Slashdot Mirror
Class Teaches Nerds Social Skills
PeterAitch writes "According to Reuters, Potsdam University in Germany is now teaching social skills as part of their IT courses. This is intended to 'ease entry into the world of work'. The 440 students enrolled in the master's degree course will learn how to write flirtatious text messages and emails, impress people at parties and cope with rejection(s)." The class is taught by a superficial model, who will fall in love with the nerdiest student at the end of the semester after realizing that he is beautiful on the inside.
I don't think there's a response to this news article that could be better than the parent's.
It must suck if/when you fail it though....
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Where was this course when I went to college.
Social Intelligence is a skill that can be taught and learned. That is how most people get it although somewhat unconsciously. Inherent personality does play a role which is why "Nerds" have to work harder at learning it.
Because the majority of the world runs on Social IQ more than we like to admit.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
Back when I went to MIT, the normal class load was four classes per semester and one of those classes was required to be a humanities class (strictly speaking, you didn't actually have to take exactly one per semester but you had to end up with equivalent totals).
I suppose that there were a variety of justifications for that requirement. At a pragmatic level, a lot of the HR and management types would probably resent someone who didn't take any humanities classes in college. The official justification for the policy, though, was that it would somehow help with social skills.
In retrospect, idea that studying ancient literature, for example, will actually help a student's social skills is questionable at best. My attitude these days is that if MIT had really wanted to improve their student's social skills then they should have had them take such classes directly.
While much of the classical Freudian psychology is of dubious value, there are aspects of modern psychology that take a pragmatic approach to interpersonal relationships, and managing emotions generally, and these modern approaches can actually be quite successful.
So, while I'm skeptical that science and technology students should be required to take humanities classes at all, if humanities classes are going to be required then they might as well actually be useful - like how to get a date (and deal with the rejection).
Alternatively take a leaf out of the parent's book and piss your life away being an internet troll.
ProTip: Nerds are not that way because most, or even because a majority, have assburgers syndrome. They just don't care. They've convinced themselves they are above the rest of the world with their little societal rules. There is no disease or disorder, they're just stupid.
As a corollary, having Asperger's syndrome is not cool. It's not a badge of honour. It's not something to be proud of. If you are, you don't have it.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
When it comes to "hot chicks" and being rejected, just remember...
Somewhere, someone is tired of her shit.
I'm a satanic clam.
Wrong! You can definitely teach tact. Your points 1-4 can all be improved. Point 5 is more difficult: if you're willing to give up your "nerdy" hobbies, sure, more chicks might like you, but I'd say that's way too much of a sacrifice. However, if you work on points 1-4, you'll definitely do better in the dating world!
:)
Also, not all "hot chicks" are as superficial as you're implying
Nothing you said counters the idea that a person could improve their social skills through study! Personally, I believe it is possible... to a degree. 99% of people, nerds or otherwise, do not and never will have that "it" factor that makes people swarm to them. But improvement is possible.
Aspergers is the psychiatry honeypot of the next decade. It's a measure of the confusion when you get an economy that screams "specialize" with a guy too busy specializing to talk to babes and catch bass off the coral reef.
But since all four of the major economic industries just melted, specialization will be the way to survive, in weird little eddy current niches.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Add to the list - work out.
Seriously, people underestimate the importance of looking buff. In undergrad, I was a skinny guy (I used to play in a metal band, which was considered cool by some chicks, but I was still skinny).
Somewhere after grad school, I discovered the gym and sports that I enjoyed (rock climbing, for one). And once I started bulking up, I was amazed at the attention that women give you. To all the geeks out there -- buff up. Stop eating junk, eat healthy, work out regularly, run, get good abs and build some muscle.
You'd be amazed at how much better your chances are. Especially in summer.
