[HN Gopher] Lonely individuals tend to think and talk in an unus...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Lonely individuals tend to think and talk in an unusual way, study
       finds
        
       Author : isaacfrond
       Score  : 94 points
       Date   : 2024-11-25 09:40 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.psypost.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.psypost.org)
        
       | isaacfrond wrote:
       | Read the whole article wondering _how_ lonely people think
       | differently.
       | 
       | But I now understand that it is just that: different. They do not
       | conform to what the norm thinks.
       | 
       | Seen in that light: lonely people are lonely because they are
       | weird. Right. Good to know.
        
         | 127 wrote:
         | Lonely people are also weird because they are lonely (and don't
         | get the calibration from human interaction).
        
           | kaffekaka wrote:
           | The article does not claim this nor support the claim. It
           | merely says that loneliness is associated with being "weird".
           | No causality.
        
             | Oarch wrote:
             | It's possible to reverse this and infer the more mainstream
             | your thoughts of these celebrities, the more popular you
             | are / will be.
        
             | darkerside wrote:
             | Well, exactly. Parents poster is pointing out that the
             | cause is ambiguous. Actually, technically, they are
             | attributing causality to the opposite direction, but in
             | practice, I'd say it gets the point across.
        
               | viciousvoxel wrote:
               | My intuition is that it goes both ways and it's a
               | feedback loop/downward spiral.
        
               | wigglyartichoke wrote:
               | Yes, a social feedback loop, but the internal feedback
               | loop is what causes the downward spiral
        
               | kaffekaka wrote:
               | Indeed, but the article does not mention causality at
               | all.
        
         | zusammen wrote:
         | I was a standup comedian in the 1980s and was occasionally
         | asked why "my people" were so funny, and it's odd because there
         | are a lot of things that are funny about us, but not the real
         | answer to this one. We had to be, for thousands of years, or we
         | died. If we had humorless dumb ones (and we do, but not as
         | many, again, because of what happened to them, as well as quite
         | a number of our best) they didn't do as well.
         | 
         | I was also a clinical psychologist for a few years, and could
         | say more on this, but some other time.
         | 
         | Jewish humor, gay humor, autistic humor... they're all more
         | similar than they are different. You learn, from atypical
         | experience, to see everything one degree off and you have a
         | story that people will listen to and eventually they might even
         | like you. You see things three degrees off and you shut up so
         | no one else knows. You get six degrees off and even you don't
         | know, but everyone else does.
        
           | viciousvoxel wrote:
           | As they say, tragedy (or alternatively, adversity) plus time
           | equals comedy.
        
           | wigglyartichoke wrote:
           | I think a lot about Victor Frankl's description of the use of
           | dark comedy while in concentration camps
        
           | Der_Einzige wrote:
           | This is why the male oriented dating communities call it
           | "goofmaxxing" or "jester maxing" to get good at comedy for
           | the purposes of attracting others.
           | 
           | The need to become funny for literal survival is among the
           | worst of all humiliation rituals that most of us will be
           | forced to do. I want people to be funny because they like
           | being funny - not because they will literally not breed or be
           | killed without it!
        
             | PrismCrystal wrote:
             | There's also being funny not quite for attracting others,
             | but for avoiding alienating people one has already
             | attracted. As someone surely autistic somehow, I find
             | myself making frequent jokes because I know my
             | interlocutors don't want to hear about the subjects I'd
             | _really_ like to talk about, so joking seems the least-
             | offensive and least-effort part I can play in socializing.
             | When I saw Mike Leigh's 1987 short film _The Short and
             | Curlies_ , about a young man who reacts to every single
             | thing with a little joke, I very much recognized myself.
        
         | wigglyartichoke wrote:
         | Lonely people are weird because there's no social feedback
         | loop, a lot of teachings are "self-taught" (for example how not
         | to be an asshole), and even in engineering there's a
         | "different" way self-taught engineers think
         | 
         | For a lot people this lack of a feedback loop started as
         | children. In the worst cases, where there's child hood abuse
         | and neglect, any seeking out of positive feedbacks either goes
         | unheard or punished
         | 
         | The feedback loop reinforces itself in the short-term because
         | being lonely and staying in the "hell you know" is better than
         | dealing with the social failure, which might "prove" you don't
         | belong in society and it will never change
         | 
         | Breaking the negative feedback loop is the hardest thing to do
         | especially being born into it
        
           | doublerabbit wrote:
           | > Breaking the negative feedback loop is the hardest thing to
           | do especially being born into it
           | 
           | And it doesn't happen overnight. It's taken myself five years
           | just to be at a level where by you can defensively stand for
           | myself and look at myself in the mirror and be pleased at
           | where I am. The only support being my mother.
        
