I think that now I have a clear understanding of what friendship is. The human psyche is "developed" in such a way, that friendship always requires a shared, noble goal. The absense of such a goal ("the meaning of life") also triggers a need for alcohol and other drugs (people say that they drink because of "boredom"). And when normal, non-sectarian companies of friends arise, people in them inevitably become interested in politics, then some of them begin to criticize authoritarian governments, and then the governments punish them for it—I'm talking about Western autocrats (deep state) too. Consequently, normal and natural friendship is usually replaced by sectarian and drug-fueled "friendships."

I know women who go to dance clubs and make friends there; it seems obvious for me, that dancing itself is of no use or interest for anyone, but making friends is essential for everybody. Thus, dancing is a very effective way to improve one's social skills, but to use it, one must be sufficiently irrational— he or she must internally believe that dancing is a wonderful thing, which can save the world. Overall, I believe that dancing for women is roughly the same as beer, football, and fishing for men.

What I have described above is the cause of "idiocracy" and injustice in general; as the singer C C Catch sang, "good guys only win in movies."

36 minutes ago, Linkey said:

dancing itself is of no use or interest for anyone

There’s a monstrous amount of wrong densely packed into this one post, but this specific one comment above is incredibly insightful into the nature of your commentary and broader behavior since becoming a member here.

I’m sorry you have so little joy in your life and genuinely hope that situation soon improves.

Friendship (and any relationship) may have certain psychological and sociological commonalities for most people, but it’s also very dependent on the individuals and their personalities.

What’s true for you might not be true for others. Examples abound of people who have very publicly erred because they assume that what motivates them and what they value is what motivates others, and what others value

18 hours ago, Linkey said:

I think that now I have a clear understanding of what friendship is. The human psyche is "developed" in such a way, that friendship always requires a shared, noble goal. The absense of such a goal ("the meaning of life") also triggers a need for alcohol and other drugs (people say that they drink because of "boredom"). And when normal, non-sectarian companies of friends arise, people in them inevitably become interested in politics, then some of them begin to criticize authoritarian governments, and then the governments punish them for it—I'm talking about Western autocrats (deep state) too. Consequently, normal and natural friendship is usually replaced by sectarian and drug-fueled "friendships."

I know women who go to dance clubs and make friends there; it seems obvious for me, that dancing itself is of no use or interest for anyone, but making friends is essential for everybody. Thus, dancing is a very effective way to improve one's social skills, but to use it, one must be sufficiently irrational— he or she must internally believe that dancing is a wonderful thing, which can save the world. Overall, I believe that dancing for women is roughly the same as beer, football, and fishing for men.

What I have described above is the cause of "idiocracy" and injustice in general; as the singer C C Catch sang, "good guys only win in movies."

I don't think friendship requires shared goals. I have a number of friends I know would help me out if in need and I would do the same for them but am not aware of any particular shared goals. What we do share are similar views on things like "fairness" and "goodness".

18 hours ago, Linkey said:

The human psyche is "developed" in such a way, that friendship always requires a shared, noble goal.

Counterexample: Small children can form friendships. It can be based on for instance play, being close, liking and interaction. All without sharing any “noble goal”.

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

I don't think friendship requires shared goals. I have a number of friends I know would help me out if in need and I would do the same for them but am not aware of any particular shared goals. What we do share are similar views on things like "fairness" and "goodness".

In my observations, there's always a common goal, but it's usually not recognized. Besides obvious goals, there are also hobbies, which are also similar to goals.

I believe that what I'm writing about is mostly true for people called autistic. Sometimes they're also called "Indigo Children." I'm one of those people: in the past, I was very lonely, I had no friends because I couldn't develop usual hobbies, couldn't get involved in the kind of nonsense that allows other people to connect. All my life, I was always observing around me that the socialization is 95% determined by people's hobbies, not by qualities like intelligence and altruism.

15 minutes ago, Linkey said:

In my observations, there's always a common goal, but it's usually not recognized. Besides obvious goals, there are also hobbies, which are also similar to goals.

I believe that what I'm writing about is mostly true for people called autistic. Sometimes they're also called "Indigo Children." I'm one of those people: in the past, I was very lonely, I had no friends because I couldn't develop usual hobbies, couldn't get involved in the kind of nonsense that allows other people to connect. All my life, I was always observing around me that the socialization is 95% determined by people's hobbies, not by qualities like intelligence and altruism.

I think here you are using your preconception to interpret what you observe. And unfortunately, I don't think your interpretation is accurate, regardless is one is on the spectrum or not.

It seems to me that the key thing you are missing is that socialization is work and not an automatic process. If you observed folks carefully, you would notice some common elements like poking around on a variety of elements to find common ground to continue socializing. Depending on where you are on the spectrum, it can be very difficult to pick up on those cues, so for some it is harder than others. But in the end, it is a learnable skill. Hobbies, like any other interest, real or pretend, are means to to establish a communicative situation between otherwise strangers.

Your ideal concept of "friendship" seems to be one that should arise without effort, just by being intelligent or altruistic somehow, folks should like you. I.e. it is a very self-centered view that the world has to react to your innate qualities, rather than the fact that one has to first make efforts in finding a common basis with other persons and spend efforts to interact. Again, it is a skill that can be learned and needs polishing. Depending on where you start it can be a lot of effort, but it is a necessary one. And that in itself is a rational process and importantly, it is a communal process. You do not make someone your friend, but it is a process requiring effort from both sides. As such, as part of ones own effort, it should become clear that the time investment is worth it. In that context, enjoying the same hobbies is a very easy pitch an again, very rational. If you enjoy your time with someone engaging in common activities (be it dancing, reciting poetry, geeking out on any topic) the effort to build friendship makes way more sense.

