Social anxiety isn't about being liked
chrislakin.blog
chrislakin.blog
My closest groups of friends always make so much fun of each other. We make negative comments about the worst traits about each other, the things that we are most self-conscious about… yet every time my friends make fun of me for something I worry about, I actually feel better and more comfortable with myself.
When I thought about why, I realized it’s because of the hidden message behind the ridicule of my longtime friends; they are telling me, “we are keenly aware of the worst qualities about you, and we love you and want to spend time with you anyway.”
There is comfort in knowing you don’t have to hide your flaws to be accepted and loved.
And a follow up: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/09/friendship-is-still-co...
For instance, I've noticed a distinct difference in how sarcasm is received in the Northeast US vs the West Coast. What you described feels more Northeast-y to me (I'm sure it varies by other segments and sub-sub-cultures, too).
There's the saying: "If an Irish person calls you 'asshole,' it means they think you're a friend. If they call you 'friend' it means they think you're an asshole."
Not just for the Irish though, I don't think (:
Women observing this sometimes conclude that men are horribly cruel to each other.
If someone has experienced a lot of the later, it makes sense that they don't really trust the former.
With age Ive found myself much more comfortable with folks "being mean, but in a friendly way" as they intend it. When I was younger though, I never understood why folks didn't instead just "say the nice part." Like, if your friends are always glad you join them even if you're always late, making fun of you for being late with a big smile can still feel pretty bad for you. Much better to say "hey please don't be late" and also "we really enjoy you spending time with us."
With age Ive come to see that for reasons I don't understand, lots of folks have a massive aversion to saying clearly the things they appreciate about the people around them directly. Eh, their loss.
It's also sort of the same reason shows like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia are funny. When you're jokingly mean to a friend, you're being a bit of a caricature, an exaggeration. That's part of the fun of it, too. And why it can get a point across while keeping it light.
That said, I understand relationships are about give and take. I couldn't be in a romantic relationship like this, but I'll indulge my friends or my cousins. I have a friend who engages in "countersignaling" often. Our connection is generally worth the uncomfortableness, but sometimes it is unbearable.
It's very common for people to engage in the bullying, thinking that they are just ribbing; perhaps, never having experienced the safety that is required for ribbing.
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t funny people, or safe drivers, or great programmers. It also doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to KNOW you are funny, safe, or great at something.
It is a bit of a paradox, though, that right and wrong people can be equally certain.
If you ship code that blows up in production, you failed at programming. It doesn't necessarily make you a bad programmer in and of itself - everybody makes mistakes - but if you also refuse to acknowledge and own your error then that certainly suggests a lack of competence.
If you tell a joke that lands disastrously, you failed at comedy. It doesn't necessarily make you a bad comedian in and of itself - everybody makes mistakes - but if you also refuse to acknowledge and own your error then that certainly suggests a lack of competence.
I still don't understand why, for many people, that last point is so much harder to understand than the first two.
Then it is frequently just a public bullying of a victim. Bullying can be really fun and bonding activity for bullies. That is why many of them do it.
For example, if you make a public post on social media, your actual audience is effectively the whole world. If you wanted a smaller audience, you should not have chosen a public post on social media as your venue.
Would you mind being friends with someone like me? Or do you feel like engaging in that behavior at all, even if not directed at you, is enough to make you not want to be friends with them?
They never directed any of it at me because they were emotionally intelligent people, but even so, I did find it kind of annoying and off-putting - it was just a legitimate cultural difference.
The metaphor went something like this: men making fun of each other are actuall y showing that they understand their friends deeply, because they know how to stab without hitting an organ.
That is - in order to make fun of someone without actually hurting them, you have to know which kinds of topics not to touch for any given friend. You skip the "your mom" joke for the friend with parent issues, and so on.
On the other hand, though, I have very often see my fellow enginerd types badly misread this dynamic. I've seen guys come onto an established team where some mutual teasing has evolved, then fall flat when they try to emulate that it - because they haven't yet earned the depth of relationship that makes it OK.
It kind of reminds me of another "nerd social fallacy" I've often observed, which I guess I'd name: "I can't be a bully." I think a lot of times people who've grown up dealing with bullying don't realize when they've become one. Sometimes the mutual teasing degrades into one guy just being a dick to the other.
In my perception, the stereotypically female way is, if you're fat, nobody calls you fat. They're careful using the word around you. They might even tell you you're not fat. To me, that makes it seem like the friendship depends on the obvious lie that you're not fat, which makes it seem inevitable that it's going to end. One day they're going to make some acknowledgment of the evident truth that you're fat, and that's your signal that they're done with you and the friendship is over. To me, it feels like the truth is being kept in reserve for the day when they're going to shank you with it.