           | Der_Einzige wrote:
           | Hence why the term "oversocialization" is more real than
           | ever. Autists don't deserve the hell they get just because
           | everyone else around them was over socialized. It's telling
           | that these days, the majority of real advancements in the
           | world are done by people with ASD. Maybe the world should try
           | being nicer to them.
        
             | valec wrote:
             | terms like "oversocialized" suggest you spend too much time
             | on imageboards and you would do well to get off those
             | sites. same with "humiliation ritual"
        
           | valec wrote:
           | well, thankfully there are tools [1]
           | 
           | 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06204-3
        
       | dinkblam wrote:
       | > Loneliness corresponded with idiosyncratic [unusual, unique]
       | neural representations of celebrities as well as more
       | idiosyncratic communication about celebrities
       | 
       | must be the best argument to date for being more lonely.
        
         | ANewFormation wrote:
         | Could mean the opposite of what you might think. I imagine the
         | mean perception of Zuck is weirdo, Bieber is 'no clue, I'm not
         | a teen girl' and so on.
        
           | bawolff wrote:
           | I mean, if you get to enjoy a pop star that society normally
           | relegates to teen girls, that seems like a positive to me.
           | 
           | (I don't particularly like bieber, but if he's your jam,
           | don't let society get in the way)
        
       | portaouflop wrote:
       | People are strange when you're a stranger.
        
         | atmavatar wrote:
         | Faces look ugly when you're alone.
        
       | grvbck wrote:
       | > Lonelier individuals were also more likely to use unusual
       | language when describing well-known celebrities and to describe
       | them in ways that were not typical for their group.
       | 
       | How is that surprising? If they are lonely, they are not part of
       | the group and intergroup communication (including shared values,
       | opinions, gossip etc).
       | 
       | The text fails to define "unusual" in a meaningful way other than
       | "not part of the majority". It's like saying "we found that the
       | minority tends to vote differently than the majority".
        
         | gilleain wrote:
         | Indeed, I struggle to even imagine what "use unusual language
         | when describing well-known celebrities" even means! Maybe like
         | using "musician" rather than "artist" or some other
         | combination?
         | 
         | edit: Ok, I've read through the paper, and still have no idea.
         | Apparently the responses to questions were compared as semantic
         | vectors using cosine similarity in Google's Universal Sentence
         | Encoder space. Or something lol.
        
           | nielsole wrote:
           | "hello fellow Taylor Swift fans"
        
           | zug_zug wrote:
           | and interestingly they say they share their data, but after
           | looking through the data I don't see what I'm looking for,
           | which is closest-approximate words for each celebrity.
        
         | adammarples wrote:
         | Very unsurprising but perhaps still valid research that needs
         | to be done to be known. A better conclusion might have been:
         | increasing socialisation increases homogeneity of language use.
        
           | quesera wrote:
           | This rings true to me.
           | 
           | You can infer (with various degrees of fidelity) a lot about
           | people by their communication patterns: age, gender,
           | education, hobbies, reading habits, news sources, place of
           | origin or residence.
           | 
           | And obviously, socialization.
           | 
           | This study suggests socialization is a(n inverse) proxy for
           | loneliness, and there's surely some truth to that, but it is
           | not the same thing.
        
           | tyho wrote:
           | All psychology research falls in one of two categories:
           | 
           | a) common sense intuitive result
           | 
           | b) does not replicate
        
             | unplug8224 wrote:
             | I think a study is required to test your thesis
        
       | throw310822 wrote:
       | So they tested disconnected individuals against connected
       | individuals in the perception of socially constructed objects
       | (celebrities). And they found that people who don't socialise
       | much don't share that socially constructed perception. What else
       | did they expect? Seems quite obvious.
        
         | TeMPOraL wrote:
         | Exactly. To highlight: the point of social objects like
         | celebrities is _to bond over them with other people_.
         | Obviously, lonely people do less of that.
        
       | kordlessagain wrote:
       | Feels like fancy neuroimaging being used to scientifically
       | justify excluding people who don't conform to mainstream social
       | norms. Classic case of using tech to medicalize being different.
       | Also kind of makes sense from an evolutionary psych perspective -
       | groups have always tried to identify and push out "others" for
       | survival. But maybe in 2024 we can do better than using million-
       | dollar brain scanners to shame people who see the world (oh
       | sorry, "famous" people) differently?
        
