#1st link is broken. You need to stop loading before it gets to an error page (it works but that's how I managed to bypass a paywall)

[ina-nis]

You can’t self-love yourself out of loneliness.

Loneliness is not, in fact, a sign that we need more of ourselves. It’s a sign that we want more connection with other human beings (...) You can have all the love for yourself in the world and still have the desire to be in a healthy partnership with another human being.

(...) Even people in relationships are capable of feeling loneliness. During my marriage, I was heartrendingly lonely. It was an excruciating experience to be inside a relationship where I was barely even acknowledged on a daily basis. When I would tell friends how I felt, they would understand that loneliness indicated a desire for more connection within my relationship. I would be given advice about how to better connect, not told to go love myself more.

But when a single person expresses loneliness, everyone is quick to say we just need more self-love or more hobbies and interests — not more human connection. The struggle is real. So is the judgment.

I’m not referring here to codependent individuals incapable of being single or people who hop from relationship to relationship rather than taking time for themselves. I’m talking about those of us who’ve lived the single life but also ache for someone to share our lives. The fact that we want that doesn’t make us any less self-loving than anyone else.

Love, like everything else, is a resource. I believe it is a renewable one based on how many times I’ve had my heart shattered, mended, and still managed to love again. But when we spend much of the time giving out love and being the only one to give it back to ourselves, we can begin to feel depleted. It doesn’t replenish in the same way as it does people who are experiencing reciprocated love.

Our self-love alone doesn’t replace wanting companionship or community. Platonic and familial love doesn’t cancel out the desire for romantic love either. 

(...) When we realize that we want to connect more with others and reach out to express how we feel, we don’t really need to be told to go on our way and love ourselves better. It’s not helpful, and it’s not kind. It encourages shame and makes it less likely we’ll reach out again.

That sense of loneliness could mean that we learn new ways to connect with ourselves, but it likely will also require that we figure out other ways of sourcing that connection outside of ourselves. We aren’t meant to be islands. It’s natural to want to share the ups and downs of our lives with others.

(...) We don’t need to be afraid to say we’re lonely lest we get hit with a million entreaties to love ourselves more. In fact, speaking up about it just might make someone else feel a little less alone. We aren’t lonely exclusively because we’re single, or I wouldn’t have spent most of my marriage feeling that way. More self-love isn’t the answer. More connection is.

My self-love is strong, but this year, I am lonely. Both things can be true. I don’t need to pour more love into myself. I just want more connection.

I would love to see the conversation around loneliness change so that those of us who aren’t living with our partners can speak up about how we feel without the weight of the toxic positivity world hitting us with “love yourself more” to instantly invalidate our desire for connectivity or intimacy. (x)

Loneliness is not necessarily a product of low self-esteem - although being lonely do contribute to a poor self-image and sense of self. Self-love, self-care, self-esteem... none of these are going to bridge your world to other people’s. They bridge your world to your own, which is always a good thing.

The more connected you feel to yourself, the more grounded, the more resilient, and more prepared you are to deal with hardships and stress. That still doesn’t translate into any external connection necessarily.

Loneliness is a feeling, not a disease, not pain itself, not the thing that needs “fixing”. Maybe it’s better to see it on the realm of emotions and as such, emotional dysregulation should apply to loneliness as well.

Coping strategies are everywhere: self-love/care, pets, plants, exercise, hobbies, volunteering, meetups, and so on. They come with the assumption that, as with any skill, the more you practice, the better you get at it and the result is that, eventually, you will/should start feeling less lonely. The emotion becomes more manageable because you’re able to regulate it better. In theory.

In practice, when you take AvPD into account, “loneliness” is a very specific emotion. There’s very specific needs, that might vary from person to person, but the foundation is similar: lonely from disconnection, or/and from feeling alienated, or/and due to fear of rejection, or/and due to fear of humiliation, or/and due to fear of embarrassment, etc.

For some, it’s a matter of developing better social skills and treating anxiety disorders; for a few others, it goes deeper than that, and none of the coping strategies will work, because they do not address loneliness in the way it has to be addressed for some people suffering with AvPD. The strategies, instead, become crutches and distractions, without any real, long-term “regulation” and remission of symptoms.

What is loneliness really?

Loneliness corresponds to a discrepancy between an individual’s preferred and actual social relations (...) This discrepancy then leads to the negative experience of feeling alone and/or the distress and dysphoria of feeling socially isolated even when among family or friends (...) This definition underscores the fact that feeling alone or lonely does not necessarily mean being alone nor does being alone necessarily mean feeling alone (...) One can feel lonely in the crowd or in a marriage (...) Reciprocally, one may enjoy being alone (...) at times in order to reach personal growth experiences (such as those achieved through solitary meditation or mindfulness exercises) or to simply take a temporary break from dealing with the demands of modern life.

