From someone who had been lonely for a better part of his life, there is a solution that works.
Build a bit of confidence (gym being the simplest way) and get out there, because whoever you are, there is someone else out there who looks precisely for you. But you aren't gonna meet them if you sit tight, so get out.
Internalize this: you are attractive and you have worth, right now. You are good enough. And someone is waiting for you out there.
The question is "why don't lonely people interact with each other".
The answer is that being in need of emotional comfort does not imply the ability to provide it, so after some time they are bad fit even for each other. The same goes with "why don't unattractive people date each other".
I think as people get older, after 30, they become set and comfortable in their world of loneliness. The focus narrows so that they only look for the perfect, the one "solution" to their loneliness; "the one." The focus becomes singular when the solution to loneliness is multifaceted; get out, do activities, meet many people, etc. Ergo they remain lonely.
I think loneliness, like many of the world's solvable problems, is in fact an information problem. Solvable somehow by an information system. There are more humans now than at any time, we are more densely packed, and have more means of communication or establishing contact than ever before, with the ability to communicate over great distance without (technical or economic) difficulty or significant cost. Yet loneliness is all around us and is a plague of our times.
I'm not sure what "the answer"is, but I think those who work in and with information systems in the broadest sense, might contribute to its cure.
Monetization is a problem. Early on apps like tinder and even some dating websites worked, but at some point the incentives to keep people isolated and single win out. If the app works, people stop using it. Similar to how engagement works on most social media, it isolates and makes people more hostile rather than fulfilling the need that brought the user there in the first place. Should call it anti-social media. Economics ensure that the problem is never to be solved by any technology platform that attempts to. Maybe if the government builds their own non-monitized apps, that might work. But, security is hard, given great power competition, government funded dating apps would have difficulty on that front. Inject a lot of fake profiles and you could collapse birth rates. I sometimes wonder if that isn’t the point of TikTok, an app that decreases birth rates in a subtle and indirect way.
I know a thing or two about loneliness, and overcoming it. It would be a long post to take you through, but if anyone is interested or experiencing it, I can post it in the hopes it can help or be interesting, I already wrote it, but seemed a bit long.
Difference between "oneliness" and "loneliness" is crucial. I was little astonished when Lex Fridman told us that he does not have "Inner Voice" commenting all his doings.
I have sometimes spent 6 months alone in wilderness and eventually the Inner Voice kicks in. It seems to be a mechanism to maintain sanity. Upon returning to civilization the Voice soon disappears.
In my case the Voice is a film director, mostly Werner Herzog, who might say, "now the subject has finally lost his marbles and does not make bear-proof stash for his food".
This is fantastic. I want to cultivate this to get myself to do things I know I should do. "the subject has used external input without sanitization, a non-sane activity to be sure" in the voice of The Stanley Parable narrator. [I wouldn't really do this, it's just an example folks.]
If anything, I became more lonely when I made enough money to not have to work. I stopped interacting with society as much because it was no longer a requirement.
It seems that a society would require more people in order for this to be so, so that the same level of services can be provided due to the decrease in productivity. Accordingly, more services will be needed to account for that increase in people. This raises the question of whether there is a point where the two trends reach some type of harmony. Perhaps the evolution of "AI" and robotics will get us there (or not).
Ultimately, this raises the question of whether all this actually ultimately places us in a better position, e.g., the state of humanity as seen in something like the anime Darling in the Franxx. Interestingly, this is similar to the notion that poorer people that work less desirable jobs for less money are less lonely.
My point being is that people want to be rich and loneliness takes a backseat. The least lonely people I know are all working class and near the poverty level. In contrast, most of the well off people I know are a lot more lonely.
Loneliness has almost nothing to do with work hours or pay. People in literally all of human history worked and yet we've only had ubiquitous loneliness for like 30 years.
Dependent of the cause yes. Loneliness caused by rejection based on miscalculated perceptions of others is an unfortunate reality. Loss of family and friends due to death is not solved by science, however, coping mechanisms for management may help.
Interesting that of all places Phil McAuliffe was in Korea. Korean culture is very welcoming. Once a connection is made, one becomes part of the family.
