> Over and over again, studies[0] find that people think that their past conversations went worse than they actually did and that future conversations will go worse than they actually do. But when you just make people talk to each other, they end up having a nice time and feeling more confident[1] about their conversational abilities.
> Some 57% of US doctors received more than $12bn in payments related to medical drugs or devices from manufacturers between 2013 and 2022, an analysis has found.1 “Despite evidence that financial conflicts of interest may influence physician prescribing and may damage patients’ trust in medical professionals, such payments remain pervasive,” says the letter in JAMA.
Making lots of money protects the children of the shareholders from being poor. Perhaps even their childrens children. Or their childrens childrens children. /s
This "loneliness" part of this article is confusing to me.
> People are more alone than ever, but they’re not feeling much lonelier than they used to. So maybe all this extra solitude is...fine?
Okay but the data examined for "more alone" is US data with unclear age range (most likely adults). But the data examined for "not feeling much lonelier" is UK data and US school teenager data. I feel like there's a massive blind spot with the fact there's no US adult data...?
But then we can't claim "There is no epidemic of loneliness" without proper data too. The honest (shame this word is ruined by LLMs) conclusion is "we don't know if there's an epidemic of loneliness," which can go either way: either there really is no epidemic of loneliness, or is undetected.
Well you can do the Occam's razor / Russell's teapot thing, and ask why should there be any specific thing in the absence of (unlooked-for) evidence. Perhaps it's an epidemic of silliness, you know, or itchiness, or moodiness? Could be anything or nothing.
> why should there be any specific thing in the absence of (unlooked-for) evidence
As stated in the article, we do have evidence that people are more alone than ever, and there's a correlation between being alone and loneliness. It's perfectly reasonable to ask whether (but not assume) people are more lonely than ever.
I think this "social scurvy" thing is completely spurious, though. Some people get anxious when alone, probably including the author, hence this post justifying socializing as something everybody else needs to do. Because after all, being unsociable is socially unacceptable. But what's this based on? Being alone is correlated with ill health - well, people will tend to stay far away from you if you have the plague. One study found that people's desire for company rose hardly at all after a mere ten hours, is that surprising? I mean, make it a month, ask me again. This isn't evidence for socializing being necessary. Then we have tribal New Guineans chattering constantly about "who urinated when and where", but just because they're a model of a close-to-nature society doesn't mean the things they do are right, or healthy, and it doesn't mean we have to. (I might also wonder how close together people in tribes are in terms of genes and houses. If they count as "household", that's disqualified from being true socialization in this theory anyway.)
> She ended up flirting with her GoPro cameras, hallucinating the sound of shamans beating drums, and accusing her electrical equipment of poisoning her with sound waves.
There is an interesting phenomenon called "the Firehouse Effect" that is similar but on a group level.
The idea is that if you take a group of humans and isolate them, they will begin to believe wilder and wilder ideas and communicate those ideas amongst themselves. This happens because the group is not routinely "reconciling" with broader society which in turn is slower to adopt new ideas.
It's named after firemen who would spend a lot of time together in firehouses.
Weird post. I like the way it's written, there are lots of very interesting links, and the images are quite unique. But it goes on and on, and the conclusion is lacking.
I'd enjoy it for fun, to pass the time, to read a dozen follow-up articles. But as a one-off post to learn and inform myself? Ugh.
Unrelated, but two of the many links have ChatGPT referals. I'm not sure what to think of it. I guess it's fine?
> All of this can be prevented with a few tablespoons of lemon juice, but people suffering from scurvy do not develop a hankering for citrus. They will suffer and wither and collapse and never even ask for a grapefruit.
Funny, I absolutely do develop a hankering for citrus whenever my body needs vitamin C. After a workout, and after getting sun at the beach, or just whenever I've gone a couple days without getting enough vitamin C, I absolutely develop a sudden craving for oranges/grapefruit/pineapple/orange juice/Emergen-C. And it doesn't go away until I have enough.
I assume that this is a kind of learned association, that you can recognize the feeling of vitamin C depletion and your body quickly connects that that goes away when you eat certain foods.
