D&D, Wargaming, board games, these are all good ways to meet new friends and social circles.
Assuming you can find a place to do those things in your area.
How to meet people and make friends is extremely situational, depending both on location, and people involved.
And telling someone that "it's easy" is unhelpful, because it is not true.
Because if the person in question had easy time to make friends, they probably already would have.
I didn't say it's easy but I do think that social games are a way better way to do it than going to bars. If you're the type of person who can make friends easily then I admit it's difficult to give advice to those who can't as they're in a different headspace to you.
D&D, Wargaming, board games, these are all good ways to meet new friends and social circles.
Assuming you can find a place to do those things in your area.
How to meet people and make friends is extremely situational, depending both on location, and people involved.
And telling someone that "it's easy" is unhelpful, because it is not true.
Because if the person in question had easy time to make friends, they probably already would have.
I didn't say it's easy but I do think that social games are a way better way to do it than going to bars. If you're the type of person who can make friends easily then I admit it's difficult to give advice to those who can't as they're in a different headspace to you.
I didn't mean you, personally, but it had been said, or atleast implied, earlier.
I was using your post as a starting point to saying how hard it can be to provide advice on how to make friends.
And that it can be actually harmful when given to someone who has problems meeting people, because everyone telling them that it is easy, and them continuously failing, leaves an impression that there is something wrong with them.
In the age of electronic social media, we can go two ways on this:
1. Make better opportunities for people to socialize outside of the internet
2. Make the internet safer and more healthy as a social platform
I doubt #2 will happen anywhere near the feasibility timeline for #1 because the internet is inherently multinational (defying jurisdiction and accountability), accessible to all with means, and pretty consequence free for the user despite regulation. In addition, it is much easier to be in good standing with an internet community and not maintain a healthy lifestyle due to the 100% remote nature of the platform.
But it's what we drift towards because of the low stakes compared to every other form of social interaction. If I mess up here, I can turn off my computer and never see you guys again. We can meet in a supermarket and exchange recipe tips even if we hate each other online. I know next to nothing about how all of you live, and you will never ask me to help you move, or attend a family's funeral, or come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money, and I don't have the guilt of feeling like there is something else I could have done if bad stuff happens to you because the only context I have is what you choose to post on the internet. Nothing extremely bad can happen in this relationship, yet we can still have deep conversations, find common ground, discuss hobbies, play games together, and generally do most of the fun things friends do and bypass the rough stuff. The benefits of having real life friends have more intangible rewards and much more tangible risks, so to a lot of people, having an internet only social life seems palatable.
Why should I make real life friends? A lot of people haven't really considered this question and subsist on an unhealthy fast food diet of pure online social interaction without considering how they are affected or what they are heading toward.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
In the age of electronic social media, we can go two ways on this:
1. Make better opportunities for people to socialize outside of the internet
2. Make the internet safer and more healthy as a social platform
I doubt #2 will happen anywhere near the feasibility timeline for #1 because the internet is inherently multinational (defying jurisdiction and accountability), accessible to all with means, and pretty consequence free for the user despite regulation. In addition, it is much easier to be in good standing with an internet community and not maintain a healthy lifestyle due to the 100% remote nature of the platform.
But it's what we drift towards because of the low stakes compared to every other form of social interaction. If I mess up here, I can turn off my computer and never see you guys again. We can meet in a supermarket and exchange recipe tips even if we hate each other online. I know next to nothing about how all of you live, and you will never ask me to help you move, or attend a family's funeral, or come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money, and I don't have the guilt of feeling like there is something else I could have done if bad stuff happens to you because the only context I have is what you choose to post on the internet. Nothing extremely bad can happen in this relationship, yet we can still have deep conversations, find common ground, discuss hobbies, play games together, and generally do most of the fun things friends do and bypass the rough stuff. The benefits of having real life friends have more intangible rewards and much more tangible risks, so to a lot of people, having an internet only social life seems palatable.
Why should I make real life friends? A lot of people haven't really considered this question and subsist on an unhealthy fast food diet of pure online social interaction without considering how they are affected or what they are heading toward.
For one thing, if you never make real life friends, you’ll never get to ask them to help you move, support you at a family member’s funeral, come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money.
Escalating real estate prices in many cities also make low-cost informal meeting centers harder to maintain. This is not just a central city issue. Suburban neighborhoods often overlook the importance of third places.
Oldenburg has blamed “unfunctional zoning” that bans commercial establishments in residential areas, leading to suburban Americans having to use their cars for everything they need, and malls and box stores crowding out small businesses and hang-out places.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
That said, I do believe pretty strongly that establishing and maintaining adult friendships is as necessary to health as eating well and exercising, and even if you're introverted, isolated, or anxious, you still need to gird your loins and just do it.
But we could also make it easier on people - for example, by including third places in our city planning.
(Self-indulgent tangent: car-oriented urban planning is shitty.)
I've posted about this before. I honestly believe that chronic social isolation, especially among adult men, is one of the major public health crises in 21st century America. It's up there with sedentary lifestyles, alcoholism, and workplace stress:
What's the problem with social isolation? As a highly introverted male about to turn 40, I would like to know more.
Heffling
I'm going to answer the basic question of "why is it bad?" I'm touch on why this is specifically a problem for men and why this is a feminist issue in a little less detail.
One of my favorite books is Triumphs of Experience by George Vaillant. Frankly, this book is fantastic and if there's any book from any of my posts that you read, I'd wish it to be this one. (But don't worry, I'll summarize. I don't mean to drop a reading list on you.) It's about the men of the Harvard Grant Study - paired with its parallel study, the Boston Glueck Study, they are most in-depth longitudinal study about human lives ever performed. Sadly, it only included men... the study started in the 1930s and used Harvard students who were mostly men at the time.
