People who are isolated from others do worse on cognitive tests: new research(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
People who are isolated from others do worse on cognitive tests: new research
https://theconversation.com/socially-isolated-people-have-differently-wired-brains-and-poorer-cognition-new-research-185150
95 comments
Without reading the linked article: they have accounted for this by following up for 12 years and finding that isolated people have 26% higher risk of dementia. Which points to the direction that it's isolation causing the function loss and not simply a lack of function causing isolation. (Though, of course, that direction may very well be there too.)
I don't see that as evidence? Incipient dementia causes self-isolation - that could be the vector as well.
As I said, in the experiment it worked in the other direction: isolated people were more likely to suffer from dementia 12 years later.
And could that have meant their brain was wired differently to start with? Not everyone suffers from dementia - do the changes in the brain affect behavior all our lives?
I'm not sure what your point is. The research found a correlation between isolation and dementia and it also found evidence that the former causes the latter and not the other way around (which you argued could also be the case, in your first comment).
I’d be curious about this as well, my personal experience is I think a lot clearer alone, just can’t be isolated for too long
I'm quite content with minimal human contact.
I only really miss my daughter and wife and once in a blue moon some close friends or family.
But I absolutely can notice that I get kind of feral after long isolation periods, even in terms of language abilities -- but I only notice it when being with other people again, not while alone; while alone I feel much clearer as you said.
My point being what you feel about your cognitive processes/world might not be objective reality.
But I absolutely can notice that I get kind of feral after long isolation periods, even in terms of language abilities -- but I only notice it when being with other people again, not while alone; while alone I feel much clearer as you said.
My point being what you feel about your cognitive processes/world might not be objective reality.
[deleted]
They should have done a similar test on people during COVID and compared against their past result.
Anecdotally, as a straight male in his 30s living abroad in a foreign country, I can say that the breakup and isolation during Covid lockdowns, plus the departure of a few close friends, has depressed me to destruction, that even therapy didn't help much, and I seem to get worse by the month.
And I thought I was an introvert who loved to spend time alone. Which I do, but turns out I also need social interactions to survive, and since I always had it at my disposal, I only noticed the deficiency once I lost it and couldn't get it back.
While I do take part in a couple of local regular sports group activities after work, making strong friendships or relationships from those has proven tough to nearly impossible. Seems like nearly everyone in their 30s with a full time job, already has kids or a romantic relationship or has a long term friend group from their youth that occupies their free time so they can't suddenly accommodate an extra +1.
I can't see it getting better. I feel like a meatbag drone grinding away on shitty codebases in front of a screen 8h/day, just to pay rent and taxes for the next 40 years and die alone after, and compensate for the loneliness by traveling and sports. Only comfort is I don't suffer any grave physical illness so at least I got that going for me.
Maybe I should switch careers to something lower paying that has more human interaction and a better female/male ratio than SW development.
And I thought I was an introvert who loved to spend time alone. Which I do, but turns out I also need social interactions to survive, and since I always had it at my disposal, I only noticed the deficiency once I lost it and couldn't get it back.
While I do take part in a couple of local regular sports group activities after work, making strong friendships or relationships from those has proven tough to nearly impossible. Seems like nearly everyone in their 30s with a full time job, already has kids or a romantic relationship or has a long term friend group from their youth that occupies their free time so they can't suddenly accommodate an extra +1.
I can't see it getting better. I feel like a meatbag drone grinding away on shitty codebases in front of a screen 8h/day, just to pay rent and taxes for the next 40 years and die alone after, and compensate for the loneliness by traveling and sports. Only comfort is I don't suffer any grave physical illness so at least I got that going for me.
Maybe I should switch careers to something lower paying that has more human interaction and a better female/male ratio than SW development.
Old people are often lonely for this reason. They spend all their life with one partner and they pass away or separate and they realise they have no friends or group to socialise with.
People are difficult to get to know but they say if you get to know someone who is good and not a bad person you immediately love them.
As a passing stranger reading your dilemma I also reject working until you die as a lifestyle choice. Everyone has the same 24 hours available to them. You don't have to accept the status quo if you don't want to. But you need to accept some risks. People have higher standards for others than for themselves. So getting to know people people put up walls of standards that they themselves don't abide.
Happy to talk tech spiritual stuff with you if you want someone to talk to.
People are difficult to get to know but they say if you get to know someone who is good and not a bad person you immediately love them.
As a passing stranger reading your dilemma I also reject working until you die as a lifestyle choice. Everyone has the same 24 hours available to them. You don't have to accept the status quo if you don't want to. But you need to accept some risks. People have higher standards for others than for themselves. So getting to know people people put up walls of standards that they themselves don't abide.
Happy to talk tech spiritual stuff with you if you want someone to talk to.
> (...) Everyone has the same 24 hours available to them. You don't have to accept the status quo if you don't want to. But you need to accept some risks. (...)
That sounds like "let them eat cake"-level of advice.
Those who work long hours and navigate burnout borders often do so because it's extremely important for them to at least meet a bar that unblocks other life goals.
In some cases, not meeting the bar can result in losing a home, go bankrupt, or lose a partner/family.
Framing that as just a risk that someone needs to accept is irresponsible and naive advice. It's like telling someone in a sinking ship that not managing to hold onto a life raft is a risk that needs to be accepted, when to them it's the only acceptable option.
That sounds like "let them eat cake"-level of advice.
