I eat awkward silence.

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

I'll be dying, and will no longer have the use for it

Can you see the future? Or is that when you plan on dying?

If you can see the future, can you tell me mine?

 

[Qlip]

Ah. Okay. Yeah, I don't even relate to that. Can't help but agree entirely with Hard regarding this sort of thing -- but again, that's because I loathe awkwardness with such a passion. It would go against my values to treat other people that way when I know that it would anger me so much if the reverse were to occur. Plus, my friend group, for the most part, would be similarly bothered by things like that, just to clarify that this is not entirely projection.

I can only understand Fours so much. (I don't think this is an ENFP thing, since my ENFP friend is incredibly focused on "the group", is a 2w3, and is only defiant when there's Te-Fi "correcting" to be done. Which narrows it down to Four.)

I have a feeling this is 4 + Ne (like FLD said), I'll address that below.

In fairness, there's middle ground between fakery and needless defiance -- i.e. even when you aren't "on", you can function socially without pissing off a large portion of the group. But I digress.

On the one hand, I suppose your usual modus operandi would ward off the type of people who you wouldn't like anyway. But on the other hand, if I'd never met you and interacted with you irl in a similar situation, I might've had the same reaction as [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] and put you on my list from the get-go.

There's a couple things I want to mention, there's no fakery involved, nor defiance, I'll get to that with FLD. Things slip out are true and straight forward expressions, if I had to sequester that all of the time, then I'd be a very cranky person. I find that I put people off when I use my own thought language, the people I seek are people that I can let my guard down with. I've been with my own kind, and it doesn't piss me off, it's relaxing.

@Qlip

Based on the OP I thought you were saying that you liked playing at being "the silent guy." But from your last couple posts it sounds like you're "the head games guy"--the guy who likes testing people for laughs or even petty revenge. A lot of ENFPs and ENTPs stake out that territory. Very Ne-rich territory.

Nothing wrong with it. I like ENFPs, and I like their Ne-first approach to things. But what I said in my earlier post still applies. Playing "the head games guy" can become a developmental rut and result in isolation, if you get too comfortable in that role.

Just sayin'.

You're extrapolating way too much. I don't spend energy or even time with people I'm not interested in. In the first group scenario, if I didn't want to know more about them, I would have just wandered off. Neither am I vindictive, and any amusement I find in awkwardness is the amusement of learning something new, bringing something out in somebody that is available no other way.

I do think Ne has a lot to do with this type of exploration, it's people as environment, I can't think of anything more interesting to explore than people.

That all being said, I must not be nearly as bombastic as I come off here. People tend to have positive reactions to me, and I have very few enemies. Some people even seek me out. But for the most part, to most people, I'm just some guy.

 

[prplchknz]

Can you see the future? Or is that when you plan on dying?

If you can see the future, can you tell me mine?

The earliest, I'll be able to die

 

[RDF]

You're extrapolating way too much. I don't spend energy or even time with people I'm not interested in. In the first group scenario, if I didn't want to know more about them, I would have just wandered off. Neither am I vindictive, and any amusement I find in awkwardness is the amusement of learning something new, bringing something out in somebody that is available no other way.

I do think Ne has a lot to do with this type of exploration, it's people as environment, I can't think of anything more interesting to explore than people.

That all being said, I must not be nearly as bombastic as I come off here. People tend to have positive reactions to me, and I have very few enemies. Some people even seek me out. But for the most part, to most people, I'm just some guy.

As I said previously: I'm just sayin'. IOW, I'm not trying to point fingers; I'm just giving you a read-out based on what's coming through in your posts.

All these roles are fun and harmless while you're young and cute. It's when you carry them into middle age and beyond that they turn kind of negative and really off-putting: infantile, basically. So I don't deny your basic point that what you do works out fine and is harmless. My point is more about the future: Leaning on one role too hard and getting too comfortable treating people that way can lead to problems later in life.

Anyway, that's enough from me on that subject. I don't know you; I'm just letting you know what I'm seeing in your posts. Just a thumbnail sketch based on a glimpse through a peephole.