The study tracked the life trajectories of these men. Everything from marriage to employment to drug addiction to mental and physical health was recorded. What Vaillant and the other researchers found, overwhelmingly...
“The surprising finding is that our relationships and how happy we are in our relationships has a powerful influence on our health,” said Robert Waldinger, director of the study, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “Taking care of your body is important, but tending to your relationships is a form of self-care too. That, I think, is the revelation.”
Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes. That finding proved true across the board among both the Harvard men and the inner-city participants.
But the factor Vaillant returns to most insistently is the powerful correlation between the warmth of your relationships and your health and happiness in old age. After The Atlantic’s 2009 article was published, critics questioned the strength of this correlation. Vaillant revisited the data he had been studying since the 1960s for his book, an experience that further convinced him that what matters most in life are relationships. For instance, the 58 men who scored highest on measurements of “warm relationships” earned an average of $141,000 a year more at their peak salaries (usually between ages 55 and 60) than the 31 men who scored lowest; the former were also three times more likely to have achieved professional success worthy of inclusion in Who’s Who. And, in a conclusion that surely would have pleased Freud, the findings suggest that the warmth of your relationship with Mommy matters long into adulthood.
The Grant and Glueck studies are observational, so they can't conclusively prove causation. But the case is pretty strong. Many of the Grant study men were late bloomers - they were depressed and isolated at age 25 but got married and raised families by age 40. Those men ended up healthier in old age than men who did the inverse.
This is corroborated by plenty of other data. For example...
Beginning in the 1980s, Schwartz says, study after study started showing that those who were more socially isolated were much more likely to die during a given period than their socially connected neighbors, even after you corrected for age, gender, and lifestyle choices like exercising and eating right. Loneliness has been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke and the progression of Alzheimer’s. One study found that it can be as much of a long-term risk factor as smoking.
The research doesn’t get any rosier from there. In 2015, a huge study out of Brigham Young University, using data from 3.5 million people collected over 35 years, found that those who fall into the categories of loneliness, isolation, or even simply living on their own see their risk of premature death rise 26 to 32 percent.
I'm also an introverted male closing in on the age of 40. We can still be introverted without being isolated. Introverts tend to have a smaller number of friends, but those friendships tend to be strong. Just having two or three persistent close relationships throughout your life can be enough to keep the deleterious effects of isolation at bay.
The mistake many men make is to rely on our spouses for all of our social interaction. (BTW, this is one of the reasons it's a feminist issue.) Besides being a lot of work for your wife to be literally the only person in your life you can confide in, it also means that widowers are much more likely to become completely socially isolated in old age than widows. When a woman becomes a widow, she's more likely to have some close friends in her life. When a man becomes a widower, there's a common risk that he literally doesn't have any other strong emotional attachments at all.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+12
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
It's interesting to see that there is research out there backing up my random observations as I enter middle age--largely alone, like other folks here.
At their best, friendships help both people become better people. You encourage each other to do difficult but rewarding things, and provide advice and help when needed. It's a bi-directional effort that requires both people to be invested in the relationship.
The same is true for intimate relationships, only more so.
In the best cases the partnership results in two people that are better able to navigate the problems life throws out at them. They fill in gaps in each other's personalities and skillsets and support each other. It's not perfect--nothing is perfect--but on the whole both are better people for the relationship. They keep each other sane in an insane world; they push each other to do things they otherwise wouldn't (in a positive way hopefully!).
So as I sit here at midnight, in a small apartment, alone, I realize once again that life could be different. Perhaps if I made a better effort to foster those relationships out in the real world...
In the age of electronic social media, we can go two ways on this:
1. Make better opportunities for people to socialize outside of the internet
2. Make the internet safer and more healthy as a social platform
I doubt #2 will happen anywhere near the feasibility timeline for #1 because the internet is inherently multinational (defying jurisdiction and accountability), accessible to all with means, and pretty consequence free for the user despite regulation. In addition, it is much easier to be in good standing with an internet community and not maintain a healthy lifestyle due to the 100% remote nature of the platform.
But it's what we drift towards because of the low stakes compared to every other form of social interaction. If I mess up here, I can turn off my computer and never see you guys again. We can meet in a supermarket and exchange recipe tips even if we hate each other online. I know next to nothing about how all of you live, and you will never ask me to help you move, or attend a family's funeral, or come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money, and I don't have the guilt of feeling like there is something else I could have done if bad stuff happens to you because the only context I have is what you choose to post on the internet. Nothing extremely bad can happen in this relationship, yet we can still have deep conversations, find common ground, discuss hobbies, play games together, and generally do most of the fun things friends do and bypass the rough stuff. The benefits of having real life friends have more intangible rewards and much more tangible risks, so to a lot of people, having an internet only social life seems palatable.
Why should I make real life friends? A lot of people haven't really considered this question and subsist on an unhealthy fast food diet of pure online social interaction without considering how they are affected or what they are heading toward.
For one thing, if you never make real life friends, you’ll never get to ask them to help you move, support you at a family member’s funeral, come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money.
Many people are increasingly ok with this, or rather, let the frustrations of having no support subconsciously sour their attitudes about society. After all, what kind of person seeks out friends for entirely utilitarian purposes?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In the age of electronic social media, we can go two ways on this:
1. Make better opportunities for people to socialize outside of the internet
2. Make the internet safer and more healthy as a social platform
I doubt #2 will happen anywhere near the feasibility timeline for #1 because the internet is inherently multinational (defying jurisdiction and accountability), accessible to all with means, and pretty consequence free for the user despite regulation. In addition, it is much easier to be in good standing with an internet community and not maintain a healthy lifestyle due to the 100% remote nature of the platform.