Loneliness emphasizes the fact that social species require not simply the presence of others but also the presence of significant others whom they can trust, who give them a goal in life, and with whom they can plan, interact, and work together to survive and prosper (...). Moreover, the physical presence of significant others in one’s social environment is not a sufficient condition. One needs to feel connected to significant others to not feel lonely. Accordingly, one can be temporarily alone and not feel lonely as they feel highly connected with their spouse, family, and/or friends—even at a distance. (...) Although this crucial component of loneliness helps better differentiate subjective social isolation (loneliness) from objective social isolation, it has led occasionally to a conflation of loneliness and other dysphoric states (e.g., social anxiety, depression) in which a person’s subjective experiencing of their social environment also plays a crucial role.

(...) There is now considerable evidence showing that loneliness and depression are separable and that loneliness increases the risk for depression (...) a potential difference between loneliness and depression was that although both are filled with helplessness and pain, loneliness is characterized by the hope that all would be perfect if only the lonely person could be united with another longed-for person. (x)

Loneliness is multifaceted.

Loneliness is a complex construct that includes three related facets or dimensions: (a) intimate loneliness, (b) relational loneliness, and (c) collective loneliness (...) These three dimensions match the three dimensions surrounding one’s attentional space (...): intimate space (the closest space surrounding a person), social space (the space in which people feel comfortable interacting with family and acquaintances), and the public space (a more anonymous space) (...)

Intimate loneliness

or (...) emotional loneliness, refers to the perceived absence of a significant someone (e.g., a spouse)—that is, a person one can rely on for emotional support during crises, who provides mutual assistance, and who affirms one’s value as a person. This form of intimate connection often has considerable self–other overlap (such as that observed between close friends; e.g., husband–wife, best friends...). This dimension corresponds to (...) the inner core, which can include up to five people (the “support clique”) (...)

A population-based study of middle-age and older adults showed that the best (negative) predictor of intimate loneliness was marital status, indicating that intimate partners tend to be a primary source of attachment, emotional connection, and emotional support for adults (...) These results are consistent with several studies indicating that having a significant partner/spouse is associated with lower levels of intimate loneliness and, reciprocally, that losing a partner (through divorce or widowhood) is linked to greater intimate loneliness (...)

Relational loneliness

or (...) social loneliness. It refers to the perceived presence/absence of quality friendships or family connections—that is, connections from the “sympathy group” (...) within one’s relational space (...) the “sympathy group” can include among 15 and 50 people and comprises core social partners whom we see regularly and from whom we can obtain high-cost instrumental support (e.g. loans, help with projects, child care...).

The relational space is delimitated by the multimodal (visual, auditory, and tactile) space that permits face-to-face communications and interactions (...) The best (negative) predictor of relational loneliness in middle-aged and older adults is the frequency of contact with significant friends and family, even after statistically controlling for the other two dimensions of loneliness (...) Nevertheless, it is not the quantity of friends, but the quality of significant friends/confidants that counts (...) This point is crucial when diagnosing loneliness.

Collective loneliness

(...) refers to a person’s valued social identities or “active network” (e.g., group, school, team, or national identity) wherein an individual can connect to similar others at a distance in the collective space. As such, this dimension may correspond (...) the outermost social layer, which can include among 150 and 1,500 people (the “active network”) who can provide information through weak ties (...) as well as low-cost support (...) The best (negative) predictor of collective loneliness found in middle-age and older adults was the number of voluntary groups to which individuals belonged: The more voluntary associations to which individuals belonged, the lower their collective loneliness (x)

How do the different dimensions of loneliness apply to AvPD?

Perhaps, the outermost layers, collective and social loneliness, could be more closely related to anxieties, due to their size and impact: having little or no sense of a social identity (not knowing where you belong), makes it harder to even step outside and be in spaces with other people - feeling a constant sense of alienation, sometimes even paranoia; poor social skills that become even more dysfunctional, the longer social isolation goes; feeling stuck in a loop, either completely friendless, or with friends but feeling constant fear of rejection/humiliation/embarrassment in these relationships which end up either pushing people away or pulling away from people (or both).

For the innermost layer, maybe lies the issue with existential loneliness in people with good interpersonal skills and regulated anxiety. Maybe they excel in having an active network (therefore, don’t suffer from collective loneliness), and they might have (or not) quality friendships and other connections (therefore, might not suffer from social loneliness), but they do suffer from emotional loneliness from lack of closer, deeper relationships.

Regarding “treatments” for loneliness itself...

(...) Such interventions include one-on-one interventions (e.g., befriending... or mentoring...), group therapy (e.g., groups of lonely people), and wider community interventions (e.g., community events reaching out to a lonely person/s...). Most of them have been based on the intuitive understanding of loneliness. For instance, a first model has been to provide social support to lonely individuals (...)

A second model has been to increase opportunities for social interaction. But, as noted above, a large number of contacts is not equivalent to high quality relationships (...). Effects of our own mentation (what we think, what we perceive) involves both conscious and nonconscious mechanisms. Even if lonely individuals want to connect, their nonconscious hyper-vigilance for social threat can lead them to be negative with or withdraw from others.

