Someone wrote this and had deleted their comment when I went to reply to them, but I thought it was on point, so now I'm saying it:

Curious, why you took offense to OPs post? If you are enjoying not having close friends, then good for you, really. This thread doesn't apply to you.

You remind me of Ricky Gervais' Guitar Lessons bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dxMGzt5mU

In summary, it's like calling up a guitar teacher and telling them you don't want to learn guitar. Why call?

I didn’t take offense. Did it read that way?

He is on a self-professed quest to cure loneliness, and seems to equate that with not having close friendships. I just want to make sure he is aware there is a distinction and not everyone classifies that way.

>He is on a self-professed quest to cure loneliness

It seemed to me that he was on a quest to cure his loneliness.

Point is: It's interesting (perhaps even revealing) that you read it differently.

If it's not a problem, then it's not a problem. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

If so, I misread it. But going back I still can't see that interpretation.

> The lofty goal of the startup was to "cure loneliness" but I never told the users that.

And then he talks about building features for users to take their conversations offline. I mean maybe it was all for himself, but it seems like the goal was to get users to build long-lasting relationships.

Which is commendable, and I commend him for it. It sounds like an awesome project.

With his ending I also implied it was to cure his loneliness:

> If I were lonely today, I would say...

There's probably a correlation between being happy with no close friends and being misanthropic in general.

It's OK, you're safe. I never used those words, and given that it requires some effort on your part nothing will happen unless you want it to.

Has this been a problem in the past?

From your phrasing, it sounds like a pet peeve.

Introverts are often harassed with "why are you so quiet?" and "why don't you <do activity xyz>?" questions that seem innocent, but are actually attacks by people who are unable to let them be themselves.

The well meaning extrovert person who introduces you to someone by saying, this is x, he's really shy. Anyone had that, ever? They might as well dig a hole for you.

Why do you prefer it?

I’m an introvert. People drain me. I find fulfillment in the world around me and my hobbies. I’m on HN not to be social but to learn things. I don’t need validation from others.

I don’t hate human interaction either. I have friends. I just don’t NEED them, and don’t need to go seeking them or be especially close.

I'm curious if you will retain this preference as you get older and physical frailty starts to appear in your life, or you lose your source of income.

Has nothing to do with it. I am like him. People drain me whether I'm young or old, rich or poor.

Thanks for sharing.

I would say you're the biological anomaly. Humans are social creatures. Much or our society is defined by our achievements as a group then individually. I would say the op very accurately describes a general problem.

Calling north of 16% of world population an anomaly stinks of racism.

Most people are not extroverts either, but extroverts in western culture get a pat on the back and a raise. Not as much elsewhere.

It's not a binary variable, but a spectrum.

Calling me a racist stinks of accusatory witch hunting. You can lose a job for this kind of thing and you dare to call me that? You don't go around accusing people people of smelling like a nazi yet you can go around saying that I smell like a racist?

Let me be utterly clear with you. I am not racist. Not one bone of my body is. And it is an extreme and personal insult to suggest that I am. There will be no further communication between us.

You second paragraph seems to continue onto an informed discussion that's not going to continue because of the immature comment in your first sentence.

You go around calling people biological anomalies and you're pretending to be the victim in this situation? Jeez.

i can wiggle my ears at will... most of the population can't... thats a biological anomaly.

This is an entirely different thing then Racism. Know the difference. Let's not let political correctness erase our ability to state things we believe to be biological facts.

If I were to say that you are an inferior race because you can or can't wiggle your ears and therefore must have inferior treatment.... THAT is racism. But the fact that I can wiggle my ears... well there's no denying that this ability is anomalous as I am simply describing a feature of reality as we know it..

Unfortunately most people don't realize or understand that almost all the variables of being human lies on a spectrum. This includes length, weight, body type, colour, gender, sexuality, gregariousness, aptitudes, interests, intelligence, etc. Calling someone an anomaly for falling on one end of any of these traits is definitely ignorance and discrimination akin to racism.