At times loneliness can spur one to push past fears such as travelling alone or attending an event solo.
a part of everyone knows both a major cause and way of improving loneliness yet we lie to ourselves and look to science to give us an excuse continue to ignore what we know to be true.
We have built a world that revolves around money and almont everything that gets built that wants to grow no matter how pure in intentions succumbs and instead of using peoples desire for connection to actually make connections with people perverts it in a way to make more money.
And we let this happen to us because its easy, it feels good in the moment they are careful to give us just enough of a taste of a real connection to keep us coming back but not letting us develop real connections that would "graduate" us to real human connections that would reduce our reliance on them thus reducing their profits.
If Television stayed live, local, honest, people you seen around your local town, it would encourage engagement.
youtube could have focused on sharing videos with friends, could have ignored likes/dislikes and didnt focus on popularity and parasocial relationships.
Facebook could have encouraged not on finding, adding, expanding, friends and engaging on the platform, but instead encourage real connections by encouraging prodding for real world meetups suggestions on games to play in person, finding people who like to do the similar things and suggesting times and places they can do it together with a focus on existing friends and connections. And not showing as much on what people have done but what they can do together.
Its not that these things aren't possible on the networks now but its not how these sites use their influence and primary resources, and really it would be stupid for them to do, because they are businesses and their goal is to make money, they will only improve peoples lives as long as it doesn't get in the way of making money.
Part of use realize what they are doing we know they put profits above us, but they deliver what we expect a little bit of happiness a little bit of connection, we know it wont satisfy us but its easy, real easy with no risk, why put effort in for maybe a solid human connection when you can have that quick and easy hit right now.
If you read this far, why is scientific studies, or science in general not going to fix this? Because even if there is perfect research that spells out exactly the issue and lays out exactly how to not be lonely 2 things are going to happen.
1. Companies will exploit it in a way to make money if not right away then over time putting us right back to where we were.
2. We wont do it because we prefer the easy/fast way even if its worse.
this isnt going to change, its not that we cant have real connections, its just we have never had so many easy alternatives before, for a lot of people being alone has become the default we grew up with instead of the exception.
There was an article here a day or two ago highlighting Brutalist churches that got a modicum of attention. Having experienced a bit of Brutalist architecture, I mostly thought of it as ugly (at least the exteriors; the experience of occupying it is a bit more nuanced), but I found the pictures of these churches to be rather profound; they used the style to cast a sense of awe that I found really compelling (and I say this as someone who tried for a long time to believe in religion but always failed).
And looking that the dates, they were all mid-century construction and I realized that nothing like them is being built today (at least in my awareness). I don't mean that particular style, but nothing with any style at all; it's all homogenized, optimized, and built-to-cost. It's another part of the lesson of my lifetime that we live in an economy, not a country.
Betteridge's law not withstanding, for the first time in human history, things like loneliness have become the subject of scientific inquiry. This has happened over the last ~50ish years, if that.
As Feynman says, figuring out which of our theories are true, and which of our ideas are subject to the illusion of explanatory depth is important. Especially when it comes to things we think we know, like interpersonal relationships and our own psychology.
True, the social sciences are quite young compared to other scientific fields. But already we have estimates for distinguishing what impacts between and within person variation in loneliness. At the moment, most of this work is done at a very general level; the work tries to characterize various populations of people.
However, one of the newer / more cutting-edge methods of studying things like loneliness involves pinging them multiple times a day to see how their emotional state is changing over time. (So called Ecological Momentary Assessments if you are curious.) Some researchers are using such designs to try and figure out / model what makes an individual tick.
Clinical psychology, anecdotal folk wisdom, research psychology, and potentially even Neuroscience will eventually converge. In my opinion, one semi-unique challenge is that the set of skills that makes one a good researcher and one a good people person are not highly correlated. This doesn't matter for Chemistry (etc.), but I think it matters more for the social sciences.
The problem with social sciences isn’t that they’re young, it’s that they’re all junk science. They’re all filled with poorly defined experiments, theories that you can never properly test, results that you cannot reproduce and that nobody’s going to try to, and if the topic of a study is even slightly political or controversial, you’ll often find that a study can’t feasibly be conducted, or it will be conducted by people who don’t want it to be rigorous in the first place.
