Introduction

Engaging with various happenings and events can vividly reveal the body’s reactions, such as inexplicable fear, anger, curiosity, magnetism, shock, or bliss. Maintaining awareness during these moments allows us to observe how external events influence the body, setting the stage for emotional reactions. Throughout our lives, we label these experiences as good or bad, storing them in our subconscious and memory. Consequently, the body becomes conditioned to respond to external stimuli in specific ways, often without our conscious awareness. As I discussed in my previous paper, the body is akin to a muscle that can be trained in different directions. The primary question that arises is: who is in control? Before delving further into this question, let us turn our attention to the emotional body.

Psychophysiology of Emotions

The intricate connection between the body and brain ensures our adaptive responses to the ever-changing environmental landscape. At the heart of this dynamic relationship lies psychophysiology, a field devoted to uncovering how our physiological processes underpin emotional and social experiences. Through the lens of psychophysiological methods, we gain profound insights into the symbiotic relationship between body and mind, emphasizing the body’s indispensable role in our emotional life.

The body and brain operate in concert to manage the myriad stimuli we encounter daily. The brain, as the processing hub, assesses sensory information’s significance and triggers corresponding physiological responses. Consider the amygdala, the brain’s sentinel for emotional processing, which activates the hypothalamus in the face of threat. This initiates the fight-or-flight response, releasing adrenaline, increasing heart rate, and heightening alertness—all preparing the body to confront or escape danger.

Employing psychophysiological methods reveals the nuanced ways these processes unfold. Techniques such as electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow researchers to observe brain activity related to emotion regulation. Peripheral measures like heart rate variability (HRV), skin conductance, and muscle tension further elucidate the body’s response to emotional stimuli. By correlating these physiological measures with subjective emotional experiences, we map the intricate interplay between brain and body.

These methods illuminate the physiological foundations of our emotional and social processes. For instance, HRV serves as a key indicator of the autonomic nervous system’s capacity to manage stress. Higher HRV signifies better emotional regulation and resilience, reflecting a harmonious balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. Similarly, variations in skin conductance mirror changes in emotional arousal, providing a window into our reactions to social interactions and environmental cues.

Emotions are not confined to the brain; they are embodied experiences manifesting through physiological changes. Joy, for instance, may increase heart rate, relax muscles, and evoke a sense of warmth. Sadness, conversely, may lead to a slower heart rate, muscle tension, and a feeling of heaviness. These physical manifestations of emotion underscore the body’s integral role in our emotional landscape.

Emotions serve adaptive functions, guiding our behavior in ways that enhance survival and well-being. Fear prompts avoidance of danger, anger motivates confrontation, and happiness reinforces behaviors that foster social bonding and cooperation. The psychophysiology of emotions reveals that these responses are not mere automatic reactions but finely tuned mechanisms shaped by evolution to optimize our interaction with the environment.

By delving into the psychophysiology of emotions, we unearth the profound interconnectedness of body and mind, uncovering the embodied nature of our emotional experiences. This exploration affirms that our physiological states are not mere backdrops but active participants in the emotional and social tapestry of human existence.

Yet, it would be a fallacy to assert that our emotions are solely influenced by external stimuli. I might fear a stranger, having never met them before, without any apparent psychological rationale, and be correct in sensing their danger. Conversely, I might harbor an ego-driven hatred for someone simply because they evoke memories of childhood trauma. Let us examine these examples more closely.

Moral Emotions and Behavior

The nexus between emotions such as shame, guilt, empathy, and moral behavior offers profound insights into the human condition. These moral emotions, far from being mere reactions, are intricately shaped by our cognitive processes and the workings of the ego. They serve as internal compasses, guiding our responses to moral and ethical situations.

Shame and guilt, for instance, are powerful emotions that compel introspection and self-evaluation. Shame arises when we perceive ourselves as failing to meet societal or personal standards, leading to a sense of worthlessness or exposure. Guilt, on the other hand, stems from specific actions that violate our moral code, prompting feelings of remorse and a desire to make amends. Both emotions are deeply tied to our sense of self and our awareness of others’ perceptions, highlighting the ego’s role in moral functioning.

Empathy, by contrast, involves the capacity to vicariously experience and understand the emotions of others. It is a cornerstone of prosocial behavior, fostering connections and ethical interactions. Empathy requires cognitive processes that enable perspective-taking and emotional resonance, allowing us to feel concern for others’ well-being and to act in morally appropriate ways.

