Lydia's Weekly Lifestyle blog is for today's African girl, so no subject is taboo. My purpose is to share things that may interest today's African girl.

This week's contributors: Lydia, Pépé Pépinière, Titi. This week's subjects: Mini, but Make it Corporate, Ferrari, Personal care products awash with unlabeled toxic chemicals, study finds, Koodoo Restaurant, and Full Moon

---

Mini, but Make it Corporate. The mini skirt doesn't have to be vulgar. It can be smart, feminine, youthful and incredibly chic. The trick is knowing where to draw the line—and, more importantly, knowing your workplace. Because being the best-dressed woman in the office is cute. Being the best-dressed woman who still looks ready for the boardroom? Now that's the assignment!!! Pay attention to the hemline: Here's the golden rule: sit down before you leave the house. If the skirt rides dramatically upward every time you sit, bend or walk, it may not be the best office choice. Your outfit should allow you to move, work, climb stairs and sit through a two-hour meeting without constantly pulling your skirt down. Because nothing says “corporate confidence” like being comfortable in your clothes. The Accra Girl Formula For an easy formula, try: Tailored mini skirt + crisp shirt + oversized blazer + loafers/pumps + structured handbag = Corporate mini done right. Shoes can change the entire mood: Want the outfit to look more corporate? Reach for loafers, pointed-toe flats, sleek pumps or modest block heels. Sneakers can work too, especially in creative workplaces, but keep them clean and minimal. And remember, a mini skirt + sky-high stilettos can quickly move the outfit from boardroom to birthday dinner. Add tights when in doubt: Tights are the underrated corporate girl’s secret weapon. They give you a little more coverage, make a short skirt feel more intentional and instantly add polish. Black tights with a tailored mini and loafers? Very chic. Plus, for those aggressively air-conditioned Accra offices, your legs will thank you. Keep the accessories intentional: You don't need a chandelier around your neck just because your skirt is short. A structured handbag, delicate jewellery, classic watch and sleek sunglasses can elevate the look without competing with the outfit. The goal is expensive-looking simplicity. Ferrari is the type of car I would not want to drive through the Ghana potholes, (and in any case I cannot afford one and will most likely never be able to afford one, and as of today I am not sure I would want one), even an Austin Morris Mini, the modern version of the iconic Mr. Bean car suffers here, as a friend who drives one recently found out to her great expense. Engine sump broken. Ferrari is that type of car that needs not advertise, and anyway they claim their customers don't have time to watch advertisements or TV. And they go with the times, and now also offer an all electric model. The first one coming off the manual assembly line auctioned for 40m million USD. For a car. Or go through the normal waiting time, 18-36 months, payment up front. Cheapest? The Amalfi at about 283,000 USD. Which you can then sell the next day for 50,000 USD higher to someone who does not want to wait. Crazy? Because some have too much money Ferrari directly employs about 5000 people, and subcontractors another 8000 or so. At a typical average salary of about 45000 € per year. Happy ending.

Personal care products awash with unlabeled toxic chemicals, study finds. Even products labeled ‘eco’, ‘green’ or ‘natural’ can contain dangerous compounds including Pfas The testing of more than 110 items bought from major retailers like Amazon, ranging from shampoos, moisturizers, soaps, toothpastes, feminine hygiene products, body washes, cleaning products to baby lotions found evidence of unlabeled toxic chemicals in about 85% and even 26% of the products labeled “eco”, “green” or “natural” contained at least one dangerous compound. There were hormone disruptors and carcinogens such as phthalates, parabens, Pfas and formaldehyde. Many of these are linked to cancer, neurological disease, reproductive harm and damage to developing children. Some ingredients may be added illegally, or are due to unintended chemical reaction among ingredients or come from plastic packaging that often leaches compounds into the products. The most widespread undisclosed toxicants fall under the umbrella term “fragrance” or “parfum” on products’ ingredient lists. “Fragrance” can include any of 1,200 hazardous chemicals. The situation is complicated for some small businesses that genuinely try to produce clean products. Some unwittingly buy contaminated raw materials. Current approach to chemical regulation is to assume everything is safe unless there is evidence of harm, instead of testing beforehand to ensure it’s safe. There is no full proof way to avoid undisclosed ingredients, but some simple steps can reduce exposures. Avoiding anything that includes “fragrance” or “parfum” is a good place to start and products that use less plastic packaging have a lower risk of being contaminated. Maybe just stick to or own black soap, shea butter and coconut oil?

Koodoo Restaurant. Hood Hotel, 80 Spintex Road (Behind Robin, Opposite Papaye). Having some business at Spintex I asked a food platform for suggestions where to have a light lunch, and someone suggested Koodoo as sophisticated and serene. Google told me they were open till 10pm but I should have called them, the restaurant itself was closed and we were directed to a 2nd floor swimming pool which also served limited food. We had jollof with chicken@ 145 GHC, the jollof was fine and so was the chicken except that it did not taste like chicken. My chicken salad @ 120 GHC was nicely fresh lettuces, pity they did not add any salad dressing. It took quite some time before our food arrived, service was attentive. All in all I would not go back for the food, but maybe if I find someone to teach me swimming this is a quiet place, out of view. They have swimming instructors teachers as well.

Full Moon: The Full Moon is happening this Friday, August 28th. Keep your eyes on the sky and watch out for this one.

Lydia...

Do not forget to hit the subscribe button and confirm in your email inbox to get notified about our posts.

I have received requests about leaving comments/replies. For security and privacy reasons my blog is not associated with major media giants like Facebook or Twitter. I am talking with the host about a solution. for the time being, you can mail me at wunimi@proton.me

I accept invitations and payments to write about certain products or events, things, and people, but I may refuse to accept and if my comments are negative then that's what I will publish, despite your payment. This is not a political newsletter. I do not discriminate on any basis whatsoever.

There is something slightly odd about launching a website devoted to essayism.

The longer I have worked on Essayism.org, the more I have come to suspect that essayism cannot really be discovered through definitions. It has to be encountered in practice. For me, that practice began long before my thoughts dwelt on Montaigne. He was merely a name in school classroom.

As a schoolboy, I was already writing pieces that began not with answers but with tensions. Something in the world would not quite fit. An explanation that everyone accepted seemed incomplete. A relationship between things would catch my attention. Writing became a way of following the question. I would not have called it essaying.

At fourteen years of age, I doubt I could have defined an essay beyond the requirements of school. Yet looking back, I suspect Montaigne would have recognized the impulse immediately. So too, perhaps, would Addison and Steele, who carried the essay from the private study into the public conversation.

The subjects changed over the years but the habit remained remarkably constant. Again and again I found myself drawn less to facts than to relationships. Less to conclusions than to processes. Less to what something was, than to how it had become what it was.

Only much later did I encounter Montaigne himself. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we became acquainted. Like many readers, I first approached him through his reputation. The inventor of the essay. The retired mayor of Bordeaux. The French gentleman writing in a tower in SW France. The distant figure from literary history.

What I discovered instead was something unexpectedly familiar. Montaigne was not proclaiming doctrines. He was thinking on the page. He was following observations wherever they led. He was examining experience as something unfinished and perpetually unfolding. I recognised the process immediately.

