> 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.
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...?
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?
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.
> 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
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
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.
> 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.
> 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...
Repeatedly processing memory, recursively calling the same function without a limit :)
Annual sales of antidepressants in North America are about $8 billion.
> 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...?
My gut feeling says: don't ask me, I'm a gut.
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?
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.
That and powerpoint, obviously.
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.
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.
Social media, dating apps, even andrew tate was doing well till some point.
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.
They're called nightclubs and bars lol trust HN to be so insulated from the wider world
I think we are getting pretty close to that.
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.
What's undeniable is the disgusting monetization (and control) of connecting people.