[bgroat]

I am one of these friendly extroverts.

Something that's hard for me to explain is that "making friends is so hard it's easy"

What I mean by that is, social anxiety is so high, population-level self-absorption is so high, people are so lonely... that for the most part if you just approach someone and behave as if you're friends... they'll go for it.

There's so much DEMAND for friends, that people will gobble up your supply if you offer it (so long as you're not a total monster)

[rchaud]

> There's so much DEMAND for friends, that people will gobble up your supply if you offer it (so long as you're not a total monster)

This really doesn't ring true outside of school/university years. Back then, you are constantly meeting new people, and seeing them regularly in class and on campus. People that age don't have a "max occupancy" number when it comes to making friends. As an adult in the working world, the opposite is true.

Outside of that uni environment, a new person is going to have to knock your socks off with their personality, for you to even consider meeting up with them again. Most people cannot make a first impression that good.

Outside of school/uni, people are busy with daily life, and far less likely to chat with strangers. Friendship groups begin to quickly narrow around this time as well, as people get married, go to professional schooling of some kind, and start hanging out mostly with people that are very similar to them.

[bgroat]

I can't say that you're wrong, because everyone's environment/experience is different.

But this is so outside my perception of the world and that of everyone I've ever spoken to (across a swatch of demographics across North America and Europe).

Friendship groups narrow because it isn't EASY anymore (you're not all on campus).

Nobody actually desires for them to narrow.

If you can make it *easy* for the other person (by handling the approach, scheduling, etc). They'll be as willing as in uni days

[ChuckNorris89]

>If you can make it easy* for the other person (by handling the approach, scheduling, etc). They'll be as willing as in uni days*

That's definitely not true, or at least not my experience. Everyone I ask out to join me for various activities, has an excuse, usually busy or other plans with someone else, and they never follow up for a rain check.

People over 30, even single/child-free, seem to be very busy with their established routines, hobbies, and narrow circle of long term friends, that they just aren't open to new people anymore or at least making time for them, no matter how cool or sociable you are.

Seems like time is the main cuprit, or lack thereof. If you already have things to do and enough friends that occupy all your free time, or barley have enough time to meet the friends you already have, then when are you gonna meet new people?

Making friends is a two way street. You could be the coolest, funniest, most sociable guy ever, but if everyone you meet already had enough friends or feels they don't need you in their life then ....

The only shot to make this easy for you is meeting other loners.

[Consultant32452]

In my experience, and everyone's is different, the key is to find a common activity/interest. I do consulting work, so I often change teams and walk in knowing no one. I've been complimented multiple times about noticeably increasing team cohesion. You know what I do? I start regular/consistent activities with the team. "Tuesday is my go out to lunch day, everyone is invited." I mean I literally just stand up in the middle of work and say that loud enough for surrounding people to hear. Sometimes I go alone, especially at first. But eventually people trickle in and then it doesn't take long before a group of 4-5 people are going to lunch every Tuesday. You can similarly start a regular happy hour if one is not already going on. People join who aren't even on my team, because they heard me invite everyone.

Outside of work, the path is to join a hobby. Find a softball league or something like that. This has built in consistent interaction and fosters expansion into happy hours after the games or other activities.

If there's anyone in your circle of acquaintances that has a birthday, tell them you'd really like to buy them a beer to celebrate their birthday. Ask open ended, "Hey, is there a day this week you're free? I owe you a birthday beer." Most adults no longer get real celebrations for their birthdays and will appreciate it if there's not some other social hurdle (actually busy, afraid you are trying to date them, etc). Some of those social hurdles (like afraid it's a date) can be overcome by suggesting it's a group thing. To use the work example again, "Hey team, it's Susan's birthday this week. I think it would be cool if we took her to lunch or something. Anyone else in?"

To put context on this, I am introverted and autistic (very low social needs). I do these behaviors explicitly for outcome oriented purposes (bring people joy, grow career).

[cycomanic]

In my experience both of you are right. There are many people who are very "desperate" for friendships, especially if they have not lived in the same place for 20+ years. On the other hand there are a bunch of people who are so much in their routines they are not open to do anything out of the ordinary. The ironic thing is that even those are often desperate for friends, they just struggle to break their routines (something you definitely must do to make friends IMO).

Which leads me to a point that is missing in the post, if you want to get to know new people, be open to new things. Just say yes if somebody asks you to go to the arcade, if you really can't but want to do something, follow up on the rain check.

