Leaving aside personal ethics and aesthetics, does the act of

>>34648436
>leaving aside personal ethics and aesthetics, does the act of "social success"
Of course those two things have nothing to do with social success. Ethics, maybe? Depends what you mean by personal ethics.

But on to your point:

no, social success has nothing to do with simply talking and receiving responses. it's about the connection with others , friends, family, with strangers and everyone who comes within you. it's not about getting input output or merely receiving a reply. because people can reply but they might hate talking to you or hate you.

(or feel obligated/ pity / etc)

abusive or toxic relationships/friendships don't have to do with talking or receiving responses. abusive or toxic relationships/friendships would be people who use you, don't respect you or support you and are very negative, bring you down, aren't there for you, etc etc.

i feel like all your topics don't even match or relate?

social success has nothing to do with the rate of success in holding conversations / receiving responses, but the bond between you two. or how much you like each other. there's a lot to this definition but that's one element.

can you be socially successful and say nothing to your friends and sit in silence with them for hours, years, etc? yes :)

it's also not about the content :( it's who you are :(

if you're a good person, most likely people will like who you are (aka you attract people)

but i don't mean good with money or good with a specific field. a good human being.


the issue is everyone thinks they're a human being, and they don't know how others perceive them. so you have to be a bit real, self aware, down to earth. know your values. etcetc idk sorry distracted but .. don't overanalyze too much just be yourself :)! you'll be fine :)

social ostracization is a measurement unit for innovation and the more time you spend worrying about what other people think you the more the cuck creeps in and you stop thinking for yourself slowly but surely

>>34648436

It seems like you have to tailor your comments so that their effect is maximized and they produce a certain type of reaction in the receiver and/or carry the conversation forward or to your advantage. Large part of it consists of already existing cliches and idioms that are used in a reflex-like way. The content usually isn't abstracted when reveived and originally constructed when sent. It's basically a game of shallow manipulative doublethink with little to no regard to the communication's truth value.

>>34648522
>hey might hate talking to you or hate you.
that's an aesthetic preference. It doesn't matter whether they hate you, pity you, or feel obliged. The fact that they keep responding means that those emotions have no practical consequence

>respect you or support you and are very negative, bring you down, aren't there for you, etc etc.
Again, these are abstract aesthetic preferences. They have no practical impact whatsoever.


>i feel like all your topics don't even match or relate?
You don't understand because you cannot sufficiently relate to my position. Meditate on the last sentence of the OP. I have no friends, and cannot remember what it was like to have friends. I don't talk to people at all IRL unless it is necessary for the performance of my job. I'm trying to examine the roots of socialization, the primitive elements.

>>34648436
If that were true intermet trolls would be the most socially successful. Unless you specify verbal communication, which cuts out texting that many use in place of verbal communication.

>>34648749

Ok yes, I'll add one caveat. Continued communication. And verbal in-person is also closer to what I'm interested in. But I would consider a troll who continues to talk to someone, sending and receiving relevant responses for an extended period of time (multiple years) to be experiencing social success.