Top
Best
New

Posted by publicdebates 1 day ago

Ask HN: How can we solve the loneliness epidemic?

Countless voiceless people sit alone every day and have no one to talk to, people of all ages, who don't feel that they can join any local groups. So they sit on social media all day when they're not at work or school. How can we solve this?
749 points | 1185 commentspage 9
stetrain 1 day ago|
Maybe our built environment shouldn't consist solely of isolated houses in isolated gated communities where we drive our kids and sit in isolated cars in the school dropoff/pickup lines.
michaelrpeskin 1 day ago||
This may just be me, but I hold the opposite view.

When I lived in a rural area with a few acres of property, I was much more social and engaged with my community.

Now I live at the edge of the city in a medium-high density townhouse area with no private outdoor space. Since I can never really get away from people and be alone, I also have no desire to go out and do things and engage with the community.

I think the variability is nice. If I can get home, relax, not have people around, have some private outdoor space, then I can recharge and have the energy to engage more.

stetrain 14 hours ago||
I don't think it's as simple as urban vs rural.

You can have a small town with a nice downtown or park where people meet and hang out. You can have walkable neighborhoods without giant apartment buildings. Neighborhoods where kids ride around on bikes.

That's different than a suburb full of isolated gated communities where each house technically has a yard but you still don't have any privacy and the HOA tells you what color to paint your house and fines you for your grass not being perfectly green all year.

You can also have dense areas without green space, full of cars and noise, and without nice places to hang out with friends.

morshu9001 20 hours ago||
Dense cities have the same problem or worse. There are even college towns with apartments where nobody talks to each other.
stetrain 12 hours ago||
Cities can and often are poorly designed for humans.

Building human-centric places isn’t only about density. Variety of density is good. Places where people can walk, ride bikes, and hang out with friends and family are good.

Congested 6-lane roads aren’t good, whether in cities, suburbs, or rural areas in between.

morshu9001 12 hours ago||
Yeah so you can give them all that, but if it's mainly inhabited by single "professionals" and couples with dogs, it can still be antisocial. At least that was my experience in grad school housing and living after in college towns. We had walking/biking centric layout, communal gyms and hot tubs, everything.
Desafinado 1 day ago||
Everyone always gets the causality reversed. Social media didn't cause the epidemic, it filled a niche to help cure the epidemic. People were lonely long before the internet arrived, the internet just made it easier for those lonely people to connect to each other. And now many of them prefer the internet over socializing with people they don't care for that much in person.

In other words, the problem is structural. Moving to a new city where you don't know anyone, only work with people for a few years, and where there are no longer institutions like the church, how is anybody supposed to meet anyone? Meetups? Half the people can't even afford a car.

There is no solution other than meeting a lifelong partner.

SchemaLoad 1 day ago||
Yes of course people were lonely before the internet and social media, but that pushed them to go outside and solve the problem. Now they do the digital equivalent of taking drugs to make the problem go away.
Desafinado 1 day ago||
I think you're oversimplifying and overgeneralizing. Plenty of people remained lonely back in the day, plenty of people socialize now. It's just that now they have the option to socialize through the internet.

Prior to the internet people were staying home and watching TV. The dynamic is much longer lived than you think. Check out the book 'Bowling Alone'.

9rx 1 day ago||
> how is anybody supposed to meet anyone?

It used to be that you knocked on the door of the residence beside you.

> And now many of them prefer the internet over socializing with people they don't care for that much in person.

This is the crux of it. Your neighbours weren't ever likely to be your soulmate, but that is who was there to befriend, so you did. But now you don't have to. And since they now feel the same way, they aren't putting in the effort either.

Desafinado 1 day ago||
There is also the problem of familiarity. It's awkward.

Traditionally you'd live around the same people your whole life. Invariably they'd feel like family and it wouldn't feel awkward to get together. But that's not how modernity works. People move to different communities all the time, so it becomes difficult to build familial friendships with others.

That's the essential problem. The internet allows us to stay in touch with people who feel like family. That's what we want to do psychologically. If all those people were in the same city there'd be a lot more socializing.

9rx 1 day ago||
> People move to different communities all the time

Although now considerably less than in the past. Peak mobility occurred during the mid-1900s. Most, and increasingly more as time marches forward, will stay close to where they were born.

> That's the essential problem.

It is a problem for individuals in that situation, but does it explain a population-wide epidemic when most never actually leave their familial roots?

> If all those people were in the same city there'd be a lot more socializing.

