How far back do you have to go in time to get to people actually having time to themselves and walk (15+min) to get most places?
Idiosyncratism is increasingly rarer today than it used to be. There are so many pressures to homogenize almost anything you can think of to an intensely neurotic degree.
The best thing you can do to separate yourself from the pack is to find solitude and develop that distinctive perspective on your passion that you can wholly claim as your own and (hopefully) not futile.
Almost everyone who has ever lived in the past was parting a society where there was one communal view on almost everything. Having your own view is strikingly new.
You can read texts dating back to 2,400 years ago (and beyond). I strongly recommend them in fact. And suffice to say, no there was no "communal view" on most things, let alone everything. For one interesting example, Socrates chose not to write anything down. Most of everything we know from him came from his student, Plato. The reason is that he felt that words would end up distorted and, unable to defend themselves, may be used to misrepresent the views or values of the speaker. Obviously Plato disagreed.
Or another fun one. One of the first acts of the newly formed Athenian Democracy would be to charge Socrates with "corrupting the minds of the youth" and "impiety." And they ultimately decided to kill him over this, on a split [democratic] vote. Needless to say, views varied - to an absolutely extreme degree. To imagine there communal views on almost everything is just such an absolutely bizarre a notion to me. What led you to state/believe this?
That's simply untrue. What today we refer to as misinformation and conspiracy theory was just rumors from the traveling merchant.
The most obvious examples of this is in ancient history how few political issues were actually campaigned on compared to today. Today every politician needs a public stance on hundreds of issues. Do you think that applied in ancient Rome or the various city states in Greece? People didn't care as much. There was less exposure to information, less granularity, and less individual empowerment.
Often times what separated politicians wasn't even the issues, it was their client base and direct familial connections. Issues were a secondary consideration.
Today, it doesn't matter what connections you have if you have the 'wrong' stances, even if trivial in fact (they don't have to actually believe or pursue them in office outside of token gestures) the performative dance politicians have to go through today is strikingly different than any time before. Thats directly because of homogenization of thought and how intensely voters value it.
True isolation is also rare these days. Difficult to spend years in your cabin when you have been conditioned to 10 second internet dopamine injections since childhood.
Not far back you could know the tens or hundreds of people within a ten minute walk, and now you know virtually nobody of the thousands of people living in a 15min walk radius.
Also what people were doing was around tangible objects intuitively understandable to you, rather than “services” consisting 90% of the economy whose name or function or hiw they relate you will never know.
In many places in Europe it is perfectly possible to walk to shops and, say, to public transport. People choose not to but they could they have the time.
> How far back do you have to go in time to get to people actually having time to themselves and walk (15+min) to get most places?
I'll say this is my now in London. Like, sure I'll get the tube when it's gonna take me more than an hour to walk somewhere, but basically everything I need day-to-day is within 10-minutes walk.
Social people assume they're normal, and so does the study author. I prefer to be alone most of the time. I don't feel misunderstood nor isolated by others; I isolate myself. Not everyone, but in general, people are annoying, and worse, people suck. There are plenty of astoundingly good people, but not in crowds. As that great isolated Danish individual once wrote, "the crowd is untruth!" When I do spend time with others, it is usually one on one, with my girlfriend or a close friend. They're aware of my distaste of being around lots of people, and they don't mind. They're social. I don't begrudge their socializing. Also, from time to time, I am active in public theater, on stage, back stage, front of house, wherever, but I don't hang out with actors. They're the worst.
By definition people who participate in society at large, and end up sharing their views with the rest of society, are normal. That’s the meaning of the word. How much value being normal has, pretty much varies across cultures.
Politicians participate in society at large, you really think they're normal? I think you should probably question your assumptions, because regarding people, there is no normal, by definition or otherwise.
