Being a wallflower isn't a great way to meet people agreed. but after a few decades I've come to realize that its a symptom rather than a cause - if you want to meet people you need to plan ahead - invite others to come with you, go to places you know people already - introduce yourself and chat to friends of friends not strangers.
If you go to a place where you're by yourself and aren't talking to people you aren't a wallflower, you just didn't prepare.
My "networking" became 100x easier and more effective once I ditched "networking events" (not that I ever went to many) and made "friends of friends" networking through hikes/biking/dinner/etc. my main mode of expanding my circle of friendly knowledge worker acquaintances.
Also you form actual friendships from time to time.
I have a hard time believing anybody starts from absolute zero in these scenarios, but here's an example from a self-proclaimed introvert:
- Pair up with random guy at a school hackathon because we're both without a project (+1). Meet a friend of his (+1).
- Meet him months later for birthday drinks. Introduced to his friend, we end up starting a band with 3 of his friends. (+4)
- Meet countless people through the music scene (+?)
- Go to another hackathon together with first guy, join another pair (+2), win, catch a recruiter's (+1) attention and get an internship.
- Meet countless people over the summer during the internship (+?)
- [...]
That's the very short version. Most of my network can be traced back to like, 4 people that started as strangers. There were a lot of dead-ends initially, sure. But it really does just take one person to build or reshape your entire social circle, change your career, etc. The first set is the hardest imo, but there's no excuse* for not going out and trying to find it.
*excepting, of course, any affliction which might make social interaction difficult. "i'd rather stay home" is not an afflication
It's much easier in a college setting. Much easier.
I've now moved a couple of times in my adult life. I find that it takes about six months to find a group of people to hang out with occasionally, and two years to acquire a small group of friends that I feel comfortable with. It seems to get harder as you get older, too.
In my experience (30+), the truly differentiating factor is the nature of your interests outside of work, your energy level. I like to think of it as optimising your contact surface.
If your interests are not of a social nature, maybe try something that is. I climb a ton and that sport has resulted in so many new and valuable friendships I couldn't even list them here. Also, figure out who you jive with at work, if they have time to hang out and if there are overlapping interests. Invite colleagues to lunch.
Making friends take energy, it is like dating really, where you attempt to determine if there's a match. It might involve getting a beer or doing activities and generally being outside of ones comfort zone. You'll either fail or you'll get to a point where you can both relax comfortably. But it is going to be work for a while.
Personal anecdote:
I was in NY for 3 months for work and my luck was that my primary hobby, climbing, is a very social activity and walking up to strangers is sort of welcomed. I spent the first month never turning down an invitation from colleagues and making an effort of talking to people at the gym. The first month was rather gruelling, and I sometimes felt like I was intruding on people's good will and perhaps their pity of me being alone in a new city. But after the initial brutality, my coworkers became comfortable around me and started inviting me to things they went to and I became a part of a small group of regulars at the climbing gym. I made a bunch of friends for life and I miss them dearly now that I am back again.
Find some activity you're interested in and go do stuff. Attend a convention, go to a concert, take a class, join a club, volunteer for an event or a cause. Meeting people who share one or more of your interests or passions is an excellent way to grow your friend group. It's actually shockingly easy to meet people if you're even a little active and willing to put forth some effort.
Yes, I've found Meetup to be very useful in finding like-minded, social people. More difficult to make close friends, but significantly expands your ability to do so.
Not really - it only works if that one friend is connected, and if they are willing to take you to events with their other friends. I know many people who prefer meeting 1-on-1.
Has to be the right friends and social activities too.
I don't want to drink or do other recreational drugs (even if they are legal). Going and not doing also seems to be not an option, you're clearly the black sheep.
I don't drink often, and when I do it's usually just one or two with my partner to unwind at home. I used to though, pretty heavily, and making that transition was tough: a) I definitely had been using alcohol as a social crutch and felt super self-conscious at parties when I wasn't drinking, and b) a lot of my friends knew me as a drinker and would give me some grief about it.
I've found two things that really made it easy to go to parties and things and not drink:
- Don't make a big deal about it, just politely decline when someone offers you a drink. "Can I get you a drink?" "I'm good, thanks" or "no thanks" is all it takes. If you say "no, I don't drink" to someone who's been drinking, that's way more likely to turn into an awkward situation. Alternatively, "I've got to drive" works too.
