There is no epidemic of loneliness, but there is an epidemic of scurvy
The author argues that the widely reported 'loneliness epidemic' is often based on flawed statistical interpretations rather than concrete longitudinal data. The piece suggests that claims of rising loneliness are frequently tainted by comparing current data points to non-existent historical baselines.
Why it matters
It challenges popular sociological narratives and highlights the importance of rigorous statistical analysis in public discourse.
Article voiceover 0:00 -21:57 Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade. photo cred: my dad We’re living through an epidemic of loneliness and everybody knows it, except for one small group: people who have actually looked at the data.
Much of what appears to be a loneliness epidemic is, in fact, a well-intentioned misunderstanding. However, there is a real epidemic out there—one that is far stranger and more sinister. I’ll get to its causes and cures in a moment, but first:
When people think they’re documenting a concerning trend, they often get a little loosey-goosey with the facts. I don’t think anyone does this on purpose—no one is getting rich selling anti-loneliness pills (yet). But it means that claims about the loneliness epidemic are often tainted by two statistical sins that tend to go undetected.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in