The Friendship Recession? Social Circles are Shrinking

[Doctor Steuss]

So, for everyone’s enjoyment, here’s the paragraph from a study on casual sex that doubtingthomas has decided not only supports “Having no friend might lead to more computer gaming," but that it's "literally what the paper says in the conclusion, almost word for word."

We acknowledge that our findings raise questions as to what factors are driving changes in these proximate sources of the decline in young adult casual sexual activity. Further research is needed to identify the causes of trends in young adult alcohol consumption, computer gaming, and parental coresidence. Although changes in each behavior may have unique determinants, it is possible that some hard-to-quantify change in the young adult cultural zeitgeist is driving changes in these proximate determinants of casual sexual activity, as well as trends in casual sex. Growing individualism and reduced sociability might lead to less partying (and hence less drinking), more computer gaming, and less autonomous living, while also diminishing the desire for sexual intercourse—at least the type of casual encounters captured in this analysis. Causation could also run in the reverse direction if a diminished desire for casual sex leads youth to party, and drink, less frequently and to play more computer games, perhaps all the while living in the proverbial parents’ basement. Quantifying these potentially distal sources of change in young adults’ causal sexual activity is likely to be difficult, so qualitative studies may have much to offer here.

As a counterpoint, I share this study on relationships, and how they impact educational goals later in life.

Correlation of rat H2 and to human breath H2 measurements and flatus gas volumes were significant and positive except for negative correlation with flatus methane volume. Measurement of hydrogen production in the rat has potential for a predictive bioassay for flatulence in man.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/845703/


ETA: It just now strikes me, given his past bizarre posts, that doubtingthomas may actually equate casual sex with friendship. In his worldview, a "diminished desire for casual sex" and "having no friend" are potentially interchangeable.

[Marcus]

Adding to his pattern, DT also mis-used a truncated quote from a second source that completely changed the intended meaning.

Here is his unsupported version:

Women are more likely to feel lonely.

"Looking by demographic group, men were more likely to say they never felt lonely than women
(25% compared with 19%). "

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... report.pdf

And here are the sentences immediately following that quote, that completely refute his conclusion:

Looking by demographic group, men were more likely to say they never felt lonely than women (25% compared with 19%). This is in contrast to findings in sections 1.1 and 1.2, which showed women were more likely to have regular contact with family and friends across a range of communication methods, and more likely to agree they have support networks. It is possible this could be indicative of differing attitudes towards loneliness between men and women, or differences in likelihood of reporting loneliness...

That emissions excerpt from Dr. S is looking more and more relevant.

[canpakes]

As a counterpoint, I share this study on relationships, and how they impact educational goals later in life.

Correlation of rat H2 and to human breath H2 measurements and flatus gas volumes were significant and positive except for negative correlation with flatus methane volume. Measurement of hydrogen production in the rat has potential for a predictive bioassay for flatulence in man.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/845703/

Lol. My kids are going to love this. : D

ETA: It just now strikes me, given his past bizarre posts, that doubtingthomas may actually equate casual sex with friendship. In his worldview, a "diminished desire for casual sex" and "having no friend" are potentially interchangeable.

I guess that’s the optimal ‘friends with benefits’ scenario.

[Res Ipsa]

So, for everyone’s enjoyment, here’s the paragraph from a study on casual sex that doubtingthomas has decided not only supports “Having no friend might lead to more computer gaming," but that it's "literally what the paper says in the conclusion, almost word for word."

We acknowledge that our findings raise questions as to what factors are driving changes in these proximate sources of the decline in young adult casual sexual activity. Further research is needed to identify the causes of trends in young adult alcohol consumption, computer gaming, and parental coresidence. Although changes in each behavior may have unique determinants, it is possible that some hard-to-quantify change in the young adult cultural zeitgeist is driving changes in these proximate determinants of casual sexual activity, as well as trends in casual sex. Growing individualism and reduced sociability might lead to less partying (and hence less drinking), more computer gaming, and less autonomous living, while also diminishing the desire for sexual intercourse—at least the type of casual encounters captured in this analysis. Causation could also run in the reverse direction if a diminished desire for casual sex leads youth to party, and drink, less frequently and to play more computer games, perhaps all the while living in the proverbial parents’ basement. Quantifying these potentially distal sources of change in young adults’ causal sexual activity is likely to be difficult, so qualitative studies may have much to offer here.

As a counterpoint, I share this study on relationships, and how they impact educational goals later in life.