I am among those who still live near where I was born and have known a lot of the people my whole life. Color me skeptical. Nobody has the time to. They're at work all day and when that's done it is into the car to drive their kid to who knows where to play in a sporting match thinking they are going to become a professional some day.

It was a little different 15-20 years ago. You used to be able to go down to the community centre on a Saturday night and the whole town would be there, ready to mingle. But it turns out the draw was really alcohol, and when police started cracking down on drunk drivers and health concern messaging started to gain attention, it all dwindled pretty quickly.

It's all about priorities, and socializing just isn't a priority for most people anymore. There are so many other things also vying for attention.

Desafinado 1 day ago||
I agree. When I say people lived in close proximity I don't mean 'across the city' or 'the next town over', I mean that traditionally you were actually in the same physical location where socializing required essentially no travel, and you'd often have to exist in communal spaces.

These days even people who are nearby are still far. That 30 minute drive both ways along with coordinating a time is a lot of extra work to add onto an already busy life.

But if these same people lived on your street you could just pop over for a quick coffee. As is what actually happens. My wife and I have socialized with new friends in our neighborhood more than close family lately because they're right around us. The kicker is we built the friendships through our kids school and repeated proximity rather than artificially.

zug_zug 1 day ago||
In my opinion, it's entirely possible to build a social network or social media that doesn't incentivize rage but one that leads to actual friendships. I don't think internet itself is the issue, I think that the existing options just maximize outrage/drama and other negative addictive qualities rather than the slow-burn good things.
ppeetteerr 1 day ago||
The US is structured to promote loneliness.

If you want to fix it:

- More free public spaces (parks with benches, squares)

- More free public events and activities (free concerts, art installations, plays)

- Greater physical proximity (it's hard to make eye contact if everyone drives)

- Wealth distribution (create a society where one's value is not based on their net worth)

- Encourage days off for community service

In other words, provide socially-funded incentives for people to be close to one another physically and remove income as a measure of value.

SchemaLoad 1 day ago||
Seen some of this happening in Melbourne, Australia, and it's almost suffering from too much success. Recently a free concert had to be canceled because tens of thousands of people showed up and they couldn't handle the numbers safely.

Very happy to see at least something is being tried to reverse the damage from covid.

barbs 1 day ago||
Shame, Amyl and the Sniffers would've put on a hell of a show ;)

I agree though, Melbourne is absolutely bursting at the seam with events, groups and activities in almost anything you could possibly be interested in. It's particularly noticeable for me coming from Sydney. I saw someone in a local FB group suggest holding a whip-cracking jam meetup in a park and it generated significant interest.

lanfeust6 1 day ago|||
The US is not lacking in public spaces, events and activities, or rec centres. The "loneliness epidemic" is a fairly modern phenomenon. Cities weren't structurally much different several decades ago, but now people choose not to leave the house, because they can amuse themselves to death there.
kruffalon 1 day ago||
Unionize! Unionize! Unionize!

So much of the pressure comes from horrendous working conditions from top to bottom.

And as a secondary effect unions require meetings and hopefully cross organising with other unions having different people in them.

When we get better working conditions, we will have more time to meet other people rather than to sit exhausted with our phones having all the parasocial relationships that drain our social batteries without really connecting with a real person.

agnishom 21 hours ago||
Keep in mind that the answer to this question is likely multifaceted. That is, there isn't going to be one killer policy or app or attitude or event which will solve this problem, but it would require a multi-pronged approach.
helaciousjoe 1 day ago||
Rely on someone that is social or be that person to organize things.

I’m ultra depressed so I have just been relying on others.

You know the people that are the most lonely? Old widows/widowers that spend too much time in their houses.

Luckily I’m an introvert. But, even if you are, you should get out and do something.

Your health and mental wellness depend on socializing IRL.

6r17 1 day ago||
I'm wondering if there are any research groups led by sociologist that explore this topic which may be helped by a group of volunteer ?

I've always wondered why applications like Tinder etc... have not been completely destroyed by open-source already ?

We also forget that communities are essentially what allowed this escape in the first place ; I remember going to psytrance festivals but there are so many more escapes : theater, cinema groups, even in tech you have meetings for rust, programming languages and what not

There is definitely some kind of knowledge around being active in life ; and on that point I do not think that working count as active (I'm myself a workaholic so i'm definitely not the best example here)

There are other drivers for isolation than not knowing how to integrate though - it's not always easy to find people who share those common interest or mindset.

It's a very polarized time period which only exaggerate this - the best way to fight it off is to literally do something meaningless with people (eg : play)

Centigonal 1 day ago||
> I've always wondered why applications like Tinder etc... have not been completely destroyed by open-source already ?