 

[greenfairy]

O no!! she's eaten my brain, nooooo I must get rid of parasetic ways.

BA HA HA HA

 

[chickpea]

sometimes i'll feel obligated to break an awkward silence, but usually there's a diffusion of responsibility type thing going on and i feel like it shouldn't be my job to make people feel more comfortable if they aren't doing the same to me, and i didn't bring them in a social situation together. i'm very rarely the planner or the host, i don't like having to feel responsible for that kind of thing.

 

[valaki]

Yeah, and I think it's a load of B.S.

It's not right, nor logical, to make a group (many) of people uncomfortable, with intention, when you (single) are uncomfortable.

It's not logical to assume 1) that whole group will feel uncomfortable equally 2) that group > individual especially if this individual happens to be yourself. 3) that group and resulting groupthink must always be right/correct/logical/fair/anything.

No, actually I do understand what you're saying. It is important to analyze why something makes individuals uncomfortable.

Good luck doing that on a general level. Everyone's pretty different.

Your personal emotions do not trump the emotions of a group. End of story. To subvert that is wrong.

Not wrong. Your opinion is subjective.

Oh, I am definitely willing to admit to being a typical human being. I find it an interesting world we live in where to call someone selfish is an accusation, to admit to being selfish is an incriminating confession, and to deny it is a lie.

WOW +1!

There's not really a reason, just a process. The last time it happened was last week, I was out with my good friend, and we ran into some of her new friends. They're kind of their own in-crowd, most of what they talk about was what happened last weekend and who's dating who and stuff, they're also not really the most accepting of outsiders. We were all standing in a circle, and my friend was holding up the conversation, and she had to use the bathroom. At this moment everything got awkward, they were all acutely aware that I was there, and I didn't quiet belong, let's just say I visually stood out.

Oh haha that silly standing around in a circle.

I guess I don't really believe this, and neither do I go out of my way to cause discomfort. Discomfort is a pretty neutral thing to me, it's not by nature bad. Sometimes it's a byproduct of things that are actually important, sometimes it can be a tool in itself. I do understand that people are made uncomfortable by things that I may do, but also other people are drawn in are are amused. Some of my best friends have actually started out from seemingly aggressive action. It's the classic 'you can't please everyone' situation.

As to the bolded... Yep and why [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION]'s logic wasn't right

We'd be fine hanging out. I do make certain people paranoid, though, only those people who find it important to know what I think of them. I'm a hard read, and it never occurs for people just to ask. I'm working on my side of it, though.

Lol @ bolded. I always though it was the most natural thing to ask outright. Why don't others think to ask?

Probably not...but I'm sort of half-there mentally when it comes to social-situations, so I rarely experience myself as part of a cohesive unit larger than the self....At best, I'm a receptive, amicable participant.

Well you're not soc-first either. I'm pretty much like this, I actually never experience myself that way (part of whatever "cohesive unit". I even find the idea BS).

There was once this football (or soccer? whichever country you live in...) match where there was many thousands of people and when my country scored once (yeah first and last and maybe it wasn't even valid ), everyone stood up "in one" and shouted "in one". That was the one time of my life where that "group feeling" was almost palpable and I decided to see what it feels like if I joined. I stayed in control however the whole time. So I don't think I experienced it like others did. It was an interesting experience nonetheless and I suppose other people get it on a daily basis. Well, not me.

Anyways, your previous post almost seemed to be assuming the non-existence of social-first and second people. Re: whether "everyone" is experiencing that discomfort -- from my knowledge of the social instinct, people who are well-versed in it should have a very good idea of who's uncomfortable and who isn't -- or at least, which sections and sub-sections of the group would be most likely to be uncomfortable. Based on that quick analysis you could decide which subgroup you choose to cater to.

Ohh and this categorizing about who's in what kind of subsection of a group... Meaningless? To me. Do you find yourself able to predict stuff about people based in such information? I've heard before that such predictions work pretty well. I kind of find that BS too, I had a fiery debate about this on this forum before

OK well I suppose this is soc-last too.

