The Multimillion-Dollar Friendship Industry Has a Big Flaw

If you're a lonely adult in an American city, please know that people are trying very hard to help you. A few examples: The organization Project Gather hosts food-centered hangouts—potlucks, bake sales, mushroom foraging—across the country. The company Timeleft, operating in more than 300 cities, matches groups of five strangers for dinner every Wednesday. Belong Center offers 'Belong Circles,' 90-minute gatherings led by 'trained community architects.' Block Party USA seems to, um—advocate for the concept of block parties?
Ventures such as these make up a growing friendship industry, and they claim a lofty goal: Not only do they want to get people off their phone and out of the house; they want nothing less than to cure Americans of alienation. 'Eating with others can bring joy, build interpersonal connections, and ultimately help solve the loneliness epidemic in the U.S.,' Project Gather declares. Block Party USA considers itself an 'actionable cure for our country's loneliness, social isolation, divisiveness, and the youth mental health crisis.' Ambitious! But I have some notes.
First, it must be said: Research doesn't back up the idea that America is experiencing a loneliness epidemic, or even that overall loneliness rates are worse now than they've generally been throughout history.
Of course, plenty of people do report feeling lonely—particularly young adults, a group that may actually be lonelier than they used to be. And many of these endeavors explicitly or implicitly target Gen Z, a cohort that does seem to struggle with interpersonal trust and vulnerability, and therefore could probably use some help connecting. If only it were as easy as getting them in the same room.
Most of these start-ups appear to rely on a common assumption: Loneliness results from a lack of friends, and to make new friends, one should meet new people. But we don't fully know what makes a person more or less lonely. Loneliness and time spent alone don't seem to be closely correlated; different people crave different amounts of socializing, and not all socializing is equally fulfilling. When researchers at the Harvard Graduate School of Education surveyed 1,500 American adults about loneliness, they found that people cited a number of struggles, not all clearly related to a friend shortage: 65 percent of those who were lonely said they felt existentially alone, separate from others or the world; 60 percent said their insecurity or mental health had made connection more difficult; 57 percent said they couldn't share their true self. Other studies suggest that very few people have no friends, and that the average number of friends people have has remained fairly stable over time.
The problem with relationships is often one of quality rather than quantity. One firm believer in this principle is Shasta Nelson, who writes about friendship and hosts a podcast called Frientimacy. The title is a nod to what she believes many people are hungry for: not friends, per se, but real intimacy with those friends. 'We don't need to meet more people,' she told me. 'We need to feel more met by the people we already know.'
Achieving frientimacy, she argues, requires three things: consistency, positivity, and vulnerability. The friendship industry tends to start and end with mere presence: You have to show up. But a single paint-and-sip does not a best friend make. Jeffrey A. Hall, a University of Kansas communication professor, has found in his work that going from strangers to casual friends typically takes 40 to 60 hours spent together; moving to actual friends takes 80 to 100 hours, and forming a good friendship tends to take about 200 hours altogether. Ideally, a friendship-event attendee knows that if they meet someone they like, they should reach out again. What about the time after that—and after that? Without another shared context or network to put them in regular proximity, consistency is difficult to attain.
American culture has few models for how early friendship development works, Nelson told me. People tend to understand that after a good first date, they need to schedule the next meetup—soon, or they'll lose momentum. With platonic prospects, though, many people don't know how to put in the work. 'One of the big myths,' she said, is 'that we just have to meet the right person. We just need to keep being in the room, and eventually we'll find our best friend.' Instead of seeking more and more people, hoping for a spark, maybe you're better off working on the friendships that you already have—you know, the ones you're neglecting while playing badminton with strangers.
