Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsotha | Hacker News Reader

He didn't realize it would be a problem in the beginning. After that I think he was just afraid to move away from the people he knew.

I've thought a lot about what I would do in that position, and came to the same conclusion you did. The right thing to do probably would have been to move far away, live simply, and take up a hobby so he could meet people on an equal footing.

Of course, it's easy to decide how other people can fix their lives :)

View on HN

"move far away, live simply, and take up a hobby"

Why not just live among people and make friends with people in the same income bracket or assets or higher?

That's a possibility too. I was thinking it would be more difficult, since he might have run into the whole new rich/old rich thing. He would have been perfectly happy living in a suburban tract home, and that's the type of person he grew up with, so I was thinking that would be the easiest.

Besides, you have fewer choices if your pool of potential friends is rich people.

"you have fewer choices if your pool of potential friends is rich people"

How many friends does someone need?

I don't see any evidence that wealthy people or upper middle class have any problems friend wise.

Not only that but nothing prevents them from mingling with anyone even a lower "status" if you want to call it that.

How many friends does someone need?

About 150: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbars_number

But they don't all have to be real friends. The interesting thing about Dunbar's number is that it also suggests that people strive to make these 150 relationships even when there are not enough people around (i.e. that's why some people care for celebrities and forge online relationships when real life friends are not enough)

Dunbar's number isn't that simple. It's more like you have an upper limit of 150 person-sized points. You can allocate 50 to one person and only have 100 leftover for more casual acquaintances, for instance.

Dunbar's number refers to group sizes, not friend counts.

Dunbar's number is an upper limit. What's the lower limit?

From zero to one is a quantum leap - you go from "alone, no one to talk to" to "can talk honestly and frankly with someone". That's the biggest step. Beyond that, of course it enriches your life, but the first friend is the most important.

I don't suspect the earlier poster meant that the person should move to the wilderness, just far enough away to "make a new start."

That's what he said, you simply didn't read to the end

  so he could meet people on an equal footing.

"you simply didn't read to the end"

I did.

He said:

"The right thing to do probably would have been to move far away, live simply, and take up a hobby so he could meet people on an equal footing."

The fact that the above sentence says "live simply" and "take up a hobby" seems to contradict the notion that he should try to take up with people who are equal in wealth which was the issue being discussed.

I said

"live among people"

which is not the same as

"move far away"

and

"live simply"

is not the same as

"make friends with people in the same income bracket or assets or higher"

It's the taking up that's being done on an equal footing (i.e. the friendships are free from the wealth-disparity baggage); it's not that the people have the same amount of wealth.

Or get a normal day job, even if you don't need it. It provides social comfort. It works.

do you think he had aspergers?

I'm curious why you ask this question. What would either answer imply?

It's going to be hard to fairly tease the effects of having Asperger's syndrome on making friends apart from the effects of wealth, fame, and power.

No idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com