Better Together or Apart?

Let’s start with a short quiz. This vocalist, considered one of the greatest and most charismatic in music history, recorded songs like Let’s Turn It On, My Love Is Dangerous, Man Made Paradise, and Your Kind of Lover. Any guesses? If not, here’s another hint: all these songs are from the album Mr. Bad Guy, released in 1985. Still unsure? No surprise. Here’s the final clue: the same artist sang We Will Rock You, Bohemian Rhapsody, and I Want to Break Free. By now, it should be clear - yes, it’s Freddie Mercury. The titles mentioned earlier are from his solo album, which sold significantly fewer copies than Queen’s most famous releases and failed to dominate the charts.

Mercury, during a temporary break from his main band, pursued his individual musical ambitions and visions. However, this did not bring him commercial or artistic success. In music history, many vocalists have achieved less as solo artists compared to their accomplishments in bands. On the other hand, careers like those of Eric Clapton, Robbie Williams, Michael Jackson, Beyoncé, or Harry Styles illustrate that going solo can sometimes lead to greater popularity and open not just dozens but hundreds of doors. Solo or together? In show business, there’s no single, correct model. The same goes for everyday life. So what better suits our nature, sense of security, desire for growth, and self-realization - conscious solitude or being in a relationship? Do these two states exclude each other? Is it better to decide the rhythm of your own life or gain more benefits from co-creating and harmonizing with someone else? The answer, as psychologists often say, is: it depends.

In Evolution, There's No Place for Loneliness

Since ancient times, thanks to thinkers like Aristotle and Cicero, the idea has been established that humans are social animals. By nature, we aim to build communities because only in this way can we reach our full potential. Over the centuries, this idea has been expanded upon and has become a subject of interest for many modern researchers. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar formulated the social brain hypothesis, stating that the development of the brain, a key organ in our body, is tied to managing complex social relationships. Without interaction, there is no evolution. Forming pairs and then groups gave prehistoric humans access to resources, protection from predators, and opportunities for cooperation in hunting and raising offspring.

John Bowlby, the creator of attachment theory, emphasized that the need for closeness is biologically ingrained in humans. Attachment to a caregiver during childhood was crucial for survival, and the absence of such a bond posed a threat. In adulthood, similar mechanisms evolved to support the formation of social and romantic bonds, contributing to protection and stability. According to Bowlby, loneliness equates to a lack of secure attachment, which leads to a sense of threat and discomfort. Anthropologist Michael Tomasello, in his biocultural theory, also described loneliness as a disconnection from communal mechanisms like division of labor or rituals. He argued that cooperation and sharing resources were crucial for survival, while social mechanisms like empathy and reciprocity evolved to strengthen human bonds and collaboration.

One of the scientists who devoted significant time to studying loneliness is John Cacioppo. He developed the evolutionary theory of loneliness, positing that loneliness activates brain regions associated with pain. Simply put, loneliness, according to Cacioppo, hurts. And what do we do when we feel pain? We seek ways to alleviate it. Lonely individuals also attempt to reconnect socially (though this doesn’t always succeed, creating a vicious cycle). In prehistoric times, this was essential for survival because loneliness in such a dangerous and unpredictable environment often meant death. Ultimately, all evolutionary theories lead to one conclusion: living alone wasn’t advantageous and offered no benefits or opportunities for development, let alone existence. If every Homo sapiens had isolated themselves in their own cave and avoided company hundreds of thousands of years ago, we wouldn’t even be discussing the human species today.

Solo Feels Unsettling, Duets Last Longer

In the early days of humanity, forming partnerships was driven primarily by biology - the need to produce offspring and expand the group. Was there room for affection and romance back then? Artifacts like jewelry and ornaments, as well as "marital" graves of couples unearthed in archaeological sites, suggest there may have been. However, it’s hard to assign today’s meaning to relationships of the past. While the desire for children still motivates people to seek a partner and form relationships, it is no longer the sole reason to connect with another person. We yearn for love and physical closeness but also for understanding and support on many levels. In short, our needs and expectations regarding relationships have evolved and multiplied over millennia. Yet, some biological aspects of partnership remain as relevant as ever, even if we've only recently begun to understand them.

Recent scientific studies and experiments have demonstrated that being in a relationship significantly impacts the body’s overall functioning. Carlos Alviar and his colleagues analyzed data from over 3.5 million patients. They found that people in relationships had a lower risk of hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease compared to those who were single, widowed, or divorced. Additionally, being in a relationship lowers levels of cortisol, the stress hormone. In an experiment conducted by Dario Maestripieri, participants were assigned a stressful task: delivering a public speech. Those in relationships had lower cortisol levels both before and during their presentation. In another study by James Coan, women were subjected to mild electric shocks while holding their partners’ hands. These women reported less pain and showed reduced activity in brain areas associated with stress.

