Triggered by a side conversation where introverts talked about how much they enjoyed the lockdown era of Covid, even as they realize how that can come off. (I’ve also heard echoes of this in the WFH debate.)
in an ideal world, should we let those people stay home and not interact face to face with people as much as they like? Would it be “bad” for them? According to who? At what point is “forcing” them to directly interact with the outside world “for their own good”?
If we’re talking about ideal, that means we are able to distinguish between those who are true introverts and enjoy solitude and are truly happy with just themselves for company vs. people who are only doing so because they are suffering from depression or some other psychiatric illness and who would be happier in the company of others if they had their underlying illness treated. Given that this society can make that distinction (because it’s an ideal society, which would by definition include a greater knowledge of psychiatry than we currently have), then yes, the former should be left to enjoy a life of solitude if they so choose.
Sure, I would agree with this, although thinking about how to generally handle a pool of people who could be depressed but you’re not sure might be an interesting thought experiment.
Why do you think an ideal world would believe that anything “for your own good” would be other than a gross violation of their human rights?
IMO your question totally assumes your conclusion.
I guess I was trying to leave open even the possibility that a society not structured to force personal interaction might still have a reason to do so. If there’s not, so be it!
I suppose it depends on just how ideal this “ideal” society is. Are we talking Star Trek during the TNG era, which is what I usually think of as the closest to an ideal society, fictional or otherwise, that humans have come up with, or something else? I was presuming an increase in the amount of knowledge that medical professionals have about psychiatric medicine. Maybe it goes further than that. Either way, there is also the consideration of “for the good of others” in addition to the “for your own good”. That is highly unlikely to apply when the topic is introverts wanting to keep to themselves (unless we’re talking about some kind of RPG trope where a genius hermit needs to come out of retirement to solve some problem that no one else can), but it does apply to other areas.
Yeah. There are lots of interesting ways we could approach the general questions raised by mental (dis-)health and behaviorial preferences and where one slides into the other. As well as lots of interesting debates on what a society owes to its members and what the members in turn owe to their society.
But it just seemed to me the OP assumed his conclusion and stopped all discussion of specifically what he seemed to be asking. My response was my ham-fisted way of trying to get more explanation of what was really in the the OP’s mind that he was trying to get out for discussion.
First I want to point out that the OP doesn’t mention anything about a government in this hypothetical ideal society. It could be construed as, “As a community, should we allow someone to become a recluse? Or should we band together and try to coax them out of their house.” Or, say, “Where does being a good member of a community end.” Should we accept “leave me alone” on it’s face? Or do we have a responsibility to one another?
I think it’s a fascinating question, and relevant as people more and more find escapism on their own personal internets. Once you leave high school, you can go to school, get a job, get everything delivered, and basically never have to leave your apartment. Is that good? Should we encourage that? Or discourage that? How vociferously should we discourage it? Should we rely on one’s friends to hold the intervention or do community associations play a role (since it’s unlikely this hypothetical person has IRL friends at this point)?
Bigger questions – if communities do nothing, at what point does it get to be a problem for society? We (speaking of governments now) already have a floor that we’re not willing to go beneath when people want to opt out of society (and yes, lots of people want to just opt out of their responsibility for being a member of a community). We say, “OK, you can keep to yourself as much as you want, but you have to pay taxes and follow our laws.” And then we get into, “Why should I pay school taxes if I don’t have kids in school” to which everyone says “You live in society and society needs to function.”
OK then, if we’re willing to be coercive for taxes to keep society going, then how coercive should we be if too many recluses are harming society? Will we ever get to that point? Is this already a dangerous line of thinking?
Of course. As long as people aren’t hurting other people or infringing on their rights, they should be allowed to live life as they choose to live it.
In my ideal world, I think extroverts should be required to stay home by themselves for several hours a day.
I don’t understand this need some people have to drag other’s out of the house. A relative of mine is constantly dragging her dad to movies, restaurants, baseball games etc. What bugs me is when she says “I don’t understand how he can just sit there watching TV all weekend” to which I’ll usually interject “maybe he enjoys just watching TV by himself”.
This meme jumps into my head on a very regular basis:
And to address this, just asking this question feels like an insult. Society doesn’t need to force me to do something I’m not interested in doing and forcing me into social situations isn’t something you’d do for my own good. That’s the type of thing that you’d be doing because it makes you feel better about yourself or something. I don’t know what the reason is, but it’s unrelated to me.
According to the people who’s lives you’re looking to interrupt for no reason at all.
I hope this isn’t too off topic but as an unofficial introvert I haven’t seen any difference in my life before, during or after COVID. (Other than systemic shortages and rampant inflation)
It isn’t “society’s” business what I do with my life.
First I want to point out that neither did I mention anything about government. Perhaps I misunderstand you but I read that opener as implying I was talking about government, which you then intended to contrast. Nope.
But overall I think you raised a bunch of excellent questions that outline the larger topic at hand.
Why, precisely, do you think it would be for anyone’s good to force them to be in company when they want to be alone?
I can see an argument that it might sometimes be for someone’s good to try to make them go to a doctor if they’re seriously depressed; but, for one, there are people who want to spend a lot of time alone who aren’t depressed; and, for two, adults are allowed to refuse medical care for a reason; and, for three, if someone is depressed forcing them to be in company isn’t going to fix it.
(And there’s quite a lot of “the outside world” that doesn’t have other humans in it. If you mean ‘force them to directly interact with other humans’, try saying that.))
If anything, COVID made me less alone. I was still working from home, like I had for the previous decade, only now my wife and son were also at home with me all day long, which got to be annoying after a while. I love them, but I love being alone, too, and up until then I had managed to find a perfect family/solitary balance in my life which that damn pandemic ruined.
In response to the OP, let them isolate as much as they want. Why should we decide for them what’s good for them? And similar to Joey_P said, how would extroverts feel if all the introverts of the world decided to lock the extroverts into solitary confinement periodically, saying “You need to be isolated for your own good?”
In an ideal society, none. Here in the real, messy, world, when the recluse starts sending out mail bombs, or comes out with guns and a list of names.
nevermind.
Not all introverts and/or people who like to be alone, which is the subject of this thread, are terrorists and, at least IMHO, it’s kind of a jerk move to even suggest it.
No, it’s not. The question was asked, “When is it a problem?” I answered that. You conveniently ignored the implied “otherwise, it’s not a problem.”
If you think that no one living by themselves can’t become unhinged, then have fun in your “ideal society”. Here in the real world, the Unabombers cause the problems I mentioned. They Grey Gardens types just quietly isolate themselves and cause no problems. They have no lists. The ones not related to anyone famous just quietly live their lives. Not a problem. Which is what I said!
In general, terrorists who aren’t isolated have done a lot worse damage than loners. Lone nutjobs don’t pull 9/11s or Oct 7ths,so we should also think everyone who socializes is a potential problem, right?.