There are certain types of people who can only be described as kind. It’s written all over their demeanor and energy. Not only are they kind, but they go out of their way to make sure you’re doing great: Random calls and check-ins, always available to talk out a problem and make you feel better about yourself and the situation, and if ever you need a ride at 4 a.m. to the airport? They got you.

But did you know that a lot of these “kind” people are really lonely?

That seems like an impossible concept, but it just might be very true. In an article from Global English Editing, writer Lachlan Brown wrote about 10 behaviors showcased by kind people who find themselves virtually friendless. Not having a large social circle is one thing, but feeling isolated and lonely because you don’t have many, if any, friends? That’s an emotionally challenging life for even the best of people.

smiles, smiling, friendless, unintentional outcomes, give-and-take, needs, emotional understanding, empathy
Smiling man with a thumbs up sign. Image via Canva – Photo by Kampus Production

Sometimes the things people do can have unintentional outcomes. The same behaviors that can make people appear very kind can also be the exact reasons they find themselves alone. These are 10 things that kind yet lonely people do:

They prioritize other people’s needs

Some people just go out of their own way to help. They are reliable and offer much of their time to aid others in need. Unfortunately, these types of relationships can become one-sided. True and bonding friendships are reciprocal. If you never allow the other person to show up for you, it’s robbing them of the chance to be of service. Great friendships are give-and-take. Sometimes kind people are just too embarrassed to ask for help and have their own needs met.

They avoid conflict at all costs

gaming, animation, conflict, avoidance, uncomfortable, short term solutions, boundaries
Avoiding lasers. media0.giphy.com

Some people just want calm waters all the time. Conflict can be messy and it’s most certainly uncomfortable. Psychology Today warns the wanting everyone to be happy in the short term doesn’t necessarily suit the long term. People need to feel heard and have their boundaries respected in any and every relationship.

Avoiding arguments to make sure everyone is happy isn’t building strong relationships. If you can’t be honest and sometimes tough with your friends, no one’s going to stand up for or confide in you when things get messy and hard.

They’re emotionally sensitive

It’s probably not too surprising that kind people tend to be emotionally intuitive. They can feel deeply and notice subtle shifts in others’ moods. Some people get overly stimulated by social situations and need to leave or spend time alone. Greater Good Magazine suggests that because kind people are vulnerable and empathetic, they’re often misunderstood themselves. Lack of understanding can lead to people drifting apart and, ultimately, the break of social connections.

They’re not much for surface conversations

Some people aren’t that chatty. They want deeper conversations so they can feel connection and value. Most people like to keep life on a surface level. A few cocktails and talking about politics or sports games makes for a loud and engaging evening.

Just because someone is kind doesn’t mean they are also the “life of the party.” Simple conversations in highly social environments may be great places to start new friendships, but sometimes kind people just don’t want to be there.

Their independence can look like isolation

self-reliant, burdens, help, problem solving, assistance, needs, rejection, pain, fear
Woman smiles facing other direction in a crowd. Image via Canva – Photo by DAPA Images

Kind people don’t often ask for help. Between being self-reliant and wanting to avoid burdening other people, they’re not going to speak up much. Good Therapy talks about the main reason people often avoid asking for help is “fear.” The problem is if you never ask for assistance, people believe you don’t need it. Being strong and independent are impressive qualities, but not necessarily what builds a large circle of friends. Being vulnerable means risk, and some kind people are just risk avoidant.

They attract takers instead of friends

Some people give and some people take. Science Daily referenced a study at the Universitaet Tübingen that found it’s better to give than receive. However, “takers” are definitely going to find the people willing to give. Kind people can feel taken advantage of because they often are. This can lead to them pulling away and not trusting the people around them. It’s hard to build strong friendships when you can’t trust anyone. Setting boundaries can be difficult when you’re a people pleaser and sometimes kindness and people-pleasing can overlap.

They fear rejection

Most people don’t particularly enjoy being rejected. When a person is more sensitive and empathic, the pain caused by rejection goes much deeper. Remember, kind people don’t want to hold anyone else down or be the source of discomfort for others. Instead of taking risks and leaning into their relationships, kind people may just become more kind, which is great for the people around them, and not so great for them.

They fear the pain of past hurts

past, deep thoughts, introspection, television, comedy, shows, Saturday Night Live, SNL

Once again, feeling your emotions deeply, while a beautiful trait, can be a kind person’s downfall. For many kind people, and particularly those who are young and naive, they may get taken advantage of. As a result, many kind people are cautious and go out of their way to be liked. Avoidance and poor boundary setting causes problems. Using their kindness as a defense mechanism to navigate uncomfortable confrontations, the needs of kind people are often not met. Fear of retaliation or that people won’t appreciate the real them can be a tough emotional burden, and burdens carried alone bring feelings of loneliness. This can turn into a cycle of pain, fear, and loneliness that could become a life-long issue.

They’re unable to express their deep thoughts

Life is complex and as a result, there are plenty of ideas and concepts into which we can bury our thoughts. Many kind people think about these deep concepts but have no one to discuss them with. Not having a support system to lean into or failing to allow others to aid them can make kind people seem distant. Presenting yourself as completely self reliant is not what makes for a good friendship. This “go it alone” mentality ultimately pushes people away. It’s difficult to cultivate friendships when not allowing others in. Simply Psychology suggests taking small steps toward being more open instead of giant leaps that can potentially cause more anxiety.