- Don't make it obvious that you haven't been drinking. If people are cheering and being loud, participate! You're at a party! When I first cut back, I often tried to talk about whatever it was I was thinking about at the time and was often met with "Dude, why are you thinking about that right now? We're on a pub crawl!" Time and place.
Now when I go out to a party, I'll hang out, do whatever's going on, and usually offer a few people a ride home whenever I'm getting ready to leave. Still gives me a chance to socialize for a while, catch up with old friends/meet new ones, and then I get to wake up and feel great the next morning.
Edit: re: being the "black sheep"... if you're otherwise just going with the flow of conversation and energy in the room, the only person who will really notice whether or not you're drinking is you. Hell, I sometimes even play drinking games (e.g. sociables) with a glass of water. Some people know that I'm just drinking water, some don't, but no one cares because I'm in there having fun with everyone else.
Also, if you're at a party with red solo cups, water is pretty much indistinguishable from any other drink, and if you're really feeling self-conscious about it, some Sprite or Coke or whatever with a few ice cubes is visually identical to a mixed drink. Beer might be trickier.
There are lots of non-drinking non-drugs activities out there. In any major city, there are others with similar interest. Jiu jitsu, swing dancing, Minecraft, legos, take your pick...
Also, look at other sources of stress in your life. As I've mentioned before, I had neighbors who made my life hell. As a result, I never invited people over. I was always dependent upon an invitation and going somewhere else.
Additionally, and primarily, I was so stressed and not feeling good about myself, that I felt awkward in conversations. The questions about immediate life; well, my answers -- and I've always had trouble dissembling -- were not "good" and "cheerful."
This all becomes more and more of a Catch 22. You're not doing well. Your social life dwindles. You feel worse for the lack of a social life and engagement.
And, those social engagements you do have, can take on too much meaning. Too much import. And you choke.
So... Look at sources of (negative) stress in your life. And minimize them where you can't eliminate them. This isn't some mantra to "feel better" (in the face of reality). This is an action plan. Not always an easy one, but where you can identify problems and -- hopefully -- solutions.
Focing on your stress, avoiding inviting people over, it sounds like your problem is before your eyes. There will always be stress. How we see people depends mostly on how they handle it.
I had a lot of advice to "get used to things." Family, friends, even some health care professionals.
It placed all the burden on me, to accommodate the stressors.
This is an anti-pattern. That is my point.
Work through and past and away from the negative stress. You have a right -- and responsibility -- to do so. And you'll feel less uncomfortable around other people, when you feel like you're taking care of yourself.
"There will always be tasks you can't automate away, so... don't try to automate your tasks away."
(This isn't to say that resilient patterns can't help you engage with potentially stressful situations OR help you get in, chop wood, and move through tasks that aren't easily automated... just that "there will always be stress/tasks/entropy/hunger/fill-in-the-blank" doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to avoid efforts to mitigate any of them.)
This is very true--feeling comfortable and making friends in a roomful of complete strangers is difficult even for extroverts. Some people can pull it off but they are well outside the norm. Being a wallflower is a natural inclination for anyone in this scenario. It's not only shy people who feel this way.
From experience I can tell you that the article is 100% correct. I'm socially kind of unusual (I manage to be not too awkward ;)) and also I'm not exactly a super model. Having moved to new cities twice, I had big problems making friends. Even worse, over the years I talked less and less. But then I realized: ok, I just need to literally make myself drown in people. So I went to Meetups a lot. At least now I had some new acquaintances. Actually I ended up working in a place that also hosts Meetups, I made a lot of friends there - also friends that I consider close.
The truth is: many of the "most likeable" people - young or old - spend most of their time alone. Alone at their desk, alone at home, alone in the car. It seems society is just an actual society at School and University, afterwards people become loners. As a matter of fact many people even die more or less alone, no matter if the career was successful or not.
Summary: If you want to meet people, be meetable. Proximity is power. If you isolate yourself by location or behavior, less people are going to do the work of meeting you. If you're a man, this passive shit doesn't work as well, so get ready to be bridging the gap courageously yourself.
Open ended questions usually fail. You're better off making interesting statements than you are actually asking questions. For instance: You look like you're from someplace very far away. vs. Where are you from?
