Author: Kulsoomified

by Kulsoom Abid

There are people everywhere. So why does it sometimes feel like nobody is really there?

There is a particular kind of loneliness that happens in crowded places.
It happens on a Delhi Metro when the carriage is full but nobody looks up. It happens at a party where your phone is in your hand because you don’t quite know who to talk to. It happens at the dinner table, while everyone is technically together and yet each person is somewhere else. Either, inside a screen, inside their thoughts, or inside a life that nobody else can quite enter.
It happens when your Instagram is full of names but your heart cannot think of one person to call.
And perhaps most painfully, it happens when someone asks, “How are you?” and you automatically say, “I’m fine,” even though what you really want is for them to ask again and wait long enough for the real answer.
Surprisingly, we face it in an era where we have never had more ways to reach one another.
Messages arrive instantly. Friends live inside our phones. Family groups buzz throughout the day. We can watch someone’s life unfold from another continent. We can send a photograph of our breakfast to someone who has never sat at our table.
And yet, somehow, many of us still feel alone.

So perhaps the question isn’t: Why are there so few people around us?
Perhaps it is: Why can so many people be around us without making us feel seen?

Loneliness is not the absence of people

John Terrence Cacioppo (June 12, 1951 – March 5, 2018)

Psychologist and neuroscientist John Cacioppo spent decades studying loneliness, and one of his most important observations was deceptively simple: loneliness is not determined by the number of people around us.
You can be lonely in a marriage. You can be lonely in a family. You can be lonely in a friendship. You can even be lonely in a crowd.
Cacioppo explained that what matters is not simply the quantity of interaction but the quality of connection. As he put it, “it’s feeling connected to other people that makes them feel less lonely.”
That changes the way we understand loneliness.
Because perhaps the person sitting alone in a café isn’t necessarily lonely.
Perhaps she is reading a book, drinking coffee, watching the rain, and perfectly content in her own company.
Meanwhile, the person laughing loudly at a party might be desperately lonely.
The difference is not solitude. It is connection.
Solitude says: I am alone, and I am with myself.
Loneliness says: I am alone, and I wish someone could reach me here.

Psychological research similarly distinguishes loneliness from simply being physically alone. The American Psychological Association describes loneliness as the discomfort that arises when we perceive ourselves as socially isolated.
In other words, loneliness is partly a perception of distance. And distance can exist between two people sitting three inches apart.

We don’t just want company. We want recognition.
There is something deeper beneath our desire for companionship.
We want to be known.
Not merely noticed. Not liked. Not followed. Known.

We want someone to understand the strange little things about us: why a particular song makes us quiet, why we suddenly become anxious before something that seems insignificant, why we don’t like being asked questions in front of everyone, why we keep returning to the same street, the same book, the same memory.
We want someone who knows that when we say “nothing’s wrong,” sometimes something is.
This is where loneliness becomes emotional rather than merely social.

You can have hundreds of interactions in a week and still never reveal anything that feels vulnerable. You can talk all day without ever having a conversation. You can be listened to without feeling heard. You can be loved without feeling understood.
And perhaps this is one of the great contradictions of modern life:
we have become exceptionally good at staying in contact and strangely inexperienced at being in relationship.

The psychologist who taught us that humans need attachment

Edward John Mostyn Bowlby (26 February 1907 – 2 September 1990)

Long before smartphones, social media or dating apps, British psychologist and psychiatrist John Bowlby was studying something fundamental about human beings: our need for attachment. His attachment theory proposed, in broad terms, that human beings are biologically and emotionally oriented toward forming close bonds.

Cacioppo later connected this understanding to loneliness, noting Bowlby’s observation that being separated from one’s caretaker, particularly in childhood, could be experienced as profoundly threatening.
The important idea is not that we are weak because we need other people. It is almost the opposite.
Needing connection is part of being human. The fantasy of complete emotional independence is, in many ways, rather unnatural.
We need people. We need witnesses to our lives. Someone to tell when we have had a terrible day. Someone to celebrate with when something unexpectedly wonderful happens. Someone who remembers the story behind the scar. Someone who notices that our voice sounds different today. Someone who can sit beside us without requiring us to perform. This is why loneliness can hurt so deeply.

It isn’t simply boredom.
It can feel like being psychologically unanchored. And then society changed.

