U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Non-Romantic Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2019, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,948 posts, read 7,883,196 times
Reputation: 11179

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Girl View Post
If the loner is happy alone, then they aren't acting against their own interests at all.
That is true. Many loners here have expressed loneliness however. In which case self-isolation is counter-productive to mental health and functioning nicely in a world of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2019, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Southwest Washington State
21,633 posts, read 14,225,540 times
Reputation: 30258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giesela View Post
I understand the "clap back" from people who spend more time alone, loners, whatever. For one is there a reverse of the word loner? Its pejorative. There is an automatic assumption that people who don't want to be mated, surrounded by other people 24/7, "like to be around other people breathing" (I have heard that twice) have something wrong with them. I am sick of people treating me acting like I'm weird. I can't count the number of times, mostly at work, say when I've moved into a new division, where people who have gotten to know me over time (because they avoid me for awhile) says things like "you aren't like I thought you'd be" and are suddenly nice to be. I.e. a spinster who isn't some cat crazed weirdo of the 10th degree. I mean seriously. People who aren't 100% mainstreamed married, 2 kids, station wagon blah blah get treated like they have two heads.

And yes I am resentful because I, while an interovert, would like more interaction than I get, because people are 1 or 100. They can't seem to do inbetween. Oh you are an introvert? i'll leave you alone - all the time. Is it because "normal" people can't stand to be alone? IDK. Just because I like to be alone a lot, doesn't mean always.
Gah.

We are the types that were able to go out and conquer the west. While must have people around stayed in town and minded stores and bars. Or went out to homestead and went nuts.
Yes, I do detect some resentment.

First of all, it seems to me that some introverts have self labeled as loners. I know of no one who self labels as needy.

Second, my posts have repeatedly maintained that introversion-extroversion characteristics exist on a spectrum. I have mentioned family members who are introverted but have no social anxiety. I have mentioned that I, a “moderate” extrovert, do suffer some social anxiety. In my last post I mentioned that and DH and I do not have the typical experiences regarding social events.

I really don’t know what to make of your conquering the West comment. You suppose that all the early pioneers were introverts? Really?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 08:48 PM
 
Location: In a place beyond human comprehension
7,556 posts, read 4,822,732 times
Reputation: 12364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Your post is typical of several here. Indignation from “militant” loners, expressed as a personal attack. Which tells me that the “militant” loners are in fact lonely and don’t like being reminded of it. Which is sad. But the first step to solving any problem is recognizing it. Humans are social animals, it is simply an inescapable part of our nature. We are not solitary creatures. So my advice to the militant loners is to stop being so cranky and disagreeable, make a few phone calls or e-mails, and rejoin the world.
You just exposed your agenda outright with this statement right here. Disagreeing =\= cranky. Where did you get that from? You clearly do not like what is being said because people are disagreeing with you. You are insisting that people who enjoy being by themselves are delusional, because of what? Human nature? Who decides what human nature is? Certainly not you, I hope. It's baffling how you can't see why you're getting a negative reaction from most here.

Your constantly trying to tell people how they feel instead of listening what their telling you, is extremely arrogant and in no way conducive to a healthy discussion. In fact, what this does is push people away. Which is contradictory to the point you're trying to prove. You claim people are social creatures but it seems you don't know the first thing about being "social." Social people don't push others away or put them down with their beliefs.

Tell you what, the next time someone disagrees with you, don't reply. Or if you do reply, just say "we can agree to disagree." The truth is there is research that supports people being alone and people being social. Why? Because humans come in a variety of flavors. To sit here and say that everyone deep down desires some type of social interaction because of "human nature" (again who defines this?) is ludicrous.

One of the first rules of being social is seeking to understand, not project and manipulate those you perceive as "abnormal" to support what you believe. They do not make a conversations/discussions/debates impossible, because they feel the other person is wrong. They consider, assess, and learn to accept that other people are different. Anyone with a basic understanding of psychology can understand that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,948 posts, read 7,883,196 times
Reputation: 11179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auraliea View Post
You just exposed your agenda outright with this statement right here. Disagreeing =\= cranky. Where did you get that from? You clearly do not like what is being said because people are disagreeing with you. You are insisting that people who enjoy being by themselves are delusional, because of what? Human nature? Who decides what human nature is? Certainly not you, I hope. It's baffling how you can't see why you're getting a negative reaction from most here.

Your constantly trying to tell people how they feel instead of listening what their telling you, is extremely arrogant and in no way conducive to a healthy discussion. In fact, what this does is push people away. Which is contradictory to the point you're trying to prove. You claim people are social creatures but it seems you don't know the first thing about being "social." Social people don't push others away or put them down with their beliefs.

Tell you what, the next time someone disagrees with you, don't reply. Or if you do reply, just say "we can agree to disagree." The truth is there is research that supports people being alone and people being social. Why? Because humans come in a variety of flavors. To sit here and say that everyone deep down desires some type of social interaction because of "human nature" (again who defines this?) is ludicrous.

One of the first rules of being social is seeking to understand, not project and manipulate those you perceive as "abnormal" to support what you believe. They do not make a conversations/discussions/debates impossible, because they feel the other person is wrong. They consider, assess, and learn to accept that other people are different. Anyone with a basic understanding of psychology can understand that.
Observing reality is not exposing an agenda. All human beings are social animals and need contact and support from other human beings. Some people need more than others, but every human being needs at least some friendship. It's evolutionary biology and part of our basic nature. In fact, the definition of a human being is a rational social animal.


