Lone Wolves

Thomas Nelson25 said:We're talking about weirdos here... honestly, though—it all comes down to what kind of person we're dealing with. Like, what they actually do when they're alone? That's the real kicker.

Why label them weirdos? It wouldn't be strange if someone, say, just announced, "I'm done with people, and frankly, I've had enough of the global climate too—I'm building a wall, filling my shelves with books, and I don't need a TV or even a radio."

Maybe they're just unconventional...

Maybe it’s just a matter of people who aren't desperate for constant social validation and are actually at ease being alone.
There is nothing wrong with being a social butterfly—people who genuinely love connecting with others, meeting new faces, and sharing moments together. But I think a good number of those highly outgoing types I know are actually quite needy, and the mere thought of spending a single day by themselves absolutely terrifies them.
Some people, on the other hand, draw their strength from solitude and quiet reflection to recharge for their next social outing...
I don't consider either group to be weirdos.

Maria Robinson2 said:Why label them weirdos? It wouldn't be strange if someone, say, just announced, "I'm done with people, and frankly, I've had enough of the global climate too—I'm building a wall, filling my shelves with books, and I don't need a TV or even a radio."

Maybe they're just unconventional...

then we're talking about unconventional folks...though being a "weirdo" is actually pretty standard (makes me wonder what those people even do when they're alone with their thoughts)...but still, they aren't exactly "normal"...for instance, I wouldn't call myself normal either...so what even is normalcy? (In the 21st century and the internet age, the bar is set way differently than it was twenty or thirty years ago)

and so on..

neonmason86 said:Maybe it’s just a matter of people who aren't desperate for constant social validation and are actually at ease being alone.
There is nothing wrong with being a social butterfly—people who genuinely love connecting with others, meeting new faces, and sharing moments together. But I think a good number of those highly outgoing types I know are actually quite needy, and the mere thought of spending a single day by themselves absolutely terrifies them.
Some people, on the other hand, draw their strength from solitude and quiet reflection to recharge for their next social outing...
I don't consider either group to be weirdos.

Psychology would argue everyone craves attention, though—what would Freud say about sublimation here? There’s definitely some truth to that...

But you gotta consider that some people just don't care for small talk or mindless socializing. Maybe they're just wise, or maybe that stuff drains them instead of fueling them... obviously, for others, it's a total necessity—like their brain needs it to function.

Thomas Nelson25 said:We're talking about weirdos here... honestly, though—it all comes down to what kind of person we're dealing with. Like, what they actually do when they're alone? That's the real kicker.

Look, my mother is a total loner. A complete hermit. And she tells me all the time that she isn't bored, even if her only interaction with the outside world is glancing at the morning paper. She doesn't listen to music, she isn't much of a reader—nothing like that. She just spends her entire day tinkering in the garden or cleaning a house that, frankly, is already spotless. Oh, and she’s not exactly a believer when it comes to church stuff either.

...I guess I'm somewhere in the middle.
I’ve got three close friends who I actually care about—if I don't see them for a couple of days, I genuinely miss them. Everyone else is just an acquaintance; we see each other when we see each other. Honestly, I’m happiest out in nature with my dog, far away from all the noise, artificial stuff, and crowds.

I find myself being the exact opposite of a lone wolf. I need someone to be there; I need to live for someone and work for someone else—doing things just for my own sake simply isn't in my nature. I’ve found that sense of purpose through my children. Everything I do is for them, even though they're grown adults now and don't technically "need" me in the way they once did. And granted, they aren't perfect; they have their flaws, just like anyone else.

That said, my social temperament is a different story entirely. I often find people quite tedious. It feels like everyone is stuck on the same repetitive topics that fail to capture my interest at all. For instance, a woman from the office next door will wander into my cubicle and launch into this exhaustive saga about her neighbor’s latest drama, even though I don't know the woman and couldn't care less about her life. I listen politely, and that’s where the interaction ends. I don't feel the need to chime in with some anecdote about my own neighbor doing this or that just to keep the momentum going. People seem to appreciate me because I listen without boring them with my own trivial stories.

Shopping, fashion, footwear, celebrity gossip... none of that has ever interested me. Unfortunately, when I try to bring up the subjects that actually fascinate me, nobody seems to want to engage. So, I usually just stay quiet.

