Posts by placidranger

brightotter7 said:Alright, looks like this topic hit a nerve since you guys have a lot to say. Since I can't get to everyone individually right now, let's clarify: I'm not really talking about low self-esteem causing social isolation here. It's more about just not being interested. As I'm typing this, I accidentally left Zoom on active mode and spent half an hour stuck in some pointless "Hey, how's it going? Good, you?" loop with an acquaintance. To me, that's just scripted small talk that doesn't actually achieve anything. Honestly, I feel like there's way too much communication these days—phones, IMs, chats, whatever 🙂

Anyway, Natch, you've got a point. Growing up, I was rarely part of big social circles, mostly because they felt so sluggish—that whole "if you want to fit in, you have to act like this" mentality. I think I had much higher quality connections with just a few close friends, and those hangouts didn't feel like those forced, cookie-cutter group dynamics.

I also never really dealt with that FOMO feeling where you think you'll miss out on something huge if you don't go out tonight. I was perfectly fine staying home to read or work on something I actually cared about. I guess that definitely left me a bit awkward when it comes to larger groups or those specific social situations—things like figuring out where you fit in the hierarchy (which nobody talks about, but everyone feels), making eye contact, or picking up on unwritten social codes.

On the flip side, I don't view the whole thing—the codes, the hierarchies, the group stuff—as inherently bad or gross. I've realized there are actually some benefits to it, and I'd like to try putting a little effort into navigating that better.

Now that I've laid all this out, I feel like I sound like some grumpy old man lecturing everyone, which isn't what I am 🙂 so sorry if that came off a bit stiff. Anyway, it's late and I'm crashing... Zzzzz

A few questions:
(1) If people hadn't responded so extensively, would I have assumed the topic wasn't working?
(2) Even though you claim to hate pointless small talk, you still engage in it—why?
(3) Why the apology?

Kyle Nelson2 said:I mean, I guess when someone shuts down and gets stuck inside their own head, they’re probably just spiraling through a bunch of negative thoughts...

Not necessarily. You have happy introverts and miserable ones—it's not a monolith. The miserable types want to change but can't quite pin down why they're stuck. The happy ones? They couldn't care less about what anyone else thinks.

crimsongull20 said:Fair point. The issue might actually be intelligence—not social, just general IQ.

I don't know anyone whose intellect I actually respect who also wants to be part of the herd...

edit:
The "herd mentality" is just primal instinct—people crave that sense of safety and security. Only those with enough self-assurance can afford to stand alone and still feel okay about it.

Donna Campbell6 said:Nah, man, it’s way simpler than that. The guy just missed his shot with some girl, felt a little bummed out about it, and then we all jumped in here to perform a deep psychological autopsy on his entire existence as a social creature...😍

Sex is a science. Uncle kura 😁😁😁

Walter Myers4 said:Exactly. People who obsess over "social dynamics" are usually just people who don't have enough going on in their own lives.
I honestly don't have the energy to waste even thinking about what's going on with everyone else's little social games.

But hey, I'm sure everyone at a disco in Vegas would love to sit around and debate Hegel and Kant. 😬

Walter Myers4 said:Look, that's all fine and dandy if you actually GIVE A DAMN about all that nonsense. But what if you don't?
What if you couldn't care less about social dynamics? 😁

If he truly didn't care, he’d be perfectly content in his own head—he wouldn't feel... well, I'm quoting him here: "like a complete idiot because a flood of information is rushing past me and I'm not catching any of it," or "sometimes I get this irritating feeling like I'm disconnected from the group."

And honestly, I suspect that stuff becomes a lot more interesting once you start studying it. Humans are pack animals; we're hardwired to obsess over other people and the messy web of relationships between us.

crimsongull20 said:If they actually focused on "group dynamics," they'd probably notice them... maybe even better than most people do.

You can spend three days and nights obsessing over "Where is Jura," but you aren't going to find him unless you actually know what he looks like.

Walter Myers4 said:The only issue he’s bringing up is that he doesn't notice girls checking him out. Honestly? Maybe I've got that same damn problem myself.

Damn, yeah—drifted into off-topic territory there.

Anyway, where were we... the patient doesn't feel like part of the group because he’s missing the social cues... hmmm...
He needs to get out of his own head and actually look at what's happening around him. Honestly, the best move would be to start studying non-verbal communication. Pick up some books, observe people, test theories—that kind of thing.

You can't spot something if you don't even realize it exists.
It’s like when you learn a new slang term and suddenly it’s everywhere—in the papers, on TV, in every conversation. Or you decide you want a specific Jeep and suddenly you see them on every street corner. It's just a matter of tuning your perception and opening up those filters. Once you do, you realize how much interesting subtext is hidden in someone's posture, their stance, or just a glance...

Walter Myers4 said:I think it really goes both ways.
So, I'm definitely not blaming just myself for this.
And the same goes for some terrified kid—he shouldn't walk away thinking there's something wrong with him just because he didn't click with a girl right off the bat.

Now you're swinging too far in the opposite direction. Sure, it takes two, but a mature, productive response involves owning your part of the equation. You have to identify your own flaws if you actually want to fix them—otherwise, what's the point?

Walter Myers4 said:That is just ridiculous.
If I wasn't born with it, the last thing I’d ever think about is "learning" how to be some kind of player.
Same goes for other stuff—if I have small breasts, I'm not getting implants, you know what I mean?
If I've got a small dick, I'm not running off for some enlargement procedure.

I don't have that kind of insecurity.
So no, I don't want to "become" a player.
And honestly, I'm too much of a man for all that.