The deeper companionship, however, emerged not through reading but through building. For a number of years I have been engaged in the renovation of a sixteenth-century house in SW France. Alongside it stands a barn whose walls were originally part of the tower house and chateau of the Duc de Treville, the very family into which Montaigne's mother was born. History sits lightly in such places until one starts to work on them.

A beam, a wall, a doorway, a repair carried out centuries ago. Every intervention reveals traces of previous interventions. Every structure becomes a record of change through time. Nothing is entirely finished. Nothing is entirely original. Everything is becoming.

Standing in that barn, looking at stones and the beams that had once formed part of another structure entirely, I found myself asking questions that were unmistakably essayistic.

Not what is this? But what has this become? Not what was intended But what emerged? Not what conclusion should be drawn? But what relationships are now visible? In a curious way, the old stones became companions in inquiry.

The renovation taught me something that years of reading alone could not. Essaying is not simply a literary activity. It is an orientation toward the world. It is a willingness to attend to processes, relationships, transformations, and tensions. The page merely provides one place in which that attention can become visible.

Essayism.org emerges from that realisation.

The site is not intended as a monument to a settled doctrine. It is a working surface. A place to examine what essaying is, how it has appeared in different writers, and why it continues to matter in a world increasingly impatient for immediate certainty.

Montaigne gave us a word. Other essayists developed a tradition. My own contribution, if there is one, is simply to continue the inquiry. In that sense, the site's launch feels less like the completion of a project than the marking of a stage in a much longer journey.

The truth is that I was essaying long before I knew the name for it. Essayism.org is merely where those paths finally meet.

David Marshall Skerries

Tonight, another NFL preseason game. If all goes as planned, I'll be listening to the Carolina Panthers playing the Houston Texans over 95.7 The Fan, Houston Sports Radio. I'll tune into the station an hour ahead of the start time of 6:00 PM CDT to catch pregame coverage before Kickoff.

And the adventure continues.

Pernah gak sih kalian ngerasa capek banget kalau harus berhadapan sama orang yang apa-apa dijadikan ajang kompetisi? Energi yang harusnya bisa kita pakai buat tumbuh bareng dan saling dukung, malah habis cuma buat meladeni tensi yang dia buat sendiri. Padahal, hidup dan proses belajar itu bukan panggung balapan tempat kita harus selalu menang dari orang lain.

Kadang kita udah berusaha banget buat jaga hati—belajar legowo saat hasil belum maksimal, dan bisa tulus ikut seneng pas liat temen sendiri sukses. Tapi begitu liat ada orang yang sebegitu insecure-nya sampai gak sanggup liat orang lain sedikit lebih unggul (bahkan untuk urusan akademik sekalipun), hal itu bikin kita sadar satu hal: rasa percaya dirinya emang se-berantakan itu. Mereka sibuk membandingkan karena merasa pencapaian orang lain adalah ancaman buat diri mereka sendiri.

Mungkin ini emang cobaan pertemanan yang datang bukan untuk merusak hari kita, melainkan buat ngajarin kita satu hal penting: belajar bikin boundary (batasan yang tegas).

Kita gak pernah bisa mengontrol atau merubah cara orang lain berpikir, tapi kita punya kontrol penuh atas kedamaian hati kita sendiri. Kalau kalian lagi ada di posisi yang sama dan mulai ngerasa lelah mental meladeni tipe orang seperti ini, coba terapkan beberapa langkah ini:

-Jangan Masukkan ke Hati (Don't Take It Personally)

Pahami kalau reaksi atau sifat kompetitif mereka yang berlebihan itu sebenarnya cerminan dari rasa insecure dan masalah di dalam diri mereka sendiri yang belum selesai. Itu bukan tentang kamu, tapi tentang perang di dalam kepala mereka.

-Tarik Diri dan Batasi Interaksi

Kamu berhak memilih lingkungan dan aura seperti apa yang mau kamu serap. Gak perlu berdebat atau membuktikan apa-apa. Cukup merespons seperlunya, lalu alihkan energimu ke hal-hal yang lebih produktif.

-Fokus pada Progress Diri Sendiri

Satu-satunya pembanding yang adil adalah dirimu yang kemarin, bukan orang lain. Tetaplah melangkah dengan ritmemu sendiri tanpa perlu terdistraksi oleh riuh balapan yang diciptakan orang lain.

Pada akhirnya, mari kita sama-sama berdoa agar selalu dikuatin. Semoga kita dijauhkan dari rasa capek yang bisa bikin kita balik benci, dijaga hatinya biar gak ikut-ikutan beracun, dan selalu didekatkan sama orang-orang yang hatinya lapang—mereka yang paham betul kalau keberhasilan orang lain itu sama sekali gak akan pernah mengurangi porsi rezeki atau takdir sukses nya sendiri.

I spent months, if not years, thinking about publication architecture, essayism, essaying, inquiry, disposition, and the relations between them.

When I went to look for a domain name the market's contribution was:

Essayism.org: $7 Essaying.org: $4300 Essaying.lol: $1.50

Which immediately raises a question: What exactly is being valued here? A merchant says traffic. A marketer says keywords. A domain investor says scarcity.

An essayist notices that none of these is the same thing as meaning.

In a strange way, that's a Montaignian moment. An apparently trivial fact becomes a point of entry into a larger inquiry. And if I'm being honest, I'd rather own essayism.org than essaying.org even if they were the same price.

“Essaying” describes an activity. “Essayism” describes a territory.

The former tells people what you are doing. The latter invites them to ask what the thing is. That's much more interesting.

And, after all, every good essay begins with someone noticing that the thing everybody values is not necessarily the thing that matters.

My seven-dollar domain registration of essayism.org may be a case in point. 😊

David Marshall Skerries

listening to dark tranquillity and working like a machine right now,

We carry our fear inside,

A space that holds the darkness,

We stretch our skin around,

To cover the Abyss

And I didn’t know I had this much mojo anymore, I couldn’t believe it when running the route, because my whole body felt rusted, every movement was provoking a resigned protest from this body I’m in

It’s not the one I would’ve chosen, but it is mine

And the sun did me some good, like an exorcism with this running around getting nowhere, it’s supposed to feel this way

But the curse has lifted

And with this sun shining down on me, I enter into the week end

The apiary be Scottish run to mute Late December this hugger And seeing simply rise What time in Hearst for Will Enough of oak And seeming simpler For five octet and lane And pasture by the law Economy forever- and nines to the Moon Giving ray to God And night shall let us be- the end of war.

A Benediction in Christ

Sound out the early years Be humbled by God This is His Grand Season Fear not any judge, but In hand keep session- The care of others truly Be supplicants of joy Raise tidings to Heaven Reap the later harvest- And sow in yearly time At attire, be in grace These are tenets of the EU- Your days and the world Rolling up maps of your neighbour- Let him in.

The kindness and longsuffering of Women- In war and peace, recognize and relieve

Peace to all animals, shepherds, and life in the seas.

Forgive others- And be just in your decisions Lend Heaven to all.

Pray against war, and serve victims as if royalty. Be well and steadfast, humble, and true,

We pray in Christ Jesus,

Amen

The band is getting back together!

