3 ms·

I think being a loner is a high variance strategy. In a majority of the time, it hurts you in our society. But certain individuals will see huge levels of succe

I think being a loner is a high variance strategy. In a majority of the time, it hurts you in our society. But certain individuals will see huge levels of success. It's similar to the genetics of schizophrenia. Families with genetic schizophrenia and more specifically individuals with high chances of mental illness often see bifurcated life outcomes, they are both more likely to end up down and out, homeless, in a mental hospital etc. But they are also more likely to see outsized success, academically and business wise. This has been studied and proven. It's common among siblings, one succumbing to schizophrenia, the other reaching upper echelons of society.

asdfman123 7y ago
Well, be careful not to assume that the modern-day loner is the same as the Pleistocene-era loner. I'm both somewhat shy and very much introverted. I don't like artificially-created social situations. But I'll talk at great length to family members and people I work closely with. If I were in a Pleistocene tribe where basically I'm surrounded by 120 members of my extended family, coworkers, etc. etc., I'd probably talk a lot more. I like social interactions, I'm just uncomfortable in novel situations and I don't like small talk.
- r6754dw 7y ago
  True, our modern societies where most people meet strangers often are historically unusual. Before industrialization the vast majority of population lived their lives in small village communities where everybody knew each other. Traits that might be harmful today weren't necessarily so back then.
monkeydreams 7y ago
> I think being a loner is a high variance strategy. In a majority of the time, it hurts you in our society. But certain individuals will see huge levels of success. I have been thinking through this question quite a lot recently. In an employment scenario loners often appear to be driven to manage or encompass all aspects of their domain. This leads to a breadth of knowledge and skills. If this pattern has occurred across their entire life, then they can appear to be highly intelligent, "across everything", driven, etc - or they can appear frenetic, unfocused and disorganised.

asdfman123 7y ago

Well, be careful not to assume that the modern-day loner is the same as the Pleistocene-era loner. I'm both somewhat shy and very much introverted. I don't like artificially-created social situations. But I'll talk at great length to family members and people I work closely with. If I were in a Pleistocene tribe where basically I'm surrounded by 120 members of my extended family, coworkers, etc. etc., I'd probably talk a lot more. I like social interactions, I'm just uncomfortable in novel situations and I don't like small talk.

r6754dw 7y ago
True, our modern societies where most people meet strangers often are historically unusual. Before industrialization the vast majority of population lived their lives in small village communities where everybody knew each other. Traits that might be harmful today weren't necessarily so back then.

monkeydreams 7y ago

> I think being a loner is a high variance strategy. In a majority of the time, it hurts you in our society. But certain individuals will see huge levels of success. I have been thinking through this question quite a lot recently. In an employment scenario loners often appear to be driven to manage or encompass all aspects of their domain. This leads to a breadth of knowledge and skills. If this pattern has occurred across their entire life, then they can appear to be highly intelligent, "across everything", driven, etc - or they can appear frenetic, unfocused and disorganised.