[theboat]

Sometimes it feels like we're in the midst of a loneliness epidemic, created or exacerbated by technology like the internet. But the data doesn't actually line up with that belief: https://ourworldindata.org/loneliness-epidemic

It looks like we are generally as lonely as we were throughout the 20th century. Perhaps that's a sign the internet hasn't yet lived up to its promise as the great unifier. The fact that the greatest and most accessible communication technology in history hasn't put a dent in loneliness shows that we still have a lot of work to do in making it serve that end.

[brundolf]

Totally speculating, but I think cultural loneliness may be rooted in individualism. Which isn't to say individualism is intrinsically bad, but one of its trade-offs is the devaluation of relationships, especially ones you haven't gone out of your way to initiate and maintain.

Which is to say: the problem was never a lack of communication channels.

[AnthonyMouse]

I think there's something to what you're saying but the terms are slightly wrong. Individualism is ordinarily set in opposition to collectivism, but it's the bastardization of both that have created the problem.

On the one hand, social clubs have been evaporating. Bowling leagues, rotary clubs, ham radio clubs etc. They're fading, and this predates 2020. These things are compatible with individualism -- it's freedom of association. But in practice people aren't doing them as much anymore.

On the other hand, the bureaucratization of social assistance. If you need help you don't go to people in your community who already know your face and the specifics of your plight, you fill out a form on a computer and some algorithm decides whether you get a supermarket gift card.

Both of these trends are isolating but it's not because of where we put the trade off between individualism and collectivism, it's because we're doing both of them poorly.

[watwut]

I don't see how i could go to bowling league regularly and simultaneously keep full time job, be actual non absent parent for kids and maintain at least some relationship with extended family.

Bowling social clubs assume everyone has a lot of free time, does not have small kids or offloaded all kids care on partner.

[michaelt]

Many working parents can find ~2 hours, once or twice a week - especially once the kids are old enough not to need constant supervision.

It's not like you're a bad parent if you're only reading them a bedtime story 5 days a week instead of 7.

Of course, there are still a lot of things competing for that discretionary time - exercise, or a job with a longer commute, or socialising, or working late, or professional development, or volunteering, or a hobby, or relaxing, or political engagement.

And hell, if you like that extra 2 evenings reading bedtime stories more than you like bowling, that's a completely valid choice too. Wouldn't have had kids if you didn't like that sort of thing, after all.

[watwut]

Those social clubs took considerably more time then 2 hours a week. The aspect of it was that only one partner participated, it is not like they would switch. If one partner was member, the other got less me time.

And the other aspect that you unappreciate is that they were not time for yourself not time she you get rest and get to do what you want. They over time are another social obligation. You need me time on top of that.

Also, bedtime story is like 10 minutes typically. That is not the issue. The issue is that your partner wants free time too, so the sort of free time you have gotta be split fairly.

[michaelt]

> The issue is that your partner wants free time too, so the sort of free time you have gotta be split fairly.

Sure. So Mom helps with the homework on Mondays and Fridays, Dad helps with the homework on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and both parents help on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Bowling social clubs assume everyone has a lot of free time, does not have small kids or offloaded all kids care on partner.

Is this it? Widespread social isolation as the fallout of the two income trap? It could be.

[watwut]

One income plus social club still means you are not seeing kids much and your partner is basically single mom plus extra income.

[AnthonyMouse]

Maintaining a household really is at least a full time job. If you have a two income household, all that work still has to be done, so you go to work and then come home to a second job. Making the second job the full time job of the other person means each person now has an extra 20 hours a week. You could spend 10 hours a week at a social club and still be spending more time with your kids than you do now.

Meanwhile the money from the second job gets eaten up by commuting and childcare costs etc., and being thrust into a higher tax bracket, but also from having to outbid other two income households for artificially scarce housing in good school districts, which you can't avoid by not doing it yourself and so it's prisoner's dilemma. The two income trap is a real thing.

[jayski]

I think if you have small kids to look after, a partner to share this experience with, and extended family you keep a relationship with, - you have a beautiful life. Maybe just try to be more grateful, once the kids are a little older try to find an hour or two per week to hang out with friend.

[barry-cotter]

Are you assuming a full time job means 60 hours a week?

[watwut]

No, I am assuming 40-45 hours not counting lunch and transport to/ from work.I am assuming you shop, eat dinner, take showers and sleep. I am assuming that you take kids outside, feed them half time, interact with them, take them from kindergarten, ensure homework is done and generally raise them.

I am assuming that sometimes you need to be alone and just rest too. You can't spend all the time in obligations only without your moods being affected.

With 60 hours a week, the above itself is limited. Even without bowling league, with that much working you don't do anything else, you are work only person basically.

[barry-cotter]

You’re just saying you have other priorities that are higher than having a regular social engagement. That’s fine. If you don’t want to do anything other than work, keep up family ties, hang out with your children and spouse that’s fine. But other people feel they can do all of those to their satisfaction and have an ongoing social engagement.

[pvorb]

You don't have children, have you?

[barry-cotter]

One, how many do you have?

[jhanschoo]

Japan is known for being quite collectivist and lonely. Frequently heard is of people feeling that they don't fit in society.

[johnchristopher]

I am just connecting your comment about individualism and a tweet reply to a tweet that cited the fact that the TSA has recorded similar numbers of travellers on Christmas Eve compared to precovid days. It stated that it was because Americans value the economy and freedom over anything.

But that freedom is used by individuals to gather with others.

[yters]

I wonder if people just are not as good at being stimulation free and alone with their thoughts.