Ah. Okay. Yeah, I don't even relate to that. Can't help but agree entirely with Hard regarding this sort of thing -- but again, that's because I loathe awkwardness with such a passion.

I find awkwardness is such an imagined thing really :/ Maybe originating from some old neurosis? I don't know you though. Maybe for these soc-first people like you it's viewed very differently.

In fairness, there's middle ground between fakery and needless defiance -- i.e. even when you aren't "on", you can function socially without pissing off a large portion of the group. But I digress.

Unfortunately you are being too optimistic here. When you aren't "on" socially, and while you don't intend to piss off a group, you can still do exactly just that. Simply stumble into pissing them off.

These unwritten social rules are not that obvious to everyone really. Some people yes, some nope.

 

[Qlip]

As I said previously: I'm just sayin'. IOW, I'm not trying to point fingers; I'm just giving you a read-out based on what's coming through in your posts.

All these roles are fun and harmless while you're young and cute. It's when you carry them into middle age and beyond that they turn kind of negative and really off-putting. (Kind of infantile.) So I don't deny your basic point that what you do works out fine and is harmless. My point is more about the future: Leaning on one role too hard and getting too comfortable playing that one game can lead to problems.

Anyway, that's enough from me on that subject. I don't know you; I'm just letting you know what I'm seeing in your posts. Just a thumbnail sketch based on a glimpse through a peephole.

As long as you realize that. I do think of myself as young and cute (compared to Steve Buscemi), and I will always remain so (relative to Steve Buscemi). Just so you know before you f-f-fade away.

Lol. I'm actually pretty fucking old. I still haven't met any mature adults. Well, actually I have, but they were all mature adults when they were 12.

 

[Ginkgo]

Contrary to popular belief, awkwardness can be seductive.

 

[prplchknz]

Contrary to popular belief, awkwardness can be seductive.

wooohoooo I can get sex

I'm awkward as hell

 

[five sounds]

Contrary to popular belief, awkwardness can be seductive.

 

[Ginkgo]

 

[á´…eparted]

I think both @Hard and I had a bit of a communication breakdown.

Yeah after reading all of this further, this definitely seems to be the case. The example scenario [MENTION=10714]Qlip[/MENTION] gave is quite different from what I had assumed based on the OP. What that was was just incidental.

Just to show how far I am on the opposite end of the spectrum: 99% of the time I'm very stoic when I watch movies and TV -- I've only cried in a handful of movies in my entire life -- but when scenes are extremely awkward, I usually leave the room until they're over. I don't do that with sad scenes, violent scenes, or anything else. It's like nails on a chalkboard for me.

Are you social-last?

HAHAH! I am exactly the same! I have never cried from watching a movie. Ever. I have come close before, but by and large they don't well up strong feelings like that. At most I jump at loud noises or surprises (but that's just cause I am wired like a cat). Awkward though? Nope, can't take it. I absolutely lothe it and I refuse to watch movies if there is too much of it. Back when I was in college the "super bad" style movies was the thing. I couldn't even watch the previews! The entire premise of awkward socially unfortunate movies like that is so repelling that I often rant about how much I lothe the concept if someone even brings it up. Ugh. I hate, hate hate stuff like that.

I am social last, but honestly, it's not weak either. I can never really sort out my stacking well because they are all super close. I think a lot of this comes down to being 1w2 to be honest.

Interestingly, when I take MBTI tests, ESTJ is a very common result for me. Reading this actually makes me wonder if I am, haha. I think it's just influence from my ESTJ dad though.

Ah. Okay. Yeah, I don't even relate to that. Can't help but agree entirely with Hard regarding this sort of thing -- but again, that's because I loathe awkwardness with such a passion. It would go against my values to treat other people that way when I know that it would anger me so much if the reverse were to occur. Plus, my friend group, for the most part, would be similarly bothered by things like that, just to clarify that this is not entirely projection.

I can only understand Fours so much. (I don't think this is an ENFP thing, since my ENFP friend is incredibly focused on "the group", is a 2w3, and is only defiant when there's Te-Fi "correcting" to be done. Which narrows it down to Four).