But my body absolutely tells me when I need vitamin C. And whether it's at a level of "it would be a nice idea to have some now" or "you need a LOT more vitamin C RIGHT NOW".
Yup they definitely work too, but eating an entire raw green pepper doesn't always sit great in my stomach, and I don't always have red/orange/yellow varieties on hand. If I'm all out of citrus, I'll definitely grab a bell pepper instead... but I usually make sure to have citrus around.
Why don't you not make insulting comments like "You are probably just craving sugar," implying that I can't tell the difference?
Even a cursory amount of research will reveal to you that people who engage in athletic activity require higher amounts of vitamin C, and your assertion that these people get enough vitamin C just from common servings of vegetables is flat-out wrong. And keeping in mind that cooking vegetables reduces and sometimes outright pretty much removes their vitamin C, depending on the cooking method.
And the fact that you think I wouldn't notice that e.g. Coca-Cola equally satisfied my need, and that this desire for citrus or Emergen-C has just been a mistake, that's the insulting part.
So you will understand why an insulting comment like yours does not deserve a full explanation of a reply, but I'm going out of my way to provide one anyways. In the hopes that you can learn from this and not leave such knee-jerk dismissive comments in the future.
> Remember 2017, when everybody was making slime at home? Remember how the coolest slimes were the ones that are liquid when undisturbed, but turn solid when you squeeze or poke them? The human mind is kind of like that slime: it only has shape when prodded and pushed by the presence of other people. When left to its own devices, it turns to ooze. And that sticky, shapeless substance provides the perfect Petri dish for all of our current pathologies. The penchant for voting for extremists, the hyperfixation on gambling away your life savings on sports and crypto, the dream of perpetual gooning—these are the disordered desires of a mind that’s been liquified by solitude.
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but author, you just spent the article up to now complaining about people asserting that people are more lonely without evidence.
Surprised nobody has mentioned the rise of pet ownership into our lives (at least in the US) [0] and it’s resulting companionship benefits. Seems to me like a potential behavioral reaction to the “social stat” to help correct in some way.
If you look at graphs of children conceived vs. pet adoptions among adults over the years? It’s a pretty obvious “X” shape (pets directly replacing children)
It's real. Try growing old. You move to the woods because of the divorce, you have half the money and can't afford to live where there are people. The nearest towns with people (say, universities as well) are 50 miles away.
People don't even answer text messages and emails, as if they are coming from Mars and there's a surcharge on long distance calls.
Who here wakes up, looks at the phone and there are zero dots?
Geez, I send messages, really nice photos, encouragement, invitations. Growing old ain't easy.
It’s an interesting point made in about 10X the words it should have taken.
It’s a major issue I have with nonfiction in general though. Most of the words are superfluous. Unlike fiction it’s not prose-poetry or storytelling art either, just dry filler.
I'm skeptical of whether that's always true, especially today.
Usually when I want pure facts I now want concise and to the point. If I want art I read fiction. Fiction can convey other things, even facts and new ideas, but the main reason it exists (at least for me) is that it's art.
I've only heard of "loneliness epidemic" in terms of "male loneliness epidemic" and it's framed entirely around young men not getting the attention they expect from women.
The male loneliness epidemic is also known as the growth of incel circles and the influence of supposedly masculine influencers who will do literally anything but treat women both as equals and with respect. And the way these groups work is that they need to keep their membership up, so it's in their interest to keep you away from women by turning you against them.
Whatever narrative there is about young men being left behind by progressiveness, it is a big lie over a smaller truth (the system fails everyone and now it is sometimes failing young white men, in terms of education). Not so different to the great replacement theory I would imagine, but based on gender not race/religion.
I'm gay, and most of my online friends are gay. I'm not a virgin (several partners over), and do not identify as an incel, and most of my friends are similarly experienced. I know that I'm dealing with loneliness, and my friends relate their issues with it regularly.
For us, it is a matter of not being able to build and maintain meatspace social connections - reasons vary, including severe social anxiety, poor socialization (in part due to issues with physical development), and physical isolation; if there is a common thread, it is a history of a dysfunctional family life that disrupted development.
