Ever feel..

[ExtensivexLDL]

..that your friends aren't really that right for you? I do, and I've been feeling it for many years. Recently, I've managed to surrounder myself to this aspect and no longer care as much. Yet, I've encountered countless of other people who are of the 'going-out-having-a-good-time' and I know I'd rather be with those people. Not that I'm saying my friends are bad (they're actually pretty decent), they're just not that high on the "cool" scale (in fact they're pretty low) as many others are. I mean, pretty much the only reason I stay in touch with my group of friends is because there isn't another group out there for me.

Anyone feel the same?

 

[Unacceptance]

I'd rather not take the only human being who honestly refers to me as a friend and means it for granted.

 

[VanillaCreme]

Shouldn't you have friends because you share a common interest, or some people click as friends right away. Not because they're low on the totem pole, you're low on the totem pole, so you're just on the bottom together. Does it really matter where in society your friends rank?

Make friends with people who you feel a trust with. Even a bond. I don't keep friends myself, I think they're a pain in the ass, but there are a few people that I can honestly say I'm good friends with.

 

[SilentThinker]

There are many acquaintances but few friends.

I would choose friends:
Have a level of understanding
Common interest
Trust between each other

 

[Silvernight]

Hm. Low on the "cool" scale you say? Weeellll, don't we all hang out on a "lonely life" forum? Wonder where does it put us on the standard scale of coolness *looking down ponderously*. But if your reason for not liking your current friends is other than their perceived lack of coolness, then, by all means, look for another group.

 

[friendsvme]

..that your friends aren't really that right for you? I do, and I've been feeling it for many years. Recently, I've managed to surrounder myself to this aspect and no longer care as much. Yet, I've encountered countless of other people who are of the 'going-out-having-a-good-time' and I know I'd rather be with those people. Not that I'm saying my friends are bad (they're actually pretty decent), they're just not that high on the "cool" scale (in fact they're pretty low) as many others are. I mean, pretty much the only reason I stay in touch with my group of friends is because there isn't another group out there for me.

Anyone feel the same?

I'm not really sure what do you ACTUALLY meant by "COOL"?
However
I'm same as you on the whole "friends aren't really that right for you" thing.
I think I know what you mean, but my situation is different though.
My group of friends are actually, "too cool" for me and they always ignore me, oh well

Ok, well, my advice for you
Why don't you try to be the active one? I know that you envy the other groups of people where they 'going-out-having-a-good-time" more often than your group of friends.
So, try to be the one that plans and organizes those "going out" events.
Or maybe in other words, try to pull up their "cool scale" yourself

 

[SophiaGrace]

i like what Friendsvme said. You could try that ...ask a lot of people and eventually you'll find someone that would like to tag along as well

 

[ExtensivexLDL]

I'd rather not take the only human being who honestly refers to me as a friend and means it for granted.

Of course and that's not what I'm doing. I refer to them as my friends and they refer to me the same.. It's just that I feel we don't have that much in common and that there's another group who I'd be more compatible with.

Shouldn't you have friends because you share a common interest, or some people click as friends right away. Not because they're low on the totem pole, you're low on the totem pole, so you're just on the bottom together. Does it really matter where in society your friends rank?

Make friends with people who you feel a trust with. Even a bond. I don't keep friends myself, I think they're a pain in the ass, but there are a few people that I can honestly say I'm good friends with.

Of course, that makes sense. But this hasn't anything to do with how society ranks them- it doesn't do that period, in fact. I'm not trying to engage in some popularity contest either. I just feel like we don't share that much in common and that the only reason that I have had them as my group of friends this whole time was because I wasn't accepted anywhere else due to my unsocialness and awkward nature.
As for the comment that you don't keep friends yourself, I think it's helpful to hold on to as many friends as possible, (unless of course they're negative, put you down constantly, etc), as not only do you get to have more of a social life, you might come to rely on their assistance some day and it's good to have a wide assortment of people you could turn to.

Hm. Low on the "cool" scale you say? Weeellll, don't we all hang out on a "lonely life" forum? Wonder where does it put us on the standard scale of coolness *looking down ponderously*. But if your reason for not liking your current friends is other than their perceived lack of coolness, then, by all means, look for another group.

