Myths on Social Life + "nerds"

[DeathStorm]

I wanted to open this discussion because I have a feeling that many people in today's 21st century world are facing a moral panic about their own social lives (or what they perceive as unsocial lives), trying to have more and more and more without even knowing why in first place.
I also feel that most of the current beliefs on Social Life insist on the existence of a homogeneous set of social parameters, instead of a diversity of forms of social lifestyle.

I don't know where exactly these beliefs stem from (though my sixth sense keeps suggesting me something, especially because I'm a business school student, and there's a lot of etiquette around networking and interpersonal skills here...).

But look around, listen to what people say and think...
(I'm not talking about everyone, but trends/fads)

- people perceive themselves as "unsocial" because they don't go clubbing as much as others; My question: do you find other human beings (and potential partners, if that's what you needed in first place) only at nightclubs and parties?

- people are unsatisfied with themselves because they don't have enough friends on Facebook (a social networking website especially targeted at students + there are many similar networking systems, online and offline); My question: do you actually need so many friends to reach whatever purpose you want to?

- people perceive themselves as unable to groom globally because of specific tastes and hobbies in life that are different from mainstream (see below).

What I have often noticed is that, although the usual customs of socializing and being "networked" might be useful sometimes, many people (especially newcomers!) do so at the expense of their own identity - and often buy into passive herd behavior.

While I'm aware that for some people social problems can arise due to hardwired genetic causes (which can be overcome anyway...), I think that most of the problems I often hear about regarding "social confidence" merely stem from these misconceptions about oneself and one's activities/hobbies.
I think that it is easy for people to be told (or believe for themselves) that they are "unsocial", and - as a consequence - feel lack of confidence when facing what they consider "social situations".

The most famous example is probably the American stereotype called "nerd".
Those who - stereotypically at least - spend a lot of time at the computer, playing videogames on the internet, or do other things that for a variety of reasons eclipse them from what is called "real life".

What makes them (and others) believe that they are "unsocial"?
Let's analyze the situation (as usual, I have no statistics, I'm only using my experience and the people I've met as a basis of my thoughts)...

A typical nerd nowadays spends hours of his time playing competitive online games like Second Life or World of Warcraft. From what I have seen, both games are full of other people, thousands, and the players constantly communicate with each other (I suppose they are human beings as well, which makes the practice probably similar - if not more engaging - than randomly adding friends on Facebook!).
However, when the typical male nerd needs to approach the prom queen (or even a female nerd, for that matter) he goes havoc - but is this inconfidence due to his own personality or due to the belief that nerds will loose at romantic matters?
Most hardcore nerds I have known then follow two paths: they either start purposely behaving unsocial, purposely un-groom themselves and playing only on the internet, drowning in their belief that they aren't social... or they abandon everything, all their past attitudes, buy self help books on Seduction and start spreading STDs around the world

Do I know people who play Warcraft and have a stable romantic life?
Yes. They are few, unfortunately, but there are. They didn't need to abandon any of their hobbies.

Oh, and listen to this (probably this would reflect my own situation):
I would personally be proud to be a nerd, but I don't have enough online gaming skills (they always kill me - I will never win, so better forget about the whole idea ).


To conclude this first post, I would appreciate if all of you could - apart from discussing this - mention situations from your life in which you were having a great time together with other people, but don't fit into what is conventionally called "Social Life".

A situation from my own life:
I played the "Dungeons and Dragons" board game (very often associated with nerds and satanists ) for almost an entire year. I played it, my girlfriend played it and my friends played it.
It was one of the most entertaining things I've ever done together with other human beings.
---> Playing Dungeons & Dragons is a form of social life. q.e.d.

[Life Warrior]

Alright DeathStorm, big breaths here. Let me tell you something interesting, and just try to keep an open mind to it. For a little while I followed a similar line of thinking and was concerned with the same questions that you bring up. But then I had a shift in consciousness, and all of what you describe for the lack of better word, just became silly to me.

You see, we are all unique, and we are all worth the same. We are all perfect the way we are. What matters is not the image that we project to the external world, but the spirit that drives us from within. What matters is what we are able to create in this world through our personal self expression in our short lives on this Earth. There is no God who sits up there and judges us based on what social image that we project. Having a different, more introvert personality does not make you a less of a person. Playing WoW doesn't deduct your "Social Life" points in your interaction with others.

All of these image-based classifications of "cool", "socially competent", "nerd", etc come from ego-based fear driven mindset. It all comes down to us being scared of death, and what is more primal than trying to avoid it in our desire to reproduce? I think all of us are insecure in our sexual competence at least at some point in our lives, and that is where all the "Social Life" breakdown you describe comes from.

But do you see the problem with this type of thinking? If you continue to think in these terms, you will see the world through a very narrow lens and will ultimately be miserable in the end. Instead of appreciating people for who they are, and for the unique qualities that they bring to this world, you will be trying to fit them into this fear-based paradigm of "Social Life".

