Comment by iamnothere
1 month ago
As someone who used to have a highly active social life and now finds IRL socializing to be mostly a dull chore, I always find it confusing to see so many people commenting to the contrary. My partner is slightly more social than me and gets out slightly more than I do, but generally we are homebodies and we like it that way.
Other people (at least in this country) are generally emotionally messy, unwilling to tolerate people with radically different views/values, and either intellectually lacking or overly predictable in their interests. The few times I find a candidate who isn’t like this, they usually have some kind of personality disorder that makes them too unstable for long-term friendship. When I was younger I often looked past this, but there’s only so many times you are willing to let a human wrecking ball into your life.
A good book is almost always better. The life of a deep reader and casual hobbyist is rich and fulfilling if your romantic needs are satisfied at home. I do not miss my former social life at all.
Just leaving this out there for any other wayward souls who may be annoyed by the conversation.
I think I went through a phase of feeling like you do, but eventually I realized it was a pretentious, excessively online, insufficiently adventurous, disconnected way to engage in life, that was lacking in humility and vulnerability, relying too much on control.
I realized all of this while not having gone to the apparent extreme you have, and never stopped building new friendships, but my level of engagement in those friendships and how I felt about them did change. I don't believe you can constantly add new arbitrary friends and have them all be equally as deep or stimulating—it's not economical from a time perspective, assuming you want to be friends with yourself too and devote time to your own interests alone—but that doesn't mean you need to exempt yourself from social life altogether.
Additionally, I've found that the people I'm exposed to and can build strong relationships with are only limited by own interests and depth. I have been fairly one-dimensional at times, and thus my friends end up being people who can tolerate that one-dimensionality. If I bring political bs to every party, I'll only be invited to parties I won't kill the vibe at, it's not their fault, and likewise if all I could talk about was programming, I'd only have tech friends. Incidentally I have only two tech friends among at least 20-30 pther "strong" friends from completely unrelated backgrounds with different dispositions.
It's okay to not miss a specific type of social life, but I think it's worth reflecting more deeply on a lack of interest in any social life. Your social life should not be transactional, imho. A book won't show up to your wedding, a book will not wave at you while on your to a grocery store, and a book will not climb a mountain, go biking, or play cards with you during a rainstorm on a train. Your romantic partner might, but they can't be expected to do it all the time. I don't do any of that with all my friends either.
I don't know if I'm the only one, but 30 strong friends sounds insane to me. You're a lucky human to have the personality and skills to achieve that.
Absolutely, and I try to keep that in mind. I tried to explicitly indicate that it's not a homogeneous group, not in terms of longevity, ethnic background, common ground, age, location, or frequency, although they are mostly the same sex among my closest friends. I try to just start small, open myself up to new experiences and people, and then identify when we have good chemistry, which takes a bit of personal honesty. For every good friend, I have probably 3 acquaintances that I also see regularly in group settings but not super close, and some of those that might have become close friends but dropped off for whatever reason.
They're people that I've known typically for at least 2 years, I trust, and I'd be able to DM for a hangout, drink with, engage in a variety of common interests together, we can roast each other and be toxic and give each other a pass as long as it's all in good humor.
The skills and traits that make me reasonably good at that don't help me in the kinds of activities that make people boring and successful in a nostalgic middle class suburbia sense, so it has tradeoffs, and it's not always easy, but it averages out to easy. I used to be very shy, and probably wouldn't be this way if I'd stayed in my hometown where everyone just stays away from each other and knows their high school mates. I live in a relatively expensive city, don't have a car or a house, or kids, or many physical assets. I'm employed, but probably have not been for more than half of my adult life, and I rent.
Spreading myself too thin beyond that isn't really sustainable until there's a good foundation of trust built and it's not as necessary to see each other every week. Some older friends I see once a year, others I've seen 4 times this week due to holiday parties, and some are people I know in my community. Events and lots of socializing come in bursts and it can be tiring, so I'll just dip out for a while and refresh when necessary, which I'm currently looking forward to, but have a wedding and a birthday coming up in the next 3 days lol
Incidentally, I've also never once known my immediate neighbors beyond a brief few conversations.
Socializing is not a "dull chore" it is a essential component of healthy living[1]
By not socializing, you are avoiding (to quote the linked article) a "fundamental human need." This is not something you can simply live without, just like you cannot live a good live without exercise.