Yep, already went through my rant at how much I hate awkward. That's why I got my undies in such a bunch to hear someone saying they liked causing it. I have met people in the past who do that and I get REALLY angry over it. Normally what I do is I loudly call out what their doing to everyone, so every knows it, and has gotten them to stop by putting them in the spotlight. I do have some friends that aren't bothered by awkward, but I doubt any of them would cause it. At least with the wrong intent. I actually do like messing with people, but in different ways, and I only do it unless it's mutually agreed between me and the other person that it's on (in particular I like scaring people, it's fun).

I also have a really really hard time understanding (and getting along) with 4's. It's just, like their entire drive is what I strive not to do by and large, so it goes against a huge part of what I am. I definitely agree this is a four thing.

It's a difference in operating.

Why the hell don't you have Fe in your function stack and/or why the hell are you soc-last?

Don't take this personally, but I completely hate such social expectations you are describing here. And I am definitely soc-last type. And my Fe isn't strong either for such situations...yeah

I was raised to be polite and fair from nearly all sides of my family. Largely because I was a socially daft child. It's a big part of my value set and how I operate. To me, having social harmony and order is just, well, efficient and the best way to be. It sounds Fe, but it's my Te talking. After reading through this thread, I think the differences showing up here is a difference between enneagram types, less so of MBTI functions.

That's fine if you don't agree. I just get pissed off when people defy things as, well as I explained and laid out, and how EJCC explained too.

 

[EJCC]

+1 to all of the above. Especially:

I was raised to be polite and fair from nearly all sides of my family. Largely because I was a socially daft child. It's a big part of my value set and how I operate. To me, having social harmony and order is just, well, efficient and the best way to be. It sounds Fe, but it's my Te talking. After reading through this thread, I think the differences showing up here is a difference between enneagram types, less so of MBTI functions.

... which I probably could have written myself.

p.s.

That's fine if you don't agree. I just get pissed off when people defy things as, well as I explained and laid out, and how EJCC explained too.

Damn -- I know I repped you about this, but just for emphasis: You are practically more of an xSTJ than I am!

It's not logical to assume 1) that whole group will feel uncomfortable equally 2) that group > individual especially if this individual happens to be yourself. 3) that group and resulting groupthink must always be right/correct/logical/fair/anything.

I refer you to my response to Stansmith, earlier in the thread, who said something similar on your first two points. Regarding your second point, I'd argue that the more people you can simultaneously keep comfortable, the better, especially if they're people you respect and/or people whose respect you want to earn. Regarding your third point, I don't recall anyone ever arguing that. It's not that groupthink is "always" right, correct, what have you -- it's that regardless of the group's stance, it's oftentimes (not always) in your best interest to cater to the majority (not the entire group).

I actually never experience myself that way (part of whatever "cohesive unit". I even find the idea BS).

Probably the single most social-last statement I've ever seen.

Ohh and this categorizing about who's in what kind of subsection of a group... Meaningless? To me. Do you find yourself able to predict stuff about people based in such information?

It works well for me. I'm good at it. I find it very easy to get a "lay of the land" in terms of groups, structures, power dynamics. Pretty easy to infer group preferences from there. However, your question here is completely besides the point. Everything we've been talking about so far has been about general group social discomfort. When I want to find out individual preferences, I'll focus on the individual. In social situations, inferring individual preferences from the whole makes no sense -- it's inaccurate, inefficient, and generally a waste of energy. My social "lay of the land", when it isn't instinct, is a collection of individual data. It doesn't work the other way around.

I've heard before that such predictions work pretty well. I kind of find that BS too, I had a fiery debate about this on this forum before

OK well I suppose this is soc-last too.

Yep.

I find awkwardness is such an imagined thing really :/ Maybe originating from some old neurosis? I don't know you though. Maybe for these soc-first people like you it's viewed very differently.

Well I wouldn't use the word "awkwardness" -- which I believe is a relatively recent linguistic/cultural idea? The best comparison would be horrific embarrassment. The worst humiliation you can think of. Not to be dramatic -- but I wasn't lying when I compared it to nails on a chalkboard.

