There’s one more state — a new kind of “alone connectedness” that most people seem to prefer, which has been fostered and magnified by the Internet and social platforms (I include HN as one of those).
Without even communicating with others, even if there are known people in physical proximity, many people feel connected just by being “lurkers” in their favorite corners of the Internet. This is not like passive watching of (live) TV, but is a bit more of a controlled and conscious exercise. So connectedness (as an oppposite of loneliness) is not just about actively interacting with others, but being in a place where relatable people exist. The same applies to outings too. Just being anywhere where other people seem to be is enough to feel it.
Your comment has inspired me to create an account, which I will likely not log in to again, simply to agree with you anecdotally in regards to the feeling of inter-connectedness experienced by lurkers.
I feel like I know many of you common posters, though you may never have known I existed up until reading this comment.
I had never really noticed or explored this phenomenon until you had mentioned it above.
When I was single and lived in London, I used to love walking through the city during the evening and into the night, being surrounded by people but not having to take part in any socialising. It's the flipside to the pleasure of being entirely alone when hillwalking in the middle of the Scottish highlands.
Yeah, that's a very interesting observation. I'm trying to think of pre-internet means of doing that... You can't really observe without being observed in the absence of a broadcast mechanism. You're just the weird person in the back who shows up but doesn't talk to anyone.
Might actually be a genuinely novel mode of interaction (if we can really call it "interaction").
I lived alone for almost 17 years in two different apartments (one for 11 of them) and this house until I got married, and even now my wife is overseas for months at a time right now because of what we've gotta do. Solitude is a big part of my life.
In the very beginning it could sometimes be very lonely even though I've known I was an introvert since junior high. The worst times were indeed when there was nothing to do. I have to confess the biggest motivator it took for me to evolve and embrace solitude was to realize my fellow medical students had lives of their own and my entire relevance to them was based on what I could fix for them, not who I was. This made me very bitter for awhile, but it also made me determined not to base my happiness on what anyone else thought. It was a lot easier in my second apartment where I had more room and a better layout for hobbies and many of these hobbies I found still bring me enjoyment today. I learned to be one on my own.
It is helpful my wife is also an introvert and we had been friends online for awhile before we dated, so she understood this perspective fairly instinctively.
I'm not even sure what the author means. The experience of loneliness I have isn't some artificial construct created by other humans, even if my loneliness is due a lack of interaction with other humans. And lots of social animals can experience loneliness.
I am very glad to know there are many people out there like myself. This article touched on many good points. I prefer to be alone about 70% of the time. I NEVER feel lonely, in fact just the opposite. I feel inspired in thought and connected to the massive pulsating power of our universe and everything in it. To be around people actually pulls me down into the superficiality of EGO which is not where I prefer to spend my time. I have practiced meditation for more than 10 years now and I credit this practice with allowing me to find comfort and power in Solitude. It really is a super power in today's world. I am completely comfortable with myself simply sitting on a bench doing nothing. I do not need more than that. There are certainly times where I do want to be around like minded people. I am constantly getting pressure from family etc.. to change my ways. The vast majority of people are obviously not like this.
> To be around people actually pulls me down into the superficiality of EGO which is not where I prefer to spend my time.
This is very true. Although I am not yet content to sit on a bench doing nothing (I'd prefer to read), solitude is a wonderful hiatus from the physical attachments that are sometimes needed in life. Making friends can often be a clashing of egos which eventually dissolves until you can see each other in a deeper way-- but before that, in a room full of people at a conference for example, all is just masks and shields and feints, the social game, which just comes down to beating around the bush. It's hard not to play the game, but the more comfortable I am in solitude, the more comfortable I am in subverting the game. I'm more honest now, willing to show people I am vulnerable without manipulation, that I am confident without arrogance, and I've formed deeper connections with others as a result. When you are authentic around others in the same way you are with yourself in solitude, the "right people" just come. I have found a lot of like-minded people this way, and having that enhances that inspiration and connection to "the massive pulsating power of our universe ".
You have probably already read it, but your post reminds me of the book, Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse, which is about the life's journey of Buddha, who also discovered that sitting alone was an experience he enjoyed greatly, an activity which gave way to Buddhism, whose ultimate goal is to eliminate human suffering caused by the ego. You seem to be saying the same thing in a different way, which is awesome.
