The thing that seems crazy to me is how much time alone increases with age. There are many many reasons for it, but one thing I think is especially sad is how much this is a consequence of our built environment. If you live in a village with multiple generations of a family around, it’s much easier for grandparents to be involved day too day in helping with little things in the village, especially keeping an eye on the kids roaming around. This is also true in the more traditional urban neighborhoods with walking-oriented life (safety from cars) and a wide mix of housing types etc.
But (to varying degrees) most of the new construction around the world since WW2 has been oriented around driving and separation of land uses, and as a result when you age you end up living in a nice little garden home far removed from any day to day life going on. And once it gets hard for you to drive... then you really end up spending a ton of time alone.
I don’t think there’s an easy fix for this, and that makes me sad.
I experienced this first hand when I visited my wife's family in Vietnam. All 10 or so of them live in homes side by side on the outskirts of Saigon. Everyone woke up in the morning and cooked for each other. Every day was like a little party. It was so nice to have that much support around all the time. I have never experienced anything like that in the US. Of course having family literally at your doorstep has its pros and cons but it worked really well for them.
I remember a trip to Hong Kong. I was very surprised to see a lot of old folks hanging out together, in the park, or traditional restaurants. Actually, even in NYC, there were always a lot of elderlies spending time in the Deli near my home.
Maybe the secret is to retire in a place where one can maintain a good social life at an advanced age.
> I don’t think there’s an easy fix for this, and that makes me sad.
I mean, there is, which is to reintroduce mixed use zoning. You essentially allow people to operate small businesses out of their homes.
This changes the dynamic very quickly because the change can happen before the new construction. As soon as it's allowed, someone buys a house on your street, or one of your existing neighbors does this, and it becomes a bistro from the hours of 6PM to 10PM. The neighbors gather there on a regular basis and get to know each other.
Then the house across the street converts a room to a convenience store, and now you can walk to a convenience store instead of having to drive to Walmart.
What makes these things viable is that the proprietor still lives in the house, which reduces their operating costs and allows them to compete with the big guys. But it's currently prohibited by zoning.
Really what might do something great is to have a new class of zoning designated for owner-occupied small businesses, i.e. you can operate a business there but only if someone who owns at least 30% of the business also lives there. Then rezone the majority of residential properties as that.
Not everybody is privileged with a functional family.
Or one that is safe.
Or sane.
Or will accept them for who they are.
Etc etc etc.
The idea that "family is who you got and you stick with them" is very nice if you have a great family, but please don't force this on everybody.
It's very similar to the antiquated idea that you should be sad for a woman because she doesn't have a man.
The problem is loneliness. By treating it as a "family" problem, any solutions will exclude people who still can't fall back on a functional/safe/sane/accepting family.
I can understand it makes you sad if you have a happy family and wish this for others. But in some situations it'd be equivalent to wishing someone would stay with their abusive partner.
Also, what's this about only grandparents getting to enjoy company in their old age? What about the people without children+grandchildren?? That singular fact makes their lives carbon neutral several times over, which deserves quite an amount of respect, unlike people who did it because say, they feared being alone in their old age. Which you should not underestimate as an actual reason people use. And it also does not create happy families.
> seems crazy to me is how much time alone increases with age
Many (to a degree or another) get tired of other people. Divorces, break-ups, tired of fights for money/inheritance, tired of people acting stupid, tired of fighting about politics, favourite teams, and many many many more.
I think people are getting tired of not getting 'what they want' from life, a partner, their kids, society, 'the system', so they self-isolate, do the things they enjoy (nothing, fishing, watching the birds, watching tv, etc.) without having anyone telling them to get their feet of the couch, don't eat cookies in bed, and other similar annoyances.
Also, depression, poverty, lifestyle, nostalgia. I was reading* that men tend to go back to their hometown and grow old/die there, women want to stay where they are or move forward. I assume that (for the 50+) this maybe has to do with the inequality and how women suffered/were treated badly when they were growing up in place A, 50 years ago vs living on place B, with today's change social mechanics.
