> The preamble is straightforward: “How comfortable would you be talking about your mental health and emotional well-being with each of the following?"
Seems like a pretty broken premise, ranking comfort instead of what you expected to help most. Also related, people are typically more comfortable confessing to strangers or under circumstances that won't endanger an existing relationship, which seems like a big part of why confession is anonymous. Self-reporting here is probably basically the same as asking "according to your community norms, how are you supposed to answer a question like this?" without much real reveal
> ranking comfort instead of what you expected to help most
But don't we, in real times, turn to the people we're comfortable talking to? We are not machines ranking the effectiveness of our peers for best outcome, though some of us surely still weigh that! It would be nice to go the most effective route, but sometimes that brings a lot of pain, judgement, or unforseen externalities.
(and hopefully we pick our close social relationships to make us more effective too!)
> "according to your community norms ..." ... without much real reveal
It puts data to what our understanding of those norms are. I don't know if there's a bigger reveal than "yeah, people generally are pretty comfortable with their spouse"
Tbh I was surprised anyone would/could open up and have an emotional conversation with a neighbor (when looking at risk vs reward). But, there are a lot of types of neighbors too.
It's a premise you wouldn't expect, but discussing your mental health at all is a necessary first step to actually getting help comfort and stigma in discussing mental health is a huge barrier to most people. I think it makes sense to look at where and how people actually kick off the process as much as it does to look at the results of the process. After all, it's so common that it's borderline stereotypical that we see someone do something drastic that reveals that they've been struggling pretty bad for quite some time now and everyone who knows them is like "I would gladly have helped but I had no idea any of this was happening."
Do you go home and talk to your spouse? Do you go to church and talk with your pastor? Do you go to your therapist or to the local bar?
> Comfort with mental health care has become another facet of political sorting in the U.S.
I'm skeptical. Bars and churches and friends are way cheaper and more accessible in red states. It's hard enough to get poorer, less educated men comfortable going to the doctor, let alone a therapist.
Community, in whatever form that is. And community has broken down in the US, and has been for decades. It is a social system, lumbering towards failure (as many systems are).
> Differences by religion also emerge. Religiously unaffiliated Americans are much less likely than those who are religiously affiliated to feel connected to others in their local community (43% vs. 60%). This pattern aligns with previous research on interpersonal connectedness and philanthropy among religious people. Religious people tend to be more likely than nonreligious people to volunteer and give to charity – though they prefer these activities benefit others within their own religious groups. [My note: Religion->Shared belief tribalism, observation, not intended to be derogatory]
> Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community is a 2000 nonfiction book by Robert D. Putnam. It was developed from his 1995 essay entitled "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital" in the Journal of Democracy. Putnam surveys the decline of social capital in the United States since 1950. He has described the reduction in all the forms of in-person social intercourse upon which Americans used to found, educate, and enrich the fabric of their social lives. He argues that this undermines the active civic engagement which a strong democracy requires from its citizens.
> Bars and churches and friends are way cheaper and more accessible in red states.
Just as a curiosity, as I don't have any experience of red states myself, how easy would it be for a closet homosexual to come out and get support from their bar, churches and friends in a red state, typically?
Much lower odds of default support on average, but not zero, and the odds are not uniform throughout all the red states or any given one.
For example, my small town in a red state was not accepting of homosexuality in general, but my church was tolerant, and my church youth group was affirming and supportive.
I empathize with the straight white Christian as a fellow human, and wish them support (I donate to organizations that provide crisis support, but this does not scale, we need more scale [community building via robust government support imho]), but also recognize that religious belief is rapidly declining in the US [1], ~100k churches are anticipated to close over the next 5-10 years [2], and so while this support should be provided to the religious folks who need it, it is not a growing or long term support need [3] (imho, specifically in the context of a religious leader providing said support) from a systems thinking perspective. Citations below for this area of the knowledge graph.
TLDR This is a human support capacity and capability issue. We should fix it, to the best of our ability, imho.
> The means are denoted in red, and you can see that most of the numbers are at least 55 years old. For instance, the average adult member of an Episcopal church is 61 years old. For Southern Baptists, it’s 58. The Assemblies of God are doing a bit better on this metric at 54. But look at the modal age for a lot of these groups—this is probably the most important metric when it comes to understanding the future of American Protestant Christianity. For many, the modal age is significantly higher than the mean. In a bunch of mainline Protestant denominations, it’s between 67 and 69 years old. For the Assemblies of God, the modal age is 69, which is 15 years older than the mean. What does this mean? Well, the mean can be pulled down by a decent chunk of younger folks. If you have a good core of 30-year-olds, they can counterbalance those 60-year-olds in that calculation. That’s not true for the mode. It gives you a much better sense of when “the tipping point” is going to come.
[4] The Generational Collapse of American Religion - https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/the-generational-colla... - January 19th, 2026 ("So why do overall levels of attendance decline? Well, because each successive birth cohort is less religiously active than the previous one. That’s the main driver of religious decline—it’s a decay function across cohorts.")
As an atheist, this topic is one of many that stays on my mind and keeps me awake sometimes.
I would argue that the change isn't really about the church as an institution. It is about a 'thing' to belong to and a place to go to every week/month. I've been reading Victor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning and it he talks a lot about having a purpose. That is the thing that we have lost. This is why so many feel so lost. We have always been a tribal species. This is what makes "othering" so powerful in today's political climate. Anyone who looks/thinks/behaves different is bad even if we would otherwise be best friends. Instead we go through each day covering up our loneliness and lost feeling with anything that will distract us.
