Does a lack of friends mean you are somehow flawed?

Post Reply New Topic

From society's eyes, having poor social skills and no friends is seen as a flaw, because it's statistically unusual. But we all know that the majority isn't always right. Having lots of friends might work for some people but I derive no pleasure from having a huge circle of superficial friends, none of whom I would ever know very well on a personal level. Solution: give up trying.

Of course mass media would portray "real" people as having lots of friends and not being alone. People with lots of friends go out more, spend more money, and if they get married they're likely to have children who will buy more things. It's in the best interest of media, which is out to get money, to show what will generate the most revenue. Also people like to think that the more friends they have the better they are, I think.

You are not any less human or decent for not having friends or a lot of them. I've always only had only few friends, if any, and I'm doing fine. I actually prefer it that way.

Well, just to play the Devil's advocate, Aristotle said basically that one who lives in solitude (which having no friends would likely indicate) is either a beast or a god (and I think he would view the beast part being more likely than being a god). So, Aristotle might say you're a beast, which is less than human. Of course extroverts and people with friends would probably tell you this sans Aristotle considering Western society does have a bias against introverts/loners (which will probably have negative impacts on your career later in life).

While we are "different" from the statistical norm that does not mean we are flawed. Apsies have many positive traits and while making friends is not one of them it does not make us any less human.
Conversely, if a personality like ours were the norm then anyone who had lots of freinds might seem needy of social company and viewed as odd.

Another ditto.

Ryn: That was very well said.

I don't think it means you are flawed, but people around you will think so. When I first moved to Sweden I didn't make friends because I was quite frankly happy doing things myself. The family I was staying with were very worried about me.

Not having friends you don't have so many occasions to do things that are usually done with others, in a group so getting some experiences is harder. Like going to a pub or a disco, generally visiting some places that were designed for socialising. Your "social flaw" you were born with is getting bigger.

Only if your goal is to be neurotypical.

bookwormde

NO.

The people who have TOO MANY FRIENDS are the ones who are flawed. I mean, as IF they are all going to be extremely close friends?

It's better to have like two - four friends, like I do, because then you are able to feel closer to them and open up to to them.. which is the ultimate goal in the long run, I guess.

If you had too many friends it be too much as you would not have time to devote the quality time that the ones you already have that they deserve.

I have had loads of friends in the past but a lot of them I lost touch with for various reasons which what happens in life.

It is best just to have two or three really good friends rathter than loads and loads of aquantiances.

No, I don't have very many friends at all and to be honest, I don't want to be friends with just any Tom, Dick, and Harry. Only a few people make it past my standards. I don't know if I should say that people with lots of friends are flawed but we aren't either. I feel my standards eliminate the possibilities of ending up with friends I can't trust.

I dont want loads of friends - that makes things stressful. There have been times in the past when I have had more than one friend group and trying to organise to see one group without clashing with the other group, or missing things, was just too difficult. I would spend hours worrying about it and trying to organise when to see each friend group. The ideal would be to have one small group of 2-3 friends I think - that you can do everything with and rely on, but always do things together so you dont have to worry about things clashing and being disorganised. I actually had this a couple of years ago and it was lovely, the problem was that these people wanted to have large groups of friends - so they often werent available because they were doing things with other people. They told me I should get more friends, but I couldnt make friends with others and I didnt want to because of the complications. In the end I lost them - they told me I was too possessive, because I got upset when they didnt want to spend so much time with me any more. I didnt see why our friendship - which for 6 months had been just us three doing things together, couldnt continue like that. I guess they were bored with the situation and wanted the excitement of other people, but for me it was perfect. The problem is finding the other people who also only want 2-3 friends, who I actually want to be friends with (most people dont interest me at all - and those that do are often the sort who have loads of friends).

I don't think it means that one is flawed- I think different people work better if they have a huge group of friends or a littler group of friends. I have a pretty solid small group of friends, and I'm fine with it. While I do want to be better in social situations and more likable, I know personally that I work better with a smaller group of friends than with a huge amount of friends.

I don't think it makes you less human, but in the eyes of society you would be considered 'odd' or 'eccentric.' Most people are gregarious by nature, so if you don't have friends, they tend to look upon a friendless individual with suspicion. I noticed one day that my brother (an aspie, a loner) fits all the external traits of a typical TV serial killer - quiet, keeps to himself, obsessed with one thing or another, nerdy looking, never bothers anyone, blank expression on his face, etc. I know for a fact he'd never even so much as swat a fly, but if for some reason dead bodies started turning up in dumpsters in his neighborhood, he'd be the first one the neighbors and police would look at as a possible suspect. The very idea shocked me, but it's true. People rely on certain mental archetypes (stereotypical personality caricatures) when judging others, and seeing someone without any friends tells them right away that there *could* be something wrong with that person, since people are "apparently" avoiding them. It's sad, but wrong or right, that's the way most people think.

I'm 39 and I don't have any "friends" by choice (just work associates). In your early 20's I think it's good because you probably don't have much money or other things going on in your life so why not hang out with others... I did and had fun although hearing about their dramas all the time was a waste of time. But once people get married in mid-late 20's friends are harder to find. I played in a rock band and they were sort of friends in my mid 30's and it was okay once a week. But any more than that would have been annoying.

I'm perfectly content keeping myself happy doing my own things, and I love the freedom! I don't need friends anymore, anyway.