Those who work long hours and navigate burnout borders often do so because it's extremely important for them to at least meet a bar that unblocks other life goals.
In some cases, not meeting the bar can result in losing a home, go bankrupt, or lose a partner/family.
Framing that as just a risk that someone needs to accept is irresponsible and naive advice. It's like telling someone in a sinking ship that not managing to hold onto a life raft is a risk that needs to be accepted, when to them it's the only acceptable option.
What I mean is that everyone has the same 24 hours available, if you want something to change you need to take a risk to change your circumstances. If you don't take a risk you cannot expect things to change.
Of course things could get worse if you take a risk. But that's why we have limited liability.
I am not framing their circumstances as something that people should just accept. I'm saying if they want something they should take a risk and try get it.
Of course things could get worse if you take a risk. But that's why we have limited liability.
I am not framing their circumstances as something that people should just accept. I'm saying if they want something they should take a risk and try get it.
Sorry you are going through this.
One thing that I do is get coffee regularly in the morning with a group of guys. (It took dedication to get to this point)
Community is showing up. We have been doing Mondays for almost 7 years now and not everyone is married with kids.
If you pick somewhere and go there every week at the same time you slowly get incorporated. E.g. library, bookstore, chapel, coffee shop, bar, etc.
One thing that I do is get coffee regularly in the morning with a group of guys. (It took dedication to get to this point)
Community is showing up. We have been doing Mondays for almost 7 years now and not everyone is married with kids.
If you pick somewhere and go there every week at the same time you slowly get incorporated. E.g. library, bookstore, chapel, coffee shop, bar, etc.
Same story and I feel the same way. It is the curse of our generation. We have no future, it was stolen from us by our selfish forebears. We will all die cold and alone as the world collapses around us.
I dunno if this will work for you personally, but I've found amateur theatre and musical theatre to be good ways to meet people, and they're not male-dominated.
Stress can help build capabilities, though. E.g. people who run for the first time may get some paid, but if they keep at it in a smart way, it's just their body adjusting to the new demands placed on it. If they never do anything, their body gets less and less resilient.
Obviously there are some people who may have conditions that make it impossible or require medical intervention to perform certain physical or social activities. The vast majority of people can do these things and don't have extreme social or physical complications. It's more a matter of some willpower or having a smooth introduction and gradual or manageable increase of discomfort.
Obviously there are some people who may have conditions that make it impossible or require medical intervention to perform certain physical or social activities. The vast majority of people can do these things and don't have extreme social or physical complications. It's more a matter of some willpower or having a smooth introduction and gradual or manageable increase of discomfort.
>Stress can help build capabilities, though.
A huuuuge asterix is needed there. Stress can help build you up, only as long as it's controllable, within the tolerable limits of each individual and is paired enough quality sleep and rest when needed (like going to the gym)
Otherwise, stress outside the limits and control of the individual, with bad sleep and little rest, as they usually go hand in hand, leads to burnout, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, homelessness, etc.
A huuuuge asterix is needed there. Stress can help build you up, only as long as it's controllable, within the tolerable limits of each individual and is paired enough quality sleep and rest when needed (like going to the gym)
Otherwise, stress outside the limits and control of the individual, with bad sleep and little rest, as they usually go hand in hand, leads to burnout, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, homelessness, etc.
Frequency and sleep are certainly important factors. Stressing your bones from time to time lead to hairline fractures that get repaired and cause your body to strengthen the area, leading to stronger bones. But doing it faster than the repairs catch up leads to a stress fracture [1]. That happens even from what we consider normal loads (running, jumping, etc) if you aren't used to them and then suddenly experience them very frequently.
The same is true for countless other physical and psychological processes. Some stress is great, but you have to be very careful if you lack buildup or recovery periods.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_fracture
The same is true for countless other physical and psychological processes. Some stress is great, but you have to be very careful if you lack buildup or recovery periods.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_fracture
And even if you do everything right, there's never a guarantee that any given stressor will actually trigger a big enough set of adaptations to be a net positive. Human psychology and physiology do not operate on some kind of magic quid-pro-quo system where ability or health exist to reward effort or discipline; sometimes stuff just doesn't work the way you want or expect and you have to deal with it any way you can.
It doesn't matter. "Bad" is always relative to what problems the chimp brain spends its time solving.
define good and bad??? who's to say being social and popular makes you good at cognition? what cognitive task we talking about? were tesla and einstein sociable? were they popular? this is biased bs
>Again, I believe the basic conclusion that isolation is bad for your brain is likely true, but I'm not sure I agree that this is strong evidence for it.
The entire human body responds to moderate stress by improving itself. Studies have shown that fasting, exercise, and "cognitive taxation" aka learning through practice improves related areas and there is causative connections here.
I think this, plus the correlation from the study is effectively strong evidence for isolation being causative to lower intelligence.
We'd have to run an actual causative experiment here to establish this with any sort of finality though.
The entire human body responds to moderate stress by improving itself. Studies have shown that fasting, exercise, and "cognitive taxation" aka learning through practice improves related areas and there is causative connections here.
I think this, plus the correlation from the study is effectively strong evidence for isolation being causative to lower intelligence.
We'd have to run an actual causative experiment here to establish this with any sort of finality though.
Don't worry HN, you're safe.
I don't suspect any of this applies to people who isolate specifically so they can do something with their brain: study something, or make something. If you're at a party, and people basically like you, but you're thinking that you'd rather be finishing some debugging session that you left half done, this is not about you.