This isn't even new but it is rapidly accelerating. Roll back to the 40s where all houses had a front porch and people sat around talking to each other. Everyone knew their neighbors and kids played freely and everyone felt more safe and actually connected. Then television came along and people rushed to the living room after dinner instead of to the front porch. Now almost no one knows their neighbors beyond superficial "How are you?"s let alone knowing and hanging out with several. It is so bad now that people in the same family sit on the same couch with the television on but all they are doing is scrolling their phone. And this isn't the last chapter, it is going to get worse when all AI and VR merge into custom hamster wheel content that fills but doesn't satisfy. The solution is for us to re-find our purpose, find a hobby, go outside for a walk, volunteer with a cause, visit people, make phone calls and write letters.
Strongly agree. Intentional community and defending what is needed to support it is the only path forward, imho. What that looks like will be based on the participants of that cultivated community.
I don't think this is an unreasonable view, but it does seem to me that the declining Christianity rates aren't super useful on their own for determining actions from a systems thinking perspective.
Maybe rates are declining because the religion is legitimately not appealing, in which case your action is right. An opponent would say that it's declining because it's culturally discouraged (since even religious pockets are exposed to the national zeitgeist), in which case ignoring it would be the exact opposite of what we'd want to do.
I have thoughts on why religion is declining, and I don't believe it's because it's culturally discouraged. Young people want community, but they do not want to be told what to do by a hierarchy and spiritual leaders simply because "they say so" and related historical texts. The power and control through belief systems and hierarchy inherent to religion are breaking down. Is it because of social media [think increased velocity of cultural Overton Window and societal norm transition]? Younger people are more empowered and can support themselves while avoiding these institutions? Brain structure changing as it relates to social needs, fear, and tribalism? Hard to say yet, but I am excited to understand over time as a scholar.
For comparison, Japan legislated that religious indoctrination and withholding education or healthcare from your children due to religious beliefs should be classified as child abuse.
How's that? I don't know that much about the guy, but it looks like he was raised in the faith, never gave it up, and talks about how his faith influences and guides him in public life. Seems pretty Christian to me.
We could debate about appearance versus true belief, but in the context of "try coming out as a straight white Christian in California" only the appearance actually matters.
What are your struggles? (single item or a long list)
Talk to one of these:
Close Friends
Spouse/Partner
Immediate Family Member
Mental Health Therapist
A Co-Worker
Neighbor
Religious/Spiritual Leader
"I can't pay my mortgage because I lost my job"
That's a real problem. Solution: Who will pay that mortgage? For how long?
My church, friends, possibly in-laws would pay my mortgage for about 3-6 months but after that the help runs out because the REAL problem is those 3-6 months of not looking hard enough, not taking any job, not down sizing, not moving into someone's garage, not spending beyond the budget.
Friend, priest, acquittance at the bar and mental health professional are 4 different roles. Your therapist is not your friend, will refuse to play that role. Your therapist is also not your religious leader and wont speak into those considerations.
And conversely, neither priest nor friend will be able to deal with actual mental health issue you have.
It depends heavily on the therapeutic relationship/bond.
As a therapist, I focus more on building rapport and establishing connection before diving into the mental health aspects. Without trust/rapport, nothing will move forward in treatment. To generalize is not the best way to put things forward.
This whole blog is fascinating, assuming that you're interested in the intersection between (recent) history, demographics, politics, and religion in the US.
Is the true in America? I’m in the UK, and while social isolation, particularly for men is probably worse than it was, I think many, myself included, have at least one person we can turn to in times of crisis. Or am I in a bubble?
Precovid social isolation was the same in US and UK. [0] This investigation have numbers that say that Brits are experiencing more social isolation than untitedstateians. [1]
The author of this piece, Ryan Burge, typically relies data that is scoped to the US for his pieces (to the best of my knowledge). You would have to reach out to him to inquire about the UK, if any similar data is available for analysis, etc. With that said, the ARDA appears to have global data available at https://thearda.com/
> This post has been unlocked through a generous grant from the Lilly Endowment for the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). The graphs you see here use data that is publicly available for download and analysis through link(s) provided in the text below.
(Ryan also wrote "The Vanishing Church: How the Hollowing Out of Moderate Congregations Is Hurting Democracy, Faith, and Us," which I highly recommend; he is exceptionally data driven within this domain, no affiliation besides subscribing to his Substack)
This is absolutely true in america. My partner left me and my social life has completely collapsed. I have nobody to talk to when things get difficult. I am estranged from my father, my mother is disabled and requires increasing medical support. I'm an only child, I have no local family.
Once the floor drops out from under you there is nothing to stop the rapid decent to nothingness. There is a generation of discarded people who have nobody left. When we lose our last threads of social connection there's no way back. Beyond hopeless.
I think it helps to live in a city. The cities have their problems, they're expensive and dirty, but there are loads of older single adults, and even an introvert can sit at the same bar once a week and meet people, or go to meetups or a weekly class and slowly meet people. Hell, in bad times even chatting with a bartender was nice.
Being in your shoes in a suburban setting surrounded by families and neat little houses (or huge fields in a country setting) I imagine is hard. I'm only making assumptions.
Have you thought about traveling long weekends or abroad longer? Perfectly doable solo.
Meetups aren't as effective as you think. I have seen complaints from multiple large European cities that general social meetups don't actually result much in people exchanging contacts and meeting again in future; it feels like a one-off encounter with other human beings, and that makes it dismal. There is even a predatory industry now of for-profit social meetups because people are so lonely, and knowing that one is being exploited only makes it more dismal.
For more specialized hobby meetups, it is a common complaint that one's fellows are only met while practicing the hobby, they never become general friends that one can meet regularly with, let alone turn to in emotionally heavy times.
I wouldn't recommend solo travel as a way to socialize unless one knows the person's age. It's a sad fact that over the age of about 30-35, solo travelers (especially men) can no longer take advantage of the social opportunities of the backpacker scene; you might get a few nice chats, but most travelers will be very wary of you.