That's my (male) perspective. I'd rather have friends who acknowledge the truth about me and make me feel okay about it than friends who act like the truth about me isn't compatible with friendship and inclusion.
On an intellectual level, I get the (stereotypically) female perspective, too -- I get that it doesn't seem friendly to constantly remind someone of their shortcomings, and that a friend group should give someone an escape from oppressive social perceptions. But that doesn't resonate with me as much emotionally.
I think there is some truth to this old saying. If so, it would make sense that both sides find the way of the other side a bit off-putting.
They just don't mean for it to hurt, and that's the wholesome part. Every time they call you fat, they're showing you that it's okay with them that you're fat.
If you're fat, and your friends tell you you're not fat, then to me that implies that the truth is too awful to say, but for your sake they'll pretend you're a different person. Which to me seems like it really underscores that it's not actually okay to be the way you are.
You also see men say nice things they dont mean ... frequently to a women they then badmount or mock behind their backs.
I don't think it's OK or fine to be fat. It's a health risk. But I also don't think that "fat shaming" is OK either.
Weight, obviously, is nothing like this. It absolutely comes off like you're trying to be snarky.
Many men would disagree. Many women would also disagree.
Edit: I also thought that immutable characteristics where the ones we should be most sensitive towards
but yeah, that's a conversation i would have with my doctor, not an acquaintance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=women+are+just+horribly+crue...
There's also culture at play. I don't know if men affectionately dissing their friends is universal but there's plenty of related things like:
In Japanese culture you don't brag about co-workers or family to outsiders. Outsiders you treat with respect. Insiders you don't. The fact that you don't get the more polite treatment is proof that you're an insider. It's a common scene in stories where someone asks to stop being treated like an outsider by specifically asking for the less polite language. You can also watch the ribbing man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman. I don't know if there is data on which is more common.
Once they've had that fight, they both know who won, and their pecking order is established. Then life can go on with that settled.
fighters tend to respect fighters if they fight a clean fight
I have women friends who will play like this with me. It can reveal insights that neither of us were clear on without the other bringing it to light.
Of course it can be one sided too, and it turns into bullying. I think context matters and even if you’re being bullied, it’s still revealing if you are able to see beyond the emotion. You’re not your looks, your body, your mind, your bank account, your friend group, etc… Your worth is beyond these things. I hope you find that someday!
That's pretty insightful. I've had some friends I would tease and some I would never tease. People are different and relationships change over time. There's no one way to be with everybody all the time.
Sometimes those women are actually making very accurate observation about relationships of involved guys.
It is not exactly rare when "it was just a joke" is entirely dishonest and when went on was actually attempt to put down another guy.
I seek out the social groups where people try to help eachother and where most of the conversation is towards pushing a common goal or helping each other’s pursuits. That way someone saying something negative is a signal, and the negative can be addressed. You can only move fast and in the right direction with clear signaling. If the signal is diluted by people with low self esteem who would rather belittle those who do than do the doing, then you need to clear the signal.
The author muses that the situation of feeling safe playing status games with another person—that is, treating them only as games, not as serious and with real status in play—is perhaps the definition of what friendship is.
This could include trading barbs, taking turns playing the bully and the victim, trading playing "high" and "low" roles, jokey one-upsmanship, that kind of thing. Stuff you don't do with non-friends because there's too much risk of being taken seriously, and too much risk of losing actual status or of hurting someone else's status for-real when you didn't intend to.
Once you recognize status transactions ... they are absolutely everywhere, in every single interaction.
Let's say my nose was large, and a friend jokes about it. I need to say something back. And I could not think of anything. A low stakes situation becomes higher stakes than it needs to be.
So on their side they see me struggle and probably feel bad, so they don't do it again. But then we are just friends not best friends.
Curious how did you learn / practice this?
I've identified two approaches to this situation. One is to take the insult graciously, as though it's feedback:
"Careful: you could put someone's eye out with that!"
"Oh! Thanks for the reminder." (adjust the position of your head, as appropriate for your extremely large and dangerous nose)
---
The other is to take whatever they said, and exaggerate it. This produces really good comebacks. (It's important to insist upon this point, regardless of any evidence you might receive to the contrary.)
"Careful: you could put someone's eye out with that!"
"Oh, could I? Well, your entire face is bad."
If they respond with another insult, repeat the same strategy. They'll notice what you're doing after the second or third attempt, and then it will turn from "this person's bad at comebacks" into "this person's (pretending to be) bad at comebacks and it's funny".
"My face is bad? Is that the best you could come up with?"
"Your face is so bad that it makes everyone else's faces bad, too."
"But… that means your face is also bad."