       | TekMol wrote:
       | Do you guys know who the most popular artists of our time are?
       | 
       | Reading this article and its mention of celebrities I was like
       | "Who are today's celebrities anyhow?"? And typed
       | most popular artists 2024
       | 
       | into Google. It came back with:                   Taylor Swift
       | The Weeknd         Lady Gaga         Drake         Karol G
       | Bruno Mars         Beyonce         Eminem         Charli XCX
       | Harry Styles
       | 
       | I have heard 8 of the 10 names before. Never heard about "Karol
       | G" and "Charli XCX".
       | 
       | I can only think of one song performed by one of them:
       | "Paparazzi" by Lady Gaga.
       | 
       | Does that make me very disconnected with today's culture?
        
         | keiferski wrote:
         | I don't listen to 8/10 of these musicians, but I've heard of
         | all of them except for Karol G. So yeah; I'd say you are very
         | disconnected.
        
           | gilleain wrote:
           | I thought they were saying they _had_ heard of 8 in 10?
           | Strangely Karol G was also new to me. I'll resist searching
           | for the name - I enjoy not knowing things sometimes.
        
             | keiferski wrote:
             | Whoops, either he edited his comment or I misread it.
             | Probably my mistake.
        
           | vixen99 wrote:
           | Doesn't this just mean that some people don't connect with
           | this kind of music. I don't. Possibly my loss but there's a
           | lot of music out there and life is short.
        
             | keiferski wrote:
             | I think the commenter meant disconnected from popular music
             | culture, not disconnected from music entirely.
        
         | mikrl wrote:
         | Meanwhile I don't listen to anyone on that list except for
         | Charli XCX because I arrived at her music from a rave/hyperpop
         | background and then became a stan with her last album Crash in
         | 2022.
         | 
         | I was tired of BRAT though about 2 weeks after release because
         | I listened to the teasers so much... then it blew up and even
         | attached itself to VP Harris...
        
           | alfiedotwtf wrote:
           | I recognise some of these words
        
         | christophilus wrote:
         | There are many cultures. You're on HN, so my guess is you're
         | connected with today's hacker culture. I've heard of 6 of those
         | names, but can't name any song from any of them. It just means
         | I have my own interests.
        
         | Fraaaank wrote:
         | These artists are definitely popular, but I doubt they are the
         | _most_ popular. The list doesn 't fully match up with the most
         | streamed artists list on Spotify, for example.
        
           | TeMPOraL wrote:
           | Both Google results and Spotify "most streamed artists" stats
           | are _heavily gamed_ , but in different ways and by different
           | groups, so no surprise they diverge.
        
         | sersi wrote:
         | Same result here, never heard about karol G and Charli XCX but
         | to be fair, I find most modern pop music to be very
         | manufactured and boring. People like Max Martin can create a
         | lot of hits but it makes the music rather uninteresting.
         | 
         | Just listened to Brat from Charli XCX and yeah, not missing
         | much.
         | 
         | I feel that when it comes to Music, being in sync with pop
         | music is more of a generation thing.
         | 
         | On the other hand, I wouldn't describe myself as lonely... I'm
         | not super social (I've worked remotely for 13 years because I
         | don't particularly like working in an office) but I do meet up
         | with friends 2 times a week (used to be more but with a kid at
         | home, there's less time).
        
         | Dalewyn wrote:
         | Something that's been talked about every so often is that there
         | aren't representative (generational) pop icons for the past few
         | generations (probably from millenials onwards).
         | 
         | One theory from Japan, that I still remember and think is most
         | likely, is that the democratization of entertainment since the
         | 80s and especially from the 90s onwards with the invention of
         | the internet has eliminated the very concept of pop culture.
         | 
         | Back in ye olde days a person's choices for entertainment were
         | fairly limited, basically a small regional selection. People in
         | the same locale ended up consuming the same entertainment and
         | thus gravitated towards forming similar tastes and directing
         | their fervor on that small selection of entertainment.
         | 
         | Entire generations identify with icons of their time like Gary
         | Cooper, Gregory Peck, Marilyn Monroe, Ingrid Bergman, Elvis
         | Presley, and so on. Entire generations sang "the song of their
         | people" so to speak.
         | 
         | Today, though? _Everyone_ can access _any_ entertainment _they_
         | want from _anytime anywhere_. The entertainment consumed by one
         | person is very likely completely different from that consumed
         | by a person right next to him; entertainment has been
         | democratized. There is no longer a  "song of our people"
         | because everyone has a "song of me", there are no longer
         | generational icons because everyone has their own icon.
         | 
         | The intense political push from the Left to make any form of
         | social cohesion and loyalty undesirable also hasn't helped. The
         | dismantling and removal of tradition, religion, and
         | nationalism/patriotism from society means there can't be a
         | "song of the people" from outside of entertainment either.
         | 
         | So no, I don't think you're disconnected with today's culture.
         | Rather, today's culture doesn't value social cohesion and unity
         | as much as it does freedom and power. Everyone has their own
         | icon and song, everyone is their own generation.
        
