- 49comments
- 1comments
- 19comments
- 64comments
- 159comments
- 8comments
- 62comments
- 809comments
- 108comments
- 217comments
- 76comments
- 1048comments
- 14comments
- 139comments
- 5comments
- 71comments
- —discuss
- 164comments
- 428comments
- 117comments
- 283comments
- 76comments
- 636comments
- 182comments
- 238comments
- 553comments
- 167comments
- 68comments
- 2comments
- 1comments
No but those who claim to have observed a worrying phenomenon will be interviewed by the press, invited to conferences, listened to by politicians, and will be first in line to receive further grants to study the worrying phenomenon. It's not corruption, it's just normal gratification for your hard work and a feeling of being relevant. Better than studying things and having to report on the absence of any finding.
There is already an ecosystem of for-profit social events in European cities (and probably elsewhere) profiting off people's desire to meet up with other human beings when social opportunies have shrunk. Once has seen this on e.g. Meetup.com or Facebook for years now, where bot profiles are used to swell event-signup numbers so people think they will meet more people. Indeed, with the enshittification of Meetup, the only forces that prosper on that site are for-profit ones.
Social media, dating apps, even andrew tate was doing well till some point.
I don't know much about Andrew Tate (what I've heard suggest I don't even want to look him up, but maybe I should)
For Social Media and dating apps - both ran into similar problems: they are a small part of the means. Facebook only have 5-10 minutes of real friend content per day. Dating apps can perhaps fill more time per day - but success means you "find someone" and close your account never to return. If you want to get rich you need to find some way to extend the time people spend on your platform - and that means something other than your premise. Facebook is filled with garbage. Any mildly successful dating app will be bought out by a big player because that app is taking away from the big player.
I really wouldn't. If you don't know anything about him, count yourself lucky.
They're called nightclubs and bars lol trust HN to be so insulated from the wider world
Those have always been around (but in many markets are declining as younger people are less likely to drink alcohol). My post was obviously about developments in the recent, especially post-Covid world.
This "loneliness" part of this article is confusing to me.
Okay but the data examined for "more alone" is US data with unclear age range (most likely adults). But the data examined for "not feeling much lonelier" is UK data and US school teenager data. I feel like there's a massive blind spot with the fact there's no US adult data...?
That was the point of the first part: nobody has data and so we cannot say there is any trend.
Despite the lack of data, I have no hunch that there is any such trend anyway. Just wanted to say that before somebody inevitably says the opposite.
My gut feeling says: don't ask me, I'm a gut.
The microbiome has now entered the room.
But then we can't claim "There is no epidemic of loneliness" without proper data too. The honest (shame this word is ruined by LLMs) conclusion is "we don't know if there's an epidemic of loneliness," which can go either way: either there really is no epidemic of loneliness, or is undetected.
Well you can do the Occam's razor / Russell's teapot thing, and ask why should there be any specific thing in the absence of (unlooked-for) evidence. Perhaps it's an epidemic of silliness, you know, or itchiness, or moodiness? Could be anything or nothing.
As stated in the article, we do have evidence that people are more alone than ever, and there's a correlation between being alone and loneliness. It's perfectly reasonable to ask whether (but not assume) people are more lonely than ever.
Good point, that's a reason to wonder.
I think this "social scurvy" thing is completely spurious, though. Some people get anxious when alone, probably including the author, hence this post justifying socializing as something everybody else needs to do. Because after all, being unsociable is socially unacceptable. But what's this based on? Being alone is correlated with ill health - well, people will tend to stay far away from you if you have the plague. One study found that people's desire for company rose hardly at all after a mere ten hours, is that surprising? I mean, make it a month, ask me again. This isn't evidence for socializing being necessary. Then we have tribal New Guineans chattering constantly about "who urinated when and where", but just because they're a model of a close-to-nature society doesn't mean the things they do are right, or healthy, and it doesn't mean we have to. (I might also wonder how close together people in tribes are in terms of genes and houses. If they count as "household", that's disqualified from being true socialization in this theory anyway.)
The scurvy part definitely tracks. So many developers live on ramen and energy drinks; basic nutrients become an afterthought.
The energy drinks often contain a lot of added vitamins.
Most of them of the B group for various reasons. Addition of vit C is not that common.
He makes good points on statistics but at the base of all of the data, it's just surveys... I know it's not feasible to survey everyone all the time, but I wouldn't make any conclusions off such data
I think we are getting pretty close to that.
Do people not like juice? How do you get scurvy in 2026?
In the world of protein low carb pop tarts juice is poison.
How hard is it to find some high-protein fruit juice these days?
Given that there's no strong regulation that forces fruit juice to be made from fruit, I'd wager that this is already a product line.
"Contains 0% Juice"
you can't call it juice if there's no juice
Not the point of the post. Just a clickbaity-ish comparison to reel you in.
The article is talking about "social scurvy", which they use as a metaphor for people not realising they need to get out of the house and meet up with other people every now and then.
I'd be interested in a good article that questioned the loneliness epidemic narrative, but this isn't it.
