Well, this clarification helps quite a bit, especially the distinction between projects and shared, nontransactional problem solving. I was originally interpreting “projects” more narrowly.
What I’m wondering now is whether the synchronization is doing the explanatory work rather than the project itself. I mean, perhaps projects are simply one particular effective way of getting two people to synchronize their attention, effort, and trust over time.
If that’s the case, then I can also imagine conversation, shared adversity, or even sustained play producing the same kind of synchronization, even if there’s no obvious “project” in the ordinary sense. They all seem to me to involve people gradually solving something together, whether that’s understanding each other, navigating a difficult situation, or simply learning how to interact. I actually think your idea may be pointing towards something even more fundamental than the “project” itself.
I remember you once talking about what you do. Tell me, do you often encounter people like this in your practice, and what do psychiatrists say?
In my practice, I often encounter the other extreme: people without the slightest self-reflection. In this case, it’s the opposite: it’s extremely difficult to get them to stop doing something.
I guess I’m really not confident in this hypothesis. I have a 28-year-old daughter. I work with people who are aged between 23 and 33. I’ve known dozens of younger people across a range of fields, from the trades to social work. They work hard, they socialise regularly, they help each other out, and they don’t drink much alcohol. They are content to improvise. They mostly seem a lot more integrated and sensible than we were 30 years ago. It’s true the many of them do believe the world they have inherited is fucked. I thought that too when I was 20, and I still think this.
But I am certainly aware of the publishing, media and YouTube-driven crisis narratives in all areas. We’re said to be in a loneliness epidemic, a meaning crisis, a wisdom drought, and so on. We’ve developed a pop culture that seems to be in a state of perpetual crisis these days with environmental and psychological armageddons awaiting.
Maybe we can find studies that seem to demonstrate the hypothesis but I’m going to remain agnostic for now.
Not sure what psychiatrists would say. It’s a relatively minor matter compared with anything from an Axis I diagnosis. From a psychologist I’d expect to hear that the person is likely high in neuroticism and displays traits associated with an avoidant personality, using excessive analysis to manage anxiety and uncertainty rather than taking action.
No doubt there are theories that do not align with any of this. You might also hear things like, the person is relying on a rigid system of personal constructs, continually seeking certainty through further interpretation rather than risking the action that might undermine and revise those constructs.
I’ve met a lot of people who rarely get things done because they are unable to develop a course of action, whether in a hobby, a relationship, or a career. They are always analysing their situation and asking unanswerable questions: “But what if…?” “Could it be that…?” In relationships, they are always speculating and trying to parse the perfect relationship into a theory of some kind and end up missing actual relationships with actual people. In jobs, they are never content to take responsibility and get on with things. They are forever planning and looking elsewhere for work opportunities, failing to advance their career.
Why do they do this? Insert theory of your choice.
In my subjective opinion, all this is too sugarcoated. Modern psychologists (and psychiatrists) have piled on too many theoretical constructs. Then they take a living person and force them into these patterns, offering their conclusion, which may or may not ultimately help.
I once mentioned here on the forum that I spent a year in graduate school studying psychology. And it was precisely because of this useless sugarcoating that I successfully dropped out. At that time, I developed the subjective conviction that a common chatterbox without a degree can handle psychology just as well as a distinguished, certified specialist with a serious face who forces a client into imaginary frameworks.
Here, although I criticize Adorno, including for this “sappy snot,” I nevertheless agree with his negativity in terms of critiquing this pseudo-scientific effort to define mental health based on its conformity to imaginary patterns.
In my experience, it’s pretty accurate, but certainly not the whole story. Rather than saying it was sugar-coated, I’d say it was unnecessarily blunt and lacking in nuance.
Yes, I think that’s often the average person’s idea of psychology. It’s pretty much the equivalent of those who dismiss philosophy as nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
Sounds like you hold a fairly typical, media-driven view of these professions, which is hardly surprising, since few occupations are as demonised in popular culture as psychiatrists. Perhaps only politicians surpass them in this regard.