Having a partner not only reduces anxiety and stress but also improves sleep. Wendy Troxel from the University of Pittsburgh monitored the sleep quality of individuals sleeping alone versus those sharing a bed with a loved one. Participants in the latter group reported better sleep quality, fewer night awakenings, and more energy in the morning. While these results might sound promising, it’s unclear if all the couples slept under a single blanket or if any included snorers - factors that, as many of us know, can significantly impact sleep quality, even in a happy relationship. Still, it’s hard to argue with the findings of Julianne Holt-Lunstad, who examined the relationship between social connections and life expectancy. Her research found that individuals in relationships had a 50% higher likelihood of living longer compared to those who were single. The reasons for this disparity include not only reduced stress and improved sleep but also better healthcare, as partners often take care of each other. From a biological perspective, love extends and enhances life.

Together, It’s Easier

When going on a date, we rarely think about improving our health or prolonging our lives. In fact, first dates are often accompanied by a racing heart and stress, with sleepless nights spent anticipating the encounter. While the biological benefits of relationships may feel like a long-term investment, the psychological advantages often deliver quicker returns. Falling in love triggers the brain to produce more dopamine, the chemical responsible for motivation and enthusiasm. This makes us feel better and more energized almost immediately. While this euphoric state can’t last forever, even when the initial excitement gives way to emotional stability, the benefits to our well-being remain - and may even increase.

In a study by Menelaos Apostolou, participants listed specific benefits of maintaining long-term romantic relationships. Under the “support” category, the most common responses included help during tough times (57%), psychological support (56%), sharing thoughts, experiences, and worries with someone (54%), and support in achieving goals (46%). In the “social acceptance” category, respondents noted less pressure to find a partner (74%), saving time and money on dating (66%), and greater societal acceptance (64%). Additionally, over 60% of participants said they had someone to go out with, more than 50% had a travel companion, and over 40% mentioned feeling needed and important to someone. Participants also identified more practical benefits, such as shared expenses (89%) and economic support (76%). In short, being in a relationship is not just about love or companionship; it offers tangible and psychological advantages that enhance both quality of life and longevity.

Loneliness Like (More Than) Half a Pack of Cigarettes

Does sharing life with someone else bring only benefits? Of course not. If it did, there wouldn’t be breakups and divorces, nor fleeting, unsuccessful, or even toxic relationships. Being together undeniably brings numerous advantages, but only if we find the right partner - someone who truly enhances our quality of life and gives it a new purpose. Generally - whether through love at first sight or trial and error - we manage to build such relationships.

A study by Ipsos conducted in 32 countries found that 84% of couples are satisfied with their relationship, although slightly fewer (75%) feel loved. Poland ranked slightly below the global average, with 79% and 69%, respectively. What, then, happens with the remaining 16% globally and 21% in Poland? In short, nothing extraordinary. These individuals remain in relationships that either give them little or come with significant emotional and psychological costs. To escape such dynamics, some consciously choose solitude. While a justified decision, it is often only a temporary solution, as being alone over the long term is detrimental to our well-being, as confirmed by researchers in both biology and psychology.

Chronic loneliness weakens the immune system, increasing susceptibility to various illnesses, particularly those affecting the heart and circulatory system, due to heightened cortisol levels. This phenomenon was observed in studies by Dr. Łukasz Okruszek from the Polish Academy of Sciences. In his laboratory, he simulated "artificial loneliness." Participants first completed a personality questionnaire, after which some were falsely informed - supposedly based on their answers - that they were likely to end up lonely in the future. In the final phase of the experiment, participants underwent EKG and brain activity tests.

Those who were "predicted" to be lonely exhibited irregular heart rhythms and increased activity in the sympathetic nervous system, which prepares the body for a heightened state of defense. At the same time, the parasympathetic system, responsible for relaxation, was less active. The mere suggestion of future loneliness caused stress, anxiety, and fatigue in the participants. In the study by Julianne Holt-Lunstad, researchers explored the impact of loneliness on premature mortality. The results showed that lonely individuals had a 26–32% higher risk of early death compared to those in stable relationships. The effect of loneliness on health was likened to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Interestingly, loneliness has been scientifically proven to harm men more than women, with the impact becoming increasingly pronounced with age.

Where does loneliness come from? There is no single answer to this question, just as there is no singular form of loneliness. Its experience varies across different stages of life. Lonely teenagers often feel unaccepted, alienated, and misunderstood. Lonely adults may perceive themselves as unattractive, uninteresting, or inadequate. Elderly individuals, on the other hand, may see themselves as forgotten, unnecessary, and invisible to the world around them. Loneliness isn’t solely about lacking a partner. It’s possible to feel lonely even in a relationship, in a crowd, at work, or among friends. In this broader social context, loneliness takes on the form of isolation or abandonment. Isolation, however, carries an element of agency, suggesting a conscious choice to withdraw.