It's very frustrating when women center themselves in these kinds of conversations, and use that spotlight to assume and project the worst. There is a consistent unwillingness to even try to understand the perspective of socially-disadvantaged men, or to engage genuinely with the notion that their needs are unique, and uniquely unmet, when compared to that of women and better-adjusted men.
It makes it difficult to get genuine grievances taken seriously; people are always looking for ways to wash their hands of persistent and onerous social issues, and being told, by someone perceived as socially-successful and authoritative, that they can is all the reason they need.
I was a victim of domestic violence, as a man, once a while ago. Ever since then I hate the feeling of things touching my neck - because he tried to strangle me - and my reaction to things rubbing my neck is a tic now.
I was taken seriously for about a week and then it dropped, because it was my sister's boyfriend who did it and he was already going to prison for something else. So why make it worse for him? I got sidelined in favour of that.
My own social connections dropped off at about that time because I became scared. The guy who attacked me was already due to be imprisoned.
So, I was well embedded in that dysfunctional family life, and at every step of the way I was 0 priority compared to the boyfriends of my sisters.
The reason I can't find a woman is not so much that I'm insecure or lonely, but that I need a bit of time to get trust. And besides, lonely people have been paying hookers and escorts forever.
You'd absolutely hate most social discord servers because the very same spotlight women have mod (the spotlight) and will gang up on guys regularly that they disagree with and ban them.
> It's very frustrating when women center themselves in these kinds of conversations
The loneliness epidemic centers on men and men only while data shows no or only small differences between the genders. Somehow, pointing that out is "centering women"?
> There is a consistent unwillingness to even try to understand the perspective of socially-disadvantaged men,
They are constant and persistent center of political conversation. Whether you listen to right wing or centrists, last 3 years were all about socially-disadvantaged men, manufacturing, male loneliness, manliness.
> I've only heard of "loneliness epidemic" in terms of "male loneliness epidemic" and it's framed entirely around young men not getting the attention they expect from women.
It's reframed that way so it can be dismissed out of hand.
It's already difficult to get anyone to care when men experience troubles (because they should "man up" and solve things themselves), and when you make it sound like it's because men expect something from women, not only does it cease to be a problem worth caring about, but it becomes a threat we need to shout down.
The issue of male loneliness isn't just that men are having a hard time forming relationships with women: it's much broader, and more importantly, it's inclusive of hardships starting and maintaining friendships with other men.
Part of this is due to the fact that most spaces men used to have for socialization have long since been shut down.
However, the small grain of truth buried in the reframing is that women are better at cultivating and maintaining friend groups, and a lot of men currently maintain their social circles through their wives. Of course, the solution is not that we should assign women companions to men like the military would assign a firearm to a soldier, but rather our society needs to start teaching men how to better maintain friendships on their own.
> no one is getting rich selling anti-loneliness pills (yet)
There is already an ecosystem of for-profit social events in European cities (and probably elsewhere) profiting off people's desire to meet up with other human beings when social opportunies have shrunk. Once has seen this on e.g. Meetup.com or Facebook for years now, where bot profiles are used to swell event-signup numbers so people think they will meet more people. Indeed, with the enshittification of Meetup, the only forces that prosper on that site are for-profit ones.
I don't know much about Andrew Tate (what I've heard suggest I don't even want to look him up, but maybe I should)
For Social Media and dating apps - both ran into similar problems: they are a small part of the means. Facebook only have 5-10 minutes of real friend content per day. Dating apps can perhaps fill more time per day - but success means you "find someone" and close your account never to return. If you want to get rich you need to find some way to extend the time people spend on your platform - and that means something other than your premise. Facebook is filled with garbage. Any mildly successful dating app will be bought out by a big player because that app is taking away from the big player.
> There is already an ecosystem of for-profit social events in European cities (and probably elsewhere) profiting off people's desire to meet up with other human beings when social opportunies have shrunk.
They're called nightclubs and bars lol trust HN to be so insulated from the wider world
Those have always been around (but in many markets are declining as younger people are less likely to drink alcohol). My post was obviously about developments in the recent, especially post-Covid world.
