Before we go in circles, one definition of loneliness is the difference between the amount (and depth) of social connection desired and the amount obtained.
There are two variables, both adjustable. Loneliness is eliminated is when that delta is small or zero.
If you’re an introvert and don’t desire social connection and have none, you’re fine. But being in a situation that reminds you of your lack sometimes creates that desire, which creates that delta.
Likewise, if you’re an extrovert, you desire lots of social connection and when it falls below what you actually have you feel sad.
We can’t always control the amount of social connection we get due to circumstances, but we can sometimes control the amount of desire we have by avoiding triggers that remind us.
> being in a situation that reminds you of your lack sometimes creates that desire, which creates that delta.
> we can sometimes control the amount of desire we have by avoiding triggers that remind us.
This makes me think of Instagram/Snapchat and notably the stories feature. If you are having a fine time on your own at home on a Friday night and then open someone’s story that shows them with a few other people having fun, it can create a sense of missing out and trigger loneliness, when in fact, you weren’t feeling particularly lonely right before that event.
It begs the question, why are you on those sites if they make you feel that way? I've only ever been on FB for like 6 months a long time ago, and I noticed this immediately. I don't need to be bombarbed with the life highlights of hundreds of people at the same time. Even if you have a great life yourself, that will give you FOMO, jealousy, and similar feelings at some point. It's human nature. Let alone if you're going through a rough time.
I have social groups that meet up occasionally that only exist on snapchat. I've deleted it before but end up having so little social connection that it falls below my desired amount and I get really lonely. So I install snapchat again so I can interact and get included in groups and plans and then the demon app works to exclusively show me unattainable levels of exciting social interactions and beautiful places and people until it raises my desired social interaction above what I'm getting from it and keeps it in an impossible range. It's honestly terrible. I know how bad all the stories are but it's almost impossible to stop. I say this as someone who meditates and has very strict exercise and diet and study habits. But these apps are designed and created with billions of dollars to defeat almost anyone so how could a single person possible win?
If I leave, it's not enough. If I stay, it's not enough. And before you ask, the groups do not exist on texting. I've tried it and just ended up not being around again. College is like that these days.
I would add another big variable here: people who are lonely don't always recognize they want social connection, and it's because a lot of people don't have the capability to form healthy, fulfilling relationships with other humans and therefore don't have much (if any) past history of feeling fulfilled by social interaction. If they were to build this capability and experience fulfilling social interactions, they'd find themselves wanting more of it and therefore become less lonely.
>If they were to build this capability and experience fulfilling social interactions, they'd find themselves wanting more of it and therefore become less lonely.
According to the GP, by wanting more fulfilling social interactions they'll become more lonely, not less. Just because you want something doesn't mean you'll get it. If someone can only afford cheap junk food but that's all they know, the last thing you should do is show them gourmet food so they know what they're missing out on.
In objective outcome space you are either healthy (socially, nutritionally) or you are not.
Being desirous of the good outcome is step one to having a CHANCE of having one. If you somehow numb yourself to the possibility/desire, you are guaranteed the actual bad outcome.
Even in subjective space, I think people actually feel better pursuing a good outcome even if they don't succeed, vs numbing themselves and pretending everything is fine as is.
There's no such thing as "objective mental health". There's no test you can perform on a person to know if they're mentally well that doesn't involve asking them about it. If a person has no or little need for company, and has no or little company, how is that unhealthy? Who determines what an appropriate level of sociability is? I would have thought each person determines that for themselves, but you seem to disagree.
Humans are overwhelmingly social creatures by nature and virtually every study of happiness shows a correlation to healthy relationships in your life. There are exceptions of course, including people who have had traumatic experiences/abuse/PTSD/mental health issues that cause these relationships to be damaging until the underlying issue is resolved.
Humans are also very, very bad at knowing what makes them happy. If a healthy person tells me they have one friend they see once a month and no other social outlets and they wouldn't want anything else, 99% of the time I'm going to assume they don't know themselves well enough to know that more relationships than that would make them happy.
> Humans are overwhelmingly social creatures by nature and virtually every study of happiness shows a correlation to healthy relationships in your life.
Do these studies actually show that there aren't people who, for lack of a better word, are non-responders? Imagine if 95% of people require relationships to be happy and 5% don't. I would expect most studies to show the correlation exists, but it doesn't mean that 5% doesn't exist. What kind of upper bound do these studies provide here?
> virtually every study of happiness shows a correlation to healthy relationships in your life
These studies never make sense because there's no way to objectively measure happiness, especially not in a way where you can compare two people's self-reported levels of "happiness". The word happiness itself is already is an over-loaded term that everyone has their own definition of. (At best you can measure proxy outcomes like measuring health based on relationships, but there are so many confounding variables it's hard to narrow it down.)
I can tell I’ve taken it too far when I catch myself talking someone’s ear off at a gathering. They didn’t sign up for this, and here I am drinking them in like I’ve dunked my head neck deep into a pool at an oasis. Guess I was thirsty after all.
At the same time if I am forced into a situation where I’m alone and without internet, I fare much better and for much longer than people think I will. Certainly multiples of how long they can manage.
At the end of the day I think we confuse coping with contentment. Some people can cope endlessly, that doesn’t mean they are happy about it.
> I can tell I’ve taken it too far when I catch myself talking someone’s ear off at a gathering. They didn’t sign up for this, and here I am drinking them in like I’ve dunked my head neck deep into a pool at an oasis. Guess I was thirsty after all.
I would encourage you to challenge this belief. I'm not saying this is true of you, but I used to feel this way when I was insecure and overly worried about what others thought and felt. These days, I'm myself. I'm honest. I'm vulnerable (where appropriate). I'm also compassionate, and not being one of those "calls them hows I sees them" people.
I imagine people like hearing you talk more than you realize. Sometimes they enjoy it but don't necessarily know how to respond, which is about them and not you. This is especially true if it's someone who's chosen to spend time around you and didn't just randomly meet you.
I encourage people to be themselves (while being kind) and quit worrying. You'll attract the right people in life if you're authentic. You'll never attract the right people being someone else.
Conversely, the number of people I meet who rabbit on about the most pointless stuff is considerable, and most take no hints to go away and leave me alone or even dial it back. When in doubt, check in with your victim.
More of this. It can be useful to err on the side of asking questions.
And when they say they want to "go get a drink" or whatever explanation for going somewhere not by you, be open to the possibility they want a change of pace. :)
Even if what you are saying is interesting, they might have had other agendas for the night. I’ve certainly been on the opposite side of that a few times. Trying to network, talking about science or something instead.
Oh I’ve certainly done that when I was younger, but there are levels of distress that are hard to miss once you realize you should check in with the other person.
Sometimes it’s enough to say “Xs sure are cool” without launching into a full history.
This is spot on and I just made a comment to the same point.
It's maybe analogous to someone who has always been overweight and therefore don't perceive a problem with it because they don't have a reference point on how much better being in shape feels.
I think there's a difference between self-percieved "amount desired" and "amount REQUIRED for sanity."
Eg I have a few friends who left to their own devices would never make social plans and when I invite them to a BBQ they'll stand lamely to the side BUT at the end of the day they are much happier than if they sat home yet again. I am a mild case of this as well.
Just being around people could be the amount of social connection your friends desire.
I think the comment you replied to is correct. Personally speaking not all social interaction is a positive contributor to one's sanity. Having the same shallow conversations over and over with different individuals while observing people express their narcissistic traits covertly within or over a group can have a corrosive effect on my sanity.
A BBQ could be good but a bit intense for your friends hence their reaction. Maybe inviting them to a more intimate gathering e.g dinner with your own family or a couple of friends would allow them to engage more and allow them to have a deeper connection to others or yourself.
> Having the same shallow conversations over and over with different individuals
I'm ADHD-neurodivergent so I get the point here, but think of this phenomenon as verbal handshaking. The point isn't the subject matter of the conversation, it's everything else about the exchange. You could almost get the same effect just from spouting word salad at each other, the content doesn't matter. It's how people feel out others whom they don't know very well, with a lot of observation gathering going on. There's a social dance you typically need to go through before someone else will feel comfortable engaging you on a more personal level.
People tell a story that matters to them. They do this with everyone they see. The next time you see them they tell you again. And the next time. And the next....
Ad nauseum...
They don't care about You or that You specifically hear the story, evidenced by the repetition even after advising them of it, they are just narcissists self aggrandizing or whining about a an event they perceive as unfair.
Theres no reason to engage with that behavior as it does nothing but encourage it, with the end result being a systemic harm to self and society.
This behaviour is most common in extroverts ime, though thats likely due to the fact they are more visible than introverts in general.
I must admit I have been guilty of doing this in the past. Rather than something negative though it was something positive. I think by telling it over and over it was a way to relive the experience or just express how great it was since I had no one with me at the time. In my case though I genuinely just forgot I told the people the story since I was telling it to everyone and (to me) it was an interesting story. Everyone was polite and didn't remind me that I have already told them the story until one person couldn't bear hearing it another time. It was only at this point that I became conscious of what I was doing.
I know what you mean though. Mentally ill people have a habit of doing this. If you listen in on one talking to themselves you will hear a story of some personal trauma they experienced some time ago.
Perennial victims also do this as a solicitation for love. While as a child we learn to express our bad experiences to our parents and receive love and affection in return. The problem is like drug addicts some people grow up to abuse this to lesser and lesser effect.
When it comes to aggrandizing it can be funny to shut the person down by expressing your disinterest then immediately complimenting them on something trivial that you genuinely like or asking them the question about something you wish to know.
Your comment reminds me of the phrase "People don't do things to you they do things in front of you." It expresses just how performative human behaviour can be at times.
Oh yeah I get that. My issue is that often it is a waste of time. The other person has no intention to reveal their personality, or they are using it as a filter to see what they can get out of you or even they are only engaging so as not to appear unsociable.
> ... I have a few friends who left to their own devices would never make social plans and when I invite them to a BBQ they'll stand lamely to the side ...
You've had conversations with them about this? They admit to being happier? Do they want to engage more ... so when their foot / leg injuries heal they'll be able to walk comfortably to where the conservations are happening?
No, I mean podcasts that are essentially a small group of friends shooting the breeze or talking about a specific topic. It lets you feel as if you're a member of an intimate social group but you have neither any responsibility for participation or ability to fuck it up and make people dislike you.
"but we can sometimes control the amount of desire we have by avoiding triggers that remind us"
That is true, but a sad conclusion. I don't believe, that there are many people who truly want to be alone all the time. Most just rather be alone, than with mean idiots, who will hurt them again.
But avoiding other people and situations to not be reminded how alone you are, will also never allow you to be in a position, where you can indeed open up and connect to the right people.
This is a really magical feeling. Being connected to people who you like, where you just feel welcome and don't have the feeling to be on your guard all the time. There is a reason many people are obsessed with party and drugs as this will get them this feeling temporarily. But I want that feeling everyday and without drugs. But the daily grind makes it an exception.
> This is a really magical feeling. Being connected to people who you like, where you just feel welcome and don't have the feeling to be on your guard all the time.
This. Maybe a bit weird but often for me these connections has been with total strangers while traveling when I was younger. Sometimes it would be with another tourist and sometimes with a local. It's surprising how deep it can get quickly.
I think this is why I love the movie "Lost in Translation", I think it perfectly captures this emotion. But I think if you haven't had that kind of experience with strangers the movie is probably lost on you.
I have not seen the movie, but I know that experience.
I think it is, because while travelling you are not bound by social expectations and boundaries. "What if I behave weird, then everyone will know in eternity".
No, you meet people and you (both) can relax, because you know you can just move on the next day and never see anyone here again. So you can let go off all that fear and anxiety .. and suddenly you can connect with ease.
> If you’re an introvert and don’t desire social connection and have none, you’re fine
I'd just point out being an introvert does not mean you don't desire or dont have social interaction, just that it can be tiring instead of energizing. You could still very much crave social interaction as an introvert.
> If you’re an introvert and don’t desire social connection and have none, you’re fine.
As a blanket statement, this may not be valid, as there could be 'feedback loops':
> Buecker and her colleagues found that lonely people tended to be more introverted and neurotic and somewhat less agreeable and conscientious than less lonely people on average.
>> ... one definition of loneliness is the difference between the amount (and depth) of social connection desired and the amount obtained.
> Only on HN do I expect a formalization of loneliness. I'm not complaining.
I'm inclined to see this as a model, not a definition nor formalization. For me, the definition would be rooted in a subjective experience and would also include considerable formalization.
I don't do this lightly, but I think ChatGPT 4.0's comparison is quite lucid: "... formalization is more about defining and structuring the components or rules of a system or concept, while a model is about representing that system or concept in a simpler or more understandable way."
I enjoy this kind of pedantry. I don't see you complaining. :)
I would never want to dilute HackerNews comments but on the Internet you really have no idea how you impact people. Thanks for making me smile, have a good day :)
I did some research, and yes: ISO 35776597. Except that's the deprecated base 10 number. With so many standards now, everyone prefers base 36: ISO LATED.
Interesting, I've always thought of myself as an introvert because I like being in social settings but am reserved on interactions. With this definition I'm possibly an extrovert.
the commonest distinction i've seen is that introverts get drained by being with people, and recharge by being alone, whereas extroverts get energised by being with people. it's distinct from whether you enjoy social interaction, some introverts like socialising but can only do so much of it before they need to go off and be by themselves.
lately ive actually been wondering if im more extroverted then I realized, but just have social anxiety that leads to me being quiet and reserved. I mean were posting on forums, i threw a party this weekend. lol
So much discussion of loneliness on this forum makes me think y'all are in the wrong country. Feeling lonely? Come to the Philippines! Sunnier, family-oriented, cheaper, everyone wants to have a relationship with foreigners (both men and women), waterfalls, sandbars, diving, cheap food and housing, and recently 200 Mbps internet. Been married to a Filipina for 14 years. So far so good. I came here from Silicon valley as a digital nomad and still here as a father and a husband. (Been back and forth though over the years.) Being a programmer and an introvert with a family of 3 children, creates the opposite problem of having too much social interaction and not enough alone time. Recently I've been able to negotiate more alone time with my children as my youngest is 8 years old, and they have lots of cousins to okay with. Overall, I think humans need to be with each other. Living in our little boxes by ourselves staring at screens is not natural.
I'm curious what you find exploitative about that?
When I visited a south east asian country I was very surprised by the wealth disparity. However, I'm not seeing the connection between spending money as an expat with a significantly higher income compared to the rest of the country and exploitation. If anything it could be argued that you are injecting more cash into the economy from outside.
Exploitative in a sense where old dudes with questionable morals go to 3rd world countries and use their money to do questionable things like have sex with underage individuals or just exploit women in general. Women will tend to be submissive because they can get financial security. Your average joe programmer in HN isn't the usual type to go and stay in another country and try to assimilate properly. A good portion of them are outcasts or losers in their home countries (for a reason) and trying to experience rockstar life in a 3rd world country. That's a cynical take but if you ever to go Philippines/Vietnam/Indonesia you'll see what I mean and remember this comment. Obviously there are exceptional cases where people marry for "love" but usually it's for financial security.
