> Lonelier individuals were also more likely to use unusual language when describing well-known celebrities and to describe them in ways that were not typical for their group.
How is that surprising? If they are lonely, they are not part of the group and intergroup communication (including shared values, opinions, gossip etc).
The text fails to define "unusual" in a meaningful way other than "not part of the majority". It's like saying "we found that the minority tends to vote differently than the majority".
Feels like fancy neuroimaging being used to scientifically justify excluding people who don't conform to mainstream social norms. Classic case of using tech to medicalize being different. Also kind of makes sense from an evolutionary psych perspective - groups have always tried to identify and push out "others" for survival. But maybe in 2024 we can do better than using million-dollar brain scanners to shame people who see the world (oh sorry, “famous” people) differently?
Well, exactly. Parents poster is pointing out that the cause is ambiguous. Actually, technically, they are attributing causality to the opposite direction, but in practice, I'd say it gets the point across.
So they tested disconnected individuals against connected individuals in the perception of socially constructed objects (celebrities). And they found that people who don't socialise much don't share that socially constructed perception. What else did they expect? Seems quite obvious.
This is a bullshit study. It is entirely based on trying to confirm a priori assumptions about ”lonely” people, who are seen by authors as pathologically abnormal.
> Loneliness corresponded with idiosyncratic [unusual, unique] neural representations of celebrities as well as more idiosyncratic communication about celebrities
must be the best argument to date for being more lonely.
> Lonelier individuals were also more likely to use unusual language when describing well-known celebrities and to describe them in ways that were not typical for their group.
How is that surprising? If they are lonely, they are not part of the group and intergroup communication (including shared values, opinions, gossip etc).
The text fails to define "unusual" in a meaningful way other than "not part of the majority". It's like saying "we found that the minority tends to vote differently than the majority".
People who don't interact a lot with other people. Hrrm.
It would be really weird if they thought and talked in accordance with the current social pablum.
Feels like fancy neuroimaging being used to scientifically justify excluding people who don't conform to mainstream social norms. Classic case of using tech to medicalize being different. Also kind of makes sense from an evolutionary psych perspective - groups have always tried to identify and push out "others" for survival. But maybe in 2024 we can do better than using million-dollar brain scanners to shame people who see the world (oh sorry, “famous” people) differently?
Do you guys know who the most popular artists of our time are?
Reading this article and its mention of celebrities I was like "Who are today's celebrities anyhow?"? And typed
into Google. It came back with: I have heard 8 of the 10 names before. Never heard about "Karol G" and "Charli XCX".I can only think of one song performed by one of them: "Paparazzi" by Lady Gaga.
Does that make me very disconnected with today's culture?
I don’t listen to 8/10 of these musicians, but I’ve heard of all of them except for Karol G. So yeah; I’d say you are very disconnected.
Read the whole article wondering how lonely people think differently.
But I now understand that it is just that: different. They do not conform to what the norm thinks.
Seen in that light: lonely people are lonely because they are weird. Right. Good to know.
Lonely people are also weird because they are lonely (and don't get the calibration from human interaction).
The article does not claim this nor support the claim. It merely says that loneliness is associated with being "weird". No causality.
It's possible to reverse this and infer the more mainstream your thoughts of these celebrities, the more popular you are / will be.
Well, exactly. Parents poster is pointing out that the cause is ambiguous. Actually, technically, they are attributing causality to the opposite direction, but in practice, I'd say it gets the point across.
So they tested disconnected individuals against connected individuals in the perception of socially constructed objects (celebrities). And they found that people who don't socialise much don't share that socially constructed perception. What else did they expect? Seems quite obvious.
This is a bullshit study. It is entirely based on trying to confirm a priori assumptions about ”lonely” people, who are seen by authors as pathologically abnormal.
> Loneliness corresponded with idiosyncratic [unusual, unique] neural representations of celebrities as well as more idiosyncratic communication about celebrities
must be the best argument to date for being more lonely.
Could mean the opposite of what you might think. I imagine the mean perception of Zuck is weirdo, Bieber is 'no clue, I'm not a teen girl' and so on.
People are strange when you’re a stranger.