Correlation of rat H2 and to human breath H2 measurements and flatus gas volumes were significant and positive except for negative correlation with flatus methane volume. Measurement of hydrogen production in the rat has potential for a predictive bioassay for flatulence in man.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/845703/


ETA: It just now strikes me, given his past bizarre posts, that doubtingthomas may actually equate casual sex with friendship. In his worldview, a "diminished desire for casual sex" and "having no friend" are potentially interchangeable.

Thanks, Steuss, but it's even worse than that. Here was what started this bizarre chain of conversation.

Online interactions, especially in gaming, may encourage behavior that works against forming close friendships.

This single sentence out of a paragraph I wrote about the article drew this reply:

True, but can it also be the other way around? Having no friend might lead to more computer gaming. Similar to what this paper points out in the conclusion. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 3121996854

Note that this is 100% non-responsive to what I said. My comment was about the effect of toxic culture in on-line gaming on the ability to form close friendships between adult men. It said nothing about the amount of time spent gaming.

The article DT cites has nothing to do with my comment. It is a study that attempts to explain observed declines in casual sex (i.e., sex outside of a relationship.) The article I was commenting on was an attempt to explain an observed decline in the number of close male friends reported by male adults.

What DT never does through the course of the entire exchange is even try find or give any evidence that the causation I actually referred to works backwards. In other words, that somehow the reduction in the number of "close friends" reported per male adult caused the toxic culture in online gaming.

DT refers to this reverse causation as a conclusion of the study. He refers to a single paragraph numerous times without simply quoting it and making whatever argument he wants to make. Why doesn't he simply copy and paste the sentence or paragraph? Perhaps because, if he did, it would have made clear that what DT implies several times is a "conclusion" of the paper isn't a "conclusion" at all. It's what we would commonly call a "limitation." Different papers use headings differently. I appreciate it when authors put "discussion," "conclusions," and "limitations" in separate sections with the appropriate heading. This one puts "discussion and conclusions" in a combined section and has no section at all called "limitations." Did the authors leave out the limitations? Heck no. The limitations are also addressed under the Discussion and Conclusions section. And if you know how to read and interpret a scientific paper, it's easy to separate the Conclusions from the Limitations.

Here are the study's conclusions:

We find that about one quarter of the drop in young women’s propensity to have casual sex is attributable to a decline in their frequency of drinking alcohol. Of the various sources of the decline in sexual activity considered in this analysis, the decline in alcohol consumption is the only factor that explains a significant portion of the decline in young women’s probability of engaging in casual sex.

A somewhat different story emerges for young men. As with young women, a decline in the frequency of drinking alcohol is an important source of young men’s diminished likelihood of having casual sex. But unlike for young women, among young men increases in the frequency of playing computer games and in the tendency to reside in the parental home also play important roles. Although both young women and young men play computer games more frequently now than in the past, gaming inhibits only young men’s casual sex behavior. The factors hypothesized to explain the decline in casual sexual intercourse explain a greater portion of the decline in young men’s than in young women’s propensity to engage in casual sex.

We find no evidence that some other transformations in the lives of emerging young adults can explain the decline in their casual sexual activity. Trends in young adults’ financial insecurity, including their student debt load, do not appear to underlie their change in casual sexual activity. Nor does an increase in time spent watching television. And among young women the increase in the use of the Internet appears to actually suppress what would otherwise have been a larger drop in the propensity to engage in sex with someone who is not a romantic partner.

And here are the limitations:

We acknowledge that our findings raise questions as to what factors are driving changes in these proximate sources of the decline in young adult casual sexual activity. Further research is needed to identify the causes of trends in young adult alcohol consumption, computer gaming, and parental coresidence. Although changes in each behavior may have unique determinants, it is possible that some hard-to-quantify change in the young adult cultural zeitgeist is driving changes in these proximate determinants of casual sexual activity, as well as trends in casual sex. Growing individualism and reduced sociability might lead to less partying (and hence less drinking), more computer gaming, and less autonomous living, while also diminishing the desire for sexual intercourse—at least the type of casual encounters captured in this analysis. Causation could also run in the reverse direction if a diminished desire for casual sex leads youth to party, and drink, less frequently and to play more computer games, perhaps all the while living in the proverbial parents’ basement. Quantifying these potentially distal sources of change in young adults’ causal sexual activity is likely to be difficult, so qualitative studies may have much to offer here.