Have you been living there? I always wonder why people have this idea of Asian women as submissive and expats being exploitative in SEA. Perhaps there are some old guys with questionable morals, but in my experience, neither Asian women are submissive, and most of the people I met (late 20s and early 30s) were normal individuals (both men and women) doing their own thing. This could be my bias, as I'm part of that age range. Anyway, I feel these generalisations are dangerous, e.g. "Obviously there may be exceptional cases where people marry for "love," but usually, it's for financial security". Does this statement not apply to any specific part of the world? If you are married, would your wife be with you only for financial reasons? Then why do you think so poorly about Asians in general.
Thailand and the Philippines are prime destinations for morally dubious westerners to find the "love" they never found at home.
Britain is full of middle aged men with 20-year younger SEA wives (many of whom look almost child-like). I'm amazed the Home Office looks at the "relationship" arrangement and allows all of the visas.
The Harvard Study, which has been following individuals for their entire lives for decades, and has even started following some of their descendants, has found that connections are strongly correlated with happiness, health, and general life satisfaction:
> What makes a life fulfilling and meaningful? The simple but surprising answer is: relationships. The stronger our relationships, the more likely we are to live happy, satisfying, and healthier lives. In fact, the Harvard Study of Adult Development reveals that the strength of our connections with others can predict the health of both our bodies and our brains as we go through life.
Something I noticed at my current workplace (20 employees, 80% women and mostly between 20-30 yrs old) is that all the girls constantly take breaks or walks together to just to be with each other and get things off their chests. They frequently give each other hugs at random times during the day. New employees arrive and they immediately fall in to the fold. One arrived from abroad and after a few weeks said "you guys (she meant gals) are my new family here"
Meanwhile there's us 3 developer dudes who all get along fine but our relationship goes about as far as "all good?", "yep you?". And then of course talking about IT geek stuff. Kind of general problem with men I think. Very difficult to open up to other men.
I honestly don't think it's as big a problem as you would expect. Guys aren't quite so built to be huggy friendly and we tend to be more defined by real working relationships.
Or maybe it's just a me thing.
Like, at work for me I would be most rewarded by other people who are engaged in that common work cause and interact within that context. Not with stories about family life or opening up about whatever.
Hanging out with friends is kind of pointless without a common cause. To do play some game or sport or actually do something that's worth doing and is fairly collaborative.
To me a friend is like "hey I'm building a fence, wanna help?". And the ability to be building a fence yourself and asking the same. Or whatever project you can imagine.
The "you good" shit is mostly a consequence of lacking that sort of common cause, at least in my experience.
Or just watching other people do stuff is good too. "Hold my beer" silly stuff that you can watch and joke and one up each other about.
But if someone started that family huggy stuff (barring needing help or talking about their problems) I'd be distancing myself from that hard. In my experience those people are out to get you, smile on a snake.
I used to have this attitude and regret losing good friends over it. It’s too easy to be independent these days, and, if you’re naturally introverted like me, too easy to neglect friendships due to self-reliance. I’m gradually learning to reach out to friends for no other purpose than spending time together, and it’s broadened my horizons. I think modern life is by default too isolating to allow most relationships to build themselves like this. You don’t have to hug people, but reaching out for non-transactional contact is rewarding IME.
To be fair, I didn't say you have to have a good common cause. Just something to do in some capacity.
Like, you don't need help, it's fun to hang out and it's an excuse to get help.
My point is to say the relationships are different rather than transactional. Focused on a common cause and that sharing of it rather than relationships directly.
> Guys aren't quite so built to be huggy friendly and we tend to be more defined by real working relationships.
Do you think this is really true, or just how it is in some societies? There's been a lot of talk about suicide rates in men and lack of social connections. Maybe this is just wrong, and as others have said, pure social connection without having to "do" something is the point.
A lot of old guys out there dying alone because they can no longer "do" and don't have an idea of just how to "be."
> Hanging out with friends is kind of pointless without a common cause
Absolutely not. Relationships need to be nurtured. Hanging out with your friends without any specific plans is great and I can't imagine not doing it regularly.
I am all for doing things together and that is usually how we men bond. However, we do need each other emotionally as well, when stuff gets real.
I have been going through mid-life issues lately. Its been hard to talk to friends about it. I have talked to older men as well as peers. I have made it a point to overcome the fear of opening up personally (make no mistake, its a fear that kept me from opening up to others before). I am a strong believer in letting it out there in the hopes that others are able to help. To many of the men I know do not want to show weakness. They try and look tough/strong/having it together, but really they are lonely because they have no one to help them through their struggle. The hardest part is that they choose this by deciding its more important to look strong them to have encouragement from friends.
I have seen a discouraging trend. Those that are not able to open up about their own issues are the ones that are not able to help me when I am going through issues. They don't know how to relate and its almost that some of them are afraid to enter into a deeper need. They have nothing to say, even if they can relate their words are empty because there is not a deeper bond there. The friends that have helped me are the ones that have actually reminded who I am and what I have already come through.
I am not saying we have to be a touchy feeling but when my friend is in a dead end/low paying job (in his mid 40s), had a side project partner back out on him, has to move out of his apartment because of new renters, and has a wife that is in increasingly dissatisfied with apartment living and tells say "I'm doing ok" on the phone... He is dying inside and won't let others in.
I am not afraid to go there with my buds. I will also so say that the men I go deep with always walk away from the conversation thanking me and grateful for the friendship.
About five years ago I got to know a new woman colleague. (I’m a man.) Very soon it felt like she was confiding in me. No one just confides in me like that, so I thougt we were developing a friendship -- I would never think to do something like that to anyone that I didn't trust. It felt great that someone would go out of their way to seek my Platonic companionship.
But I eventually realized that I was just the most convenient guy/person (most of her immediate coworkers were men) for her to complain about work while stuck at work. We never did anyhing together otside of work contexts.
I find it weird that other men don't do that. I try to be good friends with men and women I feel I can trust, and we do often talk about personal stuff to let out steam, take breaks for talking, go for walks once in a while, etc.
Just yesterday at work I stayed until 9pm because a friend was waiting on some CI shit, I stayed to do today's work in advance. We were close before but we talked about a lot of personal stuff to each other, it's nice advancing the friendship to new levels.
But I also talk deep stuff with my male friends. It's not really with everyone but there's plenty of people who are ok with that.
The one thing I miss from when I was a smoker was the easy, no-expectation, daily excuse to hang out with other dudes at the office. I quit smoking 10 years ago but I still have strong relationships with some of my smoking coworkers from back then, but I haven't developed any work friends at all since then. I find that the main component in building relationships is just how much relaxed time you spend together.
> And then of course talking about IT geek stuff. Kind of general problem with men I think. Very difficult to open up to other men.
I think men generally are about doing things together as opposed to 'just' being together. "Talking" isn't really counted as an activity for men, but is for women.
Get a bunch of guys together for paintball, or hunting, or sports, and relationships will form.
I'm not sure that's a problem, so much as it's gender observations. I've seen the same things. There's a meeting I go to, where it can be various blends of men and women. All the people are close and comfortable with each other, but if it happens to be only men, there's silence. If it's a mix, particularly if certain women are present, there's this animated chatter that's easy to join in on.
I know for me the heart of what I am isn't about 'opening up', it's about things like that IT geek stuff (but translated into what I do).
It feels like an emotional Dunbar number: I do best when there's just a couple people with whom I keep track of how they're doing in a personal way, and it matters a great deal but I won't feel at all the same way about twenty people at once. It seems like women are more likely to keep track of how large numbers of people are doing, in a social way, which won't always mean trying to HELP people: they can get caught up in drama when there's conflict among the people, and it takes on great importance.
I'll have a much smaller number of people like that, and will bind more loosely to them, and I think it's the same mechanism but it just doesn't scale the way it does with women. I don't see it as a problem, more as an observation.
Men (generally speaking) want to fit into the social dynamic of their tribe. If you started to slowly open up and talk about more vulnerable topics it's very likely they would follow suit. I've seen it many times, almost always where I was the one that started it. I was once a super 'introverted dev' but really I was just not well socialized and unwilling and unable to express my emotions with confidence and clarity. Once I started to feel my feelings (I started with a feelings journal where I'd write down any emotions I felt that day) then I could start to describe them appropriately for the setting. Opening up to a trusted member of whatever tribe you are in (work, friends, hobby club) at the appropriate pace inspires a great deal of trust. If you talk about how you feel openly (and again, appropriately to where the group is) they come to trust that you will say how you feel when you feel it and that inspires trust and security, which makes you a very valuable member of that tribe.
Thanks for the advice :) Paradoxically I'd feel more comfortable telling my life story and recent mishaps to a total stranger than to someone who I spend 8 hrs in an office with. Something to do with if it comes across wrong or people get freaked out, you're still sitting next to them for 40hrs a week until you leave the company.
That makes sense as you have more to lose with the people you know than the total strangers. Doesn't stop you from testing the waters though. Additionally, it is useful to find out who you can open up to and who you can't.
The good news is, you absolutely can tell a total stranger about your recent mishaps, or worries or problems or whatever! Services like The Samaritans exist just for this and many people find them extremely beneficial.
> The simple but surprising answer is: relationships.
The trick to understand all of this is to realize that humans are a tribal species. I don't mean in the in-group versus out-group stuff (though that is also a big piece of the human behavioral puzzle). What I mean is that for all of our most recent evolutionary history, our survival did not depend on our individual performance as much as it did the performance of our tribe.
A solitary Homo sapiens on the savannah is as dead and useless as a worker bee without a hive. Our entire cognitive and emotional systems have evolved to understand that deep truth. To be abandoned by the tribe is an existential threat, and to be accepted and valued by the tribe is winning.
Once you realize that, so much of human behavior makes more sense.
I think it really says something about modern American culture that we find the answer "surprising". For almost all of the history of Western civilization, it was so obvious that it didn't even need questioning. We're like fish flopping around on land who are finally realizing what water is.
Could it be that in the surveys which measure happiness , more social people are more likely to say they're happy? Because they talk to their peers about their lives and are more likely to present more presentable aspects of their lives.
With people with less social contact, maybe they don't reorganize their memories with respect to social visibility and just by intensity or time spent in that experience.
There is a theory that I'd like to believe that everyone is equally happy over a period of time after basic necessities of life are satisfied.
Personally I've found that joy cometh before a fall. Literally. My worst rollerblading accidents were when I was feeling joy (those hand guards do not protect against broken fingers). As such joy is not an emotion I actively cultivate, and when it happens I take it as reason to be wary.
>With people with less social contact, maybe they don't reorganize their memories with respect to social visibility and just by intensity or time spent in that experience.
That wouldn't correlate with smaller lifespan and worse health outcomes for people with less social contact pretty consistently observed (filtered for objections like "they have less social contact because they are sick, not the other way around").
>There is a theory that I'd like to believe that everyone is equally happy over a period of time after basic necessities of life are satisfied.
In other studies, above a certain level like starvation and homelessness, "basic necessities" are not even the biggest factor in happiness. Meaning, social circle, and status are.
> That wouldn't correlate with smaller lifespan and worse health outcomes for people with less social contact pretty consistently observed
You didn't filter for "friend noticed there was something physically wrong and got them to go to a doctor". Plenty of people's lives have been saved, or have been made healthier, because of such interventions.
> There is a theory that I'd like to believe that everyone is equally happy over a period of time after basic necessities of life are satisfied.
This is not true at all, in my opinion.
I used to believe everyone has approximately the same life satisfaction after their needs are met. I've always been quite happy, but I became much, much happier after I moved across the country and made really close friends with whom I spend a lot of time. Meanwhile, my old roommate still spends 8-5 in the office and then comes home and plays League of Legends. There is no way our life satisfaction is the same. Don't get me wrong, I was pretty happy going into the office and seeing my friends for an hour or two each day. But now that I have a life with much more time spent with deep friendships, I see that life satisfaction is not zero sum. You can be a certain amount of happy. And you can be even happier than that at no cost.
I was a part of a study with San Diego state which followed my through my life until I told them to stop...
The study was to see how different people from differing socio-economic backgrounds turned out as they got older...
When I was about ~16/17 I told them to kick rocks.
They used to show up every year and interview me for an hour about how my life was progressing...
I lived on a famous hippy commune in Lafayette California until I was 4 years old... My mom knew Jim Jones (of the koolaid fame) and a bunch of other famous people from San Francisco in the 1970s...
Later, I found an article in Playboy Magazine (yes, no funny joke there) which was taken with the founder of the commune, Vik Baranco (I dont know how to spell his name) where he recvealed that the commune was being followed by the CIA...
I think the study from UCSD was a CIA front as I spoke with other kids from the commune and the weird shit that happened to them....
-
EDIT: my mom was doing acid with the grateful dead, fleetwod mac, and a bunch of other people... who probably dont want to be named...
anyway - the 1970s and 1980s were briliant for computers.... BECAUSE OF ACID...
Look at Cisco, they developed the core of BGP while on acid in a hot-tub in Sunnyvale...
I happened to live in that area of Lafayette when I was a kid, in the late 70s - early 80s. From over the hill from my house, we could see all these purple buildings. I'm pretty sure that's the commune you're describing.
As kids we didn't really know what was going on over there, but we knew it was something a bit...unusual.
Yeah. I remember there was talk that it was a "nudist colony" so we'd peek over, hoping to see something ... but we never really did see any people outside the buildings. I was too young to really understand the hippie/drug angle so it didn't factor in, but now when I think back, yeah, makes a lot of sense.
Interesting. The Jonestown "doctor" who devised the Flavor Aid solution was in my dad's social circle at the University of Houston in the late 60s. UCSD is my alma mater (different school from San Diego State fwiw).
The weird stuff was definitely the CIA, and not say, I dunno... the questionable life choices of someone who hung out with Jim Jones and hippy commune cult leaders.
Yeah, snide-ness aside, you'd be suprised what happened in the 1970s among the 'hip' crowd in San Francisco....
Ever know about Charlie Manson's CIA fixers, for example? (haight street SF) - I dont have time to give you a history lesson on the CIA and silicon valley...
Go apply at palantir if you want to know what is going on....
The CIA are assholes, and they do routinely violate the rights of Americans (even today, though it was probably worse decades ago).
But their interests are narrow. What about that would have piqued their curiosity? If you are right, does that mean one of the hippies was some Soviet asset? And even then, that's got to be the worst cover story ever. On the other hand, the Feebs were really bad at counterintel tradecraft, but it's difficult to imagine them being sophisticated enough to pull off an academic cover like that.
Maybe I was harsh. Near as I can tell, almost all of those agencies were into some seriously stupid shit (when did they give up on psychic phenomena research again?), but it still just doesn't strike me as plausible. I've having trouble processing it.