I can think of a dozen more reasons.. I am not a psychologist, I just started observing how the 50+ like to live, as one day we will all get there :)
*Addition: I tried to remember more about that book and a couple of interviews but for the life of me I cannot remember the guy's name or face.. just his voice. He went on to explain the reason for that; in some countries/societies, when a couple marries, it is accustomed to live to the MAN's hometown, and in some other countries/societies they go to live to the WOMAN's hometown. So there could be the chance that they are not 'very' happy, they spend a life oppressed, and towards the end of their lives (and especially if the couple drifts apart -post empty nest, or one passes away) they want to go back to the place they grew up, which was not tarnished by 'hurtful memories' and they only have fond memories. Somewhere where they 'always belonged' either if they have not been there for 20-40 years. They will return and find their old friends.
My grandma sold her house and we used some of the money to convert our garage into an apartment for her so that she could live with our family. Certainly not everyone can do this but living with your parents/grandparents as they get older does seem like a reasonable “fix” to me.
>I don’t think there’s an easy fix for this, and that makes me sad.
I mean, the fix is really straightforward. You prevent the burbs from siphoning tax dollars off the host city they surround so that the high cost of sprawl is placed on them, rather than poorer city-center districts.
Then, you emulate the community and land-use strategies of areas in which the eldest are least displaced. One of the key features of global blue zones is the inclusion of elders in society.
This means opening up a lot of zoning space to mixed medium density residential/commercial zones and designating very generous volumes of family-sized units in high and medium density developments to restrict the optimization of development projects into tiny bachelor accommodation units and ultra-spacious penthouses.
In short, make medium density housing in walkable communities and stop transferring wealth away from those communities.
This. I live in a tiny pre-zoning code neighborhood where my neighbors and their kids are 100 feet away. I see and talk with neighbors every day when leaving the house, and not just people like me but people of different ages and backgrounds. My parents live 10 minutes away and we’re their multiple times a week. Same for my neighbors—one couple has their parents living in the same subdivision, another lives with her sister and young kid. It’s so much better than when I lived in DC I can’t even convey it.
My only regret is that my extended family lives on the other side of the planet. When I was little everyone lived in the same city (Dhaka, Bangladesh). My mom’s sisters were at our house several times a week. Moving to the US was depressing—so much so that my mom has always been quite bitter about it.
> The thing that seems crazy to me is how much time alone increases with age.
But the thing is, time with family, friends, and spouse stay basically constant. The only thing that changes is time spent with coworkers, and time spent with children.
But when you're at your office hacking away at your computer, are you really "with coworkers"? Is it really less lonely to sit at your desk, with your coworkers at their desks, than it is to sit at the workbench in your garage with your wife in the house?
I know there are exceptions -- people whose spouse has died, who live alone, and crave every bit of social interaction they can get. But on the whole this graph was fairly positive for me.
There was a show on one of the Swedish tv channels where they followed an experiment with mixing an elderly (75+) care home with a kindergarten. I think what they did was one or a couple of days a week the kids (all under 6-7 if I recall) would spend time in the care home with the elderly, doing different activities together (singing, dancing, painting, whatever you do in kindergarten basically) and then measuring the effects on cognitive and physical abilities of the elderly.
It was an interesting show, and they claim the health benefits to the elderly were significant. The interviews with the old people were very poignant, with one saying she was considering suicide before the experiment, because she felt so lonely. The kids also seemed to appreciate it a lot, being at that age where they just like having fun and learning new things.
Sadly the epilogue of the show sad Covid-19 stopped any further expansion of the experiment, but hopefully it will continue once it's safe again. It seems to me like a great idea, combining child care with elderly care.
Honest question:
Would/Could a elderly people friendly and oriented MMORPG help elderly feel less alone?
And if so, is such technology even possible?
My guess for first step would be finding out what kind of devices do elderly have access to and more importantly, what kind of devices they use.
Side-thought: Such a MMORPG could even have a subscription based financial model, as most elderly do get regular monthly income.