First of all, it's the "A Lonely Life" forum. There is no other one lol. But you have a point. I guess everyone here is uncool in that case then.. Honestly, however, I'm willing to bet that no one spends the majority of their day here. I certainly don't- I just check back once daily to respond to others' posts or to start a new thread once in a while. And of course "coolness" is generally a very loose, undefined term. What I understand by "coolness" (in someone) is that they have good social skills, have lots of things they can relate about and are generally more fun, easygoing and have had diverse, interesting (sometimes unusual) life experiences they can share with others. Hence, I'm not judging my friends from someone else's (or "societal") perspective but only from my own. They are good friends as I said, but they have rather geeky, boring interests in my opinion and I often find myself bored in their presence because I don't particularly relate to their interests. Now you could suggest of course that I myself suggest to them more fun, more "typical" activities, but in a sense that's trying to make something slightly more out of something which is small in extent initially, I believe. They're just not those "fun" kind of people in my opinion and they innately have narrow, rather uncommon interests. Looking for another group, meanwhile, is something which I've been thinking about for a long time, but it's just not that easy. There's this other group I know which I'd prefer to be with but I barely ever encounter them. The only other option is to get absorbed into some social circle at university, but since I commute and it's generally difficult to become "friends" (not just people who could lend you their notes if you miss a lecture or two) with people at your classes, that's pretty difficult.. The only other option is clubs, though still, the problem of having to commute plus the lack of a guarantee that you'll hit it off with everyone there keeps this a difficult issue.

I'm not really sure what do you ACTUALLY meant by "COOL"?
However
I'm same as you on the whole "friends aren't really that right for you" thing.
I think I know what you mean, but my situation is different though.
My group of friends are actually, "too cool" for me and they always ignore me, oh well

Ok, well, my advice for you
Why don't you try to be the active one? I know that you envy the other groups of people where they 'going-out-having-a-good-time" more often than your group of friends.
So, try to be the one that plans and organizes those "going out" events.
Or maybe in other words, try to pull up their "cool scale" yourself

Basically my response to Silvernight. These people have comprised my only group of friends for a long time and I've been looking to divulge from them/add some variety to the people who I hang out with for a long time with little results so far. Sure, I know people from other groups (even have numbers of some of them), though they don't consider me a part of their group and subsequently never contact me. If you're tired of your friends, even planning a "cool" event/way to spend the time, won't do much..
On a related note, I actually have this slight fear of being judged negatively by others by the people who comprise my friends. It's not a very good thing, I know, but that's on a slightly different note..

As to the issue of your group of friends who you say are 'too cool' for you and hence ignore you, I would say they're not that right for you probably and hence suggest finding other people who are more supportive of you and don't disparage.

 

[ExtensivexLDL]

i like what Friendsvme said. You could try that ...ask a lot of people and eventually you'll find someone that would like to tag along as well

Oh and same thing.

 

[SilentThinker]

Hi,ExtensivexLDL.Nice to meet you.

Of course, that makes sense. But this hasn't anything to do with how society ranks them- it doesn't do that period, in fact. I'm not trying to engage in some popularity contest either. I just feel like we don't share that much in common and that the only reason that I have had them as my group of friends this whole time was because I wasn't accepted anywhere else due to my unsocialness and awkward nature.
As for the comment that you don't keep friends yourself, I think it's helpful to hold on to as many friends as possible, (unless of course they're negative, put you down constantly, etc), as not only do you get to have more of a social life, you might come to rely on their assistance some day and it's good to have a wide assortment of people you could turn to.

It is not really good to have many friends.
Think in terms of options of hanging out.
Group A asks you out.
Group B asks you out.
Group C asks you out.

If you go to another group,you strained your relationship with another group.

Take it with a grain of salt.

What I understand by "coolness" (in someone) is that they have good social skills, have lots of things they can relate about and are generally more fun, easygoing and have had diverse, interesting (sometimes unusual) life experiences they can share with others. Hence, I'm not judging my friends from someone else's (or "societal") perspective but only from my own.

It is good to have social skills.Extroverts are people who naturally have these but I think that introverts are cool in their own way.

 

[ExtensivexLDL]

Hi,ExtensivexLDL.Nice to meet you.

Of course, that makes sense. But this hasn't anything to do with how society ranks them- it doesn't do that period, in fact. I'm not trying to engage in some popularity contest either. I just feel like we don't share that much in common and that the only reason that I have had them as my group of friends this whole time was because I wasn't accepted anywhere else due to my unsocialness and awkward nature.
As for the comment that you don't keep friends yourself, I think it's helpful to hold on to as many friends as possible, (unless of course they're negative, put you down constantly, etc), as not only do you get to have more of a social life, you might come to rely on their assistance some day and it's good to have a wide assortment of people you could turn to.

