The Loneliness Epidemic • Hacker News Board

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#231

Post by ryanmercer » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #183

dexwiz wrote: post #34

The Screen and the Job have displaced almost everything else is our lives. Loneliness is just a primary symptom. The Screen, whether it’s TV, computer, or phone, has supplanted almost all social interactions. This manifests itself in things like SitComs on TV (just a bunch of friends or family hanging out) or Social Media on phones. It’s very easy to fill the social needs of right now with a Screen. But under even a…

TV when it was a single screen in house could still serve as social gathering time. As a kid, having my own TV meant countless hours of video games and my own movies too. I enjoyed it more than I abused it. Are smarphone/tablet TVs worse or the same ? One difference, the kind of entertainment you had on TV wasn't that much thinking or discussing. It has different effects I suppose. Also TV had a different ethos (if I…

>As a kid, having my own TV meant countless hours of video games and my own movies too. I enjoyed it more than I abused it.

For me int he early 90s was "Hey Aaron/Jimmy/Dani it's raining outside so we can't go ride bikes, wanna play a game?" and then either taking turns or playing a two player game and talking the entire time. Then early 95 when more than one or two of us had computers in the homes it was similar, if it was nice out we were outside, if not we were on IRC and/or a MUD and moving into the later 90s bla-dinging each other on AIM while in a MUD or in Ultima or Everquest with each other if it was too late to go out or bad weather.

Now it's 3 people sitting in a room with a tv going, and all three have their phones out, occasionally sending each other memes and not talking.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#232

Post by calcifer » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 6:39 PM UTC

ryanmercer wrote: post #217

calcifer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more I read about it, I’m convinced “loneliness” is an upper middle class problem. Which makes it all the more suitable for a discussion on HN, wouldn't you say?

I'm definitely lower middle class, I make 34k a year...

Not sure how accurate this [1] is, but 34k USD puts you in the top ~0.88% richest people on the planet. If that's true, you are not "lower" anything...

[1] http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#233

Post by asauce » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

piercebot wrote: post #91

dexwiz wrote: post #34

The Screen and the Job have displaced almost everything else is our lives. Loneliness is just a primary symptom. The Screen, whether it’s TV, computer, or phone, has supplanted almost all social interactions. This manifests itself in things like SitComs on TV (just a bunch of friends or family hanging out) or Social Media on phones. It’s very easy to fill the social needs of right now with a Screen. But under even a…

>The Screen, whether it’s TV, computer, or phone, has supplanted almost all social interactions. I think social (cooperative) gaming might be an exception to this. I'm not about to argue that it's _better_ than real-life social interaction, but hanging out and communicating with the same individuals every evening while working on shared goals as your avatars inhabit the screen can combat loneliness for many individua…

A bunch of my college/highschool friends will still hop on the ps4 a couple nights each week.

I live 100 kms away from most of them, however we can still catch up and have fun playing games.

Its definitely not the same as real life interactions, but it allows me to interact with people that I normally wouldn't see without visiting them.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#234

Post by redwards510 » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

astura wrote: post #135

major505 wrote: post #73

Really. I think the big problem here is social networks. Nobody interact face to face.I used to go to bars , look for a pretty girl and pay her a drink to start a conversation. Nowdays this is considered creep. They expect that I download an app, wait for a match ans just goeet for a quick chat and maybe some action. Just turn of your computers and go to a bar. Interact to people. Start conversations with stranger pe…

I met my husband less than a decade ago in a bar. I still talk to strangers in bars now too. Its not any more creepy to socialize with strangers in bars now than it was in the past, as long as you respect boundaries and aren't a creep about it. The vast majority of people still meet their partners through "traditional" means, very, very few meet through sites and apps. And when I say "very, very few" I'm talking less…

You can claim anything with a survey these days. This one says 40% of couples meet online, and 60% of same-sex couples. And that is from 2017. Anecdotally I think you are out of touch, probably because you've been out of the dating game for a decade. Less than 10%? No way. Everyone has migrated to dating apps.

https://qz.com/1546677/around-40-of-us-couples-now-first-mee...

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#235

Post by rishsriv » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

kashyapc wrote: post #86

I will quote a previous comment on a similar thread[1] I made verbatim here. It is from Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now , where he reviews data on loneliness in the US students (among two dozen other graphs in the first twenty chapters). Pinker implies social critics abuse the words "epidemic" and "crisis" (both words used in the article of this thread). After reviewing the downwards-sloping graph (plotted from 197…

> I'm not suggesting that everything is hunky-dory, just that we bear in mind the proportions of the problem. Also Pinker may well be off the mark here, as others have pointed out in[1].