Sorry for being pedantic but Siddharta is a story about someone who meets Buddha in person but instead of becoming a disciple he becomes enlightened himself through living a quiet live by a river.
Boy, HN loves articles about solitude and loneliness. And it's a distinction that often crops up in discussion here.
I think there's a balance here, and cultivating some amount of loneliness -- not solitude -- is also good. For example, two people in my life are "Alice" and "Bob", who have been married for decades. Alice once told me that one of Bob's great weaknesses was that he'd been alone for too long in his teens and 20s. This had benefits: Bob's social needs are low to non-existent, and while he has loving family and friends, he enjoys sustained solitude. For example, weeks of overseas travel where nobody knows him and he doesn't talk much are great fun for him.
The downside was that he got too used to this. Engaging with other people is messy and hard to control. If you don't have that gnawing bit inside that's hungry for attention and connection, it's easy to decide all that mess isn't worth it. That can hurt people who need those connections more, as they may feel themselves weak or pathetic by comparison. Relationships with other people can become strained if you are at least approximately self-sufficient.
Briefly, my point is most people need (or at least want) to be needed. Somebody who's truly content with solitude isn't going to put that need out there, so relationships with such a person might be more difficult. Of course, too much need is another problem. But a little need seems good.
(This point is pretty tailored to the HN community, which appears to have a lot of stoicism and solitude devotees. I like both too, but I think the point above is worth remembering. The mutual exchange of vulnerabilities is an important component of close friendships.)
I agree, and I'd add to your definition to say that the ultimate bonding occurs through finding joy in the mutual exchange of vulnerabilities.
For example, last night my wife and I were not seeing eye to eye on how we saw our future. I was busy trying to make her see my side, but it wasn't until I was willing to give up and do things her way that she came around and agreed with my perspective.
It was not because I was wrong, it was because I wasn't recognizing her point of view, and that made her feel vulnerable. The joy we experienced mutually at recognizing one another's vulnerabilities is still–the next morning–a sublime feeling, the ultimate experience in life perhaps.
> weeks of overseas travel where nobody knows him and he doesn't talk much are great fun for him
This sounds like me. I once went to a week long conference where I realized at the end that during the entire week I could count on 2 hands the number of words I had spoken to other people during that time. I don't have the desire or need to speak with other people. I'm happy with my own thoughts. Or as Jane Austen wrote, "Her own thoughts and reflections were habitually her best companions."
>>I don't have the desire or need to speak with other people. I'm happy with my own thoughts.
I used to believe this about myself too. Then one day I came to the profound realization that I do in fact have both the need and the desire to talk to others. I had just been suppressing it by using my own thoughts as a distraction.
Well, I’ve been married for 23 years and we have 7 kids. Plus I have tons of friends. I have no problem finding people to talk to. But I know myself. I truly have no need or desire to talk to others.
As with all things when humans are involved, it is definitely complicated. A person who is alone and comfortable with that might be that way because they have a healthy philosophical outlook and derive their self valuation from objective places rather than through reflections of what others think or believe about themselves.... or they could be comfortable because they have retreated in fear from the evaluations of others, and out of a desire to opt out of the battle for social status not because they have any sort of realization about social status but because they are afraid of failing.
Humans are tremendously varied, and in any group that is comfortable with solitude you will probably end up with representatives from many different sources of motivation for that. For everyone, though, I think there is definite benefit in either seeking to know one's self better or in seeking to understand the outlook other people have. By default we pretty much assume that everyone is mostly like us and this shortsightedness can lead to some pretty nasty evaluations of others who act in ways incongruous with the evaluators own worldview.
The article mentions that we invest a great deal in teaching children how to be social, but fail to prepare them for being alone. I would argue that we don't do a very good job with teaching kids to be social either, but we do certainly invest a great deal more on that side of things. It's one of those sorts of things that would be very difficult to change. If the parent or other teacher is not comfortable with solitude themselves, the only way to equip a child with a better capacity for it would require the teacher to actively teach things that they personally do not feel to be true. Very many parents, it seems to me anyway, are not emotionally mature enough to tackle this. A child which is comfortable with and who seeks solitude is literally worrisome for most parents today. That's the "loner", the "quiet one" that all of the lists of 'warning signs' for everything from suicide to school shootings are topped with.