This will be about as good for them as "Change Your Underwear, Change Your Life," and similar self-help books. Most of what people call "social skills" problems really boils down to self-esteem. I've been to more than a few support groups, talked to a lot of people about their childhood and adolescent learning experiences, coached people on interviewing skills... I don't have a degree as a therapist, but at least in my social circle I'm the go-to girl (for better and for worse!). That said, don't take what I have to say as the gospel -- it's just my own point of view.
First, there's nothing wrong with so-called "nerds", "geeks", or many other classes of people that are bright, insightful, but often shy and hard to approach. They are rarely rude, they don't insult people, they respect another's boundaries if told directly. About the only thing "wrong" with them is that they miss subtlety and sometimes lack tact. Frankly, there's a lot more wrong with people who consider themselves to have "great social skills" than those who don't -- those people are often manipulative, petty, morally underdeveloped, and often destroy group harmony to further their own ambitions. For the girls, I have two words: Queen bee. Guys who have these "great social skills" are often egotistical, inconsiderate, etc. My friends call it the "napoleon complex", after a certain short guy in history who had a real problem with the word "no."
I guess what I'm saying to the people who think their social skills have the suck... Stop beating yourself up. Contary to popular belief, none of us start out equal. And throughout life we never become equal. Trying to move towards normality is like trying to... Well, it's like the Kobashi Maru, you just can't win. So stop trying. Normal doesn't even exist. If you want these mythical social skills--Go someplace where you think there are others like you (or others who you'd like to be like if your self-concept isn't that developed) and listen to them. Watch, learn, interact. What movies do they watch? What phrases do they say? What little gestures do they make? Reason out what it all means and then practice it on your friends and anyone else you can. And don't judge yourself for awhile -- just go out and try things for a bit. The judging part everyone else will do for you (*trust me on this*), so focus on doing it instead of reviewing it. This isn't a question to be answered, but one to be lived. Someday you will find yourself experiencing the answer.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
You know what I want?
Logic skills taught to those people who have "social skills"
While I can understand the desire to teach social skills, I wish people would stop thumping on people with strong technical abilities.
For example, say you are a born classical musician, and are quite good. They would say you are cultured and have everything life needs. YET, if the same happened to a mathematician, well then they are not balanced.
Really? Not knowing how to calculate yourself out of a wet paper bag is balanced?
So sure I will take social skills, so long as the others take logic skills.
MAYBE THEN we have rational discussions....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Have you been around kids?!? My experience (YMMV) is that yes, kids DO have to be taught to take a bath, speak clearly, and say please/thank you. It's hard for parents to get them to do that, and many of today's parents don't bother (perhaps because they incorrectly think that all kids will figure it out without being taught). The result is kids who are absolutely not ready for "real life". Forget the flirting; a class in the "basics of living in a society" (to raise your social IQ) is a really, really useful course. Stuff like bathing, having a brief conversation with someone you don't know, etc. Historically, the people who were getting ready to lead society went to finishing schools, took etiquette classes, etc. Some of it was bunk, but the basic idea that you need TRAINING to be able to work in a society is true enough. Self-taught can work, if you work at it... but too many people don't realize it's something that needs to be learned.
In Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age", a key part of the book was "A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer". Being able to work with others - instead of offending them before you meet them - is a good idea.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
And when it comes to "nerds" and being rejected, just remember...
Everywhere, everyone is tired of his shit.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Asperger's is not a disease, nor is it a mental deficiency, nor are the people who supposedly have it 'stupid' (do you think someone who thrives on social situations doesn't think he's above a nerd?). That kind of thinking comes from the flawed assumption that there's a class of "normal" people, and anyone exhibiting behaviors not part of this class must have something wrong with them. Truth is there is no such thing as "normal", there's only an average, and I don't find those concepts to be the same at all.
Asperger's is a behavioral difference, that's all. Some people thrive on social relationships, most people enjoy them, some people find them to be a chore. Those people thrive on independence, spending an evening by themselves doing whatever they're interested in is as invigorating for them as a night on the town for a socialite. Big deal.
