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

The Lethality of Loneliness

newrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 166 posts

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#61

Post by hosh »

leoh wrote: post #28

I thought the most profound thing mentioned in this article was that loneliness was about intimacy. Not necessarily physical intimacy, but social intimacy. This is exceedingly important subtlety. Too often we say things like "go be social, go hang out." You can "be social", but non-intimate relationships (relationships with people you don't trust, people who are cruel, people who aren't authentic) do not have good th…

Yep.

Believe it or not, this is actually a key insight in meditative/contemplative practices.

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#62

Post by stelonix »

virtualwhys wrote: post #48
WalterSear wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Something the article does not touch on is accepting the reality of alone-ness: we're all alone together (quote from an old friend). I don't think this is the same thing. Some people are demonstrably more alone than others, such as closeted men during the AIDS epidemic.

Agreed, but doesn't change the fact that we're all alone together. Even connected people, with friends, family, and lovers by their side...exit stage left alone. Loneliness is a layer thrown on top of fundamental alone-ness. Obviously life is more enjoyable when feeling connected, belonging and so on, but for many that's simply not in the cards. If everyone felt accepted and loved, would it be life? Sounds more like…

I believe you're missing the point: there are people who are way more lonely than the average person. From the article, I believe it is talking about people who are lonely and do not enjoy it (even if unconsciously).

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#63

Post by [deleted] »

hosh wrote: post #61
leoh wrote: post #28

I thought the most profound thing mentioned in this article was that loneliness was about intimacy. Not necessarily physical intimacy, but social intimacy. This is exceedingly important subtlety. Too often we say things like "go be social, go hang out." You can "be social", but non-intimate relationships (relationships with people you don't trust, people who are cruel, people who aren't authentic) do not have good th…

Yep. Believe it or not, this is actually a key insight in meditative/contemplative practices.

[deleted]

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#64

Post by hosh »

vijayr wrote: post #53
zupatol wrote: post #36

> At one point, the psychologists thought of designing a mobile app, a sort of electronic nagging mother, to help people break bad social habits. (You’d check an item off the list, say, if you remembered to talk to anyone that day—a store clerk or a librarian.) But they didn’t get funding for the software, so now they’re focusing on a simpler and more low-tech fix. This mobile app sounds like something that would be…

This will only help so much - it'll soon become a chore/annoyance, as it would become more of "checking the box" than actually "connecting with people". This is a problem that can't solved by tech, mobile app etc (tech can only help a bit). I'm not sure simply "talking with store clerk" will help loneliness. If that is the case, talking to our bosses and other colleagues (who really don't care too much about anyone o…

The key thing about connecting with another person, of being intimate, is being present.

When you "talk to a store clerk", you are talking to the role of a store clerk. The uniform. The representative of a corporate transaction machine. When you use an app and "check the box", generally, people do that as mindlessly as possible.

Technology does not solve this. An individual person's mindfulness extends this.

This leads to a lot of interesting insights. For example, there is a relationship between being "intimate" and "naked", and not necessarily in the physical sense.

We all have inner selves that we protect by layers of masks, rationalizations, and buffers. This is the vulnerable part of ourselves. And to connect with someone else is to bare that open.

Who really wants to open themselves up like that? That's quite a leap of courage and faith. It is also the supreme act of generosity and compassion.

So. You want to solve this? That's great! First solve it for yourself: be fully present. Learn to be mindful. Get in touch with the wounded part of yourself, and in doing so, learn to extend compassion to others around you.

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#65

Post by fyi80 »

zupatol wrote: post #36

> At one point, the psychologists thought of designing a mobile app, a sort of electronic nagging mother, to help people break bad social habits. (You’d check an item off the list, say, if you remembered to talk to anyone that day—a store clerk or a librarian.) But they didn’t get funding for the software, so now they’re focusing on a simpler and more low-tech fix. This mobile app sounds like something that would be…

It's already done: https://quantifiedself.appspot.com/

(but could be greatly improved.)

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#66

Post by stuffchunk »

conroe64 wrote: post #43
navs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is my case. it's hard enough just greeting someone let alone forming a lasting bond that eventuates into some situation allowing for intimacy.

I'm in the same boat. I'm also have attracted a lot of, how to put this, people who use other people, since I'm not good at standing up for myself, so that, therefore, makes wary of people. My belief is being social is a skill and I have to learn to get better at that skill in order to attract more normal people. I've been trying the following recently, although I haven't had enough time with any of it to know how we…

I've found EVE to be a double-edged sword in that regard. The game is exponentially more fun when played socially. On the other hand it's easy to hide in it and avoid socializing at all.

