HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Sorry for the YT link but from "Kurzgesagt - in a nutshell" there is a really nice video about loniless. Maybe it does help you in the short term too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA

It's hyperbole, but it still indicates a hidden very real and well known social dynamic: humans have an intrinsic drive to belong to a tribe.

This is a very real behavioral mechanism which was essential to human survival as early as the paleolithicum and the emergence of the first hominid species. Not belonging to a tribe meant being exposed to hardships that you might not survive.

Feeling lonely is part of that mechanism. That's your subconscious kicking you into high gear and go seek companionship in order to ensure your chances to survive as an individual.

Kurz Gesagt explains this dynamic in more detail. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA

Modern technology, industrialisation and social advancements in healthcare, politics, law enforcement and agriculture have created circumstances in which you don't need to physically belong to a tribe 24/7 in order to survive. You can perfectly live alone and have your basic needs covered.

However, that drive for social connection is still there. That's hard wired into us. And that's what social media companies are exploiting.

Fear of missing out is exactly that. You don't want to be "out of the loop", you don't want to miss out on what's going on, you don't want to find yourself "outside" of a group. Think about how it was when you were in school, and you found out your friends had a get-together over the weekend and you weren't invited: it totally sucked. Well, that's basically that primitive part of your brain kicking into high gear, warning you that your survival may be at stake.

12 years ago, few people were on social media. And the vast majority of your friends contacted each other via cell phones, e-mail or MSN and such. You were less likely to miss out because you knew that the available channels didn't cater to 24/7 real time action with video and audio, plugging you in the middle of the action remotely.

Today, that's totally different. Modern communication is literally that: 24/7 high intense social contacts with video/photo/audio fragmented across dozens of group chats, group calls,.. and dozens of channels to keep track off.

Net result? Studies indicate an increased prevalence in anxiety, depression, loneliness, suicide, self harm and so on. There's a clear correlation between the two. As is shown in the documentary.

The trade off of weaning off from all of that, for many, is having to battle with and against those engrained behavioural changes that make one grasp for their smartphone every other minute. And that's, basically, the very definition of addiction.

Moreover, unlike other addictions, there's a very real chance that if you don't look at your smartphone for a day that, yes, you will miss out on information the in-crowd - peers at school, friends, co-workers with watercooler talk,... - deems important to know.

⬐ raxxorrax

There are some mechanisms like that but I think this explanation, as well as that from the video, is layman psychology at best. Yes, there are factors or mechanisms that drive your desire for belonging, but it is a pretty unconvincing observation. It doesn't have to be tribalism to prefer being around people you trust.

But if so, being enlightened about the failures and limits of human psychology certainly would constitute a tribe of its own, no? Because it seems to be en vogue to have simple explanations. FOMO is more connected to the fear of the unknown and fear of loss in my opinion. A "tribe" would shield you of course, but it is mostly a sign of other needs not being met. Advertisers use it to their advantage for decades. Some appeal to their audiences to be the source of other peoples FOMOs. "think different" instead of "stay connected".

There are less suicides than in the 90s. That there is a suicide epidemic is a media scare. The main factor reducing the numbers seem to be economic perspectives, not some facebook group where taste was made illegal.

A much worse effect is that social media seems to push questionable characters in focus. Naive viewers and exploitative "influencers" can do quite some damage.

⬐ CaptArmchair

> I think this explanation, as well as that from the video, is layman psychology at best

Well, kurzgesagt back their statements with references to academic research:

https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesloneliness/startseite

They also vet their videos with experts and are transparent in their methodology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtUAAXe_0VI&vl=ar

> Yes, there are factors or mechanisms that drive your desire for belonging, but it is a pretty unconvincing observation. It doesn't have to be tribalism to prefer being around people you trust.

Why would you assume that I didn't consider other explanations?

> FOMO is more connected to the fear of the unknown and fear of loss in my opinion.

In what way wouldn't "the fear of the unkown" or "the fear of loss" be less connected with the fear of likely missing crucial parts of the conversations your social network is having?

e.g. you might miss out hearing about a party, where someone makes an personal announcement (e.g. getting married, moving to another country,...). So, now your friends have a shared experience of having heard the news first hand that you aren't part of.

> A "tribe" would shield you of course, but it is mostly a sign of other needs not being met. Advertisers use it to their advantage for decades. Some appeal to their audiences to be the source of other peoples FOMOs. "think different" instead of "stay connected".

