It would be much easier to socialize if it was just about being nice. A socially awkward person with no confidence could be the most kind-hearted person in the world and be written off as a creep if they can’t socialize in a deft manner. People who are good at socializing tend to have charisma, but that just means they’re likable. It doesn’t say much in regards to their overall character. I feel like a lot of people don’t talk about that here and treat these “social butterflies” as people who have got their lives put together or something, and put them on pedestals. Having good social skills is just a skill, like playing a sport or musical instrument. People who’re great at socializing aren’t somehow enlightened in a way that others aren’t. They have just developed a personality that isn’t so domineered by insecurities and have a knack for navigating in social situations.
I wish you could be good at socializing by just being a good person, but it’s mostly about confidence and charisma. If you are domineered by insecurities and don’t have a knack for navigating social situations, socializing is tough, regardless of what kind of person you are.
I know I may be misinterpreting peoples’ views of “social butterflies”, but I feel like there are some who make it sound like these people are somehow better human beings than individuals with social phobias. It may sound like I have an inferiority complex, but I’m just mentioning this, because I want more people to find help here. I spend my time on less productive subreddits and a lot of those people won’t accept advice or guidance, because they feel like they are being talked down to by “normies”.
1 comment
This may come down to different interpretations of “charisma,” but I feel like you might have cause and effect reversed here. As in, people find especially charismatic those they want to like, and then because they like them, they see the good in them and ignore the bad. I mean, take any two opposing politicians. The followers of one will swear their guy has bucketloads of charisma plus tons of other great qualities while the other is a pathetic unappealing sadsack, with no redeeming qualities, who only has followers because people are fools. The followers of the opposing guy will swear the exact same thing about their guy being charismatic, etc. So which politician has real charisma? Clearly, both, but not to the same people.
You’re definitely right in your observation. There are people who are drawn to the social butterflies in your life and see all the good in them, even the nonexistent. There are people who look down on those who struggle. It’s just that the conclusion you draw – that us more socially inept people are doomed because everybody finds the same thing likeable and niceness isn’t it – is not borne out by experience.
Ask yourself, do you ever want to be a politician? Most people say no – for all the clear benefits of being one, most of us don’t want followers, we want actual friends. And while people will definitely give you more chances if you’re good at the skill of being social (which I agree, is a skill), if you’re not actually a nice person, it’s hard to get people to put up with you for long. So perhaps the social butterfly *has to* keep meeting new people, because they outstay their welcome so fast.
Also, isn’t it part of being genuinely kind to do things that people like? That is, false niceness is trying to get friendship out of people like a stuck vending machine. Genuine niceness is when you know what it’s like to feel low and insecure, and don’t want anybody to feel that way. So you know you can’t solve anybody’s problems, including your own, in five minutes of conversation. What you can do is make those five minutes enjoyable. Say things to encourage people, make them smile instead of putting them down, give a listening ear. Who doesn’t like those things?