"And whose fault is that? It's your fault. Specifically, the fault of your face. Which is bad."
"Still means you've got a big nose."
"Well you've got a small nose."
"No I don't. We've got the same sized noses."
"Thus invalidating your previous aspersion that my nose is unusually large. Who's bad at comebacks now?"
"Still you."
---
There's a third approach, if the insult is disguised as faux-concern: pretend you're taking it seriously, while exaggerating the characteristic they're concerned about.
"Hey, you having trouble seeing past that, mate?"
"Oh, no, it's alright: most of my vision is unobstructed." / "I've got some tape in my bag if I need it." / "It's no worse than binoculars."
In case anyone is out of the loop, these are both lines from an eminently quotable Seinfeld episode (The Comeback, S8E13) that perfectly encapsulates the concept of l'esprit d'escalier, which I’m not sure has a direct English translation in common terms, but is a sort of loan word in my parlance, but I’ll admit I have studied French in secondary school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Comeback_(Seinfeld)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier
> L'esprit de l'escalier or l'esprit d'escalier (lit. 'staircase wit') is a French term used in English for the predicament of thinking of the perfect reply too late.
Now that Curb Your Enthusiasm has wrapped, I could go for a rewatch of Seinfeld, as I can’t think of a better coda to Curb than a return to the roots from which Larry David’s own show sprang.
Hope springs eternal, and both Seinfeld and Curb are wry reminders that every silver lining has its cloud. I’ll take the rain.
I seriously doubt they will. “Your entire face is bad” sounds like lashing out from a place of hurt. Typical response would probably be a confused or disgusted look followed by a change of topic.
There are not a lot of people who could pull this kind of response off without coming off extremely weird or like assholes. And none of the people who could pull this off successfully are asking for comeback advice on Hacker News.
I would think a better response for someone who does not know how to naturally respond to these sorts of playful insults would be to just absorb it goodnaturedly. “Haha, yep. I get this big nose from my dad.” Instead of continuing banter that is awkward, end it in a friendly way and move on.
Childlore isn't well documented online, but in my part of the world, "your face" was the orphan-friendly equivalent of "your mom". It is well-understood to be an extremely bad comeback in the circles I frequent: I've not known anyone to misunderstand it. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
This gave me quite a chuckle. Reads like a comeback from GPT-2 =P
A proper comeback in this scenario perverts the characteristic into a positive trait, with some added denigration.
"That's what lets me keep a wide berth from your mom, I can smell her a mile away".
I also always start and focus on myself; I make jokes at my own expense often. A big part of my personality is a strange juxtaposition of bravado and self deprecation. I will joke about how amazing I am and how much of a failure I am at the same time.
It seems to work? I think people like me, generally? I don’t know man, I just wing it! I have no idea what I am doing, but I am also pretty great at not knowing what I am doing.
When played with allies, it connects you to each other and lets you put your guard down (which is perverse to those that don't get it).
The same game played with an enemy teaches you to deflect rather than internalize bad-faith insults and teaches you to use wit and words to stand up for yourself, keeping your dignity without violence.
...
Also it's a demonstration of equality.
e.g. you can't play the game with your boss or your son, but you can play it with your brother and your peers.
Maybe I've interpreted it as "I'm better than you, because you're doing X. I'm mentioning this over and over again, because it makes me feel better."
That sounds terrible. A candid conversation about our flaws is one thing. IME 'friends' who most often mock each other are just trying to elevate their status in the group, by pushing others down.
They are no longer in my life. I don't miss them even a little bit!
On the other hand, I have ~3 friends I made as an adult that I have been talking to very frequently (with some, daily), for a decade or so, and there, any level of ribbing is fine.
I don't think it's about us knowing each other's worst qualities and being fine with it, as a lot of our banter is on things we can't change about ourselves. I think it's just a matter of trust.
Social anxiety is a condition that cannot be thought away, you cannot rationalize social anxiety nor can it be represented as a cost/benefit analysis of risk of being disliked vs. reward of being liked. You can feel socially anxious without having social anxiety. You can be depressed without having depression. You will be depressed after your beloved pet dies. You will be socially anxious walking into a room full of people you haven't met before.
For example the DSM definition https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519712/table/ch3.t12/ or the Mayo Clinic explainer page https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/social-anxiet....
I think what this blog post is getting at is describing for people the difference between fear of negative evaluation and positive desire to be liked.
One thing the post misses is that sometimes these are learned behaviors that come from a lifetime of experience being disliked for no obvious reason. For example, sometimes outgoing autistic children develop social anxiety after their peers reject them repeatedly.
As a middle-aged woman who can't figure out what the benefits would be that would outweigh the costs of pursuing formal diagnosis at this stage, I related a lot harder to that line than I wanted to.