If you take it one step further, once you are secure in your sexuality and sexual competence, and have totally accepted yourself as you really are - once you realize that you are totally happy with yourself, all this stuff you describe about sociability of other people and standards, it just ceases to matter. Because in the end you don't need to do any comparing of yourself to other people, every one of us is perfect in our own way. The vulnerability mindset is an imaginary construct of the ego because we are too damn scarred to accept impermanence, uncertainty and death. When you come to terms with those, life becomes nothing but joy. Try to raise your level of awareness a bit, and you will see how funny all these people are that try to chase the emptiness of self-image.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Great post, LifeWarrior. You really hit the nail on the head there. I am not waht you would call a social person. I enjoy my own company and the company of very few people. And I am fine with that. I am totally fine with it. It does not make me less of a person to be like this. I wouldn't say I was an introvert, but I do not converse with people half as much as my peers. I do a lot of journaling, reading, exercising, and thinking about the nature of our existence. And I like where it is taking me. Isn't fulfillment the purpose of our human lives? Isn't making the best possible contribution a sticking point in staying around? Notice that labels of personalities don't have anything to do withh it. Once we transcend all these labels (i.e. jock, nerd, prom queen), we will finally be able to just live as the conscious beings we are. Deflate the ego. It is exceedingly hard to do this, but believe me, it is worth it. Let everything be. Express the joy from within. Truly live.

[NotesMaeve]

To start, I REALLY like this post.

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

I wanted to open this discussion because I have a feeling that many people in today's 21st century world are facing a moral panic about their own social lives (or what they perceive as unsocial lives), trying to have more and more and more without even knowing why in first place.

We do interact less as a society than we used to. Families are less close. Arguably, this isn't always so bad.

I don't know where exactly these beliefs stem from (though my sixth sense keeps suggesting me something, especially because I'm a business school student, and there's a lot of etiquette around networking and interpersonal skills here...).

We value individuality in western culture. Socializing is less important with that belief.

- people perceive themselves as "unsocial" because they don't go clubbing as much as others; My question: do you find other human beings (and potential partners, if that's what you needed in first place) only at nightclubs and parties?

Okay, I'm a freak. I mainly associate with freaks. While I love going to bars, parties, etc. a few times a month, most of my socialization doesn't happen there.

- people are unsatisfied with themselves because they don't have enough friends on Facebook (a social networking website especially targeted at students + there are many similar networking systems, online and offline); My question: do you actually need so many friends to reach whatever purpose you want to?

The only people who pride themselves on that:

1) Actually have a Facebook account (IE, are not me)

2) Don't socialize a lot in real life and don't earnestly meet and get to know people

People who have learned how to socialize ever remain alone for long. I will testify to this. I will say that the more connections you make, and the more people you meet and get to know and like you, the easier it is to get stuff done and have a pleasurable life.

- people perceive themselves as unable to groom globally because of specific tastes and hobbies in life that are different from mainstream (see below).

Disagreed. I am pretty different from your average 22 year old woman. I work in a male dominated industry. I love geometry, astrology, and astronomy.

What I have often noticed is that, although the usual customs of socializing and being "networked" might be useful sometimes, many people (especially newcomers!) do so at the expense of their own identity - and often buy into passive herd behavior.

You don't have to. The entire reason I am remembered is BECAUSE I stand out. Individuality? Personality? Identity? I got them b-----s in spades.

While I'm aware that for some people social problems can arise due to hardwired genetic causes (which can be overcome anyway...), I think that most of the problems I often hear about regarding "social confidence" merely stem from these misconceptions about oneself and one's activities/hobbies.
I think that it is easy for people to be told (or believe for themselves) that they are "unsocial", and - as a consequence - feel lack of confidence when facing what they consider "social situations".

Agreed totally. The choice is not to feel badly about your lifestyle, to embrace your differences, and people will often not only accept you, but think you're a cool cat.

A typical nerd nowadays spends hours of his time playing competitive online games like Second Life or World of Warcraft. From what I have seen, both games are full of other people, thousands, and the players constantly communicate with each other (I suppose they are human beings as well, which makes the practice probably similar - if not more engaging - than randomly adding friends on Facebook!).

Dude! I LOVE World of Warcraft. It's fantasy and fun. Socialization? Not so much. I might socialize with someone outside the game, but within it, kind of hard.

However, when the typical male nerd needs to approach the prom queen (or even a female nerd, for that matter) he goes havoc - but is this inconfidence due to his own personality or due to the belief that nerds will loose at romantic matters?

I disagree. Slamhot Boy is a nerd. He speaks Latin fluently. (Squee!) He majored in Classics. He's approaching 40 and losing his hair and has no interest in being a gym bunny, although he's in great shape from cycling, but is not "chiseled." So, you tell me why he's hitting it with a 22 year old who is traditionally "hot?" (He's not rich.) But he is incredibly sweet, brilliant, and handsome. Not handsome in the lame Abercrombie and Fitch way, but what would I do with that kind of boy? Put him on a shelf and look at him?

To conclude this first post, I would appreciate if all of you could - apart from discussing this - mention situations from your life in which you were having a great time together with other people, but don't fit into what is conventionally called "Social Life".

I think I did that for you as well as discussed the nerd that rocks my socks. ;-)

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by Life Warrior

Try to raise your level of awareness a bit, and you will see how funny all these people are that try to chase the emptiness of self-image.

We're on the same wavelength LifeWarrior, and I think I was trying to convey - more or less - the same message, especially since this is a "Social & Relationships" forum and even here many posts seem to reflect the chase of what you call the 'emptiness of self-image'.
I don't patronize any of the people who chase it and simply try to help them out or at least make them aware of what they're doing and missing out on

I don't see any passage in my post in which I encourage the opposite of what you said; or could you help me spotting them (or did you misunderstand something I said?)?