If you ever do write that book, plug it here so I have a chance of noticing it, would ya?
This trivializes the process of developing relationships, and the mechanisms by which relationships promote well-being. In turn:
1) You must consider the dynamics of rejection. People may recognize and seek relationships, but find themselves unable to build them. However much you might want to have a relationship with someone, they have to reciprocate. And if there's something "wrong" with you, you're going to find that a lot of people will not want your company. Additionally, thanks to network effects, one person taking this stance can close a large swath of relationships that might otherwise come into being; being on the bad side of someone who is popular or well-connected can quickly turn you into a pariah.
2) Relationships don't just magically make you happier or healthier; they provide access to goods and services that fulfill needs, because affinity prompts people either to provide them directly or to direct you to places where you can get them. Not every relationship is equal, either, but having more of them means a greater chance of having some that cancel out or improve upon deleterious relationships or the lack of a relationships. Some relationships take more out of you than they give.
I committed heavily to open source development as I wanted my relationship with SOCIETY to be a certain way, and I've found it has this effect for me.
Discovering that the 'reach' of my work has extended farther than I expected… for instance, someone who's asked for particular code turns out to be in a homeless shelter as I once was, many years ago, and their connection is giving them hope for their future, or for another instance, someone's shouting me and my work out by name in a BBC radio interview and seems to get what I'm trying to accomplish… these things hugely add to my identification of my life as fulfilling and meaningful.
The one is very personal, and the other is easily understood as celebrity and promotion, but they're the same. If the purpose to life is making connections, a large circle of social friends (or a siamese-twin relationship with a romantic partner) isn't the ONLY option. There's all sorts of ways to connect, and finding meaningful work will almost certainly mean functional or even parasocial connections with lots of people.
And parasocial relationships are still relationships in this sense: they're one-to-many, in which you can't give what's normally understood to be friendship on the one-on-one level, but it doesn't work if you haven't got love for the collective entity of your fandom. I think parasocial relationships become more intense when the celebrity center of the relationship is really hungry for it. Modern examples aren't the only examples I can give: consider Johnny Carson, king of the parasocial relationship :)
Without reading the study I assume this conclusions is from averaging out the experiences of a bunch of people. The problem with group averages is that they are just that. They apply more, or less, or not at all, to particular individuals within the analysis.
Yeah, people feel less lonely when they’re around people who they like and who like them. “People feel more lonely when they’re around other people” is the type of stuff you could only find on the internet or in academia, you can logic yourself into it but it’s so far beyond common sense it’s insane
Anecdotally, I disagree. I definitely feel more lonely when I’m in large groups and feel disconnected. If I’m alone, I’m not lonely unless I’m thinking about those large groups and my absence of connection - and I can even feel lonely if my connections just aren’t available at a given moment.
I'd say it's not "people who are often around other people are lonelier than people who are not", but rather "people who are lonely, feel lonelier when they're around other people."
I definitely relate to the latter. I can go for a long bike ride by myself and feel blissfully content, but standing in the corner at a social event where everyone else is having a good time is intensely lonely and isolating.
// standing in the corner at a social event where everyone else is having a good time
I used to be like that, and I would judge the people I was disconnected from like they are dumb for having a good time. Eventually I figured out, I was the standoffish jerk - and forced myself to learn how to go say hi and be more part of the group (although I am still not amazing at it, I realize that if I am disconnected in the corner, it's because of what I have chosen to do/not do)
> “People feel more lonely when they’re around other people”
Oh it’s entirely easy to be super lonely when surrounded by other people. The easiest way to achieve this that I’ve found is being a +1 at a wedding. You’re surrounded with people you’ve never met who all know each other pretty well and have tight bonds. Makes you feel super isolated and alone in a way that just isn’t noticeable in an empty room.
Oh that's not the problem at all for me. I am perfectly capable of feeling lonely right through that entire super fun engaging conversation with strangers. Because a conversation doesn't scratch that same itch. Like eating potato chips when what you really need is steak.
> Yeah, people feel less lonely when they’re around people who they like and who like them.
People who they like and who like them. And you don’t think that that is a massive caveat? The original claim was just “people”, not “fantastic and awesome people”.
> “People feel more lonely when they’re around other people” is the type of stuff you could only find on the internet or in academia, you can logic yourself into it but it’s so far beyond common sense it’s insane
And who are you to make this statement? Only on the Internet and in academia? I don’t know what “only on the Internet” is supposed to mean. That everyone lies on the Internet or that none of them (us) are real people? I’ve seen people who have made this claim. On the Internet at least. (How candid are random people about this “in real life”?) They seemed sincere enough about it.
I don’t even know what the hell you are getting at with “logic yourself into”, as if how people feel is just a philosophical-analytical experiment gone wrong. Get a grip.
> Yeah, people feel less lonely when they’re around people who they like and who like them.
Not necessarily. I often visit my mum and her partner. I love them both and they love me. Yet, I feel more lonely when I live with them than when I live alone. I can even see it in the intensity of my online chatting and dating app use. Presence of nice people just makes me more hungry for connection.
I believe "Loneliness" is a misnomer. The misery people feel when they are "alone" is not the lack of other people but the lack of connection. More precisely the disconnect with nature, oneself and to a lesser extend the community. A psychologist who studied loneliness said that the best remedy is time spend in the forest. If lonely people go and force themself to get around other people, they usually drag everybody down.
I spent a year in more isolated parts of a war zone. I almost never felt "alone" because of the bonds I had with people while living life out there and daily tasks I needed to accomplish. I filled a lot of my time fixing stuff that had been ignored due to a lack of expertise and bureaucracy, which gave me a sense of purpose. I'd done harsh activities like burn duty, long watches, long patrols/convoys/missions and never felt they were a burden.
Just before I left I returned to a larger base with many more people and I felt the loneliness wash over me like an ocean current. The day I was assigned to burn duty, which I'd done before as a community responsibility, because I was late to something put me in tears, mainly because I realized the people I worked with at a larger base were not actually my friends and we did not share a bond. I had left those people behind.
My theory is that the forest requires you to do certain things every day so that you survive, which was one component of my avoided loneliness. If you do just this for a long time I'd suspect loneliness will still set in. You need people and, probably, a variety of them.
Would be interesting to see this study. I personally feel more lonely in nature, especially in forests. I need the energy of big cities to feel a warm glow. I suspect I’m not the only one and there’s a large percentage of the population who are similar to me.
When I used to live in small towns, I would have a strong need to periodically visit a big city to restore my emotions. I love the feeling of being in a crowd even if I never talk to anyone. I love the bustle and noise and potential for new encounters.
Nature feels isolating to me. I wonder if I’m wired this way because I grew up in a big city. We’re wired to look for places where we can feel we’re “at home”, and that’s usually a function of childhood experiences.
I agree that it might be due to where we grow up ... I grew up in a forest on an island with few people living within walking distance. But I've been living in a small city for about 14 years, and more and more I long to go back to living somewhere were there aren't all these people around. Or more importantly, to somewhere so much more _quiet_.
I think I am same as you.
I recently noticed that listening to birds singing make me feel incredibly melancholic. I was very lonely for a few years. I was listening to the singing a lot when I was at my place, and now I have associated birds singing and loneliness. It is unfortunate that something so calming and beautiful now makes me feel sad. It has become the sound of loneliness to me.
Being alone in the city, "alone in the crowd", feels just as lonely if not more so for me than walking alone in the forest. The latter I expect to be alone, but in the former, I'm surrounded by people but with no connection. It's a strange feeling.
There’s a new lot coined word “sonder” that describes being alone in the city and observing others and wondering about their inner lives. As a writer this fills me with warmth rather than loneliness.
I grew up in a small rural area and experience this in the opposite direction. Sometimes I just need to get away from people, there's too many of them and crowds can be nerve wracking, not to mention noisy.
There is nowhere on earth I am happier than at a family member's camp, deep in the woods away from everyone all by myself. Ultimately I think your last point is absolutely correct. I doubt I'd feel this way if this wasn't a lived experience while growing up.
Yes. I used to live in a smaller city and my friends were from even smaller places (small towns, farms). They have a relationship with open space and with crowds that I don’t have. This is particularly pronounced here in the US where there’s vast expanses and people love their backyards. I never had backyard growing up and never missed it.
When I told them about my dream home being a 500 sq ft apartment in the middle of a bustling metropolis, they said the first thought they had was “claustrophobia”.
But for me, small spaces in dense areas give me joy — living in the midst of an exciting morass of people where people collide in Brownian motion and new ideas form feel like happiness. This notion is much more common in denser places like Europe and Asia.
Disagree, I enjoy hanging out in nature, and when it’s not possible I usually look at images on nature subreddits like r/earthporn. Always manages to calm me.
Sure. But consider that not everyone is like you. There has been a normalization of nature lovers in our time (mostly correlated with upbringing and environment, but in some cases possibly partly correlated with affluence ironically — most of my nature loving friends like spending money at REI and posting nature photos — if that was my hobby I would too — yet I notice that there’s a kind of mimesis going on where it’s now cool to love nature) and it’s an interesting reversal because in my day the opposite was true in my milieu (in a big city, so self selected population).
I come from survivalist stock where my parents escaped smaller more rural places to make it in the city hence the opposite orientation. When my family moved from the downtown core to a more sparsely populated new development closer to nature (forest preserve next door) for my dad’s job, my grandmother and rest of the family felt it was “too quiet”. They missed the connections they had with the fishmongers and shopkeepers and the thriving commercial activity and convenience of being able to buy stuff.
I suspect there is a bias that we see online because those who comment on sites like this and Reddit tend to be introverts and there’s an intrinsic bias toward solitary activities like being in nature. I find the numbers to be more even in the non tech forum population.
These two aren't mutually exclusive tbh, both being in rural areas and cities has its pluses and minuses. Living in some area that's on the edge of a city that lets you have both seems like a good compromise to that. Nature a short walk one way, practicality and connectivity a short walk the other way.
Forest, ocean, desert wandering, anything that will take you out of your norm and reconnect with nature (and oneself) will help. I went through loss and found myself pretty lonely and disconnected. I went sailing, against the better judgement of my wallet, to reconnect and prove (again) to myself that I’m amazing. I have strong will though so YMMV. Tell me I can’t do something and I will make it my mission to do it.
If you are struggling with connection, stop thinking. Really. Stop thinking about whatever is going on with you and start listening. Talk with people and get to know them. Use that to determine if you would like to keep that person in your life or not. Connections are easy to make when you aren’t trying to force it. Just let that guard down, realize we all have a story, and ask folks who they are and they will gladly tell you. If you struggle with making conversation then I suggest you start there. Say Hi to anyone within 20 feet of you today. If they are there longer than 5 minutes, strike up a conversation. Make a joke. Commend them on their clothes or shoes or something visible. Show some empathy for what they are going through at the moment and you’ll be making friends in no time.
I think this is good advice, but I'm often surprised that the advice isn't more formulaic.
Like, "5 questions to ask someone you've just met." It might not be the best approach but I'm sure it's better than standing around. Some examples that spring to mind. "What brought your here to day?", "what's the best way to remember your name?", "where was the last place you went on holiday?". Etc.
I suspect that for people who are "bad" at connection any practice is good. I like to keep a pack of cards in my pocket for a couple magic tricks, as I can always then ask "would you like to see a trick?" Very rarely is the answer no.
But then could I honestly say any of this moves the dial drastically? Probably not, but I do meet more interesting people than I think I would otherwise.
I used to go hiking alone often, but after some wildlife encounters and near-misses with injury I decided I’d rather be with a group. At campsites I tend to be too alert to fall asleep, but the sounds of other campers nearby give me enough comfort to relax. Natural environments reinforce, not lessen, how we need each other.
I have to laugh, because I literally just got back from a week in the forest. I have a spot I escape to that I charge my laptop every night and then in the mornings I can drive up and work from my laptop overlooking an old growth forest in bc. And I get more work done, feel the best about myself, and just overall feel the modern society stress way less.
It’s funny because I found myself feeling very isolated and lonely the last few few weeks and without even thinking my body just packed a bag and drove out to this spot. And I have to say, I feel a million times better if anyone out there is craving the same thing.
This is weirdly concerned with other people in the context of mental health advice for someone. "You're a bummer, go hide in a forest so we don't have to see you."
Another distinction that will be helpful is between loneliness and solitude. Spending time with yourself in the forest, reflecting or enjoying your company would be the latter for me.
I think the intuition here is:
- Being surrounded by people one cannot connect with, increases the feeling that one is socially isolated and an 'outsider'. They are unable to engage with their organic natural (social) environment
- Whilst being in 'a forest alone', offers the person a chance to engage with their natural environment and more easily connect with it, just by being there. You don't have to do anything but just exist in it. In a way you are accepted and do belong to that environment (genetically/instinctively). So it acts to counter feelings of 'not fitting in'.
What I object to is this: "the disconnect with nature, oneself and to a lesser extend the community". No, loneliness is not a disconnect with nature or yourself. It's a disconnect with the community.
The focus on nature might be a product of the time we live. However, the idea that loneliness is due to feelings of alienation beyond just interpersonal is a powerful one.
This is to say that loneliness can be thought of as not just a sense of lack of connection to other people but a connection to the world. This loneliness is evident because of our lack of consistency of our actions with results. People have a 'back to nature' kind of philosophy when they talk about it because that is the most common way to find the consistency - farm to table and all that.
But I think it's more broad. For example, Minecraft has the kind of consistency that makes a person feel more connected to, at least, that world because it is participatory and makes a kind of intuitive sense that our normal lives lack.
I know it seems reaching to correlate the two - in some way, it is. However, the thing a lonely person lacks is more than just an empty person to talk to. It's a deeper purpose which can be often found in activity with other people but isn't limited to it.
Some of the least lonely people are those with projects they are passionate about. They have a connection to the world that feels consistent but it isn't other people.
I think the focus on nature might be a byproduct or reaction to modern jobs, technology and creature comforts decreasing the participation people have with the world around them. This makes it easy to want to return to a time (real or not) where people lived harder but more fulfilling lives, with camping and games offering ways to act out this ideal.
Of course a desire for a return to nature is not necessarily "modern", see for example Walden, but I think the degree of disconnect has increased to the point it is harder to ignore for a larger number of people.
“Social species” is a generalisation. As such, it’s not a good argument against a more particular statement. (Different species aren’t born with an axiom of solitary/social which would then produce more particular consequences, but particular behaviours are imperfectly generalised into a taxonomy. The specific here has a higher weight than the general.)
What I see in online discussions is people repeating this mantra, because it agrees with their own inner experience. But it’s unnecessary to force this onto others that this doesn’t resonate with as much, invalidating their experiences.
But human social needs aren't fulfilled when all the people in your vicinity are busy with their own duties, problems, thoughts and don't have much capacity left to perceive you.