Unfortunately you are being too optimistic here. When you aren't "on" socially, and while you don't intend to piss off a group, you can still do exactly just that. Simply stumble into pissing them off.

There's middle ground here, too. And it's better to have one mild slip-up later in the evening, causing slight embarrassment, than to ruin the whole thing from the get-go by not even trying.

These unwritten social rules are not that obvious to everyone really. Some people yes, some nope.

Clearly -- I'm learning that from all the social-lasts in this thread. But considering that I don't think I know a single confirmed social-last IRL, it clearly depends on, appropriately enough, your social circle, as well.

 

[Noll]

I am awkward silence.

 

[Stansmith]

[MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

I refer you to my response to Stansmith, earlier in the thread, who said something similar on your first two points. Regarding your second point, I'd argue that the more people you can simultaneously keep comfortable, the better, especially if they're people you respect and/or people whose respect you want to earn. Regarding your third point, I don't recall anyone ever arguing that. It's not that groupthink is "always" right, correct, what have you -- it's that regardless of the group's stance, it's oftentimes (not always) in your best interest to cater to the majority (not the entire group).

I wonder if my original post might have given off the wrong idea...What you describe is logical - it's unreasonable to expect a large group setting to accommodate for a few outliers, that's understandable and I don't expect to be accommodated for..I just don't feel involved enough within a group dynamic to personally feel offended when someone is perceived to be breaking some subtle, unwritten rule. I'm an insignificant blip with no say in the matter, and it elicits no more than a feeling of passive indifference.

 

[valaki]

I am social last, but honestly, it's not weak either. I can never really sort out my stacking well because they are all super close. I think a lot of this comes down to being 1w2 to be honest.

I also felt that way about my stacking originally but then I figured out why the last instinct is called the last instinct. I'm sure over time you'll figure it out too. You just don't seem soc-last in this thread. Of course I don't know you otherwise.

Yep, already went through my rant at how much I hate awkward. That's why I got my undies in such a bunch to hear someone saying they liked causing it. I have met people in the past who do that and I get REALLY angry over it. Normally what I do is I loudly call out what their doing to everyone, so every knows it, and has gotten them to stop by putting them in the spotlight.

I hope you verified first that their intent was actually such, and not just behaving in a way that seemed like that to you.

I was raised to be polite and fair from nearly all sides of my family. Largely because I was a socially daft child. It's a big part of my value set and how I operate. To me, having social harmony and order is just, well, efficient and the best way to be. It sounds Fe, but it's my Te talking. After reading through this thread, I think the differences showing up here is a difference between enneagram types, less so of MBTI functions.

I was also a "socially daft child" but apparently I wasn't really responsive to attempts from family to fix that. I learnt some things on my own later but it's just not the same.

As for social harmony and order being efficient, well harmony and order works as long as it works. Not any further.

That's fine if you don't agree. I just get pissed off when people defy things as, well as I explained and laid out, and how EJCC explained too.

Meh your E1 talking.

I refer you to my response to Stansmith, earlier in the thread, who said something similar on your first two points. Regarding your second point, I'd argue that the more people you can simultaneously keep comfortable, the better, especially if they're people you respect and/or people whose respect you want to earn. Regarding your third point, I don't recall anyone ever arguing that. It's not that groupthink is "always" right, correct, what have you -- it's that regardless of the group's stance, it's oftentimes (not always) in your best interest to cater to the majority (not the entire group).

(I assume you mean this post)

1) "Based on that quick analysis you could decide which subgroup you choose to cater to." hm well so I'm right and it's not quite always possible to cater for the entire group... Not surprised at that.
2) Yes but at what cost? It sounds really limiting to me, for everyone to try and follow one specific way of being. It will go against too many things in too many people. Btw I meant that point to read as "the group isn't necessarily worth more than the individual". Sure if there is actually a win-win way for the group vs the individual (you) to work together, that's cool. I however don't see that guaranteed. It will always be a compromise or worse in those cases. Have you ever seen a group that did truly have harmony? (Exclude small groups consisting of close friends)
3) I think I see the proportions differently, if it's too limiting for the individual to conform to the group for whatever hoped advantage then it's not a good trade-off. Also, I think groupthink is a relevant concept here, because the assumption that the individual must submit to the group involves the idea that groupthink is better than individualism. I most certainly disagree with that.