On the one hand we all accept that people are different, and on the other hand we expect them all to be the same. It's confusing. Lets just go with the first one and stop expecting everyone to exhibit the same social behaviors, shall we?
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Amen, brother. Every time I see a woman who is immaculately dressed and made-up, the same thoughts go through my head:
Of course there's also the (even more important) fact that somebody who spends that much time and energy on their appearance clearly thinks their importance is crucially important. In some cases (not all, of course) this will be to the detriment of other qualities like, you know, being an interesting or pleasant person.
In short: Go to the gym, get a good job, spend a lot of money on them. Given two nice guys the one with the bigger paycheck or better looks, or both... wins.
It's been that way for the last 8000 years, why would it change now?
Fact: Nice Guys Finish Last because people are complacent by nature. If you are nice all the time, it becomes expected and undervalued. That's why the jerks win, our rare "Love you babe" outweights your pathetic daily adorations.
Fact: The more money, the more women. Provider instincts haven't change in the last 8k years, ain't gonna change in the next 8k years. If you don't have money, get some weed.
Fact: Good looks get you laid, good portfolio gets you laid. You need to advertise, no one likes a bum, a cheapskate, or an anorexic that can't move the bookcase or change the tire.
Fact:
Good Looks + Money = Easier
Average Looks + Average Money = Door Mat easily replaced by the line above.
Ugly + Broke = Alone
You can always be replaced. Sad fact. So get yourself as high on the list as possible will buy you more time before they find an upgrade. If your lucky they'll die of old age before finding an upgrade.
It's a shallow material world and wishing it was better, teaching 'social' skills, will never replace a fast car, nice suit, and a good tan.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
For example, say you are a born classical musician, and are quite good. They would say you are cultured and have everything life needs. YET, if the same happened to a mathematician, well then they are not balanced.
Really? Not knowing how to calculate yourself out of a wet paper bag is balanced?
Not all humans are mathematically-inclined, or even intelligent enough to understand basic math concepts.
All humans are social creatures, from you all the way down the world's stupidest. "Cultured" is the term that people use to describe those who are best at winning approval from others. I understand why you resent it and hold those people in contempt. They didn't have to work nearly as hard as you had to work, and yet they have more than you do. It hurts.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Ah yes, and one reason so many geeks ignore this seems to be that they're assuming that when females they know say "looks aren't important" and "I think six-pack abs are gross" they actually believe that their female friends aren't being manipulative and essentially playing mind games.
Summary: Most "real geeks" (not "I play video games and call myself a geek") tend to assume people are being honest since they fail to see any logical reason for lying about something like one's preferences when it comes to body type, hairstyles and such...
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
ITT - superficial snap-judgements.
Only those with mental retardation or other conditions keeping them from having a fully functioning brain fall under the category of "unable to understand basic math or logic". Those people are not expected to understand these concepts because we realize that due to crap circumstances beyond their control, they're physically incapable of it. However, all the idiots in Hollywood, at the jock table, the cheerleaders, etc ARE capable of learning basic math and logic, they CHOOSE not to because "it's not cool" and since for so many people (at least in the Western world) their goal is to be cool, they choose to be morons....and we all see where that's leading our society....
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
So I guess a guy who spends 99% of his day behind his xbox/computer and hasnt taken a bath in the last 2 weeks is any better?
in my opinion, it is all about balance... Learning to be technical, but also learning to have good communications skills. Also, learning about basic hygiene and what society sees as acceptable is not bad to know either.
"Hot" women, as you call them, are almost always allot more insecure than normal looking peers. Meaning, they spend so much time because they are trying to compensate for feeling inferior in some way. They are also exceptionally easy to date if you know how to approach them, and are experienced enough that you never get rattled. Also, looks are not as important as they are played to be... Confidence and a good understanding of how to read/react to body language are the most important attributes..