It’s an interesting point made in about 10X the words it should have taken.
It’s a major issue I have with nonfiction in general though. Most of the words are superfluous. Unlike fiction it’s not prose-poetry or storytelling art either, just dry filler.
Except that the most effective way of conveying facts _is_ through narrative and storytelling.
That and powerpoint, obviously.
It's not effective on the large fraction of people who tune out due to the length.
I'm skeptical of whether that's always true, especially today.
Usually when I want pure facts I now want concise and to the point. If I want art I read fiction. Fiction can convey other things, even facts and new ideas, but the main reason it exists (at least for me) is that it's art.
I've only heard of "loneliness epidemic" in terms of "male loneliness epidemic" and it's framed entirely around young men not getting the attention they expect from women.
The male loneliness epidemic is also known as the growth of incel circles and the influence of supposedly masculine influencers who will do literally anything but treat women both as equals and with respect. And the way these groups work is that they need to keep their membership up, so it's in their interest to keep you away from women by turning you against them.
Whatever narrative there is about young men being left behind by progressiveness, it is a big lie over a smaller truth (the system fails everyone and now it is sometimes failing young white men, in terms of education). Not so different to the great replacement theory I would imagine, but based on gender not race/religion.
I'm gay, and most of my online friends are gay. I'm not a virgin (several partners over), and do not identify as an incel, and most of my friends are similarly experienced. I know that I'm dealing with loneliness, and my friends relate their issues with it regularly.
For us, it is a matter of not being able to build and maintain meatspace social connections - reasons vary, including severe social anxiety, poor socialization (in part due to issues with physical development), and physical isolation; if there is a common thread, it is a history of a dysfunctional family life that disrupted development.
It's very frustrating when women center themselves in these kinds of conversations, and use that spotlight to assume and project the worst. There is a consistent unwillingness to even try to understand the perspective of socially-disadvantaged men, or to engage genuinely with the notion that their needs are unique, and uniquely unmet, when compared to that of women and better-adjusted men.
It makes it difficult to get genuine grievances taken seriously; people are always looking for ways to wash their hands of persistent and onerous social issues, and being told, by someone perceived as socially-successful and authoritative, that they can is all the reason they need.
I was a victim of domestic violence, as a man, once a while ago. Ever since then I hate the feeling of things touching my neck - because he tried to strangle me - and my reaction to things rubbing my neck is a tic now.
I was taken seriously for about a week and then it dropped, because it was my sister's boyfriend who did it and he was already going to prison for something else. So why make it worse for him? I got sidelined in favour of that.
My own social connections dropped off at about that time because I became scared. The guy who attacked me was already due to be imprisoned.
So, I was well embedded in that dysfunctional family life, and at every step of the way I was 0 priority compared to the boyfriends of my sisters.
The reason I can't find a woman is not so much that I'm insecure or lonely, but that I need a bit of time to get trust. And besides, lonely people have been paying hookers and escorts forever.
It's reframed that way so it can be dismissed out of hand.
It's already difficult to get anyone to care when men experience troubles (because they should "man up" and solve things themselves), and when you make it sound like it's because men expect something from women, not only does it cease to be a problem worth caring about, but it becomes a threat we need to shout down.
The issue of male loneliness isn't just that men are having a hard time forming relationships with women: it's much broader, and more importantly, it's inclusive of hardships starting and maintaining friendships with other men.
Part of this is due to the fact that most spaces men used to have for socialization have long since been shut down.
However, the small grain of truth buried in the reframing is that women are better at cultivating and maintaining friend groups, and a lot of men currently maintain their social circles through their wives. Of course, the solution is not that we should assign women companions to men like the military would assign a firearm to a soldier, but rather our society needs to start teaching men how to better maintain friendships on their own.
Annual sales of antidepressants in North America are about $8 billion.
Yes, but they start by giving those to children and teenagers, and telling them that if they ever stop taking the pills they'll kill themselves.
It's almost like the primary objective is to make money rather than 'protect the children'.
Making lots of money protects the children of the shareholders from being poor. Perhaps even their childrens children. Or their childrens childrens children. /s
Doctors make nothing for prescribing SSRIs to kids
The don't get a direct kickback, but there is an absolutely massive campaign to influence prescription decisions right out in the open:
https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q781
FTA:
Like Focusyn?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother%27s_Little_Helper
Not to mention the money grifters (à la manosphere freaks) rake in, or the regular reports of people using LLMs as therapists and friends.
Not sure what the point of closing your eyes and plugging your years is
Weird post. I like the way it's written, there are lots of very interesting links, and the images are quite unique. But it goes on and on, and the conclusion is lacking.
I'd enjoy it for fun, to pass the time, to read a dozen follow-up articles. But as a one-off post to learn and inform myself? Ugh.
Unrelated, but two of the many links have ChatGPT referals. I'm not sure what to think of it. I guess it's fine?
Interesting factoid:
[0]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15298868.2020.18...
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210312...