The view you are espousing is fundamentally unhealthy.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11403199/
While you are totally right, it doesn't means we are all good and/or equal when it comes to fulfilling our fundamental human needs.
Your exemple is in fact good because a hella lot of people find exercice to be exactly a "dull chore". Same as eating healthy actually.
So, mentioning that socializing can be, for some people, a chore doesn't go against the fact that it is something essential.
You can even be conscious about it and still don't like it : I hate exercising but i still do it because, well, it's needed.
These kind of findings are probably accurate on average, but not to a person. Some people are wired differently. Some (presumably most) require community and extensive social connection. I really think that some of us just need much, much less. I don't get much sense of reward from social interactions. It really does just feel like a dull chore most of the time. Even with people I genuinely like and respect.
Yeah, I've been trying to wrap my head around this recently. I always get a bit irked by the inevitable comments confidently asserting things like "humans are social animals, if you think you don't need tight social connections you're just hurting yourself". And then pointing to these results averaged out over the entire population as "proof".
It seems like there's got to be some statistical fallacy being made, like asserting "all humans need visual stimulation to survive" and then all the blind people on earth shrug at the data and realize they're not human I guess? On average it's true, "all humans" would go crazy if deprived of their sight, but it turns out some people do it just fine and can have rich, human lives.
I wonder if it's just when people live very social lives, the idea of deriving satisfaction in life internally, to be able to self regulate and maintain a health sense of identity without frequent input from others, is just too alien to consider. To not dislike people, or lack social skills, but just be as disinterested in socializing as I am in starting a coin collection. Or maybe all that is just extremely uncommon and experiences like mine are just a true rounding error.
5 replies →
I used to be like you, living my life based on external beliefs of what I "should" do. Once I realized that I didn't have to all my stress disappeared and I've never been happier.
People told me I "should" exercise for years and I didn't, but when I did I suddenly got a lot less depressed and my life turned around for the better so I'm going to continue to trust other people
You won't be happier if you don't eat healthy, stay indoors al day, avoid talking to anyone, never exercise, never clean up, because those things are considered a chore. There are things people avoid doing that are still needed to be healthy!
There is a deep irony in an argument that pushes a pro-socializing view in a black-and-white, authoritarian way, "shoulding" statements, shaming tactics. It's actually anti-social, and the authors of the cited paper probably would not agree.
2 replies →
It definitely can be a chore.
I organized a large (600+-person at its peak) Meetup in Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY during Meetup's hayday (2010-ish).
Meeting heaps of different people from all walks of life was interesting at first. But like a previous poster stated, connections like these are fleeting and take a lot of work to maintain (especially if you're a man, which I am; see the end of this post for more on that).
Consequently, the process of meeting people eventually became very same-y after a short while, and knowing that these conversations usually won't amount to anything other than nice, fleeting moments got old.
There was also the drama of managing "interesting" personalities in a free Meetup group. I passed the baton in 2012 or so, but that's another post for another day.
I'll conclude this post with some unsolicited advice: try to learn what people do for work without asking them directly.
EVERYONE expects this question, and it can be a conversation killer if your occupations don't intersect (less likely) or if the person you're conversing with hates their job (more likely). Everyone ALSO loves talking about themselves. Finding out how someone spends the largest part of their day without asking point-blank adds interesting twists and turns that can really liven up a conversation. It also makes you a better listener and better at asking questions.
I lied; I have more unsolicited advice. The easiest way to give a shit about what someone does for work is to ask lots of questions! Unless they hate their job, in which case, you'll want to ask questions that get them talking about what they do enjoy!
Typing that last paragraph reminded me of another reason why I got burned out on socializing with people. I'm a man. Most men only like sports and video games; two things I couldn't care less about. Socializing with other men as a man who dislikes these things is extremely difficult, especially in the US South, where I live. I blame the suburban lifestyle, but that, too, is another post for another day.
>Everyone ALSO loves talking about themselves
I see this a lot and it's interesting because I don't like to talk about myself much. Doubly so about work. I wonder how many of us there are.
3 replies →
Have you tried getting meta about sports and video games? I don't care about sports, but I'll be interested if you talk to me about the business of sports clubs or the technicalities of stadiums. Video games have a lot going on around them: The lawsuits and general weirdness around how Disco Elysium was made is the stuff of several documentaries, for example.
