5 ms·

> It’s far more likely that the OP is lacking in social skills. > Part of me wonders if the OP were to meet one of the authors of the books he reads at a party

> It’s far more likely that the OP is lacking in social skills. > Part of me wonders if the OP were to meet one of the authors of the books he reads at a party, would he be able to interact with them? Probably not > You’re going to go to a lot of parties in life, if you give up on them Why do you have this incessant need to make assumptions about the author and generalize? You're also placing tremendous importance on socializing and parties. This is not something that's of importance or even relevance for many intellectuals and introverts. Most parties consist of unrewarding, mundane chit-chat, easily forgotten. Going to parties in the hopes of finding a new "life long friend" or "beneficial relationship" is like playing the lottery. Also, if you're going to place that much importance on parties, you need to define what kind of parties, then we can address those discretely. Company events? Parties with friends? Relatives? Conferences? Burning man?

resonious 5y ago
I think the argument is not specifically about parties. OP and this comment's GP are both talking about parties because it's an easy way to frame a confrontation with strangers. I personally agree with the gp that "I'd rather read a book than go to a party" indicates room for improvement in social skills. So does "parties are only small talk". A skilled communicator can transition from small talk to more complex/interesting topics when talking with a stranger. Most books are about people, right? How do you suspect the authors came up with all the interesting characters? You can find interesting characters in real life too, it just takes a different skillset from reading. Neither I nor the GP (I think) are trying to say that poor social skills is an insult to character. Socializing is genuinely tiring for some people. That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it.
- erikbye 5y ago
  > I think the argument is not specifically about parties. OP and this comment's GP are both talking about parties because it's an easy way to frame a confrontation with strangers. Might be a framing device, yes. > I personally agree with the gp that "I'd rather read a book than go to a party" indicates room for improvement in social skills. I think that's reaching again. That might just be a personal preference, "I enjoy reading more than socializing." Is this not a valid opinion to have? One can also occasionally do both (not at the same time) but still prefer one over the other if given the choice. > A skilled communicator can transition from small talk to more complex/interesting topics when talking with a stranger. The author's problem wasn't that he couldn't engage in conversations about "complex" or interesting topics, it was particularly about the topics that were of interest to him. No matter your communication skills, you won't be able to strike up a meaningful conversation with just anyone on HAIFA constructions and their properties. > Most books are about people, right? How do you suspect the authors came up with all the interesting characters? You can find interesting characters in real life too, it just takes a different skillset from reading. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that uninteresting topics at parties equal uninteresting characters, either way, I think this is way outside the scope of the discussion. Neither OP nor the person you're replying to (me) has even hinted at this. > Neither I nor the GP (I think) are trying to say that poor social skills is an insult to character. I'm not so sure about that. GP practically called lack of social skills a deficiency and he wrote about hardly anything but character. > That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it. Again, outside the scope of the discussion, at least as a response to my comments and the author's article. But, I will respond all the same, because it irks me. First, it's a truism. Second, it feels like your premise is that one should be good at it? Should everyone strive to be better at socializing? I think no. Those who enjoy socializing should keep their skills sharp and probably work to improve them; because to them, the act of socializing is a rewarding one. If you do not innately enjoy it, it's highly unlikely you ever will, and why should you even strive to want this? For what purpose? No, if you do not enjoy socializing, spend as little time on it as possible. Spend time on what's rewarding to you. If staying at home reading books is it, then that's absolutely fine. Unfortunately, there is this inane pressure in society to be sociable, appealing, and likable. To be such a person, to be liked in the office at that level, or at parties, or worse, in social media, is even equated with success. None of my "heroes" are or were likable. They were difficult people who obsessed about their work, it took nearly all their time, in some cases the sacrifices were huge, family time, the family itself, and even procreation was sometimes sacrificed, but damn, these people laid the foundation for modern civilization and technology. This is what all of humanity should strive for. Valuable contributions. Do you know how all those people made those contributions? By spending inordinate amounts of time by themselves. Absorbed.