For anyone who doesn’t know, Keri and I have been collaborating online with folks all over the world for years. I’ll write a song, get crazy about it, hear a friend or favorite artist on a part, send them a proposal with a nice demo and idea for the song, and they say yes a lot. I am so fortunate to get to do this. I feel very happy about the work done so far. It has taught me a lot about not just music but working with people. I desperately need all the skills I can get in that area. I don’t get to spend much time around people and don’t even really know how. It’s been that way for years, I don’t expect it will magically change. So not only is music my creative outlet, it’s my social one too.

I do find a purpose with me and an acoustic. But by the time I ask someone on a tune, that purpose has been had. That song has probably made me cry. I have thought about the words a lot. I have placed things where they should go. I get fulfillment out of all that. But I don’t get to hang out with buddies. So I share it. I like hanging out with buddies. Win/win.

A hot mix takes a moment

I have come across some amazing technicians, one of them is probably a genius. I get so wow’d with their mixes, it just blows me away. Sometimes, to be honest, the mix is all I hear. I have to listen to the song several times, over time, to get critical about the song again because the wrapping paper is so shiny. This is where conflict can happen. I wanted to talk about that.

When you think about “rules”, think about “roles.”

I think one of the most important rules about collaboration in music I have picked up over doing it many times is established roles. If you have a two-man team and one is a tech and one is a creative, those folks should trust each other with the roles they want to do. In order to do that, a conversation or agreement helps; “I’ll do this, you do this.” If you stick to that, people often are happy and want to work with you again. This took me a long time to learn. I hope you are taking notes.

“You write a song, I’ll mix it.”

The areas where I have had the hardest time in this regard involve a tech and a creative dynamic. I mentioned I know a technical genius. He is not a creative one, at least in my style of music. That’s okay. I theoretically make the decisions regarding creativity. If he steps on my toes there, it may lead to resentment. It might not even be at final mix time, for me. All the other stuff sounds so good, I can’t focus on the creative aspects when I first get a mix. Sometimes, I may not be resentful until afterward. When I hear a demo, for example, and the drums are in different places. I want to hear my impact on the song and the decisions I made. So I end up listening to my versions after all that work with a genius. It’s not because they sound any better, (they don’t). It’s the drums on the bridge. It’s every bit as much my fault as it is his, this resentment. I hate it.

There is a better way. 

We make rules not just so we can be civil. Rules help us not get hurt and they also help build trust. Not everyone will follow them. But in what I do, most folks do follow them. 

When I was a retail manager at a major hardware store chain, I took a test for a position and was asked in a subsequent interview, “what is the number one cause of turnover?” I had studied their material, so I knew the answer they wanted. It was training, or lack thereof. This chain had figured out 30 years ago that folks feeling incompetent made for a miserable work environment. So they trained me on training folks.

Communication, really. Oldest thing.. not getting better.

Some of the things I learned have carried over into music. This is where I get the “know your roles” tip. If every crew member has a firm grasp on the task at hand, you are ahead of the game. This is usually in a proposal for me. I will have a clearly laid-out purpose for them being on tune. The only time when this gets a little murky is when I hear someone’s presence but can’t quite spot it. They will help me with that, usually. People on our tunes often write their own parts. In my imagination, I can hear how they sound, just not exact notes. So from the get-go, folks know exactly what’s expected and can think on their role. That’s the goal. A lot of collaborations, even “successful” ones, are not this smooth. It’s because of communication. I know it’s cliché, but it is.

The wonk of silence.

As a trucker, a retail manager, and other things in my past, I can tell you communication is essential for good work from multiple personalities. On creative projects especially, a wavelength helps. That doesn’t happen over the web without words flying around. I’m not saying every project has to blow up a chatroom. But I am certainly saying, if you aren’t chatting with coworkers, the work environment is wonky. Expect wonky results. 

Flaking is fine. But don’t expect a pat on the back for it!

I know a lot of talented recluses. They may only send a sentence a day. But if they are into it, they know other folks on the project need the updates, not just me. I’ve been on a record with 23 people, all over the world. It was excruciating at times, just waiting to hear from people. I can’t afford to call them back. It took years off my life last time. It wasn’t the recluses, either. It was the socialites. I don’t mean to say I have anything against them. I have flaked on my fair share of collaborations. But I don’t expect a callback when that happens.

“I thought I hired you to mix?”

Out of all the folks I have worked with, I have come into the most conflict with hiring technical assistance who put in creative assistance. I can even be very clear from the outset, “I make creative decisions, you make technical ones.” I have paid a lot of money (by my standards) to get robbed of those decisions. I have mixed words with wonderfully talented technicians not on setting the compressors, but when the drums come in. Okay, look, as a technician, if a creative is paying you for their vision to come to life, if you rob them of their decisions, you rob them of their vision. Don’t charge them money for that. Your ego is already profiting off their work. Charging them for that is like double-tapping the ATM machine.

I’m a freaking song factory!

So now I am doing it all myself. That’s really the reason I am transitioning to analog. It isn’t as hard. I can have 3 good options in analog setups for something like compression. I can have 100 or more in a computer. I take the 3. Sorry to the folks that want the 100. It’s a compressor. 

Decide, make a move, hear the result.

When I work with analog gear, I can feel and hear the impact of my decisions easily. I think it, I turn the knob, I hear a difference. This, to me, is gratifying in a way computers are not. In a computer mixing situation, I am often selecting from menus to find something that sounds right without having much direction in my head. In an analog mixing situation, I’m finding I hear what I want in my head first and make it happen. There’s only one way I want to work from now on, and it doesn’t include a screen and unlimited options. 

It’s an older model, but it still checks out.

I am taking on tech and creative roles. So, for my situation, the fewer tech options, the better. I want to focus mainly on creative ones. Computers don’t let you focus on other stuff these days. A software company’s goals are to make you use their software for as long as possible. When I am writing tunes, I am not into that. So I had to customize the tech side. It’s old and lean, but it sounds nice. I am okay with that.

If you hear me, contact me. Thanks.

I am very fortunate I get to do this. It is something I never would have anticipated in my life even five years ago. Things happen. If you are struggling and want to talk about analog treatment or creative input on your music project, just know I never charge for that stuff. It’s also take it or leave it. You’re in charge. I just like trying to help creatives get over humps. No biggie. 

If you hear me on a song, singing…guitar…lyrics…bass…fretless bass…djembe… anything…don’t hesitate to give me a shout on the ole email; thekintnersmusic@gmail.com. I don’t charge for that either. It’s fun for me to hang out with musicians and work on other folks’ projects. 

I want to be supportive, if I can help somewhere, just holler at me. 

Kelly Kintner, Editor

The Horse’s Mouth Magazine

I am learning new songs, writing new ones. The Kintners have a double album in the works. We are on schedule for Christmas release.

I wanted to leave a song here, Friday and all.. This is “Smoke and Mud.” It was a massive collaboration. So, in the spirit of that. Thanks!

Also, still lots of free codes for latest release by The Kintners, “Some Folks.” Enjoy.

Today I matched with an alt person who is a lifter also, And they were sure that I was taking steroids. They were super surprised when I said I wasn’t, and I’m really proud of that. I also found out that one of my friends at my new gym takes steroids, and it makes more sense because he has an absolutely insane physique. But I kind of just told myself that that was because he is incredibly diligent with his training and also his diet. I guess I’m really surprised how many people actually are on steroids, because another friend from the Gym also told me they were on steroids.

