Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 212 posts

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#61

Post by XorNot »

Insanity wrote: post #8
light_hue_1 wrote: post #4

This is a shamefully bad paper hyped up to make Science relevant but with a result that has no relationship at all to what's even in the title, never mind abstract. The sad part is, this is going to be used to hurt workers everywhere! Come back to work for your own mental health. They don't compare remote vs non-remote workers. They compare workers in job families that could be remote vs workers in job families that…

Yeah. Compare mental health of those with families in remote vs non-remote work and it might flip entirely. It is valuable though to point out that loneliness is a real issue and remote work could exacerbate that. For my part, being forced to sit in an open office with chatter all around me is much worse for my mental health than the peace and quiet of my own home.

I think trying to solve loneliness by combining it with the modern corporate environment is absolutely the wrong approach though.

Get your socialization needs met in an environment where we ask all the people around you to rate your performance and determine whether your salary should continue to be paid.

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#62

Post by small_model »

ahtihn wrote: post #58
small_model wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is more isolation negative, should be a spectrum, 98% alone and the rest socialising.

I prefer being alone but also feel worse after prolonged periods alone. Preferring something doesn't mean it's good for you.

True, I meant forced socialisation a.k.a office. You need some socialising most days but most people get that from living with spouse/family/room mates etc i.e. people they have chosen.

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#63

Post by obscurette »

small_model wrote: post #35

But if I want to be social why does it have to be people I didnt choose (i.e. co workers). Why can I WFH and socialise with my family/friends who I choose to be with. This is basically nothing to do with remote work and more about isolation.

Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#64

Post by fnordpiglet »

tchalla wrote: post #42

> Our results suggest that remote work substantially increases isolation and worsens mental health, particularly for those living alone. Another angle - people don't know how to deal with isolation if not their work. Remote work has accelerated an aspect that we already knew existed. Social systems are tied ONLY around work which is not healthy.

The people paid to be there aren’t your friends. They’re nominally “coworkers,” which is not a social relationship but a transactional one. The fact we’ve as a society replaced human social interaction with people acting a work persona for money is more sad than being lonely - this should be the state that is considered lonely.

Being isolated in the way discussed is in my mind a process of reclamation to normal social relationships. At first it’s disorienting and hard. Over time; you adjust.

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#65

Post by gbraad »

renjimen wrote: post #45
gbraad wrote: post #26

This is also why having a good manager is key; I worked as an engineering manager and kept a near weekly 1-1 with my engineers, not per se to socialize, but to allow them to ask questions about the tasks, implementation comments, etc. but the environment I created allowed them to talk other stuff. All my associates appreciated this mix of technical talk, but also fun discussions, etc. I am sure it help them to stay a…

I do this with my team. We spend more than half of our weekly 30 minute 1-on-1s talking about anything but work. That isn't written down anywhere, it's just a natural consequence of us being interested in each others' lives, and prioritizing that over "getting back" 20 minutes to do more work. We also have a team-wide monthly "happy hour" where we bring one discussion point each, usually an interesting article. They'…

The risk I often see is when the company also emphasizes this 'family' ideal. I think that is unnatural and forced; most of my associates hated this. It ruins the work-life balance.

I found it more important to emphasize trust, and allow them to handle these conversations/attendance If they couldn't, that's fine. Outside factors can disrupt this, ... So I wouldn't complain if there was a no show once in a while.

We had a monthly tea(m)time to share tea and talk about anything, hobby topic or something technical. It was fun to see what people do with 3d printers, especially those that had no time/space for this.

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#66

Post by small_model »

obscurette wrote: post #63
small_model wrote: post #35

But if I want to be social why does it have to be people I didnt choose (i.e. co workers). Why can I WFH and socialise with my family/friends who I choose to be with. This is basically nothing to do with remote work and more about isolation.

Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.

Not sure about this, most people would rather interact with people the like, click with than some boomer manager who thinks it's still 1950 IBM days.

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#67

Post by ZpJuUuNaQ5 »

ajkjk wrote: post #3

> After the pandemic, workers in remote-capable jobs spent more time working alone and avoided social activities with their friends, remaining more isolated both during and after work. This pattern was most pronounced among remote workers living alone: They spent entire days without human contact and their mental distress, use of mental healthcare, and antidepressants increased acutely. One of those results which is…

>This pattern was most pronounced among remote workers living alone: They spent entire days without human contact and their mental distress, use of mental healthcare, and antidepressants increased acutely.