I think it's a side-effect of certain facets of intelligence, mistrained or unrestrained:
Repeatedly processing memory, recursively calling the same function without a limit or exit condition :)
"There is no epidemic of loneliness" say the people who don't know what loneliness is (by the very fact that they have channels to broadcast anything, and colleagues to study such things with etc)
≈ "Just stop being so depressed!" reddit.com/r/thanksimcured
What's undeniable is the disgusting monetization (and control) of connecting people.
I have worked on efforts to connect people with each other.
What I've noticed in many of these meetups created for other people to mingle, is that a lot of people who drop by and don't have a loneliness problem, make the atmosphere worse for everyone else who does. Instead of fostering genuine connections, they just "don't see the issue" and shoot down genuine attempts of others (who might be introverts, shy, whatever) to connect. Such a thing is completely out of place, because the whole motivation for said meetup is to get people to know each other.
I have started placing notices like "if you have friends, don't come" lol, which is a bit controversial but actually upgrades the experience. An analogy, imagine a married guy dropping into a singles dating event to talk about how great a relationship he's in and giving "tips to survive a marriage" and whatever (and also, if it is that good, then why are you here?). You get the idea.
And I also agree with your last sentence.
Loneliness™ is something you can feel even when you're surrounded by people, who're good to you and treating you nicely etc.
On the surface it can seem similar to Depression: "What do you have to be so sad about??"
It can be similar internally too: a vague sense of not-quite-doom, or just an invisible wall in your ability to feel "happy"
That all the people who hang out with you and laugh with you, are not really your friends if push ever comes to shove, that you're going to be alone in the things you care about, even if you have a loving partner, etc.
Or maybe just even simply feeling out of place in the overall culture you live in..
Funny, I absolutely do develop a hankering for citrus whenever my body needs vitamin C. After a workout, and after getting sun at the beach, or just whenever I've gone a couple days without getting enough vitamin C, I absolutely develop a sudden craving for oranges/grapefruit/pineapple/orange juice/Emergen-C. And it doesn't go away until I have enough.
I assume that this is a kind of learned association, that you can recognize the feeling of vitamin C depletion and your body quickly connects that that goes away when you eat certain foods.
But my body absolutely tells me when I need vitamin C. And whether it's at a level of "it would be a nice idea to have some now" or "you need a LOT more vitamin C RIGHT NOW".
If you eat any vegetables at all it's unlikely you're ever vitamin C deficient. You are probably just craving sugar.
I cannot tell you how wrong you are.
Why don't you at least try?
Why don't you not make insulting comments like "You are probably just craving sugar," implying that I can't tell the difference?
Even a cursory amount of research will reveal to you that people who engage in athletic activity require higher amounts of vitamin C, and your assertion that these people get enough vitamin C just from common servings of vegetables is flat-out wrong. And keeping in mind that cooking vegetables reduces and sometimes outright pretty much removes their vitamin C, depending on the cooking method.
And the fact that you think I wouldn't notice that e.g. Coca-Cola equally satisfied my need, and that this desire for citrus or Emergen-C has just been a mistake, that's the insulting part.
So you will understand why an insulting comment like yours does not deserve a full explanation of a reply, but I'm going out of my way to provide one anyways. In the hopes that you can learn from this and not leave such knee-jerk dismissive comments in the future.
Do you crave bell peppers? They have double the amount of vitamin c as oranges do from what I remember.
For me it's either a craving for lime/citrus or strawberries. When I crave strawberries, I know somethings up.
I love being alone. I'm never lonely. Maybe i'm crazy.
Go drink Margs with friends.
Cures both your scurvy and your social scurvy.
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but author, you just spent the article up to now complaining about people asserting that people are more lonely without evidence.
There is an interesting phenomenon called "the Firehouse Effect" that is similar but on a group level.
The idea is that if you take a group of humans and isolate them, they will begin to believe wilder and wilder ideas and communicate those ideas amongst themselves. This happens because the group is not routinely "reconciling" with broader society which in turn is slower to adopt new ideas.
It's named after firemen who would spend a lot of time together in firehouses.
https://absoluteengagement.com/blog/are-you-stuck-in-the-fir...
So this is anecdotal but lines up with the points of the article:
- texting has given me the ability to stay in touch with lots of my friends
- being a suburban dad with 3 kids who have activities has made it VERY difficult to see other dads in person
Couple this with a lot of the other families having two working parents, spontaneous "let's go hang out, dude" is effectively zero.
What's more common is having to either:
- have a routine scheduled "dads hang out" event
- scheduling a hang out 2-3 weeks in advance (which also sometimes gets cancelled due to "sick kid", "wife got stuck in traffic" etc)
Surprised nobody has mentioned the rise of pet ownership into our lives (at least in the US) [0] and it’s resulting companionship benefits. Seems to me like a potential behavioral reaction to the “social stat” to help correct in some way.
[0]. https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/pet-ownership-sta...
If you look at graphs of children conceived vs. pet adoptions among adults over the years? It’s a pretty obvious “X” shape (pets directly replacing children)
Someone in my town just randomly lit his house on fire and went insane after being a shut-in for years. This is just one of many stories.
Don't you tell me straight faced that mental health isn't an epidemic.