Well Putnam's book suggested that it was a longstanding trend that just kept getting worse, so each decade would be a golden age compared to what came later.
Bowling Alone was very well received when it came out, but there has been another thread of articles that have been more controversial. I believe a relevant title is:
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and
Community in the Twenty-first Century
The punchline has been that, if you are not careful, increasing diversity can lead to decreased trust in society, and with it, decreased social capital. The idea is that nobody feels really safe (in a social sense), and so you see a pattern of withdrawal.
I think this is a challenge that he wants liberal societies to successfully address. It's a warning when he says it, not a call for homogeneity.
I believe this is in line with "contact theory", the naive version of which Putnam's statistics seem to refute. Unsegregated areas usually have lower trust, at least in the short term.
But.
Categorizations change over time, and many lines that used to be important no longer are. So he holds out hope that the same blurring can occur to the lines that matter today.
He suggests that the formation of higher identity -- perhaps a civic nationalism like we see in Ukraine -- is the way forward. The main positive example he can point to that spans current lines, and not obsolete ones, is the Army, which arguably does just that. To a lesser extent, he also mentions the Catholic Church, which -- like Islam, I will add -- provides a higher identity that spans ethnicities.
I've heard some other authors make similar calls, e.g. Francis Fukuyama.
As a generality, I'm wary of leaning too heavily on a single author's philosophy, especially in social sciences. In that regard, I don't agree with everything Putnam puts forward.
It's a bit odd seeing that in the context of 'Mountain_Skies's claims. Putnam is very noncommittal about his suggested possible causes, with the notable exception of blaming television — but blaming technology for social isolation is neither new nor reasonably possible to ignore in 2022 — although the included response to Putnam (which frankly mischaracterizes his argument) does show that he created quite a stir when he originally published the article.
“He then asked: "Why is US social capital eroding?" and discussed several possible causes.[1] He believed that the "movement of women into the workforce"[1] and other demographic changes had an impact on the number of individuals engaging in civic associations. He also discussed the "re-potting hypothesis", that people become less engaged when they frequently move towns, but found that Americans actually moved towns less frequently than in previous decades.[1][3] He did suggest that suburbanization, economics and time pressures had some effect, though he noted that average working hours had shortened. He concluded the main cause was technology "individualizing" people's leisure time via television and the Internet, suspecting that "virtual reality helmets" would carry this further in the future.[1]”
>it's not an acceptable answer, we march on and pretend to be mystified.
On many social topics, your opinion, expressed with this attitude, is almost always not true to the implied extent. Usually it's an exaggeration born of bitterness/frustration. In this case, the significant issue is not that people "pretend" anything or are just idiots who won't accept The Truth. It's that they either disagree with a hypothesized reason for the problem, or, frequently, agree with the hypothesis but disagree with the implied or stated solution, which is much more reasonable than the person in the picture you're painting.
Kind of shocked this trend applied to parents during the pandemic. With daycares and schools shut-down I have no idea how parents not only got alone time but the trend went upward.
the article doesn't seem attribute the desire to be alone to anything, other than saying that it got a lot more common during the pandemic, but I can say why I prefer to be alone: no judgement, no one makes fun of me, no one takes advantage of me, and no one steals from me.
the one and only bad thing for me is that being lonely sucks. I am not lonely, but I probably will be in a decade's time. being alone adds up over time.
there is no such thing as a "friend." there are only people who will pretend to be a partner or friend in order to make it easier for them to steal from you unnoticed.
people are a toxin and a terrible species of creature.
Why do you anticipate you will be lonely in a decade's time(but not currently)? And do you think you are a toxin based on your observation of the general species?
unfortunately, humans are a social species and the toll of being alone adds up over time. I try to avoid people so that I don't darken their day and they don't darken mine. I consider staying away from others a very small gift to them.
people are mean, selfish assholes and are by default competitive and adversarial, by nature.
we are a doomed species, and are unworthy of existence, in my opinion.
Thanks for sharing, human history is indeed littered with brutal events and these things build further hate for future generations, if they choose not to let go of the past.
Despite that, the world and the universe has almost unlimited beauty, but it is ultimately up to an individual person to find and see it.
This is pretty relatable. Not sure I'd say "unworthy", as that's hard to measure. Instead, I'd just say that consciousness seems to lead directly and inevitably to misery. And following Qohelet from thousands of years ago, those who are no longer conscious, or never were, are the best off.
We'll all be dead quite soon. In the meantime, I enjoy going out into nature a bit (waterfalls are great), and more reliably, having a pet. I think this is the best that this world has to offer. Godspeed.
That is not a good world view. I imagine you've been through a lot to get to the point where you feel like that. Have you tried finding a friend group that has a mutual hobby to bond over?
Not sure if you mean it seriously or not. Not even sure to what degree this is accurate, but definitely to some, because coffee is probably[0] most common form of self-medication on the planet, followed by cigarettes, and then alcohol and weed are two well-known anesthetics and sedatives.
It's somewhat common view that coffee is the one legal performance drug almost everyone uses to keep up with their job demands, but it's less recognized that it can - and likely is - used to cope with other people. Alcohol is definitely used for the latter.
----
[0] - Feels obviously true, by a far margin, but the world is big and I haven't exactly done a study.
It sounds, and I say this in genuine concern, that you may benefit from getting professional help with your mood and perceptions.
[Depression lies to you] “Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain that can have a resounding impact on how we view the world and how we think the world views us.”
the reason it hurts, ironically, is because you haven't grieved/let go of what you wish friends/society were like instead
It's like a partial 'loss of innocence' limbo, puts you in a weird danger zone that is more vulnerable than either polarity
-- actual innocence (i.e. children) rightly elicits strong protection and guidance
-- completed loss of innocence/full acceptance/adult cynicism is being totally okay (and no longer upset or bitter) with the world not owing you anything and there being invisible unfair rules of status games everywhere.
These people are adults climbing the status games they're born into and earning points at their own pace are basically happy and making progress, even modestly or fake/meaninglessly (consumer goods etc)
Getting stuck somewhere between these stages, tho, is painful because every human interaction pokes at an open wound.
(I'm working thru this myself so I empathize)
If you can't stop seeing beyond the game, wishing for a different cards, bitter at the rules being a certain way for your society/geography/time, being contradictory, or changing too quickly etc, you won't be good at the game because your spirit is essentially undercutting you at every play. "Your heart isn't in it" so to speak.
It's how the most sensitive see-thru-the-matrix type children end up when they grow too old for anyone to care, because they just won't let go of how they (idealistically) wanted it to be. A rare amount of these people also have amazing talents, so their insights combine to create art, but the vast majority that can't outgrow it or sublimate it basically just get stuck.
There comes a point where you decide you have to play the best you can with real spirit of society as you find it, so as to win the prizes available.
I remember once I finally handled myself well at a party, was the right amount of cute girl/ charming/ sophisticated/ intriguing/ status signaling stuff to kinda prove to myself I could put the effort in.
And what was discouraging was not that it was 'fake' which was my original juvenile complaint, but rather that the prize for doing really well at a social game is ...being invited to another party to play again next time.
This prize is everything to some people (who can turn each game into endless secondary benefits/opportunity) but pretty disappointing to other types who keep wishing the prize was different, deeper, or magical somehow
They could make themselves play and win if only the prizes were better...
on the other side of the spectrum, it's like how young natural 'politicians' can fully see that socializing is transactional and instead of being upset their thinking attunes to those invisible lines of power like a duck to water: wow the world is one big competition, wow that's so neat, hmm lets see, what do i have to offer and what can you do for me?
there is something to at least seeing with curiosity other people's survival strategies and emotional different reactions to the lay of the land, so to speak. Not to become them, but at least to see the options.
You know how therapy people say acceptance is letting go of the hope for a better past?
in a way, lonely/cynical/bitter people have to let go of their hope for a better game.
Hell is other people, heh? You're being downvoted for what I think is an obvious reason, but seeing as your comment says what it does, maybe you are not aware.
You cannot love without risking a heartbreak, and you cannot experience friendship without risking a betrayal or a slow drift apart. But a friendship or a love do not have to be defined by the fact that they end, or how they end, and instead appreciated by the good moments they provide you. Your life will also end, and it is not a waste because of that, it is still worth living, so I'd encourage you to be more trustworthy and enjoy the ride a bit more.
this is exactly the response I expected, and it has been delivered right on time.
you have proven my point: humans are assholes, and see whatever they need to see to justify how they treat others. you have taken 0.5 seconds of time to believe that you have figured out my problem, in it's entirety, and then made that statement in order to feel superior to me by telling me that it's my fault.
do you really, really think that this has not occurred to me? that I have not taken steps for years to address it? I have. for 20 years I have paid for professional help, and nothing in this situation has changed except me.
for some reason, you felt compelled to tell me that you fully understand the situation that I am living in and that I do not understand the situation I am living in. you are a perfect illustration of the problem I am describing.
thanks, I guess. I expected exactly this and you gladly provided it.
Funny, when discussing many situations such as poverty, career opportunities, or physical health issues, negative experiences leading to a pessimistic outlook is usually accepted, and met with acknowledgement of inequalities or systemic issues. Suggesting otherwise is sometimes even taboo.
But attempt to share the same kind of experience-informed outlook on friendship and sociality, and the same empathy is rare. This outlook seems to deeply bother people who presumably have had positive experiences.
The means of reconciling this bothersome viewpoint seems to be either insistence on a supposed “friendship meritocracy” (just do these things and have a happy attitude and you’ll find friends!) or by skipping straight to vitriol. The response is fascinating in its own right, really.
In parent's defense, you are posting on a public forum introducing a position that is likely to create some level of pushback. Note that you use categorical language like:
<< there is no such thing as a "friend."
which could draw an uncharitable take.
I can't say I completely disagree, but there are literally billions humans on this earth. I would like to think at least one token good human exists?
> there is no such thing as a "friend." there are only people who will pretend to be a partner or friend in order to make it easier for them to steal from you unnoticed
Um. No. A thousand times, "no." Yes, there are people that will steal from you and there are people who will pretend to be your friend. Friends totally exist.
We recently moved and our old neighbors and friends are taking care of the yard for us while it sells. For no other reason than to help. When we arrived to the new house, a new neighbor came over to help unload the truck just to help out. We've been here months and aside from casual greetings, that has been the extent to our relationship -- not a friend (yet!) and still not having other motivations. I help people when and where I can whenever. I once had an oncoming car flip and nearly collide with me. I stopped, helped them out, and waited for the tow truck and gave them a ride home, just because they needed some help. I never saw them again.
I'm sorry that your experiences have jaded your view. Know that your experiences are not universal. Maybe you need a new environment.
