social setting, what's the difference here? (dynamics, judgmental, business, person)
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.
Let's get this out of the way first: Are you new to this group?
No, my DW and I are social with lots of different little groups of family and friends where I've observed this.
The most recent was a dinner for about a dozen friends/family and one person was so friggin out of control loud and just plain in your face (I don't know how else to describe it, just like a frat boy crossed with an Amway salesperson) to the point where virtually everyone commented on it the next day. But some how it didn't rise to the level of questioning whether to accommodate at future gatherings.
Then I've also been part of a gathering of the same size where one person didn't engage as much as, apparently, the group thought appropriate and that person got skewered...may as well have had herpes. I just thought of a good example of when this happened...it was a gathering where such a person hadn't seen his friend and husband for almost 3 years and spent probably 80% of the time talking to them and 20% to the rest of the group (this is just a rough way to describe it). The dude wasn't rude about it at all, just sort of focused more on one conversation.
I just can't see how a situation like that (vs the other one) rises to the level of such a person being talked about negatively.
I just can't see how a situation like that (vs the other one) rises to the level of such a person being talked about negatively.
I have to agree; just because someone is shy, doesn't mean they are being rude.
As far as the over-loud boor, if this same person acts that way every single time they go out, I think if it has become so bad that people are thinking of not coming if they know he'll be there, then maybe it's time to bring it up and just ask if just the four or five of you that enjoy talking together, could just get together without "boor". I imagine they'd say yes. It's probably just a thing where they've all done this type of outing and it would be weird to suddenly uninvite him?
I have to agree; just because someone is shy, doesn't mean they are being rude.
As far as the over-loud boor, if this same person acts that way every single time they go out, I think if it has become so bad that people are thinking of not coming if they know he'll be there, then maybe it's time to bring it up and just ask if just the four or five of you that enjoy talking together, could just get together without "boor". I imagine they'd say yes. It's probably just a thing where they've all done this type of outing and it would be weird to suddenly uninvite him?
It would be weird to uninvite him or otherwise exclude him.
All I truly care about, in a weird way, is that it seems unnecessarily mean to single out someone for being "not the center of attention" while at the same time accommodating a d-bag. One quiet-ish person out of ten doesn't have the power to ruin my party and it feels wrong to me to judge someone poorly as if they did.
"Wow, &&&& was quiet with me most of the night, I'd have to think twice about getting together with them again."
I have never, ever heard anyone say they wouldn't go out with someone again because they were quiet. Not everyone needs to be the life of the party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhelmete
.
One person exhibits drunken, boorish, overly "I LOVE YOU MAN!!" behavior.
A different person is shy, less outwardly engaging, and not necessarily on even terms with everyone else.
?
It seems to me that you are the shy person and somehow feel superior to the boorish behavior and would like to get recognized for the fact that you aren't drunk and obnoxious.
You need Indians and you need Indian Chiefs. It would be a very boring world if both did not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhelmete
Getting far afield here, sorry.
No matter how much a d-bag annoying (sometimes) drunk person seems to upset people in a social setting, he/she keeps getting invites and others are expected to just put up with him/her.
Someone who at times is quieter on average in a social setting (think about this as, say, a non-fan being at a Super Bowl party...they could be having an OK time, but they won't be as engaged as others) seems to get more negative feedback and it's as if they're to be avoided and it's a burden to tolerate them.
.
If this loud person bothers you so much, don't go to events where he/she is invited.
It really is that simple.
If the person is that obnoxious, others will feel the same and the crowd will cull the herd.
No, my DW and I are social with lots of different little groups of family and friends where I've observed this.
The most recent was a dinner for about a dozen friends/family and one person was so friggin out of control loud and just plain in your face (I don't know how else to describe it, just like a frat boy crossed with an Amway salesperson) to the point where virtually everyone commented on it the next day. But some how it didn't rise to the level of questioning whether to accommodate at future gatherings.
Then I've also been part of a gathering of the same size where one person didn't engage as much as, apparently, the group thought appropriate and that person got skewered...may as well have had herpes. I just thought of a good example of when this happened...it was a gathering where such a person hadn't seen his friend and husband for almost 3 years and spent probably 80% of the time talking to them and 20% to the rest of the group (this is just a rough way to describe it). The dude wasn't rude about it at all, just sort of focused more on one conversation.
I just can't see how a situation like that (vs the other one) rises to the level of such a person being talked about negatively.
So, there are two possibilities here. The first, you're friends with a group of people who have completely twisted senses of social situations and are secruetly a group of bullies looking for a quieter person to use as a scapegoat. I consider that the less likely scenario, but if it is, your answer is just stop hanging out with that group.
My assumption is that you're viewing this from a skewed perspective. There's the possibility that it's not the fact that this person spent so much time talking to the one couple, it's that the person excluded all others. It's one thing if the three people were in a central area, having a conversation that anyone could join but no one chose to vs the 3 sitting off in a corner somewhere talking only among themselves and beyond not actively reaching out to others to talk, actually made it difficult for others to join their conversation(the three of you talking about your old stories that aren't relevant to anyone else as an example).