I guess there is a cultural component to it too, or maybe I'm just that much disconnected from humanity. It's just hard for me to imagine that spending time alone would, in general, affect someone so much that they would begin to rely on drugs and other means of mental care. Maybe it has little to do with isolation in particular and the source of distress is simply the abrupt change in lifestyle. For example, forcing a person to socialize every day when they aren't used to it would put them in a similar state. I've lived alone for over a decade (since I was 19), and by far the biggest source of mental distress to me are interactions with people. I have never seen a psychologist in my life nor ever taken any mind-altering drugs. Remote work came and, thankfully, hasn't fully left, but I barely even remember the pandemic. Of course, it's just a personal experience, not a generalization.

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#68

Post by joe_mamba »

gbraad wrote: post #53
tchalla wrote: post #42

> Our results suggest that remote work substantially increases isolation and worsens mental health, particularly for those living alone. Another angle - people don't know how to deal with isolation if not their work. Remote work has accelerated an aspect that we already knew existed. Social systems are tied ONLY around work which is not healthy.

In most cultures "what do you do" is the first question that people ask, but answered with their job position in most Western countries. In most other places, people will respond with their current activity, or their hobby or even religion or believe. A lot of our culture revolves around work giving us meaning and satisfaction. And this is very obvious now due to recent layoffs and how people are affected in feeling/…

>In most cultures "what do you do" is the first question that people will answer with their job position in most Western countries.

No, it's the opposite, in most places in the world, average people typically respond with their profession just as they always had in every coultre on the planet, from India to Bulgaria to North America from 2000 BC to 2026 AD. Are you a blacksmith, are you a priest, are you a teacher, are you a construction worker etc. In Europe many people's family names are literally the profession of their ancestors.

>In most other places, people will respond with their current activity, or their hobby or even religion or believe.

Again, the opposite, People identifying with their "current hobby" are typically snobby western white collar hippies, who now think their identity transcended beyond their profession due to the privileges of the wealth of their profession, and the social pressures of their politically correct society that views certain professions that generate wealth (like tech bros) with a certain stigma that might be a negative to society, so they they shy away from it and choose another identity not related to their profession.

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#69

Post by gbraad »

joe_mamba wrote: post #68
gbraad wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most cultures "what do you do" is the first question that people ask, but answered with their job position in most Western countries. In most other places, people will respond with their current activity, or their hobby or even religion or believe. A lot of our culture revolves around work giving us meaning and satisfaction. And this is very obvious now due to recent layoffs and how people are affected in feeling/…

>In most cultures "what do you do" is the first question that people will answer with their job position in most Western countries. No, it's the opposite, in most places in the world, average people typically respond with their profession just as they always had in every coultre on the planet, from India to Bulgaria to North America from 2000 BC to 2026 AD. Are you a blacksmith, are you a priest, are you a teacher, a…

I am in Asia, and do not experience that 'snobby western white collar' attitude here.

It is seen as a polite form like "how's the weather", and answer like "just going to grab a snack", inviting others to join. Have worked with many people from different backgrounds due to an international/localization team and open source activities in Asia.

And the name argument in a lot of places was a forced naming. In the Netherlands they were sometimes based on profession, but also their location, or their parents/relationship. The names where a Napoleonic side effect; in 1811 he mandated that everyone in the Netherlands must adopt a surname. Before that, it was very unusual. Note: look for 'van' and what follows, as often it is not a profession.

Re: Home alone: Remote work, isolation, and mental health

#70

Post by zimpenfish »

obscurette wrote: post #63
small_model wrote: post #35

But if I want to be social why does it have to be people I didnt choose (i.e. co workers). Why can I WFH and socialise with my family/friends who I choose to be with. This is basically nothing to do with remote work and more about isolation.

Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society. People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc. Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.

> Being forced to interact with people you haven't chosen to socialize is good for your mental health and for society.

That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes; it is 100% absolutely not true for "all people". You force me to interact with people I haven't chosen and there's a reasonably high probability that I'll subsequently choose to never interact with you again.[0]

> People interacting with different people are less afraid of the world, more trusting etc.

My childhood was largely interaction with people I didn't choose[1] and, nope, I am absolutely not "more trusting" as a result.

> Clustering into echochambers is bad for society as a whole.

Citation needed for that one.

[0] There is a slim chance that the people I haven't chosen to interact with turn out to be reasonable decent people who I don't annoy and, more importantly, don't annoy me.

[1] A bunch of enforced house moves and a paucity of decent locals at each new house/school.

Post reply on HN