Comments

• By BeetleB 2025-09-2320:079 reply

  By the time you get to my age, your list of potential Anna's will be in the high dozens. You simply cannot keep this up with all the Anna's.

  A lot of people genuinely don't want to hang out with you. Likely that number exceeds the "real" Anna's by an order of magnitude.

  If there's someone I particularly like, I'll keep inviting him. But if the person is otherwise normal (e.g. clearly has a social life), I invite 3-5 times, and then stop. If the guy wants to hang out with me, the ball's in his court.

  You'll find no shortage of people who'll say "Hey man! What happened? I never hear from you any more!"

  To which I'd love to respond with s/any more/ever/

  If you're the guy who always invite people regardless of their response (or non-response), you'll find that people will have an expectation that you always invite them. I would recommend not getting to that point.

  By efsavage 2025-09-2320:482 reply

  I overheard two very outgoing co-workers once, where one asked the other if he was having his holiday party.

  "It was last weekend", he said.

  "Oh, I didn't get an invite"

  "That's because you never come"

  She looked shocked, I think she genuinely didn't know what to say. After an awkward silence she said, "but I liked to be invited"

  "I'll happily invite you next year if you promise to come"

  She smiled politely and walked away.

  It was memorable to me because it was such a foreign interaction on both sides from my perspective.

  By dexterdog 2025-09-2322:526 reply

  It's probably just ego on the one side. That person likes to be invited to feel like they are the more valuable person in the relationship. If I were the other person I would make sure that invitation is never extended.

  By singhrac 2025-09-243:36

  Who cares if they feel like they are the more valuable person in the relationship? Do you decide your framework based on mental games other people might play? Decide if extending an invite that is declined will cost you something (food, space, etc.) and whether you want the person there.

  By teapot7 2025-09-242:342 reply

  Or because they're shy and antisocial but it's nice to think that they're part of the gang - as the original article was all about.

  By nine_k 2025-09-243:302 reply

  It