> A child which is comfortable with and who seeks solitude is literally worrisome for most parents today.
That is probably because success in society requires socialization. A child eschewing social interaction for solitude is missing the opportunity to fail socially when stakes are relatively low (even if they feel world-ending to the child). I don't want my child to go play with friends because I'm concerned about suicide or school shootings. I want my child to go out and play because I'm concerned about career networks, personal safety, and a lasting support network outside of me.
That's certainly been my experience. Relationships and friendships tend to fall apart if one of them is emotionally self-sufficient. The core relationship-driver of emotional neediness and desire that's apparently the natural state for many appears to be both the glue that binds and the carrot to actually bother building relationships in the first place.
> Bob's social needs are low to non-existent, and while he has loving family and friends, he enjoys sustained solitude. For example, weeks of overseas travel where nobody knows him and he doesn't talk much are great fun for him. ... It's easy to decide all that mess isn't worth it.
This sounds like me. I prefer — have learned to prefer — solitude, and prefer to enter human interaction only when I can withdraw from it at will without any awkwardness.
"The mutual exchange of vulnerabilities" often ends in bitterness, especially in cultures where putting yourself in a vulnerable position is seen as naiveté and the "streetwise" are ready to take advantage of those who do the former.
> For example, weeks of overseas travel where nobody knows him and he doesn't talk much are great fun for him.
I've lived the solo traveler lifestyle for nearly 4 years and I think this fits the portrait of most other solo travelers that I've encountered. But there's a bit more to it.
The article talks of solitude vs loneliness. I think that the word solitude does not even do enough justice to that longing. I've had people ask me if I don't feel lonely by traveling the way I do and what I answer is that I feel free. Freedom is the term that describes this state with the most accuracy.
In my experience solo travelers are comfortable socializing as long as their freedom is not threatened. For instance, I've resided in guesthouses where other travelers would stay for extended periods, weeks, months, sometimes years even. Similarly I've worked in coworking spaces where I've met other solo travelers. In all such instances they connect with others, engage in and even organize events and gatherings, etc. The bonds are genuine and can even be quite profound, like meeting a kindred spirit. A little community can effectively form. A community of people, sometimes alone, together. There's an implicit understanding though that we're just sharing a moment, people don't impose their agenda onto you. If you don't feel like joining the hiking party to the lake, you can just stay home with little guilt other than what you might be missing out on. Else strap on your boots and off you go. but Everyone has their own path and is writing their own story. You're the only one to know when it's time for you to close a chapter and start a new one. And when the time comes and you announce to friends that you feel like moving on to new adventures, nobody wonders why. People just get you. It's your time to go. Come departure day, hugs and kisses are exchanged, contact information shared, tentative plans to reconnect in some tentative future and place are made, all with no guarantee or obligation. Then it's Godspeed and Happy Trails to you!
I've also witnessed the bitterness that can develop when such solo travelers find themselves paired up for extended periods with someone who does not share those independent inclinations. Which could be what "Alice" was labeling a weakness.
> Relationships with other people can become strained if you are at least approximately self-sufficient.
If I (or anyone) is happier in solitude than in interacting with person X, it strikes me as quite patronizing to come to the conclusion that 'gosh, they may feel weak, better throw them a bone.' It simply means that the two people in question should probably seek out others to meet their respective companionship needs.
Self-sufficient people are not 'defective' any more than more social types are. People who are self-actualized do not owe more social people anything, any more than someone who craves social activity should force themselves into loneliness to meet the more independent person's wishes. They're just different personalities, and both have their own value.
>The mutual exchange of vulnerabilities is an important component of close friendships.
I do not think this is a universal. This has never been the case in any of my friendships, and I am not a misanthrope. I feel lucky to be able to say that I have lifelong, close friends, whose company I greatly enjoy. What we all have in common, even though we are all very different people, is enough comfort and trust in one another to be able to speak our minds freely, without any reservations, even when we know the other will disagree. The discussions that come of it are treasures.