Seriously, read the words one by one. You skipped over the two most important ones—“if I wanted”... to become something... blah blah...
The guy wants to develop qualities he doesn't naturally possess—traits other people just seem to have—so a major part of the process involves observing those people in their "natural habitat" while they actually display those traits.

Walter Myers4 said:I get it. So you're saying a scared kid doesn't even get the chance to "be himself" because he's too busy panicking?
But why not just deal with it by being honest and admitting you're freaking out?

If someone is halfway decent, they should get that.
Honestly, even I've had moments where I got brushed off or totally shut down just because I acted intimidated during an intimate moment.
Even though, logically, that should be seen as being vulnerable, I feel like women can always just use that "feminine grace" excuse to bail, right? 😁

it’s not attractive. let's be real.

if someone is sane, they should get that.
honestly, it's happened to me—getting brushed off or even dumped because I acted terrified during an intimate moment.
and while logic suggests being composed is the way to go, I think women can always lean into their femininity to smooth things over, right? 😁

I don't know the specifics. maybe you overreacted, but honestly—in those moments, being adventurous is more feminine than acting frightened. 😁

Walter Myers4 said:I totally disagree.
Honestly, it's way easier and smarter to just "be yourself" than to put on some ridiculous act, because when you fake it, you just end up looking like a total clown.
Plus, from a long-term perspective, being real is actually more efficient. I mean, imagine if someone falls for the persona you're faking? Now you're stuck living a lie forever. That sounds absolutely exhausting.
On the flip side, if you're just being who you are, life is simpler for you and everyone else involved.

For instance, I would find it freaking hilarious if I tried to pretend I was some wild party girl, because that is just not me.

Look, if you actually wanted to pull that off, your first move would be to watch how those girls interact with people—then mimic them until you get the hang of it.

Walter Myers4 said:I totally disagree.
Honestly, it's way easier and smarter to just "be yourself" than to put on some ridiculous act, because when you fake it, you just end up looking like a total clown.
Plus, from a long-term perspective, being real is actually more efficient. I mean, imagine if someone falls for the persona you're faking? Now you're stuck living a lie forever. That sounds absolutely exhausting.
On the flip side, if you're just being who you are, life is simpler for you and everyone else involved.

For instance, I would find it freaking hilarious if I tried to pretend I was some wild party girl, because that is just not me.

Go back and reread what I actually wrote versus what you think I said. 😉
Let me clarify: to actually "be yourself," you need the guts to be spontaneous, honest, and firm in your convictions—and building self-confidence is the only way to get there.
What good is "being yourself" if you're just some terrified kid stuttering and staring at his shoes while trying to talk to a girl? You see my point?

Walter Myers4 said:So now we're talking about fine-tuning emotions—basically having the discipline to filter yourself before you snap and cause a massive mess.
I'll give you that, it's a sign of intelligence.
But my point is that you guys are basically coaching this kid to act like some tough guy persona when it clearly isn't him at all.😁

There’s a massive difference between putting on an act and actually becoming the person you claim to be—one is just theater, the other is growth. And let’s get one thing straight: it isn't about being "macho." That's just insecurity in a cheap suit. Real confidence doesn't need to shout.
The absolute worst advice you can give someone facing this kind of struggle is "just be yourself." It’s hollow—completely misses the mark. It doesn't touch the actual core of the issue—the deep-seated anxieties and social fears one has to actually dismantle just to function like a normal person in society.

blueranger12 said:I couldn't agree more!

If your mindset was "I hope some girl looks my way right now," your eyes would find her instantly. Same with gossip—you miss it because you don't realize how interesting it can be. That's just a taste men have to develop. You have to learn it. Women are just born with it.

I second that—and I'd add one more thing: you need to be thinking, "They're all after me."

Everyone’s going to have their own take on this—here’s mine:
Look, Rika is just being foolish—a total goose—asking questions that don't matter. The problem itself is non-existent; it happened a long time ago, it's gone, and therefore, it doesn't require a solution.
The point? Don't waste your energy on old problems that serve no purpose in the present moment.

I don't mind vegetarianism as a way to show compassion toward animals—that makes sense—but as a "healthier lifestyle" choice? I'm skeptical. Most mass-produced food today is loaded with additives and junk. So, while cutting out meat might help you avoid certain issues found in processed meats, you're still stuck eating all the pesticides sprayed on crops, not to mention the preservatives used in freezing and canning...

Is that exclusively for women?
Am I being ridiculous for asking?

Larry Lewis2 said:Losing 1 to 2 pounds a week is way too much.

If my math holds up—and I might be pulling this out of thin air here—one pound of excess weight equals about 3,500 calories.🤔

Regardless, if you actually want to lose fat instead of just water weight, aiming for a pound or two a week is a total fantasy.🙂

A lot of it comes down to muscle mass—the more you have, the higher your metabolic burn—and how hard you're hitting the gym. If your training is legit, even losing 4 or 5 pounds a week isn't unreasonable.

Sophia Parker4 said:Does anyone actually know if it's smart to just eat breakfast and then rely on... I don't know, those diet pills for lunch and dinner?

In my opinion, skipping breakfast is probably the "healthiest" move—but there’s a catch. If you let yourself get ravenous during the day, you'll end up bingeing at night, which is when most people pack on the weight. Honestly, you're better off grabbing some fruit or veggies instead of reaching for pills. At least they have actual vitamins and minerals, and they might actually take the edge off the hunger.

By the way, the math doesn't lie: the only way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you consume. (<-- keep that in mind 😉). Most of my calorie burn comes from my leg muscles since they're the largest—so running, walking, or cycling is definitely the way to go.