Rather, those who are shunned by others for being dullards.
Imagine they made an analogous study about running, following thousands of participants in distance running events. What would the finding be? "Runners who are separated from others are uncoordinated, inefficient and unfit, and have a higher BMI than those who stick with the pack". But, of course, front-runners are separated from others; there are necessarily far fewer of them in the study, leading to a misleading generalization.
I don't suspect any of this applies to people who isolate specifically so they can do something with their brain: study something, or make something. If you're at a party, and people basically like you, but you're thinking that you'd rather be finishing some debugging session that you left half done, this is not about you.
Rather, those who are shunned by others for being dullards.
Imagine they made an analogous study about running, following thousands of participants in distance running events. What would the finding be? "Runners who are separated from others are uncoordinated, inefficient and unfit, and have a higher BMI than those who stick with the pack". But, of course, front-runners are separated from others; there are necessarily far fewer of them in the study, leading to a misleading generalization.
I'm only half-buying this, because social interactions are clearly important, a lot of our brain is involved processing it, so if you don't exercise those parts there must be consequences. The question really is whether doing something else with your brain is a viable substitute, and also exactly what works as social interaction for your brain.
If you are on HN you would believe that all studies are wrong due to trivial sample issues, but the researchers are usually aware of the issues and try to control for it. For your analogous study nobody would mistake the cause for the effect like that.
If you are on HN you would believe that all studies are wrong due to trivial sample issues, but the researchers are usually aware of the issues and try to control for it. For your analogous study nobody would mistake the cause for the effect like that.
Sorry, but this is cope. Feeling intellectually superior does not make you exempt from human biology.
I wouldn't even show up in the kind of data they used:
"We, therefore, investigated data from nearly 500,000 people from the UK Biobank, with a mean age of 57. People were classified as socially isolated if they were living alone, had social contact less than monthly and participated in social activities less than weekly."
"Our study also included neuroimaging (MRI) data from approximately 32,000 people. This showed that socially isolated people had poorer cognition."
They focused on older people, severely isolated, for whom brain MRI data was available.
If you're not already having some sort of brain problem, you won't be listed in a database where your brain MRI data is available. "People with brain MRI data" is biased toward cognitive problems.
"We, therefore, investigated data from nearly 500,000 people from the UK Biobank, with a mean age of 57. People were classified as socially isolated if they were living alone, had social contact less than monthly and participated in social activities less than weekly."
"Our study also included neuroimaging (MRI) data from approximately 32,000 people. This showed that socially isolated people had poorer cognition."
They focused on older people, severely isolated, for whom brain MRI data was available.
If you're not already having some sort of brain problem, you won't be listed in a database where your brain MRI data is available. "People with brain MRI data" is biased toward cognitive problems.
The article only makes assumptions and I guess a debugging session would also stimulate brain regions needed for higher thoughts. Perhaps different ones of course. But there certainly are people that basically do nothing when alone and very creative people on the other hand. It would be surprising if the negative effects were the same.
On the other hand even as a passionate programmer I see some form of mental decay in people describing debugging as fun. It can be fun but it probably shouldn't.
On the other hand even as a passionate programmer I see some form of mental decay in people describing debugging as fun. It can be fun but it probably shouldn't.
> Sorry, but this is cope.
Sorry I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying he is not coping with the findings of the experiment? Did you typo “crap”?
If it’s slang for “You are misinterpreting the facts to support your own biased opinion” it’s not slang I’ve seen before
Sorry I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying he is not coping with the findings of the experiment? Did you typo “crap”?
If it’s slang for “You are misinterpreting the facts to support your own biased opinion” it’s not slang I’ve seen before
"(slang) A coping mechanism or self-delusion one clings to in order to endure the hopelessness or despair of existence."
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cope#Noun
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cope#Noun
not to mention who's to say people like HN users at parties, lol. being a karma farmers doesn't make you appreciated, it makes you vain.
Well of course finding the correlation in groupings is what these studies attempt to uncover
You don't think they controlled for that?
I don't know. The web mag article doesn't mention it; the abstract on the NIH website doesn't mention it; and the link to the full text isn't working.
For instance, I suspect that the raw data which was used by the study could be examined in ways such as: find the top 5% cognitive performers and determine how many of those socially isolate compared to the average.
Also, the study's definition of isolation is rather severe: "People were classified as socially isolated if they were living alone, had social contact less than monthly and participated in social activities less than weekly." The mean age in the data is 57, too; the investigation is focused on those who are getting on in years.
The source of the data would almost certainly have to be self-reporting, rooted in the answers to some questionnaires. A following problem could occur there: some of those who have a full-time job could answer yes to having daily social contact, whereas others could interpret social as anything but work. That would then cause a bias: over-representation of the unemployed in the isolated category. Speaking of work, based on the mean age, there is going to be a bunch of retirees in there too. Retired old people who don't see anyone not doing well mentally is hardly a secret.
For instance, I suspect that the raw data which was used by the study could be examined in ways such as: find the top 5% cognitive performers and determine how many of those socially isolate compared to the average.
Also, the study's definition of isolation is rather severe: "People were classified as socially isolated if they were living alone, had social contact less than monthly and participated in social activities less than weekly." The mean age in the data is 57, too; the investigation is focused on those who are getting on in years.