If you were referring to this ( "I would personally be proud to be a nerd, but I don't have enough 'online gaming skills' (they always kill me - I will never win, so better forget about the whole idea )." ) it was obviously a semantic shift of perspective and a play on stereotypes, to be taken with a bit of humor

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

People who have learned how to socialize ever remain alone for long. I will testify to this. I will say that the more connections you make, and the more people you meet and get to know and like you, the easier it is to get stuff done and have a pleasurable life.

It depends on why you socialize.
Do you socialize out of sponaneous curiosity and fun, or just for the sake of having job safety, free tickets to concerts and a helping hand whenever you need it?
It's hard to trust this rule with 100% certainty.
What about that manager I knew, who was connected to so many people, and then did a big mistake... his whole network turned against him. And it was hard for him to start a new life somewhere else since - due to his previous popularity - everyone already knew him.

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

You don't have to. The entire reason I am remembered is BECAUSE I stand out. Individuality? Personality? Identity? I got them b-----s in spades.

Unfortunately, some people aim at a comparative way of standing out.

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

[...]
Disagreed. I am pretty different from your average 22 year old woman. I work in a male dominated industry. I love geometry, astrology, and astronomy.
[...]
Dude! I LOVE World of Warcraft. It's fantasy and fun. Socialization? Not so much. I might socialize with someone outside the game, but within it, kind of hard.
[...]
I disagree. Slamhot Boy is a nerd. He speaks Latin fluently. (Squee!) He majored in Classics. He's approaching 40 and losing his hair and has no interest in being a gym bunny, although he's in great shape from cycling, but is not "chiseled." So, you tell me why he's hitting it with a 22 year old who is traditionally "hot?" (He's not rich.) But he is incredibly sweet, brilliant, and handsome. Not handsome in the lame Abercrombie and Fitch way, but what would I do with that kind of boy? Put him on a shelf and look at him?

Excellent example.

[Life Warrior]

DeathStorm, I'm glad that we are on the same level concerning the subject. I can see that you are trying to engage a discussion to disprove this image based look at life that others live by. But doesn't acknowledging the labels still show an acceptance of this mindview you are trying to disprove? What I wanted to say is, why don't we focus on what really matters instead of trying to play down to the logic of a fear based mindset?

I do not find myself superior to others who are still in this mindset, I feel sympathy for them and send them love. Apologies if I did not read your post correctly. I do not wish to engage in a debate about who is more right about the subject and I did not mean to make it personal.

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by Life Warrior

But doesn't acknowledging the labels still show an acceptance of this mindview you are trying to disprove?

I often try to convey originality "in their language". There are obviously numerous examples other than the "nerd", Facebook-ster and nightclubber stereotypes, and I'm simply saying that what individual people really want can be achieved in a diversity of ways

Originally Posted by Life Warrior

What I wanted to say is, why don't we focus on what really matters instead of trying to play down to the logic of a fear based mindset?

Hmmm... as far as I remember my philosophy lessons at high school, Socrates would call this "maieutica" (---> focus on what really matters)... but before arriving there, before being able to see that, some people do need to perceive the fallacies in the logic of their fear based mind-set (in socratic language, this would also be called "aporia").

Maybe some people can skip that step, and find what really matters in one shot... but you never know (especially amongst us youngsters in early adulthood, filled with expectations about career, roles and other clichés)

EDIT:
Oh, and I forgot to point out at one thing...

You said...

Originally Posted by Life Warrior

I do not find myself superior to others who are still in this mindset, I feel sympathy for them and send them love.

This is also what I once tried... the problem is that this attitude is often misperceived by them as a patronizing behavior.
And that's where communication (in their language, in their logic, etc.) comes into play.

[lizthefair]

I see where you are coming from--I used to feel this way too and for me it's because my first socialization experiences were horrible.

I grew up in a tiny town with people who were perfectly happy with the way things always were. I never fit in with any of them. I spent years in elementary and high school trying to change myself to fit in with what others expected me to be and was totally miserable and unsuccessful.

We moved to a slightly larger small town when I was in high school and I had the good fortune to meet a small group of people with whom I clicked. I didn't change, they didn't change we just happened to be a match. I still wasn't popular but for the first time I experienced socialization the way it was supposed to be.

I went to college and had a similar experience (only better) and have gone on to get deeply involved in the gaming world (board games and RPGs--like Dungenons and Dragons) and have met even more people that I genuinely like and we have a good time together.

You know what we have in common? Almost to a person we were all unpopular in school--people just didn't get us. When you are hanging out (or trying to hang out) with people you don't mesh with, you will only be miserable.

Turns out the world is wide, and the diversity of people are amazing. Gamers have a reputation in the media of being sloppy and bad communicators and living with their mom--but so what? Most gamers aren't like that. Many of them have high paying jobs, quirky senses of humor and love to get together to have a good time using their imaginations. And what's wrong with that??

The best thing I ever did was to stop trying to change to be like the popular people and started looking for people who were more like me. Don't be social on other people's terms, be social on yours.