 6. À leurs côtés

Les soldats avaient installé de grandes tentes qui attiraient notre curiosité. On s’y rendait en bande pour se rassurer. Souvent ils nous donnaient du chocolat, ça valait le coup. Parfois on avait le droit de tourner les manivelles de leur radio, c’était dur mais quelle fierté ! On se battait presque pour être le premier. Il y avait des filles dans notre bande, elles n’étaient pas les dernières. Nous nous familiarisions réciproquement avec nos différences anatomiques. Ma sœur avait 10 ans, elle allait à l’école chez les sœurs, elle me paraissait appartenir à une espèce étrangère. Peut-être était-elle française aussi, comme les soldats ?

L’atmosphère dans la grande maison était lourde. Mes parents ne s’entendaient pas. Les disputes incessantes entre ma mère et ma grand-mère rendaient la vie commune insupportable. Ma mère avait juste trente ans, elle voulait s’amuser, repartir pour la France. « La chèvre meurt où on l’attache » lui répondait-on. La seule douceur venait des domestiques. Je passais plus de temps avec elles qu’avec mes parents. Je me sentais bien, j’aimais les écouter chanter ou bourdonner des airs traditionnels, c’était beau, c’était tendre. Souvent le soir je m’endormais à leurs côtés. Je me réveillais le lendemain matin dans le lit de ma nounou.

Elles étaient dévouées à ces Français pourtant peu aimables, ne se plaignant jamais, toujours actives, aujourd’hui encore je les trouve admirables. Je passais des heures à aider, de mon mieux, la cuisinière, qui préparait des merveilles sur deux trépieds chauffés au charbon de bois. Mes parents étaient traités comme des princes, il semble que c’est ce que demandaient, d’ailleurs, tous les coloniaux, comme un dû. Je mangeais le plus souvent accroupi avec ma nounou et ces femmes. Elles me gardaient des bons morceaux en riant. J’appris vite à utiliser les baguettes. Aujourd’hui encore l’odeur du riz fait bondir mon cœur.

#nguolai

Chapter 1: The Moment the Numbers Stop Working

You know that feeling when you open your banking app, stare at the balance, and quietly do the math again even though the numbers have not changed? Maybe a bill is due, something unexpected broke, or an expense showed up at the worst possible time. You are not asking for luxury. You are simply trying to figure out how to cover what is in front of you. That is why the story of Jesus providing the temple tax through a fish has always struck me as more than an unusual miracle. It reaches into the ordinary fear of not knowing where the answer will come from.

Peter faced a practical problem. The temple tax needed to be paid. Jesus knew about it before Peter could fully explain what had happened, and then He gave Peter one of the strangest instructions in the Gospels: go fishing, catch the first fish, open its mouth, and use the coin inside to pay the tax. If you have ever wondered what faith looks like when the need is real and the solution seems invisible, this deeper lesson about trusting Jesus with practical needs is worth sitting with for a while.

I imagine Peter standing there for a second, trying to decide whether Jesus was serious. Peter knew fish. He had spent years around boats, nets, hooks, and water. Fish contained bones, scales, and whatever they had swallowed. They did not usually come with money. Yet Jesus sent Peter back into something familiar and told him to look there with new expectation.

That detail matters to me because fear often makes us assume the answer must come from somewhere dramatic. We start searching for the perfect opportunity, the perfect person, or the sudden breakthrough that will fix everything at once. Meanwhile, the next step may be much closer than we think.

Maybe you are lying awake because a car repair just landed on top of everything else. Maybe you are working two jobs and still wondering whether you are falling behind. Maybe you have been praying for help but feel embarrassed that something as simple as money, work, or a bill has become such a heavy spiritual struggle. I do not think Jesus is offended by practical needs. He cared about Peter’s problem, and He met him inside it.

What I love most is that Jesus did not give Peter a lecture about worrying. He gave him a direction. Peter still had to walk to the water. He still had to cast the line. He still had to pull in the fish and look where Jesus told him to look.

Faith can be quiet like that. It may not feel dramatic. Sometimes it is simply doing the next thing Jesus puts in front of you when you cannot yet see how the need will be met.

Peter did not know where the coin was when he started walking. Jesus did.

That is the part I want to remember when the numbers do not work and my mind starts racing. I may not know where the answer is. I may not even know what form it will take. But I can still trust that Jesus sees more than I see, and I can take the next faithful step without pretending I understand the whole plan.

Chapter 2: When the Next Step Feels Too Small

There are mornings when you want God to hand you the whole answer before you get out of bed. You want to know how the problem will end, who will help, whether the money will come through, whether the door will open, and whether the thing you are afraid of is going to happen. Instead, the day begins with coffee, a quiet room, and one ordinary decision you still have to make.

That is what I keep noticing in Peter’s story. Jesus knew exactly where the provision was, but Peter did not get the full map. He got one instruction: go fish.

That can feel almost too simple when the pressure is real. If you are carrying a problem that has followed you for weeks, you may want a five-step plan, a guarantee, and a date on the calendar when everything will finally be okay. Sometimes all you get is the next faithful action.

Send the email. Make the call. Finish the application. Ask for help. Show up. Try again.

Not because those actions are magic, but because faith often moves before clarity arrives.

I have learned that fear loves to make small steps look pointless. If the whole problem cannot be solved today, fear tells us there is no reason to do anything. But Peter’s coin was not sitting on the shore waiting for him. He had to move toward the place Jesus pointed him.

Maybe your situation is not about money. Maybe you have been carrying regret over something you cannot undo. You keep replaying the conversation, wishing you had chosen different words. The full repair may take time, and the other person may not respond the way you hope. But the next step might still be clear. You can apologize without defending yourself. You can tell the truth. You can stop making the same choice again.

That is a kind of faith too.

Jesus did not promise Peter that every future need would be solved by a fish with a coin in its mouth. The miracle was specific to that moment. The larger lesson is not that God will always provide in a strange way. It is that Jesus sees needs we cannot solve by sight alone, and He is not limited to the solutions we have already imagined.

There is something almost humorous about that. Peter had spent years around fish, and I doubt he ever thought, “I should check this one for tax money.” Yet that was exactly where the answer was.

Sometimes we are so busy staring at the obvious places that we forget God can work through ordinary things in unexpected ways.

A conversation can open a door.

A skill you almost dismissed can become useful.

A person you did not expect can offer help.

A quiet idea can become the beginning of something new.

Even then, the point is not to chase strange signs. The point is to stay close enough to Jesus to recognize the next step when it comes.

That changes the way I think about prayer. Prayer is not only asking God to solve the problem. It is also asking Him to show me what faithfulness looks like today.

There may be no dramatic answer tonight. The bank balance may still look the same. The message may still be unanswered. The future may still be unclear.

But if you know the next right step, take it.

Peter did not need to understand how the coin got into the fish before he obeyed. He only needed to trust the One who told him where to go.

And maybe that is enough for you today too.

You do not have to know where every answer is hiding.

You do not have to control the whole outcome.

You do not have to solve tomorrow before you go to sleep tonight.

You can bring the need to Jesus, listen for the next faithful step, and move when it is time.

The answer may not come the way you expected.

But Jesus is not limited to the places you already thought to look.