Same reason why Signal hasn't mogged WhatsApp, Telegram, Messenger, etc. Social apps have enormous network effects, and companies with large marketing budgets and early movers have big advantages when it comes to establishing a community.

SchemaLoad 1 day ago||
The hard part of Tinder is not the software. It's marketing, moderation, balancing the needs of different users, etc. Something that makes the platform shitty for one type of user makes it more desirable for another.
indymike 1 day ago||
Social media and on demand media hijack the emotional triggers that would usually be resolved by talking to people. Some examples:

* In line at the BMV, bored and feeling lonely. Should resolve loneliness by talking to strangers in line... mostly chit-chat, but sometimes you make a friend! Social media turns this into doom scrolling.

* Sitting in the living room by yourself, feeling a little lonely. Should result in calling up a friend or relative, or heading to get a coffee/beer where you can interact with people. On demand media turns this into low risk watching shows (yes, old school TV was an option, but on demand, there's always something on that is interesting).

So the trick is to make yourself ask if you should give someone a call or go somewhere public when you are pulling out the phone with intent to scroll or watch a show. When you find something you are interested in because you are watching lots of videos about it, or replying on forums, force yourself to engage in the real world. If you are arguing politics, find a group advocating your position and get involved (I've got to meet three majority leaders and two Presidents, plus a bunch of congresspeople you see on the news all the time as a side effect of getting involved because I was pissed off on the internet about business taxation issues). If you find a hobby, find a local group that does that. Learning to play the guitar from YouTube was fun, but jamming with other musicians? Off the charts fun and far more educational that just playing along with videos.

Finally, and this is the big one, try to never eat meals alone. Never say no to going to lunch with coworkers. Join stuff that meets for breakfast. Dinners are hard, but it's surprising what happens when you invite a couple people over for dinner and a beer once in a while.

solatic 1 day ago||
Make Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing legal again.

Having barely room for little more than a bed forces you to get out during the day. Stuff happens when your default for where to spend your time is not at "home". SRO halls also usually had more room for common spaces to meet and socialize with other people in a similar position in life, and of course, SRO is a very cheap housing option.

b65e8bee43c2ed0 1 day ago|
have you ever lived in one?
solatic 1 day ago||
I lived on a kibbutz for nearly three years after university and had similar levels of personal space. While I definitely would not want to live on a kibbutz for my whole life, there were very significant downsides (internal politics), I made some lifelong friends there and overall consider that experience to have been very positive, in particular for my social life.
b65e8bee43c2ed0 1 day ago||
that's not comparable to SRO in the city, where you'd be sharing living space with far more diverse and vibrant characters. no one in their sane mind would choose to live in one of those, unless they were on the brink of homelessness.
solatic 23 hours ago||
Oh we definitely had diverse and vibrant characters, and that was part of what made living there fun. I also find it strange that in a page about solutions to loneliness, you reject one that, by your own admission, would introduce someone lonely to a wide variety of new people.

But if you're trying to use it as a euphemism for drug addicts, I think you'll often find that they end up homeless, despite there being SROs, because they spend their SRO rent on drugs instead, and they get evicted. If you're trying to use a euphemism for sex workers, the successful SROs usually had strict rules around the Single Resident part.

Basically it's just like hotels, in the sense that there are both seedy, run-down, crummy hotels and there are upscale hotels. That there are some crummy hotels is not an indictment of hotels in general. If you make the category legal, you will find worse and better examples, and lonely people would have their choice of establishment that would help put them back into close proximity with others.

b65e8bee43c2ed0 18 hours ago||
>I also find it strange that in a page about solutions to loneliness, you reject one that, by your own admission, would introduce someone lonely to a wide variety of new people.

I don't see how sharing the bathroom and the kitchen with alcoholics, drug addicts, ex-cons, and mentally ill could possibly alleviate one's loneliness. and trust me, even a few of those per floor are enough to make living there an unpleasant experience.

you picture SRO as some kind of hippie commune thing. it's not. again: no one in their sane mind actively chooses to live in such inhumane conditions. it is utterly bizarre to me that someone would romanticize sharing a toilet with fifty other people.

thom 1 day ago|
This is a minor thing, but as an introvert, I really try and push myself to model social behaviour to my kids. Saying good morning to people in the street, chatting to other dog owners, being nice to waiters, travelling by bus, there are lots of tiny opportunities every day to show that world is full of lovely people who aren’t scary at all.
More comments...