A third model to reduce loneliness is based on teaching lonely people to master social skills. For unfortunate individuals who lack social skills, this may be effective, but people are lonely for many reasons other than poor social skills. Experimental research in which loneliness was manipulated shows that most adults have at least minimal social skills, but these adults are more likely to call upon these social skills when they feel low rather than high in loneliness (...)

(...) Twenty studies met the criteria for randomized group comparison design, and all four primary types of interventions known to reduce loneliness were present in this group. These four primary types of intervention programs were (a) those that increased opportunities for social contact (e.g., social recreation intervention), (b) those that enhanced social support (e.g., through mentoring programs, buddy-care program, conference calls), (c) those that focused on social skills (e.g., speaking on the phone, giving and receiving compliments, enhancing nonverbal communication skills), and (d) those that addressed maladaptive social cognition (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy; CBT). Among these four types, interventions designed to address maladaptive social cognition were associated with the largest effect size (...)

(...) Interventions designed to enhance social support produced a significant but small reduction in loneliness (...), whereas interventions to increase opportunities for social interaction (...) and interventions to improve social skills (...) were not found to be effective in lowering loneliness. These findings reinforce the notion that interpersonal contact or communication per se is not sufficient to address chronic loneliness in the general population.

(...) lonely individuals typically do not voluntarily become lonely; rather, they “find themselves” on one edge of the continuum of social connections (...) feeling desperately isolated (...). The perception that one is socially on the edge and isolated from others increases the motive for self-preservation. This, then, increases the motivation to connect with others but also increases an implicit hyper-vigilance for social threats, which then can introduce attentional, confirmatory, and memory biases. Given the effects of attention and expectation on anticipated social interactions, behavioral confirmation processes then can incline an individual who feels isolated to have or to place more import on negative social interactions, which if unchecked can reinforce withdrawal, negativity, and feelings of loneliness (...) This model points to a number of sources of dysfunctional and irrational beliefs, false expectations and attributions, and self-defeating thoughts and interpersonal interactions on which interventions might be designed to operate. For instance, the attentional, confirmatory, and memory biases could be targeted by training in perspective taking, empathy, and identifying automatic negative thoughts about others and about social interactions and in regarding these negative thoughts as possibly faulty hypotheses that need to be verified, whereas faulty behavioral confirmation processes could be targeted by training in mindfulness (...) and capitalization (sharing good times...).

In sum, a primary criterion for empirically supported therapies is that they demonstrate efficacy in randomized controlled studies. Although more research is needed, the meta-analysis suggests that interventions designed to modify maladaptive social cognition may be especially worth pursuing. Such interventions can be expensive and time consuming, and the client’s lack of openness to changing their thoughts about and interactions with others can be an obstacle to effective treatment. It is possible that these interventions may be more effective (or effective for a greater proportion of individuals) if augmented initially by an appropriate pharmacologic treatment. (x)

Treatment for loneliness, as with most treatments for mental illnesses, turn inwards. As if it was all a matter of “perception” and “behaviours”, all a matter of biases, and so on. All a problem of the lonely individual.

So, you’re left with “antidepressants”, “CBT” and “group support”, to summarize. The first two might not work for people who can’t tolerate medication, and who have a trauma background (which can be made worse by that kind of therapy); and the latter might not be useful for someone who doesn’t suffer from social anxiety or lack of social skills, or someone who doesn’t deal with collective nor social loneliness. It works for the majority of people, supposedly, but if it doesn’t work for you...

...The cycle continues. Even if you turn to selflessness, even if you turn to self-love, the fact that doesn’t change is that, in the matters of existential loneliness, in the matters of emotional loneliness, everything is a little too superficial. Changing thoughts or behaviours don’t change other people’s actions (or lack of thereof), there’s still no beginnings, or whenever there is a start to something, there is also an ending - confirming the tragedy of loneliness. The connection, the togetherness is but a finite experience. You should get your “fill” from various connections throughout the time... but that can also wear you thin, until you burn out.

The only way to change that is by acquiring strong connections elsewhere - it cannot be internal, the problem is not the Self - and it’s very hard to even seek out other people when the sole action of socializing feels so exhausting and pointless.

It’s not that other people are out to get you, it’s not that you’ll embarrass yourself, it’s not that “dysfunctional and irrational beliefs, false expectations and attributions, and self-defeating thoughts" are 100% the culprits in this issue. These can be worked through in therapy and with a lot of inner work.

It’s the lack of good, positive feedback (to reinforce and strengthen changes), it’s the lack of social connection (not because one isn’t trying to connect but because connections remain superficial, there’s quantity but the quality isn’t reassuring/safe enough), it’s the lack of a deeper connection (because it requires vulnerability, reciprocity and commitment, which are things that most people don’t seem like wanting to bother with when there’s less strenuous/demanding alternatives).

It’s not because there is bad, it’s the absence of good that’s the problem.