It’s not ridiculous. It’s short-circuiting the depression that comes with loneliness by allowing the primal part of you to reconnect with nature. It works. There’s a whole industry around this premise. Once you reconnect with nature, your immediate instinct is to reconnect with others. So in a way it’s paving the path back to social relationships and community.
> Once you reconnect with nature, your immediate instinct is to reconnect with others.
I have the complete opposite experience. I spend as much of my vacation time as possible hiking, camping, and backpacking alone. I go to places where the landscape is so beautiful that it makes me weep; where seeing the unusual flora makes me feel like I'm home; where the night sky is like diamond dust on black velvet. These places don't make me want to reconnect with others. They make me want to build a cabin and get away from everybody else.
I'm skeptical of this idea in general especially with examples of people like John Muir. If reconnecting with natures gives you the immediate instinct to reconnect with others then why do people like him have to be coaxed away from it?
I think you might be seeking escape rather than reconnecting with nature. Those are two opposing desires. One is the desire to escape the monotony of everyday life by getting back into nature. The other is losing oneself to nature. No going back. Only forward. Akin to hiking the Appalachian trail or the PNW trail in one go. It’s not an escape, it’s a calling or yearning for growth.
We are a social species, but we also heavily compare ourselves to others.
The quickest solution might be to remove yourself from others so that you don’t mentally make the comparison. The best long term solution might be to form the social bonds.
And sometimes you need to tackle the short term solution to change your mood in order to enact the long term solution.
This is HN, a reply that rewords "just don't be sad" into a turgid essay of meandering variables and equations will shoot to the top or close to it.
I am sometimes surprised that so many fall into producing and consuming this overblown, dense, turgid content, however then I look around and see that there exists an absolute deluge of essays on the misogyny of Gone Girl, and then I kind of understand how it's just the nature of a good chunk of humans to produce and consume such essays.
What helped the most with my depression was meditation. All alone. A difference between hopelessness and a positive disposition (also among people, despite not knowing or interacting with any of them).
> We are a social species. We need others to be happy.
The flipside is that we can make each other miserable as well.
I believe so. I was the loneliest after I got married when my now "ex" was really demanding and paranoid. People are most lonely when get excluded from their peers from school or work or social any groups. Old people are lonely because their friends and families are keep dying off or unable to social any longer. That's the reason I recommend joining some good social or religious organizations and make friends across all walks of life and ages, keep an open mind and enjoy life. Do not engage with toxic people, only keep good companies. Don't engage with people who don't want to engage, or thinking you can help them. People need to walk out of their own rut to be truly happy.
Amen. An addendum, if I may: when considering "toxic" please be wary of all-or-nothing cognitive fallacies. People who have one trait or belief or habit that you disagree with (even if strongly) do not necessarily come saddled with other things you might presume (ie just because they're catholic doesn't mean they're a pedo, just because they have tattoos doesn't mean they're a criminal, just because they have guns doesn't make them a white supremacist, etc.). People are complex, and you might be missing your best friend for life if you are prejudicial.
I think this cognitive fallacy is actually called "labeling". Instead of labeling yourself: "I'm dumb", think "It was dumb when I forgot to turn off my car lights and the battery died".
You are not dumb, lazy, toxic, etc, but occasionally you do or say dumb, lazy, toxic things
I think there are some things that are a bright red line though. I don't think it's prejudicial a black person to avoid people who have a "habit" of going to KKK rallies. Or an immigrant to avoid people who have "one belief" that we should forcibly deport immigrants.
I think for certain habits, beliefs, etc. people who avoid you aren't simply "unwilling to overlook this one bad thing". Maybe that one bad thing is actually just bad enough to poison you the person. [hypothetical you]
I totally agree for the other, more general case though. Not all catholics are pedos and I know plenty of catholics super frustrated with their leadership, excellent and loving people catholicism included.
if a person makes you uncomfortable then it's probably better to stay away from them. only if you can't do that, then it may be worth it to reevaluate why it is they make you uncomfortable and see if you can change that.
sure, but this is not about the definition of toxic, which is pretty clear and i don't think there is any disagreement about that. the point is that different things are toxic to different people. someone may not be bothered by guns, even when they don't care about them, and someone else may find any support of guns utterly despicable because maybe any mention of them triggers some kind of trauma they experienced. ok, so maybe it's not right to call this toxic, but that's why i used the term "uncomfortable' myself, and i don't think the specific difference is important. just possibly it could be argued that 'toxic' is to narrow. you want to avoid these people either way.
the rest of your comment kinda boils down to "it means whatever you want it to mean"
no, it doesn't. i am not talking about the definition of "toxic". i am talking about what is toxic to you or to me. if something is toxic to me, then that doesn't mean it has to be toxic for you. i admit, my original statement was confusing. i didn't mean to say that it matters how toxic is defined, but: "what matters is, what is toxic or hurtful to you"
the definition of toxic (or my definition, if you prefer) is that toxic is anything that continuously hurts a relationship.
again, what is hurtful to me is not the same thing as what may be hurtful to you. we all have different vulnerabilities, and are bothered or hurt by different things.
I'm no longer religious, but in the past considered joining a church just because it was absolutely the easiest way to make friends in a new area. Decided not to because it felt pretty unethical but I'm positive that is in large part why a lot of people go to church. It's a social event.
Jokes aside, if you walk into your local average middle of the road protestant church, nobody is going to ask you anything besides "New around here? what do you do?" Churches are filled with people with tepid religious convictions so if you stand up and sit down and sing along when you're supposed to, nobody is going to pin you down on philosophical questions over donuts and coffee after the service.
Right. I don't argue that its easy to stroll into the average church and attend a service or even an event without any question. You may even be welcomed fairly well depending on the church.
But if ones goal is to actually build relationships, built on anything other than lies or deception, and one doesnt actually believe the religion, its going to be difficult to do that at a religious institution.
I took it to be more about the ethics of supporting the religious institution. For all the good they provide they also normalise a lot of hatred and anti-social values, even when they preach the opposite.
I have gone from complete atheist to a fairly religious and I have never encountered anything resembling "normalization of hatred and anti social values" - but it's something I hear atheists talk about a lot.
I don't know what to make of that - either I've been really lucky or the folks whose apriori stance is that there's no higher power and religion is bad, try to spin it that way.
Count yourself lucky then. I was raised religious and even did a mission, visiting many dozens of congregations over my time of activity and yes there were plenty of things great about it but there was a ton of sexism, racism, homophobia, and gaslighting about what is real and what is not. Some of which took more than a decade to filter out of my psyche.
Glad you're having a great experience, don't assume it's remotely representative.
I'm from Northern Ireland so grew up with a religious conflict in the background. Of course I understand it's different from church to church and place to place.
But on the whole as I grew up and the conflict ended I still saw, for example, women's rights being denied, fast rights being denied and scientific fact (young earth, anti evolution) being denied by religious figures with political authority.
From what I see around the world via the media much of these same values are limiting the same rights in the US, and even more so in the Islamic world.
I've had many good experiences in churches myself and with being around religious people, but I'm also very aware of the experiences women and LGBTQIA+ people have in these environments and of how often church authorities have abused their power from covering up sexual abuse to exerting undue political influences or participating in what I would see as cultural genocides in the form of missionary colonialism.
s/fast rights being denied/gay rights being denied/
I should also have mentioned that I was raised in the church, my mother was a Sunday School teacher and my grandgather operated a charity helping raise funds for churces in Nigeria. I'm far from an a priori athiest.
When you say it's not something you've experienced but you hear athiests talking about and then add that you wonder if the athiests are inherently biased, maybe ask yourself if you're not exhibiting a similar kind of bias by denying their concerns and their own lived experiences on the basis of a single data point.
Nah, I was more so ethically at odds with going to an institution for one thing while rejecting the core belief of the institution. Felt like building relationships based on lies.
Like if I went to a super active model airplane hobbyist meetup group filled with interesting kind people, so I could get the social benefits, but I actually believed model airplanes were silly and even more so that they don't actually exist
Welcome sure, willingly accept and engage with and build lasting friendships with? Eh. I've been to church as an adult trying to will myself into believing and when meeting with elders/whoever they send to talk to new people who have been showing up for a while, "I just dont have faith to overcome what logically doesnt make sense to me about this religion but I like hanging out with yall" doesnt exactly play well.
Consider just grabbing their flyer and showing up to the events, outside of the mass/service.
I’m sure it varies by church, but in the large city churches I attended nobody would have cared — or likely even noticed — that you didn’t also attend mass.
Ha, my church was anything but diverse. We all had the same ethnic background, same socioeconomic status, same religion (natch). We all ate the same food, celebrated the same holidays, and most of us went on to/came from the same handful of high schools and colleges. OK, you have me on ages, though.
I don't necessarily believe in anything, but being there and doing certain activities like prayers, rites, etc. actually kind of touch me in some level it's hard to explain. It makes me appreciate nature while hiking. It certainly wasn't the same when I was younger and more ambitious. I would not have believed I'd go out my way to memorize prayers, poems, rites willingly. The opportunity to make friends with older folks, mentor younger people, and see other "normalcies" expand my perspective on life and happier as a result. Overall, healthy communities help a lot in terms of dealing with loneliness, you feel a sense of belonging rather than just wandering without purpose or just focusing on unhealthy obsession stuff.
The worst feeling in the world is being a bit lonely, and then being by yourself in a place where you are surrounded by groups of people. I got more depressed more often trying to go do social things in uni than I ever did physically being separated from others and actually by myself.
It was this type of setting that showed me the huge difference between being lonely and being alone. I'm rarely lonely when I'm alone. Thankfully I have long since engaged in social activities and have a great social life now, but even still that feeling is just below the surface. I went to the club with two girls the other night and when they both went to the bathroom together I was by myself in a club and even though I knew it was just for a few moments that old feeling was right there again. We are indeed social creatures.
Yeah, I’ve noticed this recently. As I spend more time with my current friend group in the new city I live in, the worse I feel because it seems like we’re just surface level friends, whereas when I spend time with my friends back home it greatly lifts my spirits because it’s a genuine connection.
It’s a an extremely odd feeling because from the outside I’m sure it looks like I have a great social life and good friends, but I’ve never felt more alone in my life. And I’m not sure how to address this conundrum, on one hand I want a stronger friendship with this new group of friends and don’t want to be alone, but at the same time it seems as if I would be happier if I disconnected myself from the group and was actually alone.
At college there was program where student volunteers would hang around high traffic areas and "cheer people up" by shouting at passersby to tell them they're loved or whatever. Obviously, this only makes actually depressed and lonely students feel worse. It's exactly the kind of thing that someone who'd never felt depressed in their life would come up with, and when I mentioned this to some of the people involved in the program they were absolutely flabbergasted.
For those volunteers, that is a great example of doing something to make yourself feel better at the expense of the others you're claiming to help.
It's easy to imagine everyone is 'always loved' if you grew up in a stable, supportive family in a safe neighbourhood, but that is not the experience for everyone.
That's a really cynical villainization of good faith effort. as the OP said, they didn't know better. Once they knew, did they keep going?
In the end, I'd rather people try than not. Because I am observing that the more common trend is to not bother, because you're not going to get it right anyway.
If you want to help someone, you'll put in some effort to find out what said person/group actually needs. Evidently the aforesaid volunteers did nothing of the sort, so I'll maintain my cynicism.
If I say that I really care for the plight of conjoined twin myslexia sufferers, but just throw a big parade to raise awareness of them, while never asking the sufferers what they actually would like, what does that say about me? Ref: the Nurse Gollum episode of South Park.
As an aside, if you've ever had people tell you they really care for you yet they never put any effort into communication/empathy/understanding, you'll recognise this pattern as the same. Basically, charlatans. They want the praise of doing good without any of the effort or risks.
Those volunteers took the wrong approach, since they didn’t ask the people they were trying to help, what help they actually needed. But in my experience, the group they were targeting is very difficult to productively converse about their needs with.
People with mental health issues oftentimes don’t know what their problem is or how they can be helped. Sometimes they can’t conceive of solutions outside their current mental space or understanding. Additionally, sometimes simply asking them what amounts to “I noticed something wrong with you and I’d like to help” exacerbates the feeling of “something is wrong with me” rather than “I’d like to help”.
The above is true for more issues than just mental health issues, as well. I definitely support asking people what they need and tailoring solutions to their individual or group needs, but it’s not as easy as your post makes it sound.
If you or others have advice regarding specifically how to help people struggling with mental health, I’d love to hear it. I have a lot of loved ones who have struggled or are struggling with mental health issues, and I haven’t found any approach which does work.
I know many people with mental health issues (including myself), but my sample isn't terribly generalizable as they're either from my family or my wife's family. For me personally, the scenarios I've opened up in are, without exception, intimate. The absolute maximum has probably been 5 people in conversation, and it has always been in scenarios where time feels plentiful. It also helps tremendously if others break the ice, though that's not always a requirement.
For these volunteers that are trying to improve the mood of those struggling with no prior credibility or relationship, my best guess would have been organizing something like a series of cafes where people can come and pet consenting animals. Have volunteers be available for conversation, but defer agency in that process to participants. I would consider things like have a rotation of volunteers semi-clandestinely engage in alone time with the animals so that socially anxious participants don't feel overly conspicuous if they also need to be alone. I might also have some PPE on-hand for those especially anxious about hygiene. I'd probably look a bunch of stuff up to see what accommodations are helpful to people of various mental struggles, figure out a subset that seems plausible and give it a shot. That's my best guess.
Oof. Whilst I get where you're coming from, I don't think it's evident at all.
I spent my time at university doing way less (drinking mostly). These folk actually had to make a decision to give up their time for something more than themselves. They found something that a) probably gave them a sense of purpose and b) they thought was helping.
I'd assume for those involved someone told them "this is our plan, this will help people, here's what you need to do." Because they didn't talk to those suffering, or go away and research it doesn't mean they didn't think it was helpful, even if it was misdirected help.
The difference in interpretation is that one is about actually helping, while the other is about having an earnest desire to help and taking action which may not actually help or possibly be detrimental.
Is that accurate though? Standing on a street and yelling at people actually requires effort, and arguably some risk.
It seems more likely that a lot of these people actually do want to help others but simply didn’t consider the possibility that what seemed helpful to them wouldn’t be. You can want to help someone without being good at it.
> You can want to help someone without being good at it.
Some kind of help is the kind of help we all can do without. I wouldn't encourage a well-meaning student to do my surgery if a gruff-looking surgeon who has taken their Hippo is around. Same goes with getting my car repaired, or discussing touchy topics like depression. It's fine if you want to help, but I'd rather you didn't if you have no idea what you're doing.