I don't necessarily disagree, but if you want social connection and you're willing to work at it and endure some discomfort in the process, you can find it.
From your perspective your situation is hopeless, but you can (eventually, with work) adjust your perspective and find a path toward a more satisfying existence. If you're able to work with a therapist I'd very much recommend that, and if you don't connect with your therapist find a different one. It's normal to try a few before finding the one that works for you.
That sucks and I'm sure it feels hopeless. But there are ways forward you can investigate. Look for a local community you can plug into. Ease into them and after some time you will be able to make the kind of connections you need.
My personal preference is a local church but there are other options out there. Club's around a shared interest you have. Community center events in your area. It's won't be quick and it won't be easy but you can reverse this.
"There's no way back"? Only if you cannot ever form new relationships.
Look, I'm not saying it's easy. And when you're in despair, the despair makes it harder. But "impossible" and "beyond hopeless" are lies. Stop believing them. Start trying to find ways to build new relationships, even if it's slow and hard.
"There is a generation of discarded people who have nobody left. When we lose our last threads of social connection there's no way back. Beyond hopeless."
It is not hopeless. You state it yourself - there are many people like you, so maybe try and connect with them?
Learning how to develop a social network independently is a skill. If your partner leaving you collapses your social life, do you live in a small town where the narrative has turned against you, or did you simply rely on them to be the adult in the room and set up playdates for you like you're a child?
Go to bookclubs.com and start a book club, or join a book club, or go to a local library and do any of the social stuff. Go to a crochet club, even empty-handed, chances are the fiber arts people will have plenty to spare. These are friendships that have to be forged and worked on day in and day out to strengthen them, like a sword.
>> My partner left me and my social life has completely collapsed. I have nobody to talk to when things get difficult. I am estranged from my father, my mother is disabled and requires increasing medical support. I'm an only child, I have no local family.
> Learning how to develop a social network independently is a skill. If your partner leaving you collapses your social life, do you live in a small town where the narrative has turned against you, or did you simply rely on them to be the adult in the room and set up playdates for you like you're a child?
Oh fuck your attitude and grow some empathy. Someone confesses a serious personal problem and you start lecturing them, implying they are incompetent and/or are a man-child?
Some of your advice isn't bad, but your delivery is terrible, and life is more complicated than you imply (e.g. what if he's depressed, what if his partner was controlling and didn't allow him to have an independent social life, what if he has no interest in "fiber arts", etc)?
The plight can be quite real but when people say they have no social life what they're not saying is what sort of social life do they want? What do they want to do while being social with people?
If you have the money, you could always hire escorts. Eventually you'll find one you click with and you can develop a friendly working relationship with a beautiful woman who will listen to all your problems and if she's smart, even maybe give you a valuable outside perspective on what you're experiencing.
I'm part of Freemasonry. All members are at least vested for criminal conducts, my lodge at least is very strict on background investigation, so it's easier to pick trustworthy brothers to talk to. I'm probably one the youngest members and benefitted from wisdom and patience from older brothers. I'm not a church member but that would be a good alternative.
I had a great experience when I was part of a lodge. I'm atheist and so could join a Droit Humain lodge in France (which does not require belief in a Great Architect of the Universe and is mixed). I'm now in Hong Kong but unfortunately have failed to find a lodge that doesn't require a belief in God and that is mixed (I refuse to go to a male only lodge).
It's a pity because I found freemasonry to be hugely beneficial in terms of friendship, interesting discussions and support.
Unfortunately, there are lot of politics involved in that. I'm in a traditional AF&AM lodge (male only and believe in the Great Architect of the Universe). I myself is not a Christian nor believe in any major religions. I believe praying/meditation is a private affair. I find being male only is hugely beneficial in fact. It doesn't mean that we don't have social activities with women. There's the Order of Eastern Star, and Jobs Daughters, Rainbow, etc., which we donate to and have social events with to celebrate holidays and awards, etc. They have their own supportive matriarch and sisters which is also mentally and socially beneficial for them.
Most atheists can't 'just choose' to believe in a god. This is also why most religious converts come from other religions and not non-belief. If they thought about their opinion and made that decision consciously, the suspension of disbelief is gone. Religion will just feel too unreal, artificial and human-made. It's like asking a kid to just choose to believe in Santa after they spotted their parents hiding the gifts.
If choosing to believe in Santa means he continues to get an extra present every Christmas, and revealing his lack of faith means he doesn't, then it makes sense for him to choose to continue to believe in Santa for as long as possible.
But that's exactly why I said it's not possible. Some people may be able to forcefully change themselves into truly believing whatever is the most advantageous for them, but most aren't. Once the illusion is shattered, you usually can't put it back together because they can't just choose to just swap their system of reasoning - it will feel like lying and fooling themselves. Any atheist can pretend to be religious in a hostile society like how the kid can pretend to never having seen the parents, but it will just be an appearance that's not indicative of what they truly think inside.
My lodge is also over 90% retired-age men, a few even over 90 year old... last month July 3 members died, but younger members are joining and replacement rate is probably evens out. The thing with younger men like me is we are too busy with work and family to contribute meaningfully to the lodge's operation.
I'd be curious about the results in the main graph if it included no one. That would be much more telling, because right now it appears that most people talk to at least someone.
I feel like "large language model" should be on these graphs. For better or for worse, it's the answer to these questions for an increasing number of people.
Yes. The unfortunate reality though is we don't know how many times they have saved lives (it's much greater than zero), vs how many have been lost (RIP Adam, et al).
Right before COVID I stumbled across mens groups, they were a way I first learned I could get my underlying needs for getting seen met in a way no other mechanism in society offered.
