A person may have an all-consuming passion which leaves no room for another person in his life. Some of our greatest philosophers, composers, and scientists lived alone to fully devote themselves to their work. Again, some of the greatest masterpieces in music and literature were left to us by individuals who were gregarious, married more than once, and had many children.

Loneliness could be by choice or could be forced upon a person; shut-ins are an example.

There is, however, one universal rule: we all need, at times, to be alone in order to know ourselves and to sort out the events and people in our lives. No amount of learning can ever teach us (about ourselves) as much as the knowledge gained during quiet moments spent alone.

There is probably a direct correlation between the time spent alone with our own thoughts, and the kind of persons we are. An individual who is always involved with friends and family, always surrounds himself with the noise of the television, radio or stereo, is probably shallow and has little to give to himself and to others.

In our modern society, we yearn for the magical moments when we can stop all activities around us and nourish our souls. But this is almost impossible in this “advanced” age. And so we go on with this undefined hunger in us and feel robbed of something we know not what.

In my next two sections, I explore the diametrically opposed feelings brought by loneliness.

There is another aspect to loneliness, and that is the fear of loneliness. Many people stay in a relationship long after it has ceased to work because they are terrified of finding themselves alone.

It will never be possible to totally conquer loneliness in a society, for there are as many reasons for loneliness as there are lonely people. We can, however, try to understand why some people living alone do not suffer from loneliness. What we learn from them can perhaps be used to help lonely people feel less lonely.

Individuals differ of course; what is good for one person is intolerable to another. And yet, we can establish general principles which can be applied, with the proper modifications, to all members of society in need of help. A therapist will tell you that no two patients having similar problems can be treated in exactly the same way; nevertheless, she will be basing her therapy upon our understanding of human behavior. Without that, she could not possibly do her work.

We should therefore study the problem, and with care and understanding attempt to resolve it. It will take a long time and will require a lot of efforts. However, the final result will be worthwhile.

Humans are inherently social animals who need to interact with those of their own kind. No society can call itself civilized until it addresses the plight of the lonely. I dream of a future where being alone will be by choice only.

How can we find ourselves alone in this hectic world? There are no easy answers. We should first realize that there is an issue. Before we can solve a problem, we first have to identify it! This may seem obvious, and yet, for this and other ills plaguing us, we suffer from the symptoms but are otherwise totally unaware that there is a problem and a possible solution. What we should not do is pack the whole family for a weekend camping trip, or go hiking in some wild and remote place. We have a mistaken belief that going back to nature will solve our internal conflicts.

Think about it for a moment; going on a long trip with two cranky kids, and the need to drive for hours, is not exactly propitious for quiet introspection. Walking for miles in the woods carrying a heavy backpack is not exactly conducive for a quiet dialogue with oneself. More so if you are accompanied by friends, and you should, for going alone in the wild is risky. Don’t get me wrong, going back to nature is wonderfully refreshing and should be done as much as possible. But it does not resolve the problem I am talking about.

You can be alone with your thoughts in a nearby park, on a busy street, or even a place reserved for this purpose in your home. You see what counts is the process itself and not how and where you accomplish it. Find the time on a regular basis and do it. You will be satisfying a basic human need. Finally, do not confuse this process with meditation which is something else.

A leader will always tell you that the top can be a lonely place. At least for a man there is the solace of being surrounded by other men. A woman, on the other hand, can find the top a very lonely and desolate place. This is because, few women have reached the top echelons, both in the political and the corporate worlds. Many women in leadership positions are uncomfortable. Indeed, the corporate world is beginning to have a problem retaining its female executives.

I raise two questions here. Why is the top a lonely place? When you have to take a difficult decision you take it alone. You can gather as many facts as time permits. You can consult many other people. But when decision time comes you are alone. I am not only referring to the top executive; even at a lower level you are expected to take many difficult decisions. If you can’t, you will not be an executive for long!

The second question (and the reason why I am writing this section) is why is that feeling of loneliness magnified for a woman? Because she is not surrounded by enough women. I admit that my answer contradicts what I just said, namely that when decision time comes you are alone. But let me relate to you a personal experience; then you will understand. Whether you agree with my conclusion or not is another matter.

This experience appeared insignificant at the time. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it put a different light, at least in my own mind, on the relations between the sexes. On March 7th, 1995, I attended an all-day conference in honor of International Women’s Week. The presentations were interesting and I took notes to help me in the writing of my book, Equal Partners. I had looked forward to this day, and yet, early on, I had a vague sense of uneasiness which grew as the morning progressed. By noon I left, even though after lunch there was a presentation which I would have liked to attend.