           | KittenInABox wrote:
           | > The intense political push from the Left to make any form
           | of social cohesion and loyalty undesirable also hasn't
           | helped. The dismantling and removal of tradition, religion,
           | and nationalism/patriotism from society means there can't be
           | a "song of the people" from outside of entertainment either.
           | 
           | Funny, because I don't think there is a "song of the people"
           | on the right at all, while every leftist I know are all in on
           | Charlie XCX and Brat Summer.
        
             | lazyeye wrote:
             | Lol
        
         | alistairSH wrote:
         | Maybe if you're young (20s, early 30s)?
         | 
         | I recognize 8/10 as well, but like you, can't name actual songs
         | from most.
         | 
         | Same would have been true if I was tested in the mid-90s (HS
         | and college). Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Backstreet Boys - I
         | know the names, but can't think of the names of songs. I'd test
         | better on alt/grunge rock of the era - STP, Nirvana, REM, etc.
         | 
         | And I don't think I'm particularly lonely - I happily married,
         | have a few office friends, and see normal friends regularly.
         | I'm not as social as I was in my 20s, but I assume that's
         | normal.
        
         | MisterTea wrote:
         | > Does that make me very disconnected with today's culture?
         | 
         | Just disconnected with pop culture. I only know 6 of the names
         | on that list and can only name Brain Damage by Eminem off the
         | top of my head. I don't know what Taylor Swift sounds like
         | though I have probably heard a few of her songs in my day to
         | day without noticing. Just don't worry about it and do what
         | makes you happy.
        
         | bitwize wrote:
         | Charli XCX is a standard-issue pop singer. She's a brunette.
         | She's probably best known for doing the singing bits on
         | "Fancy", the only Iggy Azalea song you know (if you know any at
         | all).
        
       | cluckindan wrote:
       | This is a bullshit study. It is entirely based on trying to
       | confirm a priori assumptions about "lonely" people, who are seen
       | by authors as pathologically abnormal.
        
         | mocha_nate wrote:
         | > Chronic loneliness is linked to mental health issues like
         | depression and anxiety, as well as physical health problems,
         | including weakened immunity, cardiovascular disease, and an
         | increased risk of mortality. Lonely individuals tend to
         | experience lower self-esteem, heightened sensitivity to social
         | rejection, and difficulty forming or maintaining relationships.
         | They may also perceive social interactions more negatively,
         | creating a cycle that reinforces their isolation. In older
         | adults, loneliness is particularly concerning, as it is
         | strongly associated with cognitive decline and dementia. In
         | children and adolescents, it can hinder social development and
         | academic performance.
         | 
         | I think they are trying to learn more about it to see if there
         | is something that can be done in cases where there are negative
         | outcomes. Not where someone is alone and happy.
        
       | mapt wrote:
       | People who don't interact a lot with other people. Hrrm.
       | 
       | It would be really weird if they thought and talked in accordance
       | with the current social pablum.
        
       | cjaackie wrote:
       | Interesting premise but did this article _feel_ off to anyone
       | else? Maybe it was me , but did it seem a bit redundant while
       | also not saying a whole lot?
        
         | FranklinMaillot wrote:
         | Exactly. It looks like it was written by a very bad LLM. It
         | keeps repeating the title over and over again.
        
         | RadiozRadioz wrote:
         | Probably written by a lonely person. It expresses things in
         | unusual ways and has repetition that is not typical when
         | compared to articles written by non-lonely people.
        
       | le-mark wrote:
       | > The second study was an online survey conducted with 923 Amazon
       | Mechanical Turk workers, whose average age was 40 years.
       | 
       | So psychology is now the study of mice, college freshman, and
       | mechanical Turks? I have not seen this before.
        