Society was trying actually to meet this need in so many other pseudo forms, but where it fell short and what I needed was:
- a safe space to share what my experience without needing to be fixed or someone giving me unsolicited feedback
- place where competition was turned off (sports groups, board game nights, video games etc had previously been this but since they were competitive they met a different need)
- a cadence that met regularly and where space for me to speak with structure was a requirement
I liked this so much I even formed one in DC before I was pushed away for work to an abusive Dallas Capital One environment (which my men helped me navigate while my coworkers accepted the abuse being blind to it). I Highly recommend trying a mens groups, find one on Facebook or Google, or try the project mankind groups or No Mr Nice Guy’s Dr Glover runs one online. The one I was a part of longest is also open: embodied masculine (more extreme embodiment based group) but starting off get your toes wet first.
I am wary of meeting with more than about 2-3 men at a time, because men in larger groups tend to socialize through banter, toilet humor, or talking about fucking women (which I like to do sometimes but don't want to talk about); just lame topics I'd like to avoid completely. Also, even without competition, a pecking order gets established.
So, men's groups don't solve the problem of the lack of healthy regular socializing with 2-3 good friends, which for men in many countries has fallen off a cliff since the smartphone and Covid.
I find men's groups with more structure do help with those problems you described. I wouldn't be so early to dismiss and suggest considering it with an open mind. At least for me and many others I Know, men's groups with a clear order of gather to discuss, and require and ask for consent before giving advice, with that recurring meeting being the main source of socialization; do not have as much of a pecking order nor lame topics. They have more authenticity and connection with the pretense being around connection and acceptance without performance.
If you want regular socializing with 2-3 good friends though, I think the friends made from a men's group would be closer to what you are seeking than from a random hobby-based group.
edit: in re to "even without competition a pecking order gets established" my experience has shown this to be oversimplifying it. The "pecking order" in a mens group is way different from a different group. the pecking order in men's groups with a structur-based leader, is that the leader gets the "alpha" status if there was one and if they are a good leader they aren't there to abuse that privilege. But since they should be providing it professionally (paid service) it isn't mixed with friendship as much. At least the "pecking order" there is oriented around serving you rather than random socialization without that purpose.
It's likely there is, though it might be difficult to find. One place you can look is the local unitarian universalists. These can vary widely, but often you'll find them open to all religions (including non-religious), and full of open, curious, non-judgemental people.
One thing about UU's is that it's not dogma based. There's nothing you have to believe to be a UU. Instead, it's covenant based. You are in the community when you adhere to the agreements of the community. These are usually things like mutual respect, deep listening, etc.
To those who answer "my spouse", please think carefully about building an alternative support system if/when it happens that the mental health situation you are dealing with comes from a breakdown in ability to communicate with your spouse.
I recently went thru a rough period triggered by how my spouse was feeling. If you've both always counted on having the other ready to listen, and that's temporarily impossible for acute reasons, the shock is enormous, and almost undermined my problem solving ability to understand I needed to find a psychologist to talk to.
We're ok now, but it could have easily gotten way worse before it got better. Having a solid relationship is unfortunately not a protection from losing the security it gives you, psychologically.
This is a solved problem in 2026. You can create as many bots with varied personalities to talk to. Therapists have a vested interest in you continuing to talk to them and can induce neuroses in susceptible individuals.
Talking to bots can induce psychosis in some individuals. This isn't a solved problem, nor is there a universal solution.
People need connection, but the varieties of connection are vast. What works for one person, can be terrible for another. Maybe talking to bots gives you what you need, which is great for you. But projecting your solution to everyone else is not a rational step to take.
This is a risky path. If you internalize it in unhealthy ways, you're empowering your shadow, and it will find inconvenient, self-defeating ways to express it.
> The preamble is straightforward: “How comfortable would you be talking about your mental health and emotional well-being with each of the following?"
Seems like a pretty broken premise, ranking comfort instead of what you expected to help most. Also related, people are typically more comfortable confessing to strangers or under circumstances that won't endanger an existing relationship, which seems like a big part of why confession is anonymous. Self-reporting here is probably basically the same as asking "according to your community norms, how are you supposed to answer a question like this?" without much real reveal
> ranking comfort instead of what you expected to help most
But don't we, in real times, turn to the people we're comfortable talking to? We are not machines ranking the effectiveness of our peers for best outcome, though some of us surely still weigh that! It would be nice to go the most effective route, but sometimes that brings a lot of pain, judgement, or unforseen externalities.
(and hopefully we pick our close social relationships to make us more effective too!)
> "according to your community norms ..." ... without much real reveal
It puts data to what our understanding of those norms are. I don't know if there's a bigger reveal than "yeah, people generally are pretty comfortable with their spouse"
Tbh I was surprised anyone would/could open up and have an emotional conversation with a neighbor (when looking at risk vs reward). But, there are a lot of types of neighbors too.
It's a premise you wouldn't expect, but discussing your mental health at all is a necessary first step to actually getting help comfort and stigma in discussing mental health is a huge barrier to most people. I think it makes sense to look at where and how people actually kick off the process as much as it does to look at the results of the process. After all, it's so common that it's borderline stereotypical that we see someone do something drastic that reveals that they've been struggling pretty bad for quite some time now and everyone who knows them is like "I would gladly have helped but I had no idea any of this was happening."
Broken?
How much does the author owe you? My guess is zero.
If he didn't measure what you wanted to be measured ... that's your problem.
premise!=promise
ad hominem. gp did not demand/expect anything. did they owe /you/ anything?
It's also about where you go with your struggles.
Do you go home and talk to your spouse? Do you go to church and talk with your pastor? Do you go to your therapist or to the local bar?