But loneliness isn’t only a psychological problem. It is also a sociological one.

Robert David Putnam (January 9, 1941) at present of age 85 years

This is where the work of sociologist Robert Putnam becomes fascinating.
In Bowling Alone, Putnam examined the decline of community participation in American life as people joining fewer organisations, socialising less often, knowing their neighbours less, and participating less frequently in collective activities. His argument was not simply that people had become lonelier, it was that the social structures that once produced everyday connection were weakening.
His metaphor was brilliant.
People were still bowling. They were simply bowling alone. The bowling alley remained. The activity remained.
But the league of the repeated gathering of people, the familiar faces, the conversations, the small rituals, it was disappearing.
And that distinction matters.
Because communities are not created merely by putting people in the same place. They are created through repetition.
Seeing the same shopkeeper. Greeting the same neighbour. Meeting the same friends every Sunday. Going to the same library. Playing the same sport. Attending the same class. Knowing that somebody will notice if you don’t show up.
These tiny repetitions create something psychologists and sociologists recognise as meaningful social connection.
They make us part of something larger than ourselves.

We have replaced many of our “third places”

There used to be many places where people could simply be around one another.
The neighbourhood park. The local tea shop. The library. The community centre. The place of worship. The sports ground. The college canteen. The barber shop. The corner café.
These weren’t necessarily destinations. They were third places, the spaces outside home and work where ordinary social life could happen. And something important happened there.
You didn’t necessarily go looking for a best friend. You simply kept encountering human beings. A conversation could begin because somebody was sitting beside you. A friendship could emerge because you saw the same person every Tuesday. A neighbour could become familiar because you happened to walk past each other every evening.
Modern life, however, has made it increasingly possible to design our social lives around convenience and preference.

We can order food without speaking to anyone. Work without leaving home. Shop without entering a store. Exercise alone. Watch films alone. Listen to music alone. Travel without speaking to strangers. And consume almost any form of entertainment without another human being physically present.
None of these things is inherently bad. But together, they can quietly remove the accidental encounters through which community is often built.

Putnam’s concept of social capital is useful here: social networks are valuable not simply because they make us feel warm and loved, but because trust, reciprocity and relationships create practical and collective benefits.
A society can therefore have millions of connected individuals and still have weak community.

Then came the phone

And then, of course, there is the small glowing rectangle we carry everywhere.
Our phones solved one problem beautifully: distance.
But they may have complicated another: presence.

Sherry Turkle (June 18, 1948) at present of age 78 years

Sociologist Sherry Turkle has spent years examining the relationship between technology, conversation and intimacy.

Her TED talk ‘Connected, but alone?’ asks a question that feels increasingly relevant: as we expect more from technology, do we begin to expect less from one another?
Her concern isn’t simply that people use technology. It is that technology can give us the feeling of connection without necessarily giving us the vulnerability of genuine companionship.
Turkle has argued that technology can offer us an “illusion of friendship without the demands of companionship.”
And that phrase deserves to sit with us. Because companionship asks things of us. It asks us to listen. To wait. To tolerate awkward silences. To hear boring stories. To stay when someone is difficult. To be inconvenienced. To put the phone down. To allow another person to be complicated. A notification asks none of these things.

We are becoming very good at being perceived

There is another strange development of the digital age.
We can now be constantly seen without necessarily being known. We post what we ate. Where we travelled. What we wore. What we read. Who we celebrated. What we believe. What we accomplished. Our lives can be beautifully documented.

But documentation is not intimacy. Someone can know what you did yesterday without knowing how yesterday felt. They can know your favourite songs without knowing why you need them. They can know your relationship status without knowing whether you feel loved. They can watch your life and still have no idea what is happening inside you.
This is perhaps why social media can sometimes make loneliness feel sharper rather than softer. You aren’t simply alone. You are watching everyone else appear connected.

Cacioppo observed that loneliness can heighten sensitivity to social threats and make people more focused on themselves and their perceived isolation.
The lonely mind can therefore become a terrible editor.
It notices the couple holding hands. The group laughing. The birthday dinner. The wedding photographs. The friend who has “their people.”
And quietly asks: Where are mine?