These emotions—shame, guilt, and empathy—are not merely spontaneous reactions but are cultivated through our cognitive frameworks and egoic structures. They influence how we navigate moral landscapes, prompting actions that align with our ethical beliefs and societal norms. As Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek (2007) elucidate, these emotions are integral to our moral behavior, shaping our interactions and guiding us toward moral integrity.

In understanding moral emotions, we recognize the profound interplay between our cognitive faculties, ego, and emotional responses. This interplay underscores the complexity of moral behavior, revealing how our inner world of emotions and thoughts directs our outer actions in the realm of ethics and morality.

Thus, the perception of emotions is not a unidirectional process but rather a complex interplay where facial and bodily expressions exert reciprocal influence. This dynamic interaction is mediated by cognitive processes that provide context, highlighting the intricate ways in which our mental interpretations shape our emotional experiences.

When we perceive emotions in others, our understanding is guided by the synchronization of facial expressions and bodily cues. A smile paired with relaxed posture conveys happiness more convincingly than a smile alone. Conversely, a frown combined with tense body language accentuates the perception of distress or anger. This bidirectional flow ensures that our emotional perception is nuanced and contextually accurate.

Cognitive processes play a crucial role in this interplay, as they help us interpret and integrate these visual cues. Our mental framework, shaped by past experiences and cultural norms, provides the context necessary for decoding these signals. This contextualization allows us to perceive emotions not as isolated phenomena but as part of a broader, interconnected emotional landscape.

This reciprocal influence underscores the importance of context in emotional perception. Our brains do not simply process facial and bodily expressions in isolation; they integrate these cues with our cognitive understanding of the situation, thereby constructing a coherent emotional experience. This bidirectional flow demonstrates how our mental interpretations can profoundly shape our emotional realities, leading to a deeper understanding of the emotions we perceive in ourselves and others. Does this suggest that we might be overinterpreting our surroundings, attributing excessive significance to them?

Our physical form is not merely a vessel but an active participant in the symphony of social and emotional interactions, embodying and communicating our innermost experiences.

In the realm of social behavior, the body conveys a wealth of information through gestures, posture, and facial expressions. These non-verbal cues often speak louder than words, revealing our true emotions and intentions. A bowed head can signify shame, a clenched fist may denote anger, and a warm smile can express genuine affection. These physical manifestations are crucial for effective communication, as they help us navigate the complex terrain of human interactions, fostering understanding and connection. Psychologically, the body’s responses are intertwined with our emotional states. The bodily reactions are not just reflections of our emotions but integral components of our psychological experiences, reinforcing and amplifying what we feel.

Reflecting on the communicative behavior of the body, I wonder if nature “speaks” in a similar manner. Perhaps we lack the social and empathetic awareness to comprehend its language.

However, I wish to distinguish feelings from emotions, as we frequently conflate the deeper dynamics within the body with egoic emotional reactions. Existential feelings serve as a prime example of this distinction.

Existential Feelings

Existential feelings, distinct from emotional feelings, encompass sensations of homeliness, belonging, and the profound sense of being part of something greater. These feelings are not merely transient emotions but foundational aspects of our existence that shape our perception of reality and our sense of being in the world.

Unlike emotional feelings, which often arise in response to specific stimuli and are relatively fleeting, existential feelings permeate our consciousness, influencing how we experience and interpret our surroundings on a fundamental level. For instance, the feeling of homeliness imbues our environment with familiarity and comfort, anchoring us in a space where we feel safe and at ease. This sense of homeliness extends beyond the physical space, embedding itself in our interactions and daily experiences, providing a backdrop of stability.

Belonging, another crucial existential feeling, involves a deep-rooted sense of connection to others and to a community. This feeling transcends mere social interactions; it is a profound recognition of shared existence and mutual understanding. When we feel we belong, we perceive ourselves as integral parts of a larger whole, enhancing our sense of purpose and grounding us in a collective reality.

Being part of something greater also constitutes an essential existential feeling. It reflects our awareness of our place within a broader context—be it a community, a movement, or the universe itself. This feeling can evoke a sense of awe and wonder, reinforcing our connection to the world and imbuing our lives with meaning and significance.

According to Ratcliffe (2005), these existential feelings are integral to our sense of being in the world. They shape our reality at a foundational level, influencing how we engage with and interpret our experiences. By grounding us in a sense of place, connection, and purpose, existential feelings form the bedrock of our perception, coloring every aspect of our lived experience.

