<p>lol, tell that to the several loners i’ve met</p>
<p>Hey, if you can live and be happy without friends than more power to you. Personally I don’t see how anyone can be happy without friends, but thats just me.</p>
<p>@theduck: Let me guess, your opinion constitutes as knowledge? Unless you met/knoe every loner in this world, your statement is nothing more than an opinion.</p>
<p>
Erm…no. Socializing is not a basic human need. You can live without socializing; it does not affect your physiology much like a lack of food or water for long periods could. </p>
<p>
-facepalm- Another person trying to pass their opinion off as fact.</p>
<p>here’s the link to the study: [About.com:</a> <a href=“http://www.nia.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B0E9850F-4466-4B84-A933-A335D05C3232/0/ALSA.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nia.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B0E9850F-4466-4B84-A933-A335D05C3232/0/ALSA.pdf](<a href=“http://seniorliving.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=seniorliving&cdn=people&tm=110&f=20&su=p284.12.336.ip_p531.54.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.nia.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B0E9850F-4466-4B84-A933-A335D05C3232/0/ALSA.pdf]About.com:”>http://seniorliving.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=seniorliving&cdn=people&tm=110&f=20&su=p284.12.336.ip_p531.54.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.nia.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B0E9850F-4466-4B84-A933-A335D05C3232/0/ALSA.pdf)</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The subjects were australian.</p>
<p>Actually there is evidence that little socialization is detrimental to overall health. Any basic health psychology
class will teach you that. There are numerous studies that show people with strong social networks are healthier and recover faster.</p>
<p>And yes, humans are naturally pack animals. There are exceptions but evolution has made us social creatures.</p>
<p>Before I get attacked, I have said since the beginning of this thread that friends aren’t NECESSARY. I just personally couldn’t imagine living without them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As said above, evolution has made us social creatures.</p>
<p>You seem to be behind everyone else in terms of evolution.</p>
<p>
Wow, 22% is such a significant number. Interesting how this study touts this as fact when only one study has been conducted. But, seeing as you believe this to be an accepted fact in psychology, it shouldn’t be difficult to post from more trusted sources such as peer-reviewed studies in national journals of psychology?</p>
<p>^^It is hard for almost anyone that has always had friends to imagine suddenly not having any. But The fact that it’s unimaginable is not evidence for it being detrimental. As rio said, you get used to it, as surprising as that might sound.</p>
<p>Yeah, I would believe that that has consistently been shown. my question is - are the people who don’t have friends the sub-population for which not having friends isn’t detrimental? Because it is generally detrimental doesn’t mean it’s always detrimental, obviously.</p>
<p>My guess here is that the answer is no - a lot of people who do not have friends, do not have no friends by choice, and would rather have some. It’s these people for which not having friends is detrimental because they feel deprived from something very natural that they want desperately.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>remember what I said last night…</p>
<p>Convincing YOU of something doesn’t equate to proving it; it equates to convincing you that the thing is true.</p>
<p>I believe that you are unusually hard to satisfy in this regard, so I’m not going to waste my time trying.</p>
<p>the study touts its results as fact - of course the results are a fact; they are what the study found. Also, if the sample size was large enough, which i believe it was, then that 22% might have a 95% confidence interval of 18-24%, which would make it exceedingly likely to be accurate.</p>
<p>Of course you can never be 100% sure of anything. IF you are looking for that sort of proof than you will never find it.</p>
<p>Majjestic, you do realize you’re trying a bit too hard for someone who thinks he’s superior? Why try so hard to prove something to us if you know you’re right? You’ve been at it for days. I think you have a bit of doubt too.</p>
<p>
Interesting. Then you should have no problem quoting from peer reviewed articles in national journals? Numerous studies does not mean anything, as many of these studies are clearly trying to sell something such as “life coaches”. I want to see studies with unbiased experimental data that are conducted by psychologists with no agenda, such as the studies that are typically found in national journals. </p>
<p>
I’m sorry, but humans are very different from the hunter-gatherer days. We are no longer dependent on one another as we used to be. Did you know it is also “human nature” to rape women and kill our elderly and handicapped children? We find these acts to be barbaric and outdated, despite being so entrenched in human history that it can be considered “human nature”. Likewise, socializing may going in the same direction as more and more people are becoming aloof and independent. </p>
<p>
Why are you now contradicting yourself? You imply that people who do not have friends or socialize much are “unhealthy”, but then go on to say that having friends is not necessary?</p>
<p>
Typically, this hogwash seems to only be spewed by boorish extroverts. </p>
<p>People are becoming more introverted as technology advances in society, as dependency on other people decreases which results in the decrease of the need for socializing. </p>
<p>