I've always been extraverted. I always do fine in new interactions, because I'm chronically interested in anything I don't already know well, especially if someone else is passionate about it. Most of my first meetings with people quickly become conversations where I'm listening attentively and asking interested questions about some niche thing they love and their friends and family members are sick of hearing about. I get stellar reviews on initial conversations at unstructured social events.
And yet I spend the vast majority of my time at home by myself because after about the fourth interaction, something about me registers as "off" to other people and they start to distance themselves from me. I have never understood why.
I'm not socially anxious, at least not in the typical "can't get out and meet new people" way. I just can't take the never-ending hope-rejection loop anymore.
I’m not sure it would be helpful, but have you tried asking anyone?
As a teenager, with standard-issue high-function ASD eye-contact aversion: fake it, by looking only at the bridges of people's noses.
After learning, from doing theatre, that vulnerability is amazing, actually, and eye-contact is powerful: try for it, by looking fixidly at one of their eyes.
After being told by a kind friend, in my early twenties, that I had a "staring problem": shift focus between both of their eyes.
Soon after: figure out that you're supposed to look away from their eyes sometimes.
Since: try to pick up and match their gaze-rhythm. I still have difficulty doing this with some people: there are folks who don't seem to have a rhythm. I don't get them!
My wife told me a few weeks ago that when we first got together (over a decade ago) that the times I forgot to mask - during sex, specifically - sufficiently weirded her out that it's why she broke up with me (for about twenty minutes, lol; she reconsidered on her own). Now, bless her, she says she likes it when I "stare", because she says she knows it means I'm comfortable with her and feeling relaxed.
I've got other peculiarities - and some I haven't noticed yet, I'm sure! - but that's a big one, and how I've dealt with it. I hope that helps someone.
And, yes, when the typical outcome is exclusion without any reason, or without a reason that you have any control over (such as that bully, people don't want to be around the targets because it might spill onto them) what else would you expect?
It's not just a fear, it's "persistent and intense fear". and like most psychological disorders, a key part of the definition includes "a negative impact on the person's functioning in daily life".
Like OP said, fear of being embarrassed is entirely normal and healthy response. It's not social anxiety nor a psychiatric disoder.
It's not different than OCD, phobias, etc. They can all be entirely normal responses. What makes them a disorder is the level of intensity and the impact on the person's life.
Most social anxiety is not debilitating, and would not meet the diagnosis. This is why therapists receive so much training - you must encounter enough people with a truly debilitating fear that you know when to diagnose it.
I hope not, I don't want to be hooked on some prescription meds eg. what about exposure therapy
I do wonder if being nervous to talk to a hot girl is the same as social anxiety I mean I'm not the jock/main attention guy either but I can talk to strangers (guys or not attractive women)
If you think you’re suffering rises to the medical treatable level please develop a more serious condition before getting on a waitlist. All doctors are taken up on your non-physical problems and you don’t immediately need care like I do.
You'll experience *grief* after a pet dies. We've pathologizing grief to a point that it makes it harder for those experiencing both grief and depression, two separate (but sometimes linked) human conditions.
https://undark.org/2022/07/21/the-hidden-dangers-of-patholog...
inb4 we live in a society etc
That is not true in plain English, just because a particular profession decides to use words one way, does not mean the definitions change for the rest of us.
This is a particular pain in physics, which has taken very commonly used words and given them a very narrowly defined meaning, within a strict framework - like the words Energy or Work
Exactly this. The article conflates normal social nervousness with an actual disorder, then provides a reframe that may help with nervousness (?) but completely misunderstands the clinical condition.
IMO it's a useful first step, as a major facet of treating anxiety disorders with CBT involves challenging negative thoughts and beliefs and replacing them with positive alternatives.
Properly understanding that your anxious lizard brain is (successfully) trying to protect you from the threat of being disliked helps reframe that behavior in a positive light.
Psychiatrists are way better equipped to diagnose these things not because they can read diagnostic manuals (anyone can) but because their training exposes them to real cases.
There’s a world of difference between feeling awkward and quiet at a social event vs having heart palpitations and panic attacks that prevent you from even going outside.
I do not think people would not like me, I do not try to avoid people disliking me, that's not the point at all. Quite the opposite, I'm sure I'm an interesting person and I'm confident people would like me if I could take the step.
Problem is, there is something that physically prevents me from saying "Hi!" to a stranger. I literally cannot get myself to take a step towards them and I can't explain why that is, because I do not understand it myself.
Also quite interestingly (to me), this completely goes away under certain circumstances: (1) If I take around 2-3 units of alcohol and it is not a totally alien environment (it would not help if I was in a bar alone with complete strangers). (2) If more than about 70% of people in the room are people I know well. Then I do not feel anxious about approaching the remaining 30%.
