Elizabeth Kirkwood
The loneliest number: talk to yourself
Loneliness can kill you. Well, perhaps not directly, but experienced at an acute level over a prolonged period, a sense of isolation will almost certainly shorten your life expectancy, that is, according to neuroscientist John Cacioppo, who was speaking at the RSA earlier this week about his latest book, Loneliness: human nature and the need for social connection.
Cacioppo, who is generally regarded as the founding father of social neuroscience, presents a convincing case. The fruits of his 30 year study suggest that a perceived sense of social rejection will not only increase blood pressure, stress levels and general physical wear and tear, but also increase the chances of developing Alzheimer’s Disease.
Cheery news indeed, and as Matthew Taylor, who was interviewing Cacioppo, joked, could make us become rather fanatical about some of our most treasured pastimes. Reading for instance, a solitary pursuit by definition, demands hours, days, weeks and for its true addicts, years, spent alone – in a state of objective isolation at least. Read more »
Brian Eno
If we’re to believe the media, young people are getting worse and worse—stupider, coarser and more violent. However, as a father of two socially active teenage girls, and as an occasional teacher, I have to say that my experience is exactly the opposite: the high level of courtesy, empathy and general good-naturedness among young people continues to surprise me. What makes people behave well?
I once knew a wonderful commune—40 or so people—which conducted its affairs according to strict anarchist principles. All issues were thrashed out over the muesli, and things ran pretty well. Later I got to know a similarly sized commune which operated from almost the opposite philosophy: there was an authoritarian boss, and there were underlings. Oddly enough, it too ran pretty well. All issues were also thrashed out over the muesli.
I surmised that world peace might be down to the right breakfast choices, but now I think the key was scale. Those groups were small enough for everybody to know everybody else, so what really kept them in order was not the particular set of principles they espoused, but the ever-operating human instincts for honour and shame—for reputation. Honour and shame, not law, are the real constraints among people who know each other. So long as there is a tangible community—where everyone knows everyone else—people tend to behave better.
A concrete example is eBay: sellers are rated by buyers, and that rating is attached to their names for future reference. Your reputation as a seller is expressed in just one number. Perhaps what we’re seeing now, with the ubiquity of social networking, is an expansion of this: the globalisation of honour and shame. How you behave, and who you are seen to be, is increasingly a matter of public record. Your reputation follows you—and now it isn’t just round the village.
Read 3 comments »