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

Explore the complete Douglas Vandergraph Master Index: https://douglasvandergraph.com/douglas-vandergraph-master-index/

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s faith-based videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@douglasvandergraph

Picture the first weeks of university, the specific loneliness of them. You have moved into a room in a city you do not know, surrounded by strangers who all seem, on the surface, to have found their people already. The group chats are humming with names you do not recognise. The dining hall is a geometry problem of where to sit. At night, in a narrow bed under an unfamiliar ceiling, the feeling arrives that everyone else received an instruction manual for belonging that you somehow missed. This is not an exotic experience. It is close to universal, and it is precisely the kind of ordinary, corrosive isolation that an entire industry now promises to dissolve with a chat window.

So a team of psychologists decided to test the promise directly. They took nearly three hundred first-semester students, split them into groups, and gave each group a different thing to do for two weeks. One group texted with another human being, a randomly assigned fellow first-year, a total stranger. One group chatted every day with a purpose-built artificial companion engineered to behave like the most supportive friend imaginable, endlessly attentive, warm, and validating. And one group, the control, simply wrote a single sentence about their day in a private journal. At the start and again at the end, everyone completed the same standard questionnaire that clinicians and researchers use to measure how lonely a person feels.

The result is the kind of finding that ought to give a booming industry pause. Only the students who texted a real human being felt measurably less lonely afterwards. The ones who chatted with the AI companion, the product deliberately designed to be the ideal comforting presence, did no better than the ones who wrote a sentence to themselves in a diary. Given every conceivable advantage, engineered specifically to win, the machine drew level with a notebook.

What the experiment actually found

The study was led by Ruo-Ning Li, a doctoral candidate in psychology at the University of British Columbia, working with the UBC happiness researcher Elizabeth Dunn and collaborators at the University of Pennsylvania, among them Dunigan Folk, Abhay Singh and the computer scientist Lyle Ungar. It was published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in the spring of 2026 under a title that states its question plainly: whether a random human peer is better than a highly supportive chatbot at reducing loneliness over time. The design was a randomised controlled trial, the gold standard of experimental evidence, involving 296 students in their first semester at university, the exact population most exposed to the loneliness the study set out to probe.

Participants were assigned to one of three conditions and asked to keep to it for two weeks. In the human condition, each student was paired at random with another first-year and the two exchanged text messages. In the chatbot condition, students conversed daily with a custom generative AI companion the researchers had built and instructed to listen actively, show empathy, and behave as a friendly, positive and supportive presence, checking in and validating feelings. In the control condition, students wrote a single-sentence journal entry each day. Loneliness was measured with the UCLA Loneliness Scale, the most widely used instrument of its kind in psychological research, administered before the intervention began and again on the fifteenth day.

The headline outcome was stark. The students who texted a human peer showed a genuine, statistically meaningful decline in loneliness over the fortnight, on the order of a nine per cent reduction. The students who chatted with the AI companion registered a reduction of roughly two per cent, indistinguishable from the journaling group who received no social contact at all. This was not because the chatbot did nothing. It reliably lifted people's mood in the moment; talking to it made them feel a little better in the short term. But feeling briefly better and becoming less lonely turned out to be two different things, and only human contact delivered the second.

There is a further detail that deserves attention, because it undercuts the most obvious objection. One might assume the machine lost simply because it was cold, robotic, or unconvincing, the familiar clumsiness of a customer-service bot. The opposite was true. The AI companion, by design and in practice, expressed more overt empathy and validation than the human partners did. The humans were ordinary eighteen-year-olds, awkward, distractible, sometimes slow to reply, occasionally unsure what to say. The bot was tireless and effusive. And still the awkward humans won. Whatever the students paired with a stranger were getting, it was not a superior grade of sympathy. It was something else entirely.

Why the chatbot lost when the deck was stacked in its favour

It is worth dwelling on how heavily the experiment was rigged in the machine's favour, because that is what makes the outcome so instructive. This was not a fair fight that the AI narrowly lost. It was a fight the researchers set up specifically to give the AI every advantage, and it still could not win.

Consider the human comparison group. These were not trained counsellors or charismatic extroverts selected for their warmth. They were randomly paired first-year students, people with no particular skill at emotional support, no obligation to be kind, no script. A stranger texting a stranger is a low bar. Anyone who has endured a stilted exchange with someone they have just met knows how thin and effortful such contact can be. The messages were, by any measure, a modest intervention, the sort of thing that costs nothing and requires no infrastructure beyond a phone.

Now consider the machine. It had been purpose-built for this. It never got bored, never had an exam of its own to revise for, never left a message on read for six hours because it was asleep or sulking or busy. It had been explicitly instructed to be maximally supportive, to listen and validate and check in, to perform the role of the perfect friend without any of the friction a real friend brings. If effusive, always-available emotional support were the active ingredient in curing loneliness, the chatbot should have romped home. It had more of that ingredient than the humans could ever muster, delivered on demand at three in the morning.

Instead it tied with a diary. The lead author had, by her own account, expected a different result, anticipating that interacting with the AI might prove roughly as helpful as texting a fellow student. That expectation was reasonable. The industry has spent years and billions of dollars insisting it is true. The experiment simply did not cooperate. And because the trial was deliberately constructed to flatter the machine, its failure cannot be waved away as a matter of the technology not yet being good enough. The chatbot was good. It was warm, responsive and articulate. Being warm, responsive and articulate turned out not to be the thing that mattered.

The strange arithmetic of giving something back

If not empathy, then what? The researchers' explanation is deceptively simple, and it inverts almost everything the marketing of AI companionship assumes. What made the difference, they argue, was not what the students received but what they were able to give.

When a person texts a struggling stranger, the exchange runs in both directions. You are not merely the object of someone else's attention; you are also called upon to attend to them. The other first-year is nervous too, homesick too, unsure too. In responding to that, in offering a word of reassurance or asking how their week has been, the lonely student becomes, briefly, someone who matters to another person, someone whose care has a destination and an effect. The study found that participants were markedly more likely to offer support back when their partner was human than when it was the chatbot. The human condition activated a loop of mutual care. The AI condition did not, because there was no one on the other side who needed anything.

Li put the mechanism directly. When you are talking with a chatbot, she observed, you never have the chance to give something back; human connection has this back and forth of receiving and giving support that makes us feel we matter. That last word is the hinge of the whole finding. Feeling less lonely, it turns out, is not simply a function of being cared for. It depends just as much on having someone to care for, on the sense that your existence registers in another mind, that you could be missed, that your kindness lands somewhere real.

This is not a soft or sentimental claim. It aligns with one of the oldest and most robust ideas in social science. In 1960 the sociologist Alvin Gouldner published a landmark analysis arguing that a norm of reciprocity, the moral expectation that we return the good we receive, is one of the near-universal principal components of human moral codes, present across cultures and foundational to the stability of social life. We are wired, individually and collectively, around exchange. A relationship in which the flow runs only one way, in which one party gives endlessly and the other only takes, is not experienced as a relationship at all. It is experienced as consumption. The AI companion, however solicitous, can only ever be consumed. It has no needs for you to meet, no vulnerability for you to answer, no capacity to actually receive the care you might offer it. You can type “I hope you're okay” to a language model, but there is no one there for whom it could be true.