That’s why I retreat into books; that’s where I find the substance I’m looking for. And, of course, this forum.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Psychology would argue everyone craves attention, though—what would Freud say about sublimation here? There’s definitely some truth to that...

But you gotta consider that some people just don't care for small talk or mindless socializing. Maybe they're just wise, or maybe that stuff drains them instead of fueling them... obviously, for others, it's a total necessity—like their brain needs it to function.

In modern psychology, Freud has long since become an irrelevant anachronism—useful for history buffs, cultural theorists, or philosophers, but that's about it.

But if we're talking strictly about psychodiagnostics, my experience with different personality profiles suggests it varies wildly from person to person.

I've met people with traits more aligned with the autism spectrum who, based on our conversations, truly have no desire for social contact.

Then there are those with traits linked to affective disorders or social anxiety (think avoidant or schizoid types). They might develop certain behaviors as a coping mechanism, potentially fantasizing about much higher levels of social interaction than they can actually manage in reality. That's usually not the case for the first group.

Obviously, I'm not trying to diagnose every possible human behavior here. It doesn't make sense to label all introversion, just as it makes no sense to assume all extroverts are manic, dependent, narcissistic, or whatever else.

I just wanted to illustrate that the need for closeness isn't always present in every case; sometimes it's just expressed differently. I think it’s entirely possible for that drive to be "hardwired" at a lower level.

bluemason3 said:In modern psychology, Freud has long since become an irrelevant anachronism—useful for history buffs, cultural theorists, or philosophers, but that's about it.

But if we're talking strictly about psychodiagnostics, my experience with different personality profiles suggests it varies wildly from person to person.

I've met people with traits more aligned with the autism spectrum who, based on our conversations, truly have no desire for social contact.

Then there are those with traits linked to affective disorders or social anxiety (think avoidant or schizoid types). They might develop certain behaviors as a coping mechanism, potentially fantasizing about much higher levels of social interaction than they can actually manage in reality. That's usually not the case for the first group.

Obviously, I'm not trying to diagnose every possible human behavior here. It doesn't make sense to label all introversion, just as it makes no sense to assume all extroverts are manic, dependent, narcissistic, or whatever else.

I just wanted to illustrate that the need for closeness isn't always present in every case; sometimes it's just expressed differently. I think it’s entirely possible for that drive to be "hardwired" at a lower level.

So, you're saying he's irrelevant as psychotherapy?! Not for art, culture, life, or philosophy, obviously. (In my book, other psych branches are just training neurotics... analysis goes much deeper... Jungian is the deepest)

It doesn't even have to be about a disorder (though it usually is—if you judge by the "normal" majority)—maybe it's about creative solitude, which is essential for a creator... and that's where Mr. Q comes in, saying sublimation is the best defense against nerves... and we're also interested in the psychotics here (forgetting how most spiritual seekers hide that fact like a snake hides its tail—even though without psychoanalytic therapy, there's no real spiritual growth)... can we even have great literature (imagination and the life of the "other") or philosophy without it? (the so-called "madness")

Solitude can come from sadness or trauma, but honestly, I don't care about that—I'm assuming we're staying on the topic of spirituality here... and that's about the soul... the solitude of the soul. Why do people run to the mountains to find themselves, or travel everywhere because they were lonely?

Now, closeness—for anyone who's actually gained any wisdom—is clearly mostly driven by interest (like what they call "heavenly" people). It can be a preference based on projections and stuff, leading us to like one person and not another. For instance, closeness ruins objectivity and truth... unless it's erotic, then it's right in its own way, even if it's often just an illusion—of the soul, I guess.

Thomas Nelson25 said:then we're talking about unconventional folks...though being a "weirdo" is actually pretty standard (makes me wonder what those people even do when they're alone with their thoughts)...but still, they aren't exactly "normal"...for instance, I wouldn't call myself normal either...so what even is normalcy? (In the 21st century and the internet age, the bar is set way differently than it was twenty or thirty years ago)

and so on..

To me, being an 'oddball' feels more like that performative 'spirituality' that isn't actually spiritual at all.
That’s why I mentioned my previous point...