In exploring existential feelings, we delve into the core of our existence, uncovering the profound ways in which our sense of being is intertwined with our perception of reality. These feelings are not mere reactions to our environment but are intrinsic to how we inhabit the world, guiding our interactions and shaping our understanding of life itself.

To move beyond the limitations imposed by our mental constructs, it is essential to recognize the significance of this distinction. Our habitual overthinking leads us to shape the world through the lens of our cognitive biases and emotions. In doing so, we do not merely perceive emotions but, in a sense, we bring them into existence as part of the world we mentally construct.

This prompts us to question whether we can truly rely on our mental and emotional bodies or whether we might shift our attention completely to the physical and sensory aspects of our being. In my view, there exists another body, a guiding presence that acts as a captain, choosing which dimension of experience to attend to. Psychologists often attribute unexplained phenomena to the subconscious, much like Columbus mistakenly named every new land he encountered India. It is crucial that we delve deeper into this subject in the final section of constructing “Mapping the Multifaceted Human Being.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, this exploration affirms the indispensable role of the body in our emotional and existential lives, revealing it as more than a passive container of our being. The study of psychophysiology highlights the body’s active involvement in emotional processing, while the examination of existential feelings unveils the deeper currents of belonging and connection that shape our reality. This work challenges the primacy of the mental and emotional bodies, proposing instead a holistic view where the physical and sensory dimensions hold equal significance. As we continue to map the multifaceted nature of the human being, it becomes evident that our understanding of the body must evolve beyond rationality, embracing the full spectrum of our embodied experience.

Bibliography

“Bodies in mind: using peripheral psychophysiology to probe emotional and social processes” Gina M. Grimshaw, M. Philipp · 29. Juli 2020

“Moral emotions and moral behavior.” June P Tangney, J. Stuewig, Debra J. Mashek · 21. Dez. 2007

“Bidirectional contextual influence between faces and bodies in emotion perception.” Maya Lecker, R. Dotsch, Gijsbert Bijlstra, Hillel Aviezer · 1. Okt. 2020

“Bodies, Representations, Situations, Practices: Qualitative Research on Affect, Emotion and Feeling.” M. Willis, J. Cromby · 2. Jan. 2020

“The feeling of being.” M. Ratcliffe · 2005

The post Mapping the Multifaceted Human Being: The Emotional Body appeared first on The Miskatonian.

We say: my great-grandfather died for this dirt, my grandfather died for this dirt, my father died for this dirt, I would die for this dirt, but I hope my son never has to die for this dirt. Instead of questioning why your family died for that dirt and trying to make the world a place where your son doesn’t have to die for the same patch of dirt that claimed your clan, you stick to your foot in that dirt and hope that your stand will be that last stand. However, with history as a prologue, your son and maybe even his son will sadly die for that same patch of dirt. Watching the new horrors of drone warfare beamed directly to my phone from the battlefields of Ukraine in 1080p; it’s evident that as I watch a soldier beg for his life while being chased down by the high-pitched hum of a $10 drone, there’s a real chance you and your son die for that dirt without ever seeing who valued you, and your divine spark, so little.

It will always be this way. Maybe it doesn’t have to be, but maybe the reality is that though we think concepts like feudalism died, we find ourselves in a new version of it. Our banner lord Amazon calls us up from the fields to push back the invaders – the enemy, Nvidia, is raising the price on processors for the new data center – sally forth, seize the day, and thank the lord for another beautiful day tending the land and two-day delivery. Looking back, maybe developing nuclear weapons was the best thing we could’ve done for humanity – mutually assured destruction made it so our appetites for ending others had to be tempered by the fear that they could end us – after all, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Human ingenuity knows no bounds. We have to bloodlet a little – those people who have the same attributes as us, but in a different shade, need to be stopped before they do x or y or z to you and me – think of the children, but not their children.

Humans are wonderful beings. Though we can empathize nine times out of ten, that tenth time, we are far better at another ability, rationalization. The rationalization that though that person may appear like us, may have a beautiful family, may have similar hopes and dreams to me, they come from a different patch of dirt, making them less than me. We must be able to rationalize that; we must have strength in numbers, we need the echo chamber, and we need to know that we alone don’t have these dark thoughts. We can overlook that the person fighting beside us may look like the enemy – they are draped in the same cloth as me, and that makes them friends, not enemies.