For me though, it takes more than a few beers to be comfortable approaching someone. I'd have to be completely sloshed and even then it's a struggle.
The only time I didn't experience the seemingly physical barrier was in college when a friend convinced me to try MDMA and we went out. I became almost the exact opposite of who I am with the social anxiety. I was the most extraverted, outgoing person in our group quite literally chatting up anyone and everyone that I crossed paths with without any care or inhibition around it.
No other pharmaceutical has been able to cure it for me like that, and it's a bit depressing because I liked that version of myself and I'd like to be able to be that person again without an incredibly dangerous illegal substance.
Yes, but regular long time use can lead to memory impediments.
My wife is exact opposite. She is an introvert who does not have a problem with approaching people. Relationships drain her energy, she can't chat to even a close friend for more than a couple of hours, but approaching a complete stranger when necessary or she wants to? That's not a problem for her at all, she just does not usually want it, and she loves her alone times.
For me it happened on its own and I realized I was fine with who I was flaws and all. Yeah I get disappointed in myself or whatever but it was just getting comfortable in my own skin over the years that seemed to mostly fix stuff like this.
Also a lot of observing the anxiety and then after it subsided realizing I don't have enough time to worry about everyone else like I was assuming people worry about me.
Sorry for the rambling it's late. Anyway wish you best of luck out there :)
So, you want to avoid both being disliked, but also being liked - because this puts you in novel situations you fear lead to an even bigger failure down the road.
It's less that I need them to like me or fear being disliked and more that I am just way too conscious of the stakes and the social interaction that's happening, which causes my brain to sort of freeze up. It feels like when I used to play tennis in high school. I'd do great at practice, then freeze up and barely remember how to hit the ball in games because the stakes on each point felt so high.
If I'm around some good friends it completely goes away. If I have hung around the person enough (even without directly talking to them), it goes away. I've also had random days where I don't feel the performance anxiety and performed really well in those situations (and coincidentally some of those days I'd meet a new group of friends or a girlfriend). It's extremely frustrating. Xanax makes the performance anxiety go away completely but slows me down cognitively so I become much less witty and interesting to talk to.
The problem isn't really being liked or not being liked, the problem is the cognitive overload of trying to predict what will happen and respond to it in realtime, which is sure to set in when one's mental model of the potential interaction is very uncertain. Of course, if your brain quits in a conversation, the other person is not going to be very impressed with you, so this kind of failure carries social risk itself.
The way to fix this is to have as many interactions which are bearable as possible so as to build out the mind's mental model of itself and others in social situations. Gradually the danger just fades away. There's no substitute for firsthand experience; no amount of premeditating, ruminating, or brooding will fix this.
I think is a big piece. I have social anxiety and I have a tendency not to answer with what I'm thinking but what I think they want to hear because it's more predictable. This gets amplified tenfold in interviews. In an interview, I know that they're looking for a specific answer when they ask a question, but also that the answer differs from interviewer to interviewer. It's like there's this sub-process that is constantly running trying to figure out what to say, but in some situations it ends up locking up the system because it's using too many resources due to the constraints.
Every chapter has exercises that help deal with social anxiety
Even doing just the 3 basic recommendations in the intro can be very impactful
Keto does a lot to the neurotransmitters in the brain and it clearly balances out things for me and I feel no social anxiety at all.
I’m sure cognitive tricks work for some people. They mostly had the opposite effect on me in the long term. I would encourage people to not buy into it too much
Every new school, new job, new environment has been a struggle until I made friends in natural ways (either I had to wait someone approached me, or it has been through activities like shared home work etc.)
But moving to a new country has been a disaster in terms of relationships. I'm already very anxious, but I now need to approach people in a foreign language and there's no school-like environment where relationships form naturally. Clubs and events do not help as they are at most an hour a week so nothing like the school.
I am sure there are many people like me, but I doubt it is the majority. I am just back from my kids birthday and as far as I could see, among 20, there were only one or two other adults who did not speak to anyone, majority somehow has less challenge.
This is why cognitive behavior therapy can help many people. With a trained professional, you uncover the reasons why you developed the response. Once you know the thinking pattern that drives the response, you can work on changing those thinking patterns.
I've done CBT before and it's been quite helpful.
Tangentially related, I have for some time had a desire to write short stories, but the anxiety around revealing anything that might expose my inner self is probably the biggest reason why I don't.