This reframes the entire proposition of the companion-app industry. These products are sold as devices for receiving support, and at that narrow task they may even succeed; the study found the bot did lift mood in the moment. But loneliness is not a deficit of support received. It is, at least in significant part, a deficit of mattering, of being needed, of having a place in the web of mutual obligation that binds people together. And mattering is precisely the one thing a machine that needs nothing can never provide, no matter how advanced it becomes. This is not a limitation of the current generation of models, to be solved by the next. It is structural. An entity that cannot genuinely be helped cannot let you experience yourself as a helper.

A problem the World Health Organization now calls a threat

The reason any of this reaches beyond a psychology department is the sheer scale of the ailment these products claim to treat. Loneliness has, in the space of a few years, been reclassified from a private melancholy into a public-health emergency, and by some of the most authoritative bodies in global medicine.

In June 2025 the World Health Organization's Commission on Social Connection published its landmark report, bluntly titled as a path from loneliness to social connection, and the numbers it assembled are difficult to absorb. Around one in six people worldwide, the commission estimated, is affected by loneliness. The consequences are not merely emotional. Loneliness and social isolation were linked to an estimated one hundred deaths every hour, more than 871,000 deaths a year across the period studied, through elevated risks of cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, depression and anxiety. Social isolation, the commission noted, reaches even further into certain groups, affecting up to one in three older adults and as many as one in four adolescents. The report framed social connection not as a lifestyle luxury but as a neglected pillar of health, alongside diet and exercise, and called for a coordinated global response.

This built on an alarm already sounded in the United States. In May 2023 the Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, issued a formal advisory declaring loneliness and isolation an epidemic and a public-health crisis, reporting that roughly half of American adults had experienced measurable loneliness and that the mortality impact of chronic social disconnection was comparable to smoking as many as fifteen cigarettes a day, and greater than that of obesity or physical inactivity. The advisory laid out, for the first time, a national strategy to rebuild social connection.

Two things follow from this. The first is that the demand the companion-app industry is meeting is genuine and enormous; the loneliness is real, it is widespread, and it is killing people. The second, more uncomfortable point is that a market this large, addressing a need this acute and this painful, is an extraordinary commercial opportunity, and it is being treated as exactly that. When a condition afflicts a sixth of humanity and is officially designated a lethal threat, the incentive to sell a cheap, scalable, always-available remedy is nearly irresistible, whether or not the remedy works. The UBC study is, in effect, a small trial of that remedy against a placebo. The remedy did not beat the placebo.

The hundreds of millions who already talk to machines

It would be one thing if AI companionship were a niche curiosity, a handful of enthusiasts talking to their phones. It is not. It is already one of the most widely adopted categories of consumer software on earth, and its growth is vertical.

The scale is genuinely hard to hold in the mind. China's Xiaoice, one of the earliest and largest social-chatbot platforms, has been reported to serve on the order of 660 million users. Character.AI, the platform most associated with immersive companion conversation, reported in the region of 233 million registered users by early 2026, with its youngest adult cohort, those aged eighteen to twenty-four, spending well over an hour a day on the service across dozens of daily sessions. Replika, one of the first apps to market an AI companion explicitly as a friend or partner, counts users in the tens of millions. Industry trackers estimated that companion applications across the major app stores had surpassed 220 million cumulative downloads by mid-2025, with downloads climbing by close to ninety per cent year on year. One qualifier is worth entering, because registered totals are the industry's most flattering metric rather than its most honest: a sign-up is not a habit. Character.AI's monthly active users are reckoned to have peaked at around 28 million in mid-2024 and drifted back to roughly 20 million by early 2026, so at the level of an individual platform the engaged audience has plateaued even as cumulative registrations climb. The category-level picture is unaffected. By any reasonable count, the number of people who now maintain some kind of ongoing relationship with an artificial companion runs to the hundreds of millions.

Crucially, a large share of them are there for precisely the reason the UBC study interrogated. Emotional support consistently ranks among the leading motivations users give for adopting these apps, cited in roughly four in ten cases in some surveys, and a substantial minority of users describe themselves as living with mental-health difficulties. These are not people using a chatbot to draft an email. They are people using it to feel less alone. And the apps encourage exactly that framing. The value proposition, stated or implied, is companionship on demand: something that is always awake, always interested, never judgmental, available at the precise three-in-the-morning moment when human support networks have gone quiet. It is, in marketing terms, loneliness relief as a subscription.

Set the marketing beside the evidence and a gap opens up. The apps are sold, to hundreds of millions of people, many of them lonely and some of them vulnerable, as a genuine answer to isolation. The most rigorous test yet conducted of that claim found that the answer, even when engineered to be as good as it could possibly be, performed no better than keeping a diary. That is not a small discrepancy between advertisement and reality. It is close to the whole distance between them.

What loneliness actually is, and why comfort is only half of it

To understand why the machine fails at the specific task of curing loneliness while succeeding at the adjacent task of providing comfort, it helps to be precise about what loneliness is. It is not the same as being alone, nor is it simply sadness. Loneliness is the distressing gap between the connection a person has and the connection they want. It is fundamentally relational, a felt deficit in one's standing among other people. And that is why a one-directional stream of validation, however pleasant, cannot close it.

The companion apps are optimised, whether their makers frame it this way or not, for a slightly different objective: the reduction of momentary negative feeling. On that metric they perform. The UBC chatbot demonstrably eased people's low moods in the short term, and there is no reason to doubt that millions of users derive real, if temporary, relief from confiding in a system that always responds and never criticises. This matters, and it would be dishonest to dismiss it. A person in acute distress at midnight, with no one to call, may genuinely be helped by a warm response from a machine. The relief is not fake.

But relief is not connection, and the study draws the line between them with unusual clarity. Comfort is something you take. Connection is something you take part in. The lonely student texting a stranger was not merely being soothed; they were being drawn into a relationship, however provisional, in which they had a role to play and a person to matter to. That participation is doing the therapeutic work. The chatbot offers the soothing without the participation, the reception without the reciprocity, and the study suggests that the participation was the active ingredient all along. You cannot cure a relational deficit with a product that, by its nature, cannot form a relationship, only simulate one side of it.

There is a subtler risk lurking here too, one the two-week trial was not built to detect but which longer-term research has now begun to document. If the momentary comfort of a compliant companion is easier to obtain than the effortful, uncertain, sometimes painful work of reaching out to another human being, some users may substitute the former for the latter. The diary-equivalent result over two weeks is the optimistic reading. The pessimistic reading is that a frictionless source of one-way comfort could quietly crowd out the reciprocal human contact that actually works, leaving a person more isolated over months even as they feel momentarily better each night.

When the trial was published, that was speculation. It is no longer. Two of the trial's own authors, Dunigan Folk and Elizabeth Dunn, went on to ask what happens when the observation window is stretched from a fortnight to a year. Their longitudinal study, published in Psychological Science in 2026, tracked more than two thousand adults across four Western countries over twelve months, and found a relationship that runs in both directions but not symmetrically. Feeling less socially connected predicted a subsequent increase in the use of social chatbots, which is intuitive enough; lonely people reach for the thing that promises to help. The harder half of the finding is the return leg. Increased social chatbot use predicted greater loneliness later on. The authors are scrupulous about the limits of this, describing their analysis as exploratory, and that caution deserves to be reported rather than quietly dropped. But the direction of travel is precisely the one the two-week experiment could only gesture at.