The source of the data would almost certainly have to be self-reporting, rooted in the answers to some questionnaires. A following problem could occur there: some of those who have a full-time job could answer yes to having daily social contact, whereas others could interpret social as anything but work. That would then cause a bias: over-representation of the unemployed in the isolated category. Speaking of work, based on the mean age, there is going to be a bunch of retirees in there too. Retired old people who don't see anyone not doing well mentally is hardly a secret.
Hard as it maybe to beleive, we humans are not good at acting in our self interest if the outcome can't be shared with others. Yes, better to be succesful and alone than unsuccesful and alone but that is hardly a good motivator for working your but off or putting in an extra effort.
In my opinion they should do similar tests except with a 3rd group where isolated folks have a good chance of overcoming the isolation if they succeed in the cognitive test. Loneliness is very painful, hope of pain relief is just about the most powerful psychological force. I am clueless about the field but I attribute many mental disorders to be caused by that force. Typically the pain is memory of past trauma but also a belief connecting ongoing pain to something and hope of relieving that pain.
In my opinion they should do similar tests except with a 3rd group where isolated folks have a good chance of overcoming the isolation if they succeed in the cognitive test. Loneliness is very painful, hope of pain relief is just about the most powerful psychological force. I am clueless about the field but I attribute many mental disorders to be caused by that force. Typically the pain is memory of past trauma but also a belief connecting ongoing pain to something and hope of relieving that pain.
> hope of pain relief is just about the most powerful psychological force
I was diagnosed with BPD about 10 years ago, and I think I'm mostly "cured". Two key turning points for me were:
1) drugs -- a great realization that the way you feel can be changed and to some degree you CAN be in fact in control by taking certain drugs. I absolutely do not encourage people to take drugs -- it just worked in my case (perhaps precisely because I was systematic in rotating drug types as to avoid getting dependent/tolerant)
2) therapy in general, but Schema Therapy's conclusion that for BPD it is crucial that the patient learns to combat the "punitive parent" inner voice. The first few times I learned to stand up to that punitive inner voice was again, a life-altering experience.
Before I felt completely trapped by the vicious loops of self negating my emotional needs, vicious punitive/critical voices, self-harm, rage and then complete detachment; after I had actual proof that things can get better, things did indeed start to get better.
I was diagnosed with BPD about 10 years ago, and I think I'm mostly "cured". Two key turning points for me were:
1) drugs -- a great realization that the way you feel can be changed and to some degree you CAN be in fact in control by taking certain drugs. I absolutely do not encourage people to take drugs -- it just worked in my case (perhaps precisely because I was systematic in rotating drug types as to avoid getting dependent/tolerant)
2) therapy in general, but Schema Therapy's conclusion that for BPD it is crucial that the patient learns to combat the "punitive parent" inner voice. The first few times I learned to stand up to that punitive inner voice was again, a life-altering experience.
Before I felt completely trapped by the vicious loops of self negating my emotional needs, vicious punitive/critical voices, self-harm, rage and then complete detachment; after I had actual proof that things can get better, things did indeed start to get better.
I don't know enough about BPD but thank you for sharing your experience. For both points, one thing that bothers me about them is how it is assumed a person who needs them is able to obtain them. If you have social anxiety or various sociological or cultural realities preventing you from seeing s therapist and getting a perscription what is the alternative? If I can get mortally and legally intoxicated in alcohol then why can't a patient use a chatroom to talk to psychiatrists and get relevant medication otc? Is Xanax addiction really comparable to oxycotin?
Those are good points.
I know xanax/benzodiazepines/anything that messes with GABA is very dangerous long term because withdrawals can kill you.
I would not go as far as saying drugs should be free for all, because I have a sample size of one(myself) and for instance when dealing with nicotine -- I know 99% of the cases report that quitting nicotine is very hard, for me it was hard, but not that hard.
My point would be more along the lines of "a person should be allowed to experience any drugs under medical supervision as part of therapy" -- and my supposition being in a lot of cases there can be long term effects for short term drugs just because the patient knows there's a button in his head, whereas before he thought there was none and the way he feels is completely outside his control.
I know for a fact not all drugs are like that -- surely quitting antidepressants results in returning depression or quitting my stimulants results in me getting my ADHD back. But even if my impulsivity would be back for quitting ADHD stimulants, the fact that I took the stimulants for a year and was able to drive my daughter to kindergarden without turning into an emotional mess, reinforced circuitry in my brain that helps me drive without being medicated.
Also my panick attacks completely stopped just because I had a Xanax in my wallet and I had the peace of mind that I could end a pannic attack if one arose.
Anyway, I had some success with Buspar for anxiety.
And finding the right psychiatrist to prescribe you the right medication is a process in itself; the same with psychotherapy, and meaningful change in your life.
And my main point would be that a lot of people have never experienced being in control of their mental health problems and just showing them even a temporary fix could be very good for them, under the right circumstances. Under the wrong circumstances it could lead to addiction.
I would not go as far as saying drugs should be free for all, because I have a sample size of one(myself) and for instance when dealing with nicotine -- I know 99% of the cases report that quitting nicotine is very hard, for me it was hard, but not that hard.
My point would be more along the lines of "a person should be allowed to experience any drugs under medical supervision as part of therapy" -- and my supposition being in a lot of cases there can be long term effects for short term drugs just because the patient knows there's a button in his head, whereas before he thought there was none and the way he feels is completely outside his control.