I don't think you're describing friends there, that's more like being a good human being. Friends demand a certain kind of loyalty, an involvement with their personal lives, and personal beliefs. Friends seem to slowly pull you in as one of their family members, and that is a big commitment. If it works out then you have a good friend, but more often than not people are raised differently and slowly drift away. I'm only describing good friends here. There are also bad friends who have only their own interests in mind, often consciously manipulative.
Good friends are a privilege. It requires time, effort, and resources, which directly correlate to the kind of friends you will have. Many people cannot afford good friendships, especially if you grow up in a broken household. So it's not so much that friends are a solution to a problem, but rather it's a reward for being successful.
> We recently moved and our old neighbors and friends are taking care of the yard for us while it sells. For no other reason than to help. When we arrived to the new house, a new neighbor came over to help unload the truck just to help out.
when people help me move they have always gone through my boxes before lifting them up. multiple things go missing every time I enlist help moving.
once a neighbor asked to watch the house while I was gone for two weeks. sure, thanks! I came back to a destroyed house and people showing up late at night for weeks asking "is this the party house". my neighbor moved out while I was away for that two weeks and gave the keys to someone else, and told them to "go nuts", I was later informed.
anyone with a list of positive experiences with other people is ... well they're not on the planet that I'm on.
There is absolutely no problem with spending time alone, I believe more people should move towards a place where being alone isn't anxiety inducing(easier said than done). Taking a walk alone(no headphones, just your thoughts), spending a couple hours reading a book, going to a restaurant and having a meal by yourself, working on a passion project...these things can be really liberating!
Instead our collective alone time is spent with faces stuck in phones and short form media content, as we constantly compare our lives to whatever the latest celebrity is doing, slowly numbing ourself to our own potential and uniqueness.
Most people that I know beyond a certain friendship threshold have told me similar. And with how noisy every space is, from the public gas stations with screens to the private smartphone apps brimming with ads, we're getting more and more out of practice with being with ourselves.
1. The internet means we have many forms of entertainment available without needing to go anywhere.
2. Many of those are social activities, even though we are physically alone. This is completely different from being totally isolated (as implied by the article).
3. The declining economic situation affects the ability of people to pursue leisure activities that would involve actually going somewhere that we might meet up with others.
I believe that within a few years, comfortable AR and VR goggles and glasses will come out, and they will pick up mass adoption. This will lead to a huge increase in social activities, and they will be almost equivalent to truly being in person, especially once eye-tracking becomes popular. Virtual environments and AR teleportation using things like neural radiance fields will be quite realistic.
It won't be long until some drone based sky billboard company emerges from the ether, strongarms/bribes local government into allowing its exclusive use, and then you are tracked as you walk your hiking trail by a herd of advertising drones that cost just a dime less than the hypothetical number they generate from your annoyed, halfway focused attention.
It's coming. I hope some good people here on HN are working on an open source 3d printed EMP cannon.
Your reply is disingenuous because it implies that you truly think that there aren't a large number of social engagements that involve purchases. There are, such as restaurants, bars, facilities like bowling, trips, etc. Of course people can go on a hike. I am saying that the other stuff is less accessible for many people during an economic downturn.
People didn't read into it fairly, they deliberately misread what I was saying. I was not saying that people won't go back to meeting in person. I am saying that the online meetings will become more realistic.
I probably should not waste time commenting. Total lack of imagination or fairness in interpreting comments.
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to make anyone feel bad (that was not sarcasm). But, I really am concerned about the amount of screen isolation already in evidence (I say, as I type this onto my laptop), and I'm not sure why we would want more temptations to increase that.
No, its not the most banal, its the one that most obviously doesn't translate.
Of course its not the same as being in person. But it can be much closer than people realize.
As I said, eye-tracking will be built in, so there will be eye contact. The environment renderings and avatars will be realistic. You can already do really interesting interactions such as table tennis and tabletop RPG games such as Demeo.
Bad example. Porn these days is a super-stimulus, and for many can be better than the real thing - little to no costs and effort required, has all the upsides, and none of the downsides.
I could honestly see it happening. Something like VRchat is never going to replicate IRL socialization, but it's close enough that it could fill a huge gap for a lot of people.
VR socialization might not be great, but like the BigMac is to food it might be just good enough for many.
> 2. Many of those are social activities, even though we are physically alone. This is completely different from being totally isolated (as implied by the article).
This is also completely different from being physically with others.
There's been a lot of talk recently about effects of loneliness and the "loneliness epidemic". What a lot of this lacks, including this article, is a good and correct definition of loneliness. They seem to use the lazy & inaccurate definition of "spending significant time alone", which is very different to being lonely. There's a lot of people who are now able to spend more time alone than before and are happy with that.
Some of the academics I've heard discussing this define loneliness as when a person's social interactions are significantly less than their desired amount of social interactions. It's an individual's perception, not measured time. That seems like a much better measurement as it takes into account human variability.
I agree. There's a big difference in being lonely and being alone. There's also a big difference between isolation and loneliness. You can be isolated but not lonely, and likewise you can be lonely and surrounded by folks.
The other facet here is that it's easier to choose loneliness than isolation, though it's less likely to be chosen directly. I feel like it's chosen indirectly by choosing avoidance of vulnerability. Vulnerability is the price you pay and risk you take to ameliorate loneliness.
Hardly anyone can fully become isolated. You have to work to live, and so by default you are forcefully un-isolated. Loneliness however can come about by avoiding being vulnerable with others. Men seem to be particularly susceptible to this avenue to loneliness.
One thing I have really appreciated in the last few years - even though the naive interpretation, as you said, gets it backwards - is being able to avoid lots of non-enjoyable / productive “interactions”… things like being able to wait in my car to be called back for appointment, rather than sitting in a waiting area.
I’m still masking with a N95. I’m not super high risk, but I am at elevated risk AND I’ve managed to dodge catching it so far. As an autistic person, it’s a bit of a leveler (less so now that most proble have stopped) since a lot of those non-verbal cues are, well, masked. Similarly, I really appreciate that now many more places allow for text/email customer service… again, helpful since I’m not under time pressuew to communicate
It is a better definition, but it's still not complete. For example, if I'm talking to Fred about a movie we both saw, and Fred found it really funny and I found it really tragic, and I can't manage to get my point accross, I will feel lonely. That means that for me, increasing the amount of social interactions can make the problem worse, as that will reinforce that idea in my head that I can't be understood by other people.
This may start to explain why isolated people, esp elders, are so reluctant to reach out to others who are also isolated. You have to confront a lot of difference before you'll find any similarity.
It will probably be difficult to have any mainstream support of that idea, because allowing people to be alone and think by themselves goes against the society we’ve built for centuries.
Sure, the concept is praised. But even monks were supposed to live in small communities.
There’s of course the not so cynical take of people not bound by networks being harder to rope in a common direction. It’s supposed to be a virtue, but from a position of power it’s a pain in the side.
>There’s of course the not so cynical take of people not bound by networks being harder to rope in a common direction.
It's the opposite. People who are isolated are easier to control. Populations that are isolated find it harder to organize against people in positions of power. If you occupy the upper rungs of the societal ladder, you don't need to be a part of a social group, because your power (from wealth, politics, etc.) can be exercised unilaterally. The only check to their power comes from the people on the bottom rungs of the ladder banding together.
When people belong to a group you don’t have to target individuals, you can deal with the group. For instance the audience of a specific magazine can be reached through that magazine, members of an union will follow the union’s decisions, etc. You might need to fight the influencers of the group to have them align with your interests, but that’s only a few people vs multiple thousands of individuals.
A different way to look at it: cults and ideologies also try to rally isolated individuals as they are easier to target, but in the end they need them part of the group to be manipulated, they can’t stay stray sheeps doing what they want in the wilderness.
I'd expect there to be a high correlation. People willingly choose to spend less time with friends and devote themselves to activities when the choice is easy because those activities are almost completely fulfilling, except occasionally when they aren't fulfilling anymore but the person is still alone.
On the other hand there are people who can't bear to be alone at all. Which seems like a different issue.
Another thing is in developed countries with domestic ZPG, like US, Japan, Italy, etc. Even if people didn't want to be alone, having none or fewer children means necessarily some will be alone even if they prefer not to.
I think an additional thing being missed in loneliness, as described by the article, is that it doesn't consider that talking to someone via text chat or phone call is not that different in terms of fulfilling social interaction needs.
By the article's definition, I'm an extremely lonely person because I very rarely physically spend time with others.
But looking at pure social interaction, I speak to all of my family for hours every week and have been essentially constantly talking with a couple of online friends (who also share my interests very closely) for several years now, which would be completely unrealistic in-person. So I get lots of social interaction and it's all the sort that I really value. As a result I wouldn't really consider myself to be lonely.
Even when I did have a mainly in-person friend group, it was hard to meet outside of school since everyone has their own things to take care of, so it was usually easier for everyone to just interact via more remote-friendly means.
My area's birth rate is approaching Japan's. Although this was always a bit of a lonely place, being alone is now almost unavoidable. Choosing to be alone and being used to being alone look and feel like the same thing, but their root cause is different.
> You can help reverse these trends today without waiting for the researchers and policymakers to figure it all out. It’s the holidays: Don’t skip Thanksgiving with your family. Go to that holiday party (or throw one yourself). Go hang out with friends for coffee, or a hike, or in a museum, or a concert — whatever. You will feel better, create memories, boost your health, stumble across valuable information — and so will your companions.
So it's not "we should reverse that" but "you should reverse that". I'm always suspicious of text filled with "we", "us" , "our" where the group is never well defined. This is an opinion piece, written by an economist, that finds it "safe to assume" things. It is also notable that the author never really justifies that Americans chose to be alone, they just did.
All in all, I think it's too light to be taken seriously. For example, is this the first time in history that people are spending more time alone? If not, can we find some events or context that caused this? What were the consequences? Did things change? How? What breaks my heart is that there's a good chance someone, somewhere has spent a lot of time and energy studying this topic and sharing the results for everyone to benefit, but instead here's a piece trying to make people feel guilty about actions they may not have control over.
I the last few years I had to move contries a few times and basically rebuild my entire social circle each time – and it made me aware how much of finding friends is just a matter of logistics. I think that much of the loneliness problem comes down to people just not having a process that helps them meet new friends.
In most places, there's a surprising amount of events where you can meet new people. For me it was open boardgame nights – the difficult part was actually beating the inertia and going there, but once I did, I think I made about an average of one new friend per two outings, as long as I remembered to message them afterwards.
There really is a massive gulf between small-town friend-making strategies and big-city friend-making strategies.
In a small town you can form a friend group by osmosis, because there's exactly two churches, exactly two bars, exactly one grocery store, so you see everyone regularly and, furthermore, you have no choice who to socialize with, and you know everyone else also has no choice who to socialize with, so you all might as well socialize together and be "friends" even if you don't really actually like each other all that much. You'll be cordial with everyone, but gossip runs rampant and even your best friend might be cruel to you when out of earshot.