It really depends on whose yardstick you're using to measure 'normalcy'—or rather, what that word even signifies in today's world.
For example, I have some relatives like that—people who get labeled as eccentrics. Some live out in rural areas, others are in the heart of Chicago, and they all know each other since they're family, but... they can't stand one another. They're just incompatible, likely due to different personality traits—even 'lone wolves' have their differences, I guess.

bluemason3 said:In modern psychology, Freud has long since become an irrelevant anachronism—useful for history buffs, cultural theorists, or philosophers, but that's about it.

But if we're talking strictly about psychodiagnostics, my experience with different personality profiles suggests it varies wildly from person to person.

I've met people with traits more aligned with the autism spectrum who, based on our conversations, truly have no desire for social contact.

Then there are those with traits linked to affective disorders or social anxiety (think avoidant or schizoid types). They might develop certain behaviors as a coping mechanism, potentially fantasizing about much higher levels of social interaction than they can actually manage in reality. That's usually not the case for the first group.

Obviously, I'm not trying to diagnose every possible human behavior here. It doesn't make sense to label all introversion, just as it makes no sense to assume all extroverts are manic, dependent, narcissistic, or whatever else.

I just wanted to illustrate that the need for closeness isn't always present in every case; sometimes it's just expressed differently. I think it’s entirely possible for that drive to be "hardwired" at a lower level.

Fair enough, but where do the people in this thread actually fit?
(The ones who seem totally outgoing and socially adept to everyone else, yet subjectively feel completely alone?)

Thomas Nelson25 said:So, you're saying he's irrelevant as psychotherapy?! Not for art, culture, life, or philosophy, obviously. (In my book, other psych branches are just training neurotics... analysis goes much deeper... Jungian is the deepest)

It doesn't even have to be about a disorder (though it usually is—if you judge by the "normal" majority)—maybe it's about creative solitude, which is essential for a creator... and that's where Mr. Q comes in, saying sublimation is the best defense against nerves... and we're also interested in the psychotics here (forgetting how most spiritual seekers hide that fact like a snake hides its tail—even though without psychoanalytic therapy, there's no real spiritual growth)... can we even have great literature (imagination and the life of the "other") or philosophy without it? (the so-called "madness")

Solitude can come from sadness or trauma, but honestly, I don't care about that—I'm assuming we're staying on the topic of spirituality here... and that's about the soul... the solitude of the soul. Why do people run to the mountains to find themselves, or travel everywhere because they were lonely?

Now, closeness—for anyone who's actually gained any wisdom—is clearly mostly driven by interest (like what they call "heavenly" people). It can be a preference based on projections and stuff, leading us to like one person and not another. For instance, closeness ruins objectivity and truth... unless it's erotic, then it's right in its own way, even if it's often just an illusion—of the soul, I guess.

Exactly.

Michael Castillo said:Fair enough, but where do the people in this thread actually fit?
(The ones who seem totally outgoing and socially adept to everyone else, yet subjectively feel completely alone?)

Nowhere. It just is what it is. Trying to force everyone into neat little categories is just a way to make sense of the world, but if we aren't being hyper-analytical, there isn't much point.

Take a diagnosis like "high-functioning schizoid"—it’s a bit controversial—where someone is fundamentally solitary and avoids people, but wears a socially active mask to get by. Not really my thing, though. 😬 😁

Maria Robinson2 said:To me, being an 'oddball' feels more like that performative 'spirituality' that isn't actually spiritual at all.
That’s why I mentioned my previous point...

It really depends on whose yardstick you're using to measure 'normalcy'—or rather, what that word even signifies in today's world.
For example, I have some relatives like that—people who get labeled as eccentrics. Some live out in rural areas, others are in the heart of Chicago, and they all know each other since they're family, but... they can't stand one another. They're just incompatible, likely due to different personality traits—even 'lone wolves' have their differences, I guess.

And who’s actually qualified to say what spirituality is, or decide that being an oddball makes someone non-spiritual? These people spend their time alone—they're more "inwardly focused," if you will.😉 That doesn't mean they have mental health issues, but then again, let's be real—everyone's got some level of neurosis in them. Some people lean into it as a strength, while others just struggle through it.