- sdoering 5y ago
  > That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it. The underlying assumption, if used as an argument, instead of a filler phrase, is, that there is value in sozializing for everybody. But is this so? I would challenge the underlying assumption and state (without proof, but who needs proof in a philosophical debate) that the world was made better by a lot of people and progress was created by a lot of people who were not good at socializing. Take people like Marie Curie who actively went against the social norms when collecting her second Nobel Price in person. At this time media had made her something of a persona non grata and the Nobel Committee explicitly asked her not to come in person as to not taint the reputation of the Price with her being there. Or take Prof. Donald E. Knuth's take on email [1]. He doesn't want to be social. He needs to be anti-social for him to do his work. or take Luhmann who wasn't known to be very socially likeble and who stated that words like 'truth' needed to be redefined (scientifically) and was hard to follow in discussions because one needed to know how he had redifend terms one was used to. But these redefinitions actually provided clarity and precision once understood. They were just not socially usable. [1] https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html
  - resonious 5y ago
    These are some pretty great examples. I definitely agree that not every skill needs to be honed by everyone. However if one feels like writing an article titled "Intellectual Loneliness" then I do wonder if touching up on communication might help.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  > Socializing is genuinely tiring for some people. That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it. In my early 20s I forced myself to hit up clubs, raves, house parties etc and I never lost the feeling of being on edge, not knowing what to say and so on. Now since the beginning of COVID I have regressed to what I was like in my teens (socially) so that tells me that all of the practice was for nothing and against my underlying nature. I suspect many people out there are like me, and socializing is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole for them: an unpleasant and ultimately futile experience.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    I might suggest that there are multiple kinds of parties. Clubs, raves, and house parties are vastly different from a whiskey tasting party, and are vastly different from a book club or a craft club, which are also different from groups to go hiking/biking or sports playing.
  - jayfae 5y ago
    >so that tells me that all of the practice was for nothing and against my underlying nature I've been through what I think is a similar cycle before and feel I can relate a little to this feeling ; I've tried to look at it as more of an unseen muscle group. Although we can look at ourselves and say we've definitely lost 'socialising muscle mass' for a lack of a better word, I think the ease in which we can regain our muscle mass gets easier with each cycle. I also like to think of it, like a balloon that represents our boundaries as a person and although our territorial boundary might shrink when we're isolated (deflate) with each stretching of our boundary it becomes easier to fill again?
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  How does preferring a book to a party indicate poor social skills?
  - resonious 5y ago
    When you put it like that, it does seem a little silly.. I think really it's less about "preferring a book to a party" and more about the OP's claims that socializing == "Mindless conversations about the news that regurgitate the same tired storylines." If the reason you prefer a book to a party is that you are ultra intelligent and other people are mindless, then maybe it's poor social skills. If your reason for preferring a book is that you have a fulfilling social life already and just want to enjoy the book, then have at it.
iamleppert 5y ago
I consider myself to be an intellectual and naturally introverted. I, like the OP, had at one point in my life written parties off (really any free-form social interaction where there wasn’t some topic, purpose or structure). I thought I was too important for small talk, it “bored me” and I enjoyed doing other things so why bother? Why subject myself to something I don’t enjoy? It seems so reasonable and logical on the surface. Then something changed for me, I went to a party and actually tried to talk to people. I approached it like the challenge of learning a new skill or technology. If you appear “bored” in a conversation people pick up on it quickly — they too are likely going through the same set of emotions. The challenge is to keep a conversation going long enough and authentically enough to develop a comfort with the other person, once you do that you can talk freely and people “open up”. They will tell you things that are actually interesting and small talk will be no