In a big city, it's the opposite. You can be desperately lonely despite being surrounded by throngs of people at all times. To make friends, you have to really try and put yourself out there. It's hard. But once you do, you may find it more fulfilling, because instead of settling for people who were merely there, you've filtered the city to people who share your interests and found people who you actually want to be around, and you know the people who want to be around you aren't just doing it out of a dearth of options. Higher risk, higher reward.
> ... so you all might as well socialize together and be "friends" even if you don't really actually like each other all that much.
Learning to get along with other people, not just the people you like, and not just the people in your "in-group", is a massively important social skill.
American urbanites tend stick out here in Japan precisely for this reason. They only associate with each other and complain constantly about how Japan is "so backwards" compared to back home. There's no olive bar at the supermarket, there's no vegan meat, etc.
Folks from non-Anglosphere countries -- urban or rural -- usually integrate far better, at least as much as one can in Japan.
> ... but gossip runs rampant and even your best friend might be cruel to you when out of earshot.
This happens all the time in cities. San Francisco was full of the most empty-smiling, gossip-spreading, stab-you-in-the-back people I've encountered in my life.
Here in Nevada City, I ran a D&D game pre-Covid. Restarting afterwards has been frustrating despite me putting considerable effort into flyering at local cafes and advertising on Meetup and Facebook.
I was speaking to a friend runs a local yoga studio and event center, a lot of in-person is simply struggling.
Also, it doesn't that Meetup.com is now broken in many ways - for example, it won't give me messages on my phone.
COVID decimated our local live Poker league, we'd regularly have multi-table tournaments 2019 and earlier. That obviously had to stop with the pandemic, and now, as the pandemic is slowing (but not over), nobody is around anymore. They've either lost interest or many of them have simply moved away because of remote work.
This and internet addiction are definitely more responsible than people are letting on. Also the unwillingness a lot of people have to commit and/or start families. And especially the negative marketing done towards women with respect to having children.
How it's expensive, how it will ruin your career, how it will destroy your body, etc. Talk to gen-Z women, many of them are inundated with this kind of thinking.
It is expensive and it is true that building most careers becomes more difficult if you take extended time off. And some women do experience extreme changes to their body. That "kind of thinking" sounds entirely fact-based, not "negative".
I think most people grow up with intense, sometimes overwhelming pressure to marry and start a family. Having some facts discussed on the other side of that argument seems useful and long overdue.
I mean, it's a wonder women still choose to have children. I see it is a triumph of the human spirit, because through a purely capitalist and individualist lenses having children doesn't make much sense.
Does not make much sense for a woman. Until recently, with the advent of a relatively safe society and without birth control options, they basically had no say in having children.
Now, we get to find out the market price (excluding long term externalities) of birthing a child (and child #2, 3, 4, 5, etc) without the fact of being physically weaker tilting the scales.
“Quality” is a strong word but you’re onto something. If there’s nothing to do at home, you have to go… somewhere. If there’s endless amusement at home, even if it makes you feel dead inside, you can put off the hard work of going out in the real world and meeting new people.
I’m not religious but more and more I think that church (as an institution) had an actual positive effect on local communities. At least as a "force" to keep people together, have a community space etc. A space where you can meet and talk with others. My parents are Anglicans and I always liked the little tea and biscuits after each service. These things matter.
It is not just churches, at least in the US there used to be all kinds of community groups around different things, these all seem to be disappearing. Things like Mens/Womens Fraternal Organizations, Miltary / VA organizations, or even something like Bowling leagues etc. While none of these have disappeared completely it does seem their membership numbers are decreasing in a similar way to churches
A lot of those fraternal organizations require having some religious belief or "belief in a higher power." I'd considered joining a couple, but was dissuaded when I read that in their rules.
As a counterpoint, we still have school (the effect including parents), our job, local markets, local bars, local events (library talks, festivals, “neighborhood day”, national holidays celebrations etc).
Occasions to meet people abound for most people interested to, and we make a conscious choice to not go, or at least not bound in these events to keep people out of our private spheres.
Yes, churches do have positive effects on the cohesion of a community. The problem is that the corruption of the churches has countered their positive effects with negative effects and soured people on the church as an institution. In theory, there's no reason we can't have communities with strong senses of cohesion without deferring to a church, but you have to actually build such a thing and not merely rely one to spring up out of nothing. If you're lucky, perhaps you have a church in your community that hasn't been irrevocably co-opted by authoritarians.
People have left churches for a plethora of reasons, many of which stem from the church itself being corrupt. But moreover, as you mentioned people want a sense of community without and of the accountability that Church asks.
You don’t want to tithe because you don’t trust leadership with your money.
You don’t want to be told you’re doing things wrong, or to fix some of your sins.
You don’t want a judgmental group of people who think they are better than you.
You don’t want people who say they are generous but ignore the homeless and needy around them.
You want community without the worshiping God part. You want total freedom without guilt. And you want everything you do to be accepted without judgement.
The Church doesn’t exist to stroke egos or to center around a common interest (like a hobby). It supposed to be a place where broken people come and try to look more like Jesus. Even the Pharisees were corrupt. Corruption in the church isn’t new.
I think the positive impacts of the church aren’t publicized like the negatives are, just like any other large community, so like many people just take the worst and throw the baby out with the bath water.
There are good churches. There are good people. And money is honestly accounted for and used by churches.
I highly encourage lonely people to try church. But don’t just walk in thinking it’s perfect or that everyone there is to serve you hand and foot for just attending. It’s more of a hospital with patients that are committed to seeing each other get better.
> But moreover, as you mentioned people want a sense of community without and of the accountability that Church asks.
Do churches ask for accountability or conformity?
> You want community without the worshiping God part. You want total freedom without guilt. And you want everything you do to be accepted without judgement.
I believe you are strawmanning here. People who don't attend church experience guilt and have a moral compass likely in equal measure to churchgoers. The judgement that people wish to avoid is the kind that denies LGBTQ people's humanity, among other issues.
Accountability is a core tenant of Christianity. In the end you are accountable for everything you say and do, or don’t do.
There’s bound to be conformity in the way people grow or change under a given framework which is what Churches provide for everyone attending. Conformity as a whole is not the goal otherwise we wouldn’t have different denominations and expressions of worship.
It makes me sad that many online conversations become the Church vs. LGBTQ. I know this is a sensitive subject and the source of much pain. My main point is not to discuss that at length but rather to point to what this article and thread address which is ways the Church can help with loneliness.
I did not mean to intentionally straw man, if I did forgive me. When I spoke of ‘you’ it was a metaphorical as a general person who might not want church and less targeting the OP directly.
I agree with their points I mainly wanted to provide another perspective in hopes that readers might give the Church another chance. We have failed and will continue to in many ways, but I’ve seen the good outweigh the bad.
Maybe that people outside the us involve others more in decision making and rely on them for support. And in the US people decide things on their own and their conversations are just storytelling. Not sure if that is what the commenter was going for, just a guess
>U.S. people when talking about their own medical issues: I had this medical issue, I saw a doctor, and the cause was this.
I would put more US people in the former camp; especially when you consider that a trip to the doctor can become a surprise bill of the thousands for many.
Did you have equally intimate relationships with your US and non-US friends?
Telling someone a fact that happened in your life is not especially intimate. Like if I had a surgery or got married/divorced, I would tell basically anyone who asked. It's a vastly more intimate experience to consult with a friend - for me it would be a very close friend - about an ongoing crisis in my life. I don't usually ask casual friends for their input on my relationship problems or scary medical issues. Though if I do, that's usually part of building a closer friendship.
Yorokobe shonen, no one really cares and public health policies won't establish next week (or year or decade) some sort of mandatory social club activity with cops ringing at your door to make you go. You can stay alone in peace.
also advocate of the solitary human, we need to make life not so ridiculously expensive and have meaningful social safety nets that aren't just really good friends/family
walking on a tightrope without a net, or a very weak net, is awful
This spends a lot of time on stats about how much time alone but just seems to rely on the assumption that alone time is bad. Where’s the backing for why we “should” reverse this?
- I live alone.
- I work hybrid, but when I go into the office, it's more or less empty and I spend all my time on zoom calls.
- My family lives far away.
- I'm single.
Most weeks, my only social interaction is at the local bar, where I'm a regular, or various dates from apps. Excesses of both of these is unhealthy in different ways.
I've been pushing myself to go to meetups and hobby groups, but my hobbies are mostly solo ones (probably a bi-product of spending time alone), and I have terrible decision paralysis. It ends up being a lot of work, and not at all something I'm excited about or that seems _fun_.
I don't really have a solution here, but something tells me I'm not alone in being in this situation.
If you go to the same bar all the time and haven't made friends there, try a different bar. And maybe consider those dates as opportunities to make friends in addition to romantic pursuits. A lot of my social group connected originally via dating apps.
I have some friends at the bar, and I'm definitely considered welcome as a regular, and always have a good time, etc. But they're mostly drinking buddies, and not much more outside of that, however I'd like to try harder to change that.
What do you imagine a friend is? Mostly they are drinking buddies, or <some shared activity> buddies. I have not had a friend in over 30 years who was anything more than someone I knew from an activity we both did or a place we both frequented.
People (especially men) pretty much stop having "deep" friendships once they are adults.
I hope that's not true. Though I'll admit most of my deep male-male friendships date back to high school and new ones are very rare. Most new deeper friendships I've formed have been with women, who I think frankly make better friends.
Men can develop deep friendships with each other as adults, it "just" takes enough mutual interest and flexibility to spend a lot of time together. That is much harder if your time is already spoken for my family, a partner, children, work, hobbies, etc. Think of all those sitcom friends who just show up at each others' houses and hang out.
Friendship is fundamentally when two people want to spend time talking with each other (without an ulterior motive like sex or commerce).
Sitcoms are not real life and never were. They are made up situations designed to make writing funny scenes easy. Sitcoms are not how people actually ever socialized or behaved.
My wife's closest 10 or so friends are all from school era, 20+ years ago.
My close friends are all people I've met as an adult - I'd consider them deep friendships: we've travelled together, catch up regularly, know each others' parents and kids, discuss the issues of the world, etc.
But, like school, you need enough time around a common place or interest to develop all that. In my cases, it was usually shared, social offices or having friends in common.
Yeah, I feel like if you're someone who likes hanging out and talking to people at bars, you can probably do that at lots of bars and meet more new people. I don't think it's unusual to get to know a bunch of people but not form any major friendships (happens at workplaces all the time). You may just need more people in the mix to find those friendships. They're hard to find! Especially if you're a little older and maybe more discriminating about who you want to connect with and spend time with.
