Book Review: "The Cure for Loneliness" by Dr Bill Howatt

Another cheap find. I'm still reading about how our world went to hell and though I don't agree with it all (I'm a fairly unsociable person in real life, I prefer to spend time alone), I can understand why some people may feel the need for more realistic and physical communities. I've read a number of books about how social media has basically broken humanity. Books such as Selfie by Will Storr, Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly by Neil Postman, Bowling Alone by Robert Putnman among a number of others. This book is called The Cure for Loneliness and focuses on the way in which we can have workable solutions in our lives. I'm quite interested in this as it is normally the case that only the conclusions of other books deal with solutions and still, they seem a bit far from an achievable reality. Let's see if this book has any better ideas that focus more on sociology than regulation and misguided optimism.

The author begins by defining loneliness as a subjective emotional experience distinct from social isolation. It's important that we separate these in order to understand the different impacts of the two. Loneliness is not simply being alone but feeling disconnected or unseen. He states that loneliness is an evolutionary signal, like we would have hunger, that alerts us to unmet social needs. It's interesting to see someone write about this from a biological perspective rather than just from a 'this is how it feels' perspective. It makes more sense and is easier to differentiate this way. And so, he goes on to distinguish emotional, social, and existential loneliness, showing how each emerges from different deficits in relational connection. I think it is so important to understand how each of these is different if we want to actually provide workable solutions to the problem.

The author also explains how modern life structures increase chronic loneliness. Digital communication, long working hours, high mobility, and urban anonymity create “connection deficits." You know how I feel about this point by now, don't you? Societies that don't expand tend to stagnate and collapse. This has horrific impacts for those at the poorer end of the working class. I like the idea that having small-town communities would probably help out the loneliness argument but I don't think it would solve the whole issue in the long-run. Small-town communities only work if the people living in them are at least lower middle class. I don't particularly want to abandon the poorest to the altar of 'feelings of loneliness'. But, back to the point. The author frames loneliness as a growing public health crisis accelerated by societal fragmentation. Again, this is a brilliant analysis because we know that feelings of loneliness can also make us sick, increasing our probability of stroke and heart attack etc. We can also see that the pandemic serves as an extreme example of how fragile connection infrastructures can be.

The next point links to the previous in that the author connects loneliness to physical and psychological health risks. He draws on research linking chronic loneliness to illnesses such as: inflammation, immune dysfunction, cardiovascular disease, and ultimately, reduced lifespan. Psychological effects include heightened anxiety, depression, learned helplessness, and rumination. Loneliness becomes a “toxic stressor” when unaddressed and can become comparable to chronic pain. I don't know whether this is strictly speaking true even though there is a lot of evidence pointing towards the fact. The research is so recent and the over-zealous nature of the researchers throws me off a little - as if they are desperately trying to prove their point. I know that loneliness can cause health problems, but to be in chronic pain because you are lonely - I don't know. If you've experienced this kind of loneliness, get in touch and tell me about it.

Another interesting point is that he identifies unhelpful thinking patterns that sustain loneliness. I think I've said this before - it's basically like a person is gaslighting themselves and reinforcing a belief, but it's not like they have a choice. Core cognitive distortions include: catastrophising, negative self-comparisons, and assumptions of rejection. Assuming someone will reject you is something that flies around social media often because of the divisive nature about approaching strangers in public. There's been a lot of discourse about that. I can't speak for everyone else but I can speak for myself when I say this: please don't approach me in public if you see me. Leave me be. I probably just want to go home.

The author also states that lonely individuals often interpret neutral interactions as proof of unworthiness. This one I don't understand that much though I read about it - I have never actually experienced this for myself. A neutral interaction with no intention of friendship becomes a negative one. The intrusive thoughts of course, take over. I understand it on paper but have never known it myself. As a workable solution though, cognitive reframing is a powerful antidote, enabling individuals to interrupt self-defeating loops.

The author then outlines practical behavioural strategies for building connection. This is where I start to realise there is a little problem with the book in that it both states that loneliness can be crippling and that ritual social situations can 'fix' it. I don't think that a ritual social situation is bad, but I think that starting the ritual and sticking to it might be the problem. Another thing he states is lonely people should try expanding “micro-connections”, which are brief social interactions that subtly build belonging. He looks at developing consistency over the ability to do everything at once. I guess this is a good idea, but I can't see how someone who is chronically lonely and views neutral interaction as negative is going to start this journey. 'Just start it' is simply not good enough.

He goes on to explain how purpose, meaning, and identity reduce loneliness. People who invest in purposeful activities experience higher resilience, even when alone. This is where the author shows us implicitly that loneliness and being alone are two entirely different things, which is great because I like being alone and want none of those nasty health problems. He shows us that meaning acts as a psychological anchor, reducing the pain of temporary disconnection. Therefore, we can see that values-based living is a buffer against loneliness. This is a far better workable solution than the ritual social situations of the last point. You shouldn't aim to get out of your comfort zone straight away, you should aim to change the viewpoint upon being alone. Only when you are comfortable with yourself can you make a well-intended and well thought-out decision.

From how work culture amplifies loneliness in the modern world and how we can start by having boundaries and purpose in our identities in order to begin solving our problems, the author does give something to work off for those of us who are lonely. I actually learnt quite a bit about loneliness from this book and feel fairly bad for those who are, in fact, feeling lonely and having those chronic illnesses associated with it.