Another brief anecdote: my high school growing up had been hit by a wave of bullying that left the staff extremely insecure about the way they handle mental health. So one year I showed up to school and they had a photo of every student in the halls on the wall, with enormous posters declaring "You are Loved" and other pithy quotes. Needless to say, 4 weeks later those same halls were utterly vandalized, with the posters tattered, threats scrawled under people's faces in Sharpie and some taken down entirely (often by bullying victims themselves). The administration didn't look before they leaped, and ended up using their authority to shoot themselves in the foot.
Shouting nice things at random groups of people is idiotic, and borderline insulting. A bit like throwing money in the general direction of Africa to help the starving. Whatever someone is going through, relating to them as individuals is a good first step.
The intention matters little in these cases, and the consequences much. It is exactly the empty and superficial act of describing how much you care while remaining oblivious to their human needs and wants that makes the act so harmful. The obvious lack of care that is demonstrated while someone pats themselves on the back in that way deepens the feelings of social isolation and helplessness that caused the issue in the first place.
It doesn't matter that it requires effort. You don't get a gold star in these scenarios simply for putting in effort. If you didn't spend any time thinking about what someone in these scenarios might truly NEED, you're at best wasting everyone's time, and at worst doing harm to those you're intending to help.
If you saw someone broken down on the side of the highway, and decided you would "help" by pulling over and rummaging around in their engine bay with a cheery attitude, then by your metric this is fine because it requires effort and arguably some risk. Who wouldn't want this kind of help, right?
It requires effort but less than trying to understand how you could help them, so the point still stands. And even though they might genuinely help others, it’s important to educate people to stop doing it this way, as it can be more harmful than doing nothing.
You are thinking like an engineer, you analyze the problem, and try to find the most efficient solution. It is also my line of thought.
But many people don't think like that. They value action and instinct above thinking and planning, and to be fair, sometimes, it is for the best. But sometimes, they do counter productive things that are infuriating for people with the mindset of an engineer.
It doesn't mean they are not good people. They can be the kind who will run to save you while the engineer type will be stuck there thinking about the best course of action. I think society needs both.
That is not in any way villainization. It was a polite and empathetic look at how well-meaning people could do harm.
That they didn't know better is an explanation, not an excuse. If you are trying to intervene in other people's lives, it's on you to understand whether or not you are doing harm. And please miss me with the false dichotomy between "cluelessly cause harm" and "do nothing ever again". It's not hard at all to ask, "Would it help if..." or, "Was it helpful when I..." and then listen to people.
> doing something to make yourself feel better at the expense of the others you're claiming to help
There has to be some name for this phenomenon in psychology.
> It's easy to imagine everyone is 'always loved' if you grew up in a stable, supportive family in a safe neighbourhood, but that is not the experience for everyone.
Maybe there is a cycle with families similar to the idea that good times create weak people which create hard times which create strong people who create good times.
A loving family creates people who only know love and don't understand disfunction of a family, who then create disfunctional families by not knowing how to avoid the pitfalls, which then creates people who have to struggle out of disfunction who then know how to create a loving family by avoiding the pitfalls of disfunction.
I’m no psychologist, but from what I’ve read it’s inherently damaging to be raised in a dysfunctional family, and that’s more likely to lead to another dysfunctional generation. People from supportive families may not naturally be the most empathetic, but they’re less likely to have issues with drugs, gambling, alcohol, violence, etc if I understand correctly.
When you’re impressed by those who have struggled out of dysfunction and became stellar people because/in spite of it, that could be selection bias.
From experience, being raised in dysfunction provides a model for (maybe?) survival, but if one wants to improve things, the only model you have is one of failure. Knowing what fails can be useful, but it is orders of magnitude more useful to know what works.
People who want to make good faith efforts are a valuable thing. They are willing to do the work and, typically, they genuinely care.
Not everything they do will be useful. Sometimes they don’t know what to do or are directed by others. When things don’t work well, those folks should be redirected to more useful things and not chastised (which can kill motivation).
Yes, and if their motivation disappears after they’ve been instructed on the less feel-good more difficult intervention, then they’re fair game for ridicule
I wouldn't necessarily consider 'always loved' a precondition to health. In some psychological literature, a necessary requirement to raise a mentally healthy adult is having a 'frustrating' mother who forces her child to separate and establish boundaries - and of course still have unconditional but boundaried love.
Having an overly-loving, overprotective mother does not allow the child to establish boundaries in the same way as an emotionally abusive mother. Perhaps these children would become codependents or have fake, overdone empathy.
There are two sides to the trauma coin! And with just two comments into the post, perhaps we've already seen both?
Consider if out of N they saw and attempted to speak with, a single person had "a switch flip" in their head to give the conversation a chance and they ended up forming a deep connection and lifelong friendship, perhaps going on to turn their life around completely.
Would the "Ew. they don't actually care, i'm going to ignore them, feel bad about it, and complain to their bosses" of the %Depressed*(N-1) others outweigh that?
In other words, what's P & Q here:
for personThoughtVec of peoplesThoughtVecs:
impact += P * dot(personThoughtVec, thought2vec("switch flip..."))
- Q * dot(personThoughtVec, thought2vec("Ew..."))
Personally, I'd put them orders of magnitude apart.
Yeah, as kid I thought "moral calculus" was literal advanced math, and was disappointed to learn that attempts to quantify morality had been abandoned. That turned to gratitude when I saw people actually attempting it in the wild.
> Game theory and bayesian statistics are somewhat related to it.
> They don't quantify morality but they may explain the logic behind some moral judgment, and allow for extrapolation.
Kind of, but this is a bit fuzzy langauge.
Game theory can, if one assumes rational choice theory as a given [0], re-explain what purport to be moral judgements on other bases as utility-maximizing decisions and infer actual premises from them, and Bayesian statistics can be used as part of that, or to reason from probabilistic factual premises to probabilistic factual conclusions as part of combined fact-value judgements. Maybe Bayesian statistics can even be applied to get from probabilistic value premises to probabilistiv valie conclusions in some moral frameworks (but only ones that explicitly incorporate Bayesian logic as a moral premise to start with.)
[0] which may be a bad idea, because while it is sometimes a useful approximation, and is extremely convenient and tidy, rational choice theory is clearly false in the general sense.
Someone will figure out a way to mathematically map personalities out of a social profile and optimize for certain outcomes, and while posts like the one above may be made in jest, there will be someone who’ll put it in practice.
I always felt hungry all the time, it wasn't till i started taking Semaglutide that hunger totally go away. When that did the thing I found was an understanding of people who don't have as much hunger as I used to, all saying things like "just eat less".
For those people who say Just eat less, they don't understand that for those who have a hunger issue.. that it's not making them feel any better.
Same with people who feel lonely or depressed... "Just smile or something"... That does the opposite of what you want it to do.
Yeah, I often think that "just" is code for "I assume everybody else's experience is exactly like mine". I had a period of significant back problems and I can't count the number of people who said, "Why don't you just..." and then pop off with something painfully obvious. I never actually shouted, "Oh, having just arrived on the turnip truck, I was unaware of stretching. Thanks so much!" But damn, I sure did consider it.
Depressed people often deal with intrusive thoughts. The last thing you want is someone lying in bed, alone, while everyone else is asleep, entertaining those thoughts.
One of the archetypes of depression+sleep disturbance is people staying awake until they are absolutely exhausted and then collapsing into a sleep that the apocalypse could not rouse them from. That’s not a bad habit, it’s a coping mechanism.
Agreed. 'Just' is code for 'I don't understand the nuances of the topic at hand' in my books too, and it was here on HN in particular that I came to realise that.
I now actively try to avoid using that turn of phrase, and when I catch myself about to say/saying it, I check myself and remind myself that I'm also susceptible to this blind spot.
A former boss had a little sign on his desk that said "All you gotta do is..." as a reminder that seemingly simple solutions are often devoid of the necessary nuance and understanding of the problem.
The old adage, “the worst beginning to a sentence is, ‘Why can’t you just…’” is something we understand viscerally. Seemingly doesn’t stop us from doing it to others.
I think those people saying "just eat less" aren't implying that you won't feel hungry, but are instead thinking "you're killing yourself by being obese, better to suffer and feel somewhat hungry all the time than to die 10-15 years earlier".
I don't think anyone really acknowledges that "just be hungry for the rest of your life" is a stupid expectation of fat people. I don't even think living another 10 years is worth it if you're hungry all the time, because I know what I'm like when I'm hungry and I hate it-- I hate the person I am hungry (cranky, rude, depressed). I wouldn't wish it on a fat person forever just for the crime of being a fatty. I'd rather fat people be happy, fat, and then die off quickly, than thin angry and depressed people surrounding me in a retirement home until dementia or alzhimers takes them slowly and brutally.
Exactly. I also think the other poster underestimates
1. How hungry you are
2. How often you're hungry (constantly)
3. What that's like to live with
4. What it's like for others to live with you when your hungry
5. How much willpower is required constantly.
"Just eat less food" might as well be "just maybe don't have as much (insert addictive drug in here)"
I never realised how much of a problem my hunger was until it went away. Now I don't know how I managed to do it.
The whole point of all of this is that it's important to put yourself in others shoes, understand their perspectives. So, with that said... If it was easy to just not eat food, don't you think they would?
Breath control is a pretty cool trick but you have to have a lot of free time to learn it. If you’re an adult with responsibilities, good luck.
Post COVID I’m subconsciously holding my breath every time I walk past someone in a store. If I had to think about it I’d never get anything else done.
For food it’s right there near the top of your task list every time you hit an interruption. Am I thirsty? Do I need to pee? Am I hungry? Did I promise anyone anything today? Is it time to feed the pets, pick up the kids? It’s not “just” impulse control. It’s interfering with all of your other impulses.
I don’t think neuro-boring people realize how many people around them spend their day trying to look normal instead of just being normal. It’s an elaborate ruse and things like being hangry or in a loud venue make the facade crack and fail.
There are some fat people for whom hunger is instant and incessant and a constant distraction, and perhaps losing 5 years of life at old age is worth it.
For other people, maybe someone who's 20 lbs overweight and would like to be able to play with their kids without running out of breath, maybe the annoyance of being hungry isn't actually that bad for them.
Pain is subjective. One person's excruciating pain - the same stimulus could be a mild annoyance to someone else. I've been tattooed for 6 hours and was able to easily distract myself and laugh while listening to a comedy podcast, other people can't handle holding their finger over a flame for more than a millisecond or can't eat a hot slice of pizza out of the oven.
Pain and annoyance and discomfort can also be acclimated to. What might be really difficult and distracting might become something you get used to and learn to tune out. But then again, to be fair - maybe not. Maybe for some people that hunger is not something they can learn to live with.
I love that this whole thread has been about people who don't seem to understand the experience of others, and you just compared having a 6 hour tattoo to living a lifetime of hunger.
The comparison was that for some it may be excruciating and that others it may not. Maybe a tattoo isn't the best analogy, but their main point is apropos to the idea that understanding the experience of others may be difficult when there is a wider range of experience than many want to admit.
I don't believe that was the intent of your parent. The 6 hours of tattooing was instead a scenario they have personally experienced where they have also observed others having wildly divergent experiences from themselves, despite the same inputs, and are using that to bootstrap a framework for understanding how wildly different others' experiences with hunger might be from their own.
It definitely belies a level of privilege that some people must intentionally seek out discomfort or pain in order to begin to even approximate the agony others are inherently forced to live through. I don't believe privilege is itself a moral failing, or we're stuck with whole categories of 'original sin'. It's what objectives its used to enable that potentially indict those that possess it.
I used to drink soda as a fidget. I needed something to stim while poring over shitty code trying to extract cleverness. The preponderance of free soda situations in the 90’s tells me there were a lot more of us hiding in plain sight. Several times I switched to water or tea and lost 10 lbs pretty quickly. Usually after bad news from the dentist.
That’s not a weight-loss plan though, that’s a fit-back-into-your-current-wardrobe plan. People with “weight problems” are generally on an upward slope and a point source puts a notch in the graph, it doesn’t zero the slope or take it negative. What it does say, if anything, is that there are factors we can control that moves the needle, but they are the journey not the destination.
Okay but, again, this is a waaay higher standard to place on a fat person than a thin person just because they're fat. As a thin person I never have to "learn to live with" somewhat hungry forever and I think expecting fat people to is stupid. I never have to decide whether or not a lifetime of hunger is worth 5 extra years of life, or if my hunger isn't so bad I can tune it out. That's a standard I don't hold myself to as a thin person, why would I hold a fat person to that standard?
As a thin person, you might have to learn to live with sexual urges that you cannot act on, on violent urges you cannot act on, on urges to scream at your boss for being a moron or better yet just walk out and never go back to work that you cannot act on.
Some of those urges may be stronger for some people than for others.
The same way that urges of hunger can be experienced differently by differently people (at both a signaling hormone / chemical level as well as a psychological/willpower equipment level).
Are you suggesting that the feeling of hunger experienced by overweight and obese people is universally a higher standard than any other discomfort or natural drive humans experience?
Frankly if I am horny all the time, I need that addressed. If I'm homicidal all the time, I need that addressed. Same thing I think if a fat person is hungry all the time that should be addressed. People are generally not wandering around wanting to fuck all the time or wanting to kill all the time, and we generally consider it a disorder if they are. I think obese people are disordered in some way, either they need psychological help to navigate their relationship with food or medical intervention to handle their hunger [semaglutide affects hormones and reduces hunger, so I think something is wrong with an obese person's hormones?]. But I refuse to believe it is totally normal and healthy for fat people to just feel hungry all the time.
You can change your microbiome and metabolism and all, but it's MUCH more complex than "just eat less" and isn't the same as starting with a natural genetic advantage anyway.
It's not well understood by people on average (and those dieting) how to mitigate hunger when restricting calories or how to successfully diet, but they are correct that a deficit is required to lose weight. That's physics and biology. The problem is the knowledge gap leading to strong-willed efforts that can actually backfire.
For instance, there's body fat set point theory and metabolic adaptation. The more severe a caloric deficit, and more frequently a person diets, the worse your metabolic outcome. Your body will try to slingshot you back to your "original" weight (the one it's used to), with leptin as a regulator. But if you lose weight slowly, and leverage resistance training, it leads to a better outcome.
A prime issue is sustainability. Most people on a diet do succeed in losing weight; it's just that they gain it all back, and they can end up with a worse metabolic rate than they started with, making it that much harder to lose weight again. Metabolic rate can actually recover, but the length for this seems to depend on the severity. Assuming a slow rate of weight loss, it can take almost just as much time as the diet period to recover metabolic rate. For the "Biggest Loser" contestants, it took several years.
Leveraging the satiating and thermogenic effects of protein, fiber and resistant starch in diet also helps, for satiety.
All of which to say, it's possible to lose weight in a sustainable way without drugs - notwithstanding the failure rate. The people who succeed in doing so are not necessarily "more disciplined", or "less prone to hunger", but they tend to have certain behaviors in common. One of them is exercise (particularly resistance training).