> Comfort with mental health care has become another facet of political sorting in the U.S.
I'm skeptical. Bars and churches and friends are way cheaper and more accessible in red states. It's hard enough to get poorer, less educated men comfortable going to the doctor, let alone a therapist.
The enlightened blue state men go to the pay-to-care secular priest instead?
Also missing from this perspective. What do people who are not from western countries do?
Community, in whatever form that is. And community has broken down in the US, and has been for decades. It is a social system, lumbering towards failure (as many systems are).
Pew Research: Americans are less likely than others around the world to feel close to people in their country or community - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/05/08/americans... - May 8th, 2024
> Differences by religion also emerge. Religiously unaffiliated Americans are much less likely than those who are religiously affiliated to feel connected to others in their local community (43% vs. 60%). This pattern aligns with previous research on interpersonal connectedness and philanthropy among religious people. Religious people tend to be more likely than nonreligious people to volunteer and give to charity – though they prefer these activities benefit others within their own religious groups. [My note: Religion->Shared belief tribalism, observation, not intended to be derogatory]
Pew Research: Connectedness to community, country and the world - https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/12/06/connectedness-... - December 6th, 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone
> Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community is a 2000 nonfiction book by Robert D. Putnam. It was developed from his 1995 essay entitled "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital" in the Journal of Democracy. Putnam surveys the decline of social capital in the United States since 1950. He has described the reduction in all the forms of in-person social intercourse upon which Americans used to found, educate, and enrich the fabric of their social lives. He argues that this undermines the active civic engagement which a strong democracy requires from its citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
> Bars and churches and friends are way cheaper and more accessible in red states.
Just as a curiosity, as I don't have any experience of red states myself, how easy would it be for a closet homosexual to come out and get support from their bar, churches and friends in a red state, typically?
Much lower odds of default support on average, but not zero, and the odds are not uniform throughout all the red states or any given one.
For example, my small town in a red state was not accepting of homosexuality in general, but my church was tolerant, and my church youth group was affirming and supportive.
[flagged]
A sitcom making fun of a situation doesn't mean it's a real problem.
That show is like 10 years old now.
I empathize with the straight white Christian as a fellow human, and wish them support (I donate to organizations that provide crisis support, but this does not scale, we need more scale [community building via robust government support imho]), but also recognize that religious belief is rapidly declining in the US [1], ~100k churches are anticipated to close over the next 5-10 years [2], and so while this support should be provided to the religious folks who need it, it is not a growing or long term support need [3] (imho, specifically in the context of a religious leader providing said support) from a systems thinking perspective. Citations below for this area of the knowledge graph.
TLDR This is a human support capacity and capability issue. We should fix it, to the best of our ability, imho.
[1] Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45916273 - November 2025 (1 comment)
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46484284 (citations)
[3] When Are Half Your Members Going to be Dead? - https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/when-are-half-your-mem... - January 29th, 2026
> The means are denoted in red, and you can see that most of the numbers are at least 55 years old. For instance, the average adult member of an Episcopal church is 61 years old. For Southern Baptists, it’s 58. The Assemblies of God are doing a bit better on this metric at 54. But look at the modal age for a lot of these groups—this is probably the most important metric when it comes to understanding the future of American Protestant Christianity. For many, the modal age is significantly higher than the mean. In a bunch of mainline Protestant denominations, it’s between 67 and 69 years old. For the Assemblies of God, the modal age is 69, which is 15 years older than the mean. What does this mean? Well, the mean can be pulled down by a decent chunk of younger folks. If you have a good core of 30-year-olds, they can counterbalance those 60-year-olds in that calculation. That’s not true for the mode. It gives you a much better sense of when “the tipping point” is going to come.
[4] The Generational Collapse of American Religion - https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/the-generational-colla... - January 19th, 2026 ("So why do overall levels of attendance decline? Well, because each successive birth cohort is less religiously active than the previous one. That’s the main driver of religious decline—it’s a decay function across cohorts.")
As an atheist, this topic is one of many that stays on my mind and keeps me awake sometimes.
How A Decline In Churchgoing Led To A Rise In ‘Deaths Of Despair’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46408406 - December 2025 (2 comments)
Find Your People - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44074017 - May 2025 (283 comments)
I would argue that the change isn't really about the church as an institution. It is about a 'thing' to belong to and a place to go to every week/month. I've been reading Victor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning and it he talks a lot about having a purpose. That is the thing that we have lost. This is why so many feel so lost. We have always been a tribal species. This is what makes "othering" so powerful in today's political climate. Anyone who looks/thinks/behaves different is bad even if we would otherwise be best friends. Instead we go through each day covering up our loneliness and lost feeling with anything that will distract us.
This isn't even new but it is rapidly accelerating. Roll back to the 40s where all houses had a front porch and people sat around talking to each other. Everyone knew their neighbors and kids played freely and everyone felt more safe and actually connected. Then television came along and people rushed to the living room after dinner instead of to the front porch. Now almost no one knows their neighbors beyond superficial "How are you?"s let alone knowing and hanging out with several. It is so bad now that people in the same family sit on the same couch with the television on but all they are doing is scrolling their phone. And this isn't the last chapter, it is going to get worse when all AI and VR merge into custom hamster wheel content that fills but doesn't satisfy. The solution is for us to re-find our purpose, find a hobby, go outside for a walk, volunteer with a cause, visit people, make phone calls and write letters.
Strongly agree. Intentional community and defending what is needed to support it is the only path forward, imho. What that looks like will be based on the participants of that cultivated community.
