Humans need friends. It's a natural phenomenon seen in other living organisms as well. It helps ensure their survival, and that was its purpose at the time it was given rise to. At prehistoric times, humans could not survive better than any other animal which wasn't a natural killing machine, but today, survival is almost a fact. So, is the need for companionship a useless, negative trait for lonely people today?
Is the need for friendship or companionship a negative trait today?
- Thread starter Mr. M
- Start date
Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:
I||u5i0n
Active member
Mr. M said:
I think that people can learn to be alone and have that be ok. That being said, we're obviously all here because that's not the case for us
It can only be considered a negative trait (to my mind) if it prevents you from being (or becoming) successful.Personally, I have a lot of reasons why I'm unlikely to be successful - not all of them are pretty, but none of them have anything to do with the company that I keep.
I have a pretty solid ego which helps me not think too much about what other people think of me, but beyond that I have my own insecurities. There have been plenty of times when I don't think I could have gotten through the day if it wasn't for my wife, but that was before my last mid-life crisis, which taught me to be more self-reliant and, yes, more confident.
Here's the thing: NOBODY has it figured out. Nobody. If someone looks like they have it figured out, they're faking it. They don't know why whatever it is that they're doing is working, and just like with anything else, YMMV, you know?
The absolutely beautiful thing about the world that we live in right now, is that we can pick and choose what friends we have - and we have about a billion ways to reach them. Seriously - there are 7 Billion freaking people on this planet...surely one of them's worth talking to?
What I can say, is that while we may be hard-wired to be social creatures, we aren't hard wired to be social in any particular or specific way. Pick your friends based on your interests. Learn something new (currently I'm retraining myself as a developer...figure it'll help me find a new job, and I'm also trying (again) to learn Spanish...we'll see how that goes) and maybe bump into someone worth your time who thinks you're worth theirs. Serial killers manage to find other people to be serial killers with, so I imagine pretty much anyone has someone they can talk to...they just have to look
(like seriously - how does that even happen? You hear about some group of friends that beat a guy to death or some other horrible thing and you have to ask yourself - how does that topic get brought up?!?)Do I think it's useless? Not if there's a zombie apocalypse...the loners always get got.
Sorry...I talk alot
Tealeaf
Well-known member
In theory, it should be a positive. Immediate safety might not be a threat, but individuals can still help each other grow socially, emotionally, and mentally.
In practice, it's a negative--society is too material for friendship to be anything other than the same in most cases. But people still approach expecting loyalty, aid, and compassion.
In practice, it's a negative--society is too material for friendship to be anything other than the same in most cases. But people still approach expecting loyalty, aid, and compassion.
Sometimes
Well-known member
What I think is that the need for friendship and companionship is against the current market forces which are driving the cultural norm. The need has become maladaptive to our cultural norm.
This is what I think:
Our common culture has been pushed in a direction that will make us better consumers, whatever that entails, and better tools within the workforce. The need for real connection and communication makes us less positively adaptive as tools for the use of the larger machine.
Anytime that your(my) needs are in contradiction to the culture of the time you live in, you can feel it, and it can range from uncomfortable to downright horrible, depending on where you are on the continuum of difference from the "norm" demanded by your culture.
It is very difficult, I think, and requires alot of awareness, to be happy while remaining different from the pressure of the "norm". Just doing that for yourself is hard, finding a friendship group of likeminded aware people is even harder.
I have a friend who falls so much within the norm of common culture at this point in time that she is always able to survive, is not afraid of moving halfway around the globe, feels safe in the world, is friend to everyone. I watch this, amazed. But I couldn't be like that.
Peter Kramer wrote about this, about how our experience of life is dependent upon how well we fit within the culture we were born into. He gives examples of this which really ring true.
This is what I think:
Our common culture has been pushed in a direction that will make us better consumers, whatever that entails, and better tools within the workforce. The need for real connection and communication makes us less positively adaptive as tools for the use of the larger machine.
Anytime that your(my) needs are in contradiction to the culture of the time you live in, you can feel it, and it can range from uncomfortable to downright horrible, depending on where you are on the continuum of difference from the "norm" demanded by your culture.