But there is another side to the story

It would be easy to blame phones. They are convenient villains.
But loneliness existed long before Instagram.
People have felt lonely in marriages for centuries. People have sat at family dinners feeling misunderstood. People have moved to new cities and struggled to belong. People have felt lonely in crowded cities since cities existed.

The technology can also create real connection.

Someone studying abroad can speak to their mother every evening. A lonely teenager can find a community that doesn’t exist in their physical surroundings. A person grieving can find others who understand a loss their immediate circle cannot comprehend. A long-distance friendship can survive because of a screen.
The question, therefore, isn’t: Are phones making us lonely?
It is: What kinds of connection are we using technology to create and what kinds are we allowing it to replace?

Even Cacioppo’s work did not reduce technology to a simple villain. Communication technologies can facilitate connection when they are used to organise or deepen real relationships; the problem arises when apparent connection substitutes for meaningful contact.
That distinction matters.

Sometimes the problem is not that nobody loves us

Sometimes the problem is that we don’t know how to let ourselves be loved. This may be the most uncomfortable part. Loneliness can coexist with an inability to become vulnerable. We might want intimacy while fearing it. We might want someone to ask what is wrong while becoming irritated when they do. We might crave closeness and then disappear when someone gets too close. We might complain that nobody understands us while never allowing anybody to see the parts of ourselves we are embarrassed by.
This doesn’t mean lonely people are responsible for their loneliness.
It means loneliness can become a cycle.

Cacioppo described how perceived isolation can trigger a kind of self-protective state: when people feel socially threatened, they can become more vigilant and self-focused, which can make connection harder.
So the lonely person may begin wanting people desperately while simultaneously protecting themselves from them.
The door is locked.
And they are standing behind it, wondering why nobody comes inside.

There is a difference between attention and intimacy

Perhaps our culture has confused these two.
Attention says: Look at me.
Intimacy says: Know me.
Attention can be measured by: Views. Likes. Replies. Followers. Messages.
Intimacy cannot.
You cannot count how many times someone made you feel safe. You cannot calculate the value of a friend who sat beside you when you had nothing interesting to say. You cannot measure the person who remembers your coffee order after three years. You cannot put a number on being able to walk into someone’s house without knocking. These are small things, but human beings are made from small things.

Maybe we don’t need more people

Maybe we need more belonging. There is an important difference. We live in a culture obsessed with expansion. More followers. More friends. More networking. More invitations. More contacts. More conversations.
But loneliness doesn’t necessarily require a larger social circle.
Sometimes it requires a deeper one. John Cacioppo repeatedly emphasised that the quality of relationships matters. Robert Putnam’s work similarly shows why networks become meaningful through trust, reciprocity and repeated interaction rather than through a mere accumulation of contacts.

Julianne Holt-Lunstad (Born 1971)

And psychologist Julianne Holt-Lunstad’s work has helped establish social connection as an important factor in health, with supportive relationships associated with better health outcomes and social isolation and loneliness linked to significant risks.
So perhaps the answer isn’t: Meet more people.
Perhaps it is: Let a few people become real to you.

We also need to learn how to be alone

This sounds contradictory.
If loneliness comes from disconnection, shouldn’t we simply surround ourselves with people? Not necessarily.
Solitude and loneliness are not opposites.
Sometimes solitude is what allows us to hear ourselves clearly enough to connect with somebody else.
Sherry Turkle has argued that the capacity to be alone matters precisely because without it, we can become dependent on constant external validation.

Her formulation is striking: “If we don’t teach our children how to be alone, they will always be lonely.”
There is wisdom in that. If every quiet moment must be filled with a notification, video, message or voice, we never learn what our own company feels like. And someone who cannot tolerate their own company may eventually ask another person to perform an impossible job: make me feel whole.
No friend can sustainably do that. No partner can. No audience can. No number of followers can. Connection should not erase the self. It should give the self somewhere safe to exist.

So what are we actually missing?

Perhaps it is not people. Perhaps it is witnessing.
We want somebody to witness our lives.
The ordinary parts. The embarrassing parts. The beautiful parts. The unfinished parts. The version of ourselves that isn’t ready for Instagram. We want someone who knows what our face looks like when we are trying not to cry. Someone who knows the joke behind our silence. Someone who notices when our energy changes. Someone who can sit beside us while nothing happens.