But it's what we drift towards because of the low stakes compared to every other form of social interaction. If I mess up here, I can turn off my computer and never see you guys again. We can meet in a supermarket and exchange recipe tips even if we hate each other online. I know next to nothing about how all of you live, and you will never ask me to help you move, or attend a family's funeral, or come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money, and I don't have the guilt of feeling like there is something else I could have done if bad stuff happens to you because the only context I have is what you choose to post on the internet. Nothing extremely bad can happen in this relationship, yet we can still have deep conversations, find common ground, discuss hobbies, play games together, and generally do most of the fun things friends do and bypass the rough stuff. The benefits of having real life friends have more intangible rewards and much more tangible risks, so to a lot of people, having an internet only social life seems palatable.
Why should I make real life friends? A lot of people haven't really considered this question and subsist on an unhealthy fast food diet of pure online social interaction without considering how they are affected or what they are heading toward.
For one thing, if you never make real life friends, you’ll never get to ask them to help you move, support you at a family member’s funeral, come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money.
Why would I want to be a burden on my friends though?
Really, these are things that would be considered only when necessary, and all social needs are 'fulfilled' through random disconnected conversation with work colleagues whose names I don't even remember.
I don't think it's obvious to people why anything more than surface level relationships are necessary, even if deeper relationships would be more beneficial.
In the age of electronic social media, we can go two ways on this:
1. Make better opportunities for people to socialize outside of the internet
2. Make the internet safer and more healthy as a social platform
I doubt #2 will happen anywhere near the feasibility timeline for #1 because the internet is inherently multinational (defying jurisdiction and accountability), accessible to all with means, and pretty consequence free for the user despite regulation. In addition, it is much easier to be in good standing with an internet community and not maintain a healthy lifestyle due to the 100% remote nature of the platform.
But it's what we drift towards because of the low stakes compared to every other form of social interaction. If I mess up here, I can turn off my computer and never see you guys again. We can meet in a supermarket and exchange recipe tips even if we hate each other online. I know next to nothing about how all of you live, and you will never ask me to help you move, or attend a family's funeral, or come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money, and I don't have the guilt of feeling like there is something else I could have done if bad stuff happens to you because the only context I have is what you choose to post on the internet. Nothing extremely bad can happen in this relationship, yet we can still have deep conversations, find common ground, discuss hobbies, play games together, and generally do most of the fun things friends do and bypass the rough stuff. The benefits of having real life friends have more intangible rewards and much more tangible risks, so to a lot of people, having an internet only social life seems palatable.
Why should I make real life friends? A lot of people haven't really considered this question and subsist on an unhealthy fast food diet of pure online social interaction without considering how they are affected or what they are heading toward.
For one thing, if you never make real life friends, you’ll never get to ask them to help you move, support you at a family member’s funeral, come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money.
Many people are increasingly ok with this, or rather, let the frustrations of having no support subconsciously sour their attitudes about society. After all, what kind of person seeks out friends for entirely utilitarian purposes?
You can look at any relationship purely through a transaction lens, but in my view, life is hard and having people around you who value you and support you, whom you value and support, helps everybody get through it.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
Usually it is more fun helping friends move than sitting alone doing not much, because you feel helpful. And for that reason you shouldn’t hesitate to ask friends to help because it makes them feel needed.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
This feeling becomes atrophied the longer you live without real life friends. Or rather, it becomes more and more intense in prolonged isolation until it blows a fuse. Either way, your perceived needs for friendship substantially change. That good feeling you get when people demonstrate they care about you is faint or gone. The difference between your reaction and the reactions of others makes you feel strange and alien, further isolating you from society. This increases risk of ostracism, so social encounters become episodes of subterfuge, widening the gulf between your thoughts and actions, which introduces mental stress required to maintain the facade to the point that you subconsciously ask yourself why you should take so much effort to blend in with people with a mentality so different from you who you can never be friends with as each interaction drives them further toward your facade and away from whatever you perceive as your true self. Then, like your former sense of friendly empathy, this too breaks, and you suddenly have no wish to relate to anyone or be a functional part of society.
It is at this point that people deprived of almost everything that makes them human are vulnerable to people and movements that are equipped to take advantage of them in this state. But at this point, what is left to reclaim?
This is just a theory how social isolation can unilaterally lead to extremism by degrading into reflex rejection of social norms.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
It's the reverse; you don't ask your friends to help you move, because why impose.
But you would help if asked, but you never talk about it because the above, so you never get asked either.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
Usually it is more fun helping friends move than sitting alone doing not much, because you feel helpful. And for that reason you shouldn’t hesitate to ask friends to help because it makes them feel needed.
Perhaps.
This somewhat requires you to have invited them around to your house casually previously, otherwise you only ask them to your house when you want them to do things for you.
Ideally speaking, your friends are there to provide you physical and/or mental support, if and when you might need it. It's not a "You're my friend so it's your duty to help me" type of entitlement. It's a "I'm otherwise alone and I really could use some help right now, will you help me?" type of deal. Where you might otherwise have nowhere else to turn to.
As far as moving goes, your options are basically this:
-Ask your friends. And if they're willing to help you, then the total cost of your move will amount to a pizza and a case of beer.
-Do it alone. And if you don't have the necessary tools/skills to do it by yourself (and if you own a couch and a TV bigger than 40", then you don't), well then you are paying cold hard cash to a group of professionals. A cost that will be greater than pizza and beer.
If you're A-OK with that... then you're A-OK with that. I wouldn't tell you that you're wrong. For somebody else, who maybe doesn't have the money to hire professional movers, who doesn't own a vehicle large enough, and lacks the physical ability to move a couch and TV by themselves, then this is where a healthy physical social circle can sure come in handy. "Hey guys, I'm otherwise alone and I really could use some help right now. Will you help me?".