It is not really good to have many friends.
Think in terms of options of hanging out.
Group A asks you out.
Group B asks you out.
Group C asks you out.

If you go to another group,you strained your relationship with another group.

Take it with a grain of salt.

True, but it's never so simplistic. Firstly, it's rare that you'd be asked out the same day by multiple groups. Even if that happens to be the case, it's in your best interest to let the other group(s) know that you still enjoy their company and consider them friends and that you'll do your best to try to make it some other time. Meanwhile, it's in EACH OF YOUR GROUP OF FRIENDS' interest to understand that they aren't the only social group you have and that therefore you may have (sometimes) priorities elsewhere. On a side note, in a general sense, it's in your own interest to try your best to BLEND all of your social groups together so that firstly, they're less loosely defined, and secondly, so that most of the members know each other and are compatible with one another. Thereby, there's less of a tendency that one group will get upset should you choose to go with another group of people rather than spend time with THEM.

What I understand by "coolness" (in someone) is that they have good social skills, have lots of things they can relate about and are generally more fun, easygoing and have had diverse, interesting (sometimes unusual) life experiences they can share with others. Hence, I'm not judging my friends from someone else's (or "societal") perspective but only from my own.

quote=SilentThinker
It is good to have social skills.Extroverts are people who naturally have these but I think that introverts are cool in their own way.
[/quote]

Err..well the aspect of social skills isn't usually connected to how much one is an extrovert or introvert. I mean sure, in Western society we're programmed to think that someone who is naturally outgoing must have better social skills, however, they could as easily be obnoxious, loud, mindless of others' space, talk incessantly, etc. and those attributes are never considered to be aspects of good social skills.

 

[SilentThinker]

Meanwhile, it's in EACH OF YOUR GROUP OF FRIENDS' interest to understand that they aren't the only social group you have and that therefore you may have (sometimes) priorities elsewhere. On a side note, in a general sense, it's in your own interest to try your best to BLEND all of your social groups together so that firstly, they're less loosely defined, and secondly, so that most of the members know each other and are compatible with one another.

How do we get a close friend then?How do we maintain a relationship?
Is it not time that we get close to a friend?Is it not the amount of time we spent on a relationship that it is maintained?

Err..well the aspect of social skills isn't usually connected to how much one is an extrovert or introvert. I mean sure, in Western society we're programmed to think that someone who is naturally outgoing must have better social skills, however, they could as easily be obnoxious, loud, mindless of others' space, talk incessantly, etc. and those attributes are never considered to be aspects of good social skills.

What are those good social skills?I hope this would be a discussion,rather than an argument who is right or who is wrong.

Nice talking to you.xD

 

[ExtensivexLDL]

Meanwhile, it's in EACH OF YOUR GROUP OF FRIENDS' interest to understand that they aren't the only social group you have and that therefore you may have (sometimes) priorities elsewhere. On a side note, in a general sense, it's in your own interest to try your best to BLEND all of your social groups together so that firstly, they're less loosely defined, and secondly, so that most of the members know each other and are compatible with one another.

How do we get a close friend then?How do we maintain a relationship?
Is it not time that we get close to a friend?Is it not the amount of time we spent on a relationship that it is maintained?

Well a close friend can be separate from the rest of the social group that you affiliate him or her with. Typically, however, if you have a close friend in one or more of your social groups, those group(s) are probably close to you as a whole also. That being said, maintaining a relationship (I assume you mean a social one), requires staying in touch with each group and people herein and seeing each other on a regular (not necessarly frequent) basis. Typically, close friendships develop with the people of the social groups which you see most often.

Err..well the aspect of social skills isn't usually connected to how much one is an extrovert or introvert. I mean sure, in Western society we're programmed to think that someone who is naturally outgoing must have better social skills, however, they could as easily be obnoxious, loud, mindless of others' space, talk incessantly, etc. and those attributes are never considered to be aspects of good social skills.

What are those good social skills?I hope this would be a discussion,rather than an argument who is right or who is wrong.

Nice talking to you.xD

Good social skills- making frequent eye contact, having the ability to listen and 'read between the lines' during a conversation, being able to respond appropriately and on-topic, being able to read and interepret body language well, asking open-ended questions which can typically lead to a deeper discussion, displaying minimal nervous/off-putting traits like speaking monotone, etc.