[ChuckNorris89]

>There are many people who are very "desperate" for friendships

Being desperate for friendships, in my experience, usually has the opposite effect of making people avoid you even more. Especially if you're over 30. People seem to be wired to think that "if you're a grown adult and have no friends by now, then it's probably because there's something wrong with you, and is risky for me to be the first one to take a leap of faith in you if nobody has done it so far". Usually people who already have many friends easily attract more, as it signals you're already a sociable and valuable "tribe member". Same with romantic relationships.

>Just say yes if somebody asks you to go to the arcade

That assumes there are people who ask you. If nobody asks you, then what? In my experience after I moved abroad, almost nobody asked me anywhere despite me learning the local language, making efforts to socialize, strike up conversations and exchange phone numbers. Even when I was the one initiating asking people to go places rarely end in a positive response. I think it's a cultural thing. The country I live now, people are very cold, distanced and keep to themselves, and meeting and engaging people you don't know very well is not really something wildly accepted.

[necovek]

Perhaps you can consider moving to a country other than the UK?

Just kidding, I've met plenty of wonderful and sociable UK people, and the joke could work (or not work, depending on what you make of my lousy humour) on almost any country.

Edit: seeing your other comment about "German speaking parts of Europe", my next guess to use in a joke would be Germany, but similarly, I've met a ton of very sociable Germans.

[gammabetadelta]

new relationships = low commitment

never ask a new friend to hang in X, where X is days away.

instead just do, i'm heading to this arcade want to join?

or i'm at coffee shop now, want to stop by and catch up.

this is how you can turn casual associates into friends.

if someone cool i knew asked me to spend 2 hours with them i'd get nervous.

plus, if they know that you are cool even without them they are far more likely to join you.

[ChuckNorris89]

>or i'm at coffee shop now, want to stop by and catch up. this is how you can turn casual associates into friends.

This is not my experience at all in my new host country. I tried this a lot and never got anyone to join. People here seem to have their schedule pre-planned, and expect you to schedule meetups in advance if you want them to join you. Sending texts like "I'm having a coffee in town, join me if you want" to people I just met always left me alone, with replies coming after 2+ hours or the next day like "sorry, I was busy/got other plans/saw your text too late".

It's how I spent my 30th birthday alone. I texted a bunch of people 10h in advance if they want join me later that Friday/Saturday night for birthday drinks and maybe going out dancing later. Out of about 12 people, nobody came. :(

It's a cultural issue I think in the German speaking part of Europe. Brazilians told me spontaneous meetings with people are completely normal there, but here people don't spontaneously join invites from people they aren't very close with and expect you to schedule these well in advance.

[rchaud]

I've heard the same about Nordic countries, and to be perfectly honest, it would be similar in many North American cities as well.

[pers0n]

10 hours in advance is not enough time for the weekends, people plan there weekends days in advance and sometimes weeks. A weekday is a lot easier

[Rediscover]

Bingo

[ekanes]

No disrespect, but I’m guessing you’re not married with kids. That phase is very busy and focused and people have dramatically less time compared to uni days.

[dmichulke]

> This really doesn't ring true outside of school/university years

I'll happily state the contrary:

Supply easily saturates demand at the university but after that most are on their own. So, demand stays the same but supply drops off (because you have much less available time).

So this is where you can shine.

> knock your socks off with their personality, for you to even consider meeting up with them again

No, I talk to people while waiting for the train or during my commute. I don't ask them to see them again, I just see them again because they have the same commute as me.

Always say hi but never give them the feeling that you expect them to spend time talking with you. This is also why it's easier to talk while waiting for the train, it's a limited time and they feel easier knowing that you won't be potentially annoying them during the whole train ride.

From there on it's easier, you slowly get to know a handful of acquaintances and you can easily "escalate" with the people you like.

[legerdemain]

  > This is also why it's easier to talk while waiting for the train,
  > it's a limited time and they feel easier knowing that you won't
  > be potentially annoying them during the whole train ride.

Wait, how does that work? If you're waiting at the same stop, you'll board the same train, right? Unless they wait for the next one to avoid you? Wouldn't they be concerned that you'll board together and continue making conversation for the entire commute?

[TuringTest]

The bus arriving is a natural break point for ending the conversation, I'd say. There's no social obligation to keep talking once you are both are busy boarding the bus and finding a seat, so it's a good time to say farewell.

