The Struggle Is Real

[sweetkamie20]

meaning you might be able to develop a form of summarizing what your "clients" say, so they feel understood, but without having to go as deep emotionally yourself. Possibly because then you might be able to concentrate more on the conversation technique rather than taking it in.

I love this insight. If I can do that I can engage with less trepidation. Food to chew on

 

[sweetkamie20]

it got too much for yourself,

Yyyeeessss

turning to people instead of turning away invites their hearts to open, but also their chasms.

I love people and at one time wasn't bitter towards brokenness. And I do believe in loving even "the unlovely". We do go above and beyond to show Love and I think you're right. People see that genuine acceptance.

I find it possible to select how far I go with whom, even in random situations....

I need to dream up a version of myself like that. I will have to be changed a lot to make it work. When it's incidental encounters it happens so fast that you're thrust into the moment. The homeless lady I spoke of I had just met, she shared how she became a Christian and asked for prayer because xyz. She said something onky people that work with very damaged souls would believe.

I'm gonna have to figure something out for my hubs sake. Reenvision myself for 2023.

But to others you know and can assess well?

We don't get to know anyone well enough to want to pursue friendship with nor even assess besides, I truly like myself, my companionship with myself . I am my second best friend! . I'm gonna have to explore these ideas some more. There's definitely a way to do it. Just need cooperation

 

[JayCS]

I need to dream up a version of myself like that. I will have to be changed a lot to make it work. When it's incidental encounters it happens so fast that you're thrust into the moment. The homeless lady I spoke of I had just met, she shared how she became a Christian and asked for prayer because xyz. She said something onky people that work with very damaged souls would believe.
I'm gonna have to figure something out for my hubs sake. Reenvision myself for 2023.
We don't get to know anyone well enough to want to pursue friendship with nor even assess besides, I truly like myself, my companionship with myself . I am my second best friend! .

The technique of putting troubles in a box at the back of your head comes to mind. People with faith can praps "offer" it to God (or similar) to take care of all they can't (and can).

Finding possible common ground instead of just doing it for him might be a good start?

Feeling companionship and friendship for yourself is a wonderful resource. It reminds me that mindfulness, feeling at peace with myself and thus resting in myself now very much helps me to not let things get to me as much. I notice this strikingly when I see animal corpses on the road which used to totally throw me out of myself, very dangerous in vehicles. Now I still feel and pray for them (like every time I hear sirens), but resting in myself builds up a distance, where I no longer "become them" (by proxy) or getting pulled out of myself, instead of remaining myself. That self-help is more helpful than too much empathy with which we become the victim by proxy ourselves which robs our strength/power to calmly & firmly help. Empathy should entice, but not take over.

 

[sweetkamie20]

Oooo I do have this same experience of overempathy. And feeling bad when an animal or insect has suffered. Hmmm pretty much all pain of any kind. Just spent 3 hours watching YouTube videos that all made me cry . Blubbered prayers out for mankind cuz of all the hurt in the world. Estrogen fluctuation just amplifies the empathy to a whole new level! sheesh!

My hubs wants more socialization, so for him I will invest in figuring it out. But should I want to socialize more for myself? I socialize with family, hubs, you guys, etc. . Isn't that enough? And I go to church and Bible study some, too!

 

[JayCS]

Just spent 3 hours watching YouTube videos that all made me cry . Blubbered prayers out for mankind

Ouch, what an ordeal! I definitely need to avoid that. Enough a few ones that make me wax nostalgic.

My hubs wants more socialization, so for him I will invest in figuring it out. But should I want to socialize more for myself? I socialize with family, hubs, you guys, etc. . Isn't that enough? And I go to church and Bible study some, too!

No, no, more socializing than that wouldn't be "better" for you. But praps there's some activity you've always wanted to increase which does involve people in a way that is better for him. (I dunno, something like the arts, music?) So you'd be in it for the activity, he for the people.

 

[cookiebaker]

Just spent 3 hours watching YouTube videos that all made me cry . Blubbered prayers out for mankind cuz of all the hurt in the world.

why do you do that to yourself?
There should be plenty of things to watch that would not make you cry, so why watch the ones that do?

Be picky, and for heavens sake, get off youtube.. I have found they keep shoving stuff at me that I am not the least bit interested in, so I only really go there when I know a specific channel that I am interested in has new content up, or will be live. If you are looking for something specific, then yeah, youtube can be useful, but the random "recommendations" are usually garbage, or detrimental to one's mental well being.

There are plenty of other sources of entertainment out there.. I use tubitv quite a bit.. it is free. plenty of movies, and tv series stuff to keep one occupied, and it is always changing..

 

[sweetkamie20]

Thx for the tips! I'll check out tubitv. I need a new source for entertainment

 

[sunkacola]

I want to reiterate once again how tremendously important it is for human beings to have healthy interactions with other humans on a regular basis, regular meaning whatever works best for you, but I think at least 2 times per week is a good start.