         | svnt wrote:
         | It is very common. There are lines of research on dealing with
         | the shortcomings of using mturk this way.
         | 
         | e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
         | core/c...
        
       | dijksterhuis wrote:
       | > Interestingly, the study also revealed a particularly strong
       | consensus among participants regarding the neural representations
       | of Justin Bieber compared to the other four celebrities.
       | 
       | is this academic speak for "yeah...... _that guy_ ...... nope."?
        
       | blueflow wrote:
       | I'm disgusted that they took celebrity gossip as reference point
       | for healthy social behavior.
        
         | criddell wrote:
         | I don't think the article says that, does it?
        
           | blueflow wrote:
           | The consumption of boulevard media is implied, either
           | directly or via friends.
        
             | criddell wrote:
             | Boulevard media?
             | 
             | The article mentions a popular musical artist. Are there
             | popular artists whose work you have an opinion on? Well
             | then as soon as you express those thoughts, you are talking
             | about a celebrity and this study says the way you talk
             | about it may reveal something about you.
        
               | blueflow wrote:
               | I have no TV, no radio, no tiktok and no facebook. I
               | don't know much about the people in there.
        
               | criddell wrote:
               | Surely you recognize that you are an outlier then. Most
               | people have some opinions on at least one popular
               | musician or actor or writer. If you don't, then I'm a
               | little envious. There's so much great stuff out there
               | waiting for you to discover it. I'd recommend checking
               | out the Beatles.
        
               | blueflow wrote:
               | I'm not missing out, I'm not interested in the persons.
               | 
               | And i don't think I'm an outlier. Some people find other
               | meanings in life than watching others.
        
         | dsign wrote:
         | I agree with this interpretation. Plus, I don't think it
         | generalizes that well. In my stomping grounds, there are three
         | circles of trust where people tend to talk about different
         | things:
         | 
         | - Outer circle: the weather, dead relatives (yes, dead
         | relatives!) and "expensive vs cheap" but without actual
         | figures.
         | 
         | - Middle circle: what to eat, where to travel.
         | 
         | - Inner intimacy circle (people who are okay sharing a bed):
         | money with actual figures. But you may not discuss the salary.
         | 
         | Celebrities don't show up in any of the circles, because one
         | needs a measure of lightheartedness and humor to deal with that
         | topic _and_ use it on gossip about somebody else... which is a
         | combination not everybody can or want to manage...not sure if
         | that 's a good or a bad thing, but it is what it is.
        
         | Der_Einzige wrote:
         | Oversocialization.
        
       | thrance wrote:
       | So many words used to convey so little meaning, what a waste of
       | time. _How_ do they think differently about celebrities, _why_ ,
       | and is it a bad thing in and of itself?
        
       | zug_zug wrote:
       | > Lonely individuals tend to think and talk in an unusual way,
       | study finds
       | 
       | That's not really what this article finds... the title is
       | "Loneliness corresponds with neural representations and language
       | use that deviate from shared cultural perceptions", but even that
       | title is too general when it's only talking about a handful of
       | pop-culture celebrities.
       | 
       | And also, remember when a researcher says "loneliness" they mean
       | "self-reported loneliness," I know a lot of people with very
       | little companionship who might insist they are a 0 out of 10 on
       | the loneliness scale.
       | 
       | There's so many different ways to interpret this data:
       | 
       | Perhaps people who are willing to admit they are lonely (usually
       | something that's very mildly frowned upon in my experience) are
       | more willing to break with social norms. Or perhaps having wild
       | takes on reality results in you becoming lonelier. Or perhaps a
       | few outlier individuals really pushed the average. Or perhaps
       | people who are less lonely are generally more knowledgeable/well-
       | informed about these individuals. Etc etc.
        
         | TeMPOraL wrote:
         | All of what you mentioned looks like a possible contributing
         | factor, but this one stood out to me:
         | 
         | > _Or perhaps people who are less lonely are generally more
         | knowledgeable /well-informed about these individuals._
         | 
         | I'd go as far as saying, people who are less lonely are more
         | interested in those individuals in the first place. Celebrities
         | are _social objects_. There 's nothing inherently interesting
         | in life or personality of any specific celebrity - what makes
         | them interesting is that other people know about them too, so
         | discussing them is a way to bond with others, have fun, etc.
         | Lonely people do less of that, so they have less of a
         | motivation to care about celebrities in the first place.
        
