• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is really integrating/engaging with larger society a requirement in life?

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Two people I know once said they thought so. They said that anything not conducive to that was negative. Basically, they thought that having good social skills, being a major part of things, and coming across well to people in general was the main point of life. They implied that people who can't be sensitive to style and context (and tend to notice content/detail instead) are basically screwed up, and have no place in society until they learn to conceal this by undergoing psychological treatment.

I personally disagree with that. Can you really get by being completely anti-social and withdrawn all of the time? Okay, probably not. But can you be satisfied by having maybe a job, a smaller circle of friends, and still spend most of your time involved in less demanding activities/arenas, where such things aren't expected to a significant degree? I don't see why not.

What annoyed me most was the implication that this was "the right way" and that everything else was "the wrong way." They didn't even try to explain it, just stated it as if it were undeniable.

What was also interesting to me was that these two people said such similar things.

So, does anyone else feel this way, that this is the only "right way" to be? Or are there other ways of living reasonable for human beings?
 

LucrativeSid

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
837
You just have to be at peace with yourself, regardless of whether you focus more on yourself or the outside world. Either direction of focus, if taken to extremes, can be bad if you're not finding a healthy balance. For your friends to say things like that, it seems to indicate that they haven't found the healthy balance yet. They must not have very much true internal peace and confidence, so they're trying to make up for it by controlling their external circumstances.
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
So, does anyone else feel this way, that this is the only "right way" to be? Or are there other ways of living reasonable for human beings?

It's however you as an individual choose to live. If you aren't harming other people or aren't a danger to yourself (though, really, who decides that or at what point? Tricky.), then you could hole yourself in a cave and it'd still be fine as it's your choice and your right to choose to do so. I find it silly when people try to claim any one way is the *right way*. There have been all kinds of societies across all cultures throughout recorded history. They all functioned similarily and differently. What's considered a 'normal/right' way of living during one generation sometimes becomes entirely replaced by the next. And even then, just because society is accepting of being a predominately chosen way of lifestyle/s (whether being more "extroverted" or "introverted" or even a balance of the two generally) doesn't mean there can't be people who choose not to adopt such ways.

They said that anything not conducive to that was negative. Basically, they thought that having good social skills, being a major part of things, and coming across well to people in general was the main point of life.

You can have excellent social skills and still choose not to engage with a lot of people.
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
There's a multitude of value systems.. one value system doesn't become the "only" true one by having rigid adherents.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Basically, they thought that having good social skills, being a major part of things, and coming across well to people in general was the main point of life.
Yeah, perhaps for them, and Willy Loman.
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
There is a difference between being on your own wave length, being more naturally retiring and not needing a lot of social stimulation -- and being a paranoid delusional recluse. It's all about gradations.

I don't think your goal in life has to be to be a mover and shaker in the traditional sense, to have a fabu glamorous social life, to fill up your date book and MySpace page with as many 'friends' as possible and pretend you live in a music video. I think especially when you are very young these are the standards given to you to reach. But everyone has to find their own groove. And this is coming from someone who is more extroverted and needs a lot of external stimulation to be happy.

Humans are social animals. Everyone needs human comfort and understanding and feel a part of something larger then themselves. Even the loners. Society, community, etc. I think most people who isolate themselve aren't necessarily doing it for happiness -- a lot of people joke about 'being a hermit' but it's cyclical and way to achieve balance. Some people need more down-time than others. And total isolation? It's not what will make them the happiest in the long run. Isolation and separation from society is considered a form of punishment in society.

(Except for the survivalists, but refer to first paragraph)

Everyone has to figure out for themselves how to live, but the process is the same. It is about finding a balance. But for most people this means pushing testing their boundaries, questioning their motives, and facing their fears. For some people facing a fear is being with other people, for others, it's truly being alone with themselves.

BTW, I think the title to your post is a little misleading. I agree with you -- there is no one right way to live. But I also think absolutely integration and engaging with larger society is what healthy people aspire towards and what most non-dictatorships want for you as well. That doesn't mean you have to be a cog in the machine, but if we had a nation comprised solely of the sociopathic, paranoid, criminally violent, and otherwise 'unintegrateable' elements of society -- damn, that would not be pretty.
 
Last edited:

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
You just have to be at peace with yourself, regardless of whether you focus more on yourself or the outside world. Either direction of focus, if taken to extremes, can be bad if you're not finding a healthy balance. For your friends to say things like that, it seems to indicate that they haven't found the healthy balance yet. They must not have very much true internal peace and confidence, so they're trying to make up for it by controlling their external circumstances.

That seems very insightful. One of the people in question tested as Exxx -- 100% E, and near 50% on every other dichotomy, although they were vaguely ESTP. That could indicate a lack of inner piece... especially since someone around them said that he couldn't stand to be alone, or leave anything the same... something always had to be happening, or they weren't happy.