[Sunnybayes]

However, when the typical male nerd needs to approach the prom queen (or even a female nerd, for that matter) he goes havoc - but is this inconfidence due to his own personality or due to the belief that nerds will loose at romantic matters?

May I offer some neuroscience about this one???

Well, to begin with, here is the reason that he goes havoc. This is from "Making a Good Brain Great" by Daniel G. Amen.

WHY BEAUTIFUL WOMEN MAKE MEN STUPID

There is now scientific proof of something poeple have long suspected-- beautiful women make men stupid. Canadian researchrs showed men pictures of conventionally prettu and not-so0pretty women. The men rolled dice--and were told they would... bla bla bla.... proving, researchers say, that men stop thinking about long-term consequences once love chemicals kick in. [and the same test did not work on women it says...] ... Beautiful women seem to cause a man's limbic system to fire up (emotional charge) while his prefrontal cortex heads south, leaving the judgement area of the brain vacant....

How she looks hijacks his brain:

30% of the human brain is dedicated to vision. When a man sees an attractive woman, the visual areas of his brain fire with activity. She litterally hijacks a large portion of his brain. It can feel emotionally overwhelming, even addictive.

That's the reason he goes havoc. Being around a hot babe litterally makes him stupid. He might be all confident and brave a first... but then he sees her, and all bets are off

Someone has to be the authority on who is social or not. It can either be yourself or it can be someone else who claims to know what people are social. The truth is, you just have to know it yourself. If you feel lonely, then well, you are not social enough.

If you are a single guy, just moved into a new area, all the women at work are fat slobs, and you've not joined any other type of organizations around the communty yet, and want to get the experience necessary so that when you do come across a highly intelligent and beautiful woman that she wont hijack your brain (becuase you've developed neural circuits from hanging around beautiful women, so that you get used to using the other parts of your brain that are not being hijacked) then getting used to women in clubs is probably a good place, because there is a high concentration of them there, and the stakes are not so high.

And the reason you may not have any experience is because you've allways been a good work/student with full concentration on doing the stuff that matters, like school work, and never going out partying.

Then once you've developed your brain so that you can interact with beautiful women without acting stupid around them, and are able to make a good emotional connection through conversation with her, then you can go and find a high quality woman (beautiful, caring, passoinate, intelligent and knows how to have some fun [that would be quite a rare woman] ), in more normal/natural places, like through work or church, mutual friends or wherever, and then give her all your best to her only.

[NotesMaeve]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

It depends on why you socialize.
Do you socialize out of sponaneous curiosity and fun, or just for the sake of having job safety, free tickets to concerts and a helping hand whenever you need it?
It's hard to trust this rule with 100% certainty.

I do it because I like adventure. The bennies? A side affect. ;-)

But know what? Never having to buy my own meal on karaoke night at my local bar is sweet, too. People give me stuff because people are basically good, and if you treat them with respect and are giving, they give back. Don't be stingy yourself and you will attract people who are giving.

What about that manager I knew, who was connected to so many people, and then did a big mistake... his whole network turned against him. And it was hard for him to start a new life somewhere else since - due to his previous popularity - everyone already knew him.

Okay. I don't buy it's that hard. I mean, I've got a reputation and a past. Big difference? I am not ashamed. If someone says, "I know what she did when she was 18 and I don't want anything to do with her," I don't really have any interest in being around those kinds of people. And most people aren't like that.

Unfortunately, some people aim at a comparative way of standing out.[/QUOTE]

I don't aim to be anything. I tried being mainstream until I was 13 or so. Then I said, "Forget it. I'm going to be the person I enjoy being." I know a number of people love Fight Club on this forum, and Tyler Durden was right, "When you've lost everything, you're free to do anything," or in this case, to BE anything. I don't strive, baby. I'm an introvert, but I know what's going on and how to get along. And that is the greatest secret of them all.

[DeathStorm]

lizthefair I understand what you mean, and I would personally never consider you, at any of your life stages that you outlined, as unsocial.
You actually made an effort to fit in, and - whatever the outcome - that alone proves that you are as human and social as everyone else, even though perception sometimes says otherwise.
And I assume that you are probably pretty popular within your own society[/ies]. After all, that's where you really wanted to fit in, that's where your real hobbies and interests lie, am I right?

[ M a t h e m a t i c a l E x c u r s i o n ]
I recently learned about "sets" in our introductory Mathematics class, and I thought of the following:
"Mainstream" is just a subset of the set "Society at large"; the number of elements (people) in the "Mainstream" subset may be higher than the others, plus consider that "Mainstream" is very dynamic and never has a fixed identity, just masses of people coming in and going out; other subsets may be temporarily intersected with it ("emo", "pop music fans", etc. :P)
"Gamers" is simply another subset.
I think that a qualitative hierarchy among the different subsets within "Society at large" is merely an illusion caused by self-fulfilling belief, and that there is no need to suffer just because one prefers being in one over another.
Obviously people can belong to different subsets simultaneously if they want to - and that's where communication can come in handy. But communication doesn't mean giving up on your older subsets...

Another way I could put this (and this probably reflects more of the way I personally try to be) is that there is this big set and all the subsets. But instead of "belonging" to them (i.e. being an element of the subsets), a number of elements (features) within the subsets that you like belong to you as an individual.
i.e. You like the elements "pop music", "fashionable clothes" and "children's cinema" out of the "Mainstream" subset. You like the elements "Dungeons and Dragons", "Go" and "Card Scaling" out of the "Gamers" subset.