This is where positivity, another one of Nelson's pillars, comes in: the measure of how good a given friendship is making you feel. It's actually the key to consistency, because you won't be motivated to clear space in a hectic schedule—to pay the babysitter, to do the commute—if you didn't leave the last hang feeling seen. Nelson hears a lot of complaints about consistency being the hardest node of the triad to achieve, but for years now, she's been asking participants to assess their own strength in each of the three areas—and she's found that positivity is the area in which participants perform most poorly. So many people, she observed, are overwhelmed and burned out; they might show up and cross 'friend time' off their list without really giving those friends their full attention. Or they're so nervous and afraid of rejection that they focus on themselves while socializing, not on how to make others feel valued. And if they're too guarded to really open up—to achieve the third pillar, vulnerability—how can they expect the other person to do so either?
Hypothetically, an anti-loneliness start-up could design meetups with these principles in mind: supporting the slow build of connection over time; encouraging warmth, sharing, and vocal affirmation. Nelson herself ran a 'friendship accelerator' program back in 2008, in which she matched participants into small groups and had them commit to 10 full weeks of structured gatherings. Each one ended with everyone in a circle, telling the person on their right one thing they appreciated about them. At least one of those groups, she told me, is still close. At the same time, she knows that even the most perfectly curated series of get-togethers isn't likely to fix anyone's social life. She compared it to working out: You don't really start to feel the benefits until you've stuck with it enough to get in shape. 'We have to see our social health not just as an event here and there, but like a lifestyle,' she told me, 'that we are training for and getting stronger in.'
The loneliness industrial complex is unlikely to sustain a lifetime of intentional friendship. But further, it isn't equipped to address the structural issues plaguing many lonely people—especially young adults. Hosting social events won't make rent any cheaper or higher education more affordable, which might allow more young people to live near friends rather than moving back in with their parents. It won't cut down on people's working hours so they can spend more time with loved ones. It won't fix the mental-health-treatment gap, which exists because providers tend to focus on children and adolescents or end up treating middle-aged and older adults, leaving young adults underserved. It won't transform the architecture of cities—build larger housing units, say, so people can host groups; improve public transportation so they can easily reach friends; open new 'third places,' public areas where people can socialize for free.
Imperfect measures are better than none. Still: A whole lot of resources—whether from investors or individual donors or pro bono efforts—are being dumped into the friendship industry. TimeLeft, backed by venture capital, has raised more than $2 million since 2020; according to a story in New York magazine earlier this year, Belong Center has gathered at least $1,750,000. Hinge's 'One More Hour' initiative is investing $1 million in existing social clubs—some of which host events, such as 'reading parties,' that sound highly likely to be one-off experiences.
And although some of these meetups are free to attendees, others require entry fees or memberships. Take the Brooklyn-based Sprout Society's upcoming 'Together We Dink': A Pickleball Experience event: A ticket that includes playing, food, and drinks costs $250. Across the nation, people yearning for some kind of community are really trying—they're making time, getting dressed up, shelling out—all for a highly imperfect solution. At best, these enterprises offer helpful venues for meeting interesting people, whether or not you'll be forever friends or even have much in common. At worst, they're expensive distractions, offering a false promise of shiny new connections at the expense of old pals—the ones who have been there all along.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