Open ended questions are pretty garbage unless someone is already attracted to you, and used to being conversational. Interrogations aren't fun.
Good comment but I wouldn't suggest saying you look like you are from someplace far away. Just sticking with the standard where you are from is good.
Better to have traveled out of the country a few times so you can relate.
Best advice is to talk about doing something. This art museum, this meetup, this new great restaurant. "Oh join me and my other friends. Or let's go explore together." You can kind of bluff your way through this even if you have no other friends (go find them!).
I agree. The "you look like you are ..." requires the other person to either affirm that they look conspicuously different than their peers or to refute the asker's claim that they look different, which could be embarrassing for both.
Generally, I try to avoid comments on a person's appearance unless I'm pretty good friends with that person, even if it's something relatively benign like "you like my friend, Pat" or "you like $celebrity".
Edit: of course, "where are you from?" could be perceived as a patronizing way to point out that the other person looks different. Socializing is hard.
"You look like you are from far away" will offend lots of minorities, because it smells of racism.
> He asks what many have asked before: “Where are you from?” I tell him Miami. He laughs and says, “No, but really. Where are you from from?” He mentions something about my features, my thin nose, and then trails off. I tell him my family is from Eritrea, a country in the Horn of Africa, next to Ethiopia. He looks relieved. “I knew it,” he says. “You’re not black.” I say that of course I am. “None more black,” I weakly joke. “Not really,” he says. “You’re African, not black-black. Blacks don’t hike.”
In such a scenario, most people will happily bust out the self-deprecation and say "Well, nowhere interesting, but I did go to <interesting_semi-local_place>." Even an hour road trip to somewhere offbeat can be interesting enough for conversation.
>> "Well, nowhere interesting, but I did go to <interesting_semi-local_place>."
Yes, but they may internally feel quite embarrassed saying they went to Rancho San Antonio when others are harping about snorkeling in the Great Barrier Reef and wrestling bears and seeing the Northern Lights.
>Open ended questions are pretty garbage unless someone is already attracted to you, and used to being conversational. Interrogations aren't fun.
It seems like there's a lot of evidence that people like talking about themselves. Also, questions invite engagement where 'interesting statements' don't, necessarily.
I think 'interesting questions' are a good route to go. Knowing
a bit of philosophy helps here. E.g. "In a brain transplant would you rather be the donor or the recipient?" or "Should child-sized sex robots be legal?" Because regardless of the answer it invites follow ups like "Why?" and "What about you? How would you answer the question?"
I'm not an expert in this field, but it seems like bringing up the subject of pedophilia (even in the abstract) in your first conversation with someone is ill-advised.
And in conversation, instead of talking about you “I’m this, I’m that,” make them talk about themselves “Tell me about this. Tell me about what you hope.” Open-ended questions elicit interesting responses. “I am interesting, and we talked about something I like, so now you seem interesting, too.” That's simple projection.
>Open ended questions usually fail. You're better off making interesting statements than you are actually asking questions. For instance: You look like you're from someplace very far away. vs. Where are you from?
"Where are you from?" is the exact opposite of an open ended question.
This was always impossible for me. So I always relied on friends introducing me to their other friends.
I was unnaturally afraid of having to build up my network of friends from scratch. This held me back from moving across the country early on to build my career.
I could have used some kind of mentor for social interactions or something.
Being socially effective is a trainable skill like most other skills. The skills you build being confident and walking up to whomever you choose to say whatever you like, pays dividends in all areas of life. You're more likely to get funded, more likely to get the job and more likely to get the girl.
The only trap is that once you get good, you'll be addicted to doing something that doesn't scale. Fame scales, meeting people one at a time pretty much does not.
Yes but choosing life tactics based on scalability really makes one come across as inhuman and impossible to satisfy. That's fine if you want to be Elon Musk but I encourage the reader to carefully consider whether that is really what would make them happy.
I hope this isn't part of your tactic, because what you just said makes me think I'd chew my own leg off to get away from you if we met socially.
Edit: Just to clarify why I feel that way - you make it sound like there's a one size fits all model of what it means to be social, where the loud guy with good hair wins and all the dweebs lose. Maybe that's your niche, but you should know there's a bigger world out there.
