"Loneliness is distinct from the number of friends a person has or how much time he or she spends alone, but is rather defined by a longing for greater social interaction."
I think this is a good distinction to make. Something I've been realizing from the way I see other people talk about and deal with being alone in situations, is that I have a much higher-than-usual tolerance for solitude. (Maybe a trait shared by others here on HN because of our interests and pastimes?) I'm pretty sure I can be in an isolated place for months at a time. (Of course I'd want the internet, books, music etc... being alone like in The Shining or in solitary confinement is a whole different situation.)
For me, it's more than just a "tolerance for solitude", I feel I have an occasional active desire for solitude. A few times a year I'll explicitly hide out for the weekend and avoid all outside communication. It's probably one of the reasons I like motorcyling so much - even when I'm out riding with friends, there's a thing a friend of mine calls "shared solitude" when your alone inside your helmet even if you've got 4 or 5 friends along for the ride - I often spend a day "out riding with friends" when really, we just stop and meet up every 2 hours for fuel/food, and spend the rest of our time alone but riding in close proximity.
I agree. Too often we forget that connection is a human thing. We think that snapping funny faces 4 times a day makes us connected but it is the opposite. One thing that I noticed when I started online dating is that it was really easy to get to know things about someone but really hard to get to know them. What really makes them them? It takes human interaction to learn that.
I'd say instead of calling it the opposite of human connection, it's more like a fraction of what human connection is. It's just enough to quell the desire to meet up with people in real life, but it's not enough to make it feel very meaningful.
Air with 0.00002% oxygen isn't technically the "opposite" of breathable air either, but if it fills the lungs ("quells" the space for other air), the effects are the "opposite" of the purpose of breathing.
Same. As long as I have my books, I'm a happy man. I know it's not healthy but I have stayed in my apartment for a few days at a time and not really noticed. Cabin fever catches up eventually and it's always great to see friends though I find I have to slow down sometimes when talking to them.
You're lonely if you have solitude but want social interaction.
It's very easy to enjoy solitude if it's only temporary. If during that period you lose the friends you had, eg moving country, it can be very hard to build up connections again.
Then if you do want social interaction again, suddenly you can't have it and you become lonely.
So don't be too smug about enjoying solitude. Don't lose the important interactions as you never know when you'll need them.
The amount of time involved here matters. Do you enjoy solitude for a week/month/year/decade. Do you want that solitude when you're 80?
Yeah I don't necessarily seek out solitude, just noticing as a personality trait that I'm more OK with it than many other people. I always have something going on whether it's work, personal projects, etc. so I don't mind if, for example, I'm sitting in an office by myself. Whereas others want more of a 'buzz' around them. That kinda thing.
I'm much the same, but I'd say that regular contact with people does have a levelling effect - it's harder for stress to take hold long term, and it provides a distraction from whatever negative internal dialogue you may suffer. Also, the longer you spend not interacting with others, the less practised and potentially more problematic it may become.
I can second your observation. With me though I do like to go out in public/to different locations (e.g. library or park) even if I don't actually interact with people there (whereas being alone in a room for months on end would be quite unpleasant, then again even if there was another person there it would probably still be unpleasant).
>Then, the researchers gave each participant nasal drops containing rhinovirus 39, one of the viruses responsible for the common cold, sequestered them in separate hotel rooms for five days and asked them to record how they felt.
They consider the potential for long term harm, of any kind, and the possible benefits and then advise. Rhinovirus 39 is unpleasant, but neither traumatic nor dangerous in healthy subjects. There is also no issue of zoonotic transmission leading to potential for dangerous mutations within a reservoir.
Edit: Rhinovirus 39 is also incredibly well studied, cheap, and easy to inoculate a subject with.
not badly managed... I just didn't think it was okay to make people sick for your study; perhaps "I don't understand what standards are applied by the ethics board." would have been more correct.
It’s a risk/benefits balance. Rhinovirus 39 is very low risk, especially under controlled conditions. Loneliness in the developed Western world is a growing problem, so gaining a better understanding of what impact it will have has clear benefits.
It sounds like lonely people are adapted to being lonely by reducing viral defenses (unnecessary without people around) and increasing bacterial (inflammatory) defenses.
It would be interesting to test this in a third group of people whom I'd term solitary, i.e. alone by choice and comfortable with it.
I would expect that if this common cold virus had such an effect it would have been noticed by someone before now. I'm not a doctor or anything, but it just seems unlikely.
"Compared to the 48 hours pre-exposure, participants interacted with significantly more people, and in significantly larger groups, during the 48 hours immediately post-exposure [to a directly transmitted human pathogen-flu virus]."
I think many of us suffer from being alone not only in the "without people" category but also fear silence and being with ourselves without distractions of any kind. We want to forget the uncertainties and mysteries of life, which can scare us tremendously.
I've been in this process in my life in which I've learned to be with myself and face some of the fears that show up when you are with yourself only. The fear will always be there, but it can be tamed and lose its influence on you. Doing so has been very empowering to me. I'm no longer so much looking for other people and constant distractions out of fear, and that is liberating. I tend to look for those things now out of pleasure. This also has a positive effect on who you accept in your life.
I wonder how much of what they call the physical pain of being lonely, the toxicity and potential life-span shortening of a lonely person just fear mismanaged.
I can understand that it's probably not the finest source for summarizing research, but it is the largest newspaper, and the country's de facto newspaper of record. It's not like it's the New York Post.
In a hunter-gatherer society you'd have far higher chances of survival in a team/tribe. I don't find it surprising at all that feeling lonely (a desire to be part of a tribe) would have such a strong impact on mental (and therefore physical) health. It would act as a strong drive for the lonely person to change their situation, potentially improving their chances of survival and reproduction.
From an evolutionary perspective it's little different to starvation. In fact, you could define loneliness as "social starvation".
I think this is a good distinction to make. Something I've been realizing from the way I see other people talk about and deal with being alone in situations, is that I have a much higher-than-usual tolerance for solitude. (Maybe a trait shared by others here on HN because of our interests and pastimes?) I'm pretty sure I can be in an isolated place for months at a time. (Of course I'd want the internet, books, music etc... being alone like in The Shining or in solitary confinement is a whole different situation.)