Thanks for explanation, I understand your idea better now, but still disagree. I don’t think that the described is actually commonly lacking and, back to the or

Thanks for explanation, I understand your idea better now, but still disagree. I don’t think that the described is actually commonly lacking and, back to the original point, that it is first and foremost related to some form of success. There are lots of social people, at least they are the majority at meetings. And barely a quarter of them are that high on that beaten success/thrive ladder. (And it may be just post-factum confidence in disguise). While social is important, as in “don’t be socially disabled”, I find this importance barely meaningful for what was an initial point of subj, cause it’s in no common lack-of category. I guess that’s where we see it differently.