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Yeah, so I really like just about any sort of physical affection and just intimacy of all stripes. I like sharing a meal with people, or sitting across a table or by a campfire and talking, actually openly, and it's not really the same for me online. I like laughing along with other people. I'm spending a lot more time wearing women's clothes around people, and I kinda have been putting effort into my appearance, and I have a really supportive bunch of folk I spend time around, and it's nice to feel accepted and valued. And, inspiring these same sort of feeling in others is kinda amazing sometimes.
Those sort of things don't actually work particularly well online for me. Doing things with other folk can do a lot to disrupt my depression and self-esteem stuff. You know, if it's not a nightmare and I don't end up hiding somewhere cause I don't want people to see what a hard time I'm having.
I have a difficult time determining if a physical, real world community is fundamentally better or more important than an online one. There have been times where the entirety of my social circle was online. It was the only place I felt needed, wanted or safe. But even in those times I had that feeling in my mind that it wasn't enough because it wasn't real. Looking back on it now I feel like that might just be some kind of bias baked in by society, but I dunno. I don't think the problem people isolated by the internet is going to go away. I think that's simply a change that happened in our species and at some point we have to accept that or continue to suffer the consequences of it.
Not that incels or the like are purely the product of the internet causing social isolation, but it's certainly a factor.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
This feeling becomes atrophied the longer you live without real life friends. Or rather, it becomes more and more intense in prolonged isolation until it blows a fuse. Either way, your perceived needs for friendship substantially change. That good feeling you get when people demonstrate they care about you is faint or gone. The difference between your reaction and the reactions of others makes you feel strange and alien, further isolating you from society. This increases risk of ostracism, so social encounters become episodes of subterfuge, widening the gulf between your thoughts and actions, which introduces mental stress required to maintain the facade to the point that you subconsciously ask yourself why you should take so much effort to blend in with people with a mentality so different from you who you can never be friends with as each interaction drives them further toward your facade and away from whatever you perceive as your true self. Then, like your former sense of friendly empathy, this too breaks, and you suddenly have no wish to relate to anyone or be a functional part of society.
It is at this point that people deprived of almost everything that makes them human are vulnerable to people and movements that are equipped to take advantage of them in this state. But at this point, what is left to reclaim?
This is just a theory how social isolation can unilaterally lead to extremism by degrading into reflex rejection of social norms.
Do you really think it's possible to permanently drive a feeling of being cared for/about out of a person?
I have a difficult time determining if a physical, real world community is fundamentally better or more important than an online one. There have been times where the entirety of my social circle was online. It was the only place I felt needed, wanted or safe. But even in those times I had that feeling in my mind that it wasn't enough because it wasn't real. Looking back on it now I feel like that might just be some kind of bias baked in by society, but I dunno. I don't think the problem people isolated by the internet is going to go away. I think that's simply a change that happened in our species and at some point we have to accept that or continue to suffer the consequences of it.
Not that incels or the like are purely the product of the internet causing social isolation, but it's certainly a factor.
A safe digital community is better than an unsafe physical one, but you still have a physiological need for touch. A safe physical community is fantastic, bonus if you can also keep in touch online since even in the same town a busy life can create barriers.
I have a difficult time determining if a physical, real world community is fundamentally better or more important than an online one. There have been times where the entirety of my social circle was online. It was the only place I felt needed, wanted or safe. But even in those times I had that feeling in my mind that it wasn't enough because it wasn't real. Looking back on it now I feel like that might just be some kind of bias baked in by society, but I dunno. I don't think the problem people isolated by the internet is going to go away. I think that's simply a change that happened in our species and at some point we have to accept that or continue to suffer the consequences of it.
Not that incels or the like are purely the product of the internet causing social isolation, but it's certainly a factor.
A safe digital community is better than an unsafe physical one, but you still have a physiological need for touch. A safe physical community is fantastic, bonus if you can also keep in touch online since even in the same town a busy life can create barriers.
I’ve always maintained that tho I admit, with no real scientific backing. If that’s a real thing I suppose I absorbed it via osmosis.
I'm not sure if delving into my own role in the death of community in the real world is on topic here or not.
I question what I should be doing to establish real life connections pretty frequently, and imagine that the lack of such relationships due to similar dispositions leads others to find connections in virtual communities.
I have a difficult time determining if a physical, real world community is fundamentally better or more important than an online one. There have been times where the entirety of my social circle was online. It was the only place I felt needed, wanted or safe. But even in those times I had that feeling in my mind that it wasn't enough because it wasn't real. Looking back on it now I feel like that might just be some kind of bias baked in by society, but I dunno. I don't think the problem people isolated by the internet is going to go away. I think that's simply a change that happened in our species and at some point we have to accept that or continue to suffer the consequences of it.
Not that incels or the like are purely the product of the internet causing social isolation, but it's certainly a factor.
A safe digital community is better than an unsafe physical one, but you still have a physiological need for touch. A safe physical community is fantastic, bonus if you can also keep in touch online since even in the same town a busy life can create barriers.
I’ve always maintained that tho I admit, with no real scientific backing. If that’s a real thing I suppose I absorbed it via osmosis.