Since my knowledge about social skills is mostly intuitive I can't say for sure but I think social skills can be reduced to a few simple rules:
Be nice, be polite, be confident, pay attention.
If you are talking with nice people the first three rules are sufficient. The last rule is there because some people are not nice, they'll visibly show boredom when you talk to them, they'll throw sarcastic comments about you either in your face or behind your back (both nasty in their own way).
When you notice these people you start needing more skills:
If you are more powerful retaliate, if not get the group on your side, if you can't pay lip service to him.
Lip service is not only necessary for bosses but also for clients. Either way you start needing more rules:
When to back stab, successful black mailing, framing, manipulating fears, making temporal allies, speaking uncertainly.
That last one is also known as double speak and so you see I'm talking about politicians, the ultimate social engineers.
Social skills beyond what you need to get understood tend on the direction of dishonesty and make me feel sick although I know I could be making a lot more money if I learned to work people in my favor.
Since I'm friendly I always get invited to parties, but being antisocial I see no reason to go, listening to music I don't like, drinking stuff I don't drink, talking about stuff I don't want to talk with people I distrust and don't really care about, it's nasty.
One boss once asked me why I always refuse to go parties, I told him that it simply wasn't my thing, he told me that I needed to learn to hang around the boys, I told him that I work with them perfectly fine, finally he told me that I need to go to met people and get connections, I told him that my way works for me.
I could have told him that that was being hypocritical and manipulative, but like I said, I'm not social impaired just antisocial.
This whole thing is insulting to women on so many levels. 1. It imples all technically adept people are men. Why about the women in that class? What will they care about some superficial model? 2. It implies social ineptness in technical people. This is a ridiculious stereotype that has little bases in reality. Intelligent people are no more likely to be socially inept than unintelligent people. 3. It implies that the only women worth knowing are beautiful ones. Yes it's true, get an average roomfull of average people split down the middle male/female, 95% of the guys will all go for the one hot girl no matter what their own "package" is worth. Nobody cares about an intelligent girl unless she is hot. You wonder why women go to so much trouble.. that's why. 4. And why can't a technically adept woman be hot? Oh they can be. But nobody cares, except that she's hot.
I believe the existence of this article kind of proves that not all people are socially-inclined either.
I'll preference this quick with my own bias. I've gone though life as an above average looking geek. I base that on the amount of relative attention I've gotten from the opposite, and sometimes the same and while thx guys-not my cup of tea, sex. And notice I said attention not necessarily action. That is because...
As someone pointed out social IQ has a lot to do with what happens 'in life'. How does this social IQ get formed? Well by in large I believe it is done naturally as people grow up. We are very social animals and so normally a lot of trial and error shapes the way that people learn to interact. However 'geeks' and other social recluses go one of, and there may be more but these are the two that I have noticed, two ways.
1. They remove themselves from socializing to an extreme degree.
2. They are involved in socializing activities but over think everything.
I personally am a bit of #1, I am a geek after all that code/PCB/story/whatever wasn't going to write/build itself. But mostly after many years of introspection, go figure, it's been #2. In most situations normal people, and I feel really dirty writing that because it could easily be a put down or myself bragging but have to express it some way so blah, don't think about what they might do or say. They instead will just act upon it. Those that actually learn by that trial and error method are those who become normal people.
Now keep in mind there are those normal people who don't even learn from that normal trial and error method. And I damn sure know that there are plenty of people out there who are socially backwards without the backup of even being smart. The damming thing about being smart and socially backwards is that you know that your being socially backwards but feel helpless do do anything about it.
So anyway back on point for those people who over think things in social settings I wonder if any course is going to help. Seems to me like it would just reinforce that mentality. Rather as a number of people have said they need to actually go out and socialize. Even at the risk of being uncomfortable and making a bit of a fool out of themselves.
Keeping in mind that that those normal people already did it and made fools out of themselves too, but just did it in the get out of being a dolt free zone of being young. And finally that being even pretty good at being a social creature never removes the chance of being a fool. Rather just reduces that risk. (Of course some of my better memories involve being rather foolish.)