Ahhh, hell... I think I read too much about mathematical models these days... ok I'll quit now. :P

(BTW I played Dungeons & Dragons and I really enjoyed it. I actually became Dungeon Master for a while!! But I didn't give up on my quite mainstream-trend-oriented girlfriend, nor on other things that belonged to me... Why would I have to?! We actually played some game sessions at pubs and bars during "happy hours"... and if someone was curious we would invite them... if they seemed disinterested we would elegantly point out at "what they are missing out on"... I mean, that's obvious, isn't it?)

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

Okay. I don't buy it's that hard. I mean, I've got a reputation and a past. Big difference? I am not ashamed. If someone says, "I know what she did when she was 18 and I don't want anything to do with her," I don't really have any interest in being around those kinds of people. And most people aren't like that.

Okay, actually his "scandal" occured while he was at the peak of his career and was career-related. He also had a big name, worldwide, but the same popularity that had been so beneficial to him turned against him.

Those are circumstances under which - especially in the business world - individuals realize who care for them without expecting nothing in return, and those who help just because they expect future commercial partnerships, good business relations and - sometimes - a job promotion.

There might be a difference in the ways people network, and I'm sure that there are plenty of other people who - like myself and yourself - communicate out of pure interest towards others, while the "networks" that materialize are mere side effects of our actions.
but the above experience may serve as a "moral anecdote" for those who network without heart; and think there aren't negative side effects as well.

I'm personally a blind altruist. I never expect anything in return when I do a favor; and as humanist and optimist as I am, I'm also aware that there are still people around who will take all help and mentorship with an honest and grateful face, and later do pretty unkind things behind your back.

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

I don't strive, baby. I'm an introvert, but I know what's going on and how to get along. And that is the greatest secret of them all.

Oh, really? Having read most of what you have written - I don't know whether you will take this positively or negatively - you're actually an extrovert.
Maybe you don't express your extroversion in the conventional "social situations", for whatever reason, but it is definitely part of you (or has grown to become part of you).

Good luck in whatever you will do or intend to do

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

May I offer some neuroscience about this one???

Well, to begin with, here is the reason that he goes havoc. This is from "Making a Good Brain Great" by Daniel G. Amen.

Okay, but have they also done any research on why the American stereotype of "nerd" typically looses after all these reactions in the CNS?
:P

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Someone has to be the authority on who is social or not. It can either be yourself or it can be someone else who claims to know what people are social. The truth is, you just have to know it yourself. If you feel lonely, then well, you are not social enough.

I don't know how vital it is to have a strict definition on what's social. I know there are definitions on fraternity, altruism and thoughtfulness... but I have often seen that these are not necessary to be "social" beings. Even the most cynic asketic isolationists who get together on a mountain and stay away from civilization are social - among themselves.
The feeling of loneliness may simply result from the unawareness of one's social condition, or from the belief imposed from outside that one isn't social.
And if it's true loneliness it usually shouldn't last for long because soon enough you'd find someone to interact with - be it someone just like you or a massive amount of people.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

[...]
want to get the experience necessary so that when you do come across a highly intelligent and beautiful woman that she wont hijack your brain
[...]
Then once you've developed your brain so that you can interact with beautiful women without acting stupid around them, and are able to make a good emotional connection through conversation with her, then you can go and find a high quality woman (beautiful, caring, passoinate, intelligent and knows how to have some fun [that would be quite a rare woman] ), in more normal/natural places, like through work or church, mutual friends or wherever, and then give her all your best to her only.

Okay. Let me provide you with some insider information.
I've lived in several Western countries throughout my teens and I've basically spent a great amount of my life at the club scene in each of them. I've been promoter for many clubs, have done some event management myself and... occasionally worked in a few other roles as well.
The whole scene there revolves around market and value.
You're right: there are plenty of women there, of all kinds - ugly and nice (though both kinds are usually clad in a way that makes men forget any pre-existing aesthetic values...), and as you may already know that's the reason why the whole industry gets money.
Men come there because of that, women rarely pay more than half (if not free) and if they have to pay we usually let the "hot" women get in for free (I later learned that economists call this "price discrimination", although I guess there's discrimination at another level as well...).
From what I know and have seen, once they start seeing mating opportunities at clubs they get addicted to them (and that's obviously the purpose of the industry), and in time they actually get used to initiating mating processes solely under those circumstances...
I'm not sure whether nightclubs really serve as a bootcamp for approaching the opposite sex in other settings as well. At least, from what I have seen, among friends and everyone I know, it's often the other way round.
But maybe there are intrinsic cultural differences at play. I don't know.

All I can tell you for sure is that the mating process in a nightclub setting proves more hierarchically competitive (i.e. "survival of the fittest") and drives those who are less "fit" to a lower standard of interaction, thereby actually making them loose heart, spend lot of money on drinks and return to the club more often (= revenues!).
I know some girls who aren't very attractive in the mainstream sense (okay, let me say it bluntly: they're ugly); they go clubbing merely because each time they go they have this "quasi success" situation where they seem to get a guy - but then the guy runs away. And then they keep going, going, going, going, hoping that the next time it will be better (= revenues!).
Same happens to guys, at a much larger scale, often due to their lower sexual bargaining power.