           | gilleain wrote:
           | Yes, from the Discussion section of the paper:
           | 
           | > Prior work even finds that celebrities that generate common
           | ground between strangers are disproportionately discussed in
           | conversation, suggesting shared celebrity knowledge can
           | provide a "foot in the door" to forming ties with others
           | 
           | Heh, I know that studying obvious things is the "bread and
           | butter" of scientific study, but it's still funny to read
           | sometimes...
           | 
           | "Hello, fellow coworkers! How about the local sports team,
           | did you see them play last night?"
        
         | bawolff wrote:
         | > And also, remember when a researcher says "loneliness" they
         | mean "self-reported loneliness," I know a lot of people with
         | very little companionship who might insist they are a 0 out of
         | 10 on the loneliness scale.
         | 
         | That seems reasonable. Lonliness is a subjective phenomenon.
         | There are people who don't interact as much as other people but
         | feel content about it and aren't lonely. There are people who
         | are desperate for interaction and get a lot but who are never
         | satisfied. I can't imagine any other way to measure this than
         | by asking.
        
           | rendaw wrote:
           | But there are also people who believe they are fine alone but
           | are negatively affected by it, and people who have lots of
           | friends and interaction but nonetheless lack connection.
           | People aren't very good at judging their own emotions.
           | 
           | Not having a better way to measure doesn't mean this measure
           | is sufficient.
        
             | dfxm12 wrote:
             | "People who self identify as lonely" is a different class
             | of people from "people who are negatively affected". It's
             | worth researching both groups. This study happens to be
             | about the former.
        
             | PittleyDunkin wrote:
             | > Not having a better way to measure doesn't mean this
             | measure is sufficient.
             | 
             | It necessarily does mean that. Empiricists (such as
             | scientists) must work with the tools with which they are
             | equipped. Sure you're not going to get deductively-true
             | results out of it (true for any scientific field), and
             | certainly psychological findings are on the emphatically
             | less-certain side of the scientific fields, but that
             | doesn't imply that results aren't meaningful.
             | 
             | Granted, scientific reporting is so terrible the hedging
             | the (good) scientists engage in to reflect this uncertainty
             | invariably goes out the window. But c'est la vie.
        
           | PrismCrystal wrote:
           | "There are people who don't interact as much as other people
           | but feel content about it and aren't lonely."
           | 
           | Yet the difficulty about self-reported degrees of loneliness,
           | is that it doesn't tell you how _resilient_ a person's
           | contentedness is. Put that person in a crisis situation, like
           | a suddenly precarious financial situation or a serious
           | illness, and they might feel that they desperately crave
           | human contact and were masking it before.
        
       | ksymph wrote:
       | The article has some weird stuff in it which makes the whole
       | thing seem ridiculous (did we really need two paragraphs
       | detailing the effects of loneliness?). The paper frames it much
       | better:
       | 
       | https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00088-3
        
       | dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp wrote:
       | https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00088-3
       | 
       | The original article this one links to is a better read.
        
       | hasbot wrote:
       | The linked article is a summary of a much longer article
       | (https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00088-3).
       | 
       | From the conclusion of the original article:
       | 
       | > Shared reality fosters social connections between people and
       | increases confidence in one's knowledge because it is
       | corroborated by others. While lonely individuals report feeling
       | disconnected from others in terms of their interests and ideas it
       | was previously unclear to what extent this is true with respect
       | to the zeitgeist--defined here as the widely shared perceptions
       | between members of contemporary culture.
       | 
       | I kinda get what they were looking for but knowledge and
       | description of "celebrities" seems like a poor metric for many
       | reasons including somebody just not interested in celebrities.
       | For example, one can be lonely but online all day and so very
       | connected to the "zeitgeist." Or one can have many interactions
       | with other people but never discuss celebrities.
       | 
       | But, ignoring all that, the headline suggested that loneliness
       | alters something in the brain akin to how blindness alters ones
       | view of reality. Or maybe it's the different way of thinking and
       | talking that leads to loneliness.
        
         | alistairSH wrote:
         | _Justin Bieber, Ellen DeGeneres, Kim Kardashian, Barack Obama,
         | and Mark Zuckerberg_
         | 
         | The celebs in the test. I'm not sure I could say anything
         | meaningful about Bieber other than he's a pop star from Canada.
         | Similar for Kardashian - Instagram influencer with lots of
         | cosmetic surgery and makeup. Is the test expecting me to know
         | other details beyond the completely inane and superficial?
         | 
         | It would be even worse if they tested on athletes. I haven't
         | watched any of the big US sports in decades. NFL, NBA, MLB - no
         | clue. I guess I could answer a few questions about World Tour
         | cyclists, but that's not likely to be on a test outside of
         | Belgium or Italy.
        