Physical contact with people releases chemicals that do good things for you. There are studies on it. You can use your imagination a bit as well, but that requires you to have a strong imagination and no social shame response to the act, and there is the risk of dependency on something in your head instead of just using it to bridge you through a rough spot.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
This feeling becomes atrophied the longer you live without real life friends. Or rather, it becomes more and more intense in prolonged isolation until it blows a fuse. Either way, your perceived needs for friendship substantially change. That good feeling you get when people demonstrate they care about you is faint or gone. The difference between your reaction and the reactions of others makes you feel strange and alien, further isolating you from society. This increases risk of ostracism, so social encounters become episodes of subterfuge, widening the gulf between your thoughts and actions, which introduces mental stress required to maintain the facade to the point that you subconsciously ask yourself why you should take so much effort to blend in with people with a mentality so different from you who you can never be friends with as each interaction drives them further toward your facade and away from whatever you perceive as your true self. Then, like your former sense of friendly empathy, this too breaks, and you suddenly have no wish to relate to anyone or be a functional part of society.
It is at this point that people deprived of almost everything that makes them human are vulnerable to people and movements that are equipped to take advantage of them in this state. But at this point, what is left to reclaim?
This is just a theory how social isolation can unilaterally lead to extremism by degrading into reflex rejection of social norms.
Do you really think it's possible to permanently drive a feeling of being cared for/about out of a person?
I believe in the breakdown and burnout of the human psyche with chronic unrelenting stress based on my own experiences and the overwhelming narrative experiences of others. The mind must either break out of its prison or find comfort within its confines, and against a prison of it's own design, it stands no chance at the former.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
This feeling becomes atrophied the longer you live without real life friends. Or rather, it becomes more and more intense in prolonged isolation until it blows a fuse. Either way, your perceived needs for friendship substantially change. That good feeling you get when people demonstrate they care about you is faint or gone. The difference between your reaction and the reactions of others makes you feel strange and alien, further isolating you from society. This increases risk of ostracism, so social encounters become episodes of subterfuge, widening the gulf between your thoughts and actions, which introduces mental stress required to maintain the facade to the point that you subconsciously ask yourself why you should take so much effort to blend in with people with a mentality so different from you who you can never be friends with as each interaction drives them further toward your facade and away from whatever you perceive as your true self. Then, like your former sense of friendly empathy, this too breaks, and you suddenly have no wish to relate to anyone or be a functional part of society.
It is at this point that people deprived of almost everything that makes them human are vulnerable to people and movements that are equipped to take advantage of them in this state. But at this point, what is left to reclaim?
This is just a theory how social isolation can unilaterally lead to extremism by degrading into reflex rejection of social norms.
Do you really think it's possible to permanently drive a feeling of being cared for/about out of a person?
I believe in the breakdown and burnout of the human psyche with chronic unrelenting stress based on my own experiences and the overwhelming narrative experiences of others. The mind must either break out of its prison or find comfort within its confines, and against a prison of it's own design, it stands no chance at the former.
The breakdown and burnout you reference seems to me to be a reaction to environmental factors, and I'd like to think that if its possible to improve the environment, it's also possible to reverse or reduce the breakdown and burnout to a point where a person who was closed off becomes more open.
Plenty of misogynists don't become incels. Misogyny alone is insufficient to explain the incel phenomenon.
(Obviously plenty of socially isolated people don't become incels either. But nobody here is claiming that social isolation alone is a sufficient explanation.)
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
A safe online community can ameliorate some of the ill effects of social isolation. (By the way, so can owning a pet.) It isn't a full substitute for in-person interaction.
There's a bona fide danger in complacency, especially when mood disorders are involved. Depression and anxiety make it harder to leave your comfort zone. On the other hand, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I think that we, as a culture (and possibly as a species), aren't great at communicating that balance.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
This feeling becomes atrophied the longer you live without real life friends. Or rather, it becomes more and more intense in prolonged isolation until it blows a fuse. Either way, your perceived needs for friendship substantially change. That good feeling you get when people demonstrate they care about you is faint or gone. The difference between your reaction and the reactions of others makes you feel strange and alien, further isolating you from society. This increases risk of ostracism, so social encounters become episodes of subterfuge, widening the gulf between your thoughts and actions, which introduces mental stress required to maintain the facade to the point that you subconsciously ask yourself why you should take so much effort to blend in with people with a mentality so different from you who you can never be friends with as each interaction drives them further toward your facade and away from whatever you perceive as your true self. Then, like your former sense of friendly empathy, this too breaks, and you suddenly have no wish to relate to anyone or be a functional part of society.
It is at this point that people deprived of almost everything that makes them human are vulnerable to people and movements that are equipped to take advantage of them in this state. But at this point, what is left to reclaim?
This is just a theory how social isolation can unilaterally lead to extremism by degrading into reflex rejection of social norms.
Do you really think it's possible to permanently drive a feeling of being cared for/about out of a person?
I believe in the breakdown and burnout of the human psyche with chronic unrelenting stress based on my own experiences and the overwhelming narrative experiences of others. The mind must either break out of its prison or find comfort within its confines, and against a prison of it's own design, it stands no chance at the former.
The breakdown and burnout you reference seems to me to be a reaction to environmental factors, and I'd like to think that if its possible to improve the environment, it's also possible to reverse or reduce the breakdown and burnout to a point where a person who was closed off becomes more open.
To change as a person, you must have the desire to change. As long as that exists, there is hope. However, I believe that it is possible to completely amputate this desire from someone given enough time, leaving no foothold for eusocial measures to rehabilitate them. Their minds have changed.
Therefore, as the innate willingness to rejoin society no longer exists as a bridge to behavior and mentality change, we must seek a different motivator to induce this change. Some empirically believe that this motivator should be the same kind of thing that induced this personality change in the first place: unyielding psychological stress. If the life you are leading is always suffering, it behooves you to adapt your way out of it. Antisocial measures for the antisocial individual. It's a horrible thought.