He makes good points on statistics but at the base of all of the data, it's just surveys... I know it's not feasible to survey everyone all the time, but I wouldn't make any conclusions off such data
> no one is getting rich selling anti-loneliness pills (yet)
No but those who claim to have observed a worrying phenomenon will be interviewed by the press, invited to conferences, listened to by politicians, and will be first in line to receive further grants to study the worrying phenomenon. It's not corruption, it's just normal gratification for your hard work and a feeling of being relevant. Better than studying things and having to report on the absence of any finding.
The article is talking about "social scurvy", which they use as a metaphor for people not realising they need to get out of the house and meet up with other people every now and then.
"There is no epidemic of loneliness" say the people who don't know what loneliness is (by the very fact that they have channels to broadcast anything, and colleagues to study such things with etc)
≈ "Just stop being so depressed!" reddit.com/r/thanksimcured
What's undeniable is the disgusting monetization (and control) of connecting people.
I have worked on efforts to connect people with each other.
What I've noticed in many of these meetups created for other people to mingle, is that a lot of people who drop by and don't have a loneliness problem, make the atmosphere worse for everyone else who does. Instead of fostering genuine connections, they just "don't see the issue" and shoot down genuine attempts of others (who might be introverts, shy, whatever) to connect. Such a thing is completely out of place, because the whole motivation for said meetup is to get people to know each other.
I have started placing notices like "if you have friends, don't come" lol, which is a bit controversial but actually upgrades the experience. An analogy, imagine a married guy dropping into a singles dating event to talk about how great a relationship he's in and giving "tips to survive a marriage" and whatever (and also, if it is that good, then why are you here?). You get the idea.
Loneliness™ is something you can feel even when you're surrounded by people, who're good to you and treating you nicely etc.
On the surface it can seem similar to Depression: "What do you have to be so sad about??"
It can be similar internally too: a vague sense of not-quite-doom, or just an invisible wall in your ability to feel "happy"
That all the people who hang out with you and laugh with you, are not really your friends if push ever comes to shove, that you're going to be alone in the things you care about, even if you have a loving partner, etc.
Or maybe just even simply feeling out of place in the overall culture you live in..
Interesting factoid:
> Over and over again, studies[0] find that people think that their past conversations went worse than they actually did and that future conversations will go worse than they actually do. But when you just make people talk to each other, they end up having a nice time and feeling more confident[1] about their conversational abilities.
[0]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15298868.2020.18...
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210312...
I think it's a side-effect of certain facets of intelligence, mistrained or unrestrained:
Repeatedly processing memory, recursively calling the same function without a limit or exit condition :)
> no one is getting rich selling anti-loneliness pills (yet)
Annual sales of antidepressants in North America are about $8 billion.
Not to mention the money grifters (à la manosphere freaks) rake in, or the regular reports of people using LLMs as therapists and friends.
Not sure what the point of closing your eyes and plugging your years is
Manosphere is more of a cause of loneliness of some men then the consequence of it. Likewise with LLM as therapists and friends.
[dead]
Yes, but they start by giving those to children and teenagers, and telling them that if they ever stop taking the pills they'll kill themselves.
Like Focusyn?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother%27s_Little_Helper
It's almost like the primary objective is to make money rather than 'protect the children'.
Doctors make nothing for prescribing SSRIs to kids
The don't get a direct kickback, but there is an absolutely massive campaign to influence prescription decisions right out in the open:
https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q781
FTA:
> Some 57% of US doctors received more than $12bn in payments related to medical drugs or devices from manufacturers between 2013 and 2022, an analysis has found.1 “Despite evidence that financial conflicts of interest may influence physician prescribing and may damage patients’ trust in medical professionals, such payments remain pervasive,” says the letter in JAMA.
Making lots of money protects the children of the shareholders from being poor. Perhaps even their childrens children. Or their childrens childrens children. /s
This "loneliness" part of this article is confusing to me.
> People are more alone than ever, but they’re not feeling much lonelier than they used to. So maybe all this extra solitude is...fine?
Okay but the data examined for "more alone" is US data with unclear age range (most likely adults). But the data examined for "not feeling much lonelier" is UK data and US school teenager data. I feel like there's a massive blind spot with the fact there's no US adult data...?