[JumpCrisscross]

> a new person is going to have to knock your socks off with their personality, for you to even consider meeting up with them again

I’ve had serendipitous conversations which were just fun. Nothing knocking my socks off. Just good conversation; we share numbers and I try to remember when we’re in the same area again.

> people are busy with daily life, and far less likely to chat with strangers

Couldn’t disagree more. Not everyone wants to chat all the time. But I’ve had loads of interesting conversations with strangers at bars and restaurants, coffee shop lines, airport terminals, sports-gear shops and of course holiday destinations.

[bgroat]

This is a big part of my "So hard it's easy" philosophy.

Most people are so bad at conversation (waiting patiently for their turn to tell a completely unrelated anecdote), that just being able to have an organic chat is pretty "knock your socks off behavior"

[m_fayer]

You’re right but you’re also wrong. I know of social circles in middle age that have largely locked down. People have their routines and responsibilities and loved ones, and that’s that. They make little effort to clear space for new relationships. I also know other circles, also middle aged, where people have made it a priority to not do that. There is still flux and change in these circles.

Its a choice, basically. Not an easy one and there is no right or wrong here, but it’s not inevitable that midlife is characterised by social lockdown.

[2devnull]

Location matters. In Silicon Valley, many people you meet are not locals, they come and they go. Like the tide. Other places this is different, like small towns where everyone knows everyone else. Some places people are more defensive, less friendly. Being an extrovert in a city where everyone is a visitor doesn’t help form lasting friendships and a faux pas in a small town can become a scarlet letter that follows you forever.

As others have noted, age matters. That’s well documented in the research from what I can tell but it’s also just a simple consequence of having marriages, raising children, etc… Coincidently that’s another set of life outcomes that are very impacted by place. Silicon Valley is known for that. “Man Jose” is not a great place to start a family, and career driven men from widely diverse ethnic and socio-cultural groups don’t form much of a community.

[legerdemain]

"Man Jose" is characterized by endless sprawl of modest single-family housing and is full of ethnic communities (South Asian, Chinese, Vietnamese) and families raising young children. It has more small neighborhood churches than almost anywhere else I have lived. Describing San Jose as a land of antisocial young men strikes me as frankly bizarre.

[giantg2]

"This really doesn't ring true outside of school/university years."

I agree. At this point in life, I just want people to leave me alone. It seems like there isn't any time to make friends anyways.

[crummy]

Isn't there supposed to be an epidemic of loneliness amongst many adults?

[whatshisface]

It sounds like a paradox that there would be simultaneous epidemics of loneliness and and standoffishness but they cause each other. In one direction the cause is obvious, in the other lack of socialization causes people's "calibration" to go off as their learned tolerance to unexpected things fades. Real social interactions involve a lot of imperfection and what you sometimes see is that without being desensitized, lonely people's standards can be unreachable. (Other commenters have alluded to this being a result of hyper stimulation on TikTok but it predates it.)

[rchaud]

Yes, because adults in general have less time to spend with friends than someone who's younger, more mobile (live downtown vs the suburbs) and has fewer responsibilities.

But loneliness is up among all generations, including those who are in the right time and right place (post-secondary). Many reasons for this as well, including the impact of internet and social media. People are less willing to give others a chance because Tinder/Tiktok/IG has trained them to think that another more interesting experience could be right around the corner.

[sneeze-slayer]

Do you mind sharing your nationality? This rings true of the opinions of many people I know in Europe but I would be very surprised if any Americans felt this way. Genuinely curious.

[golemiprague]

I don't know, I have made friends well into my adult life, including after having kids. Granted it is not in the same frequency as in the uni days but still during the years I have found some. Mostly people I have bumped into at work but were not directly above or below me or via other friends who introduced me to their friends. I am not an extrovert or too introvert and I don't know why it seems like everyone here must declare themselves as if they are in the extreme of this bell curve, probably they are somewhere in the middle, like the rest of us.

[krumpet]

I think this is highly dependent on luck. If you're friendly and happen to live near other, outgoing, friendly families, then the odds of befriending them are higher. It also helps to have a friendly spouse (it helps a LOT).

[bgroat]

Luck is an interesting element.

My best friend for 20 years (we've since fallen out of touch), was someone I met in kindergarten?

How did we become friends?