If I were you, I'd stick to saving people who haven't gone too far down the rabbit hole to grab the lifeline. Or prove that what I'm saying is bogus and that everyone has an innate need to be a part of real society that can never, ever be extinguished.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'd argue we as a society need to do some introspection and also reign in some really shitty practices.
One big area is just the shitty toxic corporate culture that is fucking everything up. We have cases where what's best for business has resulted in many people not having free time to do things outside of work. Even if someone does find the time, shitty corporate practices have assured that it'll be very difficult for individuals to be able to afford to much because most of the free & cheap third places have been replaced with something else, sometimes that is a more expensive third place or it's just a bunch of shitty McMansions and shitty malls. The few free and reasonable priced third places left aren't always accessible or easily accessible to everyone. I'll readily admit at 34 years old, one of the things are struggle with is trying to find a work balance, where I can pay the bills and get need healthcare, while also having a healthy social life. It's been a real struggle because we've let toxic corporate mindsets pretty much fuck everything up for unsustainable profits.
I'd also say that digital third places are a real crap shoot. The first issue, is that the internet makes it pretty hard to deal with the shitheads. This forum has shown that it's possible to create safe environments, but I'd say there is an argument for this community being pretty niche. The online communities that most are likely to be exposed to are pretty damn shitty (youtube, twitter, facebook to name just three). Also when you get into multiplayer games, there are signs that corporations are already fucking those up. Either from not being willing to reign shitty anti-social behavior (see Blizzard's refusal to admit that corpse camping should be considered harassment), to loot boxes and to game design that outright punishes players for not playing the game as much as possible, while also punishing them for not being super efficient either. Even if we do make it harder for shit online communities to dominate the internet, a good online community isn't a substitute for real social interactions (it's a supplement at best).
Plenty of misogynists don't become incels. Misogyny alone is insufficient to explain the incel phenomenon.
(Obviously plenty of socially isolated people don't become incels either. But nobody here is claiming that social isolation alone is a sufficient explanation.)
I think susceptibility to hate and radicalization varies among individuals, even before you add environmental factors. I also think that we could effectively inoculate most people against hate by making sure everyone is taught healthy emotional processing skills, starting when they're kids.
Mainstream, toxically masculine culture insists that emotions are for women and weaklings (except for anger; anger is manly). It also tells boys and men that they are owed sex and unconditional support from a woman, and that if they don't have that, there's something wrong with them. Culturally, we're setting them up to fail and to be mad about it.
Mainstream, toxically masculine culture insists that emotions are for women and weaklings (except for anger; anger is manly). It also tells boys and men that they are owed sex and unconditional support from a woman, and that if they don't have that, there's something wrong with them. Culturally, we're setting them up to fail and to be mad about it.
Not just a woman, a woman who looks like a movie star.
The way media warps what "average" is in peoples minds is insane.
Buying into social isolation as a major cause of inceldom is like believing economic anxiety is driving the alt-right.
Depends on how deep you wanna go I guess
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, you help your friends out because they're your friends. It might be a "burden" in that helping someone move isn't how you would prefer to spend your Saturday, but you do it because you know they will appreciate it and you appreciate them.
This feeling becomes atrophied the longer you live without real life friends. Or rather, it becomes more and more intense in prolonged isolation until it blows a fuse. Either way, your perceived needs for friendship substantially change. That good feeling you get when people demonstrate they care about you is faint or gone. The difference between your reaction and the reactions of others makes you feel strange and alien, further isolating you from society. This increases risk of ostracism, so social encounters become episodes of subterfuge, widening the gulf between your thoughts and actions, which introduces mental stress required to maintain the facade to the point that you subconsciously ask yourself why you should take so much effort to blend in with people with a mentality so different from you who you can never be friends with as each interaction drives them further toward your facade and away from whatever you perceive as your true self. Then, like your former sense of friendly empathy, this too breaks, and you suddenly have no wish to relate to anyone or be a functional part of society.
It is at this point that people deprived of almost everything that makes them human are vulnerable to people and movements that are equipped to take advantage of them in this state. But at this point, what is left to reclaim?
This is just a theory how social isolation can unilaterally lead to extremism by degrading into reflex rejection of social norms.
Do you really think it's possible to permanently drive a feeling of being cared for/about out of a person?
I believe in the breakdown and burnout of the human psyche with chronic unrelenting stress based on my own experiences and the overwhelming narrative experiences of others. The mind must either break out of its prison or find comfort within its confines, and against a prison of it's own design, it stands no chance at the former.
The breakdown and burnout you reference seems to me to be a reaction to environmental factors, and I'd like to think that if its possible to improve the environment, it's also possible to reverse or reduce the breakdown and burnout to a point where a person who was closed off becomes more open.
To change as a person, you must have the desire to change. As long as that exists, there is hope. However, I believe that it is possible to completely amputate this desire from someone given enough time, leaving no foothold for eusocial measures to rehabilitate them. Their minds have changed.
Therefore, as the innate willingness to rejoin society no longer exists as a bridge to behavior and mentality change, we must seek a different motivator to induce this change. Some empirically believe that this motivator should be the same kind of thing that induced this personality change in the first place: unyielding psychological stress. If the life you are leading is always suffering, it behooves you to adapt your way out of it. Antisocial measures for the antisocial individual. It's a horrible thought.
If I were you, I'd stick to saving people who haven't gone too far down the rabbit hole to grab the lifeline. Or prove that what I'm saying is bogus and that everyone has an innate need to be a part of real society that can never, ever be extinguished.
I'm not really going to save anybody, and I haven't really figured out whether I believe that incels are preventable or inevitable. I'm increasingly prepared to accept that they're effectively inevitable, which makes me wonder what a harm reduction model for dealing with incels looks like.
Inkstain, I strongly feel like your whole modus operandi here is to shit on anything that could possibly be construed, in any way, to give any sympathy to incels.