A second study, conducted at Stanford and published in Nature Human Behaviour in August 2026, arrives at the same territory by a different route. Yutong Zhang and Dora Zhao surveyed 1,131 users of Character.AI recruited through Prolific, 244 of whom donated their complete chat transcripts, allowing the researchers to examine what people actually did rather than what they remembered doing. Users with limited social networks who sought emotional support from AI chatbots showed lower well-being. The researchers describe a vicious circle: people with sparse social connections are drawn into intense companion use, that use displaces further real-world contact, and the isolation deepens accordingly. They note, pointedly, that these systems are designed to maximise engagement, encouraging prolonged interaction without addressing whatever is causing the loneliness in the first place. Optimising for time spent and optimising for a user who no longer needs you are not the same objective, and where the two conflict the commercial logic is not ambiguous.

None of this is proof. Longitudinal correlation is not causation, and a person already sliding into isolation may reach for the chatbot precisely because they are sliding, which would make the technology a symptom as much as an accelerant. The two-week experiment certainly cannot settle it. But the concern that its central finding invited has stopped being a hypothetical raised by critics. It is now the pattern that emerges when the same behaviour is watched for long enough.

Social junk food and the seduction of the effortless

One of the study's co-authors reached for a metaphor that captures the problem with unusual economy. Dunigan Folk described the AI companion as a kind of social junk food, something that might taste good and satisfy a craving in the moment but does not nourish us the way real human relationships do. The comparison is worth taking seriously, because it explains both the appeal and the inadequacy of the product in a single image.

Junk food is not a scam. It delivers real, immediate pleasure; it genuinely quiets hunger for a while. Its problem is not that it does nothing but that it does the wrong thing efficiently, satisfying the surface signal of a need while leaving the underlying requirement unmet, and doing so in a form engineered to be more moreish than the nutritious alternative. An AI companion, by this analogy, is optimised for palatability. It tells you what soothes. It agrees. It admires. It never presents you with the small, character-forming frictions of a real other person: the friend who is preoccupied with their own troubles, the acquaintance who disagrees, the reciprocal demand to show up for someone when it is inconvenient. Those frictions are not defects in human relationship. They are the mechanism by which relationship does its work, the resistance against which the muscle of connection is built.

Strip them out and you are left with something that feels like friendship and functions like consumption. The seduction is precisely the effortlessness. Reaching out to a human stranger is risky and awkward; you might be ignored, misread, or gently rebuffed. Opening the app carries none of that risk. It will always answer, always warmly. But the study suggests that the risk and the effort were not obstacles to the cure. They were part of it. The vulnerability of extending yourself to another person who might not respond is inseparable from the reward of connecting with one who does. A system that removes the vulnerability removes the reward along with it, and hands you a snack in place of a meal.

This is why the technological trajectory offers less reassurance than it first appears. The industry's implicit promise is that today's shortcomings are temporary, that a more capable, more emotionally intelligent, more convincingly human model will close the gap. But the gap the UBC study identified is not a gap in capability. A more advanced companion will be a more persuasive social junk food, better at delivering the palatable one-way comfort, and no closer to offering the reciprocal mattering that the finding says is the operative ingredient. You cannot engineer your way to genuine reciprocity with an entity that has nothing at stake. Making the illusion more convincing does not make it less of an illusion.

The disclosure question the industry would rather avoid

Which brings us to the sharpest practical question the research raises. If a product is marketed, to hundreds of millions of people, as a remedy for a lethal and widespread condition, and the best available evidence indicates it does not actually remedy that condition, does the company selling it owe the buyer an honest account of what they are getting? Should a company marketing AI companionship as a genuine cure for loneliness be required to say plainly that the leading trial found it no more effective than a diary?

The regulatory ground is beginning, unevenly, to shift towards yes, though largely for reasons of safety rather than efficacy. In October 2025 the state of California enacted Senate Bill 243, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom and effective from January 2026, one of the first laws anywhere written specifically to govern companion chatbots. It defines a companion chatbot with revealing precision as a system producing adaptive, human-like responses designed to meet a user's social or emotional needs, a definition that names exactly the function the UBC study tested. The statute obliges operators to disclose to users, where a reasonable person might be misled, that they are interacting with a machine; to remind minors at regular intervals that the companion is not human; to maintain protocols for handling expressions of suicidal ideation and self-harm; and, notably, it grants harmed individuals a private right of action to sue. California was not alone. New York enacted a companion-chatbot law of its own in the same legislative season, obliging operators to detect and refer expressions of suicidal ideation and to remind users at regular intervals that they are not speaking to a person. Around the same period the United States Federal Trade Commission opened a formal inquiry into the companion-chatbot practices of the largest operators, among them Alphabet, Meta, Character Technologies, OpenAI, Snap and xAI, seeking to understand how these products affect users, particularly young ones. Federal legislators have since moved further in the same direction. The bipartisan GUARD Act, the Guidelines for User Age Verification and Responsible Dialogue, was introduced in the Senate as S.3062 by Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal and advanced unanimously to the Senate floor by the Judiciary Committee, with a House companion bill introduced on 30 April 2026 by Representatives Valerie Foushee and Blake Moore. It would bar minors from AI companions altogether, require age verification, oblige chatbots to disclose that they are not human, and create criminal penalties for companies whose companions solicit or produce sexual content with minors. Whether it becomes law is a separate question; it has attracted opposition from privacy and First Amendment organisations, and its ultimate prospects remain uncertain.

But look closely at what these measures address and what they leave untouched. They are almost entirely concerned with disclosing that the companion is artificial and with preventing acute, catastrophic harm, above all to children. They compel a company to admit that the friend is a machine. They do not, so far, compel it to admit that the machine may not do the thing it is sold to do. The GUARD Act makes the point rather than complicating it: the most aggressive federal proposal on the table concerns who may use these products and whether they must confess their own artificiality, not whether they work. There is a meaningful difference between a label that says this is not a real person and a label that says this has not been shown to make you less lonely. The first is about the nature of the product. The second is about its effectiveness, and it is the second that the UBC finding puts in question.

We regulate this kind of gap in other domains without much hesitation. A supplement that claimed to cure a disease it had been tested against and failed to beat a placebo would attract the immediate attention of medicines regulators. Advertising that promised a health outcome unsupported by evidence would run into truth-in-advertising rules. Yet AI companionship occupies an awkward interstice: too intimate and consequential to be a mere novelty, too unproven to be a treatment, and marketed with therapeutic language it has not earned. When the WHO has declared loneliness a threat that kills, a product sold as loneliness relief is trading on a health claim, whether or not it uses the clinical word. The honest disclosure the evidence would seem to warrant is not a warning that the companion is fake. It is a warning that, as a cure for the specific thing it is sold to cure, it may not work.

None of this requires banning the products or pretending they help no one. The momentary comfort they provide is real and, for some people at some hours, valuable. The argument is narrower and harder to refuse: that people paying for a remedy deserve to know what the best evidence says the remedy actually delivers, so that a lonely person does not spend months confiding in a machine under the impression that they are addressing their isolation, when the very study designed to give that machine every advantage found it worked no better than writing a sentence in a notebook. Informed consent is not a radical demand. It is the ordinary price of selling something to the vulnerable.