If you really need a "bootcamp" for approaching the opposite sex, use the environments you're already well acquainted with. Or just approach anyone anywhere in the world. Travel, on trains, in planes, anywhere.

I met my first "significant" (= very long term relationship) girlfriend when I was 14-15 years old, at a classical music concert. She was a singer. I spoke to her right after the concert, because I was amazed by her performance and I was also in my period of musical discovery.
I didn't even think "seduction" or "mating".
I was just amazed by her and just... did what I wanted to do!
It was only after we were 'officially' together and I took her to one of my nightclubs where I worked, that I realized her rank in the "sexual hierarchy" (and I admit that despite my humble nature, I felt a slight surge of pride when all the horny guys attention was directed towards us/her).
I bet that - at that age - if I had seen her in the nightclub and not at the concert for the first time, I would have probably allowed the older/experienced guys prey on her.

The nightclub reveals only a small part of other people (although maybe a large part of their skin :P) - often under a competitive and alienating light - and also eliminates any spontaneous connection that might have existed between two people if they had met in another more adequate context.

You like a girl who is speaking at a conference?
Approach her right there!

P.S. Just out of curiosity, Sunnybayes, are you a statistician (or work a lot with statistics)?

[Michael Chui]

My favorite is Wil Wheaton, at PAX 07, where he pointed out there were Thirty Thousand Gamers in attendance.

30,000 people linked together by a common interest: how terribly unsocial.

[NotesMaeve]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

Okay, actually his "scandal" occured while he was at the peak of his career and was career-related. He also had a big name, worldwide, but the same popularity that had been so beneficial to him turned against him.

Those are circumstances under which - especially in the business world - individuals realize who care for them without expecting nothing in return, and those who help just because they expect future commercial partnerships, good business relations and - sometimes - a job promotion.

Hey, mine's job-related too! (Sort of!) I've had people go, "OMG, YOU WENT ON TO DO X FROM Y?" 99% of the time they follow it up with a laugh or a smile. I just don't get that many negative reactions, but I strongly suspect that's more the type of person I attract rather than dissolving people in the heat of my charm.

There might be a difference in the ways people network, and I'm sure that there are plenty of other people who - like myself and yourself - communicate out of pure interest towards others, while the "networks" that materialize are mere side effects of our actions.
but the above experience may serve as a "moral anecdote" for those who network without heart; and think there aren't negative side effects as well.

Oh, I admit, I'm a hedonist with selfish motivations. I do thing because they're exciting or feel good or help me. I truly love less than 20 people in my life.

I'm personally a blind altruist. I never expect anything in return when I do a favor; and as humanist and optimist as I am, I'm also aware that there are still people around who will take all help and mentorship with an honest and grateful face, and later do pretty unkind things behind your back.

Personally, I like scandal. Spreading my name around in any fashion just piques curiosity about me. There's one other young woman at work who decided for whatever reason to take up talking about me behind my back much like she did every other person there. Those sorts who just talk always have it backfire on them. She's leaving the job in two weeks because of, what she refers to as us "f***ing people."

Oh, really? Having read most of what you have written - I don't know whether you will take this positively or negatively - you're actually an extrovert.
Maybe you don't express your extroversion in the conventional "social situations", for whatever reason, but it is definitely part of you (or has grown to become part of you).

I have a fan!... I mean, I have another fan! (In my head, I have them in spades. )

Actually, a lot of people get this wrong about introversion/extroversion. I work the room like a Kennedy, am super-friendly, but this should clarify from http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/jung.html:

The extrovert is usually ...

a. motivated by outside factors and greatly influenced by the environment,

(Not particularly. I'm more interested in my personal development and in the interests of a rather small personal posse.)

b. sociable and confident in unfamiliar surroundings, less cautious, less fearful, and

(I always feel a little uncomfortable in a new situation, but I am getting better.)

c. likes organizations, parties, and tends to be optimistic and enthusiastic.

(I'll give you the latter, but while I understand the need for connections, I prefer home and NEED to recharge my batteries here.)

d. Weaknesses of the extroverted attitude include:


(1) a dependence on making a good impression,

(I don't depend on it. I just ultimately DO.)

(2) easily making and breaking relationships,

(It's hard for me to cut ties.)

(3) regarding reflection as being morbid and avoiding being alone,

(Wrong. Not this way at all.)

(4) lacking self-criticism, and

(I have a wicked level self-criticism I am working on toning down.)

(5) accepting the morals and conventions of the day--conventional.

(Hahahahahahahahahaha! Yeah, that's me. Miss Socially Conventional!)

On the other hand:

The introvert is usually ...


a. happy alone with a rich imagination, and

(Yep.)

b. prefers reflection to activity.

(This is just necessary for me.)

c. Weakness of the introverted attitude includes ...


(1) a lack confidence in relation to people and things and

(It's taken me years to overcome this.)

(2) a tendency to be unsociable, shy, and hesitant.

(Hesitation is still a problem for me.)

Good luck in whatever you will do or intend to do

Same to you!

[DeathStorm]

NotesMaeve, I don't know exactly how serious your situation was and if people just laughed it off... lucky you See, sometimes even charm just isn't enough. Sure! There are people who excert great charme even right after their jail sentence... yet when it comes to deeper matters, certain people prefer their own safety over helping their now prosecuted acquaintances.