more. When this occurs, it’s (at least for me) the exact same feeling as getting into a good book, hours can pass without you knowing it. When I hear someone complain about hating small talk, it’s a sign of their own naivety and the irony is that the thing they most crave —- meaningful, intelligent human interaction is possible with virtually anyone and right there in front of them the entire time. Why go home and read a book when you have a person with a life’s worth of experiences and stories right there in front of you? The older you get the more you realize that the opportunity for social interactions like these decreases over time. There’s a finite number of them for everyone, they are not some unlimited quantity or resource and for most people the number is quite a bit smaller than the time you have (and will have) alone for intellectual pursuits.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  Just like you say, that it is much more likely, that the author is missing social skills, one could now make a similarly baseless claim: "Most likely you have over time become less sharp and less of an intellectual, so that you now accept the useless small talk and accept wasting time." Just to give you in impression of how it might feel, what you wrote about the author. So lets just stop assuming things about the author. Out of some people, you will not get any original ideas, interesting thoughts. It is you, who needs to push them towards any interesting topic and even then they might derail it into unimportance or uninteresting ways. Yes, a person is in front of you, with a whole life experience, but there are questions to be considered, when comparing to a book: (1) Is that person in front of you able to communicate and share any meaningful information from that whole life of experiences? Have they thought about stuff in depth before, so that they can share some quintessence in the short time, that you talk with them, before the conversation walks on to more lighthearted topics with the next person at the table? (2) In a meaningful book, the author has firstly recognized, that there is something meaningful to write about, something to share. This might not be the case for a random person at a party. The person at the party might not even know, that anything they experienced is worth sharing or what those things are. (3) Hopefully a good book will be written with carefully chosen words, that most precisely convey the ideas, that they author had. It is very difficult to achieve anything close to that in some small talk. (4) Who is willing to lend you their ear and talk for prolonged duration on a party, when there are probably many other people around? That already is some precondition, which might not be fulfilled at any random party.
klodolph 5y ago
> Most parties consist of unrewarding, mundane chit-chat, easily forgotten. You can choose the parties you go to, choose the people you talk to at those parties, and in those conversations, you're an equal participant. Finding meaningful, deep conversation with strangers at parties is possible. It does require some skill and patience, and it requires you "submit to the mortifying ordeal of being known," as the quote goes. By that I mean that you can talk about the things you care about in a conversation, and you run the risk that other people will judge you poorly for it. It takes some personal fortitude to put yourself out there. > Going to parties in the hopes of finding a new "life long friend" or "beneficial relationship" is like playing the lottery. Either I keep winning the lottery, or there's something at play here besides luck. This is a skill you can learn. It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. There are also entire books, blog posts, etc. written on it, if you care. It's intellectually lazy to casually dismiss things... like going to parties, sports, reading fiction, watching movies... you don't have to like parties, you don't have to be good at parties, but that doesn't mean that they're sour grapes.
- erikbye 5y ago
  > Either I keep winning the lottery, or there's something at play here besides luck. Really? You have found several life-long friends at parties? How old are you? What's your definition of 'friend' in this case? How good of a friend are we talking? Most of your friends and acquaintances are not relationships formed at educational institutions or workplaces? First, you have to be at least 40+ to even begin deeming a relationship "life-long", even then it's somewhat hyperbole. Very few of my friends have even struck up 1 such relationship from such events. I think it's rare. Purely anecdotal of course, looking at the people in my own life and that of my friends'. > This is a skill you can learn. It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. There are also entire books, blog posts, etc. written on it, if you care. Wait, let me get this right. What exactly are you saying is a skill one can learn? Meeting life-long friends at parties? Are you talking about manipulation? Exploitation? "How to win friends and influence people?" Bullshit like presenting not your true self, but a likable facade in order to please other people and meet social expectations?