I was reading a collection of short stories yesterday and came upon Michael Swanwick's "Slow Life". It struck me that it shares more than a few similarities to his "The Very Pulse of the Machine": Woman astronaut on a moon in the outer solar system is placed in lethal danger, encounters alien intelligence that communicates by reading/influencing minds, she isn't sure whether the communication is genuine or hallucinated, eventually the alien intelligence provides a long-shot resolution to save her. Maybe Swanwick just had another story to tell with some of the same beats. It happens. Or maybe it's like bare feet in a Tarantino movie. The point is, the idea of someone examining my own stories and thinking such thoughts about me is extremely distressing. It's not being disliked that I try to avoid. I'm trying to avoid the baseline stress of social interaction.
I recognize the irony of opening up about this in writing. If you have something to say _about me_, please don't.
The human mind is not really designed to handle under-socialization well, and seems to fill in the empty space with imaginary figures which fail to meet its social needs. Taken outside its natural tribal operating regime, it bugs out in all kinds of strange ways.
> the idea of someone examining my own stories and thinking such thoughts about me is extremely distressing
This is a very familiar feeling to me, and in my experience it actually is a fear of being disliked, or more specifically about not being able to control others' reactions to me. But the fear is so great and unapproachable that the mind cordons it "out of sight" of conscious feeling.
It becomes better to not be thought of than to expose myself to the possibility of others seeing me poorly, especially if I'm not able to defend myself and make the case for my being seen with grace. I suspect that it is over-exposure to human meanness and judgement and under-exposure to kindness and grace which brings about this expectation of others' dispositions towards oneself; this perhaps is the reason for the Christian injunction that humans not judge one another--it guards against this particular failure mode of the social mind.
That's it. Leaving you in peace now. Peace!
The vast majority of people who interact with you in any way, think about you extremely little or not at all beyond the moment of interaction.
We just don't play nearly as big a role in other peoples' lives as we sometimes imagine.
It's the observant and introspective people among us who believe otherwise. Most people are neither.
Is the person who wrote the post qualified to say this though? Like are these statements the result of scientific research or just his opinion like my opinion?
It seems some in the comments resonate and some disagree. So its somewhat useful.
One thing i feel missing is the anxiety part of social anxiety. The way the brain colors vague or unclear external (social) signals in default negative ways, in a feedback loop.
Not avoiding being disliked or seeking being liked, but simply being unable to quantity it correctly.
If someone came to me and tried to mentor me about unlearning my discomfort with being disliked, I would feel like I'm being manipulated and I would make sure to avoid that person.
I’d prefer to avoid being disliked - or at any rate, disliked without good reason - but as you say, that’s mostly because then I’d be wasting even more of my time managing interactions with (or more likely avoiding interactions with) those who dislike me. My god what a waste of energy, how I abhor it.
But it’s interesting to think that when people like you, they tend to want more from you and that leads to social obligations. And you can either go along with these social obligations or decline and come off as rude.
So in a sense, social connections give people some amount of control over your life and that can feel restricting and draining sometimes.
Even something as simple as a text message can be thought of as a task that someone gave you without your consent. And if you don’t respond within a certain time window then you’re rude and risk damaging the relationship. Or if you respond poorly that can damage it as well.
Sometimes I wonder if this is social anxiety or just being extra aware of the realities of life.
Just as one example, when I'm interacting with someone who I haven't reached a certain level of comfortability with, I'm highly aware of and sensitive to their reactions to me in terms of what they're saying, their tone, their micro facial expressions, etc., and I perceive any small negative reaction as a sign that they don't like me. This usually isn't true! But it ironically has the effect of inducing self-sabotaging avoidant behaviors in me, such as over-censoring of what I say and just general awkwardness around them, which makes it much more likely they will end up disliking me.
Author is trying to frame social anxiety as "rational risk aversion"; it's not. Social anxiety isn't a strategy— it's your brain misfiring and treating normal social interactions as more serious threats. It's not about being liked. It's not about being disliked. At all. Reframing avoidance as "successfully avoiding dislike" just repackages the dysfunction with a motivational poster.
One of the concepts in the book is being comfortable with being disliked. If instead you're trying to avoid being disliked, you're effectively subject to other people's whims.
When you look at it from that perspective, that's a pretty stressful experience!
OP here. I address that in How I'd rewrite The Courage to be Disliked: https://chrislakin.blog/courage
A good example of what I mean is your first suggestion, choosing a less triggering explanation for teleology. The idea of trigger words as we understand them, and the need to shield people from them, is not a universal cultural phenomenon. The suggestion feels a bit like visiting a country where they drive on the left side of the road and suggesting they try and drive on the right instead. Maybe the suggestion is good! But maybe not, without cultural context, the suggestion reads mostly like just asking for things to be made more familiar to you.
I personally liked the intellectual aspect of it, though I also agree that the emotional component should be there as well.
