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.
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.
I think it is like the way getting married is statistically more healthy.
Friends and a partner act like a small life coach. I am sure many unhealthy habits are correlated with being left entirely to your own devices. I know I would go to the doctor more if I had a partner coaching/bugging me that I go more.
We are the outliers. If everyone was wired like me, the concept of a dinner party would simply not exist and Facebook would look like this.
If it helps you understand the other side - very many people, and I consider myself one of them, went through a long part of life without realizing that "humans are social animals". In my case I was very unhappy for a very long time until I realized that socialization was the missing ingredient. Worse, I didn't even realize I was unhappy, and I had persuaded myself I was fine.
When you have this sort of a revelation, it's difficult to hold it in. You want to shout it from the rooftops. You want to grab every single person you can find who has a life remotely like yours years ago when you were unhappy, and save them, in the same way that you yourself needed saving.
I try not to do this any more because I understand it's annoying, and the message is unlikely to successfully transmit anyways. But I suspect this is the phenomenon you are observing.
Thanks, that does help to see it as good faith advice. I'd be totally on board with a framing like "If you're alone and unhappy or dissatisfied in life, social connection could likely be the missing piece." Though it seems even that often follows up with "If you _think_ you're content being alone, you just don't know what you're missing", similar to how parents talk about how their lives changed after having kids. Which is fine and could be true for pretty much everyone, I just hate that it's stated in a way that's unfalsifiable. That if you think differently you're just fooling yourself, and you'll change your mind once you do it.
I've found a lot of those assertions about how to live a "great" life (often based on societal averages about life expectancy) don't fit my actual subjective experience, and I had to spend years doing all the "right things" in life and wondering why it wasn't fulfilling for me. Similar to the sibling comment, it's been liberating to stop taking that type of advice as applicable to me, but that means it jumps out at me everywhere now, hah.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm approaching my 40's, have had partners, lived with them for years, good relationship with family, never been burned or damaged socially. Those things just still never seemed as central or necessary to me as they apparently are for others.
For me it was the opposite. Once I realized that I don't have to say yes to everything or socialize unless I want to, no matter how seldom, I became much happier.
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.
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.
What do you like to talk about?
I'm passionate about my work and happy to discuss topics but not too keen to explain it to someone who has nill knowledge of the subject or industry.
Honestly I don't talk much. But generally things related to whatever we're doing, entertainment (books, movies, sports, and so on), my kid when I had him, and now that I am getting older a bit more philosophical meaning of life type stuff.
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.
> I'd say women are worse when it comes to interests
You're looking at it wrong, or from a Mans perspective. Woman don't need the same "activities" or "hobbies" as men, these are doing thing that Men like.
Woman just need to socialize to socialize. Thats why they have book clubs, brunches and wine/art. They just need to talk.
Absolutely. I think I might actually prefer this, somehow. It's very relaxed.
One thing that vexes me in dating women, however, is that it's hard to figure out what "type" of woman a woman is. I think men might be a bit easier to read at a glance.
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.
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.
it was only using ChezScheme as an optimizing compiler backend.
(i created a PR to refactor their build system to reify the bootstrap process all the way down from GHC. it basically generalized the normal build workflow of Idris2 to be able to animate the entire bootstrap chain from GHC. sadly, it was pretty much ignored, and later abandoned: https://github.com/idris-lang/Idris2/pull/1990)
>> Can Idris 2 compile itself?
> Yes, Idris 2 is implemented in Idris 2. By default, it targets Chez Scheme,
> so you can bootstrap from the generated Scheme code, as described in Section
> Getting Started.
in this case the generated scheme code is just a strange form of executable file that happens to need ChezScheme to be executed.
i.e. an ELF64 idris2 linux binary vs. an idris2.scm file that needs ChezScheme to come alive.
as for Idris2 implemented in Idris2: well, yes, that's true for the current version of Idris2. but the first version of Idris2 was written in Idris1. and the first version of Idris1 was written in Haskell.
I’m not even remotely close to knowledgeable on this subject but I assume metal eating microbes are not possible because metals are not molecular and therefore there’s nothing for them to be broken down into
I get this in every day life, but it comes whenever I have to adjust the pods in my ears. But frankly I kinda expected these to pretty much suck until someone comes out with fully foam tips, at which point my problem will be completely solved as I no longer will have a need to adjust them
I mean, not to sound rude, but of course it would be someone high up who would make that decision. It’s not like a grunt could decide to scrap a whole new fab
Yea fair. What I was trying to say was that it seemed like a decision that was less the construction/development team saying "this plan isn't workable for xyz reason and we need to reconsider our approach" and more someone high up saying "we are cancelling this and we won't say why".
I could be wrong but I’d assume what the OP is trying to say is that the leadership of these companies does not want these fabs to actually open and work. That something transpired maybe between them and govt.
reply