Future research might also profit by redressing some of the limitations of this analysis. The small sample size makes it difficult to detect significant associations or subgroup differences. Our measure of casual sexual activity is rather crude and could both undercount and overcount the nonromantic sexual encounters considered to be casual sex. The measure is also insensitive to heterogeneity in the types of these encounters. Trends in, and determinants of, one-time sex with strangers might differ substantially from sexual encounters between friends or former romantic partners and from encounters that one or both participants hope will lead to a more serious romantic relationship. College “hookups” might be a unique subtype of casual sexual encounters driven by a distinct set of factors (Allison 2016; England and Ronen 2015).

We note as well that our analysis leaves unexplained a substantial portion of the decline in young adults’ casual sexual behavior, particularly among young women. Trends in the hypothesized mediating factors included in this analysis explain more than half of the decline in young men’s odds of engaging in casual sex but account for only about one quarter of the decline in young women’s probability of having a nonromantic sexual encounter. Further research is needed to identify additional causes of the decline in casual sexual activity among young adults. Perhaps the intensifying concern with interpersonal sexual violence and sexual coercion as exemplified in the #MeToo movement has begun inhibiting presumably voluntary casual sexual encounters between young women and men. The impact of this and other broad cultural shifts will also likely be difficult to measure but may well require consideration in order to develop a comprehensive assessment of the decline in young adults’ casual sexual activity.

I've bolded the single-sentence snippet that DT has been repeatedly referencing. The important thing is that the sentence is not part of the study's conclusion: it's part of the limitations. It illustrates an aspect of the phenomena that is being addressed. The study does not conclude anything about the plausibility of the casual chain [diminshed desire for casual sex in men]--->[less partying and drinking and more time playing computer games]. So, to cite the bolded sentence as if it were a conclusion of the study is highly misleading. The limitations of this study (on the possible causes of observed decreases in casual sex) are completely irrelevant to issue being examined in the OP (possible causes of fewer close friendships reported by adult men). This is exactly what I mean by taking an out of context snippet from a study (in this case, not even snippet out of the actual conclusions) and misusing it.

But, I can't emphasize this enough. DT flew off on a wild goose chase simply because he didn't take the time and effort to actually understand my comment.

RI: [toxic gaming culture]-->[behavior that inhibits close friendships]-->[fewer adult male friendships]

DT: But couldn't the causation be the opposite, like this other study says in its conclusion: [fewer adult friendships]-->[more time spent online]

What DT suggested wasn't even the reverse of what I suggested -- it was a completely different thing. And then he pivoted to a favorite snippet from a different study and never tried to actually address my comment. Instead he just tried to troll the crap out of me.

[Res Ipsa]

Adding to his pattern, DT also mis-used a truncated quote from a second source that completely changed the intended meaning.

Here is his unsupported version:

Women are more likely to feel lonely.

"Looking by demographic group, men were more likely to say they never felt lonely than women
(25% compared with 19%). "

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... report.pdf

And here are the sentences immediately following that quote, that completely refute his conclusion:

Looking by demographic group, men were more likely to say they never felt lonely than women (25% compared with 19%). This is in contrast to findings in sections 1.1 and 1.2, which showed women were more likely to have regular contact with family and friends across a range of communication methods, and more likely to agree they have support networks. It is possible this could be indicative of differing attitudes towards loneliness between men and women, or differences in likelihood of reporting loneliness...

That emissions excerpt from Dr. S is looking more and more relevant.

You saved me the trouble at looking at the context for that one. I was pretty suspicious of DT's conclusion because there is a difference between "men are more likely to say they never feel lonely" and "men are less lonely than women." The willingness to talk about feelings and admit something like feeling lonely is a confounding factor.

[Res Ipsa]

Here is what is described as a mini literature review addressing loneliness. It specifically addresses the literature on loneliness in men as compared to women:

3- Gender

While loneliness is experienced by all who walk on this earth, the literature is unequivocal as to how it is experienced by males and females. Loneliness is expected to be influenced by early life experiences, experiences in adulthood, and by the individual’s present situation. Gender needs to be added as a ‘master category’ to one’s social organization, since the process of socialization differs significantly between the genders and thus influence men’s and women’s loneliness (Nicolaisen & Thirsen, 2014).

Despite the above, a review of the literature indicated that the association between loneliness and gender is inconclusive. It is quite expected that women, to a larger degree than men, will report that they are lonely (Victor & Yang, 2012). And indeed, Nolen-Hoeksema and Rusting (2000) observed that women now, in contrast to the past, are more willing to explore, admit, and report feelings like loneliness.