I'm in a similar situation in a very rural area, except probably worse to some degree. I do have a couple of family members local, but there's no bars, zero dating potential, no hobby groups, and no events for people my age whatsoever.
I've seriously considered moving to a city, but then I'll have to lose the tiny bit of social interaction I actually do have, my family. In some ways I want to believe I could build a better social life in a city and be happier since there's more opportunity on all fronts, but I don't actually believe that would be the case.
I've never even met my coworkers, my social life is non-existent. It's actually crazy to think it's even possible to end up in a situation like I have.
The loneliness has seriously messed with me mentally at this point and I really can't see things getting better anywhere I am. I'm not sure I could muster the will to move at this point anyway. I think I may be too far gone.
I don't have a fix for you, but I completely get where you're coming from.
That sounds hard to deal with! I haven't had the exact same experience, but I have spent periods of my life living in places where it was hard to build a social support structure.
One thing I noticed: it sounds like you're thinking in terms of the two most extreme decisions (stay "here" forever vs. "leave" your family to move to the city). You might be able to leverage your remote-work position to try different places, in case one of them might be a good fit for you.
Sublet an apartment or stay in a long-term AirBnB in a city that you're considering, and during that time (a couple of months, maybe?) dedicate significant energy to meeting people. If it doesn't work, then you have a better grasp on the reality of the situation - if it does, then you can extend your experiment from months to year(s).
mate honestly that sounds like you're cutting off your legs to save your toes.
you should take a backpacking holiday in a busy city somewhere (overseas?). If you have fun, try a working-holiday in a new city for a couple weeks. Maybe one you've been thinking of moving to?
I've done this before within the country and ultimately just found it extremely stressful. I could never get comfortable in the AirBNB, I constantly felt like I'd just shown up and invaded someone's apartment.
I absolutely hate traveling, I just want to live somewhere and for it to become home.
You're probably right about the cutting off legs part, though I've simply lost sight of an exit from my current situation. I own a house, I have responsibilities, and I'm burnt out from work. I actually had a plan in place to move before I burnt out, but that fucked up everything.
You need to take a break man. Change something. Fair call if you don’t like travel. Just go live anywhere else for a month. Pick a city and pretend it’s home. Rent your place out. If you like it make it 2 months. If it’s shit you’re just back to square 1, no big deal.
Covid definitely was a game changer for us (I am married). It reduced the number of in-person contacts with people outside our household by an order of magnitude, decimated the number of car miles we drove, and changed our attitude to being at home. Even as Covid is now somewhat less of an issue, some of those habits have stuck.
Hey, can relate. Your situation seems tough, but you're right, you're not alone in this situation. Something I've noticed as I got older is just how isolating the US can be. The predominate culture is for children to go to college (oftentimes far away from family), then move to a city (again far away from family).
People don't go to church or other religious gatherings as often so people don't build community that way as much anymore.
And now that work is remote/hybrid, as you said, even when you go into the office there isn't much there. I think the US is really failing from an institutional level in that the only reliable way I have ever had of meeting new people was schooling. A dream of mine is that community centers become well funded and become just a place to hang out (like a library but with more activities) and can help facilitate bringing communities together and building those relationships.
But I hope something changes for you, and you do something to change it. Best of luck!
I (like other commenters) can understand where you coming from. There are, of course, lots of solutions if you are willing to try them.
Out of curiosity, have you tried the easy ones, like regularly inviting other folks over for a group dinner? Or joining a rec league, or a shared activity group?
The latter is nice, as it's a weekly forcing function.
>have you tried the easy ones, like regularly inviting other folks over for a group dinner?
Frankly, this made me laugh out loud.
1. Who am I going to invite? It's not like I have old connections to rekindle.
2. I have a tiny apartment and couldn't exactly host many guests. My table could theoretically sit four if I rearranged some things (the max it's ever had is 2)
3. Considering I'm not exactly a socialite now (It's been a while since I went to a dinner party or anything), I have absolutely zero confidence in hosting one myself.
So, maybe this is all in my head, but it doesn't seem easy to me at all.
You live in an apartment? Who else lives on your building? In a decent sized building I bet you’re not the only lonely person. Find the other ones, and create some social thing that’s easy to say yes to.
Dinner is straightforward. Other excuses include book clubs, movie viewings, crafts, community garden, volunteering, etc.
For a dinner, if your apartment is small, use a common space. If you don’t have a common room, do it outdoors. If you don’t have picnic tables, go to a park. If you don’t cook, have a potluck. If nobody cooks, order in.
Don’t allow yourself to give up before you start. Focus on:
(1) identify a pool of people worth interacting with (Eg neighbors, hobby enthusiasts, co-religionists)
(2.a) find where those people gather and join them
(2.b) if they don’t gather yet, convene them yourself in a way that is easy for them and you.
This whole thing is absolutely work though. 2.a is way easier than 2.b.
I think you are taking for granted a huge body of knowledge that some of us are lacking.
Hosting a dinner gathering is complicated. What foods do you serve? What time? Do you complete all the food prep before guests arrive? If you are chatting over appetizers, how do you invite your guests to the table for the main meal?
There's not just one right way to do these things, but if you're trying to host a dinner party for people who you're not already comfortable socializing with, each little thing can feel like "Am I doing this right? <panic>"
Yea, don't worry too much. If someone invited me into an almost empty apartment and gave me spaghetti and just seemed interested in talking to me I would be really appreciative. I have friends (some of whom who are really good cooks) but almost nobody that I don't already know puts effort into talking to me or becoming friends so that would feel super nice.
Order takeaway - it's perfectly acceptable with the right framing. We have people around quite regularly and I like cooking, but still defer to takeaway at times: you're busy, or getting home from work too late to cook, heard about a new restaurant and wanted to see how their [dish] compared to others.
Don't overthink it. If you start early, have a drink first. If you want people to move to the table, say "Hey - I'm starving. Let's sit and eat!" My step-mother-in-law, literally every dinner she hosts says after initial chitchat, "Can I interest you in a cleansing ale?" Haha.
If you're nervous about what you've made, say "This is the first time I've made this, so apologies in advance!" If you don't know what to start with, just buy good bread and good oil or fancy butter and no one is going to execute you for that - all you have to do then is slice the bread. Save any pressure for the main meal. For dessert, break out a fancy block of chocolate and make a "Laboured all day over this" joke. Amongst friends, no one gets fussed about this.
You could literally say, "You know, I've never hosted anyone for dinner. I made a resolution to get comfortable doing it and the year's almost over. I'm trying to get 2-3 people together for a practice run."
Or to a sociable person you have some rapport with: "I have a couple of friends I'd like to have around for dinner but honestly, I'm pretty hopeless and have no idea what I'm doing. Assuming you know what you're doing, can you show me through it?"
Or find another hapless rookie and give it a shot together. Promise each other it will be an awkward disaster, so the only way is up.
You're definitely not alone, and it sucks that getting involved in stuff isn't "automatic." But there are lots of paths.
Amateur sport leagues are one good solution, if you played something in high school or college.
Improv comedy classes are another classic great one, for total beginners.
If you're in a big city, there's a shocking number of beginner classes if you look. Acting, pottery, ballet, baksetball, stand-up comedy, acro-yoga, all sorts of stuff. Mushroom foraging in the park, depending on the season.
It definitely takes some time to figure it out. (And sadly there's less now post-COVID as some stuff closed and never re-opened -- but there's still enough!) You're right it's a lot of work to research and go to, and you won't like 80% of it. But you'll quickly find the 20% you do, and you'll have funny horrible stories to tell about the other 80%. :)
As kid I spent time in an old fashioned Russian serf type village, where a bunch of families lived together and worked a bunch of strips of land. It was the best time I ever had. Everyone had a job to do, and they were happy to let you help. The tasks you were given seemed fulfilling and meaningful.
Today is horrible. Nobody lives with family or knows neighbors around here. No more church. There are some craft clubs, but what's the point? Anything you can make pales in comparison to what you can get for a couple of bucks from Amazon. Growing a garden also seems pointless when you see the local grocery store. There are a bunch of hobbies but they also seem pointless when you look at a few Youtube videos and see all the popular channels doing exactly what you would like to but a million times better.
Honestly if I didn't have a kid I'd probably hang up my hat, but I do need to figure out how to make sure the kid doesn't have this experience.
(p.s. moving back to the Russian serf village is not the solution, that place is now ruined, young people moved to the city, old people died off or drank themselves to death. One guy hung himself.)
If you can find a community garden, they're way better than the grocery. No offense or anything. Plus you get to meet your local community. I miss mine, now that I'm in the suburbs.
You might look into it. It fosters a lot more than just healthy food. It builds neighborhoods, reclaims land and makes friends in the community. They're great.
All of these suggestions are optional. The biggest part of community is it is a forced coexistence. Anything optional takes willpower and most people just will not do consistently.
For a small proportion of abused people. It usually works very well for 95%+ of the people in it. It’s definitely not worth throwing it in the trash for those kinds of numbers.
Further, your kids seeing you do these things will think you are the best at it or will be enthralled trying to emulate superior efforts with you. I can't paint. My painting efforts are embarrassing. My daughter, keen on painting, saw my horrific effort today and thought it was amazing. If we watched an artist on YouTube and then tried to paint together, she would absolutely enjoy that too.
If you don't have an internal appreciation of simple crafts (gardening, making something) then your children can help you find purpose in it.
Your memories of that Russian serf village are distorted and incomplete. Most subsistence farming work is far from being happy and fulfilling. Talk to adults who spent decades living that way. They might not have been lonely, but their lives were bleak in most other ways. Why do you think so many left as soon as they could? Why did those who remained turn into alcoholics?
> There are some craft clubs, but what's the point? Anything you can make pales in comparison to what you can get for a couple of bucks from Amazon.
This is unhealthy.
> There are a bunch of hobbies but they also seem pointless when you look at a few Youtube videos and see all the popular channels doing exactly what you would like to but a million times better.
This is unhealthy.
Over a decade ago, I had to accept that I'll never be the best at anything or even better than huge swaths of people in my line of work or in my hobby, and that's perfectly okay. There's only one best in the world. Most people who play basketball will never ever come close to the NBA. Setting out with failure in mind (even when you're not in pursuit of perfection) is great. Pointless, dumb play is amazing.
When I was a kid, I didn't compare my Lego play time with others. Or the time I spent riding my bike down a hill and jumping off it onto the grass to professional stunt performers.
The end product isn't what you walk away with; it's the time you spend enjoying doing something.
(On the flip side, pick the project. You don't need to compost to plant a garden, and you don't need to learn how to shave sheep or spin yarn to learn knitting.)
And? How does one magically snap their fingers and change their hard-to-control brain? OP has a point in everything they're saying. Calling it unhealthy doesn't magically fix (inverse) their (very real/probably populous) perspective.
> How does one magically snap their fingers and change their hard-to-control brain?