           | TeMPOraL wrote:
           | I keep up with the _Cardassians_ , so I guess I'd flunk this
           | test quite spectacularly.
        
             | gilleain wrote:
             | Yes, I wonder how the responses would be to "Describe Gul
             | Dukat to someone who doesn't know him"
        
               | em-bee wrote:
               | but see, we got our own celebrities and a way to talk
               | about them. doesn't that kind of confirm the idea? the
               | problem is just that the content of the test is to
               | limited.
               | 
               | every group has their own language and people not in that
               | group have a different one.
        
         | wigglyartichoke wrote:
         | All this stuff can very much lead to depression, and there
         | seems to plenty of evidence that depression changes the brain
         | 
         | There's a reason emotional security is 3rd on the Maslow
         | Hierarchy, after food and physical security
        
       | joshuanapoli wrote:
       | I wonder if loneliness improves (at least correlates) creativity.
       | Can I make myself inventive by becoming lonely?
        
         | bawolff wrote:
         | Lonliness is also correlated with depression which i think
         | would be pretty bad for creativity. Maybe there is a fine line.
        
         | ashoeafoot wrote:
         | You can hijack your longing for love and companionship sure.
        
       | alfiedotwtf wrote:
       | Anyone else find that article repeating itself over and over
       | without getting to the damn point?
        
       | spuds wrote:
       | As someone who's considered himself lonely for most of his life,
       | I can very much relate with the idea of feeling like an outcast,
       | like an alien, someone who doesn't really fit in or understand
       | what others find interest in. I think, in my case at least, it
       | was probably related to being told over and over as I kid that I
       | was doing everything wrong, that I wasn't acting manly enough,
       | etc. Being told I didn't fit in led me to believe it. After a
       | long journey of rebuilding my self-worth, I'm a lot less lonely
       | this days, but I still feel it pulling at me, especially when I'm
       | in a situation where I feel like an outsider.
        
         | htk wrote:
         | I'm a state that resonates a lot with what you wrote, thank you
         | for that. Checking out your bio I found out you have a very
         | interesting blog, I really liked "Unexpected Benefits of Being
         | Vulnerable on the Internet" as it's something that I often
         | wonder about, how we condition ourselves to say things we
         | believe will be accepted (and to receive upvotes) instead of
         | what we truly feel, leaving our true self behind.
        
       | VyseofArcadia wrote:
       | > five well-known celebrities (Justin Bieber, Ellen DeGeneres,
       | Kim Kardashian, Barack Obama, and Mark Zuckerberg)
       | 
       | It feels weird to me to bundle a tech CEO and a former President
       | of the United States in with a pop idol, a talk show host, and a
       | reality TV influencer as "celebrities".
        
         | williamdclt wrote:
         | Why? They're all undeniably celebrities, and I guess the point
         | was to have a spread of source of celebrity?
        
         | KittenInABox wrote:
         | Why not? They are all celebrities. Celebrity status is not
         | really correlated to the actual work they do [although some
         | work requires some notoriety]. Gordon Ramsey's a restaurant
         | owner and chef but he's also been on reality TV. Malala became
         | internationally famous for being the target of an assassination
         | plot, not her years of advocacy for women's education
         | beforehand.
        
       | kstenerud wrote:
       | Hmm... I don't know anything about 2 of the 5 celebrities other
       | than their names. Ellen somethingorother I've never even heard
       | of.
        
       | whoisstan wrote:
       | Is the reverse true as well? Unusual preferences can lead to
       | lonliness?
        
       | brokegrammer wrote:
       | > Chronic loneliness is linked to mental health issues like
       | depression and anxiety, as well as physical health problems,
       | including weakened immunity, cardiovascular disease, and an
       | increased risk of mortality.
       | 
       | A lot of pshycologists make that claim but I haven't found any
       | compelling studies that prove it. Depression and axiety is
       | understandable because we're social animals but the physical
       | aspect isn't convincing unless the socially isolated person is
       | lying around in bed doing drugs and eating unhealthy food all
       | day. In that case instead of loneliness, we should blame drug
       | abuse. It's unclear whether drug use is causing social isolation
       | or if the latter is causing drug use.
       | 
       | All the studies I've seen so far have weak evidence and most of
       | them don't address confounding factors. I'm no scientist but I'd
       | appreciate if someone could point to studies with strong evidence
       | about this claim.
        
