How Social Isolation Is Killing Us (nymag.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from The New York Times: Social isolation is a growing epidemic (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source) -- one that's increasingly recognized as having dire physical, mental and emotional consequences. Since the 1980s, the percentage of American adults who say they're lonely has doubled from 20 percent to 40 percent. About one-third of Americans older than 65 now live alone, and half of those over 85 do. People in poorer health -- especially those with mood disorders like anxiety and depression -- are more likely to feel lonely. Those without a college education are the least likely to have someone they can talk to about important personal matters. A wave of new research suggests social separation is bad for us. Individuals with less social connection have disrupted sleep patterns, altered immune systems, more inflammation and higher levels of stress hormones. One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent. Another analysis that pooled data from 70 studies and 3.4 million people found that socially isolated individuals had a 30 percent higher risk of dying in the next seven years, and that this effect was largest in middle age. Loneliness can accelerate cognitive decline in older adults, and isolated individuals are twice as likely to die prematurely as those with more robust social interactions. These effects start early: Socially isolated children have significantly poorer health 20 years later, even after controlling for other factors. All told, loneliness is as important a risk factor for early death as obesity and smoking.

Comments

Not everyone is the same

[burtosis]

There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone. Not everyone feels a deep seated need to talk about the weather or hear about trivial personal problems. Not everyone who lives alone degenerates into a curled up ball and mentally wastes away. But the day health risks are determined on an individual basis from a large pool of facts is far, far away. People like the security blanket statements that sum up a complicated condition into one handy catch phrase or statistic. Much like stereotypes, while statistically this study may be correct in general it certainly does not apply to everyone equally.

Re:Not everyone is the same

[ColdWetDog]

Extrovert vs. Introvert. This article does not account for differences in personality. It may only indicate that lonely extroverts die from lack of stimulation.

No, the article attempts to pull lots of separate studies together in one over arching thesis. While the result may well be valid for a population of humans, there are undoubtably subsets of people where the assumptions don't hold true. TFA doesn't really speak to this.

So if you're happy sitting here by yourself typing away, go for it.

But ask yourself, are you really happy?

(If not, please send $49.99 in three easy payments to the address at the bottom of your screen - we're here to help.)

Cultural sickness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much to be sociable you need a large group of people.

In the past this was based either around your extended family, region, race, religion, or national heritage. This was not always a good thing either at the micro or macro level, but it did represent a support network for some (but not all) members of a societal group.

Nowadays much of this has been lost, due to globalization, electronics, hetereogenized neighborhoods (especially new builds as evidenced in the US.) Neighborhoods for better or worse are often no longer established families and friends. As people have spread out, that previous sense of community has slowly dissolved. While there just as many people available today, fewer of them are willing to interact with people outside of their social norms, and since those social norms are spread more thinly across the local region, it becomes less likely that a particular person has an immediate support network to overcome that isolation.

As a personal example: When I was a kid, there were a half dozen kids around my age all living with a block or so of me. While there was a concern of child predators and abductions, by and large people still let their kids go outside, and kids by and large still snuck off to go have fun with friends (my parents were however one of the 'shut in' types, up until I was around 10 or so, at which point I was allowed to bike to school (mostly because my mom had better things to do than actually bother to take me to school or pick me up on time.) In addition to this there was at least one empty field per block (1/4 to 1/2 mile square) which usually lead to a congregation point for the kids. Fast forward 10-20 years and all those fields have been fenced in or built over. Most parents are more concerned about the appearance of their children's safety in regards to allowing them out in the neighborhood, and kids by and large would rather play videogames/watch tv/on a computer than go outside and do stuff, whether hanging out with friends, terrorizing neighbors, or finding field replacements to hang out in.

Re:Cultural sickness.

[ZorinLynx]

>all those fields have been fenced in

It's really sad how fear of lawsuits has forced property owners to fence in fields that would otherwise serve as open space for kids to play in urban areas. I so often see a nice field of grass fenced in with nothing on it, that no one can use. The property owner probably doesn't care if kids play on his land, he's just worried about a lawsuit if those kids get hurt on that land.