There is no magic solution. But recognizing that there is a problem, it can be solved, and deciding to put effort into solving it are what it takes to fix it. This is step one.
Most mainstream (I use that term loosely; the internet has made a lot of things very accessible) hobbies have a lot of content producers. Some of them only make gorgeous things with expensive tools. There's always some producers who are more educational and show their mistakes and thought process.
I know "stop consuming addictive media" isn't trivially easy, but you get the added benefit of avoiding content that isn't as educationally beneficial.
> Well, good luck enjoying anything when you're surrounded by environmental feedback that points to its futility.
You're only surrounded by this feedback if you already buy in to the ideology that if you're not The Best™ at something then it's not worth doing.
This is a very toxic perspective.
The millions of people who learn to program/woodwork/paint/cook/etc. by watching YouTube videos certainly don't buy into this ideology, and have no problem enjoying it. I think the issue less "environment feedback that points to futility" and more your own perspective here.
People have hobbies for many reasons, "socially acceptable excuse to interact with people" is just one of them, as is "demonstrate exceptional mastery".
> Picking up hobbies so that you have a socially acceptable excuse to interact with to people is ass-backwards.
It is and WAS most normal thing in the world. Some people did it subconsciously, them being interested I people lead them to be interested in the same things as those people are interested in. Others did it consciously "everyone seems to gather at pool, let's go to pool". Or just, "I am going to bake a cake to have excuse to give it to people and to get compliments".
Doing things and hobbies to be with others, to impress them was normal human behavior for millenia.
> moving back to the Russian serf village is not the solution, that place is now ruined, young people moved to the city, old people died off or drank themselves to death. One guy hung himself.
Is it possible that you have a distorted perception or memory of life in that village? If it was such a happy place, why did so many young people move away, why did old people drink so much, and why did one person commit suicide?
> Growing a garden also seems pointless when you see the local grocery store.
Maybe a greenhouse would be needed, but you can grow backyard produce of much higher quality than is typical in grocery stores. Then offer it your neighbors. Some will show gratitude. Those are the ones to try to make friends of.
Big city seems to be the key. Loneliness is the default in a modern city, because we can. It used to be that daily needs led to friction that sometimes (if people were social enough) led to interaction (introverts were much less likely to engage so it usually took a lot of friction before interaction becomes possible). Schools (and universities) still provide the largest field for such interaction. Everything else has been largely automated away.
If we accept that this is a problem, then we should think about ways that force people to be near each other again, somewhat artificially. This is different than building a bar or making a meetup and expecting people to come - only the most extrovert want to go there.
The most important thing is removing cars. Get people to walk, you’ll visit more local places and see more local people rather than a random arrangement of people all over the place.
You’ll also bump in to people while walking which doesn’t happen in cars.
Two ideas for you to consider:
1. If you can, get a dog, it will force you to socialize, plus they will keep you company when it's just the two of you.
2. If you can, do one year remote in a traditionally friendly society. E.g I have a friend in Medellín, Colombia. 50% of her apartment building are expats, they do stuff all the time.
Try volunteer work, for example at an animal shelter.
Where meeting new people is hard and you may feel that you're intruding, the opposite is true for volunteer work. By design they need you, accept you and embrace you.
My solution, and I respect its not for everyone, is learn to cook and start inviting people around for weekend lunch/dinners. I think this is more personal and better than heading to bars and restaurants.
I find this is a really good way to build a social network and become part of groups. It may be a little intimidating at first, but as it becomes regular, it's easier to add new people to an existing friend group than many new people together.
If people get along start expanding to other things. Weekends away or days trips to do hobby x. Bring new people in. Understand sometimes you have to move on from people that dont fit. But overall put in the effort to be the organiser.
I think people sometimes forget as an adult you often have to put in effort to build new relationships. It doesnt happen as organically as it did when you were young. There's huge value in it and we'll worth it I feel.
I definitely recommend meetups. I think the key is to accept that some will be duds, but keep trying. And don’t overspecialize.
I moved to a new big city a while back, and meetups (from Meetup.com but just because I don’t like FB) were a huge help. It was hard at first, I picked some really bad ones but then I found better ones. It’s still hit or miss but I know the good ones are out there.
I have ended up with one I go to regularly — for a topic I’m not even super interested in, but I’ve met very interesting people there. Plus one I used to go to that I could drop in on if I felt lonely, it’s not topic-based. I even lead one myself, once in a while, going to art shows: that’s pretty stressful for me but also rewarding. Enough so that I’ve thought about starting another, unrelated one.
In about a year of doing this, I have made two friends and am probably making a third, and I have a backlog of meetups I’d love to try out if my schedule shifts and I could go to them.
It felt a little weird in the beginning, because I’ve lived in a few different cities and always made friends randomly. Honestly I felt like a bit of a loser, like who goes to meetups? But as far as I could tell it was meetups or spend all my time in the bars, and I really didn’t want to get stuck in the latter groove. And there’s nothing loserish about recognizing your situation and working to improve it.
(A lot of meetups involve drinking anyway, so if you like bars it’s easy to combine.)
I am with you. I just want to share that succeedsocially.com has a lot of straightforward advice in a clean, ad-free format. In particular it talks about social issues more likely to afflict HN readers ("I hate small talk" "nobody likes my niche interests" etc. <3) I've found it helpful personally, maybe someone here will too.
This isn't really an actionable response, but what I did in this situation was move to where my friends were. I'm lucky in that the majority of the people I met in college happen to live around a particular area of the country, so I transferred there after much pestering on their part over the last few years. I honestly haven't been this happy in years.
> something tells me I'm not alone in being in this situation.
You're not. All human society worldwide is optimized for isolation.
Compartmentalized. Even the more communal cultures (like Middle-Eastern or Asian with extended families living in the same household for multiple generations).
We have distinct "spheres" that may sometimes overlap a little but with almost no interfaces to mingle between them: Work, home, civilian, government, policing, shops, services, online, offline...
This is very common with the immigrants where I live. So many friends struggled with that in their first 3 years or so. They all end up making friends over time, and then the process becomes easier as they meet friends of friends.
There is not a specific method to it. You just hack at it until you find yourself surrounded by friends.
I made friends by connecting with people who worked on similar things. We invited each other for a drink and ended up hanging out. I've also met a lot of friends through other friends. Our groups just merged over time. It helps to be the one organising things and inviting others. I don't remember making many friends in meetups, but perhaps that's just me.
Governments should subsidize in-person interactions -- especially for adults. Darts, trivia, volleyball, book club, escape rooms, group therapy. These kind of things would help bring more people together and could help reverse trends of isolated experiences like doomscrolling, social media envy, etc.
I would put this down to a growing part of the population feels financially insecure.
As you grow older, spending quality time with people also requires spending $. If you are barely making some savings, you probably won't feel comfortable in scaling up your social life.
It is surprising that the author recognizes the time period/age group...
> These new habits are startling — and a striking departure from the past. Just a decade ago, the average American spent roughly the same amount of time with friends as Americans in the 1960s or 1970s.
...but cannot (does not dare to?) make the correlation that financial insecurity has exploded.
I made this exact point in this thread elsewhere. It is gross negligence to not even consider peoples finances and stress from lack of said finances as effecting how much we socialize.
Who the hell has the energy to socialize these days? I get paid less and less, my boss acts like I am selfish for wanting a raise while simultaneously expecting me to do 3 peoples job, and its crushingly depressing thinking about how I will likely never have enough to retire or live a comfortable life in old age.
Who the hell is surprised that people are just sitting at home?
US society is being torn apart by the rich, and almost every social issue we have in this country is directly connected to that.
Look at the recent rail strike, some of those workers only get something like 40 days off a year, that is INCLUDING their "weekends". It is absolutely out of control how badly the average american is being crushed by a society with so much wealth and knowledge.
My friend group is pretty economically diverse and also cost-conscious, and most of our social activities are free or nearly-free. We hang out in public parks, get together in each other's homes, and go hiking, camping, or to beaches. Optionally, you can put out some cheese and crackers and a cheap bottle of wine, and now you're all having a nice time together for $20.
I'm well-off these days, but I still enjoy doing free/cheap stuff, because I'm there to hang out with my friends, and they're the same friends whether we're sitting on a blanket in a park, or eating three michelin stars. I highly recommend suggesting free activities to your friends, if they're currently in the habit of going out to bars and restaurants and other $$$ activities. Just try it! Maybe you'll all like it.
Try that when you're working 3 part time jobs at 70 hrs/wk to make ends meet, because most cities in this country are horribly expensive (especially housing/rent/etc).
I can understand the time-poor argument made by another commenter, but otherwise you're right - there are loads of social options that are inexpensive. Have a couple of drinks while watching TV/movie/sport at home, meet up and go for a walk, cook together, meet at a pub for the lunch special, etc.
This isn't much, and i posted about it last week, but if you feel lonely working at home , join our chat to work with friends using the pomodoro technique. Can be 20 minutes or 45 minutes session and it somehow feels good to be focused with company. And it's no longer called pomochat but remoteyo: https://remoteyo.com
>Spending less time with friends is not a best practice by most standards, and it might contribute to other troubling social trends — isolation, worsening mental health (particularly among adolescents), rising aggressive behavior and violent crime.
In typical, low-effort WP fashion, these are just unsubstantiated claims. Why not take the few minutes to do some actual journalism... ah, because WP.
I'm not sold on the truth of these claims, though I am interested and willing to be influenced as to whether this is something truly concerning. Articles like this do nothing to further convince me.
395 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 305 ms ] threadE Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The punchline has been that, if you are not careful, increasing diversity can lead to decreased trust in society, and with it, decreased social capital. The idea is that nobody feels really safe (in a social sense), and so you see a pattern of withdrawal.
I think this is a challenge that he wants liberal societies to successfully address. It's a warning when he says it, not a call for homogeneity.
But.
Categorizations change over time, and many lines that used to be important no longer are. So he holds out hope that the same blurring can occur to the lines that matter today.
He suggests that the formation of higher identity -- perhaps a civic nationalism like we see in Ukraine -- is the way forward. The main positive example he can point to that spans current lines, and not obsolete ones, is the Army, which arguably does just that. To a lesser extent, he also mentions the Catholic Church, which -- like Islam, I will add -- provides a higher identity that spans ethnicities.
I've heard some other authors make similar calls, e.g. Francis Fukuyama.
Via Wikipedia
On many social topics, your opinion, expressed with this attitude, is almost always not true to the implied extent. Usually it's an exaggeration born of bitterness/frustration. In this case, the significant issue is not that people "pretend" anything or are just idiots who won't accept The Truth. It's that they either disagree with a hypothesized reason for the problem, or, frequently, agree with the hypothesis but disagree with the implied or stated solution, which is much more reasonable than the person in the picture you're painting.
the one and only bad thing for me is that being lonely sucks. I am not lonely, but I probably will be in a decade's time. being alone adds up over time.
there is no such thing as a "friend." there are only people who will pretend to be a partner or friend in order to make it easier for them to steal from you unnoticed.
people are a toxin and a terrible species of creature.
people are mean, selfish assholes and are by default competitive and adversarial, by nature.
we are a doomed species, and are unworthy of existence, in my opinion.
