Friendships

vcrpamphlet wrote:Have you ever found a dishonest approach helpful with that, or is the vibe more on the compulsive side?

Dishonest in the sense of portraying myself as softer/more interested etc than I am in reality? yes I always do that, even here. Though I will point out that plenty of our ‘empath’ and ‘Non’ members have admitted to presenting themselves as more confident or friendly than they feel. Whether it counts as dishonest is a matter of perspective, they seem to say it isn’t, I say it is.

If you mean in terms of playing a fictionalised character. I’ve done that, more so when I was younger. As I’ve got older and interactions have become more significant and more demanding (in terms of the standard of conduct) I tend to avoid it due to the problems it creates further down the line. If I do it now it’s usually for my own amusement in a situation which doesn’t matter.

I’m perfectly capable of adapting myself to someone else 1-to-1 and most of my social success relies on the ability to rapidly create the illusion or reality of trust and personal intimacy to such a degree that I often come off as more honest and real than those people who actually are. It’s something which I have always found very easy and some what amusing (that the thing I’m best at faking is sincerity). Transactional analysis usually terms it ‘one sided intimacy’. Typically I have to be interested in the individual to bother with that which has the result of making me clannish.

However that ability is reliant on being able to be able to closely observe and interact with the individual. Unscripted social group dynamics, where I don’t know the participants individually, are an issue as there is a set of unspoken social rules and behaviours which go straight over my head. Hence I often end up having to dominate the group and make it play by my rules or alter it subtly by generating 1-to-1 relationships with the key players.

Equally there are often issues with the fact that I fail to value the things that others may deem as important or significant. Most comedic version of that I can remember was in my early 20s when a guy in the swimming team spent ages waffling on about the women he’d slept with, then when I react with a combination of disinterest and contempt, he says repeatedly in an exasperated manner “some of them were Asians” as if that made all the difference. Needless to say the interaction did not enamour me to him. Mostly though it has more to do with my failure to comply with someone’s wacky self image. Generally speaking I won’t bend for others unless there is something to motivate me to do so.

I don’t really have online friends, or if I do they aren’t the same. There are people I like more than others but the interaction doesn’t cause me any sense of enjoyment or well-being. Typically I interact out of intellectual interest, to piss about or sometimes because someone’s rubbing my compulsivity up the wrong way, though I’ve mostly given up on the latter in this place.

How do you describe your own threshold of the term? It seems possible to have just as meaningful a non-sexual relationship via voice, video and text as can be achieved in person. It’s just, that potential requires more conscientiousness and blind investment than most of us are used to.

loosely I guess I would say friends are people I gain a sense of well being from interacting with, obviously there are degrees of that.

When I was reading the books about transactional analysis it was quite apparent that a large proportion of the social interactions which people supposedly gain fulfilment from simply aren’t having the same effect for me and consequently I regard them as little more than an irritating ritual I have to endure for tactical reasons.

This would possibly explain why my threshold for ‘friend’ is so high and my tendency to behave like a bastard to those I am merely acquainted with. The underlying reward circuitry which causes them to value our relationship (or view it as a relationship at all) simply isn’t operating the same way for me.

As to whether someone could find deep meaning in online friendships, I say only that I could not.

I’ve said repeatedly in my previous incarnation that my ability with people is entirely dependent on proximity. I need to be able to see them, hear their tone of voice and experiment with them (often via the application of stress) to find out how they work. Deprived of this I tend to come across less pleasantly. It isn’t necessarily deliberate just a case of not having any means by which to gauge reaction. A similar phenomenon occurs if I get too involved in a discussion and cease to temper myself in accordance with their reactions, I come across as aggressive sometimes to the point of physical threat which is not necessarily intentional.

Equally I suspect many of the things I find gratifying about my relationship with my friends would be loss potent or non-existent in a digital format.

I find phone calls to be the most awkward form of contact unless I have an agenda. Text messages and writing online are easy but I do prefer to be face-to-face with somebody. It's so much better to interact when it's responsive.

ArchCannon wrote:

justonemoreperson wrote:I find it harder to interact with people if I can't see them.

Huh. I, conversely, find interaction easier if I don't see 'em in person. Surprisingly enough, it has nothing to do with eye contact.

solemnlysworn wrote:I find phone calls to be the most awkward form of contact unless I have an agenda. Text messages and writing online are easy but I do prefer to be face-to-face with somebody. It's so much better to interact when it's responsive.

ArchCannon wrote:

justonemoreperson wrote:I find it harder to interact with people if I can't see them.

Huh. I, conversely, find interaction easier if I don't see 'em in person. Surprisingly enough, it has nothing to do with eye contact.

I'm more a face to face type person too.

Greebo wrote:Dishonest in the sense of portraying myself as softer/more interested etc than I am in reality? yes I always do that, even here. Though I will point out that plenty of our ‘empath’ and ‘Non’ members have admitted to presenting themselves as more confident or friendly than they feel. Whether it counts as dishonest is a matter of perspective, they seem to say it isn’t, I say it is.

If you mean in terms of playing a fictionalised character. I’ve done that, more so when I was younger. As I’ve got older and interactions have become more significant and more demanding (in terms of the standard of conduct) I tend to avoid it due to the problems it creates further down the line. If I do it now it’s usually for my own amusement in a situation which doesn’t matter.

Yeah meant it in the literal sense, agree re over-confidence and whatnot, the curiosity was maybe specific to this part of your response:

However that ability is reliant on being able to be able to closely observe and interact with the individual. Unscripted social group dynamics, where I don’t know the participants individually, are an issue as there is a set of unspoken social rules and behaviours which go straight over my head. Hence I often end up having to dominate the group and make it play by my rules or alter it subtly by generating 1-to-1 relationships with the key players.

It sounds like something I can relate to, through late adolescence/my early 20s at least, but not sure if I’m getting the right image. At first meeting, are you just a bit awkward generally, or are you thinking about this stuff such you find a meaningful connection with their narratives more difficult?

What social etiquette do you find issue with? For me it’s whatever people are referring to with the phrase ‘small talk’, but it’s not exactly clear-cut as to what small talk is so it’s more likely just an excuse for being weird or getting too personal too quickly.

I’m perfectly capable of adapting myself to someone else 1-to-1 and most of my social success relies on the ability to rapidly create the illusion or reality of trust and personal intimacy to such a degree that I often come off as more honest and real than those people who actually are. It’s something which I have always found very easy and some what amusing (that the thing I’m best at faking is sincerity). Transactional analysis usually terms it ‘one sided intimacy’. Typically I have to be interested in the individual to bother with that which has the result of making me clannish.

It’s tempting to take an analyst route with this and suggest the duplicity thing could be a way for your ego to compensate for its lack of control in those situations. When my anxety was bad I tended to compensate with random absurdity, which randomness would get a blank cheque whenever weed and alcohol were involved. Seems bizarre looking back on it now, but it was a lot like meeting an unfunny surrealist Ace Ventura.

Most comedic version of that I can remember was in my early 20s when a guy in the swimming team spent ages waffling on about the women he’d slept with, then when I react with a combination of disinterest and contempt, he says repeatedly in an exasperated manner “some of them were Asians” as if that made all the difference. Needless to say the interaction did not enamour me to him. Mostly though it has more to do with my failure to comply with someone’s wacky self image. Generally speaking I won’t bend for others unless there is something to motivate me to do so.

Of course it made the difference. He was able to touch the sides for once.

loosely I guess I would say friends are people I gain a sense of well being from interacting with, obviously there are degrees of that.

What’s the differential from a good hypnotist?

This would possibly explain why my threshold for ‘friend’ is so high and my tendency to behave like a bastard to those I am merely acquainted with. The underlying reward circuitry which causes them to value our relationship (or view it as a relationship at all) simply isn’t operating the same way for me.

What makes you say that?

Are people always that transparent?

As to whether someone could find deep meaning in online friendships, I say only that I could not.

I’ve said repeatedly in my previous incarnation that my ability with people is entirely dependent on proximity. I need to be able to see them, hear their tone of voice and experiment with them (often via the application of stress) to find out how they work. Deprived of this I tend to come across less pleasantly. It isn’t necessarily deliberate just a case of not having any means by which to gauge reaction. A similar phenomenon occurs if I get too involved in a discussion and cease to temper myself in accordance with their reactions, I come across as aggressive sometimes to the point of physical threat which is not necessarily intentional.

This reads a little bs-ish per the ego compensation thing mentioned earlier. It seems evident you are intrigued by people from good standing and that your difficulties stem from the complexity of your personal narrative as compared to theirs; reading our account of these things reminds me of a Tin Man with too many organs for the atmosphere he’s stuck in. It might be true you have that pain-expressive predatory/sadist side about you, but is there anything to suggest that inclination wasn’t just an escape made habitual?

Equally I suspect many of the things I find gratifying about my relationship with my friends would be loss potent or non-existent in a digital format.

What do you normally find gratifying?

-- Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:01 am --

justonemoreperson wrote:

vcrpamphlet wrote: It seems possible to have just as meaningful a non-sexual relationship via voice, video and text as can be achieved in person. It’s just, that potential requires more conscientiousness and blind investment than most of us are used to.

I find it harder to interact with people if I can't see them.

You should probably groom yourself more then.

vcrpamphlet wrote:

justonemoreperson wrote:
I find it harder to interact with people if I can't see them.

You should probably groom yourself more then.

I've heard it can make you go blind.

vcrpamphlet wrote:

However that ability is reliant on being able to be able to closely observe and interact with the individual. Unscripted social group dynamics, where I don’t know the participants individually, are an issue as there is a set of unspoken social rules and behaviours which go straight over my head. Hence I often end up having to dominate the group and make it play by my rules or alter it subtly by generating 1-to-1 relationships with the key players.

It sounds like something I can relate to, through late adolescence/my early 20s at least, but not sure if I’m getting the right image. At first meeting, are you just a bit awkward generally, or are you thinking about this stuff such you find a meaningful connection with their narratives more difficult?

I come across as curt, abrupt, flinty and generally abrasive. ‘Surly’ was the term people were very fond of in my youth. Alternatively if I can’t really be bothered: aloof and disinterested.

I don’t really get the bit about ‘meaningful connection with their narratives’.

What social etiquette do you find issue with? For me it’s whatever people are referring to with the phrase ‘small talk’, but it’s not exactly clear-cut as to what small talk is so it’s more likely just an excuse for being weird or getting too personal too quickly.

That made be chuckle, I’m afraid people trying to get too personal too quickly, particularly in the extreme form the borderline type personalities demonstrate, is something I find intolerable.

As to what it is specifically, that’s a bit like trying to guess the size and shape of the minefield by accidentally treading on the occasional mine. Often it’s about saying something which upsets or offends someone. It’s a failure to absorb the groups ‘culture’ and shared ideals by osmosis perhaps. Belonging to most social groups usually requires a degree of conformity and I’m simply too stubborn to bend. I also have a tendency to ignore social hierarchies within a groups dynamic if I don’t view the group as worthwhile and stubbornly refuse to be a part of it, which probably ties into the lack of a shared value system.

I’m perfectly capable of adapting myself to someone else 1-to-1 and most of my social success relies on the ability to rapidly create the illusion or reality of trust and personal intimacy to such a degree that I often come off as more honest and real than those people who actually are. It’s something which I have always found very easy and some what amusing (that the thing I’m best at faking is sincerity). Transactional analysis usually terms it ‘one sided intimacy’. Typically I have to be interested in the individual to bother with that which has the result of making me clannish.

