6 ms·
No, there is no epidemic of loneliness
- maxxxxx 8y agoI think it's pretty safe to ignore anything David Brooks is writing. He has a long track record of describing bogus societal trends.
- aklemm 8y agoAgreed. Not only is his writing just a bunch of loose thoughts imagined into very Brooks-centric concept, this is also the guy who left his wife of 20 years for a woman 25 years his junior. How do they spend their time? He pimps work like "The Road to Character" and she leads an institute that studies and teaches "character". Just...what?
- gooseus 8y agoI haven't read much else he's written, but I did enjoy The Road to Character... should I now be suspicious of the claims he makes about the people he described?
- aklemm 8y agoWell, no, I will admit you can probably still get quite a lot out of it. I mean, I believe he's trying to do good work, but I put him in the same category as Thomas Friedman and Charlie Rose. That is, extraordinary media people with great potential who just can't get over themselves.
- hindsightbias 8y agohttps://fair.org/extra/david-brooks-vs-the-real-world/ https://fair.org/extra/david-brooks-vs-the-real-world/ He's been around for decades, dutifully moving the goalposts being the 'reasonable' guy. But now he's just appalled the people he thought he spoke for voted for _that_ guy. I do like that he's still around for the NYT's commenters. They remember everything.
- bauerd 8y agoIf his writing is that bad, maybe criticise that instead of his private life?
- aklemm 8y agoIt only works that way up to a point. That point is when the private stuff is either illegal or is directly relevant to the work, as in this case. #metoo anyone?
- bauerd 8y agoPlease elaborate how his divorce is either illegal or directly relevant to his writing
- aklemm 8y agoCharacter is a theme (and title!) of many of his writings. Ending an avowed life-time commitment in the circumstances around the way he did it brings that into question. We should all be questioning it, even if we're free to come to different conclusions.
- gkya 8y ago> an avowed life-time commitment That's everything what modern marriage today isn't. That's basically a religious view of marriage, which can freely exist, but has no legal binding at all, and whether divorce is ethical or not for one or some religions/"philosophies" is not necessarily universal.
- aklemm 8y agoIf that were the case, no one would bother with marriage. It would be completely meaningless. This is an incredibly naive view. The relevant question is not whether it's legal nor what one's religion has to say on the matter. The question is whether he showed character, and we can evaluate that by whether he lived up to his word and--especially--by how his wife took it.
- gaius 8y agoAlso Charles Blow. No idea why the NYT continues to employ them. Krugman is obviously writing comedy pieces...
- greesil 8y agoTragedies might be a better description.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- hunter23 8y agoThe question is to ask though is if the New York Times prides themselves on their quality of journalism - why do they continue employing him? Why does the top US newspaper continue to publish his articles? While I like a lot of the New York Times content (their investigative journalism is top notch), I question what their vision is if they continue publishing his stories. His gaffes (not citing sources, not vetting sources, not issuing corrections) go against the basis principles of science, social sciences, and journalism. Simply put, he shouldn't be allowed to publish in any paper that takes itself seriously.
- maxxxxx 8y agoIt's a matter of "balance". Get a right wing writer, left wing writer, diversity writer, business writer and so on. Brooks is the "reasonable" right wing guy. I would be fine if they cancelled all opinion pieces and just reported news but I don't think that would sell.
- maxerickson 8y agoBut people are taking this a step too far here. Just because Brooks says something doen't mean the opposite is true.