Hmm, maybe I phrased my original comment incorrectly. I'm not trying to say that self-sufficiency is bad, but rather that loneliness is not entirely bad, and indeed a little neediness maybe appreciated by people close to you. I think at least low levels of this need are present in almost everybody, even many HN stoic types who've come to believe that true self-sufficiency is a worthy goal. Especially for those people, I think paying attention to that kind of loneliness can actually be good.
I don't think we particularly disagree overall- I completely agree with you in that most everyone appreciates feeling useful and helpful to the ones we care about.
It is just that I chafe at the word neediness. Speaking just for myself- If I were to suddenly succumb to the Bus Factor, I know all of my friends would be just fine. Sad, but fine. They don't 'need' me. (This is not a self-esteem issue- the same is true in reverse.) But this actually makes me feel good, in the sense that I have trust in them to carry on doing the things we all enjoy, even if something bad happens to any one of us. We still improve each other's lives while we're here! I feel that this is a healthy form of peer relationship. Compare that to a situation where someone genuinely 'needs' something about our relationship. At that point, it becomes more of a caretaker role, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't personally see it as nearly as comforting, in either direction.
This comment might sound like I'm being difficult, but I'm genuinely asking.
You imply a downside for Bob in his avoidance of shared-vulnerability-relationship, you didn't explicitly state it - you said it hurts others who have expectations over him. Maybe the details of their marriage, which are none of my business, are where the answer is - but my question is: what is the downside for him?
Maybe the downside is that Bob will observe that others express displeasure at his behavior, having let down their expectations(maybe unreasonable) of him. Now Bob isn't callous by nature so this will weigh upon his conscience.
I think HN loves these articles because HN's users skew introverted. Like most of my friends, they love sharing articles like this or the "care and feeding of your introvert" which seems to make the rounds of my social media every few years.
If you think things like "Engaging with other people is messy and hard to control." - this is an introverted viewpoint. The assumption you are making is that engaging with people is draining, you need something to push you to do it or... you just won't.
I'm in a weird space - I'm an extrovert, but I functioned as an Introvert for most of my life. I'm transgender, so as a child and a young adult, I put constant and tremendous energy into conforming to my assigned at birth gender. It made every social interaction, especially with strangers, feel like a drain. I would much rather be at home playing video games where I could play characters I identified with or where gender was not a factor at all. It's part of what drew me to engineering to begin with; computers neither knew nor cared about your gender.
I'm not like that at all now. I go to large gatherings where I know nobody and walk out with new friends. I go to clubs, I date heavily, I dress flashy, I'm constantly interacting with new people and even an awkward mess of an interaction is a good story to tell. Even the video games I play are mostly so I can talk to other people about them. Engaging with other people doesn't feel messy at all to me.
What makes this really relevant is - growing up introverted, my choice of career (as an engineer) and historically friends has left me surrounded by introverts. Who totally misunderstand our motivations sometimes.
For instance, becoming a manager - going to meetings and interacting with people all day? That sounds like the dream. But when I say that it catches people off guard; doesn't every engineer hate those parts of management? Isn't the only upside of being a manager the ability to make decisions?
Or when recruiters are pitching jobs to me, all I really care about is the people, the position, how I'll interact with my coworkers day to day. I can learn a new tech stack. I can and have moved anywhere from front end to devops. But the reality is that if I don't like the people, if I don't have a social engagement to the work - ideally with a lot of pairing, mentoring, and other opportunities for social interaction - I'll lose motivation. Remote only is my worst nightmare, and "we split the work up and go off to our desks for a few days" drives me nuts. But the social environment is almost never pitched.
But Engineering is full of introverts, so it is a context where, for once, the extroverts are the rare and misunderstood breed :P.
> For me, the upside is in coaching and growing talent, or finding the right chemistry to enable work otherwise not possible.
Well then that makes two of us. Watching the junior people grow is among my favorite things. I have seriously considered teaching as a profession though economic incentives are what they are.
It's very refreshing to see such a viewpoint on chemistry. I've never even seen the chemistry be considered in any staffing or team decision (at least openly), or a manager put effort into fixing a broken relationship. It feels like interpersonal chemistry is almost entirely ignored in favor of skill set or basic resource allocation.