Anecdotally, I'd say women are worse when it comes to interests. It's incredibly common that they just don't have any, which isn't the end of the world, oddly enough. There might be little to discuss, but drinking some wine, going to the movies or a gallery while having a pleasant conversation - these can be fine activities. Hard to turn it into a club, but on the other hand it's basically universal.
2 replies →
I agree people love to talk about themselves. I disagree about work being the one to go for though. Career is the default conversation; the boring conversation.
I ask 'What keeps you busy?' and if people think of work then that's fine, but for those of us that don't center our lives that way there is an opportunity to discuss something else. Asking what you do for income is a more narrow and closed conversation.
Oh man, I relate so hard on the sports conversations.
3 replies →
[dead]
It’s perhaps possible to get the bulk of this ‘required’ socialisation from your home life though
While this is true, when your relationship comes to an end you are suddenly very alone.
1 reply →
Yes. It helps to have a partner who also has a rich intellectual and/or creative life.
1 reply →
Finger-wag all you want, it's not going to make that Sisyphean boulder any lighter.
I guess I’m unhealthy then. Sad!
I do think unhealthy is the way to put it. I think that being asocial is kind of like being overweight, in that they have similarly negative effects on health[1]. Of course, being in good health is multifactorial, and just as you can find many overweight people who are otherwise in fine health, you can find many people (like yourself) who eschew social situations but are otherwise perfectly happy.
Though I do think, if you extend the metaphor, that saying that socializing is a dull chore is a bit like saying exercising is a dull chore.
[1] https://www.ssmhealth.com/newsroom/blogs/ssm-health-matters/...
> Other people (at least in this country) are generally emotionally messy, unwilling to tolerate people with radically different views/values, and either intellectually lacking or overly predictable in their interests.
Does every person need to be unpredicatable and intellectually stimulating in order to spend time with them? If a friend who lives in Rotorua is interested in mountain biking (how predictable, how shallow) does that make spending time on a bike in the forest with them somehow lesser?
It's always fun seeing other Kiwis on HN, but this is the first time I've seen my hometown mentioned!
I do agree with your point too: perhaps emotional stimulation is also important? That can be a lot less sharp, less well-defined, but just as enriching.
It sounds like GP has very high standards for their friends, which is not the point IMO. I think we should have friends to broaden our horizons and expose us to new things. Intelligence is only one part of that.
I am not a Kiwi but was in Rotorua once, just wanted to say it is a lovely town (there was a sign claiming it was the nicest town in NZ!) and I loved the geyser and boiling mud! Must be funny to live with the sulphur smell and not even noticing except when you leave and come back after a while.
I don’t think other people are the problem here. Harshly judging others and only wanting to socialise with people that fit a strict narrow criteria is the problem. And it sounds like you have good reason to do that due to past bad experience. I’ve been in a very similar situation and used it to justify keeping a minimal social life. But discarding a rich social life due to some bad experience is the wrong solution. It’s like getting a car accident and deciding you should never travel by car again.
Human experience is broader than you can imagine. Through reading, I regularly encounter new ideas and concepts that I never could have derived from my interactions with others. Through meditation and contemplation I have experienced strange and fascinating modes of consciousness that are available to anyone willing to sit still for a while. Casual travel has led me to an endless number of beautiful empty places, places whose very lack of humans made me feel completely free. Making physical things as a hobby has made me deeply satisfied in a way I never have felt when dealing with people.
None of this has required much in the way of socializing, in fact excessive socializing would actively interfere with these activities.
I reject your implication that a highly social life is better than a rich, mostly solitary life. It’s different, but not better.
None of these are bad things.They're all great. But rejecting socialising with other humans due to a negative experience with some is the opposite of the enlightenment that can be found through meditation. If you only read about things rather than experience them you can't really know them. If you only travel alone you miss out on the joy of travelling and discovering with others. You can do both.
4 replies →
> there’s only so many times you are willing to let a human wrecking ball into your life.
I understand this deeply. On the other hand, I do believe that community is essential for a good life (for 99%+ of people). It's a struggle for me, as I want community, but I've had many wrecking balls and anchors (and been them), and so I tend to be defensive.