My surname starts with a "G" and his starts with an "H" so we were seated next to each other

[sitkack]

I met someone at Strangeloop because they were a doppelganger of an acquaintance from some years previously. I now realize that I had this attitude like we already friends because of that unrealized similarity. Attitude and any alignment in interests is more than enough, or alphabetical. :)

[bgroat]

"Uncommon Commonalities" are wild.

There was a girl who I couldn't stand in high school... but we bumped into each other in a train station on the opposite side of the country... and hung out all afternoon.

Just being from the same small town made an immediate (but brief) connection

[krumpet]

I had the same experience in 6th grade with a friend who moved to Michigan from Iowa. Last names "M" and "O" put us next to each other in class and the rest is history I suppose.

It feels corny to say, but you really can't make old friends.

[moralestapia]

I don't disagree with your post, but this only works in communities where:

1. Trust hasn't been eroded (i.e. fraudsters/salesmen do not predominate)

2. There is an external stimuli towards making friends (i.e. socializing is being perceived as a good thing)

3. There is an internal stimuli towards making friends (i.e. disregarding #2 and all other personal needs met, one still feels the need to connect with others)

The fact that you've got the results you mention here shows that you live in a community with mentally healthy, although isolated, individuals. You'll find drastically different results in other parts of the world (third-world, for instance). Plenty of people wouldn't talk to you if they see no financial benefit in doing it (even a measly amount can have a profound effect). I used to make fun of this but it's not an easy thing to swallow and can get you quite depressed.

The "loneliness epidemic" is just a reflection of the eroded values and misplaced goals that are now commonplace around the world.

[rjbwork]

>1. Trust hasn't been eroded (i.e. fraudsters/salesmen do not predominate)

I have become much more guarded and cynical in the past few years after a handful of interactions like this. At a bar or restaurant, and strike up a conversation with someone, only to have them, 15-30 minutes later, introduce me to their MLM, FX, Trading Mentor, House Flipping, etc. scam, and then swiftly disengage when I am uninterested.

I'm not a good looking dude, nor am I an extrovert. So I now just assume anyone approaching me in public is trying to scam me.

[acbullen]

I feel similar, but mostly from leftover baggage from working retail. If someone says something nice to you when you're working a cash register, 9 times out of 10 they want you to do something for them and you're about 10 seconds away from them flipping over to a verbal abuse strategy to get what they want

[emj]

Makes me even more convinced that I should go out of my way being nice to people working retail it. I do not think I ever get anything "out of it" except feeling a bit more positive in my outlook on life. Then at the local store we have the extremes where people call the cashiers by name, sharing personal stories etc. That makes me feel like I am part of a community, even if it is not a type of relationship I can nourish in the same way..

[VBprogrammer]

> At a bar or restaurant, and strike up a conversation with someone, only to have them, 15-30 minutes later, introduce me to their MLM, FX, Trading Mentor, House Flipping, etc. scam, and then swiftly disengage when I am uninterested.

Fuck me. I can't even imagine this is a thing in the real world. It sounds like trying to make friends in the YouTube comments section.

[the_only_law]

Maybe I’m paranoid, but I’ve seen too many people get exploited and shit on by people behind their backs while they keep the nicest demeanor face to face. Grown adults at that. Some of these people were well into their 30s.

[EFreethought]

For me it is usually religion that someone is pushing.

[bgroat]

Edited to include some more context.

These are great points.

Places where it can be assumed people are comfortable with an approach:

- A public place/destination (bar is okay, bus isn't)

- They are not in the middle of speaking (lulls in conversations are fine)

- They are not blocking sensory inputs (don't approach if you see headphones)

This also isn't magic. My success isn't 100%. It's about 30%

Which means that 7/10 people don't want to talk to me (which is fine).

But it also means that I can pretty reliably make a friend/day if I were so inclined

A bit about me, I'm a short man (5'3") with pretty solid facial symmetry and good grooming but I'm NOT particularly attractive.

I'm putting that context because it is important:

- Because of maleness I'm automatically safer in most situations (as in, I can approach someone, go off solo w/them and be confident I won't be assaulted)

- I'm short, so I'm not REALLY a physical threat to people - Hygiene implies social consideration/health

- Facial symmetry automatically encourages trust

- Being TOO attractive (and I'm nowhere close) can be intimidating to some people

[stcroixx]

Getting a stranger to have a conversation with you doesn’t mean you made a friend that day, at least not by and definition that’s valuable to me. It’s the first step, but what’s the conversion rate here? Most you probably never speak to again, a small number may reach acquaintance level, and even fewer end up as a friends. We probably have a different idea of what a friend is.