Tried to find more data on this, which seems to confirm Pinker's hypothesis - https://ourworldindata.org/global-mental-health

The data seems unrepresentative, though. While data on suicide rates is fairly clear, it might be more interesting to look at revealed preferences instead of self-reported ones. To this end, indicators for "lives of despair" (drug OD deaths, hospitalisation for drug/alcohol abuse etc) might be more appropriate.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#236

Post by quacked » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

I think I'll be a little buried, but a thought- where can you go to hang out and not spend any money? Seems like historical gathering places all now cost money, or you're not allowed to be there.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#237

Post by fromthestart » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 6:49 PM UTC

gordaco wrote: post #158

fromthestart wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Choose a degree that appeals to you, where you will learn what you like, instead of one which acts as a stepping stone for a higher paying job? >Become pregnant, and/or plan to work fewer hours for some time to take care of your kids or any older relative? >Stay in your job for 15 years because you like the people, the work itself or some particular perk? >However, lately the tension between those two is so high tha…

I'm expecting the penalty not to be so disproportionate as to persist 15+ years after the choice. Also, most of these "choices" are not so selfish. In the case of the degree choices, I know plenty of people who have jobs with a much higher social utility than mine, yet make much less and suffer long periods of unemployment (I'm thinking about, for example, people whose job is to educate people from marginalized commu…

>I'm expecting the penalty not to be so disproportionate as to persist 15+ years after the choice

The penalty persists because the years spent pursuing goals other than those that confer useful skills and experience cannot be regained. Are you suggesting that we reward all people equally, regardless of whether they are able to demonstrate the same degree of utility?

>In the case of taking care of other people, I just can't fathom how would you find selfisness in stepping out of a job in order to take care of other people.

Selfish from the perspective that taking care of a sick loved one does not necessarily provide a benefit to society at large. More importantly, that time spent not working or learning is effectively a pause in ones growth as a professional - what is the alternative, making hiring and salary decisions by age rather than experience?

>I know plenty of people who have jobs with a much higher social utility than mine, yet make much less and suffer long periods of unemployment

This is a bit of a conflation. I am arguing over choices which do not benefit society, in which case it is reasonable that one's career value is lower. This particular problem is one of misplaced valuation in our society, as there are tangible benefits to the degrees your acquaintances pursued.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#238

Post by Existenceblinks » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

DisruptiveDave wrote: post #137

rayiner wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The average person has to consider all options in the light of both the current employer and the specter of tomorrow’s. Moving across the country for a high paying job? Great! Moving to be closer to friends? That’s a career killer. The median person lives just 18 miles away from their mom. 57% of Americans have never lived outside their home state. A third have never lived outside their hometown. The more I read ab…

Make more money -> buy bigger house with more land = more physical separation from others. Make more money -> spend more time at work -> buy more "things" -> attach happiness to those things = set up for discontentment.

Yes, the problem is that people are incapable of "making enough money"

- Enough for buying satisfied house and land AND a nice secondary room in the middle of city. So they support two main life styles. Need a peaceful time, go to house surrounding by nature. Need a party, city life, back in town.

- Enough money for commuting between places as you want

- Enough money for buying whatever objects. Get bored, go shopping

- Enough money for not worrying about it so you can do things that improve your contentment.

Well, this is not new, money solves maybe 90% of whatever problems you have right now.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#239

Post by bjourne » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #165

bjourne wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation in the late 19th century was a historical aberration and workers neither since nor previously worked that many hours. Note also that in that period, Western society was full of day laborers, hobos and other chronically underemployed people. That is how capitalists could force workers into working insane hours at low pay. Because if they didn't want to do it, then there were thousands of others that were…

Even 'unemployed' women worked really hard back then. Without electricity, all the washing, managing the home heater, cooking, cleaning tasks have to be done on muscle power alone. Doing a load of laundry on a hand washer and scrubbing board takes forever and is pretty brutal. So is getting up super early to put coal in the furnace (and then keeping it going all day every day). Running a stove you have to load with w…

Yes, that is why I wrote that women of that time were "not employed" not "not working". Household chores can be considered work, but that brings into question what is work and what is leisure? Raising kids is certainly a lot of work but it is also entirely optional so why isn't it leisure? arvinism however wrote "more time at work than ever" which can't mean anything other than hours in employment.

Re: The Loneliness Epidemic

#240

Post by buboard » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

barberousse wrote: post #201

buboard wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Screen and the Job have displaced The screen and the Job have no volition of their own. It's humans themselves that choose to spend more time with them instead of interacting with nearby humans. And this is happening despite the fact that we 're no longer in the industrial age, and people don't need to live near the factory where they work. The Job provides people with enough money to frequently escape from nea…

As a software engineer who comes from the lower class (the West side ghetto of Chicago, in fact), let me tell you right now that lower class people socializing with their neighbors doesn't mean those interactions are at all inclusive of different approaches to life. Yeah, you get more socializing and connections, but those interactions tend to be constrained by forces like homophobia, racism, etc. Just because they'r…

1. nobody said the do or that they should "be inclusive"

2. miasma is a negative word (means repulsive)

I agree however, it is actually one of the reasons that more well-off people tend to socialize less: other people are not always "wonderful"