Bear in mind that one of the criticisms of modern psychiatry (which is quite a different field from psychology) is that it can sometimes lack broader theoretical constructs, relying too heavily on simplified categories and using medication as an overly convenient response.
Of course, this experience may depend heavily on where you live. Mental health systems vary greatly between countries, and some have primitive and corrupt approaches.
And so let it remain so. In its extreme form, this is entirely fair. After all, how does philosophizing (like the kind we do on this forum) differ from other ways of channeling human cognitive aspirations? Young people scroll through endless TikTok or Instagram feeds, while you and I pretend to be exploring the truth, even though there aren’t many practical results for society in either. Actually, no. TikTok, for example, helps sell.
Hmm, surprisingly, but in my experience, modern media and pop culture, on the contrary, overemphasize the benefits of these slackers.
Here I would elaborate and say something like this: giving an “independent assessment” through the prism of “primitivism” or “corruption” is just as subjective as it would be for me to evaluate psychology through the prism of brutalism.
This is the same naive realism: “I’m right because I know reality, and you’re either stupid or brainwashed.” This is the very core that doesn’t foster friendship! Don’t you think this is where we should look for the roots of why friendship has become so scarce?
Regarding the primitivism frame, I would note the following. Local psychiatry is the heir to the punitive psychiatry of the USSR. I wouldn’t call it primitive. On the contrary, the freedom represented by the prisons, sealed off from surveillance and where inhumane experiments were conducted on humans, allowed us to accumulate our own empirical experience. Is it primitive? It’s not for me to judge. But I would say it is different. As is the approach itself.
Unfortunately, this is part of history, but we can’t throw it away or forget about it.
Am I a product of this culture? Of course. Unfortunately, I can’t determine the extent to which I am a product of it.
But what else is important in friendship, and in human interactions in general, in my opinion? First and foremost, it’s recognizing that “I can be different” and “he can be different.” Specifically, “different,” and not more primitive, brainwashed, or stupid…
Sure, it’s primitive. What I’m referring to are lower-order motivations: subjugation and restraint. In other words, it has no philosophical or therapeutic intent, no drive towards wisdom or insight; it’s driven by a basic desire for control.
What exactly does this mean for friendship, and in what context are you using “different”? Do you simply mean that you can have your own opinions and interests that differ from those of your friends?
It’s useful to consider the ‘projects of friendship’ as the ordinary, natural exchanges that quietly build trust — and how they differ from the grander, more brittle gestures of political alignment.
The basics are small, and they’re not missing from society. They’re the everyday ways people share concerns, give attention, solve problems together, or simply listen. Harmony isn’t required; sometimes being there is enough.
We hear this when we thank a friend, and they say, “that’s what friends are for”.
Still, the transactional feel of that phrase can be uncomfortable. There are expectations. What if the other person can’t offer mutual help?
Lives change. Sometimes two lives stop overlapping.
Projects fizzle out because of distance, technology, time and energy. Sheer human limits.
Perhaps when that happens, friendship has less to grow from? Connection requires more effort. The loss can be painful but perhaps necessary. It is simply the shape of our lives.
Marcus Aurelius saw both sides. In Meditations 4.3, he writes, ‘no retreat offers someone more quiet and relaxation than that into his own mind,’
Yet, in 2.1 he reminds us that: ‘We were born for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids.’
Not sure how his philosophy worked in his real life as a Roman Emperor in warfare. There were challenges — his daily writing practice helped to navigate the tensions.
Political ‘friendships’ show the contrast. They have often been called ‘special’, like that of the UK-USA. What happens when one friend refuses to support the other?
It is states or heads of state that trade interests.
There is no true friendship.
Especially when one leader demands unquestioning loyalty. The whole project as a whole is at risk of collapse.
Technology widens the distance between action and compassion. From remote communication to drones in warfare.