[bgroat]

My definition of a friend is defined in another comment response. Basically, "will hang 50%+ of the time an invitation is issued (schedule permitting), and both of us would enjoy ourselves).

Typically takes about 3-5 meets to get there

[erdos4d]

> You'll find drastically different results in other parts of the world (third-world, for instance). Plenty of people wouldn't talk to you if they see no financial benefit in doing it (even a measly amount can have a profound effect).

I live in Ecuador, so third-world. The people here are not really after money, unless it's very easy to get. I mean, 30% of the "economy" here involves standing in the road with a mango, hoping someone gives you some coin for it (literally). Those same people could go get a real job and do some real hard work if they wanted actual cash. They don't. They like doing basically nothing and getting along okay from it. Not saying you're wrong, but latin america doesn't work this way.

[TylerE]

Ecuador has no-cost public healthcare. The US does't. Not having money in the US will literally actively kill you.

[VBprogrammer]

I'm not sure this has the effect you are suggesting but it did make me laugh. Makes you wonder who decides what is a first world country and what is a third world country. In some ways the existence of a significant portion of American's (those unfortunate enough to be poor) is worse than a third world existence.

[TylerE]

It’s actually quite clear cut.

1st world: NATO and allies 2nd world: The Soviet Sphere 3rd world: Everything else.

[bigDinosaur]

Clear cut according to a definition absolutely nobody uses any more. There's no longer a Soviet sphere even if you wanted to use that definition and the post-soviet sphere has diverged dramatically.

[robertlagrant]

> Not having money in the US will literally actively kill you.

Doesn't it put you on Medicaid?

[TylerE]

If you're a legal citizen, and in one of the states that opted in to Medicade expansion (many states, all "red" states did not, despite it being literally free money from their prospective.)

A bigger problem is that the limits are quite low (Max income limit will be exceeded by someone making minimum wage in a lot of states. It's only $18k if single, going up to $36k for a family of 4.

That means there's a HUGE donut hole problem of making too much for Medicade, but not nearly enough to actually afford healthcare - or they maybe have some crappy employer plan that has a high deductible that would bankrupt them to even approach.

[lisper]

Making friends is not hard in the way that general relativity is hard, it's hard in the way that digging a trench is hard. You have to do a lot of grunt work for a very long time in order to see results. And there are no shortcuts, you have to do it all "by hand" or it doesn't work.

[bgroat]

I agree with your distinction, but not with your degree.

It's *hard* v. *complex*, but it doesn't take as long as you'd think.

- Approach

- Chatting for an hour

- 10 texts back and forth to coordinate a meet

- Meet for 90 minutes

(repeat the last two bullets 3-5 times)

Is a pretty reliable path to "good friend".

Good friend is defined as: "Will reliable hang with you, schedule permitting 60% of the time you ask... and you will both have a good time"

Good friend is not, "Will donate a kidney"

[denton-scratch]

> Good friend is not, "Will donate a kidney"

I have a rather tighter notion of a "good friend". It includes things like "will not steal from me", "won't betray my confidences", "will be straight with me". Otherwise they're just mates; people I feel OK hanging out with.

I have no good friends just now, and I haven't had good friends for quite a few years. I don't think my standards are exacting; I have mates, but I just wouldn't rely on them. I'd be quite surprised to learn that they were relying on me.

A good friend is a scarce treasure. If you're lucky enough to have one, hang on tight.

[Edit] I don't think you can plan to make a "good friend". It involves trust, which involves time. You can make friends with someone in an evening, but I've never had a "good friend" that I've known for less than a few months. All of my good friends were people I'd known for several years, but it doesn't need to take that long.

[SoftTalker]

I like your definitions. And I agree, good friends are rare. I haven't had one since high school, nearly 40 years ago.

[bgroat]

I'd be willing to except that my definition of "friends" aligns with your definition of "mates".

Nothing too emotionally intense. Just a loneliness balm and reliable cool hangs

[lisper]

We're quibbling over terminology. To me, a "good friend" is a relationship that lasts for a long time, maybe a lifetime, and survives significant challenges. It doesn't have to be a kidney, but I think a friendship should survive, for example, a relocation. Otherwise I would call it an acquaintance, not a friend.