That was the point of the first part: nobody has data and so we cannot say there is any trend.
But then we can't claim "There is no epidemic of loneliness" without proper data too. The honest (shame this word is ruined by LLMs) conclusion is "we don't know if there's an epidemic of loneliness," which can go either way: either there really is no epidemic of loneliness, or is undetected.
Well you can do the Occam's razor / Russell's teapot thing, and ask why should there be any specific thing in the absence of (unlooked-for) evidence. Perhaps it's an epidemic of silliness, you know, or itchiness, or moodiness? Could be anything or nothing.
> why should there be any specific thing in the absence of (unlooked-for) evidence
As stated in the article, we do have evidence that people are more alone than ever, and there's a correlation between being alone and loneliness. It's perfectly reasonable to ask whether (but not assume) people are more lonely than ever.
Good point, that's a reason to wonder.
I think this "social scurvy" thing is completely spurious, though. Some people get anxious when alone, probably including the author, hence this post justifying socializing as something everybody else needs to do. Because after all, being unsociable is socially unacceptable. But what's this based on? Being alone is correlated with ill health - well, people will tend to stay far away from you if you have the plague. One study found that people's desire for company rose hardly at all after a mere ten hours, is that surprising? I mean, make it a month, ask me again. This isn't evidence for socializing being necessary. Then we have tribal New Guineans chattering constantly about "who urinated when and where", but just because they're a model of a close-to-nature society doesn't mean the things they do are right, or healthy, and it doesn't mean we have to. (I might also wonder how close together people in tribes are in terms of genes and houses. If they count as "household", that's disqualified from being true socialization in this theory anyway.)
[dead]
Despite the lack of data, I have no hunch that there is any such trend anyway. Just wanted to say that before somebody inevitably says the opposite.
My gut feeling says: don't ask me, I'm a gut.
The microbiome has now entered the room.
> She ended up flirting with her GoPro cameras, hallucinating the sound of shamans beating drums, and accusing her electrical equipment of poisoning her with sound waves.
There is an interesting phenomenon called "the Firehouse Effect" that is similar but on a group level.
The idea is that if you take a group of humans and isolate them, they will begin to believe wilder and wilder ideas and communicate those ideas amongst themselves. This happens because the group is not routinely "reconciling" with broader society which in turn is slower to adopt new ideas.
It's named after firemen who would spend a lot of time together in firehouses.
https://absoluteengagement.com/blog/are-you-stuck-in-the-fir...
Interesting. I wonder if that also applies to small groups of people on social media?
Weird post. I like the way it's written, there are lots of very interesting links, and the images are quite unique. But it goes on and on, and the conclusion is lacking.
I'd enjoy it for fun, to pass the time, to read a dozen follow-up articles. But as a one-off post to learn and inform myself? Ugh.
Unrelated, but two of the many links have ChatGPT referals. I'm not sure what to think of it. I guess it's fine?
> All of this can be prevented with a few tablespoons of lemon juice, but people suffering from scurvy do not develop a hankering for citrus. They will suffer and wither and collapse and never even ask for a grapefruit.
Funny, I absolutely do develop a hankering for citrus whenever my body needs vitamin C. After a workout, and after getting sun at the beach, or just whenever I've gone a couple days without getting enough vitamin C, I absolutely develop a sudden craving for oranges/grapefruit/pineapple/orange juice/Emergen-C. And it doesn't go away until I have enough.
I assume that this is a kind of learned association, that you can recognize the feeling of vitamin C depletion and your body quickly connects that that goes away when you eat certain foods.
But my body absolutely tells me when I need vitamin C. And whether it's at a level of "it would be a nice idea to have some now" or "you need a LOT more vitamin C RIGHT NOW".
Do you crave bell peppers? They have double the amount of vitamin c as oranges do from what I remember.
Yup they definitely work too, but eating an entire raw green pepper doesn't always sit great in my stomach, and I don't always have red/orange/yellow varieties on hand. If I'm all out of citrus, I'll definitely grab a bell pepper instead... but I usually make sure to have citrus around.
For me it's either a craving for lime/citrus or strawberries. When I crave strawberries, I know somethings up.