I do not agree with this.
Again, any blanket statement that says "human beings" need or want to should have or do any given thing is never going to be accurate, unless you are talking about air, food, and water. And putting some arbitrary number on this human interaction you say all human beings need like "twice a week" is also not accurate nor, I think, helpful.

I am not going to go into my own personal situation or stories here. But I can say with absolute certainty that it is not necessary for a human being to do, or to have, or to be, any one thing in particular, or any particular set of things, in order to be healthy or happy or perfectly well adjusted to their own life.

Not all people need human interaction on a regular basis and for some twice a week would be odious. This also changes during different periods of time in a person's life. We do not always need or want the same things all of our lives.

Just as different animals have different kinds of intelligence, and it's not reasonable to say that this one here is dumb, since that animals is perfectly suited to their environment and plenty smart enough to live and do what needs to be done, it is equally unfair to lump human beings together.

Yes, we are a social animal as opposed to those who are more solitary in nature, in general. But what suits any individual is just that - individual. And no one but the person living in that head and that life knows what that individual needs. Many people do not need or want what the majority do. That doesn't mean they are in denial about their needs or that they don't know what they are doing.

I truly wish people would think twice (or three times) before making statements about what "everyone" needs, wants, or should be or do or have.

 

[JayCS]

I want to reiterate once again how tremendously important it is for human beings to have healthy interactions with other humans on a regular basis, regular meaning whatever works best for you, but I think at least 2 times per week is a good start.

I can imagine a small minority of ... .adults ... praps being able to remain healthy despite having reduced interaction, despite it being well proven that healthy social interaction is important. But even most hermits have human contact more than twice a week as far as I know, so I think you've used a suitably low estimate which is hard to sensibly argue against. In my experience people who reduce their social contacts start getting very strange, reduce their ability to assess situations of human interaction, become less able to understand and react appropriately. I don't think that's just a question of what came first, although of course it does often seem that people that are inclined to withdraw from others may have had these problems with interaction from the start. But I do personally know quite a few people who are getting more eccentric / odd the less interaction they have and I can well imagine that they get more and more out of practice, and I think I can praps observe this in myself.

But aside from this, a child with hardly any healthy social interactions will usually get problems in their development, of course that's proven. and that seems to make the matter clearer....

As said there definitely will be quite a few "exceptions" to the "rule" as far as adults go, but to me it seems as if it is more a "rule" because it applies to a large majority, and also include most introverts, I'd guess more than 95%??

 

[sweetkamie20]

I'm thinking that Jamie left room for varying circumstances and was just trying to generally provide guidance sort of like the guidance an exercise routine provides...

That said, I really appreciate suns defense of the need to defer to individuality as opposed to rigid rules. All of us here do defer to individuality regularly because it is so obvious to us that our physiological healthcare is quite individual. We can note here that mental/psychological/social healthcare is equally individual.

I happen to love that eccentric people exist, even socially awkward ones and hermits! They do a lot for humankind! It sounds like the ones JayCS is referring to are not fluorishing but I think many hermits fluorished in their purposes because of their isolation. I think of the Desert Fathers, mad scientists, the philosophers, the poets, authors, etc. Would I advise them to socialize more and sacrifice their contributions? Not necessarily. It just depends.

I guess it comes down to what we think people need and want and should want...

 

[cookiebaker]

i believe everyone should live the life that best suits their needs, not what someone else thinks they need.

One can still interact "socially" online without actually having to be face to face with another person, and if that is what works for them, then so be it. To be honest, it works just fine for me and I dont mind it at all.
But then, i was also a long haul truck driver for nearly 20 years, and my "social interactions" at that time were primarily on a CB radio - very little face to face contact with others. So for me, the internet is now my CB radio..
I have people/friends that i interact with daily and it works just fine for me. Even at the height of the Covid lock-downs, I still had my online friends to chat with, so who cares if I didnt leave the house much? With my health concerns, it was actually better for me to stay home and avoid face to face contact as much as possible.
But just because this works for me does not mean it will work for someone else, and vice versa.
My partner is also an introvert, and is happy to stay home as well.. He does go to work every day, but is mentally and physically exhausted by the time he gets home. He just wants to relax and unwind after a long day at the job.

 

[JayCS]

I really appreciate suns defense of the need to defer to individuality as opposed to rigid rules. All of us..
I happen to love that eccentric people exist, even socially awkward ones and hermits! They do a lot for humankind! It sounds like the ones JayCS is referring to are not flourishing but I think many hermits fluorished in their purposes because of their isolation. I think of the Desert Fathers, mad scientists, the philosophers, the poets, authors, etc. Would I advise them to socialize more and sacrifice their contributions? Not necessarily. It just depends.