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
This point can NOT be overemphasized. In the 'real world'...quite often, in addition to who you know (#1 importance), how you present yourself and people skills, will outweigh your raw tech. talent. Me? I'm not that good...never have been. My degree was in biochem....I missed med school a couple of times, and kinda 'fell' into IT while learning to make a relational database with gui from Foxpro for med. research while trying to get in. I've gone from there through jobs...till I'm now doing consultant work, usually from my own company...specializing in DBA and data design work. Are there people more skilled than I? YOu bet!!
But, over the years...being able to speak well, NOT being shy about getting up in front of people and presenting...have carried me further than people I know that are tech wizards...but, are scared to speak out in a room full of 3 people (including them).
Knowing how to work with people. Having the ability to think and learn on your feet....will help out the most. This gets you IN the door, and of course, you have to be able to learn and do when you get there. But, also....it often doesn't have to be the prettiest way to do it, or most elegant solution. Get it done...get it to work...and get it turned in and have it succeed on time. No...I'm not talking bad code...but, say if you are behind, if you have good people skills, etc...you can explain the deal, and get more time, understanding....etc.
""Hot" women, as you call them, are almost always allot more insecure than normal looking peers. Meaning, they spend so much time because they are trying to compensate for feeling inferior in some way. They are also exceptionally easy to date if you know how to approach them, and are experienced enough that you never get rattled. Also, looks are not as important as they are played to be... Confidence and a good understanding of how to read/react to body language are the most important attributes.."
Confidence...is a key one here. Took me a LONG time to figure out. Be confident...slightly aloof, and a little self centered. It helps to get them. If you have to fake it...do so. Again, being able to 'put a face on'...is a people skill that will help you get laid too.
The subtle body language and signs women put out there?
I gotta admit....I'm completely lost on this one. I just never see or read them....I've had friends that are good at it...ask me what the deal was with "X" ...did I get some. And often I tell them I had no idea....so, I do try to keep friends around that can read the clues..at least initially...I use them as translators..hahaha.
But yeah..that body language women often put out, if it is shy of carrying a sign, or physically putting her hands down your pants is the toughest thing to read, IMHO.
But, if you can act confidently and fake it...that will carry you a long way.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Every time I see a woman who is immaculately dressed and made-up, I think:
She is signaling that she is a desirable mate, and not just cause you would enjoy mating with her. She is desirable because she is successful and will give your children a higher chance of likewise being successful and producing viable offspring.
Sig intentionaly left blank
I always find it amusing when people reference "The Game," as some sort of getting-laid gospel, considering Strauss ends up making the pick-up artists look like total losers by the end of the book. By the end of the book, the message seemed to be to live life, have fun, and not sweat how much you're getting laid. But that may be my interpretation of it.
It's an unfortunate truth that sexual harassment is *unwanted* attention.
The handsome jock walks into the situation with far more behavioral leeway than the geeky guy.
Exactly the same thing happens with the cute, buxom young woman, compared to the middle-aged, dowdy mother of three. Sexual discrimination is very much a two-way street.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
I really don't know where to begin with your post, I don't have time to go through all of the problems raised by your commentary. But, in general, it can be said that there is a societal expectation of social behavior. The majority of people have been born with the ability to discern clues as to other's behavior and act accordingly.
More interesting to me, is that there is an expectation hat one without social skills is necessarily an individual with strong math and science skills. I have found this to not be the case more often than not. There are more socially awkward individuals of average intelligence, than those of above average intelligence. I think they find it easier to cope with their social skills by associating themselves with the trappings of science-fiction and technology. Due to the stereotype, this gives them the perception of being "Smart". And I guess its better to be perceived as socially awkward and smart, rather than socially awkward and of average intelligence.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Yes if you want to pick up dumb bar sluts, The Game works fine.