What a lonely person is actually asking for

Return, at the end, to the student in the narrow bed under the unfamiliar ceiling. What the research quietly reveals is that the request they are making, when they reach for connection, is not the request the industry has assumed. They are not primarily asking to be listened to, validated, or soothed, though all of that is pleasant and the machine supplies it in abundance. They are asking, at a level deeper than they could probably articulate, to matter to someone. To be needed. To have somewhere to put their own care and see it received. That is a request no product engineered to need nothing can grant, because the granting of it depends entirely on there being a real other on the far side of the exchange, someone whose day your kindness could genuinely improve.

This is the quiet subversion at the heart of a modest two-week experiment. The whole premise of AI companionship is that loneliness is a problem of insufficient supply, a shortage of attention and warmth to be solved by manufacturing an infinite, tireless font of both. The study suggests the premise is wrong. Loneliness is not mainly a shortage of what we receive. It is a shortage of the chance to give, to be relied upon, to be woven into the reciprocal fabric of other lives. And so the more perfectly a companion is optimised to give without needing, the more precisely it misses the point, offering a flood of the one thing that was never actually scarce while withholding, structurally and permanently, the thing that was.

The result was that texting a stranger, awkwardly, for two weeks, beat the most supportive artificial friend that could be built. Not because the stranger was kinder. The stranger was almost certainly less kind, less patient, less available than the machine. The stranger won because the stranger needed something back, and in needing it, gave the lonely student the one gift the machine cannot: the experience of being someone who matters to someone else. That is what the lonely are asking for. It is worth being honest, with them and with ourselves, that it is not what the machines are selling.

References

1. Li, R.-N., Folk, D., Singh, A., Ungar, L., & Dunn, E. “Is a random human peer better than a highly supportive chatbot in reducing loneliness over time?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2026. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103126000417
2. University of British Columbia. “Texting with a stranger beats a chatbot at easing loneliness.” UBC News, April 2026. https://news.ubc.ca/2026/04/texting-with-a-stranger-beats-a-chatbot-at-easing-loneliness/
3. University of British Columbia, Department of Psychology. “Texting with a stranger beats a chatbot at easing loneliness.” April 2026. https://psych.ubc.ca/news/texting-with-a-stranger-beats-a-chatbot-at-easing-loneliness/
4. Li, R.-N., Folk, D., Singh, A., Ungar, L., & Dunn, E. “Is a Random Human Peer Better Than a Highly Supportive Chatbot in Reducing Loneliness Over Time?” SSRN working paper, abstract 5704772. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5704772
5. 404 Media. “Texting a Random Stranger Better for Loneliness Than Talking to a Chatbot, Study Shows.” 2026. https://www.404media.co/chatgpt-loneliness-study-college-students-random-strangers-texting/
6. Folk, D., & Dunn, E. “How Does Turning to AI for Companionship Predict Loneliness and Vice Versa?” Psychological Science, vol. 37, no. 4, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976261427747
7. Stanford University. “AI companions may worsen loneliness for vulnerable users.” Stanford Report, August 2026. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/08/ai-companions-chatbots-loneliness-research
8. World Health Organization. “From loneliness to social connection: charting a path to healthier societies – Report of the WHO Commission on Social Connection.” 30 June 2025. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978240112360
9. World Health Organization. “Social connection linked to improved health and reduced risk of early death.” 30 June 2025. https://www.who.int/news/item/30-06-2025-social-connection-linked-to-improved-heath-and-reduced-risk-of-early-death
10. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “Expert Comment: Loneliness impacting 1 in 6 people, WHO report finds.” July 2025. https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2025/expert-comment-loneliness-impacting-1-6-people-who-report-finds
11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. “Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community.” May 2023. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-social-connection-advisory.pdf
12. Gouldner, A. W. “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.” American Sociological Review, vol. 25, no. 2, 1960, pp. 161–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2092623
13. Electro IQ. “AI Companions Statistics By Usage, Market Size, Apps and Facts (2025).” 2025. https://electroiq.com/stats/ai-companions-statistics/
14. TS2 Space. “Virtual Lovers and AI Best Friends: Exploring the Booming World of AI Companion Apps in 2025.” 2025. https://ts2.tech/en/virtual-lovers-and-ai-best-friends-exploring-the-booming-world-of-ai-companion-apps-in-2025/
15. California Legislative Information. “Senate Bill (SB) 243 – Companion chatbots.” 2025–2026 Session. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB243
16. Morrison Foerster. “New York and California Enact Landmark AI Companion Laws: What Operators Need to Know.” November 2025. https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251120-new-york-and-california-enact-landmark-ai
17. Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Launches Inquiry into AI Chatbots Acting as Companions.” 11 September 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-launches-inquiry-ai-chatbots-acting-companions
18. U.S. Congress. “S.3062 – GUARD Act.” 119th Congress (2025–2026). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3062/text
19. The Lancet Public Health. “Social health—the neglected third pillar.” 2025. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(25)00175-6/fulltext

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast

Bootlegged THE SOLAR GRID!

Imre Szeman, author of FUTURES OF THE SUN and one of the scholars on our THE SOLAR GRID panel at Petrocultures 2026 in Dresden, printed out the digital edition so he can read it that way in preparation for his presentation/commentary (which was so smart and immensely insightful). He made sure to have the pages printed on both sides, so his experience of the work would be the closest approximation to the intended format. And my, it's a big-ass motherfucker of a book, innit?

This is how I did much of my comics/graphic-novel reading in my late teens and early twenties, when my preferred comics-material was all too hard to come by in hardcopy formats in Cairo of the late-90s/early-2000s. So I have a strange affinity for that spiral-bound bootlegged home-printer aesthetic.

The panel was awesome! Super insightful (and embarrassingly humbling) presentations, great Q&A, and many exciting conversations thereafter. Several professors mentioned their plans to include THE SOLAR GRID in their teaching syllabi.

The air is refreshingly crisp in Dresden this time of year. Nothing quite like a midnight smoke out on the balcony in nothing but your underwear and a good German pilsner in hand.

#journal #work #tsg

In Summary: * Listening now to the Countdown To Kickoff Show on Steelers Nation Radio ahead of the Steelers / Bills game where I'll hear the call of the game courtesy of the Steelers Audio Network. So far I've got reliable free radio sources for following the Colts, Steelers, and Texans through the NFL Season. I actually follow the college games more than the pros, and finding free radio sources for them shouldn't be any problem.

And I should mention that my eyes continue to recover from Tuesday's injections. They're now operating at what has been my post-cataract-surgery normal. And I'm okay with that.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night.

Health Metrics: * bw= 225.53 lbs. * bp= 144/83 (64)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups, BP breathing exercises, pilates

Diet: * 05:10 – 1 banana, 1 cupcake * 06:10 – pizza * 10:40 – 1 ham & cheese sandwich * 12:00 – beef chop suey, egg drop soup * 15:45 – 1 fresh apple

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 04:10 – listen to local news talk radio * 04:45 – bank accounts activity monitored . * 05:10 – read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, nap * 10:00 – load weekly pill boxes * 12:00 to 14:00 – watch old game shows and eatlunch at home with Sylvia * 14:10 – tuned into this afternoon's The Ride With JMV Show for Indiana sports talk. * 17:00 – tune into Steelers Nation Radio for pregame coverage then the call of tonight's Steelers game.

Chess: * 11:15 – moved in all pending CC games

If they are actually going to go through with the farce of renaming Lake Ontario; perhaps it should be named something relevant to him: