Why I often consider myself a loner...

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm just enough a member of the Democrat party and "left" to annoy some people, but on the other hand, I take an almost fascist approach when it comes to friendship, I take it so seriously. And I don't think I'm misunderstanding fascism in this instance as the way I determine friends, I do value things like trust and reliability in close friends, but my pessimistic/realistic approach may come off as similar to mannerisms of Nazis to others, without me subscribing to such political ideas at all and being quite on the contrary in general life.

My reasoning is that you can choose your friends, but some people in life, like family, you don't always have the original option of choosing. It just happens.

A lot of people I've met take friendship as best happening organically. They add people to their cognitive list of friends I guess, then be patient as something develops further. Where I differ is that I look at this and see it as "collecting friends", and a bit insincere.

I also consider there an active process to friendship too. For example, someone might gain my initial trust, call me their friend, and then not take what they expressed of their friendship too seriously, doing things like when inviting me to groups, making me the object of a few jokes.

Whereas when I look at such a situation, I read it as: "An acquaintance told me they were my friend while seeming to not understand what friendship is or taking it very seriously." and it just creates credibility issues, for me. It's also hard that sometimes people can't quite read me right, and end up trying to do things for me they think will help me, but I view as hurting me. Happens in a good 30%+ of connections I experience.

So overall I see some people as a blessing to establish what I consider real friendship with, which usually takes lots and lots and lots of time, sometimes a year or more, but the majority of people, it may be better for me personally if we're kind of just acquaintances where I don't assume what's best for them, and they don't assume what's best for me.

 

[JustGeorge]

I'm just enough a member of the Democrat party and "left" to annoy some people, but on the other hand, I take an almost fascist approach when it comes to friendship, I take it so seriously. And I don't think I'm misunderstanding fascism in this instance as the way I determine friends, I do value things like trust and reliability in close friends, but my pessimistic/realistic approach may come off as similar to mannerisms of Nazis to others, without me subscribing to such political ideas at all and being quite on the contrary in general life.

My reasoning is that you can choose your friends, but some people in life, like family, you don't always have the original option of choosing. It just happens.

A lot of people I've met take friendship as best happening organically. They add people to their cognitive list of friends I guess, then be patient as something develops further. Where I differ is that I look at this and see it as "collecting friends", and a bit insincere.

I also consider there an active process to friendship too. For example, someone might gain my initial trust, call me their friend, and then not take what they expressed of their friendship too seriously, doing things like when inviting me to groups, making me the object of a few jokes.

Whereas when I look at such a situation, I read it as: "An acquaintance told me they were my friend while seeming to not understand what friendship is or taking it very seriously." and it just creates credibility issues, for me. It's also hard that sometimes people can't quite read me right, and end up trying to do things for me they think will help me, but I view as hurting me. Happens in a good 30%+ of connections I experience.

So overall I see some people as a blessing to establish what I consider real friendship with, which usually takes lots and lots and lots of times, sometimes a year or more, but the majority of people, it may be better for me personally if we're kind of just acquaintances where I don't assume what's best for them, and they don't assume what's best for me.

How do you decide when someone is your friend?

 

[Quagmire]

How do you decide when someone is your friend?

Drop your wallet in front of them and pretend not to notice.

If they return it to you in less than 6 months, they're your friend.

 

[JustGeorge]

Drop your wallet in front of them and pretend not to notice.

If they return it to you in less than 6 months, they're your friend.

What if they chew it up first? Or pee on it?

(I spend too much time with animals.)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

How do you decide when someone is your friend?

When I generally trust that person to the extent that I can do the little things like hand them $20 to purchase me fast food while knowing I'll get something out of it, and they won't pocket the money. That full, beyond a reasonable doubt but not to the extent of being foolish, sense of trust. If instead they do things like take the money on a regular basis and give you nothing, making up excuses, then they're no longer my friend as I can't rely on them or trust them with anything. And I also then feel like not doing much for them, either.

Just to use a philosophical/anecdotal example.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

To me, I feel there are some similarities to real friendship and marriage. The difference with marriage is that it's a larger commitment with a connection more set on fire and is often a bit more guaranteed to have romance/intimacy, which isn't always guaranteed or wanted in a friendship.

 

[Quagmire]

What if they chew it up first? Or pee on it?

Then they're you're weird friend.

But hey, a friend is a friend.

 

[Quagmire]

The difference with marriage is that it's a larger commitment with a connection more set on fire and is often a bit more guaranteed to have romance/intimacy, which isn't always guaranteed or wanted in a friendship.

Also, friends usually like each other.

 

[Lain]

I'm just enough a member of the Democrat party and "left" to annoy some people, but on the other hand, I take an almost fascist approach when it comes to friendship, I take it so seriously. And I don't think I'm misunderstanding fascism in this instance as the way I determine friends, I do value things like trust and reliability in close friends, but my pessimistic/realistic approach may come off as similar to mannerisms of Nazis to others, without me subscribing to such political ideas at all and being quite on the contrary in general life.

My reasoning is that you can choose your friends, but some people in life, like family, you don't always have the original option of choosing. It just happens.

A lot of people I've met take friendship as best happening organically. They add people to their cognitive list of friends I guess, then be patient as something develops further. Where I differ is that I look at this and see it as "collecting friends", and a bit insincere.

I also consider there an active process to friendship too. For example, someone might gain my initial trust, call me their friend, and then not take what they expressed of their friendship too seriously, doing things like when inviting me to groups, making me the object of a few jokes.

Whereas when I look at such a situation, I read it as: "An acquaintance told me they were my friend while seeming to not understand what friendship is or taking it very seriously." and it just creates credibility issues, for me. It's also hard that sometimes people can't quite read me right, and end up trying to do things for me they think will help me, but I view as hurting me. Happens in a good 30%+ of connections I experience.

So overall I see some people as a blessing to establish what I consider real friendship with, which usually takes lots and lots and lots of time, sometimes a year or more, but the majority of people, it may be better for me personally if we're kind of just acquaintances where I don't assume what's best for them, and they don't assume what's best for me.

I have the same approach but on steroids, I don't think it necessarily makes one a loner though and I don't get the connection to fascism. I think even a year or two or three years of knowing someone (unless something great and binding happens in that time, but even then I might not consider it true friendship yet), I'd estimate it at around five years or more, and a specific relationship where you both love each others persons wholly for the good of one another.

Most people have what I just call "partners" or "acquaintances." For instance, one of my partners I have told even great personal things to, but ultimately he is someone who helps me study theology. That is our relationship and it is entirely transactional (really all relationships are to me, even biological ones, benefit and gifting). If it continues as it is even for 50 years I would not call this friendship.

True friendship is exceedingly rare and I consider it a divine gift when it comes to anyone, and most live their lives without having had it perhaps. Marital love is more common and is less good to me, but it's pretty good for a relationship. But a true friend? I await the day.

 

[JustGeorge]

I am far from being a loner, but I tend to view friends as temporary. They all go eventually. They may stick around for a long time, but eventually time, business or discord carries them away.

I don't like this, but its easier for me to accept it and plan for it than to be devastated when the time comes when the friendship deteriorates(for one reason or another).