- dmschulman 8y agoFischer summarizes: A layperson might ask, What difference—besides diss’ing social scientists—does it make if these interesting articles about loneliness growing are off a bit? First, they are off a lot. But more important, they are a critical distraction. Chatter about feelings (of mainly affluent folks) distracts us from the many real crises of our time—say, widened inequality, children growing up in criminally and chemically dangerous neighborhoods, the dissolution of job security for middle Americans, drug addiction, housing shortages (where the jobs are), a medical system mess, hyper-partisanship, and so on. That’s what makes the loneliness scare not just annoying but also another drag on serious problem-solving. Ahh the cruelty of science. I would agree that the claim Brooks, an op-ed writer, made is overblown and sensationalized a bit in order to get readers interested, but that doesn't make those who are indeed lonely, and those who the NY Times article focuses on, any less lonely or visible. It seems like the post's author is dismissing that there are lonely people out there because Brooks wrote something that overstates their numbers. As any social scientist would tell you, even the best numbers we have on these phenomena are problematic and incomplete.
- msla 8y agoIt's a slightly higher-flown version of "We can't talk about your problems because other people have worse problems!" The problem with that idea, in addition to it being morally repugnant and utterly disdainful of human life, is that there's always a worse problem. Oh, you want to talk about polio? Malaria is a worse problem! Oh, you want to talk about income inequality? Access to abortion is a worse problem by far! It's a perfect way to shut down any discussion, simply by shouting "HEY, LOOK OVER THERE! WORSE PROBLEMS!" and claiming the moral high ground.
- noonespecial 8y agoIt has a name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- zzzcpan 8y agoPeople have limited attention and time. It's perfectly valid to point out how the media is withholding information and distracting from more serious things on purpose. Otherwise it is just bike shedding.
- martin1975 8y agoMandela, though he was in solitary confinement for much of the 27 years he spent in jail, came out of it spiritually and mentally unscathed. And we have a suicide epidemic, if you'll believe the press, of people who were never in jail, and were surrounded by people whom probably could have helped the person.... provided he or she asked for help rather than deciding they were lonely or alone. I'm not saying loneliness isn't real... all I'm saying is, it is a choice that needs to be recognized as such, even if we keep choosing it over and over and can do no other sometimes. So if you feel lonely, unless you're in solitary, please at least TELL SOMEONE how you feel... if nothing else. Tell me, I'll listen.
- WillReplyfFood 8y agoNow, post pictures and funny slogans on the app i wrote, to keep that facade going behind which all these people crumble to dust. All in a solitary cofinement of the delusion that all others are happy- its just something wrong with them, but at least they fake it till they make it.
- Barrin92 8y agoThe sort of loneliness that impacts life negatively is probably more of a mental space than a physical one. While Mandela was isolated, he was not without cause or without allies even if he was physically separated from them. If you're on a purposeful mission you can endure a lot of destitution. The loneliness that is making the news is more of a secular malaise. People without purpose, task, meaningful communities to be part of, and so on. They might not even be literally lonely in a physical sense.
- maxxxxx 8y ago"So if you feel lonely, unless you're in solitary, please at least TELL SOMEONE how you feel... if nothing else. Tell me, I'll listen." It's really not that easy. You can feel lonely in the company of supportive people or you can feel not lonely while in solitary.
- guilhas 8y ago"Tell someone", just stop smoking, leave the drugs, find a career... be happy! Unless you are in jail. Realy is it that easy? I think getting to a point in life where you are alone and haven't maintained any meaningful relation is very hard. It is not easy to just speak to someone random but also not sure it helps, unless the relation develops.
- mar77i 8y agoBe careful about that Brooks guy, he might qualify for the White House, the way things are going these days.
- vinceguidry 8y agoThe day I realized that just because people are talking about it, doesn't mean anything's meaningfully changed, is the day I learned how to discern signal from noise in society's whingings.
- noobermin 8y agoThere's an extreme bit of ranting about Brooks here (not a fan at all but it's a bit much.) A better source is the blogpost he quotes[0]. Unless the topic is Brooks specifically. [0] http://justthesocialfacts.blogspot.com/2018/04/all-lonely-people.html http://justthesocialfacts.blogspot.com/2018/04/all-lonely-pe...