For example, I had a coworker I simply could not get along with (and the feeling was mutual). We were on a two person team so all of my work went through that coworker. I told my boss (repeatedly, over the course of most of a year) that I would rather work with anyone else in the company, and I needed to do so at least some because I was getting burned out. His solution was to make that coworker (on our two person team) my boss, since he didn't have time to manage the relationship.
It made sense from a pure resource point of view; the relationship was showing signs of needing managing and not getting it, so by promoting a new manager, that would happen. There were two of us in a somewhat isolated area, and nobody else really had the skill set for that area, so technically we were the best match.
But it totally ignored the people chemistry - the fact that the two of us would argue for hours over the most ridiculous things (quite visibly), and both feared the other's reaction to any work we did. I don't question my coworker's competence, we were simply on opposite ends of ideological extremes on too many things for that to ever have worked. It would have been far better to have me switch roles, split my time, train someone on the skills needed, just about anything else. The actual solution, naturally, felt like a slap to the face.
I like to think of it as an experiential stimulus maximizing function. Intelligent people may find it more stimulating to stay “closed-loop” but I’ve seen people open up to a great extent if/when they find something/someone with higher stimulus potential.
I actually think the author is really smart to point out boredom as an ingredient in the mix. I’m friends with a pretty successful writer who told me a couple of months ago how hard it was to get bored in the modern world, and yet, if you aren’t kind of bored, it is very hard to access the full extent of your imagination to come up with ideas that no one else would.
I agree. As a writer, when I get stuck, lying on the floor, staring at the ceiling, and doing nothing is usually my most productive time. Also, taking naps is great for productivity.
I enjoy solitude because I've always had this fear of being a burden to someone else. I take pride in my self sufficiency because of this - I seek to be a provider, not a consumer.
Though more recently I've started to see this behavior as a defense mechanism against predatory people. I've been an observer of many dinner table conversations among rent-seeking types, which slowly erodes away my faith in people (the current commander-in-chief of the US is the perfect physical manifestation of this type of thinking - the "I was here first so now I can extract wealth from society" mentality. And it works, because people are eager to pay for luxury real estate)
But I digress. And digression is a consequence of solitude since you are not frequently bouncing ideas between other people. It can become a self imposed echo chamber, rationalizing things the way you want without a reality check.
As pessimistic as I sound, I know that there are many pure, selfless people in the world. Lots of them have YouTube channels that I'll check up on every few weeks. I want to find more of them and shower them with resources.
Apologies for the stream of consciousness format. Apparently I'm leaning more towards loneliness than solitude at the moment, and this article is a prompt to share something outside of my own head.
>I enjoy solitude because I've always had this fear of being a burden to someone else. I take pride in my self sufficiency because of this - I seek to be a provider, not a consumer.
Wow, that actually resonates with my own actions. I like people, but I'm always wary of the costs of interacting with them.
One of the better of the many (many!) articles on loneliness that have cropped on HN recently. Dovetails nicely with the Digital Nomad post from yesterday.
Solitude isn't lonely because you're spending time with yourself - it's a self-imposed retreat in order to write, code, make music, build or reflect. As a result, it's often self-actualizing and you like this version of yourself very much.
Loneliness, conversely - especially the kind which manifests despite being in a crowded room - can stem from the feeling that one belongs in a different place, with different people, doing different things. For this is this it? type of loneliness, increased solitude, paradoxically, is often the way to escape it.
I crave solitude yet I still feel lonely, like I'm missing a tribe. I haven't had a chance to be alone by myself for more than an hour for the last few months since I moved in with my boyfriend.
I went from lonely entrepreneur to my social bar overflowing into the red zone, where any additional social obligation is a sacrifice of me time. I love my partner, he is the best person ever, but he can't be everything, like sharing my passion about period poverty as much as I can hahaha. I have a loving tribe of wonderful partner, family, and friends but I'm still searching for weirdos like me, entrepreneurs that are more interested in building sustainable and ethical business practices than making money. In that sense, I crave solitude but I still feel lonely, like I'm missing out on very meaningful relationships with people with similar goals and passions.