What "other needs" are these?

> There are less suicides than in the 90s.

How is the number of suicides 30 years ago relevant to a dynamic observed over the course of the past 15 years?

> That there is a suicide epidemic is a media scare.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db362.htm [2] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml [3] https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/

The exaggerating wording you're using here hints towards minimizing the issue, rather then a willingness on your part to acknowledge that social media usage and mental health are a public health concern.

> The main factor reducing the numbers seem to be economic perspectives, not some facebook group where taste was made illegal.

... but also seems to correlate with social media usage. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Look, we both know that establishing definitive observations on something as sensitive as suicide is hard. It's widely understood that suicide is underreported, and in many cases it's quite hard to establish exactly what compelled individuals to commit suicide.

The documentary equally stated that there's a correlation between increased social media usage after 2007 and an increase in suicide rate. But that's as far as it goes. In and of itself, I think that's compelling enough to warrant paying attention to.

Finally, this is touching upon a serious mental health issue, there was absolutely no need to make your comment sound as dismissive as it did.

⬐ raxxorrax

Their sources aren't convincing. The questions about loneliness don't support the conclusion.

https://ourworldindata.org/suicide

I didn't say social media usage isn't a public health concern, there are many things that drive addiction. Social media use is convenient and it doesn't expose you to risks. Perfect for any form of escapism.

I doubt suicide is underreported. There are certainly cases misattributed, cases of attempts are excluded perhaps, but concluding something on that assumption seems premature.

I still remain convinced that a lack of perspectives in life is probably a main cause. Maybe social media paints a wrong or a more realistic light, but it is probably not the source of increased suicide.

I specifically criticized the explanation about tribalism. It seems wrong and isn't underlined anywhere.

> In what way wouldn't "the fear of the unkown" or "the fear of loss" [...]

People have the fear that people are bonding while they are absent. Mostly the same sources that are the foundations of envy.

> What "other needs" are these?

Fulfilling companionship or friendship for example.

I think this is a case where the conclusion "social media sucks" was determined before the analysis of issues.

> How is the number of suicides 30 years ago relevant to a dynamic observed over the course of the past 15 years?

To have a reference. Especially if we only have social media for 15 years, it is self evident to lock back a few more years.

⬐ DanBC

> https://ourworldindata.org/suicide

This is not a credible source for suicide data.

> I doubt suicide is underreported. There are certainly cases misattributed, cases of attempts are excluded perhaps, but concluding something on that assumption seems premature.

There are lots of complicated reasons why suicide may be under-reported.

In the US the work to get standard definitions, in the NVDRS, to be used across the country is relatively recent. This document is from 2011.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/Self-Directed-Vio...

> Despite the large volume of data on certain types of SDV, the utility and reproducibility of the resulting information is sometimes questionable. Mortality data are problematic for several reasons: geographical differences in the definition of suicide and how equivocal cases are classified; jurisdictional differences in the requirements for the office of coroner or medical examiner affecting the standard of proof required to classify a death as a suicide; and differences in terms of the extent to which potential suicides are investigated to accurately determine cause of death.18 The quality of the data on nonfatal suicidal behavior is even more problematic than that of suicides. The concerns about discrepancies in nomenclature19-23 and accurate reporting11,24 apply here even more than with suicides. Also, except for rare exceptions there is neither systematic nor mandatory reporting of nonfatal suicidal behavior in the United States at the state or local level, nor is there routine systematic collection of non-suicidal intentional self harm data.

> These “system” problems with data collection have been discussed for more than a generation. Over 35 years ago, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a conference on suicide prevention at which a committee was charged with recommending a system for defining and communicating about suicidal behaviors.25 More recently, two scientific reviews that addressed the state of suicide-related research also remarked on the need for consistent definitions. The Institute of Medicine issued a report entitled Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative.4 This report states ”Research on suicide is plagued by many methodological problems... definitions lack uniformity,...reporting of suicide is inaccurate.” “There is a need for researchers and clinicians in suicidology to use a common language or set of terms in describing suicidal phenomena.” The World Health Organization issued the World Report on Violence and Health.2 In the chapter addressing self-directed violence the authors note “Data on suicide and attempted suicide should be valid and up to date. There should be a set of uniform criteria and definitions and – once established – these should be consistently applied and continually reviewed.”