It is very difficult, I think, and requires alot of awareness, to be happy while remaining different from the pressure of the "norm". Just doing that for yourself is hard, finding a friendship group of likeminded aware people is even harder.
I have a friend who falls so much within the norm of common culture at this point in time that she is always able to survive, is not afraid of moving halfway around the globe, feels safe in the world, is friend to everyone. I watch this, amazed. But I couldn't be like that.
Peter Kramer wrote about this, about how our experience of life is dependent upon how well we fit within the culture we were born into. He gives examples of this which really ring true.
Despicable Me
Well-known member
Mr. M, I think you're confusing 'friends' with 'society' here.
In history, people needed their society to ensure their survival. Just as some animals live in herds or packs.
This is just as true today as it ever was in history. To get food you depend on the markets, the markets depend on farmers, and farmers (typically) depend on stipends from the government, which are given by society, to buy everything else they need which are equally produced elsewhere in society. It's a huge cycle of dependence for each others' survival.
Even though today survival is "almost a fact", this doesn't mean humanity doesn't still depend on the same things they always have. It just means that society is better set up for survival.
And, I'll note, that this is only true for the privileged, like most people in the 'first world countries'. Everyone else is still generally screwed. So you're speaking only in context of your own society, which further demonstrates your own dependence on that society to even speak of your existence. This might be why you overlook it and instead compare this historical dependency to 'friends' rather than 'society'. In terms of animals this might mean that, in a herd, two or three animals may have a closer relationship to each other than the rest of the herd.
Anyway, my point is that your society is obviously not necessarily your 'friends'. These are just social-dependencies, 'co-workers' if you will.
'Friends' are the other 'creatures' in society you're closest to. Everyone is a part of society and dependent on society for survival, but within those societies some animals (people) are closer than others.
So with that explanation out of the way, historically speaking if you have individuals closer to you this often means you have often had a higher chance for survival. For example, those in power (like Kings) often paid favors to their closest friends and allies (the "nobles" and other royal families) in exchange for their loyalty, alliance, or other forms of compensation. So 'friendships' were always beneficial for obtaining power. And, of course, historically speaking power was the greatest method for survival.
However, keeping power was completely different. Having these "friends" could sometimes lead to treachery, back-stabbing, and general betrayals, if left unchecked. If you gave power to the wrong individual you'd regret it, possibly with your life. So 'friends' were not necessarily the greatest thing ever.
But this doesn't answer the question.
Is the 'need' for friendship a negative trait in society today? Well, yes. But this isn't to say anything has changed.
The 'need' for friendship (alliances) has ALWAYS been seen as something negative. The 'need' for those closer relationships has always been objectified as an inferiority of the individual, believed to be that the individual themselves cannot hold or control power themselves. For example, a Ruler that relied on having many nobles to do everything they needed to do was always seen as an inferior Ruler. A Ruler who accomplished more with fewer close-ties or alliances was generally considered a greater Ruler. And a 'great Ruler ' would be one who would conquer over others seemingly without being dependent on anyone else.
But it wasn't the actual friendships/alliances that mattered, it was the 'need' for them. The Rulers were always expected to be autonomous, and if they weren't able to fulfill that then they were failing as a ruler. So, the 'lack of friends' when actually 'needed' has also always been seen as an even more negative trait. When one truly 'needed' an alliance, but did not have one, they have ultimately struggled and failed as rulers. Entire Kingdoms would suffer under these people. Rulers whom would 'need' another kingdom's aid, but would be unable to get it, would be seen as the poorest of Rulers.
And, of course, this has never just applied to rulers. It is a social expectation on every level and with history comes revolution which has delivered more power into the hands of the 'common people' as well. So now even more is expected of each other on a social level than in times in the past when they held less power and less control over their lives. This is especially true of the privileged (first world) nations, whom generally hold more power than people of other nations.
Not that this is the sort of answer you were looking to hear, though. I generally just like to discuss history and sociology in perspective when it is brought up, I guess.