Despite that, the world and the universe has almost unlimited beauty, but it is ultimately up to an individual person to find and see it.
I have paid for therapy for 20 years.
the world is filled to the top with people who lie, cheat, and steal, because those things are easier than working, waiting, and being nice.
the earth is a hellscape full of people waiting to feed on everything you have.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Twenty-three_Tales/Two_Old_...
We'll all be dead quite soon. In the meantime, I enjoy going out into nature a bit (waterfalls are great), and more reliably, having a pet. I think this is the best that this world has to offer. Godspeed.
how everyone does it is unknown to me. life isn't just hell, it's torture. noting gained and constant emotional pain.
It's somewhat common view that coffee is the one legal performance drug almost everyone uses to keep up with their job demands, but it's less recognized that it can - and likely is - used to cope with other people. Alcohol is definitely used for the latter.
----
[0] - Feels obviously true, by a far margin, but the world is big and I haven't exactly done a study.
[Depression lies to you] “Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain that can have a resounding impact on how we view the world and how we think the world views us.”
You deserve a higher quality of life
It's like a partial 'loss of innocence' limbo, puts you in a weird danger zone that is more vulnerable than either polarity
-- actual innocence (i.e. children) rightly elicits strong protection and guidance
-- completed loss of innocence/full acceptance/adult cynicism is being totally okay (and no longer upset or bitter) with the world not owing you anything and there being invisible unfair rules of status games everywhere.
These people are adults climbing the status games they're born into and earning points at their own pace are basically happy and making progress, even modestly or fake/meaninglessly (consumer goods etc)
Getting stuck somewhere between these stages, tho, is painful because every human interaction pokes at an open wound.
(I'm working thru this myself so I empathize)
If you can't stop seeing beyond the game, wishing for a different cards, bitter at the rules being a certain way for your society/geography/time, being contradictory, or changing too quickly etc, you won't be good at the game because your spirit is essentially undercutting you at every play. "Your heart isn't in it" so to speak.
It's how the most sensitive see-thru-the-matrix type children end up when they grow too old for anyone to care, because they just won't let go of how they (idealistically) wanted it to be. A rare amount of these people also have amazing talents, so their insights combine to create art, but the vast majority that can't outgrow it or sublimate it basically just get stuck.
There comes a point where you decide you have to play the best you can with real spirit of society as you find it, so as to win the prizes available.
I remember once I finally handled myself well at a party, was the right amount of cute girl/ charming/ sophisticated/ intriguing/ status signaling stuff to kinda prove to myself I could put the effort in.
And what was discouraging was not that it was 'fake' which was my original juvenile complaint, but rather that the prize for doing really well at a social game is ...being invited to another party to play again next time.
This prize is everything to some people (who can turn each game into endless secondary benefits/opportunity) but pretty disappointing to other types who keep wishing the prize was different, deeper, or magical somehow
They could make themselves play and win if only the prizes were better...
on the other side of the spectrum, it's like how young natural 'politicians' can fully see that socializing is transactional and instead of being upset their thinking attunes to those invisible lines of power like a duck to water: wow the world is one big competition, wow that's so neat, hmm lets see, what do i have to offer and what can you do for me?
there is something to at least seeing with curiosity other people's survival strategies and emotional different reactions to the lay of the land, so to speak. Not to become them, but at least to see the options.
You know how therapy people say acceptance is letting go of the hope for a better past?
in a way, lonely/cynical/bitter people have to let go of their hope for a better game.
You cannot love without risking a heartbreak, and you cannot experience friendship without risking a betrayal or a slow drift apart. But a friendship or a love do not have to be defined by the fact that they end, or how they end, and instead appreciated by the good moments they provide you. Your life will also end, and it is not a waste because of that, it is still worth living, so I'd encourage you to be more trustworthy and enjoy the ride a bit more.
you have proven my point: humans are assholes, and see whatever they need to see to justify how they treat others. you have taken 0.5 seconds of time to believe that you have figured out my problem, in it's entirety, and then made that statement in order to feel superior to me by telling me that it's my fault.
do you really, really think that this has not occurred to me? that I have not taken steps for years to address it? I have. for 20 years I have paid for professional help, and nothing in this situation has changed except me.
for some reason, you felt compelled to tell me that you fully understand the situation that I am living in and that I do not understand the situation I am living in. you are a perfect illustration of the problem I am describing.
thanks, I guess. I expected exactly this and you gladly provided it.
But attempt to share the same kind of experience-informed outlook on friendship and sociality, and the same empathy is rare. This outlook seems to deeply bother people who presumably have had positive experiences.
The means of reconciling this bothersome viewpoint seems to be either insistence on a supposed “friendship meritocracy” (just do these things and have a happy attitude and you’ll find friends!) or by skipping straight to vitriol. The response is fascinating in its own right, really.
<< there is no such thing as a "friend."
which could draw an uncharitable take.
I can't say I completely disagree, but there are literally billions humans on this earth. I would like to think at least one token good human exists?
Um. No. A thousand times, "no." Yes, there are people that will steal from you and there are people who will pretend to be your friend. Friends totally exist.
We recently moved and our old neighbors and friends are taking care of the yard for us while it sells. For no other reason than to help. When we arrived to the new house, a new neighbor came over to help unload the truck just to help out. We've been here months and aside from casual greetings, that has been the extent to our relationship -- not a friend (yet!) and still not having other motivations. I help people when and where I can whenever. I once had an oncoming car flip and nearly collide with me. I stopped, helped them out, and waited for the tow truck and gave them a ride home, just because they needed some help. I never saw them again.
I'm sorry that your experiences have jaded your view. Know that your experiences are not universal. Maybe you need a new environment.
Good friends are a privilege. It requires time, effort, and resources, which directly correlate to the kind of friends you will have. Many people cannot afford good friendships, especially if you grow up in a broken household. So it's not so much that friends are a solution to a problem, but rather it's a reward for being successful.
when people help me move they have always gone through my boxes before lifting them up. multiple things go missing every time I enlist help moving.
once a neighbor asked to watch the house while I was gone for two weeks. sure, thanks! I came back to a destroyed house and people showing up late at night for weeks asking "is this the party house". my neighbor moved out while I was away for that two weeks and gave the keys to someone else, and told them to "go nuts", I was later informed.
anyone with a list of positive experiences with other people is ... well they're not on the planet that I'm on.
Instead our collective alone time is spent with faces stuck in phones and short form media content, as we constantly compare our lives to whatever the latest celebrity is doing, slowly numbing ourself to our own potential and uniqueness.
1. The internet means we have many forms of entertainment available without needing to go anywhere.
2. Many of those are social activities, even though we are physically alone. This is completely different from being totally isolated (as implied by the article).
3. The declining economic situation affects the ability of people to pursue leisure activities that would involve actually going somewhere that we might meet up with others.
I believe that within a few years, comfortable AR and VR goggles and glasses will come out, and they will pick up mass adoption. This will lead to a huge increase in social activities, and they will be almost equivalent to truly being in person, especially once eye-tracking becomes popular. Virtual environments and AR teleportation using things like neural radiance fields will be quite realistic.
Am I mis-understanding something here? Just go on a hike, walking is free.
If the webshits on here could work out a way to monetize hiking, they will.
It's coming. I hope some good people here on HN are working on an open source 3d printed EMP cannon.
I probably should not waste time commenting. Total lack of imagination or fairness in interpreting comments.
Admittedly this doesn't solve a lot of fundamental problems, but we might not be able to/not want to, and at least it will help some people?
What is having dinner together if you didn’t even eat the same? And this is the most banal example I could think of.
I’d sooner become an actual hermit than to share a soggy McD burger over VR.
Of course its not the same as being in person. But it can be much closer than people realize.
As I said, eye-tracking will be built in, so there will be eye contact. The environment renderings and avatars will be realistic. You can already do really interesting interactions such as table tennis and tabletop RPG games such as Demeo.
All the robots and goggles can’t hope to recreate the real thing.
And this is way harder to solve than dinner.
(Or people that are otherwise unable to find people they relate with irl, for whatever reason)
VR socialization might not be great, but like the BigMac is to food it might be just good enough for many.
This is also completely different from being physically with others.
- loneliness
- solitude
- introverts
Some of the academics I've heard discussing this define loneliness as when a person's social interactions are significantly less than their desired amount of social interactions. It's an individual's perception, not measured time. That seems like a much better measurement as it takes into account human variability.
The other facet here is that it's easier to choose loneliness than isolation, though it's less likely to be chosen directly. I feel like it's chosen indirectly by choosing avoidance of vulnerability. Vulnerability is the price you pay and risk you take to ameliorate loneliness.
Hardly anyone can fully become isolated. You have to work to live, and so by default you are forcefully un-isolated. Loneliness however can come about by avoiding being vulnerable with others. Men seem to be particularly susceptible to this avenue to loneliness.
I’m still masking with a N95. I’m not super high risk, but I am at elevated risk AND I’ve managed to dodge catching it so far. As an autistic person, it’s a bit of a leveler (less so now that most proble have stopped) since a lot of those non-verbal cues are, well, masked. Similarly, I really appreciate that now many more places allow for text/email customer service… again, helpful since I’m not under time pressuew to communicate
Sure, the concept is praised. But even monks were supposed to live in small communities.
There’s of course the not so cynical take of people not bound by networks being harder to rope in a common direction. It’s supposed to be a virtue, but from a position of power it’s a pain in the side.
It's the opposite. People who are isolated are easier to control. Populations that are isolated find it harder to organize against people in positions of power. If you occupy the upper rungs of the societal ladder, you don't need to be a part of a social group, because your power (from wealth, politics, etc.) can be exercised unilaterally. The only check to their power comes from the people on the bottom rungs of the ladder banding together.
When people belong to a group you don’t have to target individuals, you can deal with the group. For instance the audience of a specific magazine can be reached through that magazine, members of an union will follow the union’s decisions, etc. You might need to fight the influencers of the group to have them align with your interests, but that’s only a few people vs multiple thousands of individuals.
A different way to look at it: cults and ideologies also try to rally isolated individuals as they are easier to target, but in the end they need them part of the group to be manipulated, they can’t stay stray sheeps doing what they want in the wilderness.
On the other hand there are people who can't bear to be alone at all. Which seems like a different issue.
I would offer the word “solitude” to describe willful time alone.
By the article's definition, I'm an extremely lonely person because I very rarely physically spend time with others.