Ah, so now people who don’t need to socialize are “less evolved”. Now you’re just ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to be unable to even comprehend the basic concept of evolution - it’s something that takes place over thousands and even millions of years, not in a few years (which you have suggested, with the advent of technology). People’s genes simply will not change that quickly. People are born social creatures - the more social humans were favored by natural selection, and their genes were passed on to their offspring. </p>
<p>I’m afraid you’re the odd one out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>look, most people deprived of friends would feel sad. How do we know this? Because so many people have friends! Why would they have something if it didn’t mean anything to them.</p>
<p>The question is, do the people CURRENTLY deprived of friends also want friends, and is not having them detrimental to their overall health, etc.</p>
<p>Well If ALL the people that currently have no friends have no friends because they don’t care for them at all, then you would be right - people without friends wouldn’t be expected to be any less happy than those with friends.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, I happen to think that there are many people without friends that don’t happen to have friends by circumstance. Because they have social anxiety, because they are bullied, etc. We cannot deny that these people do exist.</p>
<p>Now, What % of the friendless population do they make up - those who are friendless by circumstance and not by choice - I don’t know. </p>
<p>I think where we disagree is what this % is. You seem to think it is quite low - is this correct?</p>
<p>
What a pathetic attempt at rhetoric. Please, stick with the facts. On some scientific forums, if you cannot post studies that are peer-reviewed from national journals, you are infracted for fabricating scientific fact. </p>
<p>
All you’ve posted is one study. Must I apologize for being rationally sceptical? </p>
<p>
The study only makes some correlations, which can have ambiguous implications. They have not successfully quantified happiness, therefore, cannot find a correlation between happiness and the number of friends. All they have found is that people with a large number of friends live longer, which does not mean anything in the grand scheme of things, unless those with a smaller network of friends cut their lifespan short by suicide, and the article states nothing of the sort. </p>
<p>I don’t know if you know this, but when you try to establish something as scientific fact, typically it is peer reviewed and many counter studies are conducted to see if it holds. This study is not peer-reviewed, therefore, all it really is at the moment is just data. Those that conducted the study themselves did not come to any conclusions at all, just posting random numbers and possible correlations. </p>
<p>
So, all it takes is one study to convince you that it is a fact?</p>
<p>
Socializing is not a basic human need. Most people can live without socializing, you can’t, but that’s perhaps you are very weak-minded and your happiness is wholly dependent on other people. </p>
<p>
And yet, I’m not the one with the trust issues. </p>
<p>Remember this? [“but</a> I always want to have friends, and I like talking to others, even though I can’t trust anyone.”](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13025417-post65.html]"but”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13025417-post65.html)</p>
<p>I suggest you work on your trust issues and seek help first before implying others should. You know, so you don’t look like a hypocrite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You conveniently ignored the fact about evolution in my post, and made your argument look even weaker than it already was - socialization was a basic human need until very recently, and most people in the world would argue that it still is (although yes, it’s not necessary to literally stay alive). Evolution can only eliminate this human need in thousands and thousands of years… not a few, which you so ignorantly suggested.</p>
<p>The proof of my above statement is that there are very, very few people in the world who want to spend the rest of their lives in solitude, which is why I said that you’re the odd one out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My issues are nothing compared to yours.</p>
<p>
If you were saying that there are people who are friendless and want friends, I would have not disagreed with you. However, what you’ve been insinuating throughout this thread is that 99% of all friendless people want friends and are “settling”, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Then you cited some obscure study that may have found a correlation between longer lifespans and a larger network of friends, which really does nothing to credit your original statement that the majority of friendless people need friends and are settling and even compared it to homelessness. </p>
<p>My personal opinion on the percentage doesn’t matter since there is no way to know and my opinion is no more valid than yours. However, there are obviously many people who are insecure of the lack of friends in their life, just like there are many people who are content and prefer such circumstances. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?</p>
<p>
Let me guess, those minority of people (and you have no relevant data that backs your assertion, but let’s go with it for the sake of argument) are psychologically damaged and need help? Since, after all, they are the odd ones and can lose it at anytime, right? Do you not think they should be institutionalized since they are clearly odd and, ergo, a possible threat to society? </p>
<p>
[“I</a> don’t have good social skills. I can’t trust others.”](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13027722-post84.html]"I”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13027722-post84.html) Remember this, as well?</p>
<p>Unlike you, I do have competent social skills and do not suffer from trust issues. But hey, how come your large network of friends has done nothing for your social skills? After all, according to you, social skills only come with having friends.</p>