I know for a fact not all drugs are like that -- surely quitting antidepressants results in returning depression or quitting my stimulants results in me getting my ADHD back. But even if my impulsivity would be back for quitting ADHD stimulants, the fact that I took the stimulants for a year and was able to drive my daughter to kindergarden without turning into an emotional mess, reinforced circuitry in my brain that helps me drive without being medicated.
Also my panick attacks completely stopped just because I had a Xanax in my wallet and I had the peace of mind that I could end a pannic attack if one arose.
Anyway, I had some success with Buspar for anxiety.
And finding the right psychiatrist to prescribe you the right medication is a process in itself; the same with psychotherapy, and meaningful change in your life.
And my main point would be that a lot of people have never experienced being in control of their mental health problems and just showing them even a temporary fix could be very good for them, under the right circumstances. Under the wrong circumstances it could lead to addiction.
My first year of uni was purely online. I nearly failed, I had to switch to a different (but similar) major. I just couldn't do anything, I stared at the screen all day long and I was unable to do anything.
Now that we're back, I have more motivation to do things.
Now that we're back, I have more motivation to do things.
Lots of comments in this thread are confusing social isolation with being by one's self for a while. Isolation is a whole different thing from solitude - it occurs in the long term.
This correlation can imply causation in two ways.
The one no one mentions is that stupid people may have fewer friends.
The one no one mentions is that stupid people may have fewer friends.
> The one no one mentions is that stupid people may have fewer friends.
It's the other way, in my experience.
People tend to be friends with other people of similar intelligence and since intelligence follows the normal distribution, people with most friends are of average intelligence.
Income also (mostly) follows intelligence, meaning less intelligent people have it tougher, meaning it is harder for them to set boundaries at work. This in turn makes them accommodate wildly differing opinions as they can not pick their coworkers and some degree of harmony is a must in the workplace.
Meaning they are trained to get along with college graduated engineers as well as flat earth crackpots. Thus they draw from a much wider pool of potential friends.
It is handy to be friends with an old landlady, despite her believing in the healing power of minerals in your pocket. She still has the cash and the spare room to throw the party.
Especially when she regularly hires your flat earther husband to paint her flats as the college student tenants graduate and move on.
It's the other way, in my experience.
People tend to be friends with other people of similar intelligence and since intelligence follows the normal distribution, people with most friends are of average intelligence.
Income also (mostly) follows intelligence, meaning less intelligent people have it tougher, meaning it is harder for them to set boundaries at work. This in turn makes them accommodate wildly differing opinions as they can not pick their coworkers and some degree of harmony is a must in the workplace.
Meaning they are trained to get along with college graduated engineers as well as flat earth crackpots. Thus they draw from a much wider pool of potential friends.
It is handy to be friends with an old landlady, despite her believing in the healing power of minerals in your pocket. She still has the cash and the spare room to throw the party.
Especially when she regularly hires your flat earther husband to paint her flats as the college student tenants graduate and move on.
Causative experiments are quite different from correlations. Correlations are observations only, causative experiments are not.
To determine causation we'd have to have a set of isolated people and a set of social people and for each set we deliberately pick half and raise the isolated people to be more social while making social people become more isolated. Then we record IQs. Only this experiment will determine causation.
To determine causation we'd have to have a set of isolated people and a set of social people and for each set we deliberately pick half and raise the isolated people to be more social while making social people become more isolated. Then we record IQs. Only this experiment will determine causation.
Seems extremely odd because my anecdotal experience is that the people who prefer to isolate are on average slightly more intelligent than those that prefer to be around others in their free time.
In my experience people who are isolated tend to be intelligent but have cognitive distortions like anxiety, depression, etc, which takes up their internal cpu. People who have a robust social life, on their terms are a distinct group separate from people who have a social life that’s less fulfilling than they want it to be.
The definition for socially isolated seems fairly extreme and unlikely to be met by anyone still working, “People were classified as socially isolated if they were living alone, had social contact less than monthly and participated in social activities less than weekly.”
[deleted]
The mean age was 57. I’m guessing that the people were older and less healthy than the typical smart introverted HN type you might be picturing. If you know elderly people who become isolated this rings true. In fact I think that at any age social interaction with other humans is one of the great sources of novelty in life that can help keep us sharp.
> people who prefer to isolate are on average slightly more intelligent than those that prefer to be around others in their free time
But that's the rub; it's the forced isolation of those that prefer to be around others that aren't going to fare well. Based on your observation these folks are already not the most intelligent of the bunch, I suspect it goes downhill from there when pushed into solitude.
But that's the rub; it's the forced isolation of those that prefer to be around others that aren't going to fare well. Based on your observation these folks are already not the most intelligent of the bunch, I suspect it goes downhill from there when pushed into solitude.
"We, therefore, investigated data from nearly 500,000 people from the UK Biobank, with a mean age of 57. People were classified as socially isolated if they were living alone, had social contact less than monthly and participated in social activities less than weekly."
How could any participant participate in social activities more than weekly, yet have social contact less than monthly? I won't ask a similar question of the living alone issue since perhaps a spouse is not considered social contact.
And what basic efforts were made to try to avoid looking at correlation vs causation? And in particular the reverse of the suggested direction? Suggesting socially isolated individuals have lower cognitive abilities is a pretty surprising hypothesis, yet suggesting people with impaired cognition are more socially isolated is anything but.