I am totally down for fat people losing weight in a sustainable way that leads to better health outcomes. I think fat people in general should strive to lose weight through diet, exercise, and non-harmful medical intervention where applicable. I'm merely arguing against the very specific point that fat people should just learn to be hungry all the time, like that's an acceptable standard to expect out of anybody.
While your point is well taken, I think this latest comment displays some dichotomous and uncharitable thinking. I doubt they meant you have to choose between being "fat and happy" or "thin, angry, and depressed." Surely, they were more likely to hope you could become "healthy and happy" but lacked some of the cognitive empathy to understand your situation.
The parent poster literally said "better to feel somewhat hungry all the time". I disagree! I don't want fat people to feel "somewhat hungry all the time"! That sounds like a shitty existence and I a thin person would be appalled if we think that's just what it takes to be thin for some people! I acknowledge being thin for me is great: I eat when I'm hungry, I lay off a little bit if I know I've eaten a big thanksgiving dinner or something. I am never "somewhat hungry all the time"!
The parent poster (me), isn't arguing that in all cases its better to feel hungry all the time than to be fat.
The parent poster is arguing that for some individuals, the experience of being hungry would be preferable to the experience of being obese. Would you disagree with that?
For some overweight and obese people, there are costs like sleep quality / apnea that CPAP might not solve (leading to all sorts of health issues), there can be sexual dysfunction (erection quality, difficulty even accessing the genitals or having sex in many positions), there can be shame and embarrassment (regardless of if you think society SHOULDN'T have that shame, the reality is many overweight or obese people feel it, and avoid certain settings and activities because of it), there is just the raw feeling of physical tiredness, back pain, knee pain, etc. that can come along with the physical stresses it puts on your body, I could really go on.
For some people, those things ARE worse than feeling hungry most or all of the time. For some people, they CAN tolerate a mild or moderate feeling of hunger by distracting themselves or avoiding dwelling on the feeling, and they might find the other parts of their lives improve enough that it's worth it.
I feel hungry basically all the time (30 minutes after a meal I am hungry again, an hour and I'm at peak hunger until the next meal). I am thin because I only eat at "normal" times; I don't snack / I don't eat whenever I'm hungry (which would be all the time).
You get used to it. People who claim to get "hangry" (like in those Snickers commercials[1]) need to get a grip. If hunger is all it takes to make you a shitty person then I think hunger isn't actually the primary issue.
TBH that sounds like a sucky life and I don't think we should expect all fat people to live it just because they're fat. That sounds like something's wrong with your hunger sensors or something.
That's okay to disagree. But the idea of not eating until one is satiated is not new. Hippocrates said "If you still have a slight sensation of hunger after a meal - you have eaten well. if you feel full - you have poisoned yourself."
I suspect the divergence in opinion comes from the how one defines well-being. Hedonic well-being tends to focus on fulfilling one's appetites, whether hunger or sex or whatever. The problem with that is humans tend toward hedonic adaptation and it can become an endless treadmill to try and feel "full". In a resource rich environment, this can obviously lead to a lot of bad outcomes.
No, I'm not arguing against eating until satiety. That's fine. I'm specifically arguing against feeling "somewhat hungry all the time". That sounds bad and definitely not what I feel as a thin person and not an expectation I would have of fat people. I wouldn't even describe my satiety as feeling a little hungry. I just feel not-hungry, not-full, and I've been thin all my life so I think I understand what it's like to be thin and eat as a thin person.
The Hippocrates quote literally says remaining a little hungry. Now you may think that's a bad time, but my point is that it may be because how you define well being. The point is there are other frameworks to think about that. And that people have been doing so for a long, long time.
Boy this gives me new perspective on what insufferable little shits recent weight loss winners can be. They’re hangry all the time, and lost one of their favorite pastimes. So it’s just gonna be lectures.
Look, I used to be in better shape than pretty much anybody here. Unless you’re an Ironman veteran I have nothing to learn from you about exercise and I can probably teach you a few things. But health problems, especially joint injuries, happen to old people, and they happen much more often to people who are rabid about exercise. I’m not you ten years ago. I’m you twenty years from now. So drop the smug bullshit and learn something.
I'm someone who loves running, always have, the weight gain happened in my 30's, either because I had a kid and suddenly my ability to just run when i had free time disappeared, or because my metabolism slowed down, or most likely both and more.
That said... Now I've started running again daily for the last year, one thing I've noticed. Beginning to exercise whilst overweight is SIGNIFICANTLY harder than it was when normal weight (or because i was 40, probably another "both" here too).
One of the things that made me realise how much harder it is, was some fitness YouTuber put on 20kg of weights and ran, he noticed a number of things were different. Once I saw that it gave me enough fuel to continue ignoring the hunger for another month or so.
I had a plan to walk a half marathon last year. High impact has never agreed with me, even when I was young, but definitely not now. Everything got put on hold when I got diagnosed with arthritis but I’m trying to get back in now.
If I recall correctly runners estimate about 1 second per km per extra pound carried. That might not hold for body weight (cyclists had an old 1:2:10 rule of thumb that suggests that it might be better to lose 5 lbs than spend a fortune on a pack/bike that weighs 1 lb less, but that rule has been challenged and I don’t know what the new wisdom is.
A bit of a tangent, but the fact that some people just never feel full is so strange to me. My feeling of fullness feels like being literally full; like my stomach would distend uncomfortably if I ate more. How can one not have this sensation? The stomach can only fit so much food. Would physically expanding my stomach cause me to have to eat more to feel full, or is what I feel just an "illusion?"
I can only speak for myself, but I normally only feel full after eating a much larger amount of food than other people. There is a point where I feel like I can't (or shouldn't) fit more food in my stomach, but it only happens after I've eaten thousands of calories.
Like the GP, I am now on semaglutide, and the difference is remarkable. I now have a new sensation where I just don't want to eat more -- it takes mental effort to force down additional food even if my stomach is mostly empty. It's still easier to eat sweets than healthier food, but the overall reduction in appetite more than makes up for it.
Unless I am eating something like unseasoned celery, the feeling of being physically unpleasantly full only comes after I've eaten way too much food. If I ate to the point of feeling full on a regular basis I'd be getting something like 4000 calories per day.
The feeling of full is still there. That's not the issue. The issue is that you don't feel satisfied unless you're full.
Whereas people like my wife can feel satisfied before they are full. After Semaglutide, I now feel satisfied before I'm full, and then the full feeling comes after.
Effectively stopping me from overeating both the amount in a single meal, and then the meals in between.
Drugs such as Semaglutide conclusively demonstrate that it's possible for some individuals to eat less without experiencing hunger.
Moreover, I find the word "just" to be problematic. It often acts as a command to disregard all other possibilities, indicating a lack of interest in delving deeper. Perhaps this perception is influenced by my experience as a non-native speaker. In my previous meetings with numerous venture capitalists and “advisors”, some would evaluate my project and suggest that I "just" fix xyz. Is it really that straightforward? Have they considered other factors like abc?
Do you want to learn more?
As a native speaker, your experience with the word "just" is not unique. Your direct perception of the word, perhaps because you have to consciously translate it, may be more unique!
But for native and non-native speakers alike, "just" acts as a dangerous semantic stop-sign. It's a command that's not even recognized as being a command, because it frames the discussion so that you have to argue for both the converse of the proposal and that the proposal is challenging for some reason that can't be obvious to the "just" user. It mis-primes even the speaker's train of thought to not to ask what would obvious follow-on questions.
I obviously can't relate entirely, but I have bulked up to 220 for weight lifting and subsequently cut down to 165 for rock climbing and my stomachs capacity would swing wildly based on input. Think 8 hot dogs and buns easily at 220 to now where I get uncomfortable after half a burrito.
I also think going from an in shape 220->165 was way harder than going from obese->healthy. It involved cannibalizing tons of muscle instead of fat, and your body will fight to preserve muscle.
It wasn't no ice cream and soda, it was only having one plain hard boiled egg instead of two, pounding celery and sparkling water to fend off nighttime hunger, freaking out because I only poop once a week, having no energy or motivation and squashing philosophical doubts about the meaning of life.
If I can do it just to climb rocks easier it feels realistic for obese people to do it to improve their health.
I don't like to use the word just often but when I say this in relation to eating, it's as a response to the ridiculous diets and other restrictions people force on themselves to lose weight.
They try all of those different diets because "just eating less" doesn't work for them. If it did, they'd already be doing it.
Also, claiming the diets are "ridiculous" means you must have a better understanding of the human body than them, right?
As someone who struggled with weight loss, and got it (and kept it off for many years) via keto and intermittent fasting, perhaps the SAD is the ridiculous diet.
And an even more difficult time accepting that people will hate them for it regardless of their intentions. After all it's all to easy to lie about having good intentions, even to yourself.
We're evolutionarily hard wired to do what's best for ourselves, which often includes being altruistic to gain more social acceptance. That's why being "lonely" is a problem at all, we feel emotional pain to get us to work with the group, since that's what's always meant longer survival.
I think almost everyone understands that good intentions can lead to bad outcomes. But, also, everyone understands that good intentions can lead to good outcomes.
Determining which is which is a very hard problem. One strategy might be, "Don't do anything unless I'm absolutely certain it will lead to a good outcome." If you do that, you'll miss out on many opportunities that would have good outcomes but who's certainty isn't up to your standards.
So while the intention behind pointing out that good intentions can have bad outcomes is good, the outcome is bad.
My children's elementary school has a nicely painted chair in the school yard, I think they call it Friends Chair or something. If a kid has no friends or no one to play with, they are supposed to go and sit on that chair and someone will come and play with them.
I don't think people who came up with this idea understood how it works.
Thanks to the good graces of the internet I can speak candidly about this.
When I was young it was drilled into me about making sure everyone is accepted and has friends, all that. So I would be the kid who would go make friends with the lonely kid.
But then I would learn why they don't have friends, and I wouldn't want to be their friend either. Which makes the whole thing even worse, because now you came to them and then left them. So I kind of gave up on it.
It's a fairly common thing aimed at younger kids (kindergarten, grade 1). Usually the idea is that there are fifth and sixth graders who volunteer as playground helpers and who draw the younger kids to play with them if they're alone. Then a few of the younger kids get jealous this kid gets to play with the older kids and join in too, and it mostly works.
Maybe younger kids, but I could only imagine being harassed and ridiculed as an older kid sitting in the friend chair.
It's like the difference when somebody gets hurt. Younger kids run to the hurt one to see if they're OK. The older kids tend to scatter and disappear as quickly as possible.
I think the frequent advice to lonely people to "go talk to a professional (therapist etc)" has the same kind of effect in such cases. A sense that they can't even have people for support as friends etc, and they need to pay someone to do it or at least have someone do it only as their job description.
I never thought that. I knew seeking professional help was about trying to fix the underlying problem through therapy, not about paying for friendship. I'm in the process of doing this for the first time myself. I'm having a first consultation today and the irony is that talking to anyone, even a therapist, has increased my anxiety in the short term. But I believe it's necessary and I will get through it because I can't live this way anymore. There must be a better way to live.
The reason I haven't done it earlier is because back in those days I had no health insurance and I knew it would be cost-prohibitive for me.
I also get anxious before my therapy session and frequently feel drained afterwards but I found it to be quite beneficial and it gave me tools to deal with the existential dread that come with living with a partner who has metastatic breast cancer. I wish that your session will be as usefull to you as they are usefull to me.
Even if I am a Canadian I am so grateful to have gold plated private drugs insurance as one drug she currently takes is not reimbursed by the public regime (they cost around 6000$cad/months) and neither are my therapy sessions but both are covered by my policy.
I agree and good for you. I guess all good relationships have some sort of similarity, but therapy is otherwise unlike friendship. It's one-way, that's the whole point, they listen and hold space in a way that doesn't work in a friendship! And they (hopefully) have a lot of professional training in doing so.
Hope you find someone who can work with you in a productive way, best of luck!
Pretty much all psychological advice given by people is at best useless and often very harmful. I used to have serious bouts of depression and social anxiety. All the well intended advice like “just go out there” “cheer up, it’s not too bad” usually just made me hide even more.
Looking for professional help can be even more depressing. Besides the money issue it’s very hard to find a therapist you click with. I went to quite a few therapists. Some felt almost hostile or dismissive towards me and others just useless.
Well here's to hoping that once the dust settles from the current LLM revolution, we'll get some proper AI therapists out of it.
I've tested out some of the current LLama fine tunes that went in that direction and it's looking promising, if a bit crude and not quite smart enough yet at the moment. There's something far more comforting about having a non-human entity to talk to since it's always helpful, never dismissive, has no ulterior motives and it won't remember anything afterwards.
I've found ChatGPT more helpful than any human therapist. I think that says more about human therapists than it does about AI though.
It does a good job at the role of "friend that never gets tired of listening to you", because it's programmed that way. Which is kind of sad, I suppose. But I'd rather not burden my human friends with that stuff.
(On a peculiar note, I really hope it isn't sentient! I wouldn't feel so comfortable "wasting its time" or asking stupid questions if it was!)
I disagree, most people have no idea how to deal with a depressed person and the need for a therapist does not necessarily mean a lack of friends. I go to the dentist to fix my teeth and that doesn't mean my friends aren't supportive.
I'd say "go talk to a professional" is more or less the only useful advice one can give there.
It may be beneficial for some, but not everyone. Also a large part of therapy is having an isolated environment where you can openly talk about anything that you wouldn't ever share with anyone else. A group of friends is often not that environment.
> Or is it just the safe thing to say without sticking one's neck out?
If you want to stick your neck out in that situation you could offer making a therapist appointment for that person. It lowers the barrier to getting help a lot and imho feels more understanding and supportive than trying to cheer them up or whatever else one might come up with. YMMV of course.
Perhaps, but it’s also often the best way forward if one can afford it (affordability is another rabbit hole entirely). The right therapist can make an incredible difference in quality of life and, for some, can be the only way of digging oneself out of the rut that they’re in.
Having someone with an objective position who can help you see things differently is extremely powerful.
they need to pay someone to do it or at least have someone do it only as their job description.
Ignoring who is giving this advice and the actual state of the person being given the advice, this is more of a side effect of the poor (for patients) health care system in the US and negative perception of mental issues compared to physical issues.
Untrained people can give bad support, especially to someone who is clinically lonely or depressed.
If you are really lonely for a long time, you can very easily loose social skills. Effectively you become simultaneously lonely, simultaneously avoidance of people and simultaneously sabotaging potential relationships.
The professional can actually help in a way that random people can't.
As a counterpoint I am clinically depressed, attempted suicide when I was in HS, and am generally a sad bop taken human form. At the time I still hadn't figured out the whole socializing thing and was lonely AF going off to college with no friends no support network. I joined one of those groups after running into them a bunch. While I was a member (and eventually officer) we were voted "best student org" so somebody clearly liked us.