It's hard to generalize, and -obviously- the more people you find who trust you, the better it is

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

Oh, I admit, I'm a hedonist with selfish motivations. I do thing because they're exciting or feel good or help me. I truly love less than 20 people in my life.

Well, in that sense being a kind of humanitarian Robin Hood excites me, too. :P

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

I have a fan!... I mean, I have another fan! (In my head, I have them in spades. )

Calm down, calm down... :P

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

Actually, a lot of people get this wrong about introversion/extroversion. I work the room like a Kennedy, am super-friendly, but this should clarify from http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/jung.html:

Holy Devil! Not Jung again! AAAAA!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Those psychoanalysts were the root of all human stereotyping, alas most of the characteristics they mention are - in my opinion - rarely relevant in real life (my real life, at least, lol).
Honestly I don't think any person completely fits any of those two models (unless, of course, if we pursue to be exactly those models).

What I meant with extroversion was simply the willingness to learn from outside, to communicate with more than yourself. Nothing about "motivated by outside factors and greatly influenced by the environment," or such things

[NotesMaeve]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

NotesMaeve, I don't know exactly how serious your situation was and if people just laughed it off... lucky you See, sometimes even charm just isn't enough. Sure! There are people who excert great charme even right after their jail sentence... yet when it comes to deeper matters, certain people prefer their own safety over helping their now prosecuted acquaintances.

Less horrible than jail time. ;-)

It's hard to generalize, and -obviously- the more people you find who trust you, the better it is

I'm a big believer in the concept of that if you want to be trusted, be trustworthy when the opportunity grants itself. Trust *is* freely given, but it requires a soulful level of something I can't quite verbally express.

Holy Devil! Not Jung again! AAAAA!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Those psychoanalysts were the root of all human stereotyping, alas most of the characteristics they mention are - in my opinion - rarely relevant in real life (my real life, at least, lol).
Honestly I don't think any person completely fits any of those two models (unless, of course, if we pursue to be exactly those models).

What I meant with extroversion was simply the willingness to learn from outside, to communicate with more than yourself. Nothing about "motivated by outside factors and greatly influenced by the environment," or such things

Oh, Freud was a lunatic, but Jung and Reicht had some valuable things to say. No one perfectly fits those models, and I suggest reading JUNG, not interpretations of him.

The person you really are is determined not by your past, but by what motivates you.

[songwriter]

I don't have a conclusion for this and I've thought a lot these days about it.
Do I became isolated for being in this room.... alone? (the room of this house) or not isolated for being in this "internet room"... or so...
In the past we used to say "the university of life" teached many things... but here the Internet can make you learn a lot too.

Sometimes the bars and clubs are very... impersonal places and people is distant...

What's the difference? Physical presence? seeing, touching, smelling the other?...

I don't have any conclusion for this...

[Michael Chui]

Jung? Two models? What two models? Extraversion and Introversion are two sides of the same coin: how you relate to people. It's a spectrum: it's entirely possible to be 50/50, according to Jung. Just unlikely.

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Jung? Two models? What two models? Extraversion and Introversion are two sides of the same coin: how you relate to people. It's a spectrum: it's entirely possible to be 50/50, according to Jung. Just unlikely.

yep, Jung was never binary about that. The four traits for personality of Jung (extraversion/introversion, feeling/thinking, judging/perceiving, intuitive/senser) don't mean you're totally A or totally B. Just maybe 36 % A and 64% B. And you will change with time.

[NotesMaeve]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Jung? Two models? What two models?

I think we're delving off into archetypes.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

I wanted to open this discussion because I have a feeling that many people in today's 21st century world are facing a moral panic about their own social lives (or what they perceive as unsocial lives), trying to have more and more and more without even knowing why in first place.

I thought that this was a predominantly teenage sort of thing. Don't most people grow out of this kind of problem ... somewhere between ages 18 and 25?

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I thought that this was a predominantly teenage sort of thing. Don't most people grow out of this kind of problem ... somewhere between ages 18 and 25?

Then why do so many still make money out of seminars on how to improve people's social lives, seduction methods, etc. etc. etc.? And I know that even people in their 30s-40s follow such trends, even people who are already married and need new features to market themselves better...

There's nothing inherently wrong with it. They might be very useful to some... Still, I think that these things steal a lot of individuality and independent thinking/maturing in people.

[DeathStorm]

On Jung, extroversion, introversion, personality models, etc.

Originally Posted by

yep, Jung was never binary about that. The four traits for personality of Jung (extraversion/introversion, feeling/thinking, judging/perceiving, intuitive/senser) don't mean you're totally A or totally B. Just maybe 36 % A and 64% B. And you will change with time.

Okay. I understood that. But how, in first place, does define A and define B?
Why in the world should a person who is "usually more open to new situations and dangerous environments" necessarily have the other features that Jung would categorize under the tag "extrovert"?
And why would a person who usually "thinks rather than acting" be an "introvert"?
Where did Jung take the freedom to make those connections/correlations?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

I think we're delving off into archetypes.

Best to stop now before it's too late to turn back!