This is why the deepest relationships often don’t feel spectacular. They feel ordinary. A cup of tea. A walk. A shared meal. A message saying “Reached?” A friend remembering something you mentioned six months ago. A parent saving the last piece for you. Someone waiting outside. Someone asking again. Someone staying. Perhaps this is what we have been searching for beneath all the noise.
Not more interaction. More recognition.

The loneliness paradox

Here is the strange thing:
We can be surrounded by people and lonely. We can be alone and peaceful. We can have thousands of followers and no confidant. We can have one person and feel deeply held. We can live in a crowded city and feel invisible. We can sit silently beside someone and feel understood. Loneliness, then, is not a geography. It is a relationship between the inner world and the world around us.
And perhaps that is why it can be so difficult to explain.
Because from the outside, everything can look perfectly fine.
You go to work. You answer messages. You laugh. You attend parties. You post photographs. You make plans. You come home.
Nobody sees the distance. Nobody sees the quiet ache of wanting to say: “I wish someone really knew me.”

Maybe the way back begins very small

Not with becoming more popular. Not with forcing yourself into a hundred social situations. Not with collecting acquaintances. Perhaps it begins with one honest conversation. Calling someone instead of sending a reaction. Asking a friend a question and actually waiting for the answer. Sitting beside someone without reaching for your phone. Joining something you will attend every week. Learning the names of the people you repeatedly encounter. Going somewhere often enough that you become familiar. Letting yourself be a beginner. Inviting someone for tea. Saying, “I’ve been feeling lonely lately.” And perhaps, most importantly, allowing somebody else to say it too.
Because loneliness becomes less frightening when it stops being a private shame.

We are not failing at being social

Perhaps we are simply living through a period in which the old structures of belonging are changing faster than we have learned to replace them.
The family is changing. Work is changing. Cities are changing. Friendship is changing. Religion and community are changing. Technology has changed how we meet. Mobility has changed where we live. And the internet has changed who we can know.

Sociologists studying loneliness increasingly look beyond individual psychology toward these broader social structures, including individualisation and the weakening of communal ties.
So maybe loneliness isn’t merely a personal problem waiting for a personal solution. Maybe some of it belongs to the world we have built.
And if that is true, then the answer cannot only be “learn to cope.”
We may also have to learn how to build community again.

Perhaps we need to stop asking, “How many people do you know?”
And start asking:
Who would notice if you disappeared for a week?
Who can you call when something wonderful happens?
Who can you sit beside without performing?
Whose sadness would you recognise?
Who knows the version of you that exists when nobody is watching?
Those questions tell us much more about our social lives than a follower count ever could.
Because the opposite of loneliness isn’t popularity. It isn’t constant conversation. It isn’t being surrounded.
It is the quiet knowledge that somewhere, with someone, you belong.
And perhaps in a world that has become extraordinarily good at connecting us, that is the thing we are still learning how to create.
A place in another person’s life where we don’t have to introduce ourselves.

So, can we actually solve loneliness?

Maybe “solve” is too ambitious a word.
Loneliness is not a mathematical problem waiting for the correct answer. It is part of being human. We will move cities. We will lose people. Friendships will change. Relationships will end. There will be seasons in which we are surrounded and seasons in which we are not.
The goal, perhaps, isn’t to build a life in which we never feel lonely. It is to build a life in which loneliness doesn’t have to become our permanent address.
And that begins much closer to home than we might expect.
First, we have to become more comfortable with ourselves.
This sounds almost too simple, but it matters.
If every quiet moment feels unbearable, we will spend our lives trying to escape ourselves through people, screens, work, entertainment and noise. Solitude can become a place of return.

Read somewhere without photographing it. Walk without headphones sometimes. Eat a meal without reaching for your phone. Go to a library and sit among strangers. Write down what you are actually feeling before immediately telling somebody what you think you should be feeling. Being alone is not the same as being abandoned.
Learning that difference gives us something precious: the ability to be alone without experiencing ourselves as unwanted.
And perhaps that makes it easier to enter relationships not because we desperately need somebody to rescue us from ourselves, but because we genuinely want to share our lives with them.