But looking at pure social interaction, I speak to all of my family for hours every week and have been essentially constantly talking with a couple of online friends (who also share my interests very closely) for several years now, which would be completely unrealistic in-person. So I get lots of social interaction and it's all the sort that I really value. As a result I wouldn't really consider myself to be lonely.
Even when I did have a mainly in-person friend group, it was hard to meet outside of school since everyone has their own things to take care of, so it was usually easier for everyone to just interact via more remote-friendly means.
So it's not "we should reverse that" but "you should reverse that". I'm always suspicious of text filled with "we", "us" , "our" where the group is never well defined. This is an opinion piece, written by an economist, that finds it "safe to assume" things. It is also notable that the author never really justifies that Americans chose to be alone, they just did.
All in all, I think it's too light to be taken seriously. For example, is this the first time in history that people are spending more time alone? If not, can we find some events or context that caused this? What were the consequences? Did things change? How? What breaks my heart is that there's a good chance someone, somewhere has spent a lot of time and energy studying this topic and sharing the results for everyone to benefit, but instead here's a piece trying to make people feel guilty about actions they may not have control over.
In most places, there's a surprising amount of events where you can meet new people. For me it was open boardgame nights – the difficult part was actually beating the inertia and going there, but once I did, I think I made about an average of one new friend per two outings, as long as I remembered to message them afterwards.
In a small town you can form a friend group by osmosis, because there's exactly two churches, exactly two bars, exactly one grocery store, so you see everyone regularly and, furthermore, you have no choice who to socialize with, and you know everyone else also has no choice who to socialize with, so you all might as well socialize together and be "friends" even if you don't really actually like each other all that much. You'll be cordial with everyone, but gossip runs rampant and even your best friend might be cruel to you when out of earshot.
In a big city, it's the opposite. You can be desperately lonely despite being surrounded by throngs of people at all times. To make friends, you have to really try and put yourself out there. It's hard. But once you do, you may find it more fulfilling, because instead of settling for people who were merely there, you've filtered the city to people who share your interests and found people who you actually want to be around, and you know the people who want to be around you aren't just doing it out of a dearth of options. Higher risk, higher reward.
Learning to get along with other people, not just the people you like, and not just the people in your "in-group", is a massively important social skill.
American urbanites tend stick out here in Japan precisely for this reason. They only associate with each other and complain constantly about how Japan is "so backwards" compared to back home. There's no olive bar at the supermarket, there's no vegan meat, etc.
Folks from non-Anglosphere countries -- urban or rural -- usually integrate far better, at least as much as one can in Japan.
> ... but gossip runs rampant and even your best friend might be cruel to you when out of earshot.
This happens all the time in cities. San Francisco was full of the most empty-smiling, gossip-spreading, stab-you-in-the-back people I've encountered in my life.
I was speaking to a friend runs a local yoga studio and event center, a lot of in-person is simply struggling.
Also, it doesn't that Meetup.com is now broken in many ways - for example, it won't give me messages on my phone.
These trends aren’t surprising.
Now, we get to find out the market price (excluding long term externalities) of birthing a child (and child #2, 3, 4, 5, etc) without the fact of being physically weaker tilting the scales.
So the Internet/streaming becomes a crutch.
I’m not religious but more and more I think that church (as an institution) had an actual positive effect on local communities. At least as a "force" to keep people together, have a community space etc. A space where you can meet and talk with others. My parents are Anglicans and I always liked the little tea and biscuits after each service. These things matter.
Occasions to meet people abound for most people interested to, and we make a conscious choice to not go, or at least not bound in these events to keep people out of our private spheres.
You don’t want to tithe because you don’t trust leadership with your money.
You don’t want to be told you’re doing things wrong, or to fix some of your sins.
You don’t want a judgmental group of people who think they are better than you.
You don’t want people who say they are generous but ignore the homeless and needy around them.
You want community without the worshiping God part. You want total freedom without guilt. And you want everything you do to be accepted without judgement.
The Church doesn’t exist to stroke egos or to center around a common interest (like a hobby). It supposed to be a place where broken people come and try to look more like Jesus. Even the Pharisees were corrupt. Corruption in the church isn’t new.
I think the positive impacts of the church aren’t publicized like the negatives are, just like any other large community, so like many people just take the worst and throw the baby out with the bath water.
There are good churches. There are good people. And money is honestly accounted for and used by churches.
I highly encourage lonely people to try church. But don’t just walk in thinking it’s perfect or that everyone there is to serve you hand and foot for just attending. It’s more of a hospital with patients that are committed to seeing each other get better.
Do churches ask for accountability or conformity?
> You want community without the worshiping God part. You want total freedom without guilt. And you want everything you do to be accepted without judgement.
I believe you are strawmanning here. People who don't attend church experience guilt and have a moral compass likely in equal measure to churchgoers. The judgement that people wish to avoid is the kind that denies LGBTQ people's humanity, among other issues.
There’s bound to be conformity in the way people grow or change under a given framework which is what Churches provide for everyone attending. Conformity as a whole is not the goal otherwise we wouldn’t have different denominations and expressions of worship.
It makes me sad that many online conversations become the Church vs. LGBTQ. I know this is a sensitive subject and the source of much pain. My main point is not to discuss that at length but rather to point to what this article and thread address which is ways the Church can help with loneliness.
I did not mean to intentionally straw man, if I did forgive me. When I spoke of ‘you’ it was a metaphorical as a general person who might not want church and less targeting the OP directly.
I agree with their points I mainly wanted to provide another perspective in hopes that readers might give the Church another chance. We have failed and will continue to in many ways, but I’ve seen the good outweigh the bad.
non-U.S. people when talking about their own medical issues: I have this medical issue, I wonder if I should see a doctor, the cause may be this.
U.S. people when talking about their own medical issues: I had this medical issue, I saw a doctor, and the cause was this.
non-U.S. people when talking about their own divorce: I am thinking about divorcing my wife/husband.
U.S. people when talking about their own divorce: We divorced last week.
I would put more US people in the former camp; especially when you consider that a trip to the doctor can become a surprise bill of the thousands for many.
Telling someone a fact that happened in your life is not especially intimate. Like if I had a surgery or got married/divorced, I would tell basically anyone who asked. It's a vastly more intimate experience to consult with a friend - for me it would be a very close friend - about an ongoing crisis in my life. I don't usually ask casual friends for their input on my relationship problems or scary medical issues. Though if I do, that's usually part of building a closer friendship.
walking on a tightrope without a net, or a very weak net, is awful
- I live alone. - I work hybrid, but when I go into the office, it's more or less empty and I spend all my time on zoom calls. - My family lives far away. - I'm single.
Most weeks, my only social interaction is at the local bar, where I'm a regular, or various dates from apps. Excesses of both of these is unhealthy in different ways.
I've been pushing myself to go to meetups and hobby groups, but my hobbies are mostly solo ones (probably a bi-product of spending time alone), and I have terrible decision paralysis. It ends up being a lot of work, and not at all something I'm excited about or that seems _fun_.
I don't really have a solution here, but something tells me I'm not alone in being in this situation.
If I could offer a suggestion... try a sport? Join a tennis club for example, and go to all the meetups.
If you don't like tennis, try something else!
People (especially men) pretty much stop having "deep" friendships once they are adults.
Friendship is fundamentally when two people want to spend time talking with each other (without an ulterior motive like sex or commerce).
My close friends are all people I've met as an adult - I'd consider them deep friendships: we've travelled together, catch up regularly, know each others' parents and kids, discuss the issues of the world, etc.
But, like school, you need enough time around a common place or interest to develop all that. In my cases, it was usually shared, social offices or having friends in common.
I've seriously considered moving to a city, but then I'll have to lose the tiny bit of social interaction I actually do have, my family. In some ways I want to believe I could build a better social life in a city and be happier since there's more opportunity on all fronts, but I don't actually believe that would be the case.
I've never even met my coworkers, my social life is non-existent. It's actually crazy to think it's even possible to end up in a situation like I have.
The loneliness has seriously messed with me mentally at this point and I really can't see things getting better anywhere I am. I'm not sure I could muster the will to move at this point anyway. I think I may be too far gone.
I don't have a fix for you, but I completely get where you're coming from.
One thing I noticed: it sounds like you're thinking in terms of the two most extreme decisions (stay "here" forever vs. "leave" your family to move to the city). You might be able to leverage your remote-work position to try different places, in case one of them might be a good fit for you.
Sublet an apartment or stay in a long-term AirBnB in a city that you're considering, and during that time (a couple of months, maybe?) dedicate significant energy to meeting people. If it doesn't work, then you have a better grasp on the reality of the situation - if it does, then you can extend your experiment from months to year(s).
you should take a backpacking holiday in a busy city somewhere (overseas?). If you have fun, try a working-holiday in a new city for a couple weeks. Maybe one you've been thinking of moving to?
just try it on. There's no downside.
I absolutely hate traveling, I just want to live somewhere and for it to become home.
You're probably right about the cutting off legs part, though I've simply lost sight of an exit from my current situation. I own a house, I have responsibilities, and I'm burnt out from work. I actually had a plan in place to move before I burnt out, but that fucked up everything.
All the best
I believe in your ability to make a better life for yourself.
You can do this.
People don't go to church or other religious gatherings as often so people don't build community that way as much anymore.
And now that work is remote/hybrid, as you said, even when you go into the office there isn't much there. I think the US is really failing from an institutional level in that the only reliable way I have ever had of meeting new people was schooling. A dream of mine is that community centers become well funded and become just a place to hang out (like a library but with more activities) and can help facilitate bringing communities together and building those relationships.
But I hope something changes for you, and you do something to change it. Best of luck!
Out of curiosity, have you tried the easy ones, like regularly inviting other folks over for a group dinner? Or joining a rec league, or a shared activity group?
The latter is nice, as it's a weekly forcing function.
Frankly, this made me laugh out loud.
1. Who am I going to invite? It's not like I have old connections to rekindle.
2. I have a tiny apartment and couldn't exactly host many guests. My table could theoretically sit four if I rearranged some things (the max it's ever had is 2)
3. Considering I'm not exactly a socialite now (It's been a while since I went to a dinner party or anything), I have absolutely zero confidence in hosting one myself.
So, maybe this is all in my head, but it doesn't seem easy to me at all.
Dinner is straightforward. Other excuses include book clubs, movie viewings, crafts, community garden, volunteering, etc.
For a dinner, if your apartment is small, use a common space. If you don’t have a common room, do it outdoors. If you don’t have picnic tables, go to a park. If you don’t cook, have a potluck. If nobody cooks, order in.
Don’t allow yourself to give up before you start. Focus on:
(1) identify a pool of people worth interacting with (Eg neighbors, hobby enthusiasts, co-religionists)
(2.a) find where those people gather and join them
(2.b) if they don’t gather yet, convene them yourself in a way that is easy for them and you.