Michael Castillo said:Exactly.

Everything we actually get from progress—humanity, civilization, science, culture, all that good stuff—mostly just lived inside the heads of people who were alone. Just totally solo, or maybe just feeling lonely even when they were stuck in a crowd.

Thomas Nelson25 said:And who’s actually qualified to say what spirituality is, or decide that being an oddball makes someone non-spiritual? These people spend their time alone—they're more "inwardly focused," if you will.😉 That doesn't mean they have mental health issues, but then again, let's be real—everyone's got some level of neurosis in them. Some people lean into it as a strength, while others just struggle through it.

I guess you could say a spiritual person is simply a spiritual person. There's your definition, I suppose. 🙂😉

Where did this idea come from that everyone is neurotic? People just snap when they're under pressure. That's why self-reflection and downtime are usually recommended.
I don't think we're talking about clinical patients here—unless I've misunderstood, which I might have.

Maria Robinson2 said:I guess you could say a spiritual person is simply a spiritual person. There's your definition, I suppose. 🙂😉

Where did this idea come from that everyone is neurotic? People just snap when they're under pressure. That's why self-reflection and downtime are usually recommended.
I don't think we're talking about clinical patients here—unless I've misunderstood, which I might have.

So basically, there's a huge chance that the "weirdo" type is naturally solitary and spiritual, even if they aren't aware of it or don't see themselves that way. (Once you start looking inward, it leads to spirituality—even if it's just through psychological regression, for that matter).

Most people are neurotics—though maybe not someone like Bruce Adams—because we want one thing for our souls and then reality hits us in the face. Just imagine how hard it is for folks who don't bother with self-growth at all; they have zero clue who they are, yet they just accept life as it is, even while being miserable. Why do you think that is? (That's what a neurotic is, plain and simple).

Hess was spot on. I absolutely love that book 😍

I tend to retreat into my own world whenever people start getting on my nerves. It’s how I recharge. Tesla actually had some pretty solid insights on that topic... but it isn't really about luck; it's truly about finding a better connection with yourself.

Thomas Nelson25 said:So basically, there's a huge chance that the "weirdo" type is naturally solitary and spiritual, even if they aren't aware of it or don't see themselves that way. (Once you start looking inward, it leads to spirituality—even if it's just through psychological regression, for that matter).

Most people are neurotics—though maybe not someone like Bruce Adams—because we want one thing for our souls and then reality hits us in the face. Just imagine how hard it is for folks who don't bother with self-growth at all; they have zero clue who they are, yet they just accept life as it is, even while being miserable. Why do you think that is? (That's what a neurotic is, plain and simple).

It could be quite likely—why not?—in any case, I wouldn't call it a small possibility, just a reverse one...

Look, I don't really hang out with many neurotic people anymore, so if I happen to be around some and they tell me I'm calming them down—well, sure, why wouldn't I be? I'm at peace with myself (🙂), even when I'm unhappy about something, I just deal with it. But that's in the real world, not here (😁).
(Since on this forum, I worry I might raise the tension too often, and I wouldn't want anyone thinking that)

A little humor doesn't hurt, does it? 🙂

Maria Robinson2 said:It could be quite likely—why not?—in any case, I wouldn't call it a small possibility, just a reverse one...

Look, I don't really hang out with many neurotic people anymore, so if I happen to be around some and they tell me I'm calming them down—well, sure, why wouldn't I be? I'm at peace with myself (🙂), even when I'm unhappy about something, I just deal with it. But that's in the real world, not here (😁).
(Since on this forum, I worry I might raise the tension too often, and I wouldn't want anyone thinking that)

A little humor doesn't hurt, does it? 🙂

Like prisoners—it’s proven that after years of isolation, they start acting like ghosts... mostly because they turn inward toward the soul as a defense mechanism.

It's tough to tell though, since people fake it. I mean, how many 😁 people aren't constantly struggling with the gap between what they want (or their impulses) and reality? That struggle narrows your consciousness, and those folks cling hard to their "world stage" roles—the identities they use to define themselves—and their own illusions (like a chameleon mask) that tie back to the collective... where spiritual people end up on the margins (the center), relatively happy because they actually have wisdom.