I've always thought that our contemporary world pushes these two sometimes contradictory ideas on us: that we are unique individuals and that we are supposed to have a "tribe" of people like ourselves. The more "unique" you become (or the more intimately you know yourself) the more you're able to draw differences between you and others which impedes finding your "tribe." It's a trope in media to have a "friend group" of people that share certain core, common, traits but these are entirely artificial constructs that don't accuractely reflect the messy business of human relationships. The sleight of hand comes about when we begin to feel as if WE are missing out, as if WE have failed, and not that this artificial notion that's been distilled in us is in actuality unreasonable and unrealistic.
It seems to me like gregarious people and loners can be after the same thing. Some people want acceptance and approval from others whereas other people have more of an inner connection to the same source.
What is the source? We don't understand (yet) but it's an interesting clue that the things other people like about you aren't necessarily the things you like about yourself.
> Needing to be alone after school or work is not quite the same as being alone 24/7 for months.
Yes that is a different kind of solitude, this is more of a distinction between people who are part of society but with minimal social interaction, and those who seek maximal interaction and have some kind of dysfunction without it (e.g depression).
I'm more part of the former group, I don't usually seek out social interaction but don't shun it either. I enjoy interesting conversations with people but I never feel lonely in their absence. I suspect this may have more to do with what else fills a persons life, rather than some deeper psychological difference (or some crude dichotomy such as introvert vs extrovert as many probably attribute it to).
We are totally dependent on others to feel good. It is how we are wired as social creatures. Every single person, without exception, begins their life needy of another's approval and attention. The attention of others is how we construct ourselves.
Over time, we lose part but not all of that need, in different ways, depending on the interpersonal dynamic with our parents. A healthy person's end result is a healthy balance of dependence: too much can be limiting to a person's own agency, while too little means a miserable, lonely existence.
It's not weak to be dependent on others. On the contrary, it requires emotional strength — a strength which is built. Typically by families, but sometimes by close friends, caregivers, or significant others.
>We can’t simply be. We feel compelled to always do.
>We can’t allow ourselves a moment of self-inflicted boredom.
>We’re scared of where this boredom will take us.
>Of what we will hear in our heads if we lapse into true silence: hopes, dreams, shame, embarrassment… Fear of failure.
>We want to be entertained, constantly. The alternative — introspection — intimidates us.
I don't know about this one. I'm sure it's different for everyone, but boredom to me comes from "being entertained". My inspiration to "do" rather than to "be" comes from introspection. I'm rarely satisfied unless I'm learning about something or contributing to something-- and usually I like to do this alone, because I know what I like to learn and contribute and only I can do that best. Everything goes wrong when I seek out entertainment, so I usually don't.
These lines are kind of patronizing, or feel that way. Not everyone seeks out online psuedo-connection because they're afraid of being alone; some of us, most of us, have an idea of our direction in life, know what we're doing and why.
Maybe the article is a message to those who actually feel lonely. I'm not sure. But I disagree with a few sentiments.
I second this. Someone who is alone yet spends large chunks of their time on entertainment (facebook, instagram, snapchat, netflix, etc.) may just be deferring being "in the moment" and the positive benefits or learning, working or thinking alone are not realized in that case.
I see some of you commenting about being introvert and liking to be alone, but still feeling the sting of loneliness. I just wanted to share an excerpt from the abstract of Robert Burton's wonderful Anatomy of Melancholy published in 1621. I think the alternating allure of solitude is at the base of being human.
Friends and companions get you gone,
'Tis my desire to be alone;
Ne'er well but when my thoughts and I
Do domineer in privacy.
No Gem, no treasure like to this,
'Tis my delight, my crown, my bliss.
All my joys to this are folly,
Naught so sweet as melancholy.
'Tis my sole plague to be alone,
I am a beast, a monster grown,
I will no light nor company,
I find it now my misery.
The scene is turn'd, my joys are gone,
Fear, discontent, and sorrows come.
All my griefs to this are jolly,
Naught so fierce as melancholy.
He’s not too convinced at first. But most of the time he ends up with something fun. Which I use as an example the next time he says That he’s bored. As a single child he’s already used to spend some time alone. So it’s relatively rare that we hear “I’m bored”.
I enjoy solitude because I've always had this fear of being a burden to someone else. I take pride in my self sufficiency because of this - I seek to be a provider, not a consumer.