Also, assuming your numbers were close to how it worked, yes, that is really anti social. Let's say it was an hour party, that means the person only spent 12 minutes talking to other people. Let's say it was 4 hours, that still means almost 3.5 hours sitting alone, and a little over a half hour talking to other people. An 80/20 split is extremely skewed. If anything it should have been a bit of a catch up and then either an attempt to talk in the larger group, or just set up a day to catch up more.
I'm not saying the boorish person is right either, but you don't need reinforcement of your beliefs there.
To sum it up, the boorish person is invited because he actually adds something to the event vs the anti-social person who does nothing.
So, there are two possibilities here. The first, you're friends with a group of people who have completely twisted senses of social situations and are secruetly a group of bullies looking for a quieter person to use as a scapegoat. I consider that the less likely scenario, but if it is, your answer is just stop hanging out with that group.
My assumption is that you're viewing this from a skewed perspective. There's the possibility that it's not the fact that this person spent so much time talking to the one couple, it's that the person excluded all others. It's one thing if the three people were in a central area, having a conversation that anyone could join but no one chose to vs the 3 sitting off in a corner somewhere talking only among themselves and beyond not actively reaching out to others to talk, actually made it difficult for others to join their conversation(the three of you talking about your old stories that aren't relevant to anyone else as an example).
Also, assuming your numbers were close to how it worked, yes, that is really anti social. Let's say it was an hour party, that means the person only spent 12 minutes talking to other people. Let's say it was 4 hours, that still means almost 3.5 hours sitting alone, and a little over a half hour talking to other people. An 80/20 split is extremely skewed. If anything it should have been a bit of a catch up and then either an attempt to talk in the larger group, or just set up a day to catch up more.
I'm not saying the boorish person is right either, but you don't need reinforcement of your beliefs there.
To sum it up, the boorish person is invited because he actually adds something to the event vs the anti-social person who does nothing.
This is interesting, useful stuff, thank you.
It's funny you use the term "bullies" because I actually think there is a modest element of that here. I've seen people get harangued sometimes when someone has a difference of opinion or personality. It's not often, but it definitely happens. It makes my skin crawl...I mean really...we're all over 40! (And yes, were I not related to some of these people I'd be gone in a heartbeat...it's complicated)
My wife and I host a lot of social gatherings, from huge parties with parents and kids to couples' dinners and everything in between. It would really take an 'outlier' for me to notice someone's behavior and think enough of it to comment the next day. I don't keep an internal clock to track how the conversations are going between everyone.
As a host I do try and bounce around and make sure people have the opportunity to feel engaged but if someone is sort of spun off into a little group A) I'd probably not notice, and B) I wouldn't automatically assume something was wrong. I certainly wouldn't just call someone anti-social. I suppose maybe my wife might comment "did &&& seem down to you yesterday?" but that's it.
This seems to be about specific people and situations that we, on the forum, are not privy to. So, it's really impossible to give you any substantive feeback.
I will say that socially, it can feel like pulling teeth with people who are shy/introverted. They can just be too much work. It's really awkward to try and do something social with people who won't talk.
Although these are the people I'd rather have as friends and neighbors, if we aren't already friends, and I'm at a social gathering, if I can't get an easy conversation out of the quiet sober person, I'd probably rather be with the sociable drunk. It's just easier.
For me, it's not an either, or situation. If I like the drunk well enough when they're not drunk, I would endeavor to see them socially under circumstances where alcohol isn't involved, or is moderated.
If I like the quiet shy person well enough, I would endeavor to see them socially in smaller, less crowded situations where they felt more comfortable.
If drunk person found a way to be drunk or obnoxious no matter where we were or what we were doing, I would not go out of my way to spend time with them socially. Obnoxiously drunk isn't an excuse or pass for me.
If quiet person continued to make holding a conversation a strain and there was no effort on their behalf for a rapport between us in a one on one half hour chat over coffee, I wouldn't go out of my way to continue to see them socially.
I tend to give people a few chances, especially if they are reserved and need time to settle into a comfort zone, but as I said in the beginning, it's not an either, or situation and I'm not sure where "getting a free pass" plays into it.
it seems unnecessarily mean to single out someone for being "not the center of attention" while at the same time accommodating a d-bag. One quiet-ish person out of ten doesn't have the power to ruin my party and it feels wrong to me to judge someone poorly as if they did.
Oh, but it's okay for you to judge this person you don't even know and call him a dirtbag because he's loud and boisterous?
A different person is shy, less outwardly engaging, and not necessarily on even terms with everyone else.
Well, that can be awkward in a social situation.
I do think who gets more of a pass probably comes down to whose company is enjoyed more overall. I also think that extroverts are appreciated in a group setting. It takes the pressure off everyone else.
I remember attending a baby shower several years ago for a co-worker where most of invitees didn't know each other. There were about 25 of us sitting in chairs in a large circle. It was rather awkward. I think we all were probably introverts. Then the person for who the shower was being given, a strong extrovert, arrived and started chattering away. You could FEEL the awkwardness leave the room as everyone relaxed.
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.
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.