8 hours ago

• Boston Globe

That time I was headed nowhere, fast

Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up School was a break from work on the farm and on trucks, and I wanted to laugh and run wild. Still, I wonder what difference it might have made if any one of my teachers had given me a tape measure, pencils, and paper and sent me out to measure everything in the playground or draw the birds in the sky that I saw there. But that just wasn't how teachers taught boys like me. I suspect they had little doubt as to the type of man I would become — the kind I worked with on ranches and construction sites, ones with clichéd blue-collar traits, both good and bad. Advertisement My father was among them. A professional country music musician, a trucker, and operator of heavy equipment, he was also a drinker and a fighter. He espoused racist views that made no sense to me, since I'd only ever been around white people, and some of them were dangerous crooks who'd spent time in prison. My father was also the one man I spent much of my young life with — under trucks, tending farm animals, riding around in pickups. Advertisement I drank with or around him in my late teens. I spent endless hours with him as he worked and drank with other men. I often witnessed his raw violence — toward helpless animals on our farm, toward a sister's boyfriend who'd sneaked into the house. I learned that emotions can be dangerous. When I was 8, after weeks of being attacked by a rooster that left me bloodied, my father locked me in a barn with it. I had a large stick. The rooster, his spurs. I knocked him out of the air and would have killed him, but my father stopped me. He respected that rooster and called me 'Rooster' ever after. By the end of my junior year of high school in 1981, I had a grade-point average in the low D range, poor attendance, lunch time drinking, and pervasive discipline problems, including fights in and out of school. Like millions of American boys and young men, past and present, I was well on my way to becoming a member of a Advertisement So how am I writing this after a 30-year career in journalism instead of a few stints behind bars and the kind of hard-luck life I'd seen so much of? Rebellion, and a science fiction novel. As my senior year approached, my father wanted me to delay going back to school so I could work for him. Ambivalent as I was about school, I knew that if I did this, I would never go back, and I had the vague but motivating sense that I wanted something else for myself, something more. I rebelled by going back to school. Later that year, I moved out of my family home. I met the girl who has now been my partner for more than 40 years. I made guy friends who introduced me to punk rock and wild, nonviolent escapades with bikes, trampolines, junk cars, and conversation. And then I met Mark, who gave me the first novel I ever read. I had noticed that our social studies teacher genuinely engaged with Mark's challenging questions. Skinny and studious, Mark appeared more rebellious to me than those of us roughhousing, flirting, drunk or stoned or both, giggling at the back of the classroom. I was curious about Mark's ability to so constructively question authority. We spoke a few times about it, and one afternoon, he gave me ' Advertisement Briefly, 'Orphans' is about a young man, Hugh Hoyland, who discovers that his world exists inside a spaceship. This reality was hidden from him by myths and lies passed down to him that his own willful ignorance perpetuated. Only when he encounters the freaks of that world — banished mutants, the readers of forbidden books, and thinkers — does Hugh understand that there is an entire universe outside his world. There could not have been a more apt metaphor for my cramped, small, myth-laden life. The novel sparked something in me. I began to read and study. I participated in a week-long event for high schoolers on a college campus. I figured out how to get student loans and Pell Grants. I figured out how to get into the community college in Billings and then the University of Montana, where I studied philosophy and eventually earned an MFA in creative writing. For me, education was an act of defiance. It freed me from the confines and contours of a destiny as a hard and angry man, and it made me want to earn access to the world beyond it. But I had to discover my own path to the power of language and knowledge. There's a lot of talk about boys these days. How they're in trouble. How they're toxic. I hope that as we focus on them, we don't force-feed them our expectations or beat them down like dangerous animals. I hope we give them the time and space to be rebellious and build themselves up with education that welcomes them. It's a lot of trouble to let boys be boys, but I believe in us. Advertisement

