Only the Lonely

Let's calm down about the loneliness epidemic.

The assertion that loneliness is bad for you warrants closer inspection.

Loneliness increases the risk of early death. Okay, but:

• What is the initial risk? 'Early' could imply 'rare'. So a 50% increase in, say, a 10% risk is an overall risk increase of 5%.
• What is the impact? If 'Early' means a matter of months, that makes little difference over a lifetime.

Loneliness is also associated with poor health (morbidity). Okay, but:

• The Brigham Young study from the above link also states that "initial health status has an influence." People may not be ill because they are isolated, they may be isolated because they are ill. The causation implied by the correlation may in fact lie in reverse.
• The causative chain is not elaborated. What is it about loneliness that is so bad? In fact, the stigma of loneliness could be more harmful than loneliness itself.  

 Maybe tomorrow, a new romance

While we're at it, let's touch upon other surrounding statements.

"Socialisation is good." Case in point: migrants who integrate are happier. Okay, but:

• Beware of mixing comparisons between and within groups. The article also shows skilled migrants being happier than the population in general, so skilled migrants who don't integrate may just be at baseline happiness.
• Other factors. Although older migrants who find socialisation difficult suffer higher rates of depression, they also tend to be poorer, may bear cultural taboos around mental health, and tend not to have home internet. 
• There is an element of victim-blaming; that the socially isolated are being irresponsible for not socialising. However, it is refreshing that the linked article calls for greater community support to include migrants.
• This begs the question of the benefits of socialisation and the harms of isolation, often justified by:

"Humans are social animals." Okay, but:

• This is similar to the argument used to support the paleo diet in that it cherry picks practices specific to ancient conditions, and ignores the possibility that:
• While our sensitivity to social inclusion may remain, the circumstances which necessitate it may not.
• We are able to consciously control or compensate for other primal instincts like violence.
• There is an element of victim-blaming in that isolation is seen as unnatural.
• The relationship between isolation and abnormality can flow two ways. Some may become abnormal because they are isolated, yes, but they may also be isolated (read: ostracised) because they were abnormal. Naturally, any society which has invested in an image of itself as inclusive would be reluctant to admit marginalising anyone.

"No man is an island." "If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less." Modernity sees social inclusion as inter-dependence, as opposed to knowing one's place in a hierarchy. Okay, but:

• Myth and history recognise famous hermits, including Jesus, Buddha, and Jains, who removed themselves from others with no apparent ill effects.
• If seeking company is in our nature, it can be argued that so is seeking solitude.

No more sorrow, but that's the chance

"So rone-ry and sad-ry a-rone."

Commonalities of hermits:

• They alternate successfully. Jesus left town as a child, came back, then went into the desert.
• Their solitude has a higher purpose. When the ronin or gunslinger leaves town, it may be less a rejection of the world than the embrace of a larger one.
• There are benefits to honing skills, which is sometimes impeded by the presence of others.

So the solution to loneliness and its associated effects may not be social engagement, but simply engagement.