/kind/ - Random Acts of Kindness

>>26270

OP here

the first interview and today in general went well, and the position has a lot more to do with what I want than I thought, so I'll stick it out a bit longer now that I've calmed down.

Pretty much anything would be good. The people here (like 60 total including staff and peers) for the most part fall into three categories:

-people I can't relate too (most of the other participants in the program are under 21, like sports, or are regular and/or fat girls)

-insufferable SJW types (mostly the staff aside from the odd normal f a g peer)

-weird kids who are less weird than me (like nerds and weebs and whatnot but with terrible taste in games, partly because they only play on consoles. And only ever watch anime in English, and all the comics and manga they like are from DC and shonen jump respectively)

So not that I have much interest in socializing in the first place, but even when I have to any intelligent, interesting, conversation to be found is few and far between.

I don't really mind the whole "social animal" thing too much it's just annoying that it's the default state and assumed constant. It's fine for any or most people to be that way but I don't see why it's wrong to be introverted

>>26298

Out of curiosity, have you tried talking to any of them?

I know people that seem to fit into the first and third categories that are actually pretty decent.

>I don't really mind the whole "social animal" thing too much it's just annoying that it's the default state and assumed constant. It's fine for any or most people to be that way but I don't see why it's wrong to be introverted

In my experience their thought process is something like this:

>anon is failing his classes

>anon also doesn't like socializing

>these two things must be connected

>the first is hard to fix, but I can easily fix the second!

And then something similar to what you've experienced happens. Ironically, you end up in a worse state than before.

I have no idea why people assume that a solution that works for one person will work for every other person they talk to. It makes no sense to me.

>>26270

>1 in 3 people.

Out of curiosity, could I ask for a source on this?

>>26300

yeah I was just on a week and a half winter hiking and camping trip with 11 of them, and they've done all kinds of bullshit mandatory events. I've had to talk to them and while it hasn't been too terrible I'd altogether rather not.

>>26302

>I've had to talk to them and while it hasn't been too terrible I'd altogether rather not.

Fair enough. If you'd prefer not to then it's fine not to.

If you're ever terribly bored then I think you should consider it, at least, but nothing more than that.

>>26303

>I do think the 1 in 3 estimate makes some sense because it makes sense for introverts to be the minority, since it's more difficult to survive and reproduce in our society if you are one.

That would only majorly impact the ratio if introversion was genetic. It might very well be, but I don't think there's evidence either way.

And obviously since it's a sliding scale there are some people that can be classified as introverts that are also "social animals."

That's not to say that I think you're wrong at all, though. It's not unlikely that 1 in 3 people very strongly prefer solitude.

>>26254

The social animal thing applies to you as well. You want a single other person, right? Because you need someone to talk to keep your sanity. Even without that person and you're just posting places like here, that's still interaction. I'm an introvert, but no matter how reclusive I am, it won't change the fact that you'd just end up insane without interacting with other people.

>>26311

>That would only majorly impact the ratio if introversion was genetic. It might very well be, but I don't think there's evidence either way.

One argument for introversion/extroversion being genetically determined could be that, no matter how hard you try, you can't change it. An extrovert can only adapt to loneliness, he can't learn to thrive on it.

>And obviously since it's a sliding scale there are some people that can be classified as introverts that are also "social animals."

Someone who is close enough to the zero point to not really lean either way would be called an "ambivert." Since it kind of defeats the point of the term introvert if you include people who thrive on large social groups.

>>26348

Do introverts thrive on loneliness? All I've heard is the opposite, well on imageboards anyway.

>>26348

>you can't change it

Is this necessarily true?

>>26353

>Do introverts thrive on loneliness? All I've heard is the opposite, well on imageboards anyway.

Most people define introvert as something along the lines of feeling energized when alone. By definition, then, they would have to thrive on loneliness.

Of course, whether or not this is the definition people producing statistics on it are using is hard to say. There are definitely tons of people that seem introverted by most metrics that don't feel better when alone.

It really makes me question why we even need these terms. There are plenty of people that could fit under the definition of introverted that have many extroverted characteristics, and vice versa.

>>26353

>Do introverts thrive on loneliness?

Well, I do. Although, after a long time, I do start to crave some light company. It would have been more precise of me to say that they prefer small, intimate groups. But personally, I always think of how in prison documentaries they talk about solitary confinement being "torture" and the worst punishment they have. That makes me laugh, because it would be the opposite for me.

>>26356

>Is this necessarily true?

I just don't see how you could. No amount of being around people has ever made me feel relaxed, nor did I ever start to crave it more. But the mind is a mystery, so I could be wrong.

>It really makes me question why we even need these terms. There are plenty of people that could fit under the definition of introverted that have many extroverted characteristics

I think that's missing the point. Saying that the distinction is irrelevant because some characteristics are not unique, is like saying that there is no difference because extroverts can survive being alone and introverts can function in crowds.

>>26353

>Do introverts thrive on loneliness?

You will thrive when you realize how easy it is to survive and live your life the best you wanted alone, the less people you have in your life, the less chance you will end up having to bear their problems, but at the same time you will not receive that much help. So I guess this differs from person to person, maybe I just had bad luck finding people who helped me more than I helped them. Sorry for the edgelord talk but that's how I feel most of the time.

>>26353

Being more comfortable in a certain setting doesn't mean that setting makes you happy or feels fulfilling. Compare it to a dramatic character living a dangerous profession because it's what they're good at maybe.

the first batch also came out both burnt and undercooked

what a waste of good ingredients

>>26451

When I was doing my internship, I always felt like a zombie after work and all I could do was physical exercise.