The moral question:
Is it better to be addicted but not alone, or is it better to be alone and not addicted.
I personally think that not only could this bring new light for the elderly and a opportunity to connect with others including the younger generations.
I think such a solution could help elderly feel less lonely, and it is a solution that could be provided at their homes.
As the younger people alive today get older, they are more likely to remain connected with technology and spend more time socially with digital experiences (playing video games with friends, etc.). Hopefully, this will help offset loneliness that might accompany decreased mobility.
> The thing that seems crazy to me is how much time alone increases with age. There are many many reasons for it, but one thing I think is especially sad is how much this is a consequence of our built environment.
Huh, amusing way to see it.
Introvert here.
I see it as a natural progression. "Finally, I don't have to be around people all day and can have lots of time to myself!".
I'm actually impressed at how few Americans live alone under the age of 30. I guess having roomates is more of a thing in the US...?
> The thing that seems crazy to me is how much time alone increases with age.
I think your focus on construction is looking at a symptom - this is an unintended consequence of the nuclear family emphasis; the construction changed to support it.
I don't think you even have to look back to when people lived in little villages. People nowadays are more likely to relocate for work and more likely to have children later, if at all. Why do so many people send their children to daycare when quite often there are grandparents who would love to look after the child? Most likely is the grandparents live nowhere near them.
I already spend the vast majority of my time alone, so I don't find it sad.
> I don’t think there’s an easy fix for this, and that makes me sad.
This sort of thing is advertised as one of the primary use-cases for self-driving cars IIRC. I.e. give people mobility who otherwise would not have the ability to drive (so also e.g. people who are blind etc)
I spend so much time around people right now (middle aged man with coworkers and kids) that I long for the days of solitude and being alone for extended stretches. Maybe at some point that desire will wane and I’ll want to reintegrate with society.
I don't even want kids. I don't know why the 'time spent with one's children' line hurts so much, but it does. It sharply rises, before plummeting at age 40. That's got to be a jarring transition. No wonder so many folks have trouble with the 'empty nest' and mid-life crisis.
I cannot wait until the nursing home lan parties. During pandemic I have rekindled relationships with 2-3 friends, some out of state, and we've played games at least 2x a week. The opportunity for casual interaction (via discord) while focusing on another task (the challenging game), perfectly mimics the environment to build deep longlasting relationships through shared struggle, trust building, communication, feedback, and so on.
>I cannot wait until the nursing home lan parties.
I've seen this sentiment a lot on the internet, but after having visited many nursing homes, I don't think it will ever happen. Maybe nursing homes are different in the US, maybe I've seen the wrong kind of nursing home.
I had this experience as well. Two friends of mine and I hop on Discord and watch a few episodes of a show or a movie once or twice a week. It's been fantastic, especially earlier in the pandemic when I was in a distant city.
The underlying data here is, of course, a distribution (each with its own distinct shape). In this case, I suspect that the "average" statistic is not the best representative of that distribution.
For instance, "children" is definitely a bimodal distribution. There are many people in life who never have children, and therefore drag down the average for all those who do have children.
I suspect that, in reality, there are many modes for each of these dimensions, at each point in time. I think seeing the modes would be more interesting than the averages.
If you believe in free will, you can probably choose which mode you'll end up closest to. You certainly aren't doomed to be in some statistically-unlikely valley in-between. There's hope you won't die alone, in spite of what the picture painted by the average might say.
What I find interesting is time spent with coworkers. It's about equal to time spent with partner throughout most of adulthood, and it's significantly higher than time spent with friends. Unsurprisingly, time spent with coworkers drops precipitously at retirement age, but perhaps surprisingly, time spent with friends does not then increase to compensate.
A lot of people in the comments are talking about children, but coworkers seem pretty crucial according to the charts.
What counts as "spending time"? I'm sure they define it somewhere in the article, but I wonder what percentage of the effects do I get to experience by commenting here.
Are we "spending time" together right now?