The majority of our group was definitely in the camp of "I want to give to other people the help I needed." We ran a stupid amount of events -- everything form mental health counseling with the campus counseling services people, collabs with a queer healthcare providers, open dinners with free catered food, cooking classes, open parties on weekends which alternated between dry/not-dry, sponsored (like one of their friends would contact us) dorm cleaning/decorating to deal with depression tornadoes, open study sessions during exam season, we had "rent-a-spotter" (obviously actually free) in the gym for people who didn't anyone to go with, a few of the guys were in the campus runners club so they did open morning jogs, holiday parties for people who couldn't or ya know couldn't go home, and yes standing in the quad with signs giving out high fives and hugs.
That sounds like an awesome group and I wish that was what was happening at my college. If for no reason than to get a spotter for the weird times I worked out at hahaha. I'm curious how the high fives and hugs thing worked, because it sounds more uhh, consensual?
I'm gonna temper myself here because there's always the chance that there was some quiet resentment and discomfort we never knew about but from the inside these events were super successful. You are absolutely right that consent was like priority #1, #2, and #3. We always set up somewhere where people could easily avoid us entirely if they wanted. There's never any pressure it was like like "happy Friday, high five!" very low-key and if they weren't into it just pretend it never happened. And that kind of thing did happen but it wasn't super common, we had a bunch of regulars who would seek us out, professors loved it.
We could have done without these kinds of events but they were super visible and honestly the best marketing we had. We never pitched other events while we were there but it got people to recognize our fliers and look us up on IG/the club website.
Those are the same people who go on to work in HR and come up with ideas like having all the minimum wage workers chip in $50 for the CEO's birthday gift.
Is the anecdote you mentioned an actual incident that happened? I found [1] but it’s unverified, and it’s hard to believe it could occur because most places ban this kind of behavior due to the power dynamic between the employee and their manager.
I experienced something very similar. I was very lonely and very depressed at one point in high school and while sadly walking home one evening, a group of 5 or 6 high school girls enthusiastically approached me at a nearby shopping area and asked if I was ok. They asked who I was friends with and told them no one, really. Which was true and not just me being dramatic. They all cheerily told me they’d be my friends. Even though I mostly knew it was just lip service at the time, it still hurt to hear it and have it be dangled in front of me like that. Obviously I never heard or saw them ever again. This was right before cell phones were popular with kids so it wasn’t natural to ask for numbers bc most of us didn’t have one.
As an uplifting note, I’m happy and much less lonely 20+ years later :)
Is it obvious? Was it measured? I don't think being shouted towards counts as "being in other people's company" for the purposes of this article.
I know I've felt depressed in my life. I can tell you, during those times, I almost certainty wouldn't have even noticed people shouting at me. At worst, it would have been a neutral effect, if it registered at all.
I don't know if I'm depressed given I've never been a psychological assessment. But if I were down the road minding my own business and someone shouted this at me, my first thought would be "by who?". So this would be an immediate reminder of solitude.
Well... while this clearly didnt work on you... It may have for others. I can easily imagine someone who is on their own for the first time suddenly realizing they don't really know how to make new friends or talk to people. Someone shouts something positive at them, they respond and start a conversation, and from there a friendship might start.
Is it going to happen every time? Nope. But lots of people are not going to initiate an interaction, even if they are lonely. If someone else does, though, they will engage.
I'm saying this as someone who has pretty bad social anxiety, doesnt really like talking to strangers, and someone who has pretty bad depression.
>Someone shouts something positive at them, they respond and start a conversation, and from there a friendship might start.
The trouble is that this very much isn't what was happening. There was no room to respond, and in general I they think they weren't even yelling at any particular person. You certainly could stop and talk to them, but anyone willing to do that wouldn't be the kind of person who didn't know how to start a friendly interaction.
>You certainly could stop and talk to them, but anyone willing to do that wouldn't be the kind of person who didn't know how to start a friendly interaction.
You are making a big leap here. There are lots of folks who are capable of having a conversation but dont feel comfortable engaging first with people they dont know.
> I can easily imagine someone who is on their own for the first time suddenly realizing they don't really know how to make new friends or talk to people
I can't. If you have trouble making friends that's obvious long before college.
> But lots of people are not going to initiate an interaction, even if they are lonely. If someone else does, though, they will engage.
People shouting nice words at me gives me the same vibes as a stranger asking "how are you?" as a greeting, just more aggressive and annoying. I may engage in a conversation but not if it's generic smalltalk.
Same. I played sports in high school and college but without that built in forced friend group I would have had a lot of trouble making friends. Something like this would have almost certainly broken me out of my introverted shell.
I'm curious, as someone in my life seems to think I don't care about them, for those of you who have been in such depression, what have other people done that helped you realize they loved you?
Signaling to an in-group and projecting identity is the point of these actions. The results are abstracted away and don't matter to people who do this.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but I recently met a girl with an amazing smile and tons of confidence who stared in to my eyes for hours on end and it's exactly that which had such an effect on me.
Most assuredly not the same as someone getting in your face as you're walking by as part of their generous volunteer effort to save you from your sorry life.
"Living near traffic noise increases your chance of stroke. Probably not the best place to be putting impressionable young people looking for connection"
This isn't about _living_ near traffic noise (which is what has been "proven by scientific research). It's about some young people doing an event for a few hours in a city setting.
The chances of young people in general having a stroke are near 0, and the concern of them having a stroke because they stayed near traffic noise for a few hours is so low and misguided, it doesn't even make sense. Might as well worry about falling pianos when standing near buildings.
It's also doubly irrelevant, as the "high traffic areas" in the story refers to pedestrian traffic, not motor traffic. Simply, they set them up where many people pass, so they can find people to shout that slogan to.
The ONLY times I feel lonely are when I’m with people. I love being alone. People need to chill out and appreciate being alone more. God I’m so happy I’m not an extrovert it must be awful.
My extroverted friend was so bad during Covid sometimes he would go to business just to be able to talk to someone.
People used to look at me really strangely when I said "I'd been hoping for this since I was fourteen" about the stay home measures during Covid.
I think I'm reasonably fun at parties/events/neighbourhood conversations, and I'll go, have a good time, converse and joke around and whatever, but then I need a couple months to come back from it. I have near zero desire to be with people. It's exhausting.
There are 3 or 4 people in the world that I spend time with that don't make me feel like that. Good thing my wife is usually one of them.
I concur, and I'm like you, but I also think we're edge cases. I believe most people are like your friend, which is why these studies of the gen pop usually turn out the way they do.
I left the city last year after living there for over a decade. I'm now out in the suburbs in an older neighborhood with lots of trees and big lots. I live alone and I've never been happier. Love how peaceful it is out here, and my neighbors mostly keep to themselves.
I do wonder whether much of the introversion/extroversion problem boils down to those who have a rich inner life and can become lost in thought for hours and those who require constant external stimulation. It is likely a spectrum.
I'm extroverted but generally don't like people. So I could interact all fine and leave a good impression, it's just I prefer not to and mind my own business instead of listening politely to ramble. So there's no general solution to this.
It seems the solution would be to find people you like. If you struggle to find people you like then the solution seems it could be to figure out what you like about yourself.
I have never felt any reason to have it any other way.
I already read that humans are "supposed" to be social, but then why am I happiest alone. I don't worry about it and I just live the way I like to live and it's worked out great.
> These findings suggest that simply spending time with others (vs. alone) is not associated with a reduced burden of loneliness and may even backfire.
As a member ranking pretty low on the socialization needs scale, I would suggest that the regular barrage of "you need a social life / people in your life at the end of your life" media isn't actually balanced with "learn how to be happy by yourself, and with yourself" counterparts.
But I will concede this: I'm pretty happy being by myself most of the time. I miss my son when he's gone but I look forward to using my solo time fruitfully (if even that means vegging on the couch binging something).
But what can feel distressing, and loneliness inducing, for me is when I get the urge to be social and can't drum it up. It sometimes feels like the urge to be gregarious arrives inversely proportional to its opportunities... the few people in your life just aren't available, and sometimes you visit a coffee shop or a grocery store and no one will make eye contact with you, and sometimes you try and run a few quick errands in peace and everyone seems out to chat with you.
I've learned to experience each with grace, but neither flow really changes what I usually need, and how much of it.
This is pretty obvious from my experience. I don’t really get “lonely” but I can be miserable when out among people. But by myself I might just be bored. But only some times.
You know how “humans are social creatures”? A sort of corollary to that is that people define what a normal person is. And very subtle-like too. No one needs to spell it out one-on-one. But it’s always there. A constant reminder of how you might not conform, might not be good enough, might not have the right connections, might have the wrong interests. And once you check enough of those anti-boxes you realize that neither you nor other people have anything to offer each other. You are a bore, and they are there just to remind you of your failures.
That one can be lonely or feel bad in a crowd of people might be counter-intuitive to many because the narrative goes that loneliness is a disease that inflicts the individual and is only about a lack of people. But isn’t that hypocritical? How can you say that “humans are social creatures” and just outright deny all the negative signals that people (us) send to each other all the time?
> And once you check enough of those anti-boxes you realize that neither you nor other people have anything to offer each other. You are a bore, and they are there just to remind you of your failures.
Emotions aren't the truth. This is just a particular psychological hangup.
> When SX is our blind spot, the self attack is along the lines of "I am hopelessly boring. I can't imagine anyone taking much interest in me, & if they do I suspect there is something wrong with them. Thank God I can be useful because few would be interested in me otherwise.
Some things aren’t just taken out of thin air. Part of being a “social creature” is that you pick up on what other people think of you by observing how they talk about other people that you have something in common with. And that doesn’t have to be something wishy-washy like “being boring”; it could be very concrete, objective things, like being X or having Y. Then you go, huh, that’s me as well. And then you listen to them say that oh, people who are X, Y, and Z are A and B. And that’s you as well.
But no (someone says), they’re wrong: it’s just their opinion. It’s entirely subjective and partial.
... But don’t you see? That’s what being a social creature is—being at the whims of the opinion of others. How can you possibly claim that Humans Are Social Creatures, and then blame the person who is affected by What Others Think of Them?
I didn't presume you did. And honestly it may not be worth your time learning about it. Fortunately the three instincts aren't a part of the enneagram proper, just another temperament system frequently used with the enneagram of personality to fill in an orthogonal hole.
> Part of being a “social creature” is that you pick up on what other people think of you by observing how they talk about other people that you have something in common with.
One thing I have noticed is that quite often people will badmouth a type of person, but when it's pointed out that so-and-so is also that type of person, they'll immediately say that so-and-so isn't and cite a bunch of 'redeeming' qualities. Socially inclined people seem to see nuance in those close to them that they don't see in those further away from them.
> Part of being a “social creature” is that you pick up on what other people think of you by observing how they talk about other people that you have something in common with.
Social is my blind spot. I don't, and really can't. I have never been able to answer questions that ask what other people think of me, at least not without days of thought about it. And even then I'm just guessing somewhat randomly.
Russ Hudson posits three "zones" of the social instinct, "reading
people, creating connections, & contribution". The only one I have any real facility with is "contribution".
What he says about having a social blindspot:
> SO blind spot often manifests as an exaggerated self-consciousness. It's hard to relax & be w. people. We are afraid of making mistakes--"faux pas." It feels easier to simply avoid human contact than to risk being humiliated. But then we do not get practice or develop skills.
> We may justify this by thinking people are boring, shallow, clueless, etc. But w. awareness, we see these as defenses against our fears about ourselves. Again, the voices are NOT telling the truth. We discover we connect ABOUT something interesting/important to us. We share.
So at least part of the bad feedback you're getting is probably people projecting their own fears defensively.
> How can you possibly claim that Humans Are Social Creatures, and then blame the person who is affected by What Others Think of Them?
Personally I've long argued against humans as Social Creatures. Many of us are, but I believe large fractions of us are closer to presocial or solitary-but-social creatures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociality ).
There's not blame here. Merely recognition of sometimes maladaptive psychological quirks. Our psychologies exist for very good reasons, but we are hardly universal beings. Sometimes our minds use the wrong inference tool for the job.
”I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone.”
During the pandemic I moved out to the middle of nowhere in NY State. I am surrounded by nature, wildlife, and my neighbors are barely within shouting distance. I rarely ever see friends, go to coffee shops, restaurants, clubs, movies, shopping, etc. And I have never been so not-lonely.
My time is filled with activities and projects so I barely have enough time to just sit with a cup of coffee. When I do, I have a whole backyard full of flora and fauna to look at and listen to, like one of those YouTube channels streaming nature sounds. Country folk have the right idea living out here. You don't miss what you don't see.
This might be weird, but I only feel lonely when I try to improve my social life (and inevitably fail). When I sort of give up and fall back to my usual routine, I do not mind being alone. I am sort of so far away from all of THAT, that I do not even have the desire for human connection.
How long has that been going on for? If it goes on for many years you might find yourself very alone during times you really don't want to be. Made that mistake myself and wish I had not.
makes total sense to me. if i were content to be alone, i'd not bother trying to connect. what stops me from being content is that i fear i might not be content forever, and also that i being alone is not how i want to live, even if i were to find a way to be happy with it because i believe the future of our society depends on building community and connections.
IMO most of what is "connectedness" or "anti-loneliness" is an illusion. Like those movie scenes where two actors mirror each other's movements to create the illusion of a mirror.
That is, connectedness requires an external structure to synchronize everyone's rhythm. This can be a sports team, a religion, a shared love the same anime or breed of dog, etc...
Loneliness feels more pronounced when in the presence of these illusions. It's not easily solved because from the pov of the lonely person, he/she is asked to believe the equivalent of "2+2=5" in exchange for that kind of connection. It feels like an ask to self-lobotomize. (even if from the pov of say a therapist, the client is actually just in a different kind of illusion)
* "illusion" can have negative valence so an alternative here is "story" or "pillar of meaning"
Yeah. The best example is going to a party/bar/club alone, while most other attendees are there with their friends. Being there alone can feel incredibly awful, except if you are a high extraversion type who can make new friends quickly.
it depends on the motivation for going to movies. i like watching movies alone, because i don't want to be disturbed when focusing on the story. if i were someone who really enjoyed the big screen, i'd happily go to a movie theater by myself too. as it is, i don't care about big screens and high resolution as much, so my tv or computer screen at home is enough. that leaves going to movies for social events, which i actually don't like as much as it invariably leads to more disruptions.
I was terribly shy very depressed for most of my life since childhood. I've come a long way since then but I started going to EDM shows alone in my home city in my mid-30s recently and damn has it shifted my perspective on going out alone, talking to strangers. I've made so many new diverse friends and it's really helped my own struggles with loneliness. It has been overall been positively transformative to me.
I was listening to The Big Picture podcast, of which the podcasters watch way more movies in the theatre than I ever could. They seem like raging extroverts, but I guess a lot of podcasters are. One of them poked fun at men watching a movie alone in the afternoon not being dating material. The host (mostly?) was joking as he was watching the latest Transformers movie alone. It’s not just feeling alone in a crowd in that situation—-people fear being judged as well, like being forever stamped with “not dating material” on your forehead regardless of it being true or not. It kind of bothered me that he focused on that as it just adds to the social stigma.
