Thread

1. dudisubekti · 1790165412 · focus · HN ↗

   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...?

   1. bluGill · 1790167526 · focus · HN ↗

      That was the point of the first part: nobody has data and so we cannot say there is any trend.

      1. dudisubekti · 1790171067 · focus · HN ↗

         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.

         1. card_zero · 1790171437 · focus · HN ↗

            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.

            1. atmavatar · 1790176625 · focus · HN ↗

               > 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.

               1. card_zero · 1790177327 · focus · HN ↗

                  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.)

         2. lemmetellya · 1790172244 · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.