Acquaintances are indeed easy to make. The problem is, that kind of relationship is fragile and transient and superficial. I think most people want more. I know I do.

[danenania]

The relocation point is interesting. I have a lot of friendships that are in 'good friend' territory when we're in the same place, but otherwise go dormant for long periods. I'm ok with this and generally don't feel a need to try to change this dynamic with people. I guess they aren't close friends in exactly the way that you're describing, but they are definitely a lot more than acquaintances.

In a strange way I even feel that it can be a testament to the strength of the underlying friendship that we can pick up where we left off after years of minimal contact. I'm actually grateful for these kinds of relationships. I really don't have the time, energy, or desire to keep up ongoing text/email/social media conversations with all these people, but when we are able to meet up I have a great time and find it hugely valuable.

[lisper]

> we can pick up where we left off after years of minimal contact

Sure, but you have to actually do that from time to time.

I've lost count of the number of people I thought I was really close with who moved away insisting that they would keep in touch, and then I never hear from them again, ever after reaching out.

(Having kids is another reliable "friendship"-killer.)

[SoftTalker]

Yes, I've never had a friendship survive a relocation. Not to say that I dislike or resent any of these people at all; we simply never talk anymore.

Kids could possibly do the same especially if your friends are not also having kids at the same time. Kids can also easily contribute to the making of new acquaintances (parents of other kids) as well. These might turn into friendships, or might fade out quickly once the kids' interests diverge (or they grow up and leave the nest).

[actually_a_dog]

I think I'd count those "dormant but not dead" relationships as good friends, myself, provided that we end up seeing each other semi-regularly (say, minimum every couple years or so).

[actually_a_dog]

+1 to this. I have a lot of problems maintaining relationships of any sort once the "proximity effect" no longer applies. I suspect many people do, which is why most people lose all their school friends after they leave school, for instance.

[roofone]

I like the straightforward, logical approach -- it's helpful for me to think about the process in those terms. Thank you.

However, thinking about the process this way makes it really apparent that I've got no desire in trying to make friends -- each of those steps individually feels like a nearly insurmountable nightmare for me... much less doing all of them (and more than once!).

[bgroat]

And that's kind of my point.

The little bit you know about me from this thread... would you want to grab a beer if all you had to do was read the text and confirm you were available?

These steps ARE scary for some people... and that's okay... I'm happy to do it. I just want to get to you know you!

[roofone]

That makes sense and I appreciate the reply.

I'd probably choose not to grab a beer -- unless the social cost/effort in saying no was higher than saying yes. Quite likely I'd feel put upon with having to respond in a way that I thought didn't offend you...and all by pithy text messages. What a hassle!

Totally get that's a me problem though and I'd fall into your 70%.

Thanks for the insights though -- I find the concept of friendship fascinating (if perplexing).

[bgroat]

In my mind this was was “best case engagement”

I told you what I’m about.

You told me your preferences.

They don’t mesh, so we both split after having spent a pleasant 90 seconds

[stuxnet79]

To add to this, there is also no guarantee that all that trench digging will yield anything substantial. Relationships often evolve in ways that both parties least expect. It can be a dice roll whether the final outcome is good or bad.

[NoPicklez]

Well nothing worth doing is easy

[WallabyEV]

I found positive social interaction as a baseline really rings true - a smile and the nod type thing - post-lockdown in Texas. Great to practice manners again and laugh at mixing up direction of traffic in the grocery store. Bumbling around in a mask in a hurry was not pleasant, this is nicer so I behave the same!

[krageon]

> There's so much DEMAND for friends, that people will gobble up your supply if you offer it

This is true, but only if you're attractive and somewhat charismatic. I would say that means it doesn't apply to the majority of people (who are plain or ugly and not particularly charismatic or actively repulsive).

[bgroat]

I'd say it's true if you're aren't unattractive (basically nail personal grooming), and are somewhat interested in someone else.

[krageon]

That is already far above most people, so I think I agree :)

[agumonkey]

It's not only social anxiety that forbids people. It's also failed relationships that bruise your desire to try again. In my case I failed people enough time not to want to bother someone else :)

[bgroat]

It's interesting to me that you think you failed people.

I roll my eyes when I hear quotes like, "Judge a fish by it's ability to fly and you'll think it's a failure"... but there is something to that.

Maybe you're chocolate and those people just prefer vanilla?