly going hungry is a direct incentive in ways that "maybe in three months I'll get a salary increase if I do this well" simply is not, imho.
> you have things in common by socializing, not the reverse.
See, that's the difference between tribe life and modern life: now you don't even know if you have anything in common unless you actively socialize. In a tribe, commonality was immediate and from birth, socialization was a given, and you had to take active steps to be alone. Now it's effectively the opposite: you are alone unless you take steps not to be. Which has its pros and cons.
I assure you a fair number of office workers have come close enough to "your belly going hungry", and its modern extension "struggling to pay the rent and bills", that they are quite motivated to keep the job they have.
Probably not HN tech workers so much. But even some of those will have struggled for basics at some time or other.
Humans were never "intended" to catch deadly respiratory viruses either, but here we are. For that matter, neither were humans "intended" to work on computers. The situation is what it is and it seems naive to expect no changes to our lifestyle when the external circumstances have changed so drastically.
I’m not arguing that we should go back into the office.
I’m arguing it’s ok to lament the loss of socialization while working, how you spend most of your time.
There’s a pandemic, and I am lonely. I think the comment I was replying to blaming that on me not having good enough friends and family is both pointed and hurtful.
I have a wonderful support system, and I am still lonely, particularly during the work day.
> Humans were never "intended" to catch deadly respiratory viruses
Strictly semantically speaking, I think billions of years of history disagree. I understand the point you’re trying to make, but respiratory diseases were here long before us, they’re a fact of the environment we were born into. There is no intent in that one way or the other.
> Humans were never "intended" to catch deadly respiratory viruses
Important point on the wording: Humans were never intended to spread deadly viruses to the vulnerable population. Almost all of the people complaining about measures to prevent the spread are in low-risk groups and do not have anyone close to them in a high-risk group/relying on having a working medical system.
This is a bit unfair. Many people socialized with the bowling team, through their church, at school, as part of a volunteer organization, etc, that may have also all shut down because of COVID.
This is a discussion about socializing. A hike and a hiking group are different things. BTW, need to find a hiking group post COVID, that sounds like fun.
But a hiking group primarily socializes while hiking. A small group, social distancing outside is a very low risk activity that should allowed in most of the world outside periods of strict lockdowns.
Maybe in the OP’s case it’s the kind of thing where you take a group bus to a trail, and that’s the problem.
The hiking group I normally lead for is having some trips but relatively few and nothing overnight. And, frankly, between the hassles and responsibility associated with leading right now (and following a bunch of protocols), carpooling problems, and just general concerns with being in a group of largely strangers, it's more trouble than it's worth. I have been hiking a couple of times with a few friends/friends of friends but mostly it's more comfortable to just go by myself.
Hiking trails near me are STILL closed due to the virus. For a while it was only open during weekdays and by appointment only. Now they've been flat out closed for a few months. Sure, I could drive half an hour to a completely open trail, but if I'm going to burn that much gas all the time I might as well start working in an office again.
It’s completely insane that your location decided to close all the trails. We took a 4,000 mile hiking road trip (up the east coast of the US and back down more inland) a few months ago and we never ran into a closed hiking trail.
I've seen parking closed or limited here and there. And some Mass Audubon properties, for example, may still be by appointment only. But, yes, in general I'm not aware of general trail closures in the Northeast.
Surely you can still be involved in outdoor groups without issue? I participate in an advanced dog training/sport group, and we still meet and just take the necessary precautions (work outdoors, social distance, wear masks).
However many people also are incapable of going this route and work is their own socialization. Never underestimate the number of introverts who only have "friends" through work.
Thirty years later I still have friends from school who I swear have no other friends other than those from school days or their current job. Some don't even know their neighbors!
The difficult part is they look just like the rest of us and the cues are different for determining who is who though usually avoidance of after work get together and even lunch are clear sign. The key is to know when to back off as some are very comfortable in their personal world
There is no judgement in my comment for it to be fair or unfair. I guess the word you're looking for is "incomplete", in which case, it absolutely is incomplete for brevity.
My point was on this particular shortcut in many articles including large publications:
A: I work at the office
B: I'm not lonely
Not A => Not B (I don't work at the office therefore I'm lonely), and then coming up with a solution that it's time to get back to the office, failing to respect the contraposition, and implying that there's equivalence with a hidden B ==> A implication that is not necessary true.