But as we pivot into remote-controlled warfare, the ethical landscape shifts beneath our feet. Consider the drone operator: sitting in a climate-controlled room, far removed from the chaos of the battlefield, watching the world through a screen. Their job is to decide who lives and dies, with the press of a button unleashing death from above. The emotional and psychological detachment is staggering. This operator doesn’t see the fear in the eyes of their target, doesn’t hear the cries of pain and loss – or they do, but a lifetime of Call of Duty had deadened the concept of real life – the act of killing can become as sterile as deleting an email.

Here, the teachings of Jean-Paul Sartre come to mind – Sartre posited that individuals are condemned to be free and burdened with the responsibility of their choices and actions. For the drone operator, this freedom is both a shield and a sword. They are shielded from the immediate horror of their actions, yet the weight of their decisions may haunt them in ways unseen. The screen (or even their youth) that separates them from their targets does not absolve them of their humanity, but it may be the thing that provides that pivotal extra layer of psychic disconnect from their actions.

This detachment creates a dangerous potential for moral disengagement. When killing becomes a task performed from the comfort of an office chair, the moral gravity of taking a life can be easily forgotten. The philosopher, Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil”, comes into sharp focus here. Arendt argued that ordinary people can commit atrocious acts simply by following orders, detached from the human consequences of their actions – we also see that as part of the Milgram Experiment, where people delivered levels of electric shock to another person when ordered to. There was a definite willingness to, under orders, provide fatal levels of shock to people – drone warfare risks normalizing this detachment, making the extraordinary act of killing alarmingly mundane.

Moreover, the implications for international law and the rules of engagement are profound—for example, can a combatant surrender to a drone? Drones operate in a grey zone, often outside the traditional boundaries of war. Their anonymity and ease of deployment can lead to an escalation in conflicts, as nations may resort to drone strikes without fully considering the repercussions. This new era of warfare challenges us to rethink the frameworks that have guided us through centuries of conflict.

Yet, in this bleak analysis, there is a glimmer of hope. Awareness and discourse can spark change. By confronting these ethical dilemmas head-on, we can strive to create a framework that upholds the sanctity of human life, even in the most technologically advanced theaters of war. Granted, that seems like an oxymoron, but the call for empathy, ethical reasoning, and moral accountability is louder than ever.

Ultimately, our technological advancements must be matched by our moral and ethical progress. As we navigate the complexities of drone warfare, we must remember that each action taken from a distance still reverberates in the heart of humanity. The challenge is not just to wield our power responsibly but to ensure that in doing so, we do not lose sight of our shared human essence.

These are the concepts we have wrestled with since Cain killed Abel. We are beautiful because we are flawed. We can descend to darkness, but we can also elevate to greatness—that is the blessing and the curse of humanity. We are depraved, but in that depravity, there is a cyclical nature to the beast. It was the Alan Moore character, Dr. Manhattan, who said it best: “Without condoning or condemning, I understand.”

The post Echoes of Conflict – The Allure and Abyss of War appeared first on The Miskatonian.

When most people think of an epidemic, contagious diseases come to mind. But what if one of the biggest epidemics of this time is a cultural one instead of a medical one? I am, of course, talking about the loneliness epidemic. But can you call the spread of loneliness a “true epidemic”? An epidemic is defined as “the rapid spread of disease to a large number of people in a given population.”

Let’s first look at the numbers to see if loneliness is such a big problem. Globally, 24% of people over the age of 15 felt regularly lonely. Additionally, loneliness has become especially a big problem in the Western world, with numbers of social isolation in Southern and Eastern Europe reaching nearly 40% in some countries. Moreover, nearly half of Americans feel alone, left out, or isolated from others. 54% of Americans also suggested that nobody knew them well. 40% also felt that they do not have meaningful relationships and 31% had difficulty making friends.

Now that we have established that loneliness frequently occurs, especially in the West, we should look at the negative effects of loneliness to see if we can truly classify it as a “cultural disease.” Bad news for those who frequently feel socially isolated or lonely, as this has been repeatedly associated with heart disease, strokes, type 2 diabetes, depression, anxiety, addictions, suicidality, self-harming behavior, increased medical costs up to 50%, dementia, and earlier death. Therefore, it could be argued that loneliness can indeed be classified as a “cultural epidemic.”

Luckily, policy makers are waking up to the alarming signs, but sadly, much of the policy changes and money spending has yet had to have a tremendous effect. Therefore, the important question to solve the loneliness epidemic, is to understand why this epidemic started to begin with. This might give us some insight in what we should do to combat it more effectively, instead of throwing solutions at it and seeing what sticks.