So, the question becomes: can friendship be restored in the small, human-scale exchanges Aurelius recognised? Mutual responsibility, keeping conversations open, resisting the urge to shut each other out.
Refusing the hellish slide into destruction and death. That, at least, is friendly.
It may be that my choice of word for it became too broad. It is in need of a more specific definition of such a naturally emerging project, since it can be mistaken for societal imposed ones.
I think this is the result of using a common phrase as “project”, since it entangles the concept within another textbook description.
If the “project” I speak of is the naturally emerging structure of non-transactional collaboration psychology and behavior in commune problem-solving, then it incorporates something that isn’t named a “project” before it’s already been established. And such naturally emerging social behaviors doesn’t have to be large, it can be as simple as collaborating to set a dinner table between people.
Small and large such “projects” which force two people into actions which start to sync their psychology, and through it the formation of friendship.
Yes, this is underlining what I mean. Even competitive players in sports who are playing against each other could in some ways form friendship as well. The naturally developing psychology between them is rooted in how them playing against each other becomes a form of collaborative project to find gaps in their skills. And we’ve seen this happen in the world of sports; players who seemed like enemies ending up as friends. Or warriors ending up as friends.
The important dynamic is that there’s a project-like structure emerging from how two people act together towards a shared goal, even if it is unstated.
The most obvious are the naturally occurring projects in communes, to build a fence, a house, to fix someone’s roof etc. Because those look like the traditional form of projects.
But as you say, it is more fundamental. It is a function of synchronized psychology that occurs in two or more sharing a goal that doesn’t have a socially established rule-set. Something underneath stated cultural norms and goals.
Like a stuck door which two strangers gather around to fix, syncing up, collaborating, figuring out the problem and then celebrate together when achieved. There’s a project in there, yet, they wouldn’t classify it as such. But that project may form a bond and friendship between them. If they were to encounter more and more such projects together and they function well together in solving them, then I would be surprised if not a seed of friendship became established between them.
And that was the main point of it all. That encouraging people into ending up in such situations are much more efficient in helping them form friendships, than anything else attempted to help those who are alone. That the common strategy is to just get people into rooms filled with people, but that doesn’t do anything to form friendships. There has to be a projects emerging from a situation in order for people to actually form friendship.
I think this varies depending on culture and places in the world. My encounters can demonstrate observations of the opposite, in which everything is transactional in some form. But both of us end up in anecdotal evidence with such observations.
And I think that the kind of naturally emerging projects I speak of, has an easier formation in smaller communities. The transactional behavior tend to rise in places where the individual status is more important for “survival” than being part of a group.
So, of course what I describe is a generalization and not something encapsulating the entirety of generational behaviors. But the point I’m making has to do with why people end up in loneliness. Regardless of an epidemic or not. That many of those who end up alone behave too transactional in their behavior to the point of alienating true relationships. And that the remedy is these forms of naturally occurring non-transactional projects between them and others. Which I broke down into better definition above as an answer to Reflectivenomad.
Yes, as I answered to Reflectivenomad above, the term of “projects” may be misleading by the common understanding of the term. But I don’t have a good terminology for it as there’s no single word describing the specific action. Maybe it has to be invented.
As similar to how I described the ending state of those emerging projects, that it becomes a sort of higher state of consciousness from a biological perspective, like an echo from some hive-species.
It is interesting that we as a species are balancing between the individual mind and collaborative collective. That we’re constantly battling between the two, yet they offer a strength that pure hive-beings or lone predators lack.
I think so, especially when they’re not stated goals and responsibilities, but naturally emerging, like the “stuck door” example above in this post.
And that’s what my point is as applied philosophy. That we cannot just put people who suffers from loneliness in a room filled with people. We need to place them in a position in which they would naturally form projects with other people. A bureaucratic office is often worse at forming friendships among its workers than a commune building something together out of necessity for the group.