I ask because I've bugged a few healthcare professionals I randomly meet about how millennials (and younger) will age, and if their comfort with the connective nature of the Internet will help reduce mental decline due to inactivity through aging, and I've gotten positive responses (e.g. "for people who can use the Internet to stay cognitively active, aging will be a more pleasant experience generally").
I think it'd be interesting to see this data split by gender as well as by age cohort. I think we'd find that men juncture towards spending time alone sooner than women, and that they start out with a higher level of being alone. Those are just my assumptions though.
Interesting. Totally anecdotal here, but here are my thoughts:
As I get older, I see less value in friendships, mostly because I realize that many of my friendships didn't serve me and added a lot of stress to my life (and distracted from time that could have been spent on career / legacy). Meanwhile, time invested in my personal life, hobbies, and career pays off in spades - spending a few months getting better at algorithms helped me double my wages with my next job jump. It is interesting how social we are with friends at a young age, then most decide on a constant - but low - amount of time spent with friends.
I was just discussing this thread with a friend of mine and we agreed on the same thing. Taleb has a line about college being the closest thing to a natural social state in the Western world. I think our brains feel comfortable in some sort of regular, persistent social milieu, particularly one formed by close friends/family. We expect some sort of tribe to be around us. That doesn't mean some of us aren't introverts—I definitely am one—but as I get older the absence of my friend group constantly there in the background is really painful.
Starting from about age 20, most of a given day an average American spends alone (except for those who have kids, for whom for a few years the situation is different).
Would be very interesting to find statistics obtained by similar methods for others locations.
I wonder how this data changes in Asian countries. I would expect the end section (time spend in later years) to be vastly different, although that may be changing.
Somewhat ironically, I think the important thing here is to learn to be more comfortable spending time alone.
The pandemic has surprised me with both how much people are unable to just be alone for awhile, and related to this, how much they have a difficult time being with partners and family without larger social distractions.
Being able to be alone, at least in my experience, helps you to be with other people in a sincerely intimate way. People that struggle the most with their partners during the pandemic seem to be people who need socialization to distract from their own relationship problems.
If two people can be "alone together" in a room for awhile, they can still refresh, and restore their energy. This allows them to be more supportive and close when they need socialization because they aren't exhausted.
Loneliness is being forced to deal with your fear of being alone, without every taking the time to be comfortable being alone.
Loneliness is a feeling, not a state of being alone. It tends to go alongside feelings of not being understood, not having anyone that you can relate to, and feeling ignored: It is also a sign of depression. This is why so many folks will be lonely while surrounded by people, yet not so much when physically alone.
I've generally been at my most lonely when my life was unhappy. I went through a short spout of it again after I moved countries, but in all reality, that one was different and I had some knowledge it'd pass (and it was more positive: I chose this, unlike when I was younger).
I have hobbies and such, and this should serve me well into my old age, so long as I'm able to do things. I vary myself and try to keep decent mental health. (Oddly, age itself has helped with this: I'm 42 now).
My personal strategies are
- investing in group hobbies that remain doable later in life (e.g. My granny in her 80s can't play piano anymore due to arthritis, but still sings in 3 choirs)
- making it a yearly goal to make a new friend every year, so as to fight off attrition
Was just thinking that the article carefully talks about 'loneliness' and skirts around 'happiness'. It points to another article[1] that claims to show that being alone doesn't necessarily mean being lonely--but that article fails to make a case for that:
- First of all, in absolute numbers it shows that a lot of older people in developed countries are lonely. It may not be a majority of people but that's kinda like saying 'don't worry, covid has a mortality rate of just 1%'.
- Then the article tries to show that people in these countries self-report that they have social support--that they have someone who can help them if they get in trouble--but it fails to show the breakdown of those who have social support by age, which is kind of the critical question here: do older people have social support?
- Then, the article tries to show that there's not much correlation between being alone and being lonely--but it again fails to show whether this is true for older people specifically, or just for the aggregate sample.
- Then it talks about 'aggregate' statistics again, instead of focusing on older people.
There seems to be quite a lot of bending over backwards trying to convince us that older people are not lonely, but no cogent argument.