Though more recently I've started to see this behavior as a defense mechanism against predatory people. I've been an observer of many dinner table conversations among rent-seeking types, which slowly erodes away my faith in people (the current commander-in-chief of the US is the perfect physical manifestation of this type of thinking - the "I was here first so now I can extract wealth from society" mentality. And it works, because people are eager to pay for luxury real estate)
But I digress. And digression is a consequence of solitude since you are not frequently bouncing ideas between other people. It can become a self imposed echo chamber, rationalizing things the way you want without a reality check.
As pessimistic as I sound, I know that there are many pure, selfless people in the world. Lots of them have YouTube channels that I'll check up on every few weeks. I want to find more of them and shower them with resources.
Apologies for the stream of consciousness format. Apparently I'm leaning more towards loneliness than solitude at the moment, and this article is a prompt to share something outside of my own head.
I feel the article does a poor job of summarizing the problem with loneliness (the diff between a need for socialization and one's ability to receive it) and solitude (the act of being alone). We all have a different need for aloneness, our buckets of social contact are of varying depth and, at different times, feel fuller or less full.
The best thing to do, IMHO, is to look inside and ask yourself what it is you want to feel less lonely:
- Are you feeling lonely because you are escaping a feeling or because you need to connect and you cannot?
- Is there something you can do today so your future self is not feeling lonely?
- Can you focus on upcoming engagements to feel comfortable being alone today?
- Are there people you can text a quick "hi" to fill that sense of longing, even just momentarily?
- Are there little pleasures that you've been neglecting that might only be done when you're alone?
It's not simple but the idea of looking inwards is easier than pretending to be a whale. ;)
On the contrary, any social animal can get lonely. There's a wide range of behavior in the socialization of animal species. Even slime moulds are highly social. What is considered healthy or helpful social behavior varies, both by species and by groups. Therefore, trying to extrapolate lessons about human social behavior from the frequency of whale calls may not be very useful.
Loneliness is an unpleasant experience caused by a biological motivator to seek out social contact. If you're a social animal and you don't have contact with social animals when you would normally want it, you will feel some form of loneliness. Loneliness is subjective because it is a symptom of a subject's need not being fulfilled, and those needs can vary.
Solitude is more complex than loneliness. Solitude is the state of being secluded or isolated, and may or may not be chosen. When compared to loneliness, it can be considered a positive, whereas loneliness is a negative.
While loneliness is a symptom of a lack of social connection, solitude has a vast array of features. Prolonged solitude can cause mental instability such as hallucination, time distortion, psychosis, and other negative physiological reactions. But solitude can also enhance self-esteem and creativity and be personally gratifying.
"How to be satisfied with being alone" could be more simply described as the ability to understand a particular need and how to deal with it. You may not be able to eliminate the need, because you don't necessarily have full control over the thoughts in your head, nor your situation. Mental illness and physical isolation, for example, can prevent you from eliminating the need for social connection. A child, adolescent, or teen also doesn't have much agency, and can have difficulty managing their thought processes. But an adult with full agency and who is mentally healthy can probably address their symptoms of loneliness.
So, how to be alone? I would say, first learn to understand why you are lonely, and whether this need serves a useful purpose. Then, find healthy ways to choose to experience solitude, and make it personally fulfilling. That's my take on it, anyway.
I'm really surprised of the thread here, considering nothing is faster calling out people overstepping the bounds of their credibility than HackerNews, usually.
The author wildly mixes statistic sources with inspirational tinder-quotes, mentions research about that abnormal whale, than boils it down to grandma-psychology and does a general bad job separating "my opinion", "read somewhere" and "credible source".
In a similar fashion, comments here confusing anecdotes with science and vice versa. Of course loneliness is compared to network-cryptography a wider experienced phenomenon and can be discussed on a personal level if you declare that, but I find it very hard to extract anything of value here...
Without even communicating with others, even if there are known people in physical proximity, many people feel connected just by being “lurkers” in their favorite corners of the Internet. This is not like passive watching of (live) TV, but is a bit more of a controlled and conscious exercise. So connectedness (as an oppposite of loneliness) is not just about actively interacting with others, but being in a place where relatable people exist. The same applies to outings too. Just being anywhere where other people seem to be is enough to feel it.