Excellent thoughts - I definitely agree with defending individuality.
But eccentricity etc. can be harmless, but also harmful.
In that case it might even be healthier for others for those persons to keep to themselves.
Beethoven with all his wonderful music got to be horrible, uncouth, dirty & used a corner of his room floor as a toilet. So I like to admire from a distance or distinguish person & achievements.
Liking all kinds of people makes me also like eccentric ones,
but there are enough great achievements from people who are not too harmful to themselves or others, altho I admit that focusing on achievements & purpose can always make the needs other people fall by the wayside, including abuse.
So "It just depends" will always be right, yes...

Coming back to @JamieMarc's very good intention: Balance of eccentricity & good socializing is usually healthier and personally I'd prefer more of that balance in others if it were up to me, which thankfully it isn't. But I see both lack of and bad socializing often making people suffer and/or letting others suffer, that's the other side of the "health" we're talking about.
Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater: Solitude can be healthy/healthier.

 

[sunkacola]

even most hermits have human contact more than twice a week as far as I know

Actually, if a person had contact with another human being more than twice a week, I would not call them anything even near to a hermit, nor would they fit the definition of a hermit.
Of course, definitions vary and in this case I am not talking about the hermit who lives in isolation for religious reasons, although if one wanted to, one could include them as well.

Some people do a lot better when alone and not having to interact with other people. It's not a tiny number of people or extremely rare. You just don't know about them because of course they do not broadcast their choice or stand up to be counted. That's the whole point of being a recluse. You don't interact with others so people don't really know about you, or know how many people there are who find satisfaction in being alone the vast majority of the time (meaning being in contact with another person not even once a week, let alone twice).

"Some people view loners in a negative context. However, some studies show that being a loner can lead to happiness for the individual and could actually be good for your health. Some people in this study experienced greater life satisfaction with less frequent interaction with their friends."

I can't reference this study, just found the statement above. But I can assure you the statement is true.

 

[JayCS]

Actually, if a person had contact with another human being more than twice a week, I would not call them anything even near to a hermit, nor would they fit the definition of a hermit.
Of course, definitions vary and in this case I am not talking about the hermit who lives in isolation for religious reasons, although if one wanted to, one could include them as well.

True, definitions vary, and I'm thinking of the religious hermits.
What I meant and still is a question for me: isn't the two social interactions a week JamieMarc suggests a very small amount?
But I guess everyone needs to define their own amount, and for me this can vary a lot.

You just don't know about them because of course they do not broadcast their choice or stand up to be counted.
"However, some studies show that being a loner can lead to happiness for the individual and could actually be good for your health. Some people in this study experienced greater life satisfaction with less frequent interaction with their friends."
I can't reference this study, just found the statement above. But I can assure you the statement is true.

Whilst I doubt there can be any good studies, and at least couldn't find one quickly, I do think you're right about this.

Also I can now follow what I read somewhere that children who've had few social interactions tend to behave well amongst people. That doesn't prove that's really "healthy", but.

The problem probably arises more if people/children who aren't loners aren't given the opportunity to interact enough?

About numbers/definitions:
Someone on quora said Forbes found 30% loners, meaning introverts, and they themselves guessed 10% recluses. But checking on that introvert number I find a much bigger variation. On introvertretreat someone wrote "it used to be said 25%, now 50% introverts". More likely I think is on psychologytoday someone thinking 40-66% are ambiverts (= both/neither), that being an ambivert is very convenient, cos it makes us more flexible, that believing we are introverts can make us just that, so it can be a self-limiting belief. Jung, who came up with introvert and extrovert also guessed that these are minorities.
All pretty vague.

Combining this flexibility of ambiverts with the "individuality" note, it seems good to avoid using self-limiting "preconceptions" like this. On the other hand I think it can protect the individuality of us more introverted people from being forced to be flexible. Forcing me to socialize at a party (like my wife used to try to do) would be extremely unhealthy for me, I've always needed many breaks alone or just with 1-2 friends, aside. And knowing and saying I have many introverted traits can support this need. But my job wishes/choices were much more extroverted that I actually feel, so stress, but stress that I tended to enjoy...

 

[sweetkamie20]

You are right, Jay. Eccentricity nor aloneness on their own are necessarily beneficial. They are not necessarily the requirements of contributing. ( I didn't think they were).

Naturally, we are also saying the converse is true. More socialization does not necessitate better mental health. Indeed it might be symptomatic of a problem. Socialization may not be as inextricably related to health as thought. I must, in my mind, create a separation between characteristics until specific insight into someone warrants otherwise...

Im not sure how large or small the number of low-/no socialites there are. Living as we fibromites do, asking the population and medical community to regard us as non-mentally ill extreme outliers, I think there is a significant number of asocial persons that would ask us to suspend disbelief that their isolation could be serving a good role, asking us to suspend skepticism that they are mentally/emotionally healthy...I can conceive of a variety of personality types, personal histories, and mental illnesses wherein isolation may indeed be good...hmmmm the more i think about these things, the more i realize how many characteristics and behaviors I have prematurely assigned as negative .

Wow. Always growing