Oh yeah strawberries do the trick too. I just only have them around in the summer and go through them so quickly...
If you eat any vegetables at all it's unlikely you're ever vitamin C deficient. You are probably just craving sugar.
I cannot tell you how wrong you are.
Why don't you at least try?
Why don't you not make insulting comments like "You are probably just craving sugar," implying that I can't tell the difference?
Even a cursory amount of research will reveal to you that people who engage in athletic activity require higher amounts of vitamin C, and your assertion that these people get enough vitamin C just from common servings of vegetables is flat-out wrong. And keeping in mind that cooking vegetables reduces and sometimes outright pretty much removes their vitamin C, depending on the cooking method.
And the fact that you think I wouldn't notice that e.g. Coca-Cola equally satisfied my need, and that this desire for citrus or Emergen-C has just been a mistake, that's the insulting part.
So you will understand why an insulting comment like yours does not deserve a full explanation of a reply, but I'm going out of my way to provide one anyways. In the hopes that you can learn from this and not leave such knee-jerk dismissive comments in the future.
> Remember 2017, when everybody was making slime at home? Remember how the coolest slimes were the ones that are liquid when undisturbed, but turn solid when you squeeze or poke them? The human mind is kind of like that slime: it only has shape when prodded and pushed by the presence of other people. When left to its own devices, it turns to ooze. And that sticky, shapeless substance provides the perfect Petri dish for all of our current pathologies. The penchant for voting for extremists, the hyperfixation on gambling away your life savings on sports and crypto, the dream of perpetual gooning—these are the disordered desires of a mind that’s been liquified by solitude.
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but author, you just spent the article up to now complaining about people asserting that people are more lonely without evidence.
Surprised nobody has mentioned the rise of pet ownership into our lives (at least in the US) [0] and it’s resulting companionship benefits. Seems to me like a potential behavioral reaction to the “social stat” to help correct in some way.
[0]. https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/pet-ownership-sta...
If you look at graphs of children conceived vs. pet adoptions among adults over the years? It’s a pretty obvious “X” shape (pets directly replacing children)
It's real. Try growing old. You move to the woods because of the divorce, you have half the money and can't afford to live where there are people. The nearest towns with people (say, universities as well) are 50 miles away.
People don't even answer text messages and emails, as if they are coming from Mars and there's a surcharge on long distance calls.
Who here wakes up, looks at the phone and there are zero dots?
Geez, I send messages, really nice photos, encouragement, invitations. Growing old ain't easy.
So this is anecdotal but lines up with the points of the article:
- texting has given me the ability to stay in touch with lots of my friends
- being a suburban dad with 3 kids who have activities has made it VERY difficult to see other dads in person
Couple this with a lot of the other families having two working parents, spontaneous "let's go hang out, dude" is effectively zero.
What's more common is having to either:
- have a routine scheduled "dads hang out" event
- scheduling a hang out 2-3 weeks in advance (which also sometimes gets cancelled due to "sick kid", "wife got stuck in traffic" etc)
I'd be interested in a good article that questioned the loneliness epidemic narrative, but this isn't it.
It’s an interesting point made in about 10X the words it should have taken.
It’s a major issue I have with nonfiction in general though. Most of the words are superfluous. Unlike fiction it’s not prose-poetry or storytelling art either, just dry filler.
Except that the most effective way of conveying facts _is_ through narrative and storytelling.
That and powerpoint, obviously.
It's not effective on the large fraction of people who tune out due to the length.
Sorry, next time maybe he’ll make it into a TikTok for you.
I'm skeptical of whether that's always true, especially today.
Usually when I want pure facts I now want concise and to the point. If I want art I read fiction. Fiction can convey other things, even facts and new ideas, but the main reason it exists (at least for me) is that it's art.
I've only heard of "loneliness epidemic" in terms of "male loneliness epidemic" and it's framed entirely around young men not getting the attention they expect from women.
The male loneliness epidemic is also known as the growth of incel circles and the influence of supposedly masculine influencers who will do literally anything but treat women both as equals and with respect. And the way these groups work is that they need to keep their membership up, so it's in their interest to keep you away from women by turning you against them.