Wallflowers stand by the wall because they are afraid of rendering themselves vulnerable, which is perhaps the most important element in building meaningful relationships in life. I don't know what's the root cause of this fragility but I agree it's systemic issue, and one that can quickly morph into something nastier i.e Troll culture, Redpill misogyny, Alt-right hate, and ethnic/religious fundamentalism in minority communities.
I for one have been a wallflower many, many times and I can safely say that for me personally there is absolutely no correlation between my shyness and any of the other attributes you or the parent commenter allude to.
That's not to say that there isn't some truth to those sentiments, but I'm much more interested in evidence or at least a stronger theory behind the alleged correlations. As written, the original comment at face value is nothing more than one person's opinion based on, who knows what?
I've been a wallflower too and definitely don't think it automatically puts you into the more dangerous direction.
Rather, I think it sets up the potential to be susceptible to them. TRP, for example, does a great job of channeling the (understandable) anxiety and frustration of unloved young men into negativity and hate.
To be blamed for being a wallflower is implicitly white. Consider the alternative, if there's only one minority at the party and they're not mixing that can only be because everyone else at the party is an -ist who need to check their privilege.
The other political groups being implicitly white is a mere correlation (not causality) in the same vein as Hitler drank water, Trump drinks water, therefore we have proven Trump is Hitler.
If you are heading out for a social event, take your good clothes to the gym, workout, shower and change there, then go straight to the event while you are feeling peppy and confident!
If they didn't want to be approached, they would find a way to leave the event or avoid it in the first place. A lot of times it is simple social anxiety. They are afraid that people will find out something about them; or rather, afraid that someone will confirm something they suspect about themselves (e.g., "I'm not interesting to other people.")
Those kinds of fears are generally unfounded, but it's difficult to prove to yourself that they're unfounded without actually interacting with people. But for those willing to interact with the wallflowers, they can be somewhat fearful of approaching someone with such a standoffish attitude, so it becomes a self-fulfilling feedback cycle.
Even just a little courage can go a long way. Walking across an open space can make you more approachable; for example, walking from somewhere on the edge of an activity like a dance to wherever beverages are being served can give others an opportunity to intercept you or approach you. It's not hard, it just takes some practice and the realization that the possibilities for negative consequences are much lower than the possibilities for positive outcomes.
> They are afraid that people will find out something about them; or rather, afraid that someone will confirm something they suspect about themselves
Honestly, that may be the case for some, but I suspect that the majority of the time it's much simpler: Afraid to be in a small-talk situation, and not know what to say after a couple of words. In short, it's a phobia of the feeling of awkwardness. Easier to avoid.
Like any phobia, the best way to treat it is by exposure -- putting yourself in awkward situations as much as possible and witnessing that you can handle it/ get out of it. But also like any phobia, that's much, much easier said than done.
not true. Just because I'm a female introvert doesn't mean everytime I leave my apartment I'm out to socialize.
If I go to a music show or a coffee shop or on a walk it doesn't mean I left my kitchen for the exclusive purpose of finding a dating partner.
Alot of girls actually prefer places where they can be in public and be left alone and not shamed for it or assumed to be advertising themselves, or otherwise prone to mental disease or emotional inadequacies because they don't want to socialize.
In fact places like bars, gyms and other places where women go for the same reasons men go, to enjoy a stiff drink or get in a good workout, pride and advertise themselves for being safe havens with no tolerance for making women feel like they are out of place for existing alone outside of the home.
Am I understanding that right that you are equating socializing with 'finding a dating partner'? And people approaching you in bars, gymns or other places making you feel unsave?
The classic decades old online advice of "lurk for awhile before you post" is also valid in that context.
Using military terminology is kind of brutally honest, yet clarifies the situation, if I've been trying to run a stealthy recon mission to observe intel to prep for possible later missions (or not...), a sudden sneak attack by an outnumbering flanking welcome wagon force is can be panic inducing, defensive fire and run for emergency evac.
More prosaic its like walking into a new store trying to soak up the vibe and feel of the theme and product lines and style and other customers, then getting pounced on by a salesdroid demanding full attention so they can close a sale to me on whatever gives them the best commission, not cool man, that's why internet shopping is crushing brick and mortar.
> If they didn't want to be approached, they would find a way to leave the event or avoid it in the first place.