Great discussion going on here, but frankly I'd be surprised if anyone who participated in the discussion actually held to any illusions about what a social life really means. Though of course there may be some who come here looking for help, so this alternate, much more positive view will be helpful, no doubt.

I read a paper and subsequently wrote an article about social interaction on the Internet. The research showed many cases of the Internet producing benefit for people, particularly those normally considered outcasts by mainstream society.

I also just submitted an essay for uni on the topic of the costs and benefits of social networks and their effects on individual well-being, so I'll share a little of what I learnt soon (have to run off to dinner now)

[Acting Like Godot]

I dunno. Maybe I'm just not familiar with these kinds of problems - the people that I do personally know and interact with really don't seem to worry about their social lives etc.

Personally I don't think I've ever been concerned about the state of my social life since I passed the age of, ummm, around sixteen?

This is not to say that I am the most popular person around, surrounded with teeming crowds of friends and inundated with invitations to social gatherings etc. Far from it.

I just hang out with people if I feel like it. And if I don't feel like it, I won't. It's a non-issue. For me anyway.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

Okay. I understood that. But how, in first place, does define A and define B?
Why in the world should a person who is "usually more open to new situations and dangerous environments" necessarily have the other features that Jung would categorize under the tag "extrovert"?
And why would a person who usually "thinks rather than acting" be an "introvert"?
Where did Jung take the freedom to make those connections/correlations?

You really should be looking at Myer-Briggs' Type Indicator (which is also built on Jung's work).

If you get familiar with it, you may see that those who have an active social life are those whose inherent personality traits predispose them to seeking out an active social life. Eg the four classes of people under the broad heading of "Extroverted Sensors" are probably most naturally inclined to interaction in a nightclub kind of setting.

Others have personality traits that predispose them to other things. We're all different.

I think people should respect their own individuality. Don't fall into the trap of trying to conform to someone one's, or even society's, ideas of how much of a social life one is supposed to have.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

Why in the world should a person who is "usually more open to new situations and dangerous environments" necessarily have the other features that Jung would categorize under the tag "extrovert"?
And why would a person who usually "thinks rather than acting" be an "introvert"?

Where do you get this? I've never heard such descriptions for introversion and extraversion.

If you didn't read the link that NotesMaeve posted, try reading this one:
Socionics :: Extraversion / Introversion

There is no such thing as an "introvert" or an "extrovert". Those aren't people; those are specific parts of people.

[DeathStorm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You really should be looking at Myer-Briggs' Type Indicator (which is also built on Jung's work).

I know it. I've done several tests throughout the past, and each time had completely different results.

We change, but those tests simply ignore how often we change and are variable according to the stage of our life, our mood on that day, etc.

I'm taking the test again, just to try and see my results:
(this one I found through Google here )

Originally Posted by Myers Briggs Test for DeathStorm

Extroverted (E) 62.79% Introverted (I) 37.21%
Intuitive (N) 64.86% Sensing (S) 35.14%
Thinking (T) 50% Feeling (F) 50%
Perceiving (P) 57.58% Judging (J) 42.42%

ENTP - "Inventor". Enthusiastic interest in everything and always sensitive to possibilities. Non-conformist and innovative. 3.2% of the total population.
---> Okay, acceptable.

favored careers:
dictator, computer consultant, international spy, tv producer, philosopher, comedian, music performer, it consultant, figher pilot, politician, diplomat, entertainer, game designer, bar owner, freelance writer, creative director, strategist, news anchor, professional skateboarder, airline pilot, comic book artist, college professor, private detective, mechanical engineer, lecturer, ambassador, astronomer, research scientist, judge, web developer, scholar, fbi agent, cia agent, electrical engineer, assassin
---> Interesting :evil:

ENFP - (I took this from Wikipedia since the test only displayed ENTP although I had 50/50 in Thinking/Feeling)

ENFPs are initiators of change who are keenly perceptive of possibilities, and who energize and stimulate through their contagious enthusiasm. They prefer the start-up phase of a project or relationship, and are tireless in the pursuit of new-found interests. ENFPs are able to anticipate the needs of others and to offer them needed help and appreciation. They bring zest, joy, liveliness, and fun to all aspects of their lives. They are at their best in situations that are fluid and changing, and that allow them to express their creativity and use their charisma. They tend to idealize people, and can be disappointed when reality fails to fullful their expectations. They are easily frustrated if a project requires a great deal of follow up or attention to detail.
----> But, but, but, but... my motto is "Love everyone, trust nobody!", I often like entering existing projects or continue working on them for a long period after other people have forgotten about them.

I don't know... I identify with some of the things they say, and not with others. For example, I don't understand why spending "time alone with oneself" ought to be mutually exclusive from "often going to nightclubs and parties". And there are other things which, in my view, seem to be unjustly "dualized", have a "natural opposite", etc. (I can be organized, follow a plan and - when I find something really nice - I can immediately break free from the schedule and pursue what I want randomly).

What utility can I gain from such knowledge?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Others have personality traits that predispose them to other things. We're all different.
I think people should respect their own individuality. Don't fall into the trap of trying to conform to someone one's, or even society's, ideas of how much of a social life one is supposed to have.

I would also dare adding:
Don't fall into the trap of trying to conform to someone one's, or even society's, ideas of what personality traits one is supposed to have, just because of a few archetypes and personality tests :P