I’m skeptical that a lot of these questions even can be answered scientifically at all, but rather confident that they’re not going to be by the existing system.
> However, one of the newer / more cutting-edge methods of studying things like loneliness involves pinging them multiple times a day to see how their emotional state is changing over time.
That would seem to have a strong Heisenberg problem. "I'm not so lonely any more, sociologists keep asking for my important opinion."
Yeah, by pointing out society demands too much socialization, juicing our biochemistry into addiction, and making us feel depressed when we’re alone.
All hands on deck meant more when it actually required all hands to build a church or barn.
We can’t use history to understand how to relate to the world anymore. People were often wrong more than right and far less civil. All those people socializing in the past were forced to under threat of violent burning at the stake or being sold into slavery.
Just LARPing historical patterns without contextualization is insane
First sentence of article: "One Wednesday in May 2023, a small group gathered at an outdoor café in Barcelona, Spain, sipping coffee in the late morning sunshine and talking about their lives."
Can we please stop starting articles with fucking anecdote leads, Jesus Christ it's been like twenty years of this, get a new thing my God.
It’s a piece in the popular press. People connect more with writing that is evocative rather than something that reads like a navel-gazing journal article or TPS report.
11 is actually pretty good at that. If one actually travels, as opposed to go to do a pre-organised tour, you end up interacting with tons of different people out of sheer necessity.
You'll never catch me volunteering again. It always felt like I was getting used and then discarded. I can be miserable by myself, I don't need to provide free labour to others who then go back home to their loved ones and friends. Society is not entitled to my productivity.
[+] [-] tw061023|1 year ago|reply
Build a bit of confidence (gym being the simplest way) and get out there, because whoever you are, there is someone else out there who looks precisely for you. But you aren't gonna meet them if you sit tight, so get out.
Internalize this: you are attractive and you have worth, right now. You are good enough. And someone is waiting for you out there.
[+] [-] BoingBoomTschak|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] thriftwy|1 year ago|reply
The answer is that being in need of emotional comfort does not imply the ability to provide it, so after some time they are bad fit even for each other. The same goes with "why don't unattractive people date each other".
[+] [-] wiseowise|1 year ago|reply
Good analogy.
[+] [-] Simulacra|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] spxneo|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tw061023|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] huytersd|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] nickdothutton|1 year ago|reply
I'm not sure what "the answer"is, but I think those who work in and with information systems in the broadest sense, might contribute to its cure.
[+] [-] greentxt|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] omgCPhuture|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] proprietario|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] timonoko|1 year ago|reply
I have sometimes spent 6 months alone in wilderness and eventually the Inner Voice kicks in. It seems to be a mechanism to maintain sanity. Upon returning to civilization the Voice soon disappears.
In my case the Voice is a film director, mostly Werner Herzog, who might say, "now the subject has finally lost his marbles and does not make bear-proof stash for his food".
[+] [-] karmakaze|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tw061023|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kubielid|1 year ago|reply
Pay people more, work them less.
[+] [-] SeanAnderson|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] anon7725|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] slyfox125|1 year ago|reply
Ultimately, this raises the question of whether all this actually ultimately places us in a better position, e.g., the state of humanity as seen in something like the anime Darling in the Franxx. Interestingly, this is similar to the notion that poorer people that work less desirable jobs for less money are less lonely.
[+] [-] charlie0|1 year ago|reply
My point being is that people want to be rich and loneliness takes a backseat. The least lonely people I know are all working class and near the poverty level. In contrast, most of the well off people I know are a lot more lonely.
[+] [-] sublinear|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] sandspar|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] purpleteam81|1 year ago|reply
Interesting that of all places Phil McAuliffe was in Korea. Korean culture is very welcoming. Once a connection is made, one becomes part of the family.
At times loneliness can spur one to push past fears such as travelling alone or attending an event solo.
[+] [-] bravetraveler|1 year ago|reply
Who knows? I've internalized "hell is other people" innovative ways my entire life
[+] [-] rinron|1 year ago|reply
If Television stayed live, local, honest, people you seen around your local town, it would encourage engagement. youtube could have focused on sharing videos with friends, could have ignored likes/dislikes and didnt focus on popularity and parasocial relationships. Facebook could have encouraged not on finding, adding, expanding, friends and engaging on the platform, but instead encourage real connections by encouraging prodding for real world meetups suggestions on games to play in person, finding people who like to do the similar things and suggesting times and places they can do it together with a focus on existing friends and connections. And not showing as much on what people have done but what they can do together.