I love going to the movies alone or a restaurant alone. Sometimes when I have half a day without family around these are exactly the activities that I choose to undertake. It’s not rare.
I see a lot of people disagreeing with you, but HN is heavily biased towards a certain type of person, so it's not surprising. Most people don't want to do those things alone, I couldn't even imagine going out and eating alone.
Going out alone where everyone else is together feels terrible. It's part of why I despise work parties at Christmas, because in that case feeling terrible is mandatory.
For years and years of my life, I had enough friends to do stuff with, but with whom I couldn't really talk about things I cared about. I didn't realize what that did to me until way later, when I finally did find a few of sort of friends I was looking for. I'm trying to say that in-depth topical interests / ways of looking at life need to match as well - not just having someone to grab dinner with.
Since quitting caffeine and alcohol, I rarely get lonely. In fact, quitting those drugs seems to have helped reduce the time I spend in any negative emotion. I still have acute bouts of [whatever negative emotion here], but I rarely get mired in them. This seems to have less to do with any change in my living situation since the switch (I often hermit away, as I did before) and more to do with being in a more resourceful state more often (which neither drug helped with).
I suspect that alcohol and caffeine-induced negative emotion is widespread. Even a glass or two of alcohol can affect your sleep, and less REM sleep means less emotional regulation. I know basically everyone's on caffeine, but ingesting that can accentuate the peaks and valleys of one's emotional experience. The alcohol and caffeine-induced troughs may be sub-clinical, but they're probably real for a lot of people.
My baseline "sober" -- no caffeine, no anything -- is crippling, paralyzing depression. Hiking is my drug of choice, but I need to be hiking all day, nearly every day, for months for it to take action, and that is not compatible with existing in society.
Without hiking, and without any other support, then I revert to existing as a pool of dark sludge on a bed all day. I spent years this way before I decided to set aside my pride and accept that having a little help -- caffeine at a minimum -- to be functional is better for my health than any perceived ideas around addiction or "purity".
Coffee / caffeine can take me from a non-functional, paralyzing mental disability to being able to move around and have momentum.
And yes, there are circumstances that can change where this wouldn't happen and I wouldn't need a support like that: a world-wide revolution resulting in the liberation of all mankind from the dystopian hellscape we are in / plunging ourselves further into would do it.
Short of that, I'll stick with a couple cups of coffee a day, thanks.
Damn, I'm sorry to hear that. I relate to this because I've dealt with depression too, which I also medicated in various ways.
Other than quitting the two aforementioned drugs, what helped a lot for me was living in a more evolutionarily consistent way. Especially around nutrition, sunlight, and sleep. I made this the focus of my life for about a year because the alternative was, well, you know about that.
In the grand symphony of life, navigating its dissonant notes—our societal complexities—calls for a harmonious tune within ourselves, finding resilience in our daily rituals, shared experiences, and self-discovery, while cherishing the understanding that seeking help is not a discord but a beautiful part of our shared composition.
I'm glad you found something that worked with you. This type of experiment (consume less self administered psychoactives and access emotional changes) is something I would encourage everyone to do. However, it's a common mistake to take an experiment with a small sample size and assume it's results will generalize well over the population. For that we can look to the scientific literature. Inside we find it's well supported that increasing dose of alcohol is associated with increased depression. We do not find the same amount of support for caffeine/coffee, where it's more plausible there is a negative correlation between caffeine and depression.
Your experiment is great because now you know what works best for you. The way you talk about it seems to indicate that you use the experiment as a basis for knowing what is best for the population at large. A scientific study is a much stronger piece of evidence for shaping our views on how alcohol/caffeine effect the population.
Turning on showdead is a real trip. There's a few people who have been posting on this forum for years, often about the same pet cause in nearly every post.
Recently I got slapped for some inflamatory comments. Now I can't post too much in any give span of time. It really bums me out and interferes with my use of the site. I think it's few months already.
Does anyone know if this rate-limiting is temporary measure or if I need to abandon decade old account if I want to have the full functionality back?
Loneliness has nothing to do with alone-ness. Most of us are perfectly happy alone, being left alone, and may even prefer it.
Similarly, depression has nothing to do with alone-ness. It's being perfectly sad. Depression is the only cause of perfect sadness, and sadness is never the cause of depression. Healing depression cannot be done by healing sadness. Your triggers and the cause of your condition could be many things, but until you figure those things out, nothing will undo your depression or sadness.
Absolutely agree. When I am at home working alone under a crushing deadline for days, I feel lonely, but that's somewhat tolerable, since I accomplish something. On the other hand I love dancing, but when I go to clubs alone, I am miserable for days seeing all groups enjoying themselves while I nurture my drink, watching the other dancers. It has gotten so bad that I rarely go to any social events anymore.
I'm at a loss for how to explain the polar opposite results of two situations I've been in.
I worked 3 year in an office in two different countries where the prevailing mode was absolutely silence, no socialization, no connection, no words beyond pleasantries about nonwork things. One office spoke my native language, one didn't. Those were both really dark depressing experiences. I often felt distressed by loneliness, of being a ghost haunting the human world.
Currently I'm doing the nomad thing, don't speak the language for crap, and spend 3-10 hours a day in coffee shops working. I order at the kiosk so no human interaction. I people watch and feel fantastic. I have been here 6 months and haven't interacted with anyone during this time.
Best guess: In the offices I feel like I had a strong expectation for my life to play out like an American office sitcom. I have no such expectation for random people in a coffee shop to ever speak with me. I think expectations alone determine the result, even for someone 9/10 on the psychologists neuroticism scales. If I hadn't experienced this first hand with years of personal evidence behind it to show, I wouldn't believe it could "all be in my head". But that's the only theory that works
For any given thing we desire to have, we have a set amount that we would like to have each day (or per amount of time) to feel satisfied. Total abstinence of a thing is easier than consumption restricted to below that set amount.
When you're in total abstinence, you can forget that the thing even exists. It ceases to occupy your mind, so you don't feel like there's a want going unfulfilled. When instead you have just a little bit, far too little to satisfy you, the difference between the amount you're getting and how much you'd like causes intense anxiety that you have to deal with somehow.
I am surrounded by people everywhere I go, and yet:
1 person I know IRL has read the books which matter to me.
0 people I know IRL have watched the animes that matter to me.
0 people I know IRL read Hacker News.
0 people I know IRL really play the video games I like.
0 people I know IRL have travelled to the places I have and seen the things I've seen.
Thousands of hours of my life are spent on things for which no one else I know can moderately appreciate. That is the essence of my loneliness.
Also, 0 men I know IRL were raised by a single mother, so my social inclination and lifestyle are hard to relate to.
Warning - the next bit talks about s-icide.
Also, I can't talk to people I know about s-icidal thoughts. My father killed himself a decade ago, and it's apparent to me that the idea spreads like a virus. For someone to really understand my feelings and view on it would likely make them s-icidal too, which I can't bear the thought of. My fiancee has had an experience where a SO offed himself, so talking about it with her is triggering. She's also got anger management problems that make a lot of communication difficult. These are other contributors to feelings of social isolation and loneliness.
A lot of these studies may be culturally specific, in that the focus is on the fulfillment of the individual, i.e. the thinking is 'what's best for me' rather than 'what's best for the group'.
Consider that if you're feeling depressed and lonely and otherwise miserable, and seek out the company of others to alleviate your own negative emotional state, then you're essentially treating other people like a drug you take to improve your mood. Others will tend to see you as needy, demanding, a downer, etc.
The solution is to first figure out how to be happy on your own, to improve your mental and emotional state, such that other people find your company pleasant and agreeable - then they'll actually want to share your company. It's a bit like physical hygiene - if you smell bad, people will keep their distance. Mental hygiene is the same concept.
Unfortunately, consumer society is based on exploiting people's negative emotional states to improve sales - go shopping to alleviate loneliness, buy a bottle of pills to improve your mood, etc. It's not a very healthy system, and it's not surprising many people are so alienated.
We went from a physical/social world to "digital as complimentary" to "digital native" in just a few years time.
If you look at the old world, one would spent a considerable amount of the day in the physical world with real people just to function. Work, do groceries, go to the movies, go to church (like it or not, powerful community builder), go to bars, the like.
Only now do we start to understand how this "limited and inflexible" world had benefits we took for granted.
Now many people can work from home, use food delivery, watch Netflix, then doom-scroll. In the rare cases that they are in public, they are rushed or buried in their phone, so unavailable. In the form of AI (hyper-personalization) and VR, more is on the horizon to complete our project of making the ultimate hyper-individualistic anti-social convenience consumer.
We sold our humanity for convenience, short term urges capitalized by a handful of mega companies.
Yes I'm dramatizing, but not that much, the trajectory is clear: loneliness might become the default.
Small addendum: I'm middle-aged myself but got some hope from my gen-z nephews/nieces: they seem to understand what's happening.
An example is vinyl. They collect it, and it's not just a hipster thing. This rationally makes no sense if you consider that Spotify will have any song at your fingertips wherever you go. Yet it totally makes sense. Digital music is dead, it has no soul, it's not real.
If I tell you that I listened to a song on Spotify (out of 50 million of them) this is supremely meaningless. Yet if you visit my home (which is a vast improvement over a chat message) and I show you a real object with cover art and we both share the experience of listening to it, it's much more real. It's physical, and a shared experience.
Likewise, if I'd share my Spotify playlist with somebody, that doesn't do much. Nobody's going to analyze a digital list of music forwarded by somebody else, especially without any background or curation. Yet if you look at a person's physical collection and they excitedly tell you about it, it's much more inviting to browse and explore.
It's like a little piece of you, whilst digital belongs to nobody.
Many of them also seem to play board games, whilst they could have played a million digital games.
Anyway small sample size, but we need more of this.
For me it's more about lack of connection. My loneliest times are when I'm at home with my family, but we're just occupying the same space. If I actually make an effort to connect by sharing what's going on in my life or talking about the future then it's a lot more positive.
If the _feeling_ of loneliness starts with a sensory/somatic experience then to know it means it is interpreted. If it is interpreted then it went through a filter of values and beliefs. And all of this is contextual to environmental cues
In other words if we could stimulate the same somatic experience in people then some may find relief and others distress and others may not notice it amounts the billions of sensory input in any given moment.
Want to feel (dis)connected. Change the somatic experience? Change the environment/context? Change the interpretation?
My mantra for a while
“I am a tree in woods” ( reminded that I’m part of a connected system)
This is especially true if you find it hard to start conversations and connections. I would feel very lonely in a large unfamiliar group at university. But go walk through the woods and the loneliness is gone.
This is misleading. All problems are easier to bear when you are connected to people dealing with the same problem. Conversely, all problems are harder to bear when you must deal with it alone, particularly when you feel you MUST deal with it alone. The implication is that if you feel lonely you should not seek out others, but rather others who feel lonely. They will understand you, and you them, and you can talk or sit or simply know that you exist, in far larger numbers than you'd expect, and find great comfort in the thought.
For as much as HN hates on Psychology as a field of study, it is Psychology stories that get the most comments, the most discussion, the most interest. It might be because people like talking about themselves more than anything else.
How can one day, the HN consensus seems to be that Psychology is a pseudo-science filled with con-men.
Then the next day there is a new Psychology study submitted, and suddenly HN totally forgets its pseudo-science, now it is 'oh, let me talk about my experience with X'.
This entire site is full of Certified Experts (TM) who absolutely must have their opinion heard.
(In other words, like every other site on the internet, and gnashing its teeth at the reality of that statement with a lot of "I'm not like other girls" energy.)
No duh, any depressed person living in a city or sharing a home could tell you this. To be sure, many ignorant people refuse to listen to the voices of the depressed, but they're likely to refuse to listen to the NIH as well. Willfully ignorant people don't want to be informed, as they find life more enjoyable when they can pick and choose their facts.
I wonder if it relates to depression and suicidality. Often people who died from that seemed pretty social. Maybe they were suffering excessively from loneliness in other people's company, with a smile on their faces and would be better off if they were left alone for a prolonged while instead?
A significant portion of people committing suicides (no one knows how much %) are likely to be clinical or subclinical Borderlines. This population isn't shy because they critically rely on others in order to regulate their emotions for them.
Good to hear that we have found yet another reason to move attention away from lonely men who haven't had a friend for 20 years to those that really need it: popular people who are sad about not being allowed to go party for two weeks during covid lockdown.
The difference is only much more apparent, like if you live with n a box next to a mansion instead of a whole city of boxes, you see the huge difference. It’s like how advertising works to make you want things
It's bad idea to generalize it. Just surround yourself with children, old people and pets and experience loneliness vanish into thin air. It really depends on type of crowd around you.
I skimmed through the paper and the comments, but my real question is: is online social networking considered a crowd and does it have the same effects?
Good for young people graduating college or with 1yr of work under their belt. Quit your job, buy gear, disappear.
Go ultra light. Essentially become homeless. Own at most two pairs of clothing. Don’t worry about showering daily (or weekly), but keep your face clean and your teeth brushed. Don’t let the gear&food on your back exceed 35lbs (15kg). Sleep under the stars when it isn’t raining.
How I felt during: pretty rad. there’s this surreal thing that happens when you spend all day in direct contact with the sun and the moon. You feel physically connected to the solar system. You sense the Sun behind the earth at night. You get a real emotional connection with the environment and that has made climate change a bit more personal for me. In general, I’d never felt as much joy as I felt then. There’s this other surreal thing that happens. If you quit your job to go hike, you start seeing the weeks in front of you as bare and free, and the present becomes one long continuous moment.
I also spent a lot of my spare time reading old classical Greek and American philosophy. Seneca, Plato, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, Ayn Rand, Thoreau, Emerson. It plugged me into the “meta-game” aspect of life, of course we’re all living but how could we live.
Takeaways: society is full of strings, things you don’t actually need to survive. time is better spent learning or exploring. it’s okay to abandon people that you feel you’ve outgrown. People my age (mid 30s) talk about how stressed they are and I can honestly say my attitude was permanently changed by that trip. I suppose Im a happy nihilist. Nothing matters, but that’s not a bad thing. I’m not hitting all of my goals, but my understanding of what reality is has been fundamentally altered where I know it’s not all about me, so losing is actually not a problem. It’s a lesson for me in the present, and my loss might become somebody else’s gain.
There are two variables, both adjustable. Loneliness is eliminated is when that delta is small or zero.
If you’re an introvert and don’t desire social connection and have none, you’re fine. But being in a situation that reminds you of your lack sometimes creates that desire, which creates that delta.
Likewise, if you’re an extrovert, you desire lots of social connection and when it falls below what you actually have you feel sad.
We can’t always control the amount of social connection we get due to circumstances, but we can sometimes control the amount of desire we have by avoiding triggers that remind us.