Denigrating elements, such as dancing as irrational just makes you feel justified in your judgment, but it is actually easier just to acknowledge that it is something not for you and you need to look for something else to connect to people, rather than putting others down for their interest, even if they don't align with yours. As it turns out, people judge you for being judgemental.

58 minutes ago, Linkey said:

In my observations, there's always a common goal, but it's usually not recognized. Besides obvious goals, there are also hobbies, which are also similar to goals.

I believe that what I'm writing about is mostly true for people called autistic. Sometimes they're also called "Indigo Children." I'm one of those people: in the past, I was very lonely, I had no friends because I couldn't develop usual hobbies, couldn't get involved in the kind of nonsense that allows other people to connect. All my life, I was always observing around me that the socialization is 95% determined by people's hobbies, not by qualities like intelligence and altruism.

I wonder if you have ever looked into the etymology and meaning of the word ‘hobby’ ? A common dictionary definition is “an activity done regularly in one’s leisure time for pleasure” (NOAD/OED). I would commend the words ‘leisure’ and  ‘pleasure’ to your attention - perhaps these are wholly unfamiliar concepts ?

Many hobbies are distinctly solitary occupations with no social component whatsoever. Quite a few of them are in fact pursued precisely because  of their ‘antisocial’ nature - they  lack any form of involvement with other people. How would philately (stamp collection), or the study of fossils fit into your scheme?

One of my own more unusual hobbies is going for solitary walks at twilight and listening through headphones to the echo-location calls of bats with an ultrasonic heterodyne detector. What sort of ‘common goals’ or social ‘objectives’ does that fulfil ?

I think that the formation of friendships has a great deal more to do with reciprocal patterns of emotional need - and most often a shared sense of humour.

56 minutes ago, Linkey said:

In my observations, there's always a common goal, but it's usually not recognized. Besides obvious goals, there are also hobbies, which are also similar to goals.

I believe that what I'm writing about is mostly true for people called autistic. Sometimes they're also called "Indigo Children." I'm one of those people: in the past, I was very lonely, I had no friends because I couldn't develop usual hobbies, couldn't get involved in the kind of nonsense that allows other people to connect. All my life, I was always observing around me that the socialization is 95% determined by people's hobbies, not by qualities like intelligence and altruism.

I am very glad you made this second post because it explains a lot.

Everybody is a bit different from 'normal' in some way or other. Mathematically it is perfectly possible for there to be no actual instance of the average in a sample set.

In the last few years there has been a move to use real people with a particular difference instead of actors in works of drama. For instance there is a deaf actress who specialises in parts exploring social interplay with a deaf person.

In the same way there is a French actress who plays an autistic girl working for the police. The original was 'Astrid in Paris' and is in French, but there is an English version spin off called 'Patience'.
Both characters are fumbling their way through social relationships and friendships, you might find it interesting if you can get to see some of the episodes.

21 hours ago, Linkey said:

it seems obvious for me, that dancing itself is of no use or interest for anyone, but making friends is essential for everybody.

Not sure if you like Mathematics, but you have posted elsewhere a question about p-adics.

I can tell you that dancing is a most interesting demonstration of one of the more fundamental areas of Maths, called group theory, which is about patterns. (do you like patterns ?)

In fact one Professor uses these patterns to introduce the main aspects of group theory (which nowadays pervades many areas of chemistry and physics) . I can post some details if you like.

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think here you are using your preconception to interpret what you observe. And unfortunately, I don't think your interpretation is accurate, regardless is one is on the spectrum or not.

It seems to me that the key thing you are missing is that socialization is work and not an automatic process. If you observed folks carefully, you would notice some common elements like poking around on a variety of elements to find common ground to continue socializing. Depending on where you are on the spectrum, it can be very difficult to pick up on those cues, so for some it is harder than others. But in the end, it is a learnable skill. Hobbies, like any other interest, real or pretend, are means to to establish a communicative situation between otherwise strangers.

Your ideal concept of "friendship" seems to be one that should arise without effort, just by being intelligent or altruistic somehow, folks should like you. I.e. it is a very self-centered view that the world has to react to your innate qualities, rather than the fact that one has to first make efforts in finding a common basis with other persons and spend efforts to interact. Again, it is a skill that can be learned and needs polishing. Depending on where you start it can be a lot of effort, but it is a necessary one. And that in itself is a rational process and importantly, it is a communal process. You do not make someone your friend, but it is a process requiring effort from both sides. As such, as part of ones own effort, it should become clear that the time investment is worth it. In that context, enjoying the same hobbies is a very easy pitch an again, very rational. If you enjoy your time with someone engaging in common activities (be it dancing, reciting poetry, geeking out on any topic) the effort to build friendship makes way more sense.

Denigrating elements, such as dancing as irrational just makes you feel justified in your judgment, but it is actually easier just to acknowledge that it is something not for you and you need to look for something else to connect to people, rather than putting others down for their interest, even if they don't align with yours. As it turns out, people judge you for being judgemental.

I tried to read, analyse and interpret your post for answering it, and the only thing I can say - how does the statement you said contradict the one I had said?

Edited Tuesday at 05:40 PM4 days by Linkey