If that really is your goal, please accept this invitation to fuck right off.
Bogart on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
I didn't say it's easy but I do think that social games are a way better way to do it than going to bars. If you're the type of person who can make friends easily then I admit it's difficult to give advice to those who can't as they're in a different headspace to you.
I was using your post as a starting point to saying how hard it can be to provide advice on how to make friends.
And that it can be actually harmful when given to someone who has problems meeting people, because everyone telling them that it is easy, and them continuously failing, leaves an impression that there is something wrong with them.
1. Make better opportunities for people to socialize outside of the internet
2. Make the internet safer and more healthy as a social platform
I doubt #2 will happen anywhere near the feasibility timeline for #1 because the internet is inherently multinational (defying jurisdiction and accountability), accessible to all with means, and pretty consequence free for the user despite regulation. In addition, it is much easier to be in good standing with an internet community and not maintain a healthy lifestyle due to the 100% remote nature of the platform.
But it's what we drift towards because of the low stakes compared to every other form of social interaction. If I mess up here, I can turn off my computer and never see you guys again. We can meet in a supermarket and exchange recipe tips even if we hate each other online. I know next to nothing about how all of you live, and you will never ask me to help you move, or attend a family's funeral, or come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money, and I don't have the guilt of feeling like there is something else I could have done if bad stuff happens to you because the only context I have is what you choose to post on the internet. Nothing extremely bad can happen in this relationship, yet we can still have deep conversations, find common ground, discuss hobbies, play games together, and generally do most of the fun things friends do and bypass the rough stuff. The benefits of having real life friends have more intangible rewards and much more tangible risks, so to a lot of people, having an internet only social life seems palatable.
Why should I make real life friends? A lot of people haven't really considered this question and subsist on an unhealthy fast food diet of pure online social interaction without considering how they are affected or what they are heading toward.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
For one thing, if you never make real life friends, you’ll never get to ask them to help you move, support you at a family member’s funeral, come in late to cover your shift, or lend you money.
A decent Brookings article on it:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/09/14/third-places-as-community-builders
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But we could also make it easier on people - for example, by including third places in our city planning.
(Self-indulgent tangent: car-oriented urban planning is shitty.)
I've posted about this before. I honestly believe that chronic social isolation, especially among adult men, is one of the major public health crises in 21st century America. It's up there with sedentary lifestyles, alcoholism, and workplace stress:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
At their best, friendships help both people become better people. You encourage each other to do difficult but rewarding things, and provide advice and help when needed. It's a bi-directional effort that requires both people to be invested in the relationship.
The same is true for intimate relationships, only more so.
In the best cases the partnership results in two people that are better able to navigate the problems life throws out at them. They fill in gaps in each other's personalities and skillsets and support each other. It's not perfect--nothing is perfect--but on the whole both are better people for the relationship. They keep each other sane in an insane world; they push each other to do things they otherwise wouldn't (in a positive way hopefully!).
So as I sit here at midnight, in a small apartment, alone, I realize once again that life could be different. Perhaps if I made a better effort to foster those relationships out in the real world...
Many people are increasingly ok with this, or rather, let the frustrations of having no support subconsciously sour their attitudes about society. After all, what kind of person seeks out friends for entirely utilitarian purposes?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Why would I want to be a burden on my friends though?
Really, these are things that would be considered only when necessary, and all social needs are 'fulfilled' through random disconnected conversation with work colleagues whose names I don't even remember.
I don't think it's obvious to people why anything more than surface level relationships are necessary, even if deeper relationships would be more beneficial.
You can look at any relationship purely through a transaction lens, but in my view, life is hard and having people around you who value you and support you, whom you value and support, helps everybody get through it.
Usually it is more fun helping friends move than sitting alone doing not much, because you feel helpful. And for that reason you shouldn’t hesitate to ask friends to help because it makes them feel needed.
This feeling becomes atrophied the longer you live without real life friends. Or rather, it becomes more and more intense in prolonged isolation until it blows a fuse. Either way, your perceived needs for friendship substantially change. That good feeling you get when people demonstrate they care about you is faint or gone. The difference between your reaction and the reactions of others makes you feel strange and alien, further isolating you from society. This increases risk of ostracism, so social encounters become episodes of subterfuge, widening the gulf between your thoughts and actions, which introduces mental stress required to maintain the facade to the point that you subconsciously ask yourself why you should take so much effort to blend in with people with a mentality so different from you who you can never be friends with as each interaction drives them further toward your facade and away from whatever you perceive as your true self. Then, like your former sense of friendly empathy, this too breaks, and you suddenly have no wish to relate to anyone or be a functional part of society.
It is at this point that people deprived of almost everything that makes them human are vulnerable to people and movements that are equipped to take advantage of them in this state. But at this point, what is left to reclaim?
This is just a theory how social isolation can unilaterally lead to extremism by degrading into reflex rejection of social norms.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's the reverse; you don't ask your friends to help you move, because why impose.
But you would help if asked, but you never talk about it because the above, so you never get asked either.
Perhaps.
This somewhat requires you to have invited them around to your house casually previously, otherwise you only ask them to your house when you want them to do things for you.
As far as moving goes, your options are basically this:
-Ask your friends. And if they're willing to help you, then the total cost of your move will amount to a pizza and a case of beer.
-Do it alone. And if you don't have the necessary tools/skills to do it by yourself (and if you own a couch and a TV bigger than 40", then you don't), well then you are paying cold hard cash to a group of professionals. A cost that will be greater than pizza and beer.
