I have to think that the increasing mobility of Americans has added to the isolation. Previously you could be assured that at least a handful of people in your neighborhood had known you for years, and possibly generations of your family. We were, often by necessity, connected through generations. No longer. Now people move to completely new cities where they know far fewer people.

You're absolutely right about mobility, Josh. That's something else that has been on my mind recently, for both personal and political reasons, that I didn't get to work into the essay.

I think the concept of a "discipline of place," ie. being glued to a particular, personally significant locale (town, county, state) come what may, as advocated by the crunchy cons and others, may in fact be part of the solution to isolation, if enough people do it.

I think the concept of a "discipline of place," ie. being glued to a particular, personally significant locale (town, county, state) come what may, as advocated by the crunchy cons and others, may in fact be part of the solution to isolation, if enough people do it.

I think you're on to something. I've been somewhat of an advocate of this for a while but I think it's largely met with ridicule from people of our generation. Not sure what, if anything, can change that perception.

I find this fascinating and a bit boggling because it is the *complete* opposite of my experiences online. Because of various online groups, I have a very large network of people I can call on: to meet when I'm in a strange city, to give me medical advice, to complain about something that's bothering me, to cheer about something good, to discuss problems with my work, my children, my finances.

There are three factors that may make my experiences different from yours (or those of the people in the study):

1. I am female, and we're taught to be better at social networking and to be more willing to share our problems than men are.

2. Much of my networking is at livejournal.com. LJ is especially popular with women (I estimate at least 80% of their users are female) because users can filter posts to be seen by only certain people.

3. I am part of media (TV, movie, book) fandom, which has always been a vehicle for friendship as well as mutual hobbyism (if that's a word). That is, we don't just share an interest, we share aspects of our thoughts and personalities.

When online media fandom was largely on USENET groups and mailing lists, fans would occasionally "band together" to help out or celebrate a fellow fan: sending things to people in the hospital, giving travelers places to stay, making e-gifts to celebrate the birth of a child, fostering pets, for instance.

On LJ these activities have continued, but under friends-lock I've also seen the growth of more serious helpfulness: hospital visits, monetary help in a financial crisis, legal help, moving help, housing. Because the number of people helping can be very large -- into the hundreds -- the burden on each helper can be kept managable.

It's not the Internet, it's what you *do* with the Internet.

The above comment beginning "I find this fascinating and a bit boggling" was by me.

I wonder how much isolation is fueled by the rise in third-shift jobs (as in my case)?

Alan - I wonder how much isolation is fueled by jobs in general. In my profession, we live and die by the billable hour. More billable hours means more success but less time available for the other activities that keep you re-charged and able to bring more of your skills and energies to the table. I know so many attorneys whose idea of socializing is really networking, so that they're always "on" - maybe that's why lawyers are seen as sharks: if you stop moving, you die - but the statistics on lawyers' personal lives used to be horrendous in terms of the divorce and depression rates.