I found this quite interesting. So lonely people do indeed see and experience the world in an idiosyncratic way. I wonder how these individuals do in our modern world of life, are they successful (in the ways our society's usually deem with career and money etc) or are they not able to operate in it? Is there a certain type of job they fall into? For example are they entrepreneurs who try to change the world to a view that they see as possible, that would make the most sense to me. Trying to create a place of belonging
I'm a lonely person who spends almost all of his time alone. I work remotely and don't have any friends or family in my city. All of my "socialization" just happens at work, online.
I'm doing well as a software engineer, but I have no ambition or long term goals.
Just my anecdote. I feel like there's not going to be a consistent pattern, and you can probably find people like me in any line of work, and with a wide range of personalities.
This is fascinating to me - my own situation is similar, but I do not consider myself lonely. I also have the pleasure of working remotely and don't have friends or family close by. I don't miss the awkward chaos of interpersonal social interaction in the flesh, nor do I engage in the use of social media.
I'm also employed as a software dev and assume that I must be filling my social well with banal Zoom meetings. I, too, have no specific ambitions or long-term goals beyond living as comfortably and well as possible until my meaningless little stretch of life reaches its inevitable conclusion.
You don't need to alter your beliefs to conform to a social group. I often say stuff even on hn that is apparently wildly controversial but I arrived at that belief on my own yet people accuse me of being part of wildly different political groups.
There are two main types people in this category as well. Those at peace with their situation and those that aren't. Controlling for this in a study like this one is crucial in my opinion.
But on your comment about consistent pattern, I agree.
For whatever reason, I would prefer to not have friends and even be hated than accept something I know to be wrong. But that also means when i myself am wrong you would need to reason and change my mind which is too much for most people. I find most people want to conform to some larger group, but if I don't belong to any group anyways then why not take advantage of that and find truth, even if i am wildly wrong at times maybe I can be authentic.
What I learned is that the world and other people owe me nothing but the opposite works too. But if I seek truth and take time to reason and understand how things work and what the root causes of different issues are then at least I can help change my situation and if I help others then my help would be based in truth and will eradicate problems at their core not at the surface level.
The title implies a causation that might be flipped.
It could mean "I'm lonely, so I think unlike everyone else." This doesn't make a lot of sense. Would people do it out of spite?
More likely "nobody thinks like me, so I am lonely."
The way it's phrased, I would guess they're after funding to spot idiosyncratic thinking to detect loneliness. Imagine if, based on the videos you like to watch articles you read, etc., they could detect that you were lonely, then target ads . . .
Terry Pratchett put it well, I think: “Individuals aren't naturally paid-up members of the human race, except biologically. They need to be bounced around by the Brownian motion of society, which is a mechanism by which human beings constantly remind one another that they are...well...human beings.”
> It could mean "I'm lonely, so I think unlike everyone else." This doesn't make a lot of sense. Would people do it out of spite?
Makes sense to me actually: I wouldn't say it's even necessarily conscious, but the less you interact with others, the more you can become set in your own ways and create pathways to seeing your beliefs as truths.
When I was lonely and isolated, I did started to think differently. Not out of spite, it just happened automatically. We adjust to each other all the time. We change behavior to match others. When we talk with people, our opinions become more alike. But when you are lonely, you change in own way and become out of sync.
That is why it is difficult to reenter socialization after long loneliness. There is gap between you and others, you feel lonely even if people are there. It took years to fully get back and for a while I thought I never will.
> Although it is unclear whether the observed idiosyncratic processing in lonely individuals is a cause or a result of loneliness, the associated lack of shared understanding may lead to challenges in achieving social connections.
This is how you can be surrounded by people and still be lonely when your views differ from the group.
It's also why social media can be such a positive force in peoples lives, and a potential negative in banning under 18s from all social media as was discussed in relation to a recent story.
When we focus on our differences does that lead us to feeling lonely? Is that a reason for the trend in depression? If so does it mean we need a more balanced view, one that also reveals to us what we have in common with others?
Readit News
How far back do you have to go in time to get to people actually having time to themselves and walk (15+min) to get most places?
Idiosyncratism is increasingly rarer today than it used to be. There are so many pressures to homogenize almost anything you can think of to an intensely neurotic degree.