resonious 5y ago

I think the argument is not specifically about parties. OP and this comment's GP are both talking about parties because it's an easy way to frame a confrontation with strangers. I personally agree with the gp that "I'd rather read a book than go to a party" indicates room for improvement in social skills. So does "parties are only small talk". A skilled communicator can transition from small talk to more complex/interesting topics when talking with a stranger. Most books are about people, right? How do you suspect the authors came up with all the interesting characters? You can find interesting characters in real life too, it just takes a different skillset from reading. Neither I nor the GP (I think) are trying to say that poor social skills is an insult to character. Socializing is genuinely tiring for some people. That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it.

erikbye 5y ago
> I think the argument is not specifically about parties. OP and this comment's GP are both talking about parties because it's an easy way to frame a confrontation with strangers. Might be a framing device, yes. > I personally agree with the gp that "I'd rather read a book than go to a party" indicates room for improvement in social skills. I think that's reaching again. That might just be a personal preference, "I enjoy reading more than socializing." Is this not a valid opinion to have? One can also occasionally do both (not at the same time) but still prefer one over the other if given the choice. > A skilled communicator can transition from small talk to more complex/interesting topics when talking with a stranger. The author's problem wasn't that he couldn't engage in conversations about "complex" or interesting topics, it was particularly about the topics that were of interest to him. No matter your communication skills, you won't be able to strike up a meaningful conversation with just anyone on HAIFA constructions and their properties. > Most books are about people, right? How do you suspect the authors came up with all the interesting characters? You can find interesting characters in real life too, it just takes a different skillset from reading. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that uninteresting topics at parties equal uninteresting characters, either way, I think this is way outside the scope of the discussion. Neither OP nor the person you're replying to (me) has even hinted at this. > Neither I nor the GP (I think) are trying to say that poor social skills is an insult to character. I'm not so sure about that. GP practically called lack of social skills a deficiency and he wrote about hardly anything but character. > That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it. Again, outside the scope of the discussion, at least as a response to my comments and the author's article. But, I will respond all the same, because it irks me. First, it's a truism. Second, it feels like your premise is that one should be good at it? Should everyone strive to be better at socializing? I think no. Those who enjoy socializing should keep their skills sharp and probably work to improve them; because to them, the act of socializing is a rewarding one. If you do not innately enjoy it, it's highly unlikely you ever will, and why should you even strive to want this? For what purpose? No, if you do not enjoy socializing, spend as little time on it as possible. Spend time on what's rewarding to you. If staying at home reading books is it, then that's absolutely fine. Unfortunately, there is this inane pressure in society to be sociable, appealing, and likable. To be such a person, to be liked in the office at that level, or at parties, or worse, in social media, is even equated with success. None of my "heroes" are or were likable. They were difficult people who obsessed about their work, it took nearly all their time, in some cases the sacrifices were huge, family time, the family itself, and even procreation was sometimes sacrificed, but damn, these people laid the foundation for modern civilization and technology. This is what all of humanity should strive for. Valuable contributions. Do you know how all those people made those contributions? By spending inordinate amounts of time by themselves. Absorbed.
sdoering 5y ago
> That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it. The underlying assumption, if used as an argument, instead of a filler phrase, is, that there is value in sozializing for everybody. But is this so? I would challenge the underlying assumption and state (without proof, but who needs proof in a philosophical debate) that the world was made better by a lot of people and progress was created by a lot of people who were not good at socializing. Take people like Marie Curie who actively went against the social norms when collecting her second Nobel Price in person. At this time media had made her something of a persona non grata and the Nobel Committee explicitly asked her not to come in person as to not taint the reputation of the Price with her being there. Or take Prof. Donald E. Knuth's take on email [1]. He doesn't want to be social. He needs to be anti-social for him to do his work. or take Luhmann who wasn't known to be very socially likeble and who stated that words like 'truth' needed to be redefined (scientifically) and was hard to follow in discussions because one needed to know how he had redifend terms one was used to. But these redefinitions actually provided clarity and precision once understood. They were just not socially usable. [1] https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html
- resonious 5y ago
  These are some pretty great examples. I definitely agree that not every skill needs to be honed by everyone. However if one feels like writing an article titled "Intellectual Loneliness" then I do wonder if touching up on communication might help.
gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
> Socializing is genuinely tiring for some people. That doesn't mean you can't practice and get better at it. In my early 20s I forced myself to hit up clubs, raves, house parties etc and I never lost the feeling of being on edge, not knowing what to say and so on. Now since the beginning of COVID I have regressed to what I was like in my teens (socially) so that tells me that all of the practice was for nothing and against my underlying nature. I suspect many people out there are like me, and socializing is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole for them: an unpleasant and ultimately futile experience.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  I might suggest that there are multiple kinds of parties. Clubs, raves, and house parties are vastly different from a whiskey tasting party, and are vastly different from a book club or a craft club, which are also different from groups to go hiking/biking or sports playing.
- jayfae 5y ago
  >so that tells me that all of the practice was for nothing and against my underlying nature I've been through what I think is a similar cycle before and feel I can relate a little to this feeling ; I've tried to look at it as more of an unseen muscle group. Although we can look at ourselves and say we've definitely lost 'socialising muscle mass' for a lack of a better word, I think the ease in which we can regain our muscle mass gets easier with each cycle. I also like to think of it, like a balloon that represents our boundaries as a person and although our territorial boundary might shrink when we're isolated (deflate) with each stretching of our boundary it becomes easier to fill again?
ZephyrBlu 5y ago
How does preferring a book to a party indicate poor social skills?
- resonious 5y ago
  When you put it like that, it does seem a little silly.. I think really it's less about "preferring a book to a party" and more about the OP's claims that socializing == "Mindless conversations about the news that regurgitate the same tired storylines." If the reason you prefer a book to a party is that you are ultra intelligent and other people are mindless, then maybe it's poor social skills. If your reason for preferring a book is that you have a fulfilling social life already and just want to enjoy the book, then have at it.