Whatever narrative there is about young men being left behind by progressiveness, it is a big lie over a smaller truth (the system fails everyone and now it is sometimes failing young white men, in terms of education). Not so different to the great replacement theory I would imagine, but based on gender not race/religion.
I'm gay, and most of my online friends are gay. I'm not a virgin (several partners over), and do not identify as an incel, and most of my friends are similarly experienced. I know that I'm dealing with loneliness, and my friends relate their issues with it regularly.
For us, it is a matter of not being able to build and maintain meatspace social connections - reasons vary, including severe social anxiety, poor socialization (in part due to issues with physical development), and physical isolation; if there is a common thread, it is a history of a dysfunctional family life that disrupted development.
It's very frustrating when women center themselves in these kinds of conversations, and use that spotlight to assume and project the worst. There is a consistent unwillingness to even try to understand the perspective of socially-disadvantaged men, or to engage genuinely with the notion that their needs are unique, and uniquely unmet, when compared to that of women and better-adjusted men.
It makes it difficult to get genuine grievances taken seriously; people are always looking for ways to wash their hands of persistent and onerous social issues, and being told, by someone perceived as socially-successful and authoritative, that they can is all the reason they need.
I was a victim of domestic violence, as a man, once a while ago. Ever since then I hate the feeling of things touching my neck - because he tried to strangle me - and my reaction to things rubbing my neck is a tic now.
I was taken seriously for about a week and then it dropped, because it was my sister's boyfriend who did it and he was already going to prison for something else. So why make it worse for him? I got sidelined in favour of that.
My own social connections dropped off at about that time because I became scared. The guy who attacked me was already due to be imprisoned.
So, I was well embedded in that dysfunctional family life, and at every step of the way I was 0 priority compared to the boyfriends of my sisters.
The reason I can't find a woman is not so much that I'm insecure or lonely, but that I need a bit of time to get trust. And besides, lonely people have been paying hookers and escorts forever.
You'd absolutely hate most social discord servers because the very same spotlight women have mod (the spotlight) and will gang up on guys regularly that they disagree with and ban them.
> It's very frustrating when women center themselves in these kinds of conversations
The loneliness epidemic centers on men and men only while data shows no or only small differences between the genders. Somehow, pointing that out is "centering women"?
> There is a consistent unwillingness to even try to understand the perspective of socially-disadvantaged men,
They are constant and persistent center of political conversation. Whether you listen to right wing or centrists, last 3 years were all about socially-disadvantaged men, manufacturing, male loneliness, manliness.
> I've only heard of "loneliness epidemic" in terms of "male loneliness epidemic" and it's framed entirely around young men not getting the attention they expect from women.
It's reframed that way so it can be dismissed out of hand.
It's already difficult to get anyone to care when men experience troubles (because they should "man up" and solve things themselves), and when you make it sound like it's because men expect something from women, not only does it cease to be a problem worth caring about, but it becomes a threat we need to shout down.
The issue of male loneliness isn't just that men are having a hard time forming relationships with women: it's much broader, and more importantly, it's inclusive of hardships starting and maintaining friendships with other men.
Part of this is due to the fact that most spaces men used to have for socialization have long since been shut down.
However, the small grain of truth buried in the reframing is that women are better at cultivating and maintaining friend groups, and a lot of men currently maintain their social circles through their wives. Of course, the solution is not that we should assign women companions to men like the military would assign a firearm to a soldier, but rather our society needs to start teaching men how to better maintain friendships on their own.
[dead]
> no one is getting rich selling anti-loneliness pills (yet)
There is already an ecosystem of for-profit social events in European cities (and probably elsewhere) profiting off people's desire to meet up with other human beings when social opportunies have shrunk. Once has seen this on e.g. Meetup.com or Facebook for years now, where bot profiles are used to swell event-signup numbers so people think they will meet more people. Indeed, with the enshittification of Meetup, the only forces that prosper on that site are for-profit ones.
> no one is getting rich selling anti-loneliness pills (yet)
Social media, dating apps, even andrew tate was doing well till some point.