Its not that these things aren't possible on the networks now but its not how these sites use their influence and primary resources, and really it would be stupid for them to do, because they are businesses and their goal is to make money, they will only improve peoples lives as long as it doesn't get in the way of making money. Part of use realize what they are doing we know they put profits above us, but they deliver what we expect a little bit of happiness a little bit of connection, we know it wont satisfy us but its easy, real easy with no risk, why put effort in for maybe a solid human connection when you can have that quick and easy hit right now.
If you read this far, why is scientific studies, or science in general not going to fix this? Because even if there is perfect research that spells out exactly the issue and lays out exactly how to not be lonely 2 things are going to happen.
1. Companies will exploit it in a way to make money if not right away then over time putting us right back to where we were. 2. We wont do it because we prefer the easy/fast way even if its worse.
this isnt going to change, its not that we cant have real connections, its just we have never had so many easy alternatives before, for a lot of people being alone has become the default we grew up with instead of the exception.
[+] [-] silverquiet|1 year ago|reply
And looking that the dates, they were all mid-century construction and I realized that nothing like them is being built today (at least in my awareness). I don't mean that particular style, but nothing with any style at all; it's all homogenized, optimized, and built-to-cost. It's another part of the lesson of my lifetime that we live in an economy, not a country.
[+] [-] YossarianFrPrez|1 year ago|reply
As Feynman says, figuring out which of our theories are true, and which of our ideas are subject to the illusion of explanatory depth is important. Especially when it comes to things we think we know, like interpersonal relationships and our own psychology.
True, the social sciences are quite young compared to other scientific fields. But already we have estimates for distinguishing what impacts between and within person variation in loneliness. At the moment, most of this work is done at a very general level; the work tries to characterize various populations of people.
However, one of the newer / more cutting-edge methods of studying things like loneliness involves pinging them multiple times a day to see how their emotional state is changing over time. (So called Ecological Momentary Assessments if you are curious.) Some researchers are using such designs to try and figure out / model what makes an individual tick.
Clinical psychology, anecdotal folk wisdom, research psychology, and potentially even Neuroscience will eventually converge. In my opinion, one semi-unique challenge is that the set of skills that makes one a good researcher and one a good people person are not highly correlated. This doesn't matter for Chemistry (etc.), but I think it matters more for the social sciences.
[+] [-] AmericanChopper|1 year ago|reply
I’m skeptical that a lot of these questions even can be answered scientifically at all, but rather confident that they’re not going to be by the existing system.
[+] [-] delichon|1 year ago|reply
That would seem to have a strong Heisenberg problem. "I'm not so lonely any more, sociologists keep asking for my important opinion."
[+] [-] johnea|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] szundi|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bionsystem|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ChoHag|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hulitu|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] psyants|1 year ago|reply
All hands on deck meant more when it actually required all hands to build a church or barn.
We can’t use history to understand how to relate to the world anymore. People were often wrong more than right and far less civil. All those people socializing in the past were forced to under threat of violent burning at the stake or being sold into slavery.
Just LARPing historical patterns without contextualization is insane
[+] [-] sandspar|1 year ago|reply
Can we please stop starting articles with fucking anecdote leads, Jesus Christ it's been like twenty years of this, get a new thing my God.
[+] [-] anon7725|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rad_gruchalski|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] taskforcegemini|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] spxneo|1 year ago|reply
2) Pick up a religion and just put in the minimum effort (i observe shabbat)
3) Consume psilocybin when weed doesn't work or you need a tolerance break
4) Pick up a hobby with community online/offline
5) Argue with people on X
6) Play games with strangers
7) Join a club with common interests
8) HN
9) Volunteer
10) Absolutely avoid social media like DM'ing with ppl
11) Travel
[+] [-] xandrius|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Simulacra|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] SOVIETIC-BOSS88|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] exe34|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] nikolayasdf123|1 year ago|reply
surprised you did not mention physical exercise. that is by far most helpful.