Not All Loneliness Is Equal

Can we consciously choose loneliness and even benefit from it? It turns out we can, but it’s essential to distinguish between loneliness and isolation. In English, the terms loneliness and solitude capture this difference. Loneliness describes an undesirable state in which we feel uncomfortable. It might stem from the absence of close relationships or a sense of disconnection in a group. Loneliness is associated with emotional pain, feelings of abandonment, and longing for connection - it’s a state we are forced into. By contrast, solitude has a more optimistic connotation. It describes being alone by choice, often voluntarily and intentionally. This state carries positive or, at worst, neutral implications. Solitude might be translated as "time for oneself" or "intentional aloneness," in which we find joy in our own company and pursue personal growth.

While it’s hard to associate benefits with loneliness, solitude can yield substantial rewards. That said, solitude should come with a cautionary note: “Do not exceed the recommended dose.” How much solitude is healthy depends largely on individual preferences and values, but chronic loneliness is undoubtedly detrimental. On the other hand, chosen solitude allows us to grow at our own pace, fosters self-reliance and independence, saves time and energy, offers space for hobbies and passions, sparks creativity, builds resilience, and helps us achieve professional goals. When not in a relationship, we devote more time to our own needs, value friendships more, and seek to improve their quality. We also meet more people and give ourselves time to find a partner without imposing unnecessary pressure.

However, it’s challenging to pursue self-fulfillment - especially professionally - when loneliness equates to isolation, a deliberate severing of all ties, not just romantic ones. Total withdrawal from people and interactions can make us like that prehistoric human, sitting alone in their cave, cut off from the group. With some luck and resourcefulness, such a person might survive in this unstable world, but - from an evolutionary standpoint - their existence would lack deeper meaning and purpose.

Alone and Together – Is It Possible?

For most of us, it’s hard to immediately see the positives of solitude, as the word often carries negative connotations and isn’t associated with anything constructive, inspiring, or beneficial. The phrase loneliness in a relationship sounds even worse, yet it turns out that incidental or micro-solitude, even within a relationship, can be just as valuable as spending time together. In the BBC study The Rest Test, conducted with tens of thousands of participants, people were asked when they feel most rested. Among the most frequently mentioned activities were reading, sleeping or napping, solitary contact with nature, or simply being alone with oneself. Activities requiring interaction ranked at the bottom of the list. Spending time with family or friends scored lower than spending time with pets. Conversations, social outings, parties, and even sex were among the least chosen responses.

So, are we truly social animals? Yes, without a doubt. However, as this study - which included both single individuals and those in close relationships - shows, we simply need some degree of solitude in our lives, even within a partnership. Of course, maintaining a healthy balance would require establishing boundaries for this micro-solitude, which can be challenging when partnered with someone who has a strong preference for solitude. Why do some people prefer solitude? Some modern research suggests that our susceptibility to loneliness might be encoded in our DNA. Certain individuals function well with only a few people around them, while others feel lonely even in a large group. Supporting this idea, John M. Oldham and Lois B. Morris identified a “solitary” personality type among the 16 they categorized. Such individuals don’t need the presence of others to maintain their well-being. Paradoxically, they never truly feel lonely. While solitary types may avoid social situations, they are still capable of forming intimate and lasting bonds. A solitary person doesn’t have to be lonely, but if they enter a romantic relationship, it’s usually on their own terms. This shows that solitude and being with someone aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

Not Always Together, Never Entirely Alone

Reflecting on the question posed in the title, as a fan of both cinema and micro-solitude, countless films about partnership, love, and loneliness came to mind. Thinking about loneliness, I pictured Joaquin Phoenix’s character in Her, desperately in love with an artificial intelligence. Considering solitude, I envisioned Julia Roberts in Eat, Pray, Love, discovering its value as she embarks on a solitary journey. However, the most striking examples were two films that, at first glance, don’t seem to be about loneliness at all.

The first is Into the Wild. Directed by Sean Penn, it tells the true story of a young man who abandons his former life to embark on a solo journey across the United States. While he meets many people along the way and doesn’t shy away from interactions, his greatest joy comes from solitude and connecting with nature. Yet his story doesn’t end well; in a critical moment, the absence of another person proves fatal. This underscores how easily solitude can be mistaken for unrestrained freedom and independence at any cost.

The second film is Wim Wenders’ Perfect Days. Its protagonist is a Tokyo janitor who cleans public toilets (which are remarkably artistic and elaborate). He leads a simple, solitary life, devoting his time to reading, listening to cassette tapes, and observing urban nature. The film has been largely interpreted as an affirmation of daily life and a reminder to find beauty in mundane activities. Initially, I shared this perspective. However, several scenes subtly hinted at another layer: no matter how well we adapt to solitude, how familiar we become with it, or how many forms it takes, we never fully accept it. This doesn’t mean we must always be together, but perhaps we should never be entirely alone either. Because even if I wrote the best article and felt incredibly proud of it, I wouldn’t experience complete satisfaction until, for instance, you read it.