The best thing you can do to separate yourself from the pack is to find solitude and develop that distinctive perspective on your passion that you can wholly claim as your own and (hopefully) not futile.
Or another fun one. One of the first acts of the newly formed Athenian Democracy would be to charge Socrates with "corrupting the minds of the youth" and "impiety." And they ultimately decided to kill him over this, on a split [democratic] vote. Needless to say, views varied - to an absolutely extreme degree. To imagine there communal views on almost everything is just such an absolutely bizarre a notion to me. What led you to state/believe this?
The most obvious examples of this is in ancient history how few political issues were actually campaigned on compared to today. Today every politician needs a public stance on hundreds of issues. Do you think that applied in ancient Rome or the various city states in Greece? People didn't care as much. There was less exposure to information, less granularity, and less individual empowerment.
Often times what separated politicians wasn't even the issues, it was their client base and direct familial connections. Issues were a secondary consideration.
Today, it doesn't matter what connections you have if you have the 'wrong' stances, even if trivial in fact (they don't have to actually believe or pursue them in office outside of token gestures) the performative dance politicians have to go through today is strikingly different than any time before. Thats directly because of homogenization of thought and how intensely voters value it.
Dead Comment
Also what people were doing was around tangible objects intuitively understandable to you, rather than “services” consisting 90% of the economy whose name or function or hiw they relate you will never know.
I'll say this is my now in London. Like, sure I'll get the tube when it's gonna take me more than an hour to walk somewhere, but basically everything I need day-to-day is within 10-minutes walk.
The world, media and HR are run by extroverts.
I'm doing well as a software engineer, but I have no ambition or long term goals.
Just my anecdote. I feel like there's not going to be a consistent pattern, and you can probably find people like me in any line of work, and with a wide range of personalities.
I'm also employed as a software dev and assume that I must be filling my social well with banal Zoom meetings. I, too, have no specific ambitions or long-term goals beyond living as comfortably and well as possible until my meaningless little stretch of life reaches its inevitable conclusion.
There are two main types people in this category as well. Those at peace with their situation and those that aren't. Controlling for this in a study like this one is crucial in my opinion.
But on your comment about consistent pattern, I agree.
For whatever reason, I would prefer to not have friends and even be hated than accept something I know to be wrong. But that also means when i myself am wrong you would need to reason and change my mind which is too much for most people. I find most people want to conform to some larger group, but if I don't belong to any group anyways then why not take advantage of that and find truth, even if i am wildly wrong at times maybe I can be authentic.
What I learned is that the world and other people owe me nothing but the opposite works too. But if I seek truth and take time to reason and understand how things work and what the root causes of different issues are then at least I can help change my situation and if I help others then my help would be based in truth and will eradicate problems at their core not at the surface level.
It could mean "I'm lonely, so I think unlike everyone else." This doesn't make a lot of sense. Would people do it out of spite?
More likely "nobody thinks like me, so I am lonely."
The way it's phrased, I would guess they're after funding to spot idiosyncratic thinking to detect loneliness. Imagine if, based on the videos you like to watch articles you read, etc., they could detect that you were lonely, then target ads . . .
Makes sense to me actually: I wouldn't say it's even necessarily conscious, but the less you interact with others, the more you can become set in your own ways and create pathways to seeing your beliefs as truths.
That is why it is difficult to reenter socialization after long loneliness. There is gap between you and others, you feel lonely even if people are there. It took years to fully get back and for a while I thought I never will.
> Although it is unclear whether the observed idiosyncratic processing in lonely individuals is a cause or a result of loneliness, the associated lack of shared understanding may lead to challenges in achieving social connections.
It's also why social media can be such a positive force in peoples lives, and a potential negative in banning under 18s from all social media as was discussed in relation to a recent story.
I'm so tired of people using science to preach and prosletize.
The past was better when feynman/einstein/ect was the 'model scientist'.
Put me to sleep, this guy's thesis was summarized by his own admission, in the first sentence of Anna Karena.
Give us a new physics to learn. Open our minds, science!