Fair warning, I'm American and I realize you are European, and there are obvious cultural differences that may be at play.
The main problem I have with you is the attitude. Very black-and-white thinking, as if you seemingly just know everything, about everything, which I don't think can be true for anybody really.
I think it makes you actually appear less intelligent, although it is obvious that you are intelligent, but it makes people think things like "pshh what does this guy know, acting like he wrote the book on this subject". But lower intelligence people are masters of black-and-white thinking, and see constructive feedback as criticism, unable to use it to improve themselves, which I don't think you want to be seen as.
Of course, there are people who criticize because they're haters and get a kick out of it. Despite their hatred, their criticism may still be valid.
But most of your comments IMO just seem to be very matter-of-fact, often seemingly blind to important context/nuances that make the answer not really as simple as you make it sound. And when people ask for sources, you often do not respond. I don't think I've ever seen you admit you were wrong either.
In fact this is the biggest problem I have with people in general (not just you), this kind of dogmatism, the black and white thinking. To me it shows a lack of empathy and humility, often those people are also very quick to anger, and I think it shows a lack of critical thinking, as if you somehow have all the answers and are infallible, that there can be no other possible valid perspectives or opinions, I think this is a rampant problem on IRC/the Internet and indeed life in general.
I also notice that a lot of your comments get downvoted, which I assume may be a combination of both unpopular opinions (or that they are stated in a way people disagree with), and just haters that will always downvote certain people.
All that being said, I realize I'm not perfect either, and I have absolutely fallen trap to all these same things and more, and for anyone who I have wronged by it, I apologize.
A lot of things actually are black and white, but people invent shades in them in order to avoid having to admit there's a problem without a solution. I've been accused of black and white thinking many times, almost never has the accuser been able to actually show a nuance to the situation.
My issue is with people who take this to the extreme and apply it to the vast majority of their responses, the so-called "know-it-alls" that Dunning & Kruger told us about.
I think if we want to be seen as truly intelligent, we need to have much more humility and empathy, and accept that we can't know everything about everything, and not try to act like we do.
> almost never has the accuser been able to actually show a nuance to the situation
I accept that that has been your experience, but I don't think it applies to everyone, not even close, and I think it also doesn't mean that they were wrong, they may just be unable to articulate a better response than you.
The followup book is worth reading as well.
Different but related: Not Nice, by Aziz Gazipura.
There is nothing else left to be considered as your absolute existence outside of how you relate with the world.
This is one of the bleakest, most discouraging comments I think I've ever read, and it's hard for me (in a sad way) to believe anyone might actually mean it.
If a thing can't be described, it simply doesn't exist.
This social anxiety pattern can be reinforced over time with negative or even neutral experiences, particularly through childhood. The system becomes attuned to unpleasant confirming evidence. Some brains may be particularly prone to this too.
I think this explanation is consistent with all the experiences people are sharing in this thread. The core model at work is still the social rejection system, even if the exact behaviours and rationalisations you have are a little different.
And the treatment is exposure therapy to get more neutral and positive experiences. Which can be very hard because your brain can be very strongly configured to avoid rejection. You may have to start very gently from steps which may not be particularly challenging (e.g. have a friend in a new coffee shop).
Gangs of humans are dangerous if you don't know them, historically. Murderously dangerous. Hobbes is right, society is a thin veneer.
A book "How to attract women through honesty" by Mark Manson (I think the only book in dating genre I recommend without some caveats, and recommend regardless on one's gender or orientation) has a lot about insecurity vs security (or: neediness vs non-neediness).
There was one passage that although most insecure people are in this "I don't want be hated" or "let anyone like/love me", there are also some people that are obsessed with everyone liking them. It has some different symptoms, but also stems from insecurity.
I guess you know friends (or maybe you are one yourself) who play too hard to be liked by everyone. Also, there is an interesting case of super-popular people, who are super-needy, even though at the first glance they don't look so. What's is characteristic, though, it is that everything starts to fall apart when they lose their spotlight. (Think about actors or musicians who, after they are no longer as popular as they used to be, drown in depression and drugs.)
I have always struggled in social settings where I people will be attending whom I've met on multiple but infrequent prior occasions - and I will recognize that I know them from somewhere but will be unable to place them or their name.
This has happened for 40 years when I see my wife's cousins at funerals every 2-3 years (but otherwise never see them). They are so friendly and nice. Smiling and hugging me. But they have to realize that I am never able to use their name because I can't remember it - nor am I able to make inquiries about work or life because I remember nothing about them.
The same happens when I, as a middle manager, travel for multiple day business trips to the home office.
It is incredibly embarrassing which causes me to avoid such settings which in turn makes me seem aloof and unfriendly.