Probably the single most social-last statement I've ever seen.

Lol well I'm glad I can show you what soc-last is like =P

It works well for me. I'm good at it. I find it very easy to get a "lay of the land" in terms of groups, structures, power dynamics. Pretty easy to infer group preferences from there. However, your question here is completely besides the point. Everything we've been talking about so far has been about general group social discomfort. When I want to find out individual preferences, I'll focus on the individual. In social situations, inferring individual preferences from the whole makes no sense -- it's inaccurate, inefficient, and generally a waste of energy. My social "lay of the land", when it isn't instinct, is a collection of individual data. It doesn't work the other way around.

I see group discomfort at best as arising from the discomfort of individuals. It's possible you don't see it that way then... I know, I know, there is herd mentality where when someone socially influential does or states something, people will follow and that way a - to me - artificial group discomfort can be created, using the topic of this thread (group discomfort). The same people in private then will be behaving pretty differently. And if that's not fake then what is?

Btw I'm perfectly capable of seeing certain power dynamics but I just don't care beyond that. That's maybe the only thing I easily automatically see inside groups, who has influence etc.

Well I wouldn't use the word "awkwardness" -- which I believe is a relatively recent linguistic/cultural idea? The best comparison would be horrific embarrassment. The worst humiliation you can think of. Not to be dramatic -- but I wasn't lying when I compared it to nails on a chalkboard.

Ah, I see. I think you can guess my opinion on that too Though I think I do understand you there.

There's middle ground here, too. And it's better to have one mild slip-up later in the evening, causing slight embarrassment, than to ruin the whole thing from the get-go by not even trying.

Still optimistic I see I wasn't talking about mild slip-ups.

Clearly -- I'm learning that from all the social-lasts in this thread. But considering that I don't think I know a single confirmed social-last IRL, it clearly depends on, appropriately enough, your social circle, as well.

Btw I find it interesting to read posts of soc-firsts here.

 

[valaki]

I wonder if my original post might have given off the wrong idea...What you describe is logical - it's unreasonable to expect a large group setting to accommodate for a few outliers, that's understandable and I don't expect to be accommodated for..I just don't feel involved enough within a group dynamic to personally feel offended when someone is perceived to be breaking some subtle, unwritten rule. I'm an insignificant blip with no say in the matter, and it elicits no more than a feeling of passive indifference.

Yeah, I'm totally with you on the breaking subtle rules. I don't care lol. I mean, I sometimes run into these totally inadvertently and people will not even be capable of explaining what rule was broken. Though it doesn't matter as I would've probably found it BS anyway ) And if others break them, I will not notice that either, of course.

As for the group accommodating an outlier, if you have no way of influencing anything then yeah, don't expect anything like that.

 

[EJCC]

As for social harmony and order being efficient, well harmony and order works as long as it works. Not any further.

I don't understand your reasoning here. You use it later in the post as well -- strikes me as black-and-white thinking. "It's imperfect, therefore it's inferior". Constantly using terms like "always" and "never". Don't expect to find an "always" answer here, because all options are imperfect, and even what I'd consider to be the best possible option -- moderation between catering to group needs and catering to the needs of the self -- is rife with flaw and error.

Meh your E1 talking.

Meh your Social-last talking. The hell is this logic, valaki?

(I assume you mean this post)

1) "Based on that quick analysis you could decide which subgroup you choose to cater to." hm well so I'm right and it's not quite always possible to cater for the entire group... Not surprised at that.

Of course it's not. You can never make everyone happy -- anyone who thinks that is delusional.