Buzz Feed

14 hours ago

• Buzz Feed

The Hidden Dark Side Of Gifted Programs Revealed

I don't remember precisely when I first heard the word 'gifted,' but it must have been in early elementary school. I do remember being pulled out of my first-grade class and led to the fifth-grade classroom, where a teacher told me to choose a chapter book that was 'more at my level.' I appreciated the chance to choose from all sorts of new books, but it marked an early example of what would eventually be both a privilege and a curse: my foray into being 'set apart' academically from my fellow classmates. By the time I reached middle school, the gifted and talented program in my district had taken wing. The timing makes sense: In 1998, many American schools were provided with official K-12 standards for so-called 'gifted education' by the National Association of Gifted Children. While the NAGC first promoted advanced academic programming in the 1950s, its work in the late '80s and '90s represented a more structured approach to educating students who were found to be gifted. K-12 gifted education standards were preceded by the passage of the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Act in 1988, which secured funding to 'orchestrate a coordinated program of scientifically based research, demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and similar activities that build and enhance the ability of elementary and secondary schools to meet the special educational needs of gifted and talented students.' In those early days, my experience with Gifted & Talented (or G/T, as we fondly called it) was almost entirely positive. Our G/T class was tucked away in a windowless classroom whose walls we decorated with silly drawings and posters. Several of my close friends were also in the program, and there was nothing better than getting to hang out with them for an hour or two per day while working on our largely self-assigned curriculum. Our teacher was warm and encouraging, always pushing each of us to incorporate our individual interests and skills into projects. In fact, nearly all the teachers I worked with in G/T were engaged educators who genuinely wanted their students to thrive. I'm forever grateful for their personal guidance, regardless of my later reflections on the program. In so many ways, G/T was a safe place at school — a place where I could be my true (weird) self and engage in more self-directed learning. But there was a troubling flip side to the G/T experience that took me years to unpack. From what I could gather, most students qualified for the program based on standardized test scores. While the NAGC defines gifted pupils as 'those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains,' it seems inevitable that many kids would be excluded from gifted education for factors beyond their control. In her 2016 book Engaging and Challenging Gifted Students: Tips for Supporting Extraordinary Minds in Your Classroom, Jenny Grant Rankin, Ph.D., outlines gaps in gifted education. Nonwhite students, socioeconomically disadvantaged kids, girls, and those classified as English language learners are disproportionately excluded from gifted and talented programming, Rankin reports. She also cites a 2016 study by Jason A. Grissom and Christopher Redding that found that Black students were 50% less likely to be considered for gifted and talented programs than their white counterparts, even when both groups recorded similar standardized test scores. What's more, students of color were less likely to be labeled gifted when their teachers were white. In G/T, I learned quickly that much of my self-esteem came from academic praise and approval from adults. The 'gifted' label seeped into everything I did and was a stumbling block at times — if I struggled to master a concept in math class or didn't understand a question on a social studies test, I'd avoid asking for help. After all, I was gifted. I shouldn't need help with anything, right? It felt like my so-called 'natural' giftedness should pre-qualify me to succeed in any endeavor, which led me to prematurely give up on new hobbies later in life when I didn't immediately feel like a master. And when a project in a non-G/T class earned anything less than an A, I often found myself in tears and seeking reassurance from my family and friends that I was 'still smart.' The question of 'potential' was another overwhelming aspect of G/T. Gifted kids at my school were encouraged to pursue all sorts of fields — with the unspoken message that no matter what we pursued, we were expected to be excellent. Most of us went on to take as many Advanced Placement classes in high school as our schedules would allow, driven by the sense that we simply had to be high achievers. Academic excellence would translate directly to excellence in career and life in general, many of us thought. It wasn't until college that I first experienced the lingering impacts of the gifted education experience. Suddenly, I was a very small fish in the massive pond that is the University of Michigan. I wasn't the 'smart kid' anymore— I was one of thousands of 'smart kids,' all of whom had ambitions on par with or beyond my own. College instructors rarely offered direct praise, and the occasional B in a class became commonplace. When I couldn't maintain perfection, I felt like I was failing the version of myself I was supposed to become. Unsurprisingly, college was also when my mental health took its first major nosedive. Alongside a handful of personal issues, my sudden sense of academic invisibility had triggered a crisis. My path felt unclear. Wasn't I supposed to get to college, breeze through with perfect grades, and immediately jump into an impressive career? When graduation rolled around, I got a dose of validation by heading off on a Fulbright teaching grant to Malaysia, but my life beyond that looked so blurry. It took a long time to admit that I didn't want to go to grad school, which felt shameful. Without academic validation or 'high achievement' on the table, would I be untethered forever? In the decade since, I've drawn connections between my most plaguing anxieties and my early education. It's taken practice to feel more comfortable with accepting professional criticism or admitting when I'm not sure how to do something at work. I see how my G/T years merged self-worth with accolades and grades, and I feel sad for the younger version of myself — along with other 'formerly gifted' peers — who internalized so many false measures of success. At times, adulthood feels like an ongoing battle to remind myself that I'm a valuable, worthy person, regardless of outward achievements. I'm not alone: In recent years, the 'formerly gifted kid' trope has become something of a meme, with TikTokers cracking dark jokes about their lingering sense of anxiety, perfectionism and perceived failure to live up to parents' and teachers' expectations. It's funny because it's true. Data shows that while gifted programs can result in better long-term academic outcomes and college success for some students, these benefits still reflect inequities. A 2021 study by Grissom and Redding found that small associations existed between participation in gifted programming and long-term achievement in math and reading, but there was no evidence to support a correlation between gifted kids and their general engagement with school. Most glaringly, even these small positive associations were skewed toward higher-income white pupils, with low-income or Black gifted students excluded from long-term academic gains. What's more, this research doesn't begin to explore gifted education's extended impact on social and emotional development for all participants. I don't regret my time as a gifted kid, but I do wish G/T had offered more care for students' mental health and more inclusivity for children who didn't fit the program's relatively narrow mold of exceptionalism. I wish I could unlearn the idea that outward praise equals true success, and measure excellence in the form of learning for learning's sake. Above all, I wish we'd had an environment where every single student was reminded how smart and talented they were, and given the tools to explore their gifts — no matter what form they took.

