<p>Just because they are settling for it doesn’t mean they are not “truly content”; I am not meaning to imply that. What I do think is that most people with no friends would be happier with friends (and not just any friends, friends who they would want to be friends with).</p>
<p>I have no way to know this, but this is what I’ve been led to believe. </p>
<p>I accept that people would prefer not to have friends. I know this is true. All I am saying is that this preference is - sometimes - a defense mechanism, because admitting to wanting friends would make them sad - it would make them realize they didn’t have something that they want.</p>
<p>Of course there are, on the other hand, people who really don’t care for friends (psychopaths would maybe be one sub-group), etc. I am not denying those people exist, but I do tend to think they are in the minority.</p>
<p>This is maybe indirect evidence that a lot of friendless people are sad. Because people with fewer friends live shorter lives, and depression/sadness are associated with all-cause morality.</p>
<p>What kind of evidence would I have to present you with so you would admit:</p>
<h1>“a significant number of friendless people are bothered by not having any friends”.</h1>
<p>I feel like people are being defensive as if I’m accusing them of not being happy, which is not the case.</p>
You don’t understand what “settling” mean, at least in the context you use the term. Settling implies the person knows there is a better alternative, which implies that person is not truly content. You’ve contradicted yourself. Also, your thoughts have no merit as it isn’t an established fact. A drunkard can say “I think people who do not drink are settling for that lifestyle, because they can live much better lives if they drunk excessively. Deep down, they know they want to drink and have as good a life as I do”. Now, you might find that ridiculous, but your assumptions are no different to the drunkard’s. </p>
<p>
Then stop it with the unfounded assumptions and projections. </p>
<p>
Interesting. Can you support this with any tests/experiments in well respected, peer reviewed journals? Forget that, how about any psychologist that has conducted tests and concluded that this preference is a byproduct of a defense mechanism? Or, is this just another one of your assumptions that have no basis in reality? </p>
<p>
So, why do you think your thoughts are the least bit factual? You clearly have not read any tests or even any article mentioning this, and yet, you come across as some sort of expert.</p>
This is not “indirect” evidence. The study only found a positive correlation between a network of friends and longer lifespan. Unless this is a study conducted by people with questionable credentials, there is no logical way they can conclude that “happiness” is found in a large number of friends and results in a longer lifespan. </p>
<p>For starters, I’d like to see how they quantify happiness.</p>
<p>From my perspective they are settling. From their perspective they are not settling, so, no, they do not believe there is a better alternative.</p>
<p>I know I am not supporting what I think with studies, etc. I am not sure of what I am saying, of course; I was just sharing the conclusions I draw from my experiences with others, from what I think I know about people, and how they operate, etc.</p>
<p>here’s some evidence for the claim many people without friends are unhappy (again it is a bit indirect, but by no means dismissible):</p>
<p>One of the worst aspects of social anxiety is that the people who have it tend to have few friends (if you question this then just look on the forums I linked.)</p>
<p>Here are some statistics for people with social anxiety, many of whom are also friendless:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>clearly the social anxiety - and by extension the friendlessness - seems to trouble a lot of the the people who have it… These rates are much higher than you find in a random sample of the population, implying that the friendless are a lot more depressed/sad.</p>
The drunkard I mentioned earlier shares the same perspective of non-drinkers. Clearly, his opinion is fact and they can be living a much better life. </p>
<p>
Then all it is an opinion which cannot be argued as fact, which is what you have been doing for the past couple of pages and is really aggravating. </p>
<p>I’m still waiting for that link to the study you posted.</p>
<p>If you were trying to be patronizing, your efforts were wasted. If that’s your definition of friend, then yes, I have them. I think most people on this forum have people they like and feel comfortable with.</p>
<p>However, if someone has no one they feel comfortable with but themselves, who are you or I or anyone else to tell them they are wrong?</p>
<p>Your telling them that they are “settling” for something less isn’t going to change them, nor do I think they necessarily need to be altered to fit a cookie-cutter mold. Some people prefer that isolation. It certainly gets rid of the drama and superficiality that comes with maintaining long-term relationships.</p>
<p>Please don’t compare real, full-on depression with simply not having friends, or even loneliness. I’ve had family members who were severely depressed. For reference, they had friends, but also suffered from neurological imbalances and traumatic, war-time experiences. It’s really not the same thing.</p>
<p>EDIT: Okay? But if someone has a clinical disease, the fact that they have a clinical disease takes precedence over whether or not they have friends.</p>
<p>Where’s the link to this study? You still have yet to post the link to the alleged study you quoted from on the previous page. </p>
<p>Also, friendlessness does not mean one has social anxiety disorder. There are many people with social anxiety with friends as well as many people that are friendless and yet do not suffer from social anxiety. Friendlessness is not a symptom of social anxiety disorder, so the fact you even bring up this study does not help your original point that friendless people are depressed. Once again, you’re generalizing and attempting to argue an opinion.</p>
<p>magestic, I never implied social anxiety = friendlessness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the study helps my original point because many of the subjects were friendless. Some weren’t, but again, the worst aspect of social anxiety is often how it affects your social life (how you end up not having as many friends as you would want). </p>
<p>my original point was never friendless people are depressed. I believe a significant majority - and maybe a majority - of friendless people would rather have friends. That is closer to my point.</p>
<p>I meant to say that was from the wiki page. You can find the sources there. I don’t really feel like tracking them down and posting here. If you are curious enough you can look them up for yourself.</p>
<p>Perhaps you do not understand the conventions of a debate? When you make a claim, you are required to substantiate that claim with evidence, it is not upon the person you are debating to search the evidence that supports your assertions. </p>
<p>Wikipedia is your source? Okay, I’m now going to desist. It seems you have no valid evidence to support your opinions and you are either a) being very pretentious or b) a subtle ■■■■■. I’m going to go with b. Until you can cite legitimate sources with experimental data at hand and a valid statistical sample size, this debate is over.</p>
<p>it’s not really about proving y, it’s about what will convince person x thing y is true. </p>
<p>the evidence isn’t valid to you. from how I judge validity the evidence I provided is perfectly valid. I am neither pretentious nor a subtle ■■■■■ from my point of view :).</p>
<p>It’s getting late and I feel as though we are running in circles with Majestic and I try to defend that not everyone relies on friends as a social crutch so much as you are accustomed to. I too, feel that you may just be arguing for the sake of arguing by citing people who are clinically depressed or suffering for some serious and dibillitating social phobia as cases of what happens when people “suffer” from “friendlessness.” </p>
<p>I have no idea why you would respond to my original post claiming that I’ve caved in to cognitive dissonance, and go out to cite various “sources,” if you would go on to secede that not everyone without friends is clinically depressed or maladjusted (i.e. the group of people we are actually talking about…) Peace.</p>
<p>okay, that’s exactly what I was doing - claiming you caved in to cognitive dissonance. </p>
<p>I expressed my suspicion because I thought that that is a typical way people handle friendlessness, or not having enough friends or nice enough friends, etc.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to accuse you of doing that harshly. Sorry if I did. I just maybe thought that that is a nice thing to be aware of if you weren’t - that the views we develop may be influenced by the circumstances in which we develop them, and therefore not completely accurate, and that the views you have about friendship may have been subject to this bias.</p>
<p>Also the reason I came off strongly was because It saddens me to see people without friends, when they would happier with them. It may not be particularly sad for them, but I still have a hard time not regarding it as a sad thing.</p>
<p>^I found it funny how you never provided a link to the “study” you found. Quite comical. Someones makibg up fairytales just to support their opinion.</p>