If you want anything else, it'll hurt you. After all, one of it's tenets is "neg"ing the girl you're into (basically, subtly insult them until they want you).
It's a horrible book, the only reason it works for anyone is because it gives some otherwise shy guys the confidence to approach women.
Hmm. Sounds like you have worked for some pretty crappy employers.
Your strategy, of embracing all that your superiors want, is a good way to look pretty good -- but in the end, bad for your employer.
While I agree that it is not a good idea to knock down ideas during a meeting (which will make your superiors look bad), I would hesitate at embracing those ideas fully if I really felt there were problems.
You should make sure to bring up your objections in a private correspondence that will not make your boss/superior look bad... an "impromptu" discussion by the coffee machine, walking by their office, etc.
And here's the key to raising objections: Always include a solution to the objection. The way it works is by making sure the person you are discussing it with understands the costs of the solution. Volunteer to head up the team overcoming the problems... and point out that you'll need to drop projects X,Y, and Z to make it happen. Tell him you'll send a write-up of the issues and solutions (this is important, more below).
This method has a lot of benefits -- it makes your objections private so your boss doesn't look bad; it enables your boss to be aware of and head off problems during idea implementation; it highlights your efforts to be constructive and to take leadership roles; and it gives your boss the choice of dropping the project if he/she chooses. It also allows your boss a chance to convince you, one-on-one, that their idea really does have merit. There may be considerations from his side that were not presented during the meeting, that you have no idea of.
The write-up of issues and solutions is an important piece here. It reminds your boss of your contribution, and makes it *much* more likely that your boss will either follow some or all of your recommendations, or drop the project. Communicating something twice, via different methods, really increases the likelihood that you'll get your message through.
Anyway, embracing all the ideas of your superiors (even when you disagree) is a great way to make sure you're in a job you hate. It also reduces your value to your employer. The trick is to find a way to disagree without appearing to disagree.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
That kind of thinking comes from the flawed assumption that there's a class of "normal" people
There are people who are within one standard deviation of the mean, and there are those who are not.
anyone exhibiting behaviors not part of this class must have something wrong with them
That's not flawed so much as it's an admittance that society relies on the ability for people to make assumptions about other people. I assume that if I stick my hand up in the air after you've done something good, you'll slap it and we'll both acknowledge it as a "high 5". If I go out in public, I wear clothes and you don't beat me up. Things like that. When people can't make these assumptions about other people, or where these assumptions start to fall apart, you get problems. Nerds (like myself) tend to not be clued into these assumptions and unspoken rules, probably because we're just dumb when it comes to social interactions the same way that we're smart when it comes to math and science. Honestly, math and science come easy to me in ways that most other people never understand. The inverse is true with social skills: I don't get why it comes so easy to people.
So, while I find myself in that minority that doesn't interact very well socially, I've been able to make do enough that I can interact with people and can pass my quirks off as jokes most of the time. I'm eccentric as hell, but people tend to like me. I also understand why these judgments are made and the value they give to society.
Did you read what that other AC wrote: "That's also why they're so easy to troll."?
He's exactly right. Furries are easy to abuse because they've already been shit on so much that they reflexively adopt the "victim stance" which only invites more abuse.
Furthermore, the internet makes consequence-free abuse merely a click away. As a gay man, I know this quite well. The singlemost effective defense against gay-bashing can be summed up in two words: concealed carry. Unfortunately, that doesn't work so well on the Internet.
Where would one put a Bersa in a fursuit anyway?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Just one viewpoint, take it or leave it.
Aspergers is to the body language and subtle social cues that define 2/3 of human communication as blindness is to vision or deafness is to sound. Only on the outside, no one knows you have an impaired perception. You don't get cut the slack that the person signing or the guy carrying the cane would.