[+] [-] burlesona|5 years ago|reply
But (to varying degrees) most of the new construction around the world since WW2 has been oriented around driving and separation of land uses, and as a result when you age you end up living in a nice little garden home far removed from any day to day life going on. And once it gets hard for you to drive... then you really end up spending a ton of time alone.
I don’t think there’s an easy fix for this, and that makes me sad.
[+] [-] frakt0x90|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yodsanklai|5 years ago|reply
Maybe the secret is to retire in a place where one can maintain a good social life at an advanced age.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|5 years ago|reply
I mean, there is, which is to reintroduce mixed use zoning. You essentially allow people to operate small businesses out of their homes.
This changes the dynamic very quickly because the change can happen before the new construction. As soon as it's allowed, someone buys a house on your street, or one of your existing neighbors does this, and it becomes a bistro from the hours of 6PM to 10PM. The neighbors gather there on a regular basis and get to know each other.
Then the house across the street converts a room to a convenience store, and now you can walk to a convenience store instead of having to drive to Walmart.
What makes these things viable is that the proprietor still lives in the house, which reduces their operating costs and allows them to compete with the big guys. But it's currently prohibited by zoning.
Really what might do something great is to have a new class of zoning designated for owner-occupied small businesses, i.e. you can operate a business there but only if someone who owns at least 30% of the business also lives there. Then rezone the majority of residential properties as that.
[+] [-] tripzilch|5 years ago|reply
Or one that is safe.
Or sane.
Or will accept them for who they are.
Etc etc etc.
The idea that "family is who you got and you stick with them" is very nice if you have a great family, but please don't force this on everybody.
It's very similar to the antiquated idea that you should be sad for a woman because she doesn't have a man.
The problem is loneliness. By treating it as a "family" problem, any solutions will exclude people who still can't fall back on a functional/safe/sane/accepting family.
I can understand it makes you sad if you have a happy family and wish this for others. But in some situations it'd be equivalent to wishing someone would stay with their abusive partner.
Also, what's this about only grandparents getting to enjoy company in their old age? What about the people without children+grandchildren?? That singular fact makes their lives carbon neutral several times over, which deserves quite an amount of respect, unlike people who did it because say, they feared being alone in their old age. Which you should not underestimate as an actual reason people use. And it also does not create happy families.
[+] [-] HenryBemis|5 years ago|reply
Many (to a degree or another) get tired of other people. Divorces, break-ups, tired of fights for money/inheritance, tired of people acting stupid, tired of fighting about politics, favourite teams, and many many many more.
I think people are getting tired of not getting 'what they want' from life, a partner, their kids, society, 'the system', so they self-isolate, do the things they enjoy (nothing, fishing, watching the birds, watching tv, etc.) without having anyone telling them to get their feet of the couch, don't eat cookies in bed, and other similar annoyances.
Also, depression, poverty, lifestyle, nostalgia. I was reading* that men tend to go back to their hometown and grow old/die there, women want to stay where they are or move forward. I assume that (for the 50+) this maybe has to do with the inequality and how women suffered/were treated badly when they were growing up in place A, 50 years ago vs living on place B, with today's change social mechanics.
I can think of a dozen more reasons.. I am not a psychologist, I just started observing how the 50+ like to live, as one day we will all get there :)
*Addition: I tried to remember more about that book and a couple of interviews but for the life of me I cannot remember the guy's name or face.. just his voice. He went on to explain the reason for that; in some countries/societies, when a couple marries, it is accustomed to live to the MAN's hometown, and in some other countries/societies they go to live to the WOMAN's hometown. So there could be the chance that they are not 'very' happy, they spend a life oppressed, and towards the end of their lives (and especially if the couple drifts apart -post empty nest, or one passes away) they want to go back to the place they grew up, which was not tarnished by 'hurtful memories' and they only have fond memories. Somewhere where they 'always belonged' either if they have not been there for 20-40 years. They will return and find their old friends.
[+] [-] conradev|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gabaix|5 years ago|reply
One remedy is as simple as a phone call. Calling old time friends and relatives can make wonder. Most will rejoice at hearing a familiar voice.
