Being Honest With Yourself About Your Social Problems
You're reading this site so this article may just be preaching to the converted, but here it goes anyway...
You should be honest with yourself about where you stand with your social problems. Once you've done that, it's your call what you want to do about it. If someone looks at themselves and says, "I have no social life to speak of, and it does bother me, but I don't care right at this moment", then that's their call. All the power to them. Or if someone says, "I know I'm socially awkward, but that's truly not important to me, I just want to pursue my interests", then what can I say to that?
What's less helpful though is when people fool themselves about their weaknesses. I've done it, just like everybody else. It's human nature. It feels better to think everything is okay. It protects our egos. No one wants to admit they don't measure up or have flaws in their personality. It's not just you either, other people or resources will often tell you what you want to hear, or give you feel-good "don't worry, everything is okay" type advice. But the fact is, if you have a genuine weakness, you have a weakness. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.
The problem is if you deceive yourself about your problems you're not going to take the steps to get over them. Nothing shocking about that statement. Here's some thinking I've noticed through which socially awkward guys can fool themselves:
"I'm a 'cool loner'"
I've been guilty of this. I like spending time alone, which is okay. But there were also periods when I was younger when I was just plain lonely. I didn't have much of a social or romantic life, and I was pretty down about it. Most of the time I knew I wanted friends but just didn't know how to get them.
But at times I re-imagined myself as a cool, aloof, lone-wolf type. I'd tell myself I was better than everyone else and that I didn't need other people. I was a misunderstood creative genius who would succeed on his own terms and make his own rules. If you look selectively, there's always some tidbit you can use to support this view too. There are lots of loner anti-heroes in fiction. I was like them. Lots of well-known writers, artists, and thinkers were solitary types. Yeah, I was like them. I wasn't some dorky loser who was too shy, non-confident, and awkward to meet people. I was a noble warrior moving on the outskirts of society, like Wolverine.
Sure it was a more dramatic and favorable spin to put on things, but it didn't help me get a life. If anything it made things worse because it justified my not taking any actions to meet people.
"That measure of success isn't important to me"
And the measure they're usually referring to is being liked by others, having friends, or being in a relationship. It's fine if you truly don't care about these things. What's a problem is when someone really does want something, but for whatever reason decides that attaining it is beyond them. So they fool themselves into thinking they don't want what they can't have. For a while they may feel better, but sooner or later they'll realize they really do want it.
Sometimes people will try to write-off the importance of romantic relationships by saying something like, "Well they open up a whole new set of problems, so don't think you're going to be so much happier just to be in one." This is like telling a starving person that they shouldn't want food because they might choke, get food poisoning, or clog their arteries. I agree that relationships aren't a cure-all, but they're a basic need for most people.
"That's just the way I am, there's no point in trying to change"
Here's another statement that's valid in some cases. I wouldn't try to change my core personality or temperament too much. Where it's less correct is when people use this phrase to describe something like having unpolished people skills. That's not an immutable part of you, it's a situation you're in due to a lack of certain knowledge or experiences. It can be corrected. The situation may have been caused in part by some hardwired tendencies you have, like preferring to be alone, but I think it's wrong to say, "I'm just not meant to be good with people, that's just the way I am."
"I'm fine just the way I am" / "You're fine just the way you are"
I'm really not a fan of this feel-good platitude and all the thinking that goes along with it. Unfortunately I see it pretty often. The general idea is that no matter what you're like, you're intrinsically fine that way and you should never have to do anything to change or improve. Changing connotes things like selling out your true soul, and forsaking your precious individuality in favor of mindless conformism. Anyone who wants you to change is too shallow and closed-minded to appreciate your innate specialness. If they don't like you that's their problem.
A close cousin to this concept is that idea that no matter what you're like, there are people out there who will love and accept you just the way you are.
That's a nice ideal, but come on. Everyone has flaws. Sometimes people have weaknesses big enough to cause them miss out on important parts of life. Sometimes people reject others because they accurately perceive their negative traits and choose to avoid them.
Are these things really okay for someone to leave alone? Their lives will be better once they've corrected these flaws. What's wrong with admitting you have a problem and working to fix it?
Here's a question: If you had to live the rest of your life with things exactly the same as they are now, with the exact same results, would you go for it? Are you really okay 'just the way you are'?
"I'm a huge loser, what are you going to do about it?!?"
Sometimes people embrace their flaws, exaggerate them, and throw them in people's faces. As you can probably guess, the motivation is an over-compensating, defensive one. They're saying, "This doesn't bother me. I'll prove it to you by flaunting it!!!"