I’ve seen two strangers crack a beer after removing a fallen tree from a road. Such moments seem forming something deeper than when a state orders them to collaborate. These moments of emerging projects are rarer today than earlier in history. As we outsourced most of them, spend more time online than meeting others for real, and living in a deeply transactional society; it’s harder to form true friendships. And I think actively shaping society to enable emergent projects to happen makes for a better ground to form lasting friendship.
I changed the title so we’re not mistakenly debating the existence or non-existence of a loneliness epidemic; as you’re pointing out it’s debatable if there is such a thing. But loneliness itself is a deadly problem, even without a clear spike. We have seen one after the pandemic though, and it’s still not receding enough to just be a fluke. It may be that just like social media, the pandemic became a catalyst for something underlying. But there are also things that speak against it, such as many young turning away from social media and embracing real meetups and communes.
Cool. I’d have to think this one through. Anecdotal again but I also work in the community sector. The lonely people I have known over time arrive there through many paths; poor people skills (rudeness, inadequate listening, over talking), shyness or introversion, mental illness, trauma, behavioural issues (anger, pedantry, anxiety). I realise you’re looking at it more as a generational issue. It may be true that more young people report anxiety today than previously. Whether anxiety has risen in real terms would be a challenge to demonstrate.
Life has fundamentally changed because of social media. Some changes are good, some are bad, like loneliness. Facebook was the first known medium to make this a literal reality when it made people think and feel that friends in your profile translated to friends face-to-face. You’re alone looking at your computer monitor and suddenly you see users befriended you. To many, it was intoxicating. No one had discovered this feeling before.
And when that novelty wore off, you’re back to feeling alone, and lonely.
Guess what websites are the most profitable and most visited? Porn, prostitution, and gambling.
I forget what philosopher said it, but if you want to know where the most destructive human behaviors are, follow the money.
Before talking about remedies, we need to be clear what ‘loneliness’ means. Social, emotional and existential loneliness have different causes, so it’s not obvious that increasing these moments of emergent shared work — the small, unforced common tasks people fall into together — can address all of them.
And friendship usually grows from natural bonds, not from anything engineered. Even the ‘emergent projects’ you describe work because they’re spontaneously mutual efforts, not designed situations.
That’s why I’m unsure what it would even mean to ‘actively shape society’ so they happen more often. Once you try to engineer them, they stop being the kind of unforced cooperation you’re pointing to.
Online life isn’t just limited or superficial. It also opens up wider, more inclusive ways of forming friendships and sharing ideas — spaces where people meet across distance, find common interests and build things together.
@Baden’s EKM is one example of that kind of structured collaboration and shared engagement. Communities, like TPF, show how ongoing conversation can create real companionship.
People connect in more ways now, and that variety matters.
I agree — what’s being offered isn’t a philosophical position so much as a preferred posture. The commitment is really to a style, but this isn’t the same as inquiry.
Boundary-testing becomes a way of asserting an attitude rather than clarifying anything, and the issue ends up obscured. Scepticism is clarifying only when it’s willing to do more than protect a stance.
I think this is exactly to the point. The examples show the eternal variation — loneliness is a universal phenomenon.
The generational angle is interesting but it doesn’t show the full complexity.
People have always been anxious about how their social life appears to others.
What has intensified is the ‘publicness’ or visibility of friendship — the way it can be displayed, counted, compared and interpreted. It becomes quantitative rather than qualitative.
Being un-befriended online can feel humiliating. The sense of not being chosen can become sharper when social life is so publicly visible.
This is exactly where both philosophy and psychology have something to say — about recognition, vulnerability and how social meaning is formed and judged.
Experience and self-awareness matter here too: they shape how we understand being chosen or not, and the quality of interpretation — how we read ‘friendship’.
People might say that when you enter a bar today you see heaps of people gazing at little screens, a picture of loneliness. I used to spend way too much time in bars before smartphones. Loneliness was kind of what brought many of the folk there. Kind of the raison d’être of bar drinking, I would have thought, along with the usual celebrations and post-prandials.