         | bluefirebrand wrote:
         | > the physical aspect isn't convincing unless the socially
         | isolated person is lying around in bed doing drugs and eating
         | unhealthy food all day. In that case instead of loneliness, we
         | should blame drug abuse.
         | 
         | It's important to remember that "linked to" does not mean
         | "causes"
         | 
         | You are saying "we should blame the drug abuse and not the
         | loneliness" but "linked to" doesn't imply blame at all already
        
       | marcuskane2 wrote:
       | From the article: "lonely individuals tend to perceive that their
       | ideas are not shared by others"
       | 
       | I wonder how the current loneliness epidemic is intertwined with
       | our current social/political climate and "us vs them"
       | polarization.
       | 
       | I suspect almost everyone has some secret disagreements with
       | their in-group, even if only by a matter of degree, but are
       | afraid to voice that opinion. There have to be tens of millions
       | of Americans who identify as a INSERT_POLITICAL_IDENTITY but
       | disagree with some aspect of that group's platform, narrative or
       | goals.
       | 
       | It's a wonder that anyone _doesn 't_ feel like their ideas are
       | not shared by others.
        
         | lazyeye wrote:
         | Yeah I think this is the end result of defining people more by
         | their group membership than who they are as individuals.
        
         | bluefirebrand wrote:
         | > I suspect almost everyone has some secret disagreements with
         | their in-group
         | 
         | This is assuming they have anyone close enough to even call
         | them an in-group
         | 
         | I think there has been an over-emphasis on individuality and a
         | strong resistance to conformity that has been instilled in a
         | lot of people, which has led to a lot of those people cutting
         | ties with anyone that has even minor disagreements with them
         | 
         | They are forever in search of their perfect friend group that
         | doesn't exist, made up of only people who agree with them about
         | every single thing
        
       | pragma_x wrote:
       | Maybe I'm misunderstanding the abstract here, but doesn't this
       | also suggest that lonely individuals more readily reach their own
       | conclusions about common ideas and concepts? I can't get away
       | from the thought that all this confirms is that groups tend to
       | converge their thinking and speech through regular contact, and
       | that different social groups (including groups of one) will
       | diverge in thinking over time.
        
       | grantmuller wrote:
       | "Our findings provide evidence that loneliness is associated with
       | deviations from the zeitgeist, specifically when it comes to
       | perceptions of well-known celebrities"
       | 
       | Soooooo... thinking differently than the majority of people may
       | lead to loneliness, because those who think differently than the
       | zeitgeist have a hard time connecting with the majority of people
       | because of the way they think?
        
       | bitwize wrote:
       | I find it strange that there's so much alignment in gen pop on
       | how celebrities are perceived, and that any original opinion on
       | these celebrities is considered "idiosyncratic". I feel like
       | there's a Spiegelgrund being built somewhere for people who don't
       | think Taylor Swift is the absolute cat's ass, because that means
       | they're _different_ and different is threatening.
       | 
       | Also, what constitutes idiosyncratic neural representation of
       | celebrities? Back when Britney Spears became huge, my nickname
       | for her was "the succubus", after a contemporaneous episode of
       | _South Park_ in which Chef fell under the sway of a succubus when
       | she sang  "The Morning After" to him. Britney Spears was clearly
       | an idiot, and she had a weak voice compared to other female
       | singers, yet when people saw her gyrating and mewling on MTV'S
       | TRL they went absolutely bonkers and I didn't get it. Is _that_
       | idiosyncratic celebrity ideation?
        
       | rolph wrote:
       | self report should be crossed with frequency of interpersonal
       | contacts
        
       | krackers wrote:
       | So having individualized, original thoughts not arising from the
       | herd-mind is considered "unusual." What a world we live in.
        
         | lincon127 wrote:
         | What a weird thing to take offense to.
         | 
         | Also yes, if there's a consensus on something, thinking
         | different to said consensus would be unusual because it's not
         | the usual. There are no value judgements in this article, so
         | really interpreting this in any other way other than the
         | literal sense makes you come off as defensive.
         | 
         | More to the article itself, I wonder which comes first, the
         | unusual thoughts, or the loneliness?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-11-25 23:01 UTC)