Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[King Zultan]

Defective foods are the best, like that loaf of bread with a rat baked into it!

[Pwnzerfaust]

Just get out and meet people. It's a skill like any other. All it takes is overcoming your fear(s). Hell, I was a reclusive social reject in 2019, and I blossomed into social butterfly in the last year. Fake it til you make it, etc.

[wierd]

I have no DESIRE to become a social butterfly.  I do not derive pleasure from social interactions, outside of very limited 1:1 engagements, with strict boundaries.

The phenomenon of "the social gathering" is just a chaotic clusterfuck from my point of reference.  Painful to experience vestigially, and even more painful to be forced to participate in.  It gets even worse when there is alcohol, or other inebriating substance involved.

It is not a question of "If you try it, you will like it! You should try it more until you do!"

I have tried. I find that no, I do not enjoy social gatherings or situations.  They simply remind me of how ... what's a nice and unoffensive way to put this?... How.... "gratingly needy" people are.


It isn't that people go out of their way to be that way; they just are.  (By this, I mean to draw a very important distinction that people do not intend to, desire to, or go out of their way to, make themselves central figures, or to focus a discussion with their own perspectives, etc al, as the central focus.  It is just a natural component of what I at least, personally consider (and yes, I am painfully aware of the irony there) to be a less developed or discerning way of experiencing the world.  The default mechanism human minds have, is the "Self-experiential" model. Things that happened to themselves, personally, weigh much more highly in the decision making apparatus than does a more robust but theoretical model that involves external factors or models of other people's cognition. This has direct ties to, and associations with, the "Theory of Mind". This often manifests to the point where more complex models of understanding the world, are simply never even explored to begin with, and exposure to the conception of doing so is onerous, difficult, and sometimes even outright rejected purposefully. Experiencing the world in the "system defaults" manner, with glib and facile attention to details, or structure of a shared physical reality (and focusing much more on undefinable subjective experiences or conceptions) is "more enjoyable", "more desirable", "easier", and "Gives more self-edification", and thus other models of exploring the world, no matter how much more demonstrably accurate or meaningful in the truer sense those other models are. Using the other models thus, detract from the real purpose of the social engagement-- reinforcement of the self (and its subjective experience) within the construct of group consensus (which is demonstrably not the same thing as objective agreement with a real, external world.) People typically do not go out of their way to interact with the world in this way, or with each other in this way-- it is just the default, and thus easiest for them to participate in.)

The issue, is that I do not find conjecture of that nature to be in any way useful, desirable, or edifying.  As such, the casual conversational topics that get brought up in social engagements are... Painful... to experience.

I acknowledge that there is a benefit to engaging with other people, to better comprehend the objective world in which we find our subjective-experience-centered consciousnesses embedded; When engaged in properly (eg, with intent to shake loose actual demonstrable truths about reality itself, and not to discuss phantasms of subjectivity as if they were objectively real) it helps to better understand that objective world, that is naturally alien to how our minds intrinsically operate. 

As such, solipsism is not a good avenue-- it leads to incestuous and inbred ideology, devoid of more complex understanding and nuance.

The problem, is that the level of engagement and consideration required to discuss such things, is often well outside the comfort zone and experience of most people, and steering a discussion in those directions is uncomfortable for the social gathering. (and thus "Ruins the party")

This puts me in a lose-lose-lose situation, when it comes to social gatherings.

Lose:
I find the superficial-at-best discourse unengaging, and painful.

Lose:
I find being asked to engage the discourse unpleasant-- I am mindful that attempts to actually engage the conversation will ruin the conversation for others. I am mindful that my lack of engagement with the discourse makes me seem aloof, or otherwise makes people think I am being left out-- and that they would like me to engage. (which is a thing I do not want to subject people I like to feeling.) I dislike causing such emotional pain in others.

Lose:
Explaining why I dislike social interaction and engagement leads to conflict and bad feelings in others, who really just want to (well meaningly, but ultimately selfishly) include me. I have to defend a position that looks elitist, sophist, and wantonly harsh to others.  Again, I dont fault people for being how they are, it is just not what I need from a social interaction, and thus not something I enjoy.  (You have to have a vested interest in understanding and interacting with the shared physical reality we find ourselves embedded in; Again, the way our minds work, does not live in that world. We are cut-off simulations of that world, that engage at the edges. That is simply what we are.  The argument is about the level of detail we invest resources into simulating internally. The majority of people do not engage the world this way; You have to have a desire to, and then train yourself to, engage in that mode of behavior.)


To me, going to a party consists principally of:

Watching people say and do stupid shit, on open display. (pronouncedly so when alcohol is involved.)
Watching people discuss absurdities (that seem superficially true, but actually arent) as if they were actually true, real or substantive.
Being made to engage in that level of behavior and discourse, to avoid causing offense or upset.

I find none of those things pleasurable or enjoyable.


I prefer to politely abstain, in the vast majority of circumstances.

[martinuzz]

I am sorry to hear that you seem have been hanging out with the wrong crowds when you tried to go to social meetup places.
I won't say youre wrong. There's indeed a lot of people that never raise above that level.
I will not go to 95 out of a 100 pubs or whatever social meeting places for that reason.
But there's still a 5% that's different, and where I feel at ease and actually find pleasure in social interaction.

Then again, it's fine if you don't like social butterflying, you be you.

[dragdeler]

Heh I was going to say, there seems to be omission of a whole caste of drunk intellectuals, books that were written drunk, salons that were running on booze...

How.... "gratingly needy" people are.