⬐ raxxorrax

The criticism at the data is valid, but there is still more evidence that points in the direction that suicide is on decline globally. And if the methodology of acquiring data is flawed to such a degree, we also wouldn't be able to make a statement in the other direction.

⬐ DanBC

> There are less suicides than in the 90s

It's difficult to compare suicide over time because the method of counting changes, sometimes drastically.

I think you lack compassion in your wording. We have evolved as social creatures, and we care for each other.

We depend on each other in millions of ways, in millions of varieties. I would bet you too would die, or have died, without some care at key points in your life. It takes a village to raise a child. I argue it takes one to keep a human alive and healthy too. One piece of content in favor of my point: https://youtu.be/n3Xv_g3g-mA

There's no need for people to be able to survive without care. And yes my society values individualism, but we should be able to critique it, and ask where that emerges from.

⬐ krageon

> There's no need for people to be able to survive without care.

There is no need, but there should be the option. If we can provide that option to people that want it we should be allowed to. Just because someone feels that it infringes on their core identity does not mean someone else should not be treated for something they feel is a defect. Saying that this needs to be possible is not a lack of compassion, it is the most compassionate choice.

⬐ gugagore

You're not responding to this thread. The conversation isn't about people being allowed to feel defective and seek treatment.

Read again:

> . A society that doesn't regard such people as defective, and doesn't try to help them (when they agree), is simply lying to itself.

⬐ krageon

I believe that I was responding to you when you implied that sentence (among others) was without compassion. If you have a specific grievance with what I said that doesn't involve something I was quite literally responding to we can discuss that.

⬐ gugagore

The part that isn't compassionate is the part that insists we label certain people as defective.

Your response is about people having the right to label themselves defective.

If you argue that it's compassionate to allow people to live the lives they want to live, that's beautiful and I agree. I am arguing it's NOT compassionate to insist that certain people are defective, especially regardless of how they feel about their own lives.

I mean, the word "defective" alone, c'mon.

⬐ chr1

The crispr treatment in the article is not simply a way to remove the gene causing some forms of autism, it is also a method to add that same gene. The fact that we are talking only about using it to remove autism shows that everyone knows that some forms of autism give much more disadvantages than advantages and therefore are defects. The problem with autism is that many different things are grouped under the same term and some of them are not that disadvantageous.

⬐ gugagore

> everyone knows that some forms of autism give much more disadvantages than advantages and therefore are defects

No, not everyone knows that. I feel quite humbled by my experience meeting people with "defects", who are proud of their "defects", would not choose to remove their "defects", actively seek out relationships with other "defective" people, and have formed a cultural identity around their "defect", to the extent that they hope their own kids are also "defective", maybe not to the strength that other people hope their kids aren't defective, but at least express a preference.

I hold it as a fundamental, nowadays, that I cannot decide what is and is not defective for other people, especially strangers, and especially people who themselves actively say "I'm not defective!". I rather focus on concrete harm to figure out how to exist in the world, for myself and for others.

I think it does harm to the world to approach all disabilities from a mindset that is focused on "defectiveness". I will take my lead from other people with the relevant disabilities. "Nothing about us without us" is a powerful slogan that guides me to do so.

I don't know whether you identify with any "defective" or defect-adjacent subgroup (since you talk about all the different things that grouped under autism), but I know for sure not everyone is. And so not "everyone knows that some forms of autism give much more disadvantages than advantages". When I try to drill down on what that really means (how would you even determine how to weigh the advantages and disadvantages?), the whole endeavor seems divorced from individual realities and pointless.

⬐ Porthos9K

> Saying that this needs to be possible is not a lack of compassion, it is the most compassionate choice.

Pardon my cynicism, but I have no faith in the "compassion" of "normal people". Not when I've spent my whole life being told that I'm defective and need to be fixed. You might not want to force people into treatment, but my experience suggests that you're part of a small, sane minority.

Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell had an excellent research report as video summarizing loneliness, published earlier this year [0] with sources linking to the facts in the video [1].