Support for this observation is widespread.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...eed-each-other


If one has self-isolated due to previous poor relationships, one should attempt to reverse that through counseling, social activities, and seeking connections. There are different levels of social contact appropriate for every individual based on their personality and disposition. But 100% of all human beings need some friendship to thrive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:21 PM
 
Location: In a place beyond human comprehension
7,556 posts, read 4,822,732 times
Reputation: 12364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Observing reality is not exposing an agenda. All human beings are social animals and need contact and support from other human beings. Some people need more than others, but every human being needs at least some friendship. It's evolutionary biology and part of our basic nature. In fact, the definition of a human being is a rational social animal.
Your version of "reality" is not everyone else's. That is the beauty of perception. "Rational social animals" don't impose their beliefs on others. Really the only thing evolutionary biology supports is we will adapt to whatever is available. So if an individual was molded by a solitary environment, they would develop adaptions to that environment, just like those who were brought up in social environments. I see you're only interested in the part of Evolutionary Biology that confirms your beliefs. Very telling. With that said, this "discussion," is over. We can agree to disagree. Like rational social creatures should.

I will leave you with this.

https://www.inverse.com/article/4714...lone-evolution

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...s-interaction/

I would also like to point, that just because there has not been much research on the topic, does not mean evidence does not exist. Just food for thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,948 posts, read 7,883,196 times
Reputation: 11179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auraliea View Post
Your version of "reality" is not everyone else's. That is the beauty of perception. "Rational social animals" don't impose their beliefs on others. Really the only thing evolutionary biology supports is we will adapt to whatever is available. So if an individual was molded by a solitary environment, they would develop adaptions to that environment, just like those who were brought up in social environments. I see you're only interested in the part of Evolutionary Biology that confirms your beliefs. Very telling. With that said, this "discussion," is over. We can agree to disagree. Like rational social creatures should.

I will leave you with this.

https://www.inverse.com/article/4714...lone-evolution

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...s-interaction/



Since we are discussing human beings, might I request studies on human beings? And not toads? In paging down past this irrelevant study, we get to this:


https://www.inverse.com/article/5327...te-night-plans


And, there are no "versions" of reality. There is only one reality. The variable is how accurately we identify it. And the fact that human beings need social contact is incontrovertible and uncontroversial.


https://www.interaction-design.org/l...to-communicate


https://www.quora.com/Why-is-human-i...tion-necessary


https://www.theodysseyonline.com/why...man-connection


https://www.quora.com/Why-do-humans-...t-so-necessary


https://www.nbcnews.com/better/healt...ppy-ncna836106
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:41 PM
 
Location: In a place beyond human comprehension
7,556 posts, read 4,822,732 times
Reputation: 12364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Since we are discussing human beings, might I request studies on human beings? And not toads? In paging down past this irrelevant study, we get to this:


https://www.inverse.com/article/5327...te-night-plans


And, there are no "versions" of reality. There is only one reality. The variable is how accurately we identify it. And the fact that human beings need social contact is incontrovertible and uncontroversial.


https://www.interaction-design.org/l...to-communicate


https://www.quora.com/Why-is-human-i...tion-necessary


https://www.theodysseyonline.com/why...man-connection


https://www.quora.com/Why-do-humans-...t-so-necessary


https://www.nbcnews.com/better/healt...ppy-ncna836106
As I said before. I do not agree with you and I will not. Your poor listening skills is just going to further discredit you in my eyes. This conversation is over. If you really want to find information on human psychology and evidence contradicting your beliefs, you can find it just like you found studies on that confirm your bias.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,948 posts, read 7,883,196 times
Reputation: 11179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auraliea View Post
As I said before. I do not agree with you and I will not. Your poor listening skills is just going to further discredit you in my eyes. This conversation is over. If you really want to find information on human psychology and evidence contradicting your beliefs, you can find it just like you found studies on that confirm your bias.

I found those 5 in 45 seconds. I could have posted 100 more. It's not debatable. Humans need humans. It's how we are built.


And we can also forget studies. Look at our biology. We have a voice. We have touch. We have ears to hear each other. We have language. We are literally social machines.


The reproductive act that produced every one of us is a SOCIAL ACT IN AND OF ITSELF.


I am happy to conclude at this point. We can agree to disagree. I've observed reality, backed it up with cites and combined it with direct observation. The conclusions are inescapable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:52 PM
 
Location: planet earth
4,597 posts, read 1,751,592 times
Reputation: 10335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Since we are discussing human beings, might I request studies on human beings? And not toads? In paging down past this irrelevant study, we get to this:


https://www.inverse.com/article/5327...te-night-plans


And, there are no "versions" of reality. There is only one reality. The variable is how accurately we identify it. And the fact that human beings need social contact is incontrovertible and uncontroversial.


https://www.interaction-design.org/l...to-communicate


https://www.quora.com/Why-is-human-i...tion-necessary


https://www.theodysseyonline.com/why...man-connection


https://www.quora.com/Why-do-humans-...t-so-necessary


https://www.nbcnews.com/better/healt...ppy-ncna836106
You're obviously not familiar with quantum physics.

YOUR objectivist world view says that there is "only one reality." Other people have different views and believe there are unlimited versions of "reality." You seem to like to research, so maybe bone up on the basics of world views because it will spare you a lot of arguments.

It's very disrespectful to impose YOUR version of "reality" on others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,948 posts, read 7,883,196 times
Reputation: 11179
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness View Post
You're obviously not familiar with quantum physics.

YOUR objectivist world view says that there is "only one reality." Other people have different views and believe there are unlimited versions of "reality." You seem to like to research, so maybe bone up on the basics of world views because it will spare you a lot of arguments.

It's very disrespectful to impose YOUR version of "reality" on others.
There is no evidence for any alternate realities. At this point, such notions are merely theories, and there is no proof and no consensus.

So as of today, there is only one reality. And I am not imposing anything. Simply offering evidence and observations. One may accept or reject my arguments based on their own observations and analysis. My recommendation is simply for people to expand their friendships.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Non-Romantic Relationships
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top