2) Yes but at what cost? It sounds really limiting to me, for everyone to try and follow one specific way of being. It will go against too many things in too many people. Btw I meant that point to read as "the group isn't necessarily worth more than the individual". Sure if there is actually a win-win way for the group vs the individual (you) to work together, that's cool. I however don't see that guaranteed. It will always be a compromise or worse in those cases. Have you ever seen a group that did truly have harmony? (Exclude small groups consisting of close friends)

Again, there's no guaranteed. This is all about finding a common denominator -- the whole point of the social "lay of the land" I've been talking about, in terms of networks and alliances, is about finding common ground. If you read those networks -- and the individuals that make them up -- correctly, then it's easy to cater to the largest possible majority. It's impossible to make everyone happy (like I said before), so making the majority happy is the highest realistic goal.

3) I think I see the proportions differently, if it's too limiting for the individual to conform to the group for whatever hoped advantage then it's not a good trade-off. Also, I think groupthink is a relevant concept here, because the assumption that the individual must submit to the group involves the idea that groupthink is better than individualism. I most certainly disagree with that.

It's only partly relevant. It implies that every time you go along with popular opinion, you're giving up your own agenda. On the contrary, it's very easy to fall in line when it's convenient for you and move on when it ceases to be. That's where it's important to see the "group" as a whole as being comprised of a massive number of sub-groups and sub-networks. Moving from one sub-group to another as it suits you is often a necessary strategic move. Every individual in a group is a free agent, moving from place to place. Group classification is just one way of handling those individuals without getting overwhelmed by unnecessary detail.

I see group discomfort at best as arising from the discomfort of individuals. It's possible you don't see it that way then...

Of course I do. Maybe it hasn't been clear from my previous posts, but it's a given that groups are comprised of individuals, and generalizations about groups must be built from generalizations about individuals. Again, this is about catering to the majority in a group. If most people are uncomfortable, then at the very least that's something to learn from and take note of -- even if your response to them necessarily depends on how much you need their approval and respect.

I know, I know, there is herd mentality where when someone socially influential does or states something, people will follow and that way a - to me - artificial group discomfort can be created, using the topic of this thread (group discomfort). The same people in private then will be behaving pretty differently. And if that's not fake then what is?

The vast majority of social situations are not going to require catering to one socially influential person. But when those situations arise -- when it stops being about keeping a group of peers content, and starts being about power dynamics -- it's just as much about strategy as it always is. Maybe with a bigger dose of realpolitik.

Ah, I see. I think you can guess my opinion on that too Though I think I do understand you there.

I'm not trying to make you like any of this -- I'm just showing you that it can, and does, work. Frequently. And since you've gone from "never" to "eh, sometimes", I can tell myself that I've pretty much done my job here.

Still optimistic I see I wasn't talking about mild slip-ups.

It's not optimism, it's realism. Medium-level fuck-ups are significantly more likely than huge ones.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

I'm guessing it's a definite SO last thing or maybe other 4s identify with this?

I'm not sure it's either of those things.

I'm likely not a 4 anymore (though heavily 4-fixed), and I strongly suspect I'm not social-last, yet I identify with your OP. Yet I live, eat, breathe, fart, am social awkwardness defined.

(Note: This is not in my head. I'm the weird offbeat silent one that people don't know how to interact with, who stays silent in group situations, and who gets remarks like, "Why are you being so quiet?" "Is something wrong?" "Why aren't you talking more?" Fuck, I'm not even an introvert and I get these remarks. Lack of an ability to interact like a normal human being.) I don't have too many friends.

I'm not sure what you say is social last, either. Social's about the group dynamic, and you at least seem tuned into what's going on around you. Not saying you're not social-last, or social lasts couldn't have this problem; I just assumed they were more oblivious to these dynamics. My mom's social last, and she's more the sort of person who claims this kind of thing doesn't matter. "I'm sure no one thinks you're awkward, dear." LOL, little does she know.

Again, I don't know what mechanism is responsible for awkward silence, but I am in total agreement with you. I call it "social constipation". I made up my mind a long time ago that if I can't find something to say, I won't bother. Why stress myself? And it IS funny to watch reactions.

Not helpful, but my two cents anyway.