- Nomentatus 8y ago1) I'm going to guess that what my grandparents meant by "lonely" isn't quite what my generation or yours, means. I think we use this as a relative term - "less connected than other people" to at least some extent. So that might skew longitudinal statistics. If you only had two friends to talk to (almost every day) in the village back then, you were lonely, and probably being ostracized to boot. 2) To a significant extent, it's possible to translate "I'm lonely" into "I'm too disgusted with the ethics, crudity, vile political opinions, manners, dress, accents, musical tastes, spiritual nonsense, etc of the people I meet these days to go out of my way to meet them again, thanks." This may be a downside to diversity (for those too-easily put off), or a reflection of the fact that we're all social climbers, who are too optimistic about our "social value" in the eyes of all the other social climbers, I don't know. After all, almost all of us have solutions to loneliness handy if we aren't at all picky about our company. And back in the day, you couldn't be - your village was your world. A hidden factor, IMHO, is the rapidity of cultural change. Last long enough (age 28 in my case) and you are necessarily a time-traveller, in a foreign culture to a large extent, and it hurts mightily to know that your tribe has moved on; but it has (unless you joined an uber-traditional church or cult as a youth.) If you opt to deny this, as many do, your world is gonna shrink and keep shrinking from that point on. You're gonna miss a lot of fun, too. PS - volunteer. PPS - I'm not 28, that's just how old I was when I realized I wasn't part of "the younger generation" anymore, and had to decide fast whether my generations' taste in everything was going to be forever supreme in my head, or to start making an effort to see what the real kids were up to, and whether I might like any of that, too. I chose the latter and bless that day.
- yakubin 8y ago> 1) I'm going to guess that what my grandparents meant by "lonely" isn't quite what my generation or yours, means. I think we use this as a relative term - "less connected than other people" to at least some extent. So that might skew longitudinal statistics. If you only had two friends to talk to (almost every day) in the village back then, you were lonely, and probably being ostracized to boot. As I understand it, „loneliness” in the article is understood as the feeling of loneliness, not a measure of how sociable you are. You can be lonely while continually being around people which you have relationships with which look warm on the surface, but don’t give you much of a satisfaction. I think it is the case with a lot of people suffering from depression.
- leg100 8y agoHow can he say, as the title of his blog goes, "there is no epidemic of loneliness"? I can see how he has a case for questioning the statistical basis of someone who is arguing there is an epidemic. But how does that disprove any such epidemic exists?
- noobermin 8y agoThe claim "loneliness is increasing" is false according to the stats. That loneliness is prevalent in society (20% is a hell lot of people) is possibly a true statement. Moreover, that it's stable throughout the last couple of decades doesn't mean we should accept it either.
- enigma31401 8y agoThe blog post was crappy and seems the bulk of the context was shitting on the shitty journalist, rather than debunking thoroughly and straight-forwardly the claim at hand. I find the claim on loniness as more aparent on a global scale and demogralhically varying than in one single nation and a single demograph, so the post seems not only obnoxious but narrow too.
- chokma 8y agoI can recommend Lars Svendsen, A Philosophy of Loneliness, in which he examines loneliness and its positive companion, solitude, in detail. Not a self-help book, but a view on loneliness from both an empirical and philosophical perspective.
- _bxg1 8y agoI couldn't even get to the main content, there was too much vitriol to wade through first. I'd never even heard of David Brooks and don't have an opinion on him, but I can't take seriously the opinion of anybody who's this wrapped up in his own bitterness.
- ravitation 8y agoI feel like this warrants a longer, better supported post, but it seems like the meaning of "lonely" is extremely (overly) relative. Since a lot of studies hinge on self-reporting loneliness this has a huge impact on the data available to diagnose long term trends. Two important things that get conflated into "loneliness" is social isolation (the quality/depth of social relationships) and "loneliness" (the quantity of social relationships).
- badrabbit 8y agoI don't know if it's an epidemic but I don't need an article to tell me the obvious -- that there are a lot of lonely people and loneliness causes problems of the mind which at times translates to problems of the body. I wonder how many more people would hit the gym or outdoors if they had a companion?