Another remedy is acceptance of being alone. Being alone without feeling lonely is an acquired skill.
[+] [-] gehwartzen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ABCLAW|5 years ago|reply
I mean, the fix is really straightforward. You prevent the burbs from siphoning tax dollars off the host city they surround so that the high cost of sprawl is placed on them, rather than poorer city-center districts.
Then, you emulate the community and land-use strategies of areas in which the eldest are least displaced. One of the key features of global blue zones is the inclusion of elders in society.
This means opening up a lot of zoning space to mixed medium density residential/commercial zones and designating very generous volumes of family-sized units in high and medium density developments to restrict the optimization of development projects into tiny bachelor accommodation units and ultra-spacious penthouses. In short, make medium density housing in walkable communities and stop transferring wealth away from those communities.
[+] [-] rayiner|5 years ago|reply
My only regret is that my extended family lives on the other side of the planet. When I was little everyone lived in the same city (Dhaka, Bangladesh). My mom’s sisters were at our house several times a week. Moving to the US was depressing—so much so that my mom has always been quite bitter about it.
[+] [-] gwd|5 years ago|reply
But the thing is, time with family, friends, and spouse stay basically constant. The only thing that changes is time spent with coworkers, and time spent with children.
But when you're at your office hacking away at your computer, are you really "with coworkers"? Is it really less lonely to sit at your desk, with your coworkers at their desks, than it is to sit at the workbench in your garage with your wife in the house?
I know there are exceptions -- people whose spouse has died, who live alone, and crave every bit of social interaction they can get. But on the whole this graph was fairly positive for me.
[+] [-] mstade|5 years ago|reply
It was an interesting show, and they claim the health benefits to the elderly were significant. The interviews with the old people were very poignant, with one saying she was considering suicide before the experiment, because she felt so lonely. The kids also seemed to appreciate it a lot, being at that age where they just like having fun and learning new things.
Sadly the epilogue of the show sad Covid-19 stopped any further expansion of the experiment, but hopefully it will continue once it's safe again. It seems to me like a great idea, combining child care with elderly care.
[+] [-] LoveMortuus|5 years ago|reply
And if so, is such technology even possible?
My guess for first step would be finding out what kind of devices do elderly have access to and more importantly, what kind of devices they use.
Side-thought: Such a MMORPG could even have a subscription based financial model, as most elderly do get regular monthly income.
The moral question: Is it better to be addicted but not alone, or is it better to be alone and not addicted.
I personally think that not only could this bring new light for the elderly and a opportunity to connect with others including the younger generations.
I think such a solution could help elderly feel less lonely, and it is a solution that could be provided at their homes.
[+] [-] tcbawo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WhyNotHugo|5 years ago|reply
Huh, amusing way to see it.
Introvert here.
I see it as a natural progression. "Finally, I don't have to be around people all day and can have lots of time to myself!".
I'm actually impressed at how few Americans live alone under the age of 30. I guess having roomates is more of a thing in the US...?
[+] [-] ska|5 years ago|reply
I think your focus on construction is looking at a symptom - this is an unintended consequence of the nuclear family emphasis; the construction changed to support it.
[+] [-] globular-toast|5 years ago|reply
I already spend the vast majority of my time alone, so I don't find it sad.
[+] [-] mattlondon|5 years ago|reply
This sort of thing is advertised as one of the primary use-cases for self-driving cars IIRC. I.e. give people mobility who otherwise would not have the ability to drive (so also e.g. people who are blind etc)
[+] [-] irrational|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wing-_-nuts|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jvanderbot|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ragazzina|5 years ago|reply
I've seen this sentiment a lot on the internet, but after having visited many nursing homes, I don't think it will ever happen. Maybe nursing homes are different in the US, maybe I've seen the wrong kind of nursing home.
[+] [-] jjice|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gen220|5 years ago|reply
For instance, "children" is definitely a bimodal distribution. There are many people in life who never have children, and therefore drag down the average for all those who do have children.