How could any participant participate in social activities more than weekly, yet have social contact less than monthly? I won't ask a similar question of the living alone issue since perhaps a spouse is not considered social contact.
And what basic efforts were made to try to avoid looking at correlation vs causation? And in particular the reverse of the suggested direction? Suggesting socially isolated individuals have lower cognitive abilities is a pretty surprising hypothesis, yet suggesting people with impaired cognition are more socially isolated is anything but.
> a pretty surprising hypothesis
How so? It seems pretty obvious to state that if you don't make use of certain mental capabilities, they decay.
How so? It seems pretty obvious to state that if you don't make use of certain mental capabilities, they decay.
Makes sense. The study sounds similar to Rat Park in which a sense of community can be beneficial, not detrimental. Isolation and being too social are two extremes. I’ve always been under the impression that the middle path is the ideal one. Like everything in life, moderation is key.
I find it difficult to take these social science studies seriously these days. It's often impossible to separate cause, effect and correlation.
People with poor cognition are more likely to socially isolate themselves (due to rejection by peers and/or trouble fitting in due to their unconventional thinking styles). Also, cognitive tests were typically designed by psychologists and other social scientists so there are likely to be biases in the kinds of intelligence that they measure; they likely favor people who are (on average) more social and more conventional thinkers like themselves.
People with poor cognition are more likely to socially isolate themselves (due to rejection by peers and/or trouble fitting in due to their unconventional thinking styles). Also, cognitive tests were typically designed by psychologists and other social scientists so there are likely to be biases in the kinds of intelligence that they measure; they likely favor people who are (on average) more social and more conventional thinkers like themselves.
The other way around is true as well. Smart people sometimes get rejected by peers and some often prefer solitude. Solitude doesn't need to manifest in loneliness though. But you rarely meet a luminary that doesn't need a lot of alone time or is unhappy with a lot of it.
There were studies that people generally get happier with more socialization with the exception of smart people that get unhappy with too much of it. But there are also exception to this rule. You might prefer alone time and you might still be dumb as a brick.
There were studies that people generally get happier with more socialization with the exception of smart people that get unhappy with too much of it. But there are also exception to this rule. You might prefer alone time and you might still be dumb as a brick.
Now do this for folks engaged in highly social virtual communities.
> It is hard to argue with the fact that humans are social animals and gain enjoyment from connecting with others, whatever age we are.
Maybe except for schizoid personality disorder:
> lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency toward a solitary or sheltered lifestyle, secretiveness, emotional coldness, detachment and apathy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorde...
Maybe except for schizoid personality disorder:
> lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency toward a solitary or sheltered lifestyle, secretiveness, emotional coldness, detachment and apathy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorde...
Relevant: Quote from The Jargon File:
"Many hackers have noticed that mainstream culture has shown a tendency to pathologize and medicalize normal variations in personality, especially those variations that make life more complicated for authority figures and conformists. Thus, hackers aware of the issue tend to be among those questioning whether ADD and AS actually exist; and if so whether they are really ‘diseases’ rather than extremes of a normal genetic variation like having freckles or being able to taste DPT. In either case, they have a sneaking tendency to wonder if these syndromes are over-diagnosed and over-treated. After all, people in authority will always be inconvenienced by schoolchildren or workers or citizens who are prickly, intelligent individualists — thus, any social system that depends on authority relationships will tend to helpfully ostracize and therapize and drug such ‘abnormal’ people until they are properly docile and stupid and ‘well-socialized’."
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/weaknesses.html
"Many hackers have noticed that mainstream culture has shown a tendency to pathologize and medicalize normal variations in personality, especially those variations that make life more complicated for authority figures and conformists. Thus, hackers aware of the issue tend to be among those questioning whether ADD and AS actually exist; and if so whether they are really ‘diseases’ rather than extremes of a normal genetic variation like having freckles or being able to taste DPT. In either case, they have a sneaking tendency to wonder if these syndromes are over-diagnosed and over-treated. After all, people in authority will always be inconvenienced by schoolchildren or workers or citizens who are prickly, intelligent individualists — thus, any social system that depends on authority relationships will tend to helpfully ostracize and therapize and drug such ‘abnormal’ people until they are properly docile and stupid and ‘well-socialized’."
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/weaknesses.html
I can't stand this "Hacker supremacy" bs, and I think that Eric Raymond who you post here is where that all started. Hackers are not better at psychology than psychologists. I don't understand why there are these hackers who think they are better at all things (except of course, sports, the uncivilised unintellectual entertainment). I find it extremely off-putting
Surely you can find supremacists in almost any professional environment as soon as it requires some praised/valued skills. I’m not sure Eric was "the start of it all", although he certainly was instrumental in broadcasting this self complaisant cultural bias – as well as many other things that could be labelled more positively.
Also, without casting any general discredit on psychologists, it’s important to keep in mind that they are also humans with their own biases. Positive critic by non-professional seems more balanced than blind acceptance. Of course systematic reassessment of things that point out your own weaknesses is an other matter.
Also, without casting any general discredit on psychologists, it’s important to keep in mind that they are also humans with their own biases. Positive critic by non-professional seems more balanced than blind acceptance. Of course systematic reassessment of things that point out your own weaknesses is an other matter.
Would not people in authority then ban amfetamin based pills, after all they make people sharper
Amphetamines let you get stuff done which is usually beneficical to society, but it doesn't make you smarter or more capable.