Your point does not contradict my comment, actually, because all these are outside of "work/office". Again, my point was about the equivalence between remote work and loneliness not being automatic. One way to go through that is having a social life outside of the office. Granted, many things have closed, but that's why I said it was a sign of what the person could try and improve (finding things that haven't closed, finding joy somewhere else). Not saying it's easy.
But you did say that if you're lonely it's because you've not got enough of a social life outside of work. You can have an active social life outside of work and still feel lonely at work due to WFH. That's what you said that was unfair.
I don’t understand this comment, do you suggest all forms of social contacts are created equal and people should just replace the social interactions they used to have with co-workers by visiting their family more often, organizing more poker nights with friends or taking salsa classes or whatever?
That makes absolutely no sense, these interactions are completely different from those you would have with your co-workers, and it’s perfectly normal even for people with an otherwise active social life to miss those. My friends and family are almost universally incomparable to my coworkers in almost every way.
But the truth is, for many people colleagues are the only people they regularly interact with. Especially people who work a lot have basically non existent or purely formal other relationships. They don't even know how to relate to people outside of job setting.
And that is horrible. But there are a lot of folk who feel lonely from WFH who are not like that. The comment was insulting because it implied that if you're lonely from working from home it must be because you lack a social life. You can have a thriving social life and still miss the social aspect of an office.
I disagree, based on some of the other comments here and elsewhere.
There are people for whom being stuck in their WFH area for 8 hours a day 5 days a week with no social interactions is very unpleasant, even if after work they have a robust social / family life. Some of them were reporting this doing WFH prior to Covid.
The most amazing social life outside work won't compensate for that daily gap which occupies about half of their waking hours.
Some people need more regular personal interactions throughout the day than that.
On top of that, some people's work creativity or mental stimulation thrives on social interactions with colleagues in the same or related work domain. A social life with friends and family does not substitute for "work-oriented social interactions" with people who are grinding on the same kinds of problems, for example drinking buddies with whom you can discuss code. It doesn't really matter if these people are long term friends, as it's a different kind of stimulation.
In my part of the world offices were the last places to shut down due to COVID and are still partially open. Losing social interactions at your workplace happened after heavy restrictions were placed on meeting friends, family and going anywhere except supermarkets.
Maybe you are just lucky that the office is the only place where you lost regular social interactions.
It's not so black and white. Regardless of my social life outside of work, I loved the job I have precisely because there are so many nice people I get to share fourty hours per week with. And I miss them.
It's far from being black and white, hence the effort to improve. What I said does in no way mean one does not love their job or miss their coworkers, it simply means there is a situation with problems that could give us pointers on what we can improve.
One also has to wonder what "office life" will be like at the many companies where, even if things don't stay fully remote, a lot of people default to coming in a day or two a week. I fully expect a lot of workplaces will shift to being a place you come into in order to have meetings now and then for many.
In addition, as many have noted, part of the loneliness problem that many are facing is only partly about offices. It's the fact that many other activities are foreclosed right now as well.
This is a good point, a lot of people are nostalgic for office life, but if those coworkers are never there what socializing are you going to be doing?
Never thought of it that way and, while I strongly agree in general, 8h/day is a large chunk of our life. I can see how working alone at home vs with more people, even if you meet people after work, can be lonely for some!
I normally cowork with friends around once-twice a week (I did the same before the pandemic!) but I'm lucky to live in a big city with lots of friends. Or maybe that is exactly your point? That now that people are freed from the office they can meet and work with friends?
I had a great social life outside of work but due to covid that's also disappeared.
And even then I still miss specifically office socialising. I like knowing my colleagues and having a feeling of we're in this together. I like the random break chats throughout the day and meeting folk from other teams organically. I hate that the majority of my day now is just sitting at a desk alone talking to no one. It's perfectly valid to want socialisation from work, it's not necessarily caused by a poor social life outside of work.
Well, you can only meet your support bubble so many times. I have met my friend plenty of times but none of my other friends this year. But I am a high risk person
> I had to point out that this was symptomatic of a poor social/family life [outside of work].
This is a symptom of being in a pandemic, where in many places you are forbidden or heavily discouraged to socialize.
I've been working from home since March. This is not what normal working from home looks like, this is what working from home _during a pandemic_ looks like.
If someone is lonely working remotely and they miss humans, it is a sign the only humans they interacted with were colleagues. It's also a sign of what the person could try and improve.
This situation exposed a lot of crutches.