It’s tempting to take an analyst route with this and suggest the duplicity thing could be a way for your ego to compensate for its lack of control in those situations. When my anxety was bad I tended to compensate with random absurdity, which randomness would get a blank cheque whenever weed and alcohol were involved. Seems bizarre looking back on it now, but it was a lot like meeting an unfunny surrealist Ace Ventura.

Yes, but making vague allusions to compensations for the ego is, for all practical purposes, your hobby.

I phrased it as “the illusion or reality of trust and personal intimacy” because it exists in the grey area between the two. It’s not that I’m not expressing genuine emotion or interest but rather that there are other considerations operating behind that, most of which relate to trust or the lack their of. If I avoid saying something because it will prevent an unfavourable outcome you could call it a lie of omission or you could call it tact. In a minority of cases trust and loyalty are established, for the rest a degree of guile and artifice are justified.

I don’t experience social anxiety much, not in the ‘oh noes they might not like me/might reject me’ sense. I do view most people as possessing a kind of petty malignancy. The term pernicious might be an appropriate description. More of an irritating hinderance than anything overtly harmful. When too tired, sick or just unmotivated, having to combat other people’s crap can be too depressing and exasperating to be bothered with.

I should also say for completeness that I experience non-specific anxiety and depression (and sometimes other psychiatric symptoms - word salad for example) as a direct result of the porphyria in the period of recovery following a crisis which can sometimes impact my behaviour. However these come and go of their own volition.

You can link that back to a lack of ego integrity if you like.

loosely I guess I would say friends are people I gain a sense of well being from interacting with, obviously there are degrees of that.

What’s the differential from a good hypnotist?

No idea, I’ve never met one.

Given the sense of well-being I get from my girlfriend is decidedly intermittent, it’d have to be an extremely good hypnotist.

This would possibly explain why my threshold for ‘friend’ is so high and my tendency to behave like a bastard to those I am merely acquainted with. The underlying reward circuitry which causes them to value our relationship (or view it as a relationship at all) simply isn’t operating the same way for me.

What makes you say that?

Spending a couple of months this summer reading about transactional analysis and finding that no matter how it was described or analysed by different authors, my experience was inconsistent with the theory the vast majority of the time. Equally about a year previously the clinical psychologist had said the same thing. Though at the time I misinterpreted her as saying I didn’t need affection like other people and consequently took some issue with it. Both parents, some of my friends and mentors over the years have all made similar remarks and I guess my boss’ comment about my being unresponsive or cranky in response to ‘pats’ I don’t deem to be justified, could be tied in.

Are people always that transparent?

clearly they are not.

This reads a little bs-ish per the ego compensation thing mentioned earlier. It seems evident you are intrigued by people from good standing and that your difficulties stem from the complexity of your personal narrative as compared to theirs; reading our account of these things reminds me of a Tin Man with too many organs for the atmosphere he’s stuck in. It might be true you have that pain-expressive predatory/sadist side about you, but is there anything to suggest that inclination wasn’t just an escape made habitual?

If you like, not something I agree with.

In so far as I am aware it was a fairly accurate description of my behaviour. There is a sympathetic response in the real world which incentivises me to pull my punches, but simply doesn’t exist in a textual format.

Quite why I should feel the need to compare personal narratives is a bit of a mystery. I’ve had several users try to cuddle up under the guise of ‘relating’ to me and having found the experience vaguely icky, like a stranger sticking their finger up your nose, I’m afraid I don’t see the virtue. Also reminds me of the people who waffle on about their problems for several paragraphs then finish with ‘anyone relate?’.

In answer to you last question. Personal history, career and interactions with mental health professionals. Though if you mean in the sense of torturing critters and such, I’ve nothing that pathological, I would find it too empathically painful. Most of my more serious harmful behaviour occurs in the service of an external project, cause or principle, where zeal will carry me over the barrier. It’s a case of the ends justifying the means, which they always will for me, but I wouldn’t cause serious harm without a reason. So in that sense you may well be correct. On the other hand when the guy doing your evaluation describes you as ‘unnerving’ then likens you to one of history’s less fluffy characters, it’s probably a safe bet you aren’t all kittens and sunshine either.