Then, we have to become braver with other people.
We complain about shallow conversations while rarely being the person who takes one deeper. Ask the second question. Stay five minutes longer. Call instead of reacting to a story. Tell someone you missed them. Ask a friend how they really are and don’t immediately interrupt with your own story. Say, “I’ve actually been having a difficult week.” Tell someone when you are proud of them. Invite someone over even if your house isn’t perfect. Let a friendship develop slowly. There is a strange expectation today that meaningful relationships should simply happen.
But intimacy is usually built through repetition. Through showing up. Through remembering. Through small acts of attention. Through being willing to be slightly inconvenient for one another.

Sherry Turkle’s work on conversation is relevant here. She argues that genuine conversation requires a kind of presence that our always-connected technology can interrupt; her work is ultimately less an argument against technology than a case for reclaiming conversation as part of human life.
Perhaps the most radical thing we can do, then, is very ordinary: put the phone down and stay.

And then we need to rebuild community

This is the part we often forget.
Loneliness isn’t always something an individual can think their way out of. Sometimes the world around us has simply stopped giving us enough opportunities to belong.

Robert Putnam’s work on social capital showed how repeated participation in groups and communities can create networks of trust, reciprocity and connection. His famous image of people “bowling alone” captured something larger than bowling: the weakening of everyday communal life.
So perhaps the answer is not another app designed to help us meet people.
Perhaps it is the library. The neighbourhood park. The book club. The weekly pottery class. The football ground. The volunteering group. The community kitchen. The Sunday market. The place where the same people keep showing up.
We don’t always need spectacular experiences. We need recurring ones.
Because belonging is often built almost invisibly.
You see the same person every Wednesday. Eventually you smile. Then you say hello. Then you learn their name. Then you ask how their week was.
One day, you realise you would notice if they weren’t there.
That is community. It doesn’t announce itself. It accumulates.

We also need to stop treating loneliness as a personal failure.
This may be the most important change of all. Being lonely doesn’t mean you are unlikeable. It doesn’t mean you are socially defective. It doesn’t mean you failed at adulthood. And it certainly doesn’t mean that everybody else has figured life out while you somehow missed the lesson.
Loneliness can happen during transitions, grief, relocation, relationship changes and periods of uncertainty. The APA’s current clinical guidance describes loneliness as an experience that can intersect with relationships, the self and major life transitions and notes that evidence supports several different forms of intervention rather than one universal solution.
Sometimes, loneliness is simply information.
It tells us: Something in my life needs more connection.
That connection might be with another person. It might be with a community. It might be with ourselves.
And sometimes, if loneliness becomes persistent or deeply distressing, it may be worth talking to a mental-health professional.

Research reviewed by the APA suggests that psychological interventions can be particularly useful, especially when loneliness is intertwined with the ways we interpret ourselves, other people and social situations.
There is no shame in needing help building a bridge back to people.

Perhaps we don’t need to defeat loneliness. Perhaps we need to become better at responding to it.
When loneliness says: “Nobody cares about me,”
we can ask: Who could I reach out to today?
When it says: “I don’t belong anywhere,”
we can ask: Where could I start showing up regularly?
When it says: “Nobody understands me,”
we can ask: Have I allowed anyone to see me clearly enough to understand me?
And when it says: “I am alone,”
perhaps we can learn to answer: Yes. And I am still here.
Then we make tea.
We step outside. We call somebody. We go somewhere. We sit among people. We begin again.
Not because loneliness disappears immediately.
But because we have stopped letting it convince us that we are destined to live inside it.

Maybe that is how we solve the loneliness problem

Not by making sure nobody is ever alone, but by creating a world where being alone does not have to mean being unseen, unknown or unwanted.
A world where people have places to go. People to call. Communities to return to. Conversations that aren’t rushed. Friendships that aren’t measured by frequency. Homes where someone notices when you haven’t come back yet.
And perhaps, most importantly, the courage to say: “I am lonely.”
And have somebody answer: “Come. Sit with me.”
Because maybe the opposite of loneliness was never popularity.
Maybe it was always belonging.

Feel free to share your thoughts and reviews.

Thank you for Reading!

Want to go a little deeper?

The ideas in this piece come from years of psychological, sociological and cultural research.

If you’d like to explore the books, studies and thinkers behind the story, subscribe to Kulsoomified and I’ll send the sources and further reading straight to your inbox.

Because sometimes one good article should lead you to ten more interesting things.