What both of these people seem to be missing is the fact that social involvement is a dial, not an "on/off" switch.

For instance, here:

0. Total isolation like on a desert island. Too lonely.

1. Just having and maintaining a job/home. Still a bit lonely.

2. Having a job and a rather small group of friends that you contact regularly in addition to your more introverted activities. This is comfortable.

3. Working, having a larger group of friends, and trying to keep up with all of them. A bit hectic, but I could manage for a while.

4. Working, trying to be liked by most people, and constantly trying to be involved/concerned with all of them. I couldn't deal with this for long.

5. Working, volunteering, going to every party you're invited to, hosting some of your own, and doing it all perfectly. I'd welcome death.
 

LucrativeSid

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
837
I like that you've started this thread because it's almost like a sign to me. (Or at least a reminder to stay on track.) I have been planning on spending my late night hours alone tonight writing about potential methods that one could implement in order to find the proper balance in any area of their life. In this case, extraversion and introversion. Another one that interests me a lot is the balance between work and play.

It's like a dial, like you said. I believe that most people are not operating on the level that best suits them for some reason or another. More later...
 

elfinchilde

a white iris
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,465
MBTI Type
type
LucrativeSid has a point, actually. They could be extremely insecure of themselves, and are perhaps consciously or unconsciously jealous of others who are comfortable being alone, and do not see the need to adhere to the crowd. Hence the rather totalitarian response of "that is not the right way", and the insistence upon their way as being "right". Especially significant since one already said he couldn't stand being alone.

There's no one 'right' way to live, really. Just do what makes you happy, and comfortable, and yourself. Rather odd to insist on being an extrovert, when in reality, crowds tire you out and sap your energy. It'd only make one feel worse. Vice versa holds true for extroverts forced into an introvert's role in society.

The precise fact that there are such things as the MBTI around, shows that personalities differ, and if so, how can a one-system-fits-all rule apply to life?
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Because a lot of people think that way you have to keep up a certain level of appearances so they don't persecute you because they mistake not being average for being abnormal. Beyond that it's absolutely silly to me to follow someone else's prescription for happiness when it clearly isn't your own.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Two people I know once said they thought so. They said that anything not conducive to that was negative. Basically, they thought that having good social skills, being a major part of things, and coming across well to people in general was the main point of life. They implied that people who can't be sensitive to style and context (and tend to notice content/detail instead) are basically screwed up, and have no place in society until they learn to conceal this by undergoing psychological treatment.

I personally disagree with that...

Hmmm. So do I, actually.

(And I don't think that is what actually got said either, if I get a voice in this.)

Human beings by nature are social animals.
We learn language from others.
We are raised by others, we are not independent from birth.
We instinctively develop cultures.
And so on.

Just your participation in this forum suggests that you need SOME sort of social connection to thrive. Otherwise you wouldn't be here.

So I don't think one can deny that, by nature, human beings are at least in great part social creatures... even if some of us are more social than others.

Being over-social is bad to one's health. It could suggest dependency, for example, on what others think... as well as the inability to have a private independent stable core.

Being under-social is also bad for one's health. It could suggest fear and self-protectiveness, for example -- blocking people out not because of a natural state of being fairly independent, and I really WOULD wager that people who routinely block out others ARE doing it out of protectiveness and NOT because it's their best or most natural state.

But can you be satisfied by having maybe a job, a smaller circle of friends, and still spend most of your time involved in less demanding activities/arenas, where such things aren't expected to a significant degree? I don't see why not.

I don't either. What matter is why you do those things. If you're doing them as part of a protective cycle (or socializing out of a dependent cycle), then they aren't the healthiest.

What annoyed me most was the implication that this was "the right way" and that everything else was "the wrong way." They didn't even try to explain it, just stated it as if it were undeniable.

If you really want to understand better, then go ahead and start studying some basic psych textbooks. This isn't rocket science; this is pretty basic psych study stuff... especially when it comes to human actualization.

IOW, in terms of what actually was discussed, it's like someone saying, "It's bad for your health if you don't bandage that cut!" compared to your just letting it bleed out without fixing anything, and your saying, "It's not fair, why do YOU always think your way is right?"

In any case, based on how you painted it, I would not agree with the ideas expressed in your opening paragraph either.
 

Seanan

Procrastinating
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
954
MBTI Type
INTJ
Basically, they thought that having good social skills, being a major part of things, and coming across well to people in general was the main point of life. They implied that people who can't be sensitive to style and context (and tend to notice content/detail instead) are basically screwed up, and have no place in society until they learn to conceal this by undergoing psychological treatment.

How judgemental, ingnorant and screwed up is that!?