What do you normally find gratifying?

Thats a little too broad to yield a useful answer. In the context of friendship much would fall under the category of ‘doing things together’.

A more pertinent question would be: Why, in the absence of physical impairments, would an individual choose to focus on friendships in a virtual environment?

That behaviour would seem to represent greatest deviation from the norm.

It wasn’t meant confrontationally, lol. It just sounded like your difficulties with people might stem from some kind of overthinking. ‘Personal narrative’ there is straightforward, refers to self-talk and the illusion of self, but not really up to explaining something just because you’re too defensive to be reasonable. Missing basic social cues would absolutely set the ego up to compensate in someone otherwise capable, so the prickliness is probably just an exercise in some need you haven’t had satisfied recently. Trouble with the missus I’m guessing, based on how you just mentioned them. Your syntax is also indicative of devaluation, overspending, and bad dental hygiene.

You’ve mentioned the ego compensating at least three times but at no point have you actually bothered to explain what you mean. Expecting anyone to agree to a non specified dynamic on the basis of your perception isn’t reasonable.

If I had to guess I’d say this was going to turn out like last time where any obsessive behaviour had to be intrinsically related to OCPD, or this thread. So a man having a mid-life crisis and buying a Ferrari, a girl choosing to wear baggy clothes because she is insecure about her body, someone being insulted and then retaliating out of spite, all get labelled as the ego compensating. They’re also all pretty normal and not unduly pathological, unlike the compensations for a lack of ego integrity described by the psychodynamic theories of personality disorders.

I’ve tempered every post in this thread so as not to end up with a will having a strop and that last one I actually re-wrote twice and gutted of much of its content. But it seems that anything less than total agreement is going to earn me an ad hominem, so in future let’s just not do this.

Earn you an ad hominem?

Look, if you can’t help projecting your own issues, whatever they may be right now, do it somewhere else. You’re far too endearing to joust with, as I keep trying to tell you. Sorry.

vcrpamphlet wrote:What is your approach to (or guideline for) building and maintaining friendships?

Building friendships? No problem. Maintaining them? Big problem.

I have no problem talking to anyone anywhere and establishing a (fake on my end) connection with them through meaningful conversation. For example: I met a woman the other day in town while waiting for an appointment. Within about 15 minutes of talking to her I had a good idea of where she lives, who she lives with, what her relationship is like with that person, and a good sense of her weaknesses and vulnerabilities based on how she presented herself through her words and body language. Her dress-sense also revealed aspects of her personality. She would have been an easy mark had I decided to take advantage of her.

Anyway, the point is, in my experience, being able to read people helps a great deal in establishing a relationship with them. People seem to like it when they think you're similar to them. I wasn't similar to that woman I'd met, but it was easy to pretend I was.

My biggest problem (though, it's more a problem for other people) as far as maintaining friendships goes is that I tend to lose interest in people rather quickly. At that point I no longer desire to keep in contact with them. I have a tendency to ignore people who I've lost interest in. This includes family members. I won't ignore them face to face as that would make the situation awkward, but I do have a habit of doing it online. Which brings me to the next question...

How does it differ between the real world and online?

To me, true friendship is something that must be earned through trust and loyalty. I don't believe in loyalty (I serve my own interests first and foremost) and I have a lot of trust issues with regard to sharing my personal life with others. I also don't have much interest in people unless I can use them for my own benefit, so true friendship with me is pretty much non-existent. I've had my share of 'friends' over the years, but nobody I would consider a true friend.

I really don't think there's any difference between a friend online and one in real life aside from what you can do with them and how much privacy you have. I think it's a lot easier to establish friendships online because some people consider you a friend after only a few conversations with them, so I've learned. It begs the question of what value they're truly placing on it.