Perhaps I’ve erred in framing it in heteronormative terms, but it seems that the type of problem being described does depend in part on sexual orientation, and the main point I’m making isn’t gendered at all. You’ve framed romantic partnership as the cornerstone of healthy social interaction, something that needs to be in place first in order for men to thrive socially. I see it as more of a capstone, the last thing to put in place after already building up something strong and robust.

People who are emotionally and socially healthy can find romantic partners that complement them well, without putting too much on that relationship or even straining it from over-burdening that link.

The thing is that you can be the best friend in the world, a partner will always come first for the other person.

And so framing it as being a competition or ranking ignores how these things are complementary. Having strong outside friendships improves the romantic relationships and strengthens the long term commitment there. Expecting the romantic partner to be the everything is what makes people lonely, because we’re not built for drifting independent pairings untethered to the rest of society. We partner up and the web of relationships outside that relationship provides bracing support for the romantic link itself.

Toxic masculinity is the expectation that men can’t be certain things, including emotionally supportive, and that stifling effect on male relationships with others isolates those men. The loneliness that follows is part of it, almost an inevitable consequence of it.

That’s what I’m talking about, though. You see male friendships as a method of coping with a more fundamental problem relating to women, and I totally disagree, and argue that healthy male friendships are social connections worth developing and maintaining in their own right, whether you are or aren’t in a committed relationship with a woman. Even your framing of why male friendships fall apart involves women. It’s the centrality of women in your worldview that is preventing you from seeing how male friendships are a critical thing to have in addressing male loneliness.

Put another way, married men need healthy male friendships, too. Putting all of that emotional labor into a single link with a woman is fragile and unreliable, and I’d argue inherently unhealthy. People need multiple social links and the resilience and support that comes from whole groups connected in a web, not just a bunch of isolated pairings.

And to be clear, I’m not saying that friendships are a replacement for romantic and sexual relationships. I’m saying that social fluency, empathy, and thoughtfulness necessary for being able to maintain deep friendships are important skillsets for maintaining romantic relationships as well. The lack of romantic partners, then, isn’t the “base issue,” but is a symptom of the internal state of the person and how that person interacts with the world.

So I maintain that your worldview switches cause and effect, at least compared to mine. And maybe I’m wrong, and I’m not trying to convince you that I’m right. I’m bringing all this up to share that the surprising part of this line of comments is that I was genuinely not expecting someone to treat romantic difficulties as a primary or fundamental cause of male loneliness. To show you that at least there are other people who view these issues very differently from you, and that there’s a broad diversity of thought on the topic.

Again not talking about the main issue that every men that feel alone will tell you as the root of their problem:

-Lack of a relationship.

-Lack of friendships due other friends being invested in their relationships.

Actually, your comment touches on something that is really interesting to me, and a major part of where you and I differ on what male loneliness means. You’ve elevated the romantic committed relationship with a woman as the primary means by which men are expected to derive social standing and stability, but I view it primarily as an issue of friendships, mainly friendships with other men. The loneliness problem, in my view, comes from men being unable to form strong relationships with other men, and a wife or girlfriend or whatever is secondary to that.

Maybe it’s because I’ve always had stability in my friendships but didn’t have committed romantic relationships until my 30’s, but it seems like the problem of loneliness comes from not feeling like you have people in your corner (friends, family, even work colleagues), but I think focusing on sexual and romantic relationships is itself isolating and lonely, even for men who do get married. Now that I’m married I still spend plenty of time with my friends, married or single, based on the topic/activity/interest that ties us together.

Because plenty of men who do not comply to gender norms or toxic masculinity (or masculinity at all) still feel alone. And their experience get invalidated by this explanation.

It sounds like you completely miss the application of the explanation itself. The phrase toxic masculinity describes the social norms and expectations that men act a certain way. Society imposes gender norms on people such that those who don’t comply are at the highest risk of being shunned or ostracized, and having trouble making social connections. And the social pressure may make men act in ways they wouldn’t otherwise, so that they grow up poorly equipped to be introspective and understand their own wants/desires/emotions/drives/motivations.

Toxic masculinity tells men what they’re not allowed to be, and tells men what they must be. Both sides of that same coin are toxic to men, and by extension those that the men interact with.

I think the fundamental issue is that you’re assuming that information theory refers to entropy as uncompressed data but it’s actually referring to the amount of data assuming ideal/perfect compression.

Um, so each character is just 0 or 1 meaning there are only two characters in the English language? You can’t reduce it like that.

There are only 26 letters in the English alphabet, so fitting in a meaningful character space can be done in less than 5 bits (2^5 = 32). Morse code, for example, encodes letters in less than 4 bits per letter (the most common letters use fewer bits, and the longest use 4 bits). A typical sentence will reduce down to an average of 2-3 bits per letter, plus the pause between letters.

And because the distribution of letters in any given English text is nonuniform, there’s less meaning per letter than it takes to strictly encode things by individual letter. You can assign values to whole words and get really efficient that way, especially using variable encoding for the more common ideas or combinations.

If you scour the world of English text, the 15-character string of “Abraham Lincoln” will be far more common than even the 3-letter string of “xqj,” so lots of those multiple character expressions only convey a much smaller number of bits of entropy. So it might be that it takes someone longer to memorize a random 10 character string that is truly random, including case sensitivity and symbols and numbers, than it would to memorize a 100-character sentence that actually carries meaning.

Finally, once you actually get to reading and understanding, you’re not meticulously remembering literally every character. Your brain is preprocessing some stuff and discarding details without actually consciously incorporating them into the reading. Sometimes we glide past typos. Or we make assumptions (whether correct or not). Sometimes when tasked with counting basketball passes we totally miss that there was a gorilla in the video. The actual conscious thinking discards quite a bit of the information as it is received.

You can tell when you’re reading something that is within your own existing knowledge, and how much faster it is to read than something that is entirely new, on a totally novel subject that you have no background in. Your sense of recall is going to be less accurate with that stuff, or you’re going to significantly slow down how you read it.

I can read a whole sentence with more than ten words, much less characters, in a second while also retaining what music I was listening to, what color the page was, how hot it was in the room, how itchy my clothes were, and how thirsty I was during that second if I pay attention to all of those things.

If you’re preparing to be tested on the recall of each and every one of those things, you’re going to find yourself reading a lot slower. You can read the entire reading passage but be totally unprepared for questions like “how many times did the word ‘the’ appear in the passage?” And that’s because the way you actually read and understand is going to involve discarding many, many bits of information that don’t make it past the filter your brain puts up for that task.

For some people, memorizing the sentence “Linus Torvalds wrote the first version of the Linux kernel in 1991 while he was a student at the University of Helsinki” is trivial and can be done in a second or two. For many others, who might not have the background to know what the sentence means, they might struggle with being able to parrot back that idea without studying it for at least 10-15 seconds. And the results might be flipped for different people on another sentence, like “Brooks Nader repurposes engagement ring from ex, buys 9-carat ‘divorce ring’ amid Gleb Savchenko romance.”

The fact is, most of what we read is already familiar in some way. That means we’re actually processing less information than we’re actually taking in, and discarding a huge chunk of what we perceive towards what we actually think. And when we encounter things that didn’t necessarily expect, we slow down or we misremember things.

So I can see how the 10-bit number comes into play. It cited various studies showing the image/object recognition tends to operate in the high 30’s in bits per second, and many memorization or video game playing tasks involve processing in the 5-10 bit range. Our brains are just highly optimized for image processing and language processing, so I’d expect those tasks to be higher performance than other domains.