You constantly monitor yourself every second to make sure you don't do anything wrong. You're labelled as weird, or rebellious, rude, or unpleasant to be around because you can't perceive the messages people are trying to send you. You have few friends because whatever secret magical language that's being spoken to generate new connections with people you totally miss. Many attempts you make to reach out to people end in disaster, and you can't for the life of you understand what the hell it is that you're doing wrong.
Those lonely nights spend in front of a computer are ones you'd probably rather spend hooking up with a girl you met at a bar instead of learning the intricacies of Yacc or device drivers. And it drives you absolutely fucking insane that everyone else is in on the fuck-fest that is life except you.
Amen to most of the above. I don't know how it affects/is applied by others in this situation, but for me it exhibits as an overriding concern for rules and rulesets. It's taken me about twenty five years to accumulate enough rules to get by in most interactions. There are times however when don't have good rules, and I stumble.
This fixation on rules has engendered a wealth of misunderstandings, ostracization and ridicule, mostly because the others don't realize that my socially awkward actions are based on something more fundamental than simple rudeness.
One effect I have noticed with my personal changes is that I am often underestimated by others, probably because my fitting in makes me appear harmless and somewhat uninteresting. So be it. Small price to pay to be involved.
The ever-larger rulesets can be a trial as well, until I realized that I can dispense with them at need.
The biggest frustration is to have the right answer/response, and being utterly unable to communicate it properly; a big (possibly the biggest) advantage is that after all this practice it is relatively easy to learn the appropriate accents, colloquialisms, speech timing and patterns, and topics of discussion ("skins", if you will) that enable me to fit in almost anywhere (within my prior experience).
Any super-abilities you might gain from this condition are cold comfort, as they're used more as survival skills to get around the enormous deficits you experience in being able to read people. The money that you earn from your impressive abilities has to be the substitute for having lots of friends who could help you do stuff (e.g. you pay someone to install an super-heavy air conditioner in a second story windows because you don't have many friends you can call on to help you). It's not really a preference for certain kind of social lifestyle, it's a crappy hand of cards you're dealt that you have to make the best of.
Or you can choose to regard it as a challenge to your abilities and will, and solve it. It's up to you.
However, if I had one piece of advice, it's this: don't let it fester. Learn to communicate in whatever way makes you least uncomfortable, because it is nearly meaningless to have the ability to contribute if you can't figure out a way to make a contribution.
None of this was meant to criticize any of what I quoted. I saw an opportunity to use it as a springboard for what I've wanted for some time to write.
... and also what the loudest "WHOOSH" sound ever recorded was.
I've read some of the material, and I pretty much agree. Its good if you want to be able to get laid as often as possible for as little effort as possible. Its terrible if you're trying to do things like have interesting conversation or build an actual relationship with someone. And to be quite honest, sex is kinda shallow and boring if its just getting laid and not a relationship.
There are quite a few gems in the material (for example, getting out of a scarcity mentality, being able to re-frame things so that you're focusing on how to improve rather than on the rejection, etc), so I'd say its worth reading some of it. Just be skeptical and try to take away the strategies that focus on improving your mentality and confidence, and disregard the scripts and tricks to jab at the girls' self-esteem, and you will learn a lot.
I'm aware of furry drama. I have a friend who is a furry and he lives communally in an apartment with other furries in which the roommates rotate every three months or so. Drama city, according to him.
There's no reason to put scare quotes on self-esteem. Self-esteem is the value you place on yourself. Having none of it will make you feel worthless, good for nothing, broken, flawed, a drag. People react to that in ways that hurt other people, by either latching on to people and draining them of life, or by becoming a "radical loser" by projecting their feelings of worthlessness onto others.
A high self-esteem, which is to say happiness, is the birthright of every single* human being. If I were to truly express how strongly I felt that, it would split the Earth right in half. Sometimes I think that people with no self-esteem choose to revel in their misery (does "misery loves company" ring true to you?) and I think that's harmful. It is grossly cruel the way people treat furries (and emos).
*Except psychopaths. www.hare.org
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.