Same thing with school athletic fields. When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s the fields were open to the public. There was usually a gate with some posts to keep vehicles out, but us kids could go in and play ball or do whatever on the field when school was out. Now it's all locked down because the school is afraid of lawsuits.

Paranoia has made life less fun for kids. :(

Re:Slashdot much?

[arth1]

Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.

I think part of the problem is that people get spread too thin. When you have 500 friends, you really have no friends. Exclusive time and confidentiality disappears. It's not the frequency of contact that makes friendship, it's the depth.

That said, some people function better alone. And some need a social network. Our species does so well at least in part because we differ so much. What one person can't handle, another one can.

If I have to fall back on inflation

[rsilvergun]

to make my debt affordable then something is very, very wrong with the economy.

You're right about the monetary system being used to balance things, but it's just a temporary patch on a broken system. People have come to expect (reasonable I'd say) improved quality of life. This generation is on track to the be first one American history to be worse off overall.

Re:Money

[khallow]

Inflation is good for the economy because it reduces the relative percentage of the GDP that must be devoted to debt service.

Not everyone borrows as much as they can. Ignoring significant parts of the economy while making blanket claims about the economy is not good for the economy.

What people like yourself don't understand is that the vast majority of money that exists in bank deposit accounts was not created by the government. It was created by banks, with debts credited as assets on the bank's balance sheet. All of that money that was created all came with a future interest obligation.

Quite simply, if you do not inflation not only do people get poorer, but everyone defaults on their debts.

Unless they don't owe enough debt for that to be relevant.

The government always controls the money supply. It does this by adjudicating debts only in the currency that it has the sole legal right to create and regulate. It does this by levying taxes. And, in a more complex system impossible for libertardians to understand, sovereign governments coordinate with one another to adjust exchange rates for mutually beneficial ends.

I see use of the term, "libertardians" here. Real classy that.

The huge problem with your entire post is that it treats debt as if there was only one side, the borrower. There however is also the lender. And everything about inflation that is good for the borrower is equally bad for the lender. That's because lending is a trade and inflation is directly adjusting the relative costs and benefits of the trade in a zero sum game.

That leads to two flaws in your argument. First, we still have lending despite this bias in favor of borrowers. What happens is lenders increase their interest rates (the costs of the loan) and the supposed advantages of inflation for the borrower go away.

Second, why should we favor the borrower over the lender? I'll note here that borrowers tend to be a lot less competent and disciplined than lenders. Encouraging them to borrow more doesn't seem a sane thing to do and there have been problems with excessive debt in every recession the US (to give a country I know a lot about) has had.

What's really going on here is that country-level governments tend to both have control of their money supply and borrow a lot. So inflation, particularly an increasing rate of inflation helps cut the cost of the debt they imprudently acquired as well as the liabilities they have promised. And due to the immense propaganda mechanisms at their control, they get to spin that as inflation being a good thing without significant opposition.

Re:Slashdot much?

[Kjella]

I think part of the problem is that people get spread too thin. When you have 500 friends, you really have no friends. Exclusive time and confidentiality disappears. It's not the frequency of contact that makes friendship, it's the depth.

I think it quite quickly sorts into tiers anyway, because in the real world you're only one place at a time. If you hang out with group A of friends on the weekends, you're not hanging out with group B. Or for that matter how you balance friends/family/partner/self-time, obviously if you have a wife and kids you don't have the same time as when you were single but there's still a large degree of choice. I can feel it on something so trivial as when we're playing a four player online co-op game, who's first to be asked and who's just backup if the others are unavailable.

Everybody else you're really just an observer and not part of their lives. I don't want to undersell Facebook either because I understand the feeling of taking parts in your grandkids' lives without actually being physically present, but when it comes to creating real bonds of friendship and family you have to be there and really interact with them. Even when we're just alone together, like when my buddy and I go out flying our drones we each fly our own drone but it's a shared experience. If I did it and posted on my Facebook and he did it and posted on his Facebook it wouldn't be the same at all.