Sociopaths often like to pathologize people not sharing their emotions with them.
> lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency toward a solitary or sheltered lifestyle, secretiveness, emotional coldness, detachment and apathy.
> Affected individuals may be unable to form intimate attachments to others and simultaneously possess a rich and elaborate but exclusively internal fantasy world.
> stilted speech
> a lack of deriving enjoyment from most activities.
> feeling as though one is an "observer" rather than a participant in life.
> an inability to tolerate emotional expectations of others,
> a degree of asexuality.
>idiosyncratic moral or political beliefs.
> Symptoms typically start in late childhood or adolescence.
Jesus, TIL I might have a Schizoid personality disorder.
> Affected individuals may be unable to form intimate attachments to others and simultaneously possess a rich and elaborate but exclusively internal fantasy world.
> stilted speech
> a lack of deriving enjoyment from most activities.
> feeling as though one is an "observer" rather than a participant in life.
> an inability to tolerate emotional expectations of others,
> a degree of asexuality.
>idiosyncratic moral or political beliefs.
> Symptoms typically start in late childhood or adolescence.
Jesus, TIL I might have a Schizoid personality disorder.
Yes, that’s why it’s a disorder
It's not necessarily a disorder - AFAIK psychiatry considers something a disorder only if it causes harm to yourself or others. That's why being a homosexual is not a disorder, nor is being schizoid - if you're happy with that lifestyle, and not harming others, then it's not a disorder. I have a brother who is most likely schizoid, and he is - as far as everybody can tell - pretty happy and harmless.
> That's why being a homosexual is not a disorder
In the past, it was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and...
"As a result of this scientific research, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. Upon a thorough review of the scientific data, the American Psychological Association followed in 1975 and also called on all mental health professionals to take the lead in "removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated" with homosexuality. In 1993, the National Association of Social Workers adopted the same position as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, in recognition of scientific evidence. The World Health Organization, which listed homosexuality in the ICD-9 in 1977, removed homosexuality from the ICD-10 which was endorsed by the 43rd World Health Assembly on 17 May 1990."
I.e. the respective changes in the diagnostic manuals were only adopted in the 90s.
In the past, it was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and...
"As a result of this scientific research, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. Upon a thorough review of the scientific data, the American Psychological Association followed in 1975 and also called on all mental health professionals to take the lead in "removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated" with homosexuality. In 1993, the National Association of Social Workers adopted the same position as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, in recognition of scientific evidence. The World Health Organization, which listed homosexuality in the ICD-9 in 1977, removed homosexuality from the ICD-10 which was endorsed by the 43rd World Health Assembly on 17 May 1990."
I.e. the respective changes in the diagnostic manuals were only adopted in the 90s.
Yes, and for the similar historical reason, schizoid personality disorder has "disorder" in the name, even though it's not considered an illness by modern psychiatry. OP should educate themselves.
It's listed in both the DSM-5 and the ICD-10 as a disorder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder#...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder#...
I've been really enjoying working from home due to the boost in productivity, but I've definitely noticed some adverse affects due to the social isolation. Unless I specifically put in effort to socialise in the evenings, I could very easily go weeks or even months with absolutely no social contact at all. This is really unhealthy.
I've had to take steps to stop this happening and make sure I socialise at least once a week. This isn't something that comes naturally to me, but maybe it's a good thing to learn anyway.
Having a partner that you live with or see regularly doesn't really have the same effect as generally socialising. It is, of course, better than being completely alone, but I think the relationship will be strained and it will have a bad long term outcome.
The thing is it's not really that working from home is good, it's that open offices are bad. It would be better to have a private office at work where I can still easily meet people and have lunch with them etc.
I've had to take steps to stop this happening and make sure I socialise at least once a week. This isn't something that comes naturally to me, but maybe it's a good thing to learn anyway.
Having a partner that you live with or see regularly doesn't really have the same effect as generally socialising. It is, of course, better than being completely alone, but I think the relationship will be strained and it will have a bad long term outcome.
The thing is it's not really that working from home is good, it's that open offices are bad. It would be better to have a private office at work where I can still easily meet people and have lunch with them etc.
Seems like research you would probably need to take with a grain of salt. While being socially isolated obviously isn't good for anyone I'd sceptical if someone who is isolated yet is active, eats well and keeps their minds active would show similar results.
My guess would be those that are socially isolated are less likely to be physically active, less likely to eat well and less likely to engage in activities that stimulate their minds. I'm thinking of people like my Gran who in last decade of her life after the passing of her husband did little more than watch TV and walk to shop once a week. People who live like this noticeably change. I've seen it in myself during periods of depression and social isolation. I'm not sure it's the isolation that does the damage, more everything else that often goes along with people who are living isolated.
My guess would be those that are socially isolated are less likely to be physically active, less likely to eat well and less likely to engage in activities that stimulate their minds. I'm thinking of people like my Gran who in last decade of her life after the passing of her husband did little more than watch TV and walk to shop once a week. People who live like this noticeably change. I've seen it in myself during periods of depression and social isolation. I'm not sure it's the isolation that does the damage, more everything else that often goes along with people who are living isolated.
Maybe there is correlation between them? Isolated people don't have energy to do those things and then feel even worse and its a negative feedback cycle.
Can anyone recommend ways to rehabilitate cognitive deficits induced from isolation?