Boston Globe

a day ago

• Boston Globe

The Battle of Bunker Hill rages again -- in Gloucester

Spectators also will be able to interact with the military reenactors, as well as hundreds of 'civilian' interpreters who will depict the hardships of everyday life in the besieged town of Boston at the time of the battle. Organizers chose The spectators 'will get a very good look at what Advertisement Narrators using a sound system will describe the events in context for the audience as they unfold. A slightly compressed version of the reenactment will be staged Sunday from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. 'We'll follow the script of what already happened historically,' said Dietzel, 37, of Bridgewater. 'We have people coming from all over the country, a few coming from Canada, and a few British coming from the UK' to portray the combatants. Advertisement Although Bunker Hill technically was a British victory, the Colonial troops inflicted massive casualties on the British, who were forced to mount three assaults on the Americans' hilltop fortifications before the rebels ran out of ammunition and retreated. The British lost 1,054 killed and wounded in the battle, the first pitched conflict of the American Revolution. The Colonials suffered 450 casualties, but gained the morale-boosting confidence that they could stand and fight a disciplined army with superior numbers. 'Reenactments make history come alive in a way that you don't really get from the textbooks,' said Annie Harris, chief executive officer of the Essex National Heritage Area, one of the event's organizers. 'It was a more significant battle than many of us realize,' Harris said. 'You think about the Battle of Bunker Hill, and you see the obelisk [in Charlestown], and you don't really think much about it.' The reenactment includes what Dietzel described as a series of battle vignettes interspersed throughout the day, beginning with the approach of several ships posing as troop-bearing British naval vessels toward Half Moon Beach in Gloucester beginning about 8 a.m. Saturday. From 9 to 10 a.m., the rebels will build their redoubt, or hilltop fortification, with period hand tools. Spectators are encouraged to join the soldiers as they assemble their defenses, and to learn about their 18th-century backgrounds and motivation to take up arms against the British. From 10 to 11 a.m., British reenactors will land on Half Moon Beach. From about 1 to 2 p.m., they are scheduled to make a flanking attack on Cressy Beach. British commanders ordered this flanking move as their marines made a frontal assault on the redoubt. Advertisement The coordinated attacks were unsuccessful, as was a following frontal assault. Only on the third assault, which will be staged about 4 p.m. Saturday, did the British break through and claim victory atop Breed's Hill, the Charlestown summit where the battle actually occurred. 'If we wanted to keep this exactly right, we'd have to burn a city,' which the British did to Charlestown, 'but we can't do that,' Dietzel said with a chuckle. Dietzel said he feels honored to be able to portray Warren, a key Revolutionary figure whom he has researched extensively. 'I've been reading biographies, letters from the Massachusetts Historical Society, and attending lectures. I've been in the weeds with this man for quite some time,' Dietzel said. The goal of the reenactment, which has been years in the making, is to convey the relevance of the battle to 21st-century Americans. 'We want to make sure we do justice to this event and help share a story that's important to us all,' Dietzel added. 'I told my third-grade teacher I wanted to be a Minute Man. It's been a passion of mine for as long as I can remember.' Brian MacQuarrie can be reached at