That's plain false, and quite frankly a mean assessment. Being somewhere by yourself and not interacting can be a choice and can make for an enjoyable time out. Your broad-sweeping statement is unfounded and offensive.
As someone who has to fight my natural introversion I've noticed it is very hard to talk to someone who is literally standing by a wall. There's no way to approach them except deliberately, and.. well why would anyone try talking to someone who is hard to talk to when there are easier options.
Instead, have a plan. And your plan includes at least one conversation map, which gets you through at least 2 minutes of conversation.
Feel free to steal mine: Go and get a drink (it doesn't have to be alcoholic) and then say this to the person next to you:
"Excuse me, I'm XXX. Do you know anyone here?". Their answer is either "Yes.. this is YYYY". Then you go "Hi! What do you do?". Or else they go "No, I don't know anyone either." Then you go: "Oh, I hate coming to this kind of thing when I don't know anyone. So what do you do?"
The next level of this is to bring a third person in. Wait until you see someone looking lost (remember, you are near the food/drink, so people are walking past you) and go "Hi, I'm XXXX and this is YYYY. YYYY is a blah blah blah", and now you know at least 2 people, and are at the core of a group of people talking.
No, they stand by the wall because it's anxiety-inducing to throw themselves into the thick of things. They want to be approached, just not surrounded. At least, that was how I always felt, before I started forcing myself to drift and mingle more.
There's the fear of not being able to keep going with smalltalk and such, but also the conflicting desire for interaction.
I think social anxiety and introversion look pretty similar from the outside. Some people who refuse to socialize at gatherings do it because they hate themselves and some do it because they hate everyone else. That's a simplification but you get the idea.
I disagree. I'm not a wallflower, but I go out a lot by myself ... standing with your back to the wall lets you kind of get into the vibe of the place while observing and assessing people (who do I want to talk to) without feeling overwhelmed, eventually I pick a high traffic location, and sometimes it might still involve having my back to a wall or a bar, but then I get to make short observations about people ... "nice shoes", "what drink is that?" ... or my personal favorite "hey!" ... and based on how they respond, I can either engage or just let the brief interaction die off, and wait for someone else I find interesting to walk by.
If you are at a venue that is culturally-agreed-on for the purpose of socializing, and you don't have headphones in, then you should either leave or accept that folks might try to socialize with you.
To state the obvious: Of course you can only make friends when you talk to people. However, most people who want to make friends probably only want to engage in activities that have a moderate to high likelihood of producing friendships.
Now, how many of the people the wallflowers aren't talking to do actually seek any new friends? For one thing, many people want to enjoy a given event with their friends (and only their friends) whom they've brought to the event. That's often the case at concerts or clubs, in my experience. For another thing, people today are highly mobile and - thanks to their smartphone - in constant contact with their "old" friends so that the set of people they really care about doesn't change much anymore after school. After classes at my uni, for example, many fellow students would drive up to 100km home to live with their partners or to hang out with pre-uni friends. Among the rest, "friendships" existed mostly for learning and partying and thus didn't evolve to something deeper.
Some people may prefer to have a few real, very close friends than 100 "friends" that they never talk to. Some people also like to go to events to just be out and about and not at home. I don't feel weird eating dinner or going to a movie alone. I'm there for me and am not out to "make new friends".
It is a little like co-working space. Yeah, I could work at home but there is a lot more energy being at a location full of people being busy even if they aren't my "friends".
Social anxiety is not a thing that you either have or you don't. Everyone has social anxiety to varying degrees. To claim that people with social anxiety don't live as full or enjoyable lives as everyone else is just plain wrong. What is a "full and enjoyable life"? Is it having an average amount of social anxiety? But then you don't get to do all the cool shit that the people with very minimal social anxiety do. Is it having minimal social anxiety? But then you might end up doing things that you'll regret later i.e. having your silly picture/video go viral and then you might even end up developing social anxiety as a result of the entire world/country/city knowing your embarassing moment.
Anxiety of any kind makes life less enjoyable then not having it. People with social anxiety needs friends, wants to belong in group and generally have normal social needs - except that they are afraid to do necessary steps for it to happen and end up isolated and unhappy. Social anxiety is not the same thing as being happy at home alone and thus not seeking wild parties, it is feeling uncomfortable in presence of people. Happy loners exist, but they don't have social anxiety.