The sociological background of the loneliness epidemic

Most of the time, loneliness has been, understandably so, described because of the important sociological changes that happened in the early 20^th century.

Before that time, only 5% of Western people consisted of one-person households. Yet, due to urbanization, the decline in birth rates, and the replacement of the extended family by the nuclear family, the rate of one-person households had already almost doubled by 1950. Furthermore, the past half-century has seen an unprecedented social change wherein one-person households have increased to historically high numbers due to increased divorce rates, decreased birth rates, and longer lifespans.

While these sociological shifts have been highly impactful and, therefore, rightfully so, the attention of policymakers, much of the answer has been to either aim to magically undo the sociological shifts of modernity by focusing on increased marriage rates and birth rates or deny their significance altogether.

In that sense, it would be great if social structures could be reinvented to revive social institutions. Still, one crucial fact seems to be forgotten: not only did the sociological compound of society change, but so did the psyche of men in it. Consequently, before sociological changes can be impactful and self-sustaining, a psychological shift in the mindset of modern man is necessary.

With that in mind, we should consider how modernity has changed the Western psyche.

How the age of Reason Has Made loneliness a Cultural Commonality in the West

The modern world is primarily considered the “the Age of Reason.” To give the devil his due, this “rational approach” has, on a positive note, led to accomplishments such as the formalization in the separation of power, food abundance, and a rapidly increasing number of people being lifted out of absolute poverty. On the other hand, experimentation with “anything that is rationally possible” has led countries to embrace totalitarian ideologies like fascism, national socialism, and communism.

This paradox symbolizes many of the psychological struggles of modern man. On the one hand, Western man does have an increasing number of opportunities, both in professional life as well as in the ways of connecting with other people to form social communities, for example, via the internet. Still, on the other, if anything is possible, and everything is reduced to a rational belief based on a set of axioms chosen out of a (near) an infinite number of possible axioms, the individual can get crushed in the lack of stable structure.

We see this happening in the modern world, even in the most benign decisions we must make, such as which soap to buy in the supermarket. With dozens of options all promising the absolute best, how can someone make “the best” decision with limited information and time?

This is just a small example of how absolute rationalization and maximalization do not always benefit individuals’ psychology. With even more important decisions, such as choosing one’s spouse, people can get crushed under the seemingly endless options even more.

But back to the loneliness epidemic, here we find one of the two primary psychological problems leading to a cultural sustaining of loneliness.

The social structures of the past provided both a direction and therefore limited the options to the realm of graspable opportunities as well as provided people with sustaining meaning in the form of family and community.

With modernity decreasing the normative function of social structures in the name of “unlimited freedom,” people have had to come up with their own structures and meaning. While one might argue that for a small group of people, this has worked out alright, for most people, no meaningful sustaining social structure has emerged.

This is understandable, as the previous social structures proved to be reliable, stable, and prosperous over countless generations. To disconnect from this biologically and psychologically hard-wired reality means that one must believe that they, as an individual, have enough wisdom, knowledge, and means to create a whole new society that can outcompete with generations of trial and error.

With these attempts mostly failing, loneliness has taken its place. And when loneliness settles in, and man cannot provide for one of his fundamental needs of connecting to others in family and community, the importance of rationality takes a much darker turn. Some of these paths have been displayed in the (pseudo-) scientific arguments defending the likes of Marxism and Nazism.

As shown, rationality has brought great things to society, but it cannot function as a mere replacement of the deep social needs of mankind. When left unattended, great sorrow is the path that society tends to take.

The post-romantic focus on self-centered empathy: being alone together 

If too much reductionistic rationality is not good, how has the role of emotions and feelings evolved during modernity?

First, let’s distinguish between the two. Emotions are sensations that you feel in your body, such as pain when someone hits you or sweetness when you eat a piece of cake. Feelings, on the other hand, are the psychological interpretation of emotions. So, how do we feel after someone hits us? That depends on how we think about it. We can think that this person is stronger than us and feel fear, or we can think how unjust it is that we get hit and get aggressive.

In modern times, how we look at emotions and feelings has seen unprecedented changes. Due to secularization and a humanist worldview with humanity as the psychological center of the universe, individuals have slowly become more detached from transcendental meaning.

The disconnection from aims bigger than oneself (in particular, from family and community) that followed has forced people to find “modern meaning.” For many reasons, this is doomed to fail, as modern man has focused on his own happiness as his supplement of modern meaning.