This whole thing is absolutely work though. 2.a is way easier than 2.b.
Hosting a dinner gathering is complicated. What foods do you serve? What time? Do you complete all the food prep before guests arrive? If you are chatting over appetizers, how do you invite your guests to the table for the main meal?
There's not just one right way to do these things, but if you're trying to host a dinner party for people who you're not already comfortable socializing with, each little thing can feel like "Am I doing this right? <panic>"
I can appreciate that. I also bet that everybody would appreciate the effort even if things didn’t proceed like a scene from a movie.
Don't overthink it. If you start early, have a drink first. If you want people to move to the table, say "Hey - I'm starving. Let's sit and eat!" My step-mother-in-law, literally every dinner she hosts says after initial chitchat, "Can I interest you in a cleansing ale?" Haha.
If you're nervous about what you've made, say "This is the first time I've made this, so apologies in advance!" If you don't know what to start with, just buy good bread and good oil or fancy butter and no one is going to execute you for that - all you have to do then is slice the bread. Save any pressure for the main meal. For dessert, break out a fancy block of chocolate and make a "Laboured all day over this" joke. Amongst friends, no one gets fussed about this.
You could literally say, "You know, I've never hosted anyone for dinner. I made a resolution to get comfortable doing it and the year's almost over. I'm trying to get 2-3 people together for a practice run."
Or to a sociable person you have some rapport with: "I have a couple of friends I'd like to have around for dinner but honestly, I'm pretty hopeless and have no idea what I'm doing. Assuming you know what you're doing, can you show me through it?"
Or find another hapless rookie and give it a shot together. Promise each other it will be an awkward disaster, so the only way is up.
Why do self-admitted lonely people not jump at every chance to be social? I think therein lies the rub.
Amateur sport leagues are one good solution, if you played something in high school or college.
Improv comedy classes are another classic great one, for total beginners.
If you're in a big city, there's a shocking number of beginner classes if you look. Acting, pottery, ballet, baksetball, stand-up comedy, acro-yoga, all sorts of stuff. Mushroom foraging in the park, depending on the season.
It definitely takes some time to figure it out. (And sadly there's less now post-COVID as some stuff closed and never re-opened -- but there's still enough!) You're right it's a lot of work to research and go to, and you won't like 80% of it. But you'll quickly find the 20% you do, and you'll have funny horrible stories to tell about the other 80%. :)
Today is horrible. Nobody lives with family or knows neighbors around here. No more church. There are some craft clubs, but what's the point? Anything you can make pales in comparison to what you can get for a couple of bucks from Amazon. Growing a garden also seems pointless when you see the local grocery store. There are a bunch of hobbies but they also seem pointless when you look at a few Youtube videos and see all the popular channels doing exactly what you would like to but a million times better.
Honestly if I didn't have a kid I'd probably hang up my hat, but I do need to figure out how to make sure the kid doesn't have this experience.
(p.s. moving back to the Russian serf village is not the solution, that place is now ruined, young people moved to the city, old people died off or drank themselves to death. One guy hung himself.)
You might look into it. It fosters a lot more than just healthy food. It builds neighborhoods, reclaims land and makes friends in the community. They're great.
Allow yourself to do things that others do better.
You do not have to be the best.
You will enjoy life much more. Your kids will, too.
If you don't have an internal appreciation of simple crafts (gardening, making something) then your children can help you find purpose in it.
Today is great.
This is unhealthy.
> There are a bunch of hobbies but they also seem pointless when you look at a few Youtube videos and see all the popular channels doing exactly what you would like to but a million times better.
This is unhealthy.
Over a decade ago, I had to accept that I'll never be the best at anything or even better than huge swaths of people in my line of work or in my hobby, and that's perfectly okay. There's only one best in the world. Most people who play basketball will never ever come close to the NBA. Setting out with failure in mind (even when you're not in pursuit of perfection) is great. Pointless, dumb play is amazing.
When I was a kid, I didn't compare my Lego play time with others. Or the time I spent riding my bike down a hill and jumping off it onto the grass to professional stunt performers.
The end product isn't what you walk away with; it's the time you spend enjoying doing something.
(On the flip side, pick the project. You don't need to compost to plant a garden, and you don't need to learn how to shave sheep or spin yarn to learn knitting.)
And? How does one magically snap their fingers and change their hard-to-control brain? OP has a point in everything they're saying. Calling it unhealthy doesn't magically fix (inverse) their (very real/probably populous) perspective.
There is no magic solution. But recognizing that there is a problem, it can be solved, and deciding to put effort into solving it are what it takes to fix it. This is step one.
Very simple, very effective.
Most mainstream (I use that term loosely; the internet has made a lot of things very accessible) hobbies have a lot of content producers. Some of them only make gorgeous things with expensive tools. There's always some producers who are more educational and show their mistakes and thought process.
I know "stop consuming addictive media" isn't trivially easy, but you get the added benefit of avoiding content that isn't as educationally beneficial.
Well, good luck enjoying anything when you're surrounded by environmental feedback that points to its futility.
Picking up hobbies so that you have a socially acceptable excuse to interact with to people is ass-backwards.
You're only surrounded by this feedback if you already buy in to the ideology that if you're not The Best™ at something then it's not worth doing.
This is a very toxic perspective.
The millions of people who learn to program/woodwork/paint/cook/etc. by watching YouTube videos certainly don't buy into this ideology, and have no problem enjoying it. I think the issue less "environment feedback that points to futility" and more your own perspective here.
People have hobbies for many reasons, "socially acceptable excuse to interact with people" is just one of them, as is "demonstrate exceptional mastery".
It is and WAS most normal thing in the world. Some people did it subconsciously, them being interested I people lead them to be interested in the same things as those people are interested in. Others did it consciously "everyone seems to gather at pool, let's go to pool". Or just, "I am going to bake a cake to have excuse to give it to people and to get compliments".
Doing things and hobbies to be with others, to impress them was normal human behavior for millenia.
Is it possible that you have a distorted perception or memory of life in that village? If it was such a happy place, why did so many young people move away, why did old people drink so much, and why did one person commit suicide?
Folks have to leave in search of work, the old ways aren’t possible thanks to our smaller, more efficient world.
The brain-drain kills off the village and what’s left is a rotting corpse of what once was. Or at least the corpses from those deaths of despair.
Maybe a greenhouse would be needed, but you can grow backyard produce of much higher quality than is typical in grocery stores. Then offer it your neighbors. Some will show gratitude. Those are the ones to try to make friends of.
If we accept that this is a problem, then we should think about ways that force people to be near each other again, somewhat artificially. This is different than building a bar or making a meetup and expecting people to come - only the most extrovert want to go there.
You’ll also bump in to people while walking which doesn’t happen in cars.
Where meeting new people is hard and you may feel that you're intruding, the opposite is true for volunteer work. By design they need you, accept you and embrace you.
Don't overthink it. Do it.
I find this is a really good way to build a social network and become part of groups. It may be a little intimidating at first, but as it becomes regular, it's easier to add new people to an existing friend group than many new people together.
If people get along start expanding to other things. Weekends away or days trips to do hobby x. Bring new people in. Understand sometimes you have to move on from people that dont fit. But overall put in the effort to be the organiser.
I think people sometimes forget as an adult you often have to put in effort to build new relationships. It doesnt happen as organically as it did when you were young. There's huge value in it and we'll worth it I feel.
I moved to a new big city a while back, and meetups (from Meetup.com but just because I don’t like FB) were a huge help. It was hard at first, I picked some really bad ones but then I found better ones. It’s still hit or miss but I know the good ones are out there.
I have ended up with one I go to regularly — for a topic I’m not even super interested in, but I’ve met very interesting people there. Plus one I used to go to that I could drop in on if I felt lonely, it’s not topic-based. I even lead one myself, once in a while, going to art shows: that’s pretty stressful for me but also rewarding. Enough so that I’ve thought about starting another, unrelated one.
In about a year of doing this, I have made two friends and am probably making a third, and I have a backlog of meetups I’d love to try out if my schedule shifts and I could go to them.
It felt a little weird in the beginning, because I’ve lived in a few different cities and always made friends randomly. Honestly I felt like a bit of a loser, like who goes to meetups? But as far as I could tell it was meetups or spend all my time in the bars, and I really didn’t want to get stuck in the latter groove. And there’s nothing loserish about recognizing your situation and working to improve it.
(A lot of meetups involve drinking anyway, so if you like bars it’s easy to combine.)
Good luck, I hope you find your people!
You're not. All human society worldwide is optimized for isolation.
Compartmentalized. Even the more communal cultures (like Middle-Eastern or Asian with extended families living in the same household for multiple generations).
We have distinct "spheres" that may sometimes overlap a little but with almost no interfaces to mingle between them: Work, home, civilian, government, policing, shops, services, online, offline...
There is not a specific method to it. You just hack at it until you find yourself surrounded by friends.
I made friends by connecting with people who worked on similar things. We invited each other for a drink and ended up hanging out. I've also met a lot of friends through other friends. Our groups just merged over time. It helps to be the one organising things and inviting others. I don't remember making many friends in meetups, but perhaps that's just me.
As you grow older, spending quality time with people also requires spending $. If you are barely making some savings, you probably won't feel comfortable in scaling up your social life.
It is surprising that the author recognizes the time period/age group...
> These new habits are startling — and a striking departure from the past. Just a decade ago, the average American spent roughly the same amount of time with friends as Americans in the 1960s or 1970s.
...but cannot (does not dare to?) make the correlation that financial insecurity has exploded.
Who the hell has the energy to socialize these days? I get paid less and less, my boss acts like I am selfish for wanting a raise while simultaneously expecting me to do 3 peoples job, and its crushingly depressing thinking about how I will likely never have enough to retire or live a comfortable life in old age.
Who the hell is surprised that people are just sitting at home?
US society is being torn apart by the rich, and almost every social issue we have in this country is directly connected to that.
Look at the recent rail strike, some of those workers only get something like 40 days off a year, that is INCLUDING their "weekends". It is absolutely out of control how badly the average american is being crushed by a society with so much wealth and knowledge.
I'm well-off these days, but I still enjoy doing free/cheap stuff, because I'm there to hang out with my friends, and they're the same friends whether we're sitting on a blanket in a park, or eating three michelin stars. I highly recommend suggesting free activities to your friends, if they're currently in the habit of going out to bars and restaurants and other $$$ activities. Just try it! Maybe you'll all like it.
In typical, low-effort WP fashion, these are just unsubstantiated claims. Why not take the few minutes to do some actual journalism... ah, because WP.
I'm not sold on the truth of these claims, though I am interested and willing to be influenced as to whether this is something truly concerning. Articles like this do nothing to further convince me.