Uh no it is not. I can wiggle my ears and I'm double jointed. That makes me and those features a biological anomaly because these feature are rare. There is no racism going on here because I am a statistical anomaly.

Let me be utterly clear again. In the real world, in reality as we know it. There will ALWAYS exist things that are outside of the norm. Things that are "anomalous." To deny the existence of anomalies, or to deny the existence of REALITY is WRONG. This is not racism. To let political correctness control your dialogue and beliefs is as ignorant as letting religion do the same.

You are making two grave errors in your interpretation of reality.

First, what part of nature says EVERYTHING human must be a spectrum? There is no hard rule about this AT all. Things can have binary states, trinary states OR CAN exist in a spectrum. For example. I have a penis. Many people do not. That is binary. Perhaps a hermaphrodite lives on a spectrum but the scientific reality is, that the hermaphrodite is so few in number that it is in actuality a statistical anomaly. Lets get even deeper. Your DNA has 2 types of chromosomes. An X and a Y chromosome. There is no W chromosome and therefore these two chromosomes are binary DO NOT exist in a SPECTRUM. Get it?

Second, you don't even know what a "spectrum" really is. Even in a "spectrum" there can be anomalies. If you know about statistics you'd know that spectrums are usually bell curves: A hump in the middle with two tails on both sides.... The hump in the middle of the bell curve is the most populous and most "normal" part of the spectrum and the tail ends are the most rare and therefore "anomalous."

What disgust me is the twisting of words by people who are ignorant. There is NOTHING wrong with being anomalous... an anomaly is neither wrong or right it is just a word that illustrates rarity. A person with an IQ of 342 is an anomaly on the tail tail end of the bell curve and while it is an anomaly there is nothing wrong with being crazy smart.

This accusatory BS of calling me a racist is disgusting and vile and gravely serious. You better take back your statements, what your saying is not trivial or true and is a deeply personal insult. My ancestors were asian americans and victims of white supremacy and racism. If you're white and calling me racist well...

Dude, it is really unhealthy to get this angry at an anonymous stranger on the internet. I have definitely become overly invested in internet conversations before and suffered needlessly because of it, so I can relate. I wish you the best.

P.S. Most people don't want to be called an "anomoly". It sounds quite negative. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that is how other people interpret it.

>P.S. Most people don't want to be called an "anomoly". It sounds quite negative. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that is how other people interpret it.

Ok maybe I made mistake here. But the reaction to my mistake is that they decided to call me a racist. The difference here is that although I did not mean to convey what you implied... @AstralStorm and @Hermandw meant what they said 110%.

They accused me of being racist.

There is no one more guilty of racism against my race then the white man. So unless any of you are not white... back off.

Introverts are a race?

And I would say you are the victim of pro-extravert brainwashing. The most shocking thing I've learned from the book "Quiet" that there was an general attitude towards intrawerts that they are somehow deficient, and, what's worse, actual discrimination against them at universities.

Being introvert does not mean you are antisocial, you just don't need to socialize that much. It may be very enjoyable but it is also so draining.

There's no brainwashing going on. I myself am an introvert. I'm not discriminating. However despite being an introvert, i still do desire to interact with other people.

There is a social aspect to my and human nature that cannot be denied.

One example: 99% of introverts want to have sex with the opposite gender and interact with them despite your introversion. A good number also want to have kids and interact with those kids. You may value your "recharge" time but despite this most introverts also seek to socialize and interact with other people. It's a conflicting desire, but to be human is to be social, you cannot deny biology.

Look at the way humans live. We live in cities, towns or tribes. A very very small amount of us live in isolation outside of towns, tribes and cities. I would argue that most introverts live in a community and are unwilling to go far enough to live in total isolation. We are animals that live in groups. We are herd animals. My guess is that introversion stems from defensive instincts designed to deal with creatures outside of the herd.