My issue too, if I have to perform in that mindset, it starts to brush off creating frustrations I would otherwise not have.

[wierd]

I should probably make a clarifying addendum to the above, since it is kind of rambling and disjointed.

(I blame being interrupted by incessant call lights, jockeying for runtime on my center of attention. I am now home, and free from such distractions.)



What I referred to above as the "Default mode" of operation, typically has a person evaluating their internal sense of self, and of self worth, within the context of a social consensus.  The party is less about meeting to have fun or some other consideration; It is more a reflexive reinforcement of that consensus-derived self. 

This makes total and complete sense.  We are social creatures, that rely on complex societal interactions and social standings to advance ourselves, and generally survive against the adversities of the outside world.  It is this instinctual need for self-edification within the social heirarchy that compels people to hobknob, and socialize in this glib manner.  It produces feelings of belonging, acceptance, and reinforces the ego against the violations of the world outside it.

Take for instance, "The girl huddle."

The girl huddle, is when a group of female friends get together, and discuss things in their lives that are intimately tied to being female.  Stereotypically, this takes the form of 3 or more women or girls, discussing relationships, female health, or some intrinsically feminine aspect of life, while engaging in a collective activity, usually a self-beautification regimen. (less stereotypically, it could just be a casual girl-time event at a restaurant, or other informal, and impromptu meetup of such friends.)  Its existence and reason for being are ultimately one or more individuals seeking edification and support from their peers, and is literally textbook what I described above-- usually within the context of a romantic relationship one of them is having.
 
Being able to fraternize this way, provides feelings of support that overcome otherwise systemic feelings of hopelessness about the situation they are meeting over, et al.  The meetup itself *IS* the medicine.

This kind of need comes directly from having the "Default" way of interacting with the world;  The individual is weak, and requires the support of the social consensus to face adversities. (this is not an accusation or a value judgement; it is more a direct observation that a subjective persona, that relies on the subjective experience alone, requires continual reinforcement from a group consensus, or suffers emotional harm, usually in the form of questioning their identity, and self-worth.)


I have trained myself to think... Differently... about the world.


By coming to terms with tthe harsh reality that my own internal subjective experience is of no practical consequence to the actual objective reality outside of myself, and is thus "unreal", I have sought to find alternative ways to define myself, that are more objective.  I do that by testing myself, and learning what my true limits are, and being genuinely honest with criticisms and determinations about myself.  Much of the need people have for social interaction, stems from feelings of personal helplessness in the face of adversity-- they need allies to face the world.  I have instead, cultivated personal empowerment within myself-- I am by no means capable of fielding *EVERY* adversity, BUT I *AM* capable of fielding a great many forms of it directly without help. (and identifying when, and where, I need assistance, or where I can work to improve.)  I derive strength as an entity from that knowledge; I can directly demonstrate it in the objective world-- I do not need a subjective (and fickle) group consensus to reinforce my ego;  I can prove it to myself on demand.  When the emotional demons come knocking, I can leverage the objective world to put them down.

This has thus, created a set of conditions that replaces the need for the social consensus, with the need to interact with, and successfully simulate and predict, the objective world.   The outside world is no longer "hostile" to my ego and consciousness-- It is the very edifice from which I assert my reality.

Again, though, while this may seem like a lesson in applied solipsism, it really isn't.  I accept and fully understand that my own simulation of the objective world is by necessity, imperfect and faulted--- I benefit GREATLY by interacting with other people that engage with the objective world, especially when their conclusions are in discord with my own-- rigorous investigation will result in a superior model being formed.



In short, what I seek from a social interaction, and what the vast majority of people seek from a social interaction, are absolutely not the same thing.


Essentially, there is nothing at the typical party that I have an existential need for.  I do not derive a benefit from attending; Only onerous difficulty and ponderous sidestepping of ruining the party for others, who do in fact, need it.

[martinuzz]

Yet you seems to have been enjoying our incoherent ramblings for years now

[MrRoboto75]

Just

bad advice alert

bad advice alert

[heydude6]

Just

bad advice alert

bad advice alert

It is indeed incredibly incomplete, and thus of little help to anyone.

[Pwnzerfaust]

Just

bad advice alert

bad advice alert

It is indeed incredibly incomplete, and thus of little help to anyone.

Nonsense! Worked for me. Put yourself out there, it'll work for you, too.

[Starver]

Not everyone aspiring to be a Social Butterfly can actually get past the Caterpillar stage...

[MrRoboto75]

Just

bad advice alert

bad advice alert

It is indeed incredibly incomplete, and thus of little help to anyone.

Just don't give bad advice, like christ it isn't hard...

Not everyone aspiring to be a Social Butterfly can actually get past the Caterpillar stage...

Sometimes a hawk swoops down and the catapillar is dead.

[Starver]

Sometimes a hawk swoops down and the catapillar is dead.

Hawks eat caterpillars? Moth-hawks might, I suppose, if they exist. Those that aren't eaten by the Hawk-moths, which do exist although I can't guarantee I'm right about their diet.

In caterpillar 'news': https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/04/caterpillar-cakes-compared-which-supermarket-came-out-on-top/

[Pwnzerfaust]

Just

bad advice alert

bad advice alert

It is indeed incredibly incomplete, and thus of little help to anyone.

Just don't give bad advice, like christ it isn't hard...

Good thing I didn't!

[Starver]

Can't ski? Don't worry, just strap this long things on your feet and gracefully slide off the top of this mountain... You'll get the hang of it.