Stepping in the footsteps of Rousseau, the focus on the “inner sentiment,” the awareness and importance of the inner experience, as a guide for our goals steadily increased. With no stable identity embedded in our transcendental, family, and community life, the fragile remains of modern identity have sanctified the inner experience as our highest virtue: to feel happy is to be successful.

This conflicts with our hardwired cognition and makes every contradiction or pushback found in the ever-changing self-identity a mortal threat. This makes people less resilient and, moreover, unable to cope with people with different beliefs, identities, or behaviors. This means that one is increasingly unable to deal with other people, as we all, to a lesser or bigger extent, are different from each other.

Therefore, to protect the pursuit of happiness, people have increasingly detached from social life, and surprise, surprise, and loneliness have found themselves once more back into the conversation. Ironically, as social creatures, this contradicts the pursuit of true happiness as this cannot be reduced to constant emotions or feelings of pure happiness.

Moreover, according to evolutionary psychology, human beings are biased towards negative stimuli as these provide crucial information to survive potential threats.

This means that when the inner experience is emphasized too much, it may lead to a stronger experience of negative feelings. Ironically, this makes people even more focused on their own experience, and therefore, a negative feedback loop emerges, which pushes people to isolate themselves from others.

Nowadays, the development of certain technologies, such as social media, has taken advantage of this human proclivity, resulting in people becoming even more stuck into a loop that feeds negative feelings and creates increasingly self-centered people.

This does not only cause social polarization, as we have evidently seen in society, but the negative emotional loop also creates more self-centered people which makes creating meaningful and long-lasting relationships more difficult. No wonder that people have more social media “friends” but less actual friends nowadays.

Self-focus vs. other-focus: how to reconnect people

Now that we have come to the realization that both reason and feelings need to be embedded in a social structure to create connected people, we also have found a fundamental cause of the loneliness epidemic. As always, the devil is in the details, and this is easier said than done.

Let’s look at the overarching psychological phenomenon which regulates the relation between feelings and rationality on the one hand and the ability to connect to others on the other hand: the point on which we focus our attention.

By focusing our mind excessively on that which our reason gives to us or what we emotionally desire, modern man takes away part of its cognitive ability to understand others’ thoughts and feelings from the perspective of the other person.

This has become increasingly difficult for many people as putting yourself in someone else’s shoes is uncomfortable and energy consuming, especially for those that are not used to release their attention from their own thoughts and feelings. You could compare this to a muscle. The less you train it, the more effort it will take you. Thus, if man peruses their own short-term happiness excessively, the discomfort and self-centered focus remains.

This is where the psychological mechanism of focus kicks in. Instead of attempting to put oneself in the shoes of the other (other-focus), self-centered people tend to imagine oneself in the situation of the other (self-focus). You might ask yourself, what is the big deal? The answer might surprise you. Self-focus generally, besides empathy, tends to generate negative thoughts and feelings of distress like experiencing threats and pain.

Other-focus, on the other hand, tends to generate empathy, sympathy, and concern for the other without accompanying negative thoughts and feelings of personal distress. In this context, it makes sense that it is harder for people with a self-focus to connect to others as this may bring a great deal of discomfort for people, especially in the context of conflict, as other-focus-oriented people tend to bond better with others in conflictive situations.

Going back to the loneliness epidemic, we see that between 1979 and 2009, there has been a steep decline in other focused empathy at the same rate as mental health problems and loneliness have increased, especially among adolescents. To demonstrate how far this self-focus has gone, even the most severe forms of self-focus, usually seen in narcissistic personality disorders, have increased during the same period.

How do we fight against the loneliness epidemic?

In short, to truly combat important sociological issues underlying loneliness, such as low marriage and birth rates, we must understand that the sociological state of the past cannot be achieved. At the same time, the psychological focus remains the same.

To re-embed people in social relationships, we must foster a culture in which people can truly connect to others. The modern cultural dominance of unbalanced rational and emotional states outside social structures, therefore, cannot be reversed until we raise people to take a more other-focused approach to life.

It is not only up to policymakers to combat the loneliness epidemic. Every individual can, in the conservative tradition, take responsibility in their own hand to be a little bit less self-centered and stimulate this in your surroundings. That way, we can look upon a connected future full of shared adventures and meaningful relations. A future worth striving for and which we are not alone.

The post Atomization & the Loneliness Epidemic appeared first on The Miskatonian.