If you're A-OK with that... then you're A-OK with that. I wouldn't tell you that you're wrong. For somebody else, who maybe doesn't have the money to hire professional movers, who doesn't own a vehicle large enough, and lacks the physical ability to move a couch and TV by themselves, then this is where a healthy physical social circle can sure come in handy. "Hey guys, I'm otherwise alone and I really could use some help right now. Will you help me?".
Those sort of things don't actually work particularly well online for me. Doing things with other folk can do a lot to disrupt my depression and self-esteem stuff. You know, if it's not a nightmare and I don't end up hiding somewhere cause I don't want people to see what a hard time I'm having.
Not that incels or the like are purely the product of the internet causing social isolation, but it's certainly a factor.
Do you really think it's possible to permanently drive a feeling of being cared for/about out of a person?
A safe digital community is better than an unsafe physical one, but you still have a physiological need for touch. A safe physical community is fantastic, bonus if you can also keep in touch online since even in the same town a busy life can create barriers.
I seem relatively okay...
Just can't stop moving or the ennui will kill me.
I’ve always maintained that tho I admit, with no real scientific backing. If that’s a real thing I suppose I absorbed it via osmosis.
I'm not sure if delving into my own role in the death of community in the real world is on topic here or not.
I question what I should be doing to establish real life connections pretty frequently, and imagine that the lack of such relationships due to similar dispositions leads others to find connections in virtual communities.
Physical contact with people releases chemicals that do good things for you. There are studies on it. You can use your imagination a bit as well, but that requires you to have a strong imagination and no social shame response to the act, and there is the risk of dependency on something in your head instead of just using it to bridge you through a rough spot.
I believe in the breakdown and burnout of the human psyche with chronic unrelenting stress based on my own experiences and the overwhelming narrative experiences of others. The mind must either break out of its prison or find comfort within its confines, and against a prison of it's own design, it stands no chance at the former.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Both seem pretty fundamental in their own ways.
The breakdown and burnout you reference seems to me to be a reaction to environmental factors, and I'd like to think that if its possible to improve the environment, it's also possible to reverse or reduce the breakdown and burnout to a point where a person who was closed off becomes more open.
(Obviously plenty of socially isolated people don't become incels either. But nobody here is claiming that social isolation alone is a sufficient explanation.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There's a bona fide danger in complacency, especially when mood disorders are involved. Depression and anxiety make it harder to leave your comfort zone. On the other hand, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I think that we, as a culture (and possibly as a species), aren't great at communicating that balance.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
To change as a person, you must have the desire to change. As long as that exists, there is hope. However, I believe that it is possible to completely amputate this desire from someone given enough time, leaving no foothold for eusocial measures to rehabilitate them. Their minds have changed.
Therefore, as the innate willingness to rejoin society no longer exists as a bridge to behavior and mentality change, we must seek a different motivator to induce this change. Some empirically believe that this motivator should be the same kind of thing that induced this personality change in the first place: unyielding psychological stress. If the life you are leading is always suffering, it behooves you to adapt your way out of it. Antisocial measures for the antisocial individual. It's a horrible thought.
If I were you, I'd stick to saving people who haven't gone too far down the rabbit hole to grab the lifeline. Or prove that what I'm saying is bogus and that everyone has an innate need to be a part of real society that can never, ever be extinguished.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
One big area is just the shitty toxic corporate culture that is fucking everything up. We have cases where what's best for business has resulted in many people not having free time to do things outside of work. Even if someone does find the time, shitty corporate practices have assured that it'll be very difficult for individuals to be able to afford to much because most of the free & cheap third places have been replaced with something else, sometimes that is a more expensive third place or it's just a bunch of shitty McMansions and shitty malls. The few free and reasonable priced third places left aren't always accessible or easily accessible to everyone. I'll readily admit at 34 years old, one of the things are struggle with is trying to find a work balance, where I can pay the bills and get need healthcare, while also having a healthy social life. It's been a real struggle because we've let toxic corporate mindsets pretty much fuck everything up for unsustainable profits.
I'd also say that digital third places are a real crap shoot. The first issue, is that the internet makes it pretty hard to deal with the shitheads. This forum has shown that it's possible to create safe environments, but I'd say there is an argument for this community being pretty niche. The online communities that most are likely to be exposed to are pretty damn shitty (youtube, twitter, facebook to name just three). Also when you get into multiplayer games, there are signs that corporations are already fucking those up. Either from not being willing to reign shitty anti-social behavior (see Blizzard's refusal to admit that corpse camping should be considered harassment), to loot boxes and to game design that outright punishes players for not playing the game as much as possible, while also punishing them for not being super efficient either. Even if we do make it harder for shit online communities to dominate the internet, a good online community isn't a substitute for real social interactions (it's a supplement at best).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I think susceptibility to hate and radicalization varies among individuals, even before you add environmental factors. I also think that we could effectively inoculate most people against hate by making sure everyone is taught healthy emotional processing skills, starting when they're kids.
Mainstream, toxically masculine culture insists that emotions are for women and weaklings (except for anger; anger is manly). It also tells boys and men that they are owed sex and unconditional support from a woman, and that if they don't have that, there's something wrong with them. Culturally, we're setting them up to fail and to be mad about it.
The way media warps what "average" is in peoples minds is insane.
Depends on how deep you wanna go I guess
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm not really going to save anybody, and I haven't really figured out whether I believe that incels are preventable or inevitable. I'm increasingly prepared to accept that they're effectively inevitable, which makes me wonder what a harm reduction model for dealing with incels looks like.
Sure, in the sense that:
Economic inequality is a cancer destroying all of society, and some extremists combine that with racism to become the alt-right
Emotional atavism is a cancer destroying American men, and some extremists combine that with misogyny to become incels
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If that really is your goal, please accept this invitation to fuck right off.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.