Men are reluctant to disclose experiencing what is socially stigmatized (Borys & Perlman, 1985). Studies found that when other factors such as marital status, health, age, and living arrangements are controlled, there is no significant gender difference in loneliness experience. However, when loneliness was explored indirectly, it clearly indicated that men were lonelier than women (Aartsen & Jylhä, 2011). Once again, men’s reluctance to admit being lonely is used as an explanation to those conflicting results. “This” Aartsen and Jylhä claimed “was found in all age groups. Men were more socially lonely than women or put differently: it was easier for men to admit to a lack of social contacts than to emotions of missing contact. We found that women were more emotionally lonely than men in the two oldest age groups (50-64 and 65-81), which would be expected since women generally lose their partner earlier than men and live alone for a longer time.” (p. 251). Dong and Chen (2017) stated that most of the research suggested that older women were more likely than men to experience loneliness. Pinquart and Sorsen (2001) found that older women experienced more loneliness than older men. They explained it by observing that since women enjoy a longer life than men, they are more prone to remain widowed and thus experience more loneliness. In contrast, other studies found no significant gender differences in loneliness among older adults (Singh & Misra, 2009; Wilson & Moulton, 2010), while still others found that loneliness is more prevalent in older men than women (Wang et al., 2011). In participants without a partner, Beutel
et al. (2017) found, loneliness was more pronounced in women who lived alone and without children. Attempting to explain gender differences, Ang (2016) maintained that women show clear preference for socialization while males who mainly strive for power and rivalry. In accordance with this view, females tend to have more cohesive relationships and closer to their social relationships than males.

https://ijournalse.org/index.php/ESJ/ar ... File/68/34

[Doctor Steuss]

DT, on this board are a wealth of people with advanced degrees. There are some who have had (or currently have) aspects of their careers tied to the ability to synthesize published research. I'd wager there are a few that have even had to draft research proposals themselves. There's also a smattering of the lowly who have had to take some 300-400 INT courses for their BAs (or, taken them just for fun).

Over the years, I can't even begin to count just how many times I have benefited from others here, who share their knowledge and expertise so generously. Not just in subjects they are well-versed on because of their education and/or career, but on subjects they have taken the (considerable amount of) time and effort to learn about.

I'm wrong, and misunderstand things A LOT. A fair amount of the time, when an instance is pointed out to me, I have a reflexive embarrassment that makes me want to double-down on my understanding or belief. Even amongst people I view with fondness, and have more than earned my trust like many on this board. Sometimes, that can result in me being an ass (I'm especially susceptible to being an ass when I am actually right...)

You often exhibit a thirst for knowledge and understanding (which is such a cool trait to have), but that thirst is more-often-than-not backwards in how it operates, which creates debilitating blinders and an overly narrow bias that makes synthesizing information difficult if not impossible. You start with a conclusion, or self-understanding, or thing you realize, and then haphazardly Google for snippets, paragraphs, and summaries that tenuously (if that) support what you believe or have decided. Sometimes that method brings you to the right place and answer, but it's usually because you started in the right place rather than were led there by research. As someone who is regularly spectacularly wrong, I can assure you, it's often invigorating discovering when you've been wrong... if you allow it.

There's a lot of nuance in almost all subjects and research. Especially anything that involves humans, and our incredibly complex individualities. We have our tiny little lizard brains, but we have a pretty big chunk of other groovy stuff in the ole noggins too. Humans also react, answer questions, think, believe, etc. vastly differently depending on the situation. It's actually pretty wild just how often long-held research conclusions, particularly in the social sciences, can be turned around just by changing some fairly small things.

Try to allow for that nuance, and the limitations in conclusions that can come with it. Start with a theory, rather than a conclusion, and enjoy the journey that is likely to result in more generalities than specifics.

[Res Ipsa]

That's a very good and kind post, Dr. Steuss. This place can be a good place to test hypotheses, as long as one isn't emotionally invested in them. It also helps to wear a cup.

[doubtingthomas]

Growing individualism and reduced sociability might lead to less partying (and hence less drinking), more computer gaming, and less autonomous living, while also diminishing the desire for sexual intercourse—at least the type of casual encounters captured in this analysis.

What was that? Exactly!

[doubtingthomas]

Note that this is 100% non-responsive to what I said. My comment was about the effect of toxic culture in on-line gaming on the ability to form close friendships between adult men. It said nothing about the amount of time spent gaming.

That's another study and your taking that conclusion as gospel truth.