I don't know much about Andrew Tate (what I've heard suggest I don't even want to look him up, but maybe I should)
For Social Media and dating apps - both ran into similar problems: they are a small part of the means. Facebook only have 5-10 minutes of real friend content per day. Dating apps can perhaps fill more time per day - but success means you "find someone" and close your account never to return. If you want to get rich you need to find some way to extend the time people spend on your platform - and that means something other than your premise. Facebook is filled with garbage. Any mildly successful dating app will be bought out by a big player because that app is taking away from the big player.
>(what I've heard suggest I don't even want to look him up, but maybe I should)
I really wouldn't. If you don't know anything about him, count yourself lucky.
> There is already an ecosystem of for-profit social events in European cities (and probably elsewhere) profiting off people's desire to meet up with other human beings when social opportunies have shrunk.
They're called nightclubs and bars lol trust HN to be so insulated from the wider world
Those have always been around (but in many markets are declining as younger people are less likely to drink alcohol). My post was obviously about developments in the recent, especially post-Covid world.
The scurvy part definitely tracks. So many developers live on ramen and energy drinks; basic nutrients become an afterthought.
The energy drinks often contain a lot of added vitamins.
Most of them of the B group for various reasons. Addition of vit C is not that common.
Someone in my town just randomly lit his house on fire and went insane after being a shut-in for years. This is just one of many stories.
Don't you tell me straight faced that mental health isn't an epidemic.
Go drink Margs with friends.
Cures both your scurvy and your social scurvy.
He makes good points on statistics but at the base of all of the data, it's just surveys... I know it's not feasible to survey everyone all the time, but I wouldn't make any conclusions off such data
>I know it's not feasible to survey everyone all the time
I think we are getting pretty close to that.
> no one is getting rich selling anti-loneliness pills (yet)
No but those who claim to have observed a worrying phenomenon will be interviewed by the press, invited to conferences, listened to by politicians, and will be first in line to receive further grants to study the worrying phenomenon. It's not corruption, it's just normal gratification for your hard work and a feeling of being relevant. Better than studying things and having to report on the absence of any finding.
Do people not like juice? How do you get scurvy in 2026?
The article is talking about "social scurvy", which they use as a metaphor for people not realising they need to get out of the house and meet up with other people every now and then.
Not the point of the post. Just a clickbaity-ish comparison to reel you in.
In the world of protein low carb pop tarts juice is poison.
How hard is it to find some high-protein fruit juice these days?
Given that there's no strong regulation that forces fruit juice to be made from fruit, I'd wager that this is already a product line.
"Contains 0% Juice"
you can't call it juice if there's no juice
I love being alone. I'm never lonely. Maybe i'm crazy.
[dead]
"There is no epidemic of loneliness" say the people who don't know what loneliness is (by the very fact that they have channels to broadcast anything, and colleagues to study such things with etc)
≈ "Just stop being so depressed!" reddit.com/r/thanksimcured
What's undeniable is the disgusting monetization (and control) of connecting people.
I have worked on efforts to connect people with each other.
What I've noticed in many of these meetups created for other people to mingle, is that a lot of people who drop by and don't have a loneliness problem, make the atmosphere worse for everyone else who does. Instead of fostering genuine connections, they just "don't see the issue" and shoot down genuine attempts of others (who might be introverts, shy, whatever) to connect. Such a thing is completely out of place, because the whole motivation for said meetup is to get people to know each other.
I have started placing notices like "if you have friends, don't come" lol, which is a bit controversial but actually upgrades the experience. An analogy, imagine a married guy dropping into a singles dating event to talk about how great a relationship he's in and giving "tips to survive a marriage" and whatever (and also, if it is that good, then why are you here?). You get the idea.
And I also agree with your last sentence.
Loneliness™ is something you can feel even when you're surrounded by people, who're good to you and treating you nicely etc.
On the surface it can seem similar to Depression: "What do you have to be so sad about??"
It can be similar internally too: a vague sense of not-quite-doom, or just an invisible wall in your ability to feel "happy"
That all the people who hang out with you and laugh with you, are not really your friends if push ever comes to shove, that you're going to be alone in the things you care about, even if you have a loving partner, etc.
Or maybe just even simply feeling out of place in the overall culture you live in..