I'm not argueing but just trying to make a point.

 

[SilentThinker]

Well a close friend can be separate from the rest of the social group that you affiliate him or her with. Typically, however, if you have a close friend in one or more of your social groups, those group(s) are probably close to you as a whole also.

It also depends on the person himself too.Some people I know are very quiet and fail to connect to the group or there are some negative perceptions that causes them not to connect to the group.

The tricky part is that people believed that the best way to cultivate the relationship is to hang out with a group together.

In a group,there is a possibility that one person may not be involved in the communication.

Good social skills- making frequent eye contact, having the ability to listen and 'read between the lines' during a conversation, being able to respond appropriately and on-topic, being able to read and interepret body language well, asking open-ended questions which can typically lead to a deeper discussion, displaying minimal nervous/off-putting traits like speaking monotone, etc.

That is a rarely found in most people.People nowsaday want to talk their own topic and want others to join in their conversation on the topic.

 

[ExtensivexLDL]

Well a close friend can be separate from the rest of the social group that you affiliate him or her with. Typically, however, if you have a close friend in one or more of your social groups, those group(s) are probably close to you as a whole also.

It also depends on the person himself too.Some people I know are very quiet and fail to connect to the group or there are some negative perceptions that causes them not to connect to the group.

The tricky part is that people believed that the best way to cultivate the relationship is to hang out with a group together.

In a group,there is a possibility that one person may not be involved in the communication.

That can be true, but usually if a person is considered a member of a social group, it's because there's a reciprocal relationship in place. While the person may not have the exact same relationship with each member of the group, he or she has enough of a mutual interpersonal, emotional and compatible connection with the group as a whole to be considered its member. Think sociometry.

Good social skills- making frequent eye contact, having the ability to listen and 'read between the lines' during a conversation, being able to respond appropriately and on-topic, being able to read and interepret body language well, asking open-ended questions which can typically lead to a deeper discussion, displaying minimal nervous/off-putting traits like speaking monotone, etc.

That is a rarely found in most people.People nowsaday want to talk their own topic and want others to join in their conversation on the topic.

Um.. ok..First of all that's a little primitive sounding and irrelevant to what I've written above and second of all, specifically, I'm not sure why you believe that the criteria I've mentioned is rarely found in most people today and how the fact that people want to talk about a certain topic and want others to join in a converstation with them about it is somehow excluded and doesn't deduce/relate to what I said.

 

[SilentThinker]

That can be true, but usually if a person is considered a member of a social group, it's because there's a reciprocal relationship in place. While the person may not have the exact same relationship with each member of the group, he or she has enough of a mutual interpersonal, emotional and compatible connection with the group as a whole to be considered its member. Think sociometry.

Attention is limited.When someone tried to give attention to more than three persons,he or she is likely to have less attention on someone.
In a group,not everyone is close to one another.Some comes to the group through a individual who they want to develop the relationship with.

Here a question for you.If there is a person who is close to the group but during the conversation,common interest is not mentioned,will the interaction be the same?

Um.. ok..First of all that's a little primitive sounding and irrelevant to what I've written above and second of all, specifically, I'm not sure why you believe that the criteria I've mentioned is rarely found in most people today and how the fact that people want to talk about a certain topic and want others to join in a converstation with them about it is somehow excluded and doesn't deduce/relate to what I said.

Not many people maintain eye contact.Not many people really listen but just want to talk their own things.Not many people do read between the lines.Not many people asked open ended question.Not many people display minimum nervous/off putting traits.
Is it rare now?

Good social skills involve sincere listening to other person's talking.Many people I talked to do not really have good listening skills like these.

Just curious.How old are u?

 

[ExtensivexLDL]

That can be true, but usually if a person is considered a member of a social group, it's because there's a reciprocal relationship in place. While the person may not have the exact same relationship with each member of the group, he or she has enough of a mutual interpersonal, emotional and compatible connection with the group as a whole to be considered its member. Think sociometry.

Attention is limited.When someone tried to give attention to more than three persons,he or she is likely to have less attention on someone.
In a group,not everyone is close to one another.Some comes to the group through a individual who they want to develop the relationship with.

Here a question for you.If there is a person who is close to the group but during the conversation,common interest is not mentioned,will the interaction be the same?