In history, people needed their society to ensure their survival. Just as some animals live in herds or packs.
This is just as true today as it ever was in history. To get food you depend on the markets, the markets depend on farmers, and farmers (typically) depend on stipends from the government, which are given by society, to buy everything else they need which are equally produced elsewhere in society. It's a huge cycle of dependence for each others' survival.
Even though today survival is "almost a fact", this doesn't mean humanity doesn't still depend on the same things they always have. It just means that society is better set up for survival.
And, I'll note, that this is only true for the privileged, like most people in the 'first world countries'. Everyone else is still generally screwed. So you're speaking only in context of your own society, which further demonstrates your own dependence on that society to even speak of your existence. This might be why you overlook it and instead compare this historical dependency to 'friends' rather than 'society'. In terms of animals this might mean that, in a herd, two or three animals may have a closer relationship to each other than the rest of the herd.
Anyway, my point is that your society is obviously not necessarily your 'friends'. These are just social-dependencies, 'co-workers' if you will.
'Friends' are the other 'creatures' in society you're closest to. Everyone is a part of society and dependent on society for survival, but within those societies some animals (people) are closer than others.
So with that explanation out of the way, historically speaking if you have individuals closer to you this often means you have often had a higher chance for survival. For example, those in power (like Kings) often paid favors to their closest friends and allies (the "nobles" and other royal families) in exchange for their loyalty, alliance, or other forms of compensation. So 'friendships' were always beneficial for obtaining power. And, of course, historically speaking power was the greatest method for survival.
However, keeping power was completely different. Having these "friends" could sometimes lead to treachery, back-stabbing, and general betrayals, if left unchecked. If you gave power to the wrong individual you'd regret it, possibly with your life. So 'friends' were not necessarily the greatest thing ever.
But this doesn't answer the question.
Is the 'need' for friendship a negative trait in society today? Well, yes. But this isn't to say anything has changed.
The 'need' for friendship (alliances) has ALWAYS been seen as something negative. The 'need' for those closer relationships has always been objectified as an inferiority of the individual, believed to be that the individual themselves cannot hold or control power themselves. For example, a Ruler that relied on having many nobles to do everything they needed to do was always seen as an inferior Ruler. A Ruler who accomplished more with fewer close-ties or alliances was generally considered a greater Ruler. And a 'great Ruler ' would be one who would conquer over others seemingly without being dependent on anyone else.
But it wasn't the actual friendships/alliances that mattered, it was the 'need' for them. The Rulers were always expected to be autonomous, and if they weren't able to fulfill that then they were failing as a ruler. So, the 'lack of friends' when actually 'needed' has also always been seen as an even more negative trait. When one truly 'needed' an alliance, but did not have one, they have ultimately struggled and failed as rulers. Entire Kingdoms would suffer under these people. Rulers whom would 'need' another kingdom's aid, but would be unable to get it, would be seen as the poorest of Rulers.
And, of course, this has never just applied to rulers. It is a social expectation on every level and with history comes revolution which has delivered more power into the hands of the 'common people' as well. So now even more is expected of each other on a social level than in times in the past when they held less power and less control over their lives. This is especially true of the privileged (first world) nations, whom generally hold more power than people of other nations.
Not that this is the sort of answer you were looking to hear, though. I generally just like to discuss history and sociology in perspective when it is brought up, I guess.
xaero said:
But Technology is pretty much unavoidable unless you were born in an Amish culture. Technology has socially crippled everyone, or I think it has socially crippled me. I can't say something people find funny or something people find interesting and usually treat me with suspicion and implied underestimation or condemnation and absolutely no one, even my best friends will be interested to initiate a chat with me or invite me to do something. I just instantly consider everyone I see hostile and automatically assume they hate me, and it usually works out. But I'm a human, and I have this accursed hard-wired need for companionship and social communication. I'm biologically incompatible for my case..
edamame721
Well-known member
I'd also add that people are a lot more mobile these days -- whether that be from it being easier to move or chasing job security. It's rare to have childhood friends and companions with you nowadays.
Similar threads