The Real Luxuries In Life - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49578866 - September 2026 (243 comments)
https://cutoffthespigot.substack.com/p/the-learning-curve-po...
https://thepeoplescommunity.substack.com/
I don't think this is an unreasonable view, but it does seem to me that the declining Christianity rates aren't super useful on their own for determining actions from a systems thinking perspective.
Maybe rates are declining because the religion is legitimately not appealing, in which case your action is right. An opponent would say that it's declining because it's culturally discouraged (since even religious pockets are exposed to the national zeitgeist), in which case ignoring it would be the exact opposite of what we'd want to do.
> it's declining because it's culturally discouraged
By whom?
I have thoughts on why religion is declining, and I don't believe it's because it's culturally discouraged. Young people want community, but they do not want to be told what to do by a hierarchy and spiritual leaders simply because "they say so" and related historical texts. The power and control through belief systems and hierarchy inherent to religion are breaking down. Is it because of social media [think increased velocity of cultural Overton Window and societal norm transition]? Younger people are more empowered and can support themselves while avoiding these institutions? Brain structure changing as it relates to social needs, fear, and tribalism? Hard to say yet, but I am excited to understand over time as a scholar.
For comparison, Japan legislated that religious indoctrination and withholding education or healthcare from your children due to religious beliefs should be classified as child abuse.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48634883 (citations)
What it's like to close a Church with Ryan Burge - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni8DiT3Cb5g - July 26th, 2024
Forced participation in religious activities to be classified as child abuse - https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/politics-government... - December 27th, 2022
Government guidelines define child abuse from religious parents - https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14802375 - December 22nd, 2022
Spare me the oppression fantasy. The fricken’ governor is a straight white Christian!
Come on, Newsom is as Christian as Bill Clinton was faithful.
How's that? I don't know that much about the guy, but it looks like he was raised in the faith, never gave it up, and talks about how his faith influences and guides him in public life. Seems pretty Christian to me.
We could debate about appearance versus true belief, but in the context of "try coming out as a straight white Christian in California" only the appearance actually matters.
They did not said "good person" nor "saint" nor "republicans would agree with him". They said "christian". And he is one.
Helping people is quite difficult.
What are your struggles? (single item or a long list)
Talk to one of these:
Close Friends
Spouse/Partner
Immediate Family Member
Mental Health Therapist
A Co-Worker
Neighbor
Religious/Spiritual Leader
"I can't pay my mortgage because I lost my job"
That's a real problem. Solution: Who will pay that mortgage? For how long?
My church, friends, possibly in-laws would pay my mortgage for about 3-6 months but after that the help runs out because the REAL problem is those 3-6 months of not looking hard enough, not taking any job, not down sizing, not moving into someone's garage, not spending beyond the budget.
> less educated men comfortable going to the doctor, let alone a therapist.
Is it that or is it the cost and availability?
Coupled with a system that tells them they’re worthless so they pour economic effort that might include some self care onto their wives and children?
Friend, priest, acquittance at the bar and mental health professional are 4 different roles. Your therapist is not your friend, will refuse to play that role. Your therapist is also not your religious leader and wont speak into those considerations.
And conversely, neither priest nor friend will be able to deal with actual mental health issue you have.
Therapists aren’t great at it either.
It depends heavily on the therapeutic relationship/bond.
As a therapist, I focus more on building rapport and establishing connection before diving into the mental health aspects. Without trust/rapport, nothing will move forward in treatment. To generalize is not the best way to put things forward.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23519
[dead]
This whole blog is fascinating, assuming that you're interested in the intersection between (recent) history, demographics, politics, and religion in the US.
For example - this one about generations and trust was surprising to me: https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/gen-z-doesnt-trust-any...
or this on perception of the religiosity of holidays: https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/is-christmas-a-religio...
Is the true in America? I’m in the UK, and while social isolation, particularly for men is probably worse than it was, I think many, myself included, have at least one person we can turn to in times of crisis. Or am I in a bubble?
Precovid social isolation was the same in US and UK. [0] This investigation have numbers that say that Brits are experiencing more social isolation than untitedstateians. [1]
[0] https://publica.org.au/wp-content/uploads/DiJulio-et-al.-Lon...
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
its not a signficant difference though. 22% vs 23% for total reporting isolation.
> unitedstateians
We're going to need a better name for them. Trumpistanians perhaps?
The author of this piece, Ryan Burge, typically relies data that is scoped to the US for his pieces (to the best of my knowledge). You would have to reach out to him to inquire about the UK, if any similar data is available for analysis, etc. With that said, the ARDA appears to have global data available at https://thearda.com/
> This post has been unlocked through a generous grant from the Lilly Endowment for the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). The graphs you see here use data that is publicly available for download and analysis through link(s) provided in the text below.
Code for this post can be found at https://gist.github.com/ryanburge/0895d855fdc93c3ce26b034349...
(Ryan also wrote "The Vanishing Church: How the Hollowing Out of Moderate Congregations Is Hurting Democracy, Faith, and Us," which I highly recommend; he is exceptionally data driven within this domain, no affiliation besides subscribing to his Substack)
https://bakerpublishinggroup.com/products/9781587436697_the-...
This is absolutely true in america. My partner left me and my social life has completely collapsed. I have nobody to talk to when things get difficult. I am estranged from my father, my mother is disabled and requires increasing medical support. I'm an only child, I have no local family.
Once the floor drops out from under you there is nothing to stop the rapid decent to nothingness. There is a generation of discarded people who have nobody left. When we lose our last threads of social connection there's no way back. Beyond hopeless.
Enjoy your bubble. america is completely fucked.
I think it helps to live in a city. The cities have their problems, they're expensive and dirty, but there are loads of older single adults, and even an introvert can sit at the same bar once a week and meet people, or go to meetups or a weekly class and slowly meet people. Hell, in bad times even chatting with a bartender was nice.