In time, I realized what had happened. The large audience included a handful of males. Thus I was lost in a “sea of skirts.” A man surrounded by so many women is supposed to feel grand, right? Wrong. The normal sexual attraction did not operate under these conditions. For the first time, I could relate to the small number of women who have reached the top either in politics or business. Not only was the climb difficult, but once they reached the top, they found themselves lost in a “sea of suits.” At least for a while, they must have been as uncomfortable as I was. In time I can assume, rightly or wrongly, that they got used to it.

Is there a need for a certain “concentration” of members of your own sex when you are in a crowd? Are the sexes two solitudes in need of a sufficient number of their own to mix, and function effectively, with the opposite sex? The answer to these questions based on my lone experience, and the experience of women who had reached the top, is yes.

For a long time, the corporate world didn’t give a hoot as to whether female executives were happy or unhappy in their jobs. All of a sudden there is a new phenomenon in the corporate universe. The world is changing; the pool of capable people from which executives can be drawn is shrinking. The male leadership in corporations seems to be asking women: “Why are you walking out on us when we need you the most?” Where were they when women executives were considered dispensable?

Now that I got that off my chest, I will be more positive. For women to be happy and stay in their jobs, there is a need for more women at the top, much more. Of course, it will take time to reach a critical mass; the damage created by years of neglect cannot be repaired overnight.

The real loner has probably been scarred during his early life. Children and later adolescents will tease him and keep him out of games, gossips, and conspiracies. Thus, he grows up as an angry youth. As an adult, he will be rejected by women, or, if he is good-looking, will go through a series of short and tumultuous relationships. Likely, he will not be able to hold a job for long and will wander from job to job.

A loner can be a walking time-bomb, or may simply drag himself through life until death puts him out of his misery.

The anger bottled inside will be directed towards society. “I’ll show them all what I am capable of doing.” The bombers, the serial killers, and the mass murderers who enter, one day, in a public place and shoot at the crowd with the purpose to kill and maim are, as we discover later on, often loners.

In a school close to where I used to live, a terrible tragedy occurred which vividly illustrates the damage a loner can cause.

On this day, one of the most popular and charismatic teachers in the school was teaching a not-for-credit course on religion. As was usually the case, a standing-room-only crowd of students was attending. There were over 60 students perched on desk tops and window sills. And this teacher had their undivided attention.

Suddenly, the door was opened violently and a gun barrel was thrust through the doorway. The gunman opened fire on the helpless victims who could not escape; pandemonia, screams and sheer panic ensued as everybody tried to hit the floor. The terror seemed to last for an eternity; in reality, it lasted for only 20 seconds. As suddenly as the door was opened, it was closed. The students heard one more shot, followed by total silence – a silence as deafening as the noise that preceded it.

The gunman was one of their peers, his name was Patrick. When the questions started, it turned out that Patrick was a “non-entity” among the other students, really no more than a name to most of his classmates.

Before I proceed, let me describe the tragedy in its entirety. The hellish scene in the classroom was Act II of a horror that started early on.

A girl by the name of Sandra, from another school, had some sympathy for Patrick and went occasionally to his house for dinner. On this day, Patrick raped her and then stabbed her to death. He then set his parent’s house on fire.

Patrick was a quiet, studious, not conventionally attractive teenager. He was an A-student and a member of the military cadets where he learned how to shoot a gun. He had difficulty conversing with anyone, especially girls.

Patrick was a typical loner, a mystery to everyone, including his parents. The kind of mystery that needed to be elucidated to avoid a potential tragedy. But Patrick was, at his request, left alone by his parents. They had allowed him considerable solitude in his bedroom apartment since the age of 12 or 13. By the time he was 17, he asked for nothing less than total privacy. And his parents did not object.

It was never possible to reconstruct an even shadowy picture of Patrick and the motivation behind his actions on this terrible day. For, with his last shot, Patrick took his own life. In addition to Sandra, one of the students, Bruno, died. Miraculously, this was the only fatality caused by the shooting. For the surviving students, questions remain, and nightmares to last a lifetime.

The failure of a society who is unable to be compassionate and integrate all its members. I have no magic answers. Rather I have many questions. I ask myself why, if my observations are right, do women not become loners? Can we analyze that and apply our findings to male loners?

Can we start early on in schools and ask children to integrate loners in their midst? How for that matter do we identify the loners and not confuse them with children who are simply shy or need more time to adjust to the school routine?