It seems like we're not really following the same drum beat here. I say one thing and you respond with something which is obviously true but nontheless isn't directly relevant to what I said. Attention plays a role in any interaction obviously but I was talking about the dynamics and the interaction between any single individual and the rest of the members of any group that they're part of. It's true however that sometimes an individual comes to a group through an individual that they ALREADY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH. As for your question.. I don't really get it.. Are you asking whether there'd be a difference in conversation between an individual interacting CASUALLY with the rest of the group as opposed to when they're carrying on a conversation which brushes upon common interests?
In this case- OBVIOUSLY. One can have a casual conversation with just about anyone else but unless the two or more people have something deeper in common, it won't go much beyond that.

Um.. ok..First of all that's a little primitive sounding and irrelevant to what I've written above and second of all, specifically, I'm not sure why you believe that the criteria I've mentioned is rarely found in most people today and how the fact that people want to talk about a certain topic and want others to join in a converstation with them about it is somehow excluded and doesn't deduce/relate to what I said.

Not many people maintain eye contact.Not many people really listen but just want to talk their own things.Not many people do read between the lines.Not many people asked open ended question.Not many people display minimum nervous/off putting traits.
Is it rare now?

Good social skills involve sincere listening to other person's talking.Many people I talked to do not really have good listening skills like these.

Just curious.How old are u?

Maintaining eye contact obviously doesn't mean staring at the other person during the entire time of you interacting with them. The same sort of common sense applies to every other criteria I've mentioned and you've responded to- displaying a particular attribute during an interaction doesn't mean never ceasing to do so.

In a general sense, however, the issue as to how often the above criteria is present in people depends on who you most frequently interact with. People vary to the degree to which they display the above criteria- in some it's more apparent and shows through more frequently and in others less so. In my opinion, which is probably influenced by all of the people I interacted with, people are mostly average in every category though some are noticeably better than others in some or all of the criteria. Your opinion is also probably influenced via the people you've interacted with.
Specifically, in my opinion, if it were true that not many people do listen but only want to talk about what they like, then almost all interactions would generally be short, forced and ultimately meaningless when it would come to discussing the deeper issues of today.
I'm 19 if that matters.

 

[SilentThinker]

It seems like we're not really following the same drum beat here. I say one thing and you respond with something which is obviously true but nontheless isn't directly relevant to what I said. Attention plays a role in any interaction obviously but I was talking about the dynamics and the interaction between any single individual and the rest of the members of any group that they're part of. It's true however that sometimes an individual comes to a group through an individual that they ALREADY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH. As for your question.. I don't really get it.. Are you asking whether there'd be a difference in conversation between an individual interacting CASUALLY with the rest of the group as opposed to when they're carrying on a conversation which brushes upon common interests?
In this case- OBVIOUSLY. One can have a casual conversation with just about anyone else but unless the two or more people have something deeper in common, it won't go much beyond that.

Haha..It is my fault for not connecting the question.You said that a person is a member of a group because of a reciprocal relationship in place.But I also have other views like this:
If a person is a member of a group,does this mean that he interact well?
I said not really by stating that the attention is limited.

As for common interest,I said that other factors would also considered too.
Personality,closeness etc.
Common interest start a topic,but I do see that other factors like what I mentioned is considered.

Maintaining eye contact obviously doesn't mean staring at the other person during the entire time of you interacting with them. The same sort of common sense applies to every other criteria I've mentioned and you've responded to- displaying a particular attribute during an interaction doesn't mean never ceasing to do so.

In a general sense, however, the issue as to how often the above criteria is present in people depends on who you most frequently interact with. People vary to the degree to which they display the above criteria- in some it's more apparent and shows through more frequently and in others less so. In my opinion, which is probably influenced by all of the people I interacted with, people are mostly average in every category though some are noticeably better than others in some or all of the criteria. Your opinion is also probably influenced via the people you've interacted with.
Specifically, in my opinion, if it were true that not many people do listen but only want to talk about what they like, then almost all interactions would generally be short, forced and ultimately meaningless when it would come to discussing the deeper issues of today.
I'm 19 if that matters.

As for the question of eye contact-Of course,it is good to maintain eye contact but of course not to the extent of staring.
Anyway eye contact is simply telling the person that you are listening.

Interactions are not forced and meaningless if people only want to talk their topic.If no one starts a topic,you going to stare at one another.When topic are formed,people generally talked.

As for my opinion is influenced by the people I interacted with,I would say that it made up of 50%.
To be specific,it would be my understanding of relationships that is influenced by factors.

Cool.I am 17.