Being in your shoes in a suburban setting surrounded by families and neat little houses (or huge fields in a country setting) I imagine is hard. I'm only making assumptions.
Have you thought about traveling long weekends or abroad longer? Perfectly doable solo.
Meetups aren't as effective as you think. I have seen complaints from multiple large European cities that general social meetups don't actually result much in people exchanging contacts and meeting again in future; it feels like a one-off encounter with other human beings, and that makes it dismal. There is even a predatory industry now of for-profit social meetups because people are so lonely, and knowing that one is being exploited only makes it more dismal.
For more specialized hobby meetups, it is a common complaint that one's fellows are only met while practicing the hobby, they never become general friends that one can meet regularly with, let alone turn to in emotionally heavy times.
I wouldn't recommend solo travel as a way to socialize unless one knows the person's age. It's a sad fact that over the age of about 30-35, solo travelers (especially men) can no longer take advantage of the social opportunities of the backpacker scene; you might get a few nice chats, but most travelers will be very wary of you.
I don't necessarily disagree, but if you want social connection and you're willing to work at it and endure some discomfort in the process, you can find it. From your perspective your situation is hopeless, but you can (eventually, with work) adjust your perspective and find a path toward a more satisfying existence. If you're able to work with a therapist I'd very much recommend that, and if you don't connect with your therapist find a different one. It's normal to try a few before finding the one that works for you.
That sucks and I'm sure it feels hopeless. But there are ways forward you can investigate. Look for a local community you can plug into. Ease into them and after some time you will be able to make the kind of connections you need.
My personal preference is a local church but there are other options out there. Club's around a shared interest you have. Community center events in your area. It's won't be quick and it won't be easy but you can reverse this.
"There's no way back"? Only if you cannot ever form new relationships.
Look, I'm not saying it's easy. And when you're in despair, the despair makes it harder. But "impossible" and "beyond hopeless" are lies. Stop believing them. Start trying to find ways to build new relationships, even if it's slow and hard.
How many upvotes do you have? I'll assume that will be representative of the prevalence of your case.
Sorry for you situation and stay strong.
"There is a generation of discarded people who have nobody left. When we lose our last threads of social connection there's no way back. Beyond hopeless."
It is not hopeless. You state it yourself - there are many people like you, so maybe try and connect with them?
Call 211
Learning how to develop a social network independently is a skill. If your partner leaving you collapses your social life, do you live in a small town where the narrative has turned against you, or did you simply rely on them to be the adult in the room and set up playdates for you like you're a child?
Go to bookclubs.com and start a book club, or join a book club, or go to a local library and do any of the social stuff. Go to a crochet club, even empty-handed, chances are the fiber arts people will have plenty to spare. These are friendships that have to be forged and worked on day in and day out to strengthen them, like a sword.
>> My partner left me and my social life has completely collapsed. I have nobody to talk to when things get difficult. I am estranged from my father, my mother is disabled and requires increasing medical support. I'm an only child, I have no local family.
> Learning how to develop a social network independently is a skill. If your partner leaving you collapses your social life, do you live in a small town where the narrative has turned against you, or did you simply rely on them to be the adult in the room and set up playdates for you like you're a child?
Oh fuck your attitude and grow some empathy. Someone confesses a serious personal problem and you start lecturing them, implying they are incompetent and/or are a man-child?
Some of your advice isn't bad, but your delivery is terrible, and life is more complicated than you imply (e.g. what if he's depressed, what if his partner was controlling and didn't allow him to have an independent social life, what if he has no interest in "fiber arts", etc)?
The plight can be quite real but when people say they have no social life what they're not saying is what sort of social life do they want? What do they want to do while being social with people?
When you are down on your luck
When there is no one to care
There is someone who gives a f*ck
Who can tell you: life is very fair
It is all cause and effect
Have you even tried?
You can make your own life erect
And I’m sorry the soothsayers lied
But I care, believe me it’s true
You child, you fool
Surely the social clubs are not that few
It’s a skill just like shearing wool
If you have the money, you could always hire escorts. Eventually you'll find one you click with and you can develop a friendly working relationship with a beautiful woman who will listen to all your problems and if she's smart, even maybe give you a valuable outside perspective on what you're experiencing.
I'm part of Freemasonry. All members are at least vested for criminal conducts, my lodge at least is very strict on background investigation, so it's easier to pick trustworthy brothers to talk to. I'm probably one the youngest members and benefitted from wisdom and patience from older brothers. I'm not a church member but that would be a good alternative.
I had a great experience when I was part of a lodge. I'm atheist and so could join a Droit Humain lodge in France (which does not require belief in a Great Architect of the Universe and is mixed). I'm now in Hong Kong but unfortunately have failed to find a lodge that doesn't require a belief in God and that is mixed (I refuse to go to a male only lodge).
It's a pity because I found freemasonry to be hugely beneficial in terms of friendship, interesting discussions and support.
Unfortunately, there are lot of politics involved in that. I'm in a traditional AF&AM lodge (male only and believe in the Great Architect of the Universe). I myself is not a Christian nor believe in any major religions. I believe praying/meditation is a private affair. I find being male only is hugely beneficial in fact. It doesn't mean that we don't have social activities with women. There's the Order of Eastern Star, and Jobs Daughters, Rainbow, etc., which we donate to and have social events with to celebrate holidays and awards, etc. They have their own supportive matriarch and sisters which is also mentally and socially beneficial for them.
Or you could just choose to believe in God. It's not that bad, there are worse things.
Most atheists can't 'just choose' to believe in a god. This is also why most religious converts come from other religions and not non-belief. If they thought about their opinion and made that decision consciously, the suspension of disbelief is gone. Religion will just feel too unreal, artificial and human-made. It's like asking a kid to just choose to believe in Santa after they spotted their parents hiding the gifts.