EVE takes effort to play "the right way". Make sure you get in a nice corp.

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#67

Post by rokhayakebe »

btipling wrote: post #2

In a very good sociology course I took in college the professor drew an upside down bell curve on the board. The y axis was risk for suicide and the x axis was social interaction. The extremes of social interactions, very low or very high amounts, led to being at greater risk for suicide according to research quoted by the professor. Average amounts of social interactions had the lowest risk for suicide. I don't reme…

But can you not take any (or many) two different data sets that sort of relate and create such graphs? Social interaction and Suicide, Sex and Suicide, Education and Suicide, Work load and Suicide, XYZ and Suicide.

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#68

Post by hosh »

err_badprocrast wrote: post #11
btipling wrote: post #2

In a very good sociology course I took in college the professor drew an upside down bell curve on the board. The y axis was risk for suicide and the x axis was social interaction. The extremes of social interactions, very low or very high amounts, led to being at greater risk for suicide according to research quoted by the professor. Average amounts of social interactions had the lowest risk for suicide. I don't reme…

FTA: 'Loneliness “is not synonymous with being alone, nor does being with others guarantee protection from feelings of loneliness,” writes John Cacioppo, the leading psychologist on the subject. Cacioppo privileges the emotion over the social fact because—remarkably—he’s sure that it’s the feeling that wreaks havoc on the body and brain. Not everyone agrees with him, of course. Another school of thought insists that…

Neither.

This kind of loneliness has as much to do with rejecting oneself as it is being rejected by other people.

Each of us have emotional wounds inside that are sensitive. We typically wrap layers and layers of personality, activities, and rationalizations to protect it. And if it gets through that, it triggers some protective emotional outbursts or behaviors. Or we shut down, like the woman in catatonia.

It is usually painful enough that the mind does not want to be aware of it, and when hitting upon that, will naturally veer away from it.

You can be fundamentally lonely in a crowd of millions. You can be the meditating sage in some isolated cave for years, because you know at the core you are not alone.

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#69

Post by brandall10 »

leoh wrote: post #28

I thought the most profound thing mentioned in this article was that loneliness was about intimacy. Not necessarily physical intimacy, but social intimacy. This is exceedingly important subtlety. Too often we say things like "go be social, go hang out." You can "be social", but non-intimate relationships (relationships with people you don't trust, people who are cruel, people who aren't authentic) do not have good th…

The loneliest period of my life was during my clubbing days in my 20s. I was out doing something almost every night, had a few dozen people I called friends. Sometimes it was alot of fun, but it was ultimately draining... the connections were superficial at best.

Moved away shortly after turning 26, stopped answering almost all calls and had little social interaction for about 6 mos. Then I got a dog and started meeting people again but slowly and in a completely different context. That was probably the most cathartic period in my life.

Re: The Lethality of Loneliness

#70

Post by hosh »

tokenizer wrote: post #3
btipling wrote: post #2

In a very good sociology course I took in college the professor drew an upside down bell curve on the board. The y axis was risk for suicide and the x axis was social interaction. The extremes of social interactions, very low or very high amounts, led to being at greater risk for suicide according to research quoted by the professor. Average amounts of social interactions had the lowest risk for suicide. I don't reme…

Interesting. This makes sense from a layman's reasoning perspective as well. People who spend an extreme amount of time with others don't spend enough with themselves and probably lose their identity. I guess my question is, what constitutes interaction? Does the brief conversations with my coworkers count? What about a phone call to my mother? Does all of this interaction being analysed have to in person and in dept…

It's not "interaction".

It's presence of mind. Awareness.

I've seen this happen a lot with ... non-pathological loneliness. I mean that, generally everyone is lonely in the way Fromm-Reichmann is saying, but because it at a socially-acceptable level, then it looks normal.

For example, I've been at parties and places where friends "hang out". No one really talks about much. No one is really engaging in anything. The jokes people are saying are not there to connect with someone, and more to fill the air with something to say.

This is in contrast with, say, you go to this party, and on an off chance, you start talking with someone. And it feels like a very different experience, like you are fully connecting. You're no longer waiting for the other person to shut up so you can say something. The conversation flows, but the content doesn't really matter. It could be a deep discussion about math or philosophy; it could be sharing some life stories; it could be swapping some of your wild, youthful adventures.

You're not going to be able to measure presence of mind. But you know when you are present vs. when you are not.

Post reply on HN