"I'm proud of having poor people skills"
Why would you be proud of this? Most reasonable people would say this is a real drawback. I can understand the sentiment behind this statement, that you accept yourself and all, but specifically being proud of being bad with people?
"I don't have a problem, it's everyone else that does"
Some socially lacking people can get fairly negative about others and develop that attitude that it's the rest of the world that sucks, not them. "People are all close-minded and intolerant. They don't understand me." Yep, people can be rejecting and intolerant, but you may still have real issues that need fixing.
Another form of this general idea is the idealistic viewpoint that if the majority of people don't accept a certain kind of person (e.g., quiet, thoughtful, intellectual types), then the onus is on society to change its views. There's a point to this argument, but maybe hanging back and waiting for the world to come around isn't the most efficient idea. You may have to come up with some sort of work around for your socially impractical traits to get what want out of life.
"I don't have a problem, society just doesn't appreciate people like me."
A variation on the point above. A comment I've read several times is, "I don't see anything wrong with how I am. Society just doesn't appreciate creative, eccentric people. They don't value what we bring to the table." I can hardly argue there, but just because society isn't predisposed towards you doesn't mean you're totally off the hook. You may still have some handicaps alongside your overlooked strengths. Keep the good stuff, toss the bad.
"Everything is relative, my social skills are no better or worse than the next person's"
I've heard people argue that the definition of good social skills is relative, and that their social skills aren't bad, they're just different from what the majority considers to be 'good'. If people like them were the majority, then they'd be the ones with the good people skills.
I can't argue in theory, but practically I don't agree. I think there's an objective standard out there as to what constitutes good and bad people skills. We instinctively know some behaviors are better or worse than others. If someone has a true impairment, I think it's self-deceptive to consider it, "Not bad, just different."
"Bill Gates is socially awkward and he's the richest man in the world" or "So-and-so was considered socially inept as a kid and he did well."
There's a few angles from which I could go at this statement. Let's see: Bill Gates (or whoever) probably succeeded in spite of his awkwardness. He succeeded because of many other factors, not just that he's socially clumsy. Even if he is rich, it doesn't negate the fact that poor social skills is a liability. And he's a unique case, the fact that one awkward guy succeeded doesn't erase the fact that for most people, having polished people skills is a good thing, and being poor in this area is an impediment.
There are plenty of social awkward people out there who succeeded and contributed to the world. I guess the question is, are there ever cases where someone's talent and their social ineptitude are completely linked - that their talent wouldn't exist if they weren't awkward? Would have being better with people prevented Bill Gates from becoming rich? I understand sometimes people have to make sacrifices to pursue excellence, but it doesn't always have to be this way. You can be good at your passion and capable with people too. It's not an either/or thing. I think sometimes the, "I'm trying to be the best programmer I can be, so I just can't do better with people" reasoning is an excuse.
"People are just jealous of me/intimidated by me"
Sometimes when people know others think they're socially clueless, they construct the alternative explanation of, "I'm actually so awesome people's small, jealous minds just can't handle someone like me." In most cases it's pretty clear-cut wishful thinking. Sure there are cases of forward thinkers and whatnot being shunned, but what I'm talking about here is just being bad with people and making up justifications for it.
"People like me are becoming more popular in society these days"
This could be true, but it doesn't mean your legitimate shortcomings are suddenly not a problem any more. Just because society may be warming up to some positive aspects of people like you, it doesn't mean all your traits are now acceptable.
"People give me a hard time, but what about them, they have lots of problems too"
Often the people criticizing you aren't perfect either, but just because they have problems too doesn't mean you get a free pass for your own. It's not a black or white thing where only one side is right and the other is wrong. Both have a mix of pros and cons (they should toss their cons).
The euphemism factor
Nothing wrong with a person being "charmingly quirky", as long as the term isn't sugar coating something. That description could be euphemism for 'overly weird, eccentric, and strange'. Likewise the label 'free thinking individual who isn't brainwashed by other people's opinions' could mean 'someone who has legit problems but doesn't want to acknowledge or fix them'. Are there any descriptions you use to describe yourself that are just mechanisms to preserve your self-esteem?
"That's not what that term really means"
Sometimes when someone calls you by a certain vague term, which they were using to point out real issues of yours, you can go off on the tangent of arguing that the person wasn't using the word properly. That's not what "geek" actually means, etc, etc, etc. The problem is that all this talk of proper definitions can obscure the fact someone was making a valid critique, even if their wording was wrong in your opinion. If someone calls you a "geek", meaning "socially insensitive", and you go, "No, a geek just means x,y,z, but it does NOT mean socially insensitive.", that doesn't mean you're suddenly not insensitive if you really are.