If choosing to believe in Santa means he continues to get an extra present every Christmas, and revealing his lack of faith means he doesn't, then it makes sense for him to choose to continue to believe in Santa for as long as possible.
But that's exactly why I said it's not possible. Some people may be able to forcefully change themselves into truly believing whatever is the most advantageous for them, but most aren't. Once the illusion is shattered, you usually can't put it back together because they can't just choose to just swap their system of reasoning - it will feel like lying and fooling themselves. Any atheist can pretend to be religious in a hostile society like how the kid can pretend to never having seen the parents, but it will just be an appearance that's not indicative of what they truly think inside.
Do lodges generally attract an older crowd? There's a lodge near me, and I have the impression it's mostly retired-age men.
My lodge is also over 90% retired-age men, a few even over 90 year old... last month July 3 members died, but younger members are joining and replacement rate is probably evens out. The thing with younger men like me is we are too busy with work and family to contribute meaningfully to the lodge's operation.
I want to join but the Freemasons lack a presence in my city.
[dead]
I'd be curious about the results in the main graph if it included no one. That would be much more telling, because right now it appears that most people talk to at least someone.
I feel like "large language model" should be on these graphs. For better or for worse, it's the answer to these questions for an increasing number of people.
Yes. The unfortunate reality though is we don't know how many times they have saved lives (it's much greater than zero), vs how many have been lost (RIP Adam, et al).
Right before COVID I stumbled across mens groups, they were a way I first learned I could get my underlying needs for getting seen met in a way no other mechanism in society offered.
Society was trying actually to meet this need in so many other pseudo forms, but where it fell short and what I needed was:
- a safe space to share what my experience without needing to be fixed or someone giving me unsolicited feedback
- place where competition was turned off (sports groups, board game nights, video games etc had previously been this but since they were competitive they met a different need)
- a cadence that met regularly and where space for me to speak with structure was a requirement
I liked this so much I even formed one in DC before I was pushed away for work to an abusive Dallas Capital One environment (which my men helped me navigate while my coworkers accepted the abuse being blind to it). I Highly recommend trying a mens groups, find one on Facebook or Google, or try the project mankind groups or No Mr Nice Guy’s Dr Glover runs one online. The one I was a part of longest is also open: embodied masculine (more extreme embodiment based group) but starting off get your toes wet first.
I am wary of meeting with more than about 2-3 men at a time, because men in larger groups tend to socialize through banter, toilet humor, or talking about fucking women (which I like to do sometimes but don't want to talk about); just lame topics I'd like to avoid completely. Also, even without competition, a pecking order gets established.
So, men's groups don't solve the problem of the lack of healthy regular socializing with 2-3 good friends, which for men in many countries has fallen off a cliff since the smartphone and Covid.
I find men's groups with more structure do help with those problems you described. I wouldn't be so early to dismiss and suggest considering it with an open mind. At least for me and many others I Know, men's groups with a clear order of gather to discuss, and require and ask for consent before giving advice, with that recurring meeting being the main source of socialization; do not have as much of a pecking order nor lame topics. They have more authenticity and connection with the pretense being around connection and acceptance without performance.
If you want regular socializing with 2-3 good friends though, I think the friends made from a men's group would be closer to what you are seeking than from a random hobby-based group.
edit: in re to "even without competition a pecking order gets established" my experience has shown this to be oversimplifying it. The "pecking order" in a mens group is way different from a different group. the pecking order in men's groups with a structur-based leader, is that the leader gets the "alpha" status if there was one and if they are a good leader they aren't there to abuse that privilege. But since they should be providing it professionally (paid service) it isn't mixed with friendship as much. At least the "pecking order" there is oriented around serving you rather than random socialization without that purpose.
I really like this answer. I wish there were a men's group near me.
It's likely there is, though it might be difficult to find. One place you can look is the local unitarian universalists. These can vary widely, but often you'll find them open to all religions (including non-religious), and full of open, curious, non-judgemental people.
One thing about UU's is that it's not dogma based. There's nothing you have to believe to be a UU. Instead, it's covenant based. You are in the community when you adhere to the agreements of the community. These are usually things like mutual respect, deep listening, etc.
I mirror this. Also, if online is acceptable, I recommend the options I listed in my OP.
To those who answer "my spouse", please think carefully about building an alternative support system if/when it happens that the mental health situation you are dealing with comes from a breakdown in ability to communicate with your spouse.
I recently went thru a rough period triggered by how my spouse was feeling. If you've both always counted on having the other ready to listen, and that's temporarily impossible for acute reasons, the shock is enormous, and almost undermined my problem solving ability to understand I needed to find a psychologist to talk to.
We're ok now, but it could have easily gotten way worse before it got better. Having a solid relationship is unfortunately not a protection from losing the security it gives you, psychologically.
This is a solved problem in 2026. You can create as many bots with varied personalities to talk to. Therapists have a vested interest in you continuing to talk to them and can induce neuroses in susceptible individuals.
Talking to bots can induce psychosis in some individuals. This isn't a solved problem, nor is there a universal solution.
People need connection, but the varieties of connection are vast. What works for one person, can be terrible for another. Maybe talking to bots gives you what you need, which is great for you. But projecting your solution to everyone else is not a rational step to take.
depends. many talk to their loved ones. which actually help in so many ways!
Don’t talk to anyone. Internalize it and transmute it into something powerful instead.
This is a risky path. If you internalize it in unhealthy ways, you're empowering your shadow, and it will find inconvenient, self-defeating ways to express it.
what a fabled way of thinking
Yeah, a heart atrack at 50 lmao
deepseek!
[flagged]