Not everyone has social anxiety just like not everyone who is a bit sad has depression. Social anxiety makes you perform badly on meetings, when talking with your kids teachers, when talking with colleges and in all kinds of situations where it actually matters.
Not having social anxiety is not the same as not doing silly things while drunk. Plenty of extroverted highly social people don't do cool stupid things while drunk.
While gen-pop frequently abuses the word 'literal', you kind of hope that actual authors wouldn't:
> There’s a moment in your book that I love, when you give advice to awkward people looking for social shortcuts, and you tell them not to be literal wallflowers.
The anecdotal clarification there is that people in dormitories should ensure they are near the entrance -- precise details not provided.
The word "literal" here is slightly more complicated than in the usual commonplace misuse of the word.
The author is trying to distinguish between "wallflower" the "socially awkward person" and "wallflower" the "person who stands near a wall". They are using a slightly more literal definition, but not the most literal (i.e. the plant).
The justification is that "being near the wall" =/= "being in a high-traffic area".
Are you seriously suggesting there's a profound loss of meaning between:
> There’s a moment in your book that I love, when you give advice to awkward people looking for social shortcuts, and you tell them not to be literal wallflowers.
and
> There’s a moment in your book that I love, when you give advice to awkward people looking for social shortcuts, and you tell them not to be wallflowers.
Why does the threshold have to be "profound" for word choice and phrasing decisions?
There is a non-trivial difference in connotation between the two sentences.
In vernacular conversation "wallflower" can be used as a term to connote (strong) shyness or to indicate generalized presence on the periphery of an event. In the sentence from the article, "literal" helps to shift emphasis away from the "shy" connotation. Without it, or some other way to emphasize connotation, the sentence is easier to misinterpret as follows:
Yes. The former can be argued as more polite, because you're suggesting an alternate course of action (don't stand near wall), and the latter can be construed as an attack on a person's mentality (you're a shy person, don't be that way [that's bad]).
In US English at least, alternate can be used as a direct synonym for alternative. Idk if it's the same in British English. Might be different like the phrase "just in case", etc.
Couldn't this whole thread be avoided if they had said, "and you tell them not to stand by walls". Or even, "not to literally stand by walls" - both work in this case! :-)
It doesn't mean the same thing as "figuratively". "I figuratively died laughing" doesn't mean anything to most people; most English-speakers won't understand what you mean by it. I mean, that usage of "figuratively" was invented purely as a reaction to non-literal "literally" so only people who have heard of this usage debate will understand what you're doing.
"I literally died laughing" doesn't mean the same thing as "I died laughing", either. "Literally" functions as an intensifier here, and therefore the former sentence is stronger.
>Would you be happy with 'I died laughing ...' when people describe something especially funny? (I would, for the record.)
Then you would already be OK with something analogous to using "literally" as an intensifier.
Since, of course, "died" also means something specific that's unrelated to laughing, and the person uttering the phrase doesn't imply that they actually died.
>If someone said 'I literally died twice from laughter ...' would that be doublepluscompelling?
No, that's why people don't say it. It's the historical evolution of language that dictates what's "doublepluscompelling" or not, not some a priori rules.
"He literally glowed; without a word or a gesture of exultation a new well-being radiated from him and filled the little room." - F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby
>I understand that, but we already have a word for that -- figuratively.
In Vulcan it's usually frowned upon, but human languages often use nuance, play, context, and (gasp) more than one word for the same notion.
Moreover, the value of a word is not in its definition, but in its use. Even if "literally" (in this usage scenario) means the same as "figuratively" they both have very different connotations and impact on the listener.
I'm a stickler for appropriate use of literal/figurative, and I think it was used correctly here. In addition to the clarifying effect mentioned by other posters, the literal use of the word "wall" is being emphasized. No, you're not a literal flower on the wall, but you are a "wallflower" (figurative) that is standing by a wall (literal). Applying "literal" to half a compound word is unusual, but I can't think of a better way to phrase the concept.
Typically "workout" is a noun and "work out" is a verb, but people often use the two spellings interchangeably. In this case the poster was using "workout" as a verb, in which case yes it does mean the same thing as "work out".
If you go to a place where you're by yourself and aren't talking to people you aren't a wallflower, you just didn't prepare.