[javajosh]

Hey Ken, I see a deep internal contradiction in your belief system, and I want to point it out to you in the hopes that you can lead a happier, more fulfilled life. What is that contradiction?

   I want to be alone
   I want to make money

This does not compute. Creating things for money is a fundamentally social act. And indeed, the stuff of your life was all produced by others, from the house you live in to the clothes you wear to the food you eat. It was all build, manufactured, grown, distributed and sold by others. By consuming even these mundane things you've been integrated into society your whole life, even during these 5 years of isolation.

Now your childhood is over, and you know it is now time for you to create. But mere creation is not enough to make money. You need to create things that people want to buy. That means solving their problems, addressing their pain. And that means being social.

And, since money is vital for your very survival, you must be social to some extent. To rail against this fact is to rail against the need to eat, or to breath. Society is literally that vital to your existence. The fact that it is painful for you is bad luck. Just like asthmatics have it pretty hard when breathing itself can be painful. And just like an asthmatic, you need to figure out how to manage your condition so that you can breath again.

Don't worry about just "getting back to normal". Something tells me that you will remain a unique, talented individual even when you start socializing again.

[randomdata]

You, of course, have to be social to some extent with or without an income. Food isn't going to just magically appear in your fridge.

But beyond short bursts of contact (which can often be automated via computer systems), I'm not sure I agree with your premise. I work as a software developer and farmer, and beyond sending an occasional email there is little need to be in contact with anyone in either profession. The former doesn't even require me to leave the house, ever.

I don't consider myself anti-social. I still enjoy social events outside of the workplace. But I see that it could be very easy to essentially disappear, while still making a decent income. They do not seem to be related concepts at all.

[javajosh]

You are completely right, randomdata: there is a minimum threshold of social contact required to maintain oneself, and there is no reason to go beyond that threshold if you don't want to.

My concern for Ken is that his essay describes him as so isolated that he's well below that threshold, and in danger of self-harm through negligence. I don't want that to happen.

I would add that, non-trivially, Ken has expressed a desire to "set the world on fire!" which, in general, has social requirements well above the minimum. (Indeed, the only way to really impact the world in isolation would be to, say, take up a science hobby while working for the Swiss patent office.)

[klibertp]

I'm going to argue a bit.

"you've been integrated into society your whole life"

Not really, no - this way you would have to say that wild foxes that eat garbage from backyards or birds that nest on buildings are integrated into society.

"But mere creation is not enough to make money."

That's true in a sense that you need other people to give you money to have money. Obviously self-created money is useless.

But mere creation is not useless if it does not produce money. One can create without even a shred of hope that his creation will give him money. And one can be very happy about it. I once knew a person who lived in the middle of the forest and was making mosaics; he tolerated guests (to some extent) but never went out to town or did anything social by his own will. And was really happy there, until he died.

"since money is vital for your very survival [...] To rail against this fact is to rail against the need to eat, or to breath."

That's absolutely not true. You can live a decent life without using money at all, or using money very sparingly. There is that one man who was "dumpster diving" and living years and years on a budged around 50$ iirc yearly. I forgot his name but he has a website and many articles detailing how exactly he pulled it off. He he is now retired and I once saw his comment here, on Hacker News...

...and I just spent half an hour to find him, because I forgot his name and really, really wanted to show you his writings. I'm feeling a bit stupid for forgetting the name, but I remember what he said clearly.

Anyway, here is the site: http://www.ranprieur.com/ and here is an essay that directly contradicts your statement: http://www.ranprieur.com/essays/dropout.html

Oh, also: we really don't need society to be breathing, you know...

"Don't worry about just "getting back to normal"."

That's right, don't worry about it. One can always go Ran Pieur's route and never. Well, I know he was socializing, but I imagine he could have such meaningful social interactions exactly because he "dropped out" from society...

Anyway, you seem to say here that people need to socialize in a way you know as "normal" to be able to live. They do not. They can choose to be outside of social norms and expectations and still live meaningful, happy life - it's rude to forget about them.

[javajosh]

Couple of things. First, I didn't say that mere creation was useless. I said it is not enough to make money. The distinction is significant.

Second, thanks for the links. They are very good. However, I'm not sure if he's saying what you think he's saying. Throughout the second page is the tacit acknowledgment that you have to work and make money in order to live. His "most radical advice" is to not find a job that you love, but rather one that supports you with the least stress - which, by the way, I have no problem with.

Indeed, he even links to this wonderful essay, which expresses my point far more eloquently and with more erudition:

http://incharacter.org/archives/self-reliance/old-mac-donald...

[martinced]

"Creating things for money is a fundamentally social act."

Uh!? For years and years I've been writing books (real, printed, published books) and articles. I was probably the most antisocial person in all my friends group and I was also the one making the more money.

I could disappear for months from civilization. My only trip outside would be to go to the grocery store and going to the garage doing the maintenance of my spiffy sport car (bought cash with the money I got from writing). The rest of the time I was writing, during night time. Sleep 6 to 7 hours and wake up at 1 or 2 pm. Take the car for a spin, alone. Rinse and repeat. No social life. No girlfriend. Just work (and the money that goes with it).

Making money and being social are two totally different things.

Especially moreso in that always-on, Internet connected, society were brilliant people can work from home if they want to: there are more and more domains where you can work from home and be as much anti-social as you want.

I know a single mom who runs her entire business from home, updating her websites, receiving her stuff and repackaging them. And she's making a killing money-wise.

A company I was contracting for was shelling big $$$ to south america to two genius programmers: we didn't have a freakin' clue as to wether this guys were socials or not. Doesn't matter.

It's nearly your entire comment which doesn't compute: making money and being social are two completely orthogonal concepts.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm not saying you should be anti-social just for the sake of it or be anti-social and make lots of $$$ just to make a point. Since I've opened a FB account (I barely ever go to the movie but a friend I hadn't seen in ten years convinced me to go see the movie and I kinda liked it, so I opened a FB account, go figure ; )

And now I've got a girlfriend since two years and life is better I'd say. Yet I make much less money than when I was that anti-social books and articles writer.

I wish the author of that entry good luck and, like you (but for different reasons) I think he should try to socialize to some at least some extent.

[javajosh]

>most antisocial person in all my friends group

I don't think antisocial means what you think it means.

[psionski]

Do you want that he writes out the names of all the hookers he has killed during his "driving around"? Didn't think so.