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA

[1]: https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesloneliness/startseite

Great explanation on why we should simply treat loneliness like a symptom of being hungry. As you form healthier habits in general around socializing, the person becomes more whole and in doing so you grant yourself additional opportunities to meet people, engage in conversation, and increase the probability of friendships and relationships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA

The other thought process I've been subscribing to lately is the idea that you have to actually become the kind of person that "can socialize" or that "can be friendly" before you suddenly find yourself in: a friendship, a relationship, a marriage, a solid social network. None of these things come over night and they certainly don't come easy for people who are stricken with the habit of isolation. Once you make decisions and form actual habits around trying to be friendly to other people:

- put yourself in a situation where you have the opportunity at all to socialize (a store, a coffeeshop, a restaurant, a club, a meetup). Socializing doesn't mean you have to be friends with the person, it seems to be about just being the kind of person who is even able at all to be friendly

- make an observation (the weather, the environment around you, the place you're at, something someone is wearing, a pin, a shoe, an outfit, a drink, a dog... whatever - just make any observation at all and comment on it)

- listen (observe how the other person make the same or differing observations; listen to any other observation other people make, internalize and actually listen - don't be thinking of the next thing to say after they are done talking. Listen so you can understand them in some way and what they are actually saying)

- ask questions (if you discovered something work asking, or maybe the observation involved a question like "where did you get those cool shoes?" "what do you recommend here?" "what is your favorite item?" "can you help explain something to me?"). It's great to ask questions that involve help because it invites the other person into a social situation where you can trust them to give you advice or knowledge. People try this with neighbors for instance, such as borrowing a tool or something like this.

- receive feedback, or give feedback based on the questions

- it is usually the case that questions lead to other questions, you can develop a conversation from here most of the time

- repeat observation, listen, ask questions, feedback, communicate something you enjoy/relevant to conversation

Once you've internalize a process for being friendly and you take action to actually make it a habit, you become the kind of person that can be friendly. It doesn't actually matter if you don't necessarily know whether you will want to be friends with a person, it's that you are showing yourself that you can be friendly. Most importantly, you are practicing and making it a habit.

Once it is a habit, it becomes natural. Being friendly turns into developing actual friendships and opening yourself up to the world to trying new experiences. Some of those experiences may lead to forming friendships and those friendships may end up being relationships.

It also seems to me that you must understand that social networks are precisely that. you don't know whether one person might invite you to something where you meet another person. The same is true the other way around, inviting a neighbor, or other people over creates the possibility that you might extend, reinforce or cause you to re-evaluate your social network. By allowing yourself the time to be uncomfortable with this sort of unpredictability you can avoid remaining stagnant.

Kurzgesagt had a really great video[1] on loneliness that described the downward spiral that people find themselves in.

> > The controversial implication is that depressed people deliberately act in ways that are likely to maintain their low mood.

> How is this remotely controversial? Finding something you like is not the same as liking your state or disposition for depression.

i think that is controversial because it assigns agency to the person experiencing the depression, that they are causing their own depression. but the most common complaint from people with depression is that people are always telling them to "just cheer up" etc etc. this is the same sentiment in a specific context. "if you just didn't listen to depressing music all the time, maybe you wouldn't be so depressed."

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA

⬐ Zaphods

Now I think we're running into the strange alleyways in our concept of depression. Do people with depression have no agency in their depression? I think it depends.

Depression can be a disposition, ie. someone is disposed to being depressed but not always depressed.

Depression can be a mental state, ie. I'm depressed right now.

Depression can also be a clinical diagnosis, ie. you are lacking such and such chemical balance and that is your depression and you require such and such to "fix" it.

Depression can be an emotion or a feeling, ie. I feel depressed, or that poet is describing or manifesting their depression in their words.

Depression can be a cause and a reason, in the sense that one (an agent) gives a reason for their actions.

The concept of depression has different degrees of agency. In some clinical cases, none at all. That seems controversial until you realize depression is a complex and flexible concept.

This study seems to have not clarified what exactly they are talking about when they describe people as depressed.

⬐ LesZedCB

from the paper's abstract:

> In three studies, _clinically depressed_ participants were more likely than nondepressed participants to use emotion-regulation strategies in a direction that was likely to maintain or increase their level of sadness. (emphasis mine)

⬐ Zaphods

That clarifies a lot, then, thank you.

In this case, then, I don't think the article from the BPS accurately presented the research in the paper. The fact that they specified that it is clinical depression in the abstract is pretty important to the importance of this study. To elide that seems to bury the lede.

On loneliness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA

⬐ kuroguro

If it's literally killing people I wonder if over a long enough time natural selection would start kicking in and people with less need for others would survive.

The future is tiny psychopaths everywhere!