They suppress emotional needs

When kind people are overly concerned with other peoples’ needs over their own, their is a nuanced suppression of their emotions and feelings. According to a 2018 article in Time:

“Emotions have energy that pushes up for expression, and to tamp them down, our minds and bodies use creative tactics—including muscular constriction and holding our breath. Symptoms like anxiety and depression, which are on the rise in the U.S., can stem from the way we deal with these underlying, automatic, hard-wired survival emotions, which are biological forces that should not be ignored.”

Wanting others to feel safe and heard is an amazing quality. Not allowing space for yourself is risky for your personal mental health.

Some final thoughts

It’s sad that so many people who put in the effort to be kind are emotionally neglected. Society often fails to come to their aid, or they inflict the pain on themselves through their actions. It’s important for everyone to feel like they have a place to be heard and loved. Hopefully, if you resonate with some of these traits and experiences, you have someone to reach out to and talk about it with.

There are programs and professionals available to help ,too. One of the main issues for kind people that find themselves with fewer to no friends is an inability to set healthy boundaries. Boundaries help define a friendship. Good ones foster strong interactions, trust, and connection.

The National Council for Mental Health suggests three things for creating healthy boundaries:

“Understand your stressors and define your limits.”

“Start with small, consistent adjustments.”

“Practice self compassion.”

We all love kind people. The hope is they receive love and kindness in return.

  • Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours
    Photo credit: Todd Lookingbill – Urban parks are great places to soak in the outdoors without planning an elaborate trip.

    The modern workday unfolds largely indoors. Long hours spent commuting, sitting in meetings and staring at screens can make time outdoors feel like a luxury. Finding time for nature in an already packed workday can feel impossible, especially if you think nature only “counts” when it involves hiking boots and camping gear.

    But a growing body of research suggests that nature’s benefits don’t require an exotic vacation getaway or weekend adventure. Even brief, routine interactions with green space can reduce stress, improve mood and promote overall well-being.

    I spent the spring of 2026 teaching and studying urban landscapes in Denmark, a country consistently ranked among the happiest in the world. I expected to find thoughtfully designed parks, courtyards and bicycle paths. I did see those things. But what surprised me was how seamlessly people moved through those spaces as part of their ordinary lives.

    These green spaces weren’t aspirational destinations, reserved for special occasions. They were places to eat lunch, meet friends, walk through on the way home from work, or just pause for a few quiet moments. Getting outside seemed a part of the natural rhythm of the day.

    Denmark‘s outdoor culture stemmed not only from the creation of a meticulously planned network of parks, but also from the way green spaces were fundamentally woven into the routines of everyday life.

    A wooden bench in an outdoor park
    A wooden bench in one of Copenhagen’s forest therapy parks invites people to sit and soak in their surroundings. Todd Lookingbill

    Everyday parks, everyday benefits

    Evidence linking time spent in nature with health benefits has increasingly shaped public policy. In the U.S., for example, the National Park Service’s Healthy Parks Healthy People and ParkRx initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to parks contributes to well-being.

    For many Americans, however, the word “park” brings to mind iconic national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Yet visiting parks of all kinds can improve your overall health. The greatest public health value may come not from the parks people visit once in a lifetime but from those close enough to visit again and again.

    My own research on Civil War battlefield parks illustrates this point. These are parks that were established to commemorate historic conflicts that were frequently fought on the fringes of major metropolitan areas. Consequently, many of these landscapes preserve forests, grasslands and trails within easy reach of millions of Americans.

    Because they’re accessible without extensive travel or planning, they can become places people return to repeatedly – such as during a lunch break or after work. Reframing the notion of “park” opens up millions of acres of land for everyday uses.

    Designing for everyday nature

    At the University of Richmond, where I work, a stream restoration projects became an opportunity to rethink how nature fits into campus life. Landscape architects designed an Eco-Corridor, as the project became known. It has walking paths, gathering spaces and seating areas for quiet reflection alongside flowing streams and native vegetation.

    The result was a landscape that supports biodiversity and improves water quality while also creating places for students, faculty and staff to walk between meetings, eat lunch alfresco or spend a few quiet moments outside during the workday. Its ongoing care depends on an army of volunteers who spread mulch, remove invasive plants and tend the community garden. For these volunteers, stewardship between classes and meetings meant another opportunity to interact with nature.

    A group of young people walking along a concrete path lined with trees and shrubbery.
    Students walk through the ‘Eco-Corridor’ at the University of Richmond. Haley Herrmann

    What we learned was that nature doesn’t have to compete with work, studying or everyday responsibilities. Thoughtful landscape design can make spending time outdoors, even if only for a few short minutes, feel like a normal part of the day.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: Canva – Researchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture
    Photo credit: PeopleImages/iStock via Getty Images – What kids are doing on tablets seems to matter more than how long they use them.

    Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

    Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and Denmark, France and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

    In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

    These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

    I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

    Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

    Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

    In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

    Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

    Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

    Developmentally beneficial activities such as education, socializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

    In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-being, autonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

    The latest guidelines

    In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

    Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

    For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

    Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

    Rethinking screen time

    Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

    Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

    Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

    A woman and two small children look at tablet screen
    Parental involvement in young children’s screen time has developmental benefits. Cultura Creative/Tetra images via Getty Images

    Using these guidelines at home

    The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

    Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

    The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Well-being Stories

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Health

As a major heat wave grips the eastern US, here’s how to stay safe – and the heat stroke warning signs to watch for

Health

Every dog has its day, but it’s not the Fourth of July

Health

Pollen is getting worse, but you can make things better with these tips from an allergist