Write down some names and notes about people. Re-read them when you're traveling to a place where you're likely to encounter them. Just writing the notes might be enough to solidify the memories for you, but re-reading surely will.
Salespeople do this to feign familiarity, and it's artificial. Don't do that. People you see every few years will not expect you to remember their kids' names or birthdays.
Specifics are often too intimate. But starting with their names, and building on with the simulation of a general memory or two (e.g. "are you still doing a lot of traveling for work?") are fine.
Idk you hear these phrases all the time excelsior, shoot for the stars land in the moon, etc... gotta actually apply it
Tangent about drugs I wish I felt like I did when on the snow all the time damn, what a great mindset like anything is possible, same with adhd meds but I can see how it would be bad too not having fear/self doubt eg. "I'm gonna jump off this building and land over there", over confidence
Oh this was about 10 yrs ago I was partaking I'm not in that env anymore where I can easily source stuff, now it's just alochol
I wish it was more commonly accepted that choosing not to act is effectively a stand against one's own value system in favor of the value systems of those who do act.
Also some fixation with a person/ small group of people in particular and trying to win them over. The less socially anxious people cast a big net and that will cause people who'd like them and dislike them but the net is so big that they simply stick with those who like them.
This cognitive fallacy connecting deepness / seriousness to substance, and connecting playfulness to triviality and frivolity has unfortunately affected me (I remember arguing it in high school English class!)
Consciously adopting a "playful" attitude fixes my social anxiety, and adds charisma and humor to my character.
Learning to be superficial in superficial situations is a good way to fake your way through social anxiety. It isn't necessarily rewarding in itself, but it does smooth over some otherwise awkward scenarios.
Maintaining the balance is critical, and an important aspect of social maturity.
(It's a waste of time, yes! But being comfortable with a little bit of social inefficiency is essential to casual interactions which often have beneficial repercussions.)
Really? I've never come across that idea. If fact, in my experience 'social anxiety' is almost always driven by the fear of failure, not the ambition of uncertain success.
I would counter that the opposite of 'social anxiety' - 'social vanity' - is more indicative of a deep desire to be liked.
At the end of the day you can only be sure that you are judging yourself. There's nothing else it could be about.
As someone who was extensively bullied as a kid, including with physical violence, my social anxiety went through the roof and it has taken me a long time and awareness of my trauma to heal from those wounds to the point I no longer have social anxiety.
The world is sadly full of miserable cruel people who want to put me down so they can no longer have to deal with their own feelings of inferiority. I have made friends who truly love me for who I am, who give me space to talk, who do not constantly put me down in cruel ways (yes, I once had “friends” like that), and who truly care about my feelings, but it has taken a lot of work to get there. I can now sniff out someone who is starting to engage in bullying behavior, and block them from being in my life.
> Why else would someone be so anxious about how others see them?
The scientific consensus would tell the author that judgement in humans happens already the moment they see a person and it is immediate, even if the person not doing anything:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40700
>across three studies, we find that first impressions [...] made from thin slices of real-world social behavior by typically-developing observers are not only far less favorable across a range of trait judgments compared to controls
Edit:
Okay this was completely misunderstood. My point was that the "normal" people in the study immediately internally know if to like or not like a person. Hence why first impressions DO matter the most. Which is why I simply disagree with the argument in the OP that anyone has control over their perception.
You also cannot win people over if the most respected person in a group dislikes you. The others will follow boot.
The article is definitely a mental health topic. A little harmless stage fright before a presentation is not real clinical generalized anxiety and affects most normal people.
I think there's a good question about whether people can tell you're anxious at a glance but worrying about that will make your anxiety much more visible.
Which is why I linked the nature article? It's plain obvious an interesting point I tried to make that "normal" people will instantly perceive someone as likeable or unlikeable. Which the article in the OP goes great lengths to discuss.
I mean I can live with people immediately going against my point, I just see they didn't even gave it 5 minutes of thought. Which is not necessarily directed at you, I cannot possibly convince anyone and reply to anyone at the same time.
I still think you are making a point that feels orthogonal to the article. The author presents (supported by public expressions of the opinion) that some people believe social anxiety is based on wanting to be liked. While to that point your study indicating that autistic people may be at a disadvantage on the getting people to like them front, the author is then rejecting that proposition (i.e. that the socially anxious are actually concerned about avoiding dislike). I suppose your point can be understood relevant there too, in that for the autistic population, the baseline "disliked" level is higher. However, the article remains about the internal focus of those with social anxiety (whether it over generalizes or not) between "liked" and "not disliked" which seems orthogonal to any baseline "likability" considerations for one or any other sub-population.
[edit: s/"liked" level is lower/"disliked" level is higher/ for higher congruence with context]
Citation needed.