iamleppert 5y ago

I consider myself to be an intellectual and naturally introverted. I, like the OP, had at one point in my life written parties off (really any free-form social interaction where there wasn’t some topic, purpose or structure). I thought I was too important for small talk, it “bored me” and I enjoyed doing other things so why bother? Why subject myself to something I don’t enjoy? It seems so reasonable and logical on the surface. Then something changed for me, I went to a party and actually tried to talk to people. I approached it like the challenge of learning a new skill or technology. If you appear “bored” in a conversation people pick up on it quickly — they too are likely going through the same set of emotions. The challenge is to keep a conversation going long enough and authentically enough to develop a comfort with the other person, once you do that you can talk freely and people “open up”. They will tell you things that are actually interesting and small talk will be no more. When this occurs, it’s (at least for me) the exact same feeling as getting into a good book, hours can pass without you knowing it. When I hear someone complain about hating small talk, it’s a sign of their own naivety and the irony is that the thing they most crave —- meaningful, intelligent human interaction is possible with virtually anyone and right there in front of them the entire time. Why go home and read a book when you have a person with a life’s worth of experiences and stories right there in front of you? The older you get the more you realize that the opportunity for social interactions like these decreases over time. There’s a finite number of them for everyone, they are not some unlimited quantity or resource and for most people the number is quite a bit smaller than the time you have (and will have) alone for intellectual pursuits.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zelphirkalt 5y ago
Just like you say, that it is much more likely, that the author is missing social skills, one could now make a similarly baseless claim: "Most likely you have over time become less sharp and less of an intellectual, so that you now accept the useless small talk and accept wasting time." Just to give you in impression of how it might feel, what you wrote about the author. So lets just stop assuming things about the author. Out of some people, you will not get any original ideas, interesting thoughts. It is you, who needs to push them towards any interesting topic and even then they might derail it into unimportance or uninteresting ways. Yes, a person is in front of you, with a whole life experience, but there are questions to be considered, when comparing to a book: (1) Is that person in front of you able to communicate and share any meaningful information from that whole life of experiences? Have they thought about stuff in depth before, so that they can share some quintessence in the short time, that you talk with them, before the conversation walks on to more lighthearted topics with the next person at the table? (2) In a meaningful book, the author has firstly recognized, that there is something meaningful to write about, something to share. This might not be the case for a random person at a party. The person at the party might not even know, that anything they experienced is worth sharing or what those things are. (3) Hopefully a good book will be written with carefully chosen words, that most precisely convey the ideas, that they author had. It is very difficult to achieve anything close to that in some small talk. (4) Who is willing to lend you their ear and talk for prolonged duration on a party, when there are probably many other people around? That already is some precondition, which might not be fulfilled at any random party.

klodolph 5y ago

> Most parties consist of unrewarding, mundane chit-chat, easily forgotten. You can choose the parties you go to, choose the people you talk to at those parties, and in those conversations, you're an equal participant. Finding meaningful, deep conversation with strangers at parties is possible. It does require some skill and patience, and it requires you "submit to the mortifying ordeal of being known," as the quote goes. By that I mean that you can talk about the things you care about in a conversation, and you run the risk that other people will judge you poorly for it. It takes some personal fortitude to put yourself out there. > Going to parties in the hopes of finding a new "life long friend" or "beneficial relationship" is like playing the lottery. Either I keep winning the lottery, or there's something at play here besides luck. This is a skill you can learn. It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. There are also entire books, blog posts, etc. written on it, if you care. It's intellectually lazy to casually dismiss things... like going to parties, sports, reading fiction, watching movies... you don't have to like parties, you don't have to be good at parties, but that doesn't mean that they're sour grapes.

erikbye 5y ago
> Either I keep winning the lottery, or there's something at play here besides luck. Really? You have found several life-long friends at parties? How old are you? What's your definition of 'friend' in this case? How good of a friend are we talking? Most of your friends and acquaintances are not relationships formed at educational institutions or workplaces? First, you have to be at least 40+ to even begin deeming a relationship "life-long", even then it's somewhat hyperbole. Very few of my friends have even struck up 1 such relationship from such events. I think it's rare. Purely anecdotal of course, looking at the people in my own life and that of my friends'. > This is a skill you can learn. It's a skill with tacit knowledge requiring real-world practice in order to develop it. There are also entire books, blog posts, etc. written on it, if you care. Wait, let me get this right. What exactly are you saying is a skill one can learn? Meeting life-long friends at parties? Are you talking about manipulation? Exploitation? "How to win friends and influence people?" Bullshit like presenting not your true self, but a likable facade in order to please other people and meet social expectations?