Try telling that to any author or artist who spends 90% of their waking hours alone. Or tell it to the Einsteins of the world or philosophers. Geez, we wouldn't have Western technology were it not for these folks who need "psychological treatment."

I'm thinking they had to have been pulling your leg or have some personal agenda... do they reproduce?:shock:
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I agree with you 100 percent. Since when were social skills the biggest necessity? I think following your own dreams is far more important.

I don't think the discussion was ever about "following one's dreams" -- which is a goal that just about everyone here would support.

It was more about whether there are certain ways to interact with others that are more healthy and lead to the possibility for more actualization/contentment than other ways.

Most of this thread seems to be about misdirection, if anything.

Bottom line: No one's required to change anything they don't want to, if they're willing to live with the consequences.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
I agree that everyone needs different levels of interaction with people, I find that if I hang out with someone once in a while I'm fine but if I spend to much time or to many people I get depressed exhausted and need to be alone but if I spent time alone for weeks I also feel depressed. So on athenian's scale 2 is the best for me. I really hate when people tell me I need help or someone else does or assume we're depressed because we aren't always busy or don't have many friends. As long as you can function in society and can take care of yourself who cares how you approach life.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Two people I know once said they thought so. They said that anything not conducive to that was negative. Basically, they thought that having good social skills, being a major part of things, and coming across well to people in general was the main point of life. They implied that people who can't be sensitive to style and context (and tend to notice content/detail instead) are basically screwed up, and have no place in society until they learn to conceal this by undergoing psychological treatment.

Perhaps they were both ESFJ's? It seems like this sort of thing could validly be the main point in their life, but they didn't realize that wouldn't apply to nearly everyone else.

CzeCze said:
There is a difference between being on your own wave length, being more naturally retiring and not needing a lot of social stimulation -- and being a paranoid delusional recluse. It's all about gradations.
etc...

Dammit CzeCze why do you keep posting stuff that I agree with, while putting it so well and beating me to the punch? It's getting to the point where my response in every thread should be, "I'll take CzeCze for teh win!" ;)
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Yeah, I disagree. There're a lot of theories floating around about what the purpose of life is. In most cases, I think the common denominator is a peaceful, satisfying life -- one that makes the question of "what my purpose in life?" disappear. Question satisfied, though maybe not answered.

The path to a peaceful life depends on the person and their needs. I'm not convinced that people need anyone around to be at peace. I think most of the time, one's state of mind depends on how judgmental and critical they are, vs. how accepting of "faults" they are. I would refrain from any type of absolute prescriptions when it comes to others leading a good life.

But regardless, to say that life has any meaning at all, is something that needs justification, even if it's just "being happy." I'm skeptical. :ninja:
 

Grayscale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
1,965
MBTI Type
ISTP
i have found that i am happiest when i can identify and accept reality, then enjoy the appreciable aspects of it.

the longer you ignore reality, the harder it's going to slap you in the face eventually.

when it comes to me and society, the reality is that im fairly peculiar, and i dont expect myself to "fit in" to the norm. i do make an effort to relate myself to whatever and whomever i am interacting with as best i can. although i am many things, a social juggernaut is not one of them... that's just how it is, insert previous sentence about ignoring reality here.

they thought that having good social skills, being a major part of things, and coming across well to people in general was the main point of life...

...They didn't even try to explain it, just stated it as if it were undeniable.

my advice here is to try to see reality as clearly as you can and come to terms with it regardless of what it implies. other people will often suggest their own reality, but the reality with that is that what other people suggest to be true really has no bearing on what is. allow them to convince you otherwise with supporting evidence, sure, but the suggestion alone is worthless.

it's often difficult for people to not be lead astray by false confidence and the power of suggestion... dont be one of those people!
 

Seanan

Procrastinating
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
954
MBTI Type
INTJ
other people will often suggest their own reality, but the reality with that is that what other people suggest to be true really has no bearing on what is.

So, so, true.
 

millerm277

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
978
MBTI Type
ISTP
They implied that people who can't be sensitive to style and context (and tend to notice content/detail instead) are basically screwed up, and have no place in society until they learn to conceal this by undergoing psychological treatment.

Well, I am almost very much like that (not very sensitive to style/context), and most people don't seem to think I'm insane, and I definitely don't hide it.

I personally disagree with that. Can you really get by being completely anti-social and withdrawn all of the time? Okay, probably not. But can you be satisfied by having maybe a job, a smaller circle of friends, and still spend most of your time involved in less demanding activities/arenas, where such things aren't expected to a significant degree? I don't see why not.

You sound to be on the right track to me.

So, does anyone else feel this way, that this is the only "right way" to be? Or are there other ways of living reasonable for human beings?

I completely disagree with it. The right way of living is whichever way you enjoy. (assuming it isn't hurting others, if you like to kill people, that still isn't right)
 
Top