Can we ask adolescents to accept and integrate the loners in the “wolf-pack?” Can we ask young people to invite loners to their parties, to be kind to them without being patronizing?

Perhaps I am deluding myself for children and adolescents are selfish; the world revolves around their little person. It has to be this way. Nature’s way to prepare them for the awesome responsibilities of adulthood is by building their ego. Adolescents form clans (like the early humans) and “misfits” have no place in the clan.

But we are not only animals; we have superior intelligence. We can reach 8-year-olds and 14-year-olds and present them with this tremendous challenge. We can use as a bait the fact that young people love a challenge and delight at the opportunity to emerge victorious in any undertaking. It will be difficult, but I personally believe that it can be done.

So where is the problem?

Of everything I have written, nothing has come close to my series “Loneliness and Loners.”  For three years running , according to my statistics, this series was, and continue to be, very popular; especially the last post:  “What Can We Do Help Loners?”  On this one alone I received 10 comments, and lost count as to the number of visitors that read it.

You will excuse my surprise; here I am addressing a variety of sociological and philosophical issues; sprinkling my site with jokes and various humorous articles; and taking the reader through the forthcoming voyage of eternity; and the subjects of loneliness and loners still prevail!  But perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.

Animals such as deers, zebras, monkeys, and horses survive in the wild by forming herds.  Inside the herd, the chances of anyone individual to survive are greatly enhanced; outside the herd a single animal is, sooner or later, doomed.

The above is true for humans as well.  In primitive times, a person left behind by his peers was as good as dead.  This is no longer true in our civilized world; but the dreadful feeling of being by yourself or being rejected by the rest of society still evokes sentiments of (what we call) loneliness or of being considered a loner.

Is this true for all of us?  No, for nothing in human affairs is ever that simple.  Some of us love to be ourselves, and if we are called loners or antisocial, so be it.  Count me in, here:  while I occasionally like some company, I love being by myself.  My conclusion?  I am comfortable in my own skin; my guess is that applies to many of you.

But why the vast difference?

If we were all the same, our society will stop functioning.  Imagine if we were all gregarious, who would do the lonely jobs?  Who would do the shift work if there were no night owls among us?  If we all liked one thing, say, accounting, who you gonna call if you’re ill, need an engineering study done, or your toilet is hopelessly plugged?  My point?   Loners are very important to society, if you’re one of us, you’re part of an important group: we write the music , the books, and dream of something called a P.C. and eventually develop it in our basement.  (I am using one of these guys to do my present work!).

I am reminded that this is an update, therefore, I will now clarify some points that were misunderstood (judging by your comments, as well as the fact that I didn’t, at times, explained myself clearly and completely).

I’ll do so by referring to the applicable posts.

V. Loners:  Who Are They?

The loner I am referring to “…is remote, and may have something somber about him.”  “The real loner has probably been scarred during his early life.”  He is kept by his peers on the edge of society, out of the circle.  “Thus, he grows up as an angry youth.”  “A loner can be a walking time bomb, or may simply drag himself through life until death puts him out of his misery.”

Surely you (if you’re a loner) and I do not fit within these disturbing criteria.  We are somewhat different because nature needs to create variety for a species to survive; otherwise we are as normal as they come.

Where I was really crucified is when I said that “I have never  met or heard of a she-loner.”  I said that because – if they exist – they are extremely rare. (Again keeping in mind the above criteria).

The SanYsidro McDonald’s massacre in California on July 18, 1984 was carried out by James Oliver Huberty.  The shootings resulted in 22 deaths (including the perpetrator) and the injuries of 19 others.

And who can forget Columbine, and Virginia Tech.  And what Canadian will ever forget Ecole Polytechnique and Dawson college. (If you’re outside North America, you may want to research these cases on the internet).

There many other examples, and in every case, it is always, always, a male.

VI. Loners:  A Tragic Example

The example I gave illustrates so well the kind of loner I had in mind.  By sheer luck Patrick killed only three people (including himself).  However, “For the surviving students, questions remain, and nightmares to last a lifetime.”

VII. Loners:  What Can We Do to Help Loners?

The loners that fall within the above criteria are the ones that require help.  Loners, by choice, need no assistance; not surprisingly, therefore, many of you resented the question.

As well, what I am suggesting in this part is futuristic.  Social advances have not yet reached a point where we can tackle such a complex problem.

Overall, I was unclear on a number of points, and can appreciate why I was not understood.  The series was written in 2007; I never thought it would resonate to such an extent with my readers.  More than three years later, I am wiser, and hopefully have managed to fill some of the gaps.