From my research, neurofeedback seems like the best choice. Wondering if anyone else has been looking for similar answers and found anything?
From my research, neurofeedback seems like the best choice. Wondering if anyone else has been looking for similar answers and found anything?
Processing confusion is a biggie in dealing with the forces of humanity around you and distinguishing a sense of self in the pandemonium. Addressing confusing on a test is also important, to know whether or not you are guessing, and spending more or less time accordingly, even skipping and coming back(because other questions can actually give you the answer, or the mental waypoint for retrieving it).
Here's the link to the paper: https://oa.mg/work/10.1007/s10902-016-9735-z
I initially read this as "People Isolated from Otters..."
Made me want to go out and find an otter.
Made me want to go out and find an otter.
I recommend the book Solitude by Anthony Storr for a strong counter-argument.
https://www.amazon.com/Solitude-Return-Self-Anthony-Storr/dp...
https://www.amazon.com/Solitude-Return-Self-Anthony-Storr/dp...
I am watching Picard atm. It seems as though the Borg already know this.
How do I know, it's not the other way round?
Causation or correlation?
Remote workers in remote locations
Clarify what you mean?
Seems to be commenting that remote work will socially isolate people and deteriorate their mental performance.
[deleted]
If all your social interaction is at work, you deserve whatever will happen to you...
Is this an American thing? Many of my friends now days were previous colleagues but I see your opinion a lot. "People at work aren't your friends" etc. I wonder if this is because everyone drives to work in the US, so drinking/activities after work become harder. Where as in the UK, this is less common. More people cycle/walk/take the bus, and so can go drinking after work.
People would leave for other companies and still meet up for drinks after work, they'd move away but we'd still stay in touch and meet up if they were ever in town at our usual pub. We'd go snowboarding/surfing/hiking together. Pretty much all my non-school/university friends came from work. I can't imagine not being friends with all these people.
Right now I love remote work, but I feel I'd have a much smaller social circle if I graduated during the pandemic and went straight into remote work.
People would leave for other companies and still meet up for drinks after work, they'd move away but we'd still stay in touch and meet up if they were ever in town at our usual pub. We'd go snowboarding/surfing/hiking together. Pretty much all my non-school/university friends came from work. I can't imagine not being friends with all these people.
Right now I love remote work, but I feel I'd have a much smaller social circle if I graduated during the pandemic and went straight into remote work.
Hacker news acts as if anything but detesting your coworkers is shameful. I'm in my 20s working a tech job with other people very much like me, the company pays for a lot of events which turn in to outright parties. I'm not ashamed to admit that some of these work parties have been some of the most fun moments for me. The company has more money than my friends and I do so the parties are on another level where there are hired boats, entertainers, venues, etc.
I have an active social life outside of coworkers as well, but its very different. We do modest and affordable things like getting dinner or playing board games.
I have an active social life outside of coworkers as well, but its very different. We do modest and affordable things like getting dinner or playing board games.
I mean, getting along with co-worker is great. And yes, you can do that, and should.
But the interplay of money and status-games at work can really mess these things up. Things are great when you're just hanging out with peers. But what happens when the boss shows up? What happens when the peers become your superiors or subordinates? What happens when the company starts having layoffs, or stack-ranking? These relationships go to shit.
There are also a lot of invisible boundaries that need to be maintained, not least around sexuality.
So no, don't detest your coworkers. Maybe even invest in friendships with them. But understand that, until you're working for different companies, there needs to be a little bit of a wall.
But the interplay of money and status-games at work can really mess these things up. Things are great when you're just hanging out with peers. But what happens when the boss shows up? What happens when the peers become your superiors or subordinates? What happens when the company starts having layoffs, or stack-ranking? These relationships go to shit.
There are also a lot of invisible boundaries that need to be maintained, not least around sexuality.
So no, don't detest your coworkers. Maybe even invest in friendships with them. But understand that, until you're working for different companies, there needs to be a little bit of a wall.
Your comment seems to be true of US big tech, but at Australian startups, no one is worried about being too friendly and getting canceled. Where I work the managers and execs attend these parties too and no one is afraid of saying the wrong thing.
Walking on eggshells in US big tech just doesn't seem worth it.
Walking on eggshells in US big tech just doesn't seem worth it.
Lol let's count them.
- i'm in europe
- i'm socializing with my co workers, sometimes to the point of going on holidays with them
- we work fully remote
However, letting that be your only source of social interaction is a Bad Idea(tm).
Look at all the amenities the likes of Google provide for their employees. They're geared towards making them live at work.
What you describe - going for a pint with co workers after work - is an entirely different animal.
- i'm in europe
- i'm socializing with my co workers, sometimes to the point of going on holidays with them
- we work fully remote
However, letting that be your only source of social interaction is a Bad Idea(tm).
Look at all the amenities the likes of Google provide for their employees. They're geared towards making them live at work.
What you describe - going for a pint with co workers after work - is an entirely different animal.
It's partly a Tech thing, I think. Those workplaces can be pretty competitive and a little brutal inside, so people start worrying that they're going to get stabbed in the back. In lower-pressure jobs this is less of an issue.
Also the FAANGS do everything in their power to make you live at work and I resent that.
Again, I believe the basic conclusion that isolation is bad for your brain is likely true, but I'm not sure I agree that this is strong evidence for it. People who sit in wheelchairs a lot have low leg strength; the wheelchairs aren't usually causing it.