I suspect that, in reality, there are many modes for each of these dimensions, at each point in time. I think seeing the modes would be more interesting than the averages.
If you believe in free will, you can probably choose which mode you'll end up closest to. You certainly aren't doomed to be in some statistically-unlikely valley in-between. There's hope you won't die alone, in spite of what the picture painted by the average might say.
[+] [-] _qulr|5 years ago|reply
A lot of people in the comments are talking about children, but coworkers seem pretty crucial according to the charts.
[+] [-] TameAntelope|5 years ago|reply
Are we "spending time" together right now?
I ask because I've bugged a few healthcare professionals I randomly meet about how millennials (and younger) will age, and if their comfort with the connective nature of the Internet will help reduce mental decline due to inactivity through aging, and I've gotten positive responses (e.g. "for people who can use the Internet to stay cognitively active, aging will be a more pleasant experience generally").
[+] [-] tristor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roastytoasty|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] br_hue|5 years ago|reply
"Happiness is only real when shared.".
[+] [-] grumple|5 years ago|reply
As I get older, I see less value in friendships, mostly because I realize that many of my friendships didn't serve me and added a lot of stress to my life (and distracted from time that could have been spent on career / legacy). Meanwhile, time invested in my personal life, hobbies, and career pays off in spades - spending a few months getting better at algorithms helped me double my wages with my next job jump. It is interesting how social we are with friends at a young age, then most decide on a constant - but low - amount of time spent with friends.
[+] [-] darkwizard42|5 years ago|reply
Worth reading and of course feels different with how much things have changed in the last 10 months
[+] [-] mirekrusin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6gvONxR4sf7o|5 years ago|reply
I know that spending less time with friends has been a particularly difficult aspect of aging for me, and I expect similar for many people.
[+] [-] kill-procrustes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] strogonoff|5 years ago|reply
Would be very interesting to find statistics obtained by similar methods for others locations.
[+] [-] chinhodado|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lambda_obrien|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ketzo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pk455|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdfasgasdgasdg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baron_harkonnen|5 years ago|reply
The pandemic has surprised me with both how much people are unable to just be alone for awhile, and related to this, how much they have a difficult time being with partners and family without larger social distractions.
Being able to be alone, at least in my experience, helps you to be with other people in a sincerely intimate way. People that struggle the most with their partners during the pandemic seem to be people who need socialization to distract from their own relationship problems.
If two people can be "alone together" in a room for awhile, they can still refresh, and restore their energy. This allows them to be more supportive and close when they need socialization because they aren't exhausted.
Loneliness is being forced to deal with your fear of being alone, without every taking the time to be comfortable being alone.
[+] [-] Broken_Hippo|5 years ago|reply
I've generally been at my most lonely when my life was unhappy. I went through a short spout of it again after I moved countries, but in all reality, that one was different and I had some knowledge it'd pass (and it was more positive: I chose this, unlike when I was younger).
I have hobbies and such, and this should serve me well into my old age, so long as I'm able to do things. I vary myself and try to keep decent mental health. (Oddly, age itself has helped with this: I'm 42 now).
[+] [-] read_if_gay_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xophmeister|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] semicolonandson|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] souprock|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crispyporkbites|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swayvil|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yawaramin|5 years ago|reply
- First of all, in absolute numbers it shows that a lot of older people in developed countries are lonely. It may not be a majority of people but that's kinda like saying 'don't worry, covid has a mortality rate of just 1%'.
- Then the article tries to show that people in these countries self-report that they have social support--that they have someone who can help them if they get in trouble--but it fails to show the breakdown of those who have social support by age, which is kind of the critical question here: do older people have social support?
- Then, the article tries to show that there's not much correlation between being alone and being lonely--but it again fails to show whether this is true for older people specifically, or just for the aggregate sample.
- Then it talks about 'aggregate' statistics again, instead of focusing on older people.
There seems to be quite a lot of bending over backwards trying to convince us that older people are not lonely, but no cogent argument.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/lonely-not-alone