> Other people [...] are generally emotionally messy, unwilling to tolerate people with radically different views/values, and either intellectually lacking or overly predictable in their interests.
I also feel this. But I suspect a large part of this is that defensiveness, people are meant to live in harmony with those (fairly) different from them. But especially with regard to differing values, sometimes it feels like no one around you shares the same framework. I think that's one reason people move to new places.
An interesting comment here.
I can attribute jumping several economic classes to the social skills I honed in high school and college. I have many friendships that are decades-plus and I had 150+ of my invited friends / family attend my wedding.
Emotionally, I do not long for new friends. It's a lot of work to maintain the relationships I have with my friends, family, wife and daughter.
I find aimless socialization these days to be laborious. I just do not give a shit.
I recently moved to NYC. I am at a point in my career where it's networking and politics that will get me ahead. I see a lot of my net-new socialization moving this direction.
+1. For every one like the author of the blog post, it's likely to be another one in the opposite direction. But they will be unlikely to write a post about that. I too found weighting 'spend time with human persons v.s. with my own thoughts, or programming and writing, or reading a paper or a post, or listening to a podcast while walking in nature' lately come down on the side away from humans. So far - it's been way more interesting. When/if that changes and becomes boring - will think what next and change.
Exactly, I may change my stripes again, but for now a life of relative solitude feels right.
No hate intended towards those who feel the need to be social. If you feel like you’re missing out, the article has some good advice. But there’s nothing wrong with those of us who prefer a quiet morning walk to an average conversation.
> But they will be unlikely to write a post about that.
I don't know what you're talking about. People loooove talking about how hell is other people or how they'd rather be curled up on the couch, how relieved they are when others cancel plans at the last minute.
> For every one like the author of the blog post, it's likely to be another one in the opposite direction. But they will be unlikely to write a post about that.
There's literally an entire website dedicated to people with this point of view, it's called Reddit.
I definitely see your point. I'd just say though that it can put a lot of pressure on the romantic relationship. Some can handle it; others might not. And also it makes it much more difficult to recover if things don't work out.
Social life is a bit like SEO. To get the full benefits, you needed to start on it years ago. Trying to do it just-in-time is generally a very frustrating experience. I think there's wisdom in doing casual cultivation when you don't feel you need it. It's like keeping your skills/résumé up-to-date just in case.
What country are you in?
The US. I think the increased political polarization has changed things somewhat, as well as the aging of my peer demographic. People tend to become more close-minded and fixed in their beliefs as they age, so if you’re a freethinker who enjoys thought experiments and challenging norms then it’s difficult to find others who are similar.
Even many so-called “freethinkers” merely regurgitate common talking points and claim that this is somehow interesting, and they get more aggressive than “normies” if you try to branch out! I used to be able to engage in open ended conversations with people where you explore topics from all angles and adopt abhorrent positions as a way to understand the truth. Nobody seems to be comfortable with that anymore. Perhaps in the past everyone was just so drunk that they didn’t care about their inhibitions; I don’t tend to drink socially anymore and alcohol is famously a social lubricant.
I'm with you all the way. It's always much easier to strike up conversations with foreigners on my travels (or the locals) abroad than it is with people from the US, even when abroad. I was on vacation taking a tour when another American family joined. It didn't take long until they started to talk about politics. We could have talked about so many other things, but that's the reality for the vast majority of Americans. Politics is the only sport left and all consuming for most here. The worst part is like you said, they are rooting simply for their own team and aren't looking for an actual intellectual discussion on anything.
1 reply →
> adopt abhorrent positions as a way to understand the truth
That sounds very unpleasant to be around.
1 reply →
Can you name a few topics that you feel benefit from taking an abhorrent position as a way to understand the truth? I also deeply seek open ended conversations about incredibly thorny subjects but I almost never purposefully take a position to I consider abhorrent in order to do so. For example while I am curious about and want to understand antisemitism as a political movement, I don’t see how actually adopting antisemitic beliefs even as a thought exercise would make me understand them more. I find I much more benefit from trying to develop a framework of analysis based on a mix of books from experts (which help as a kind of a meta study crystallized into a person with deep expertise in a subject) and witnessing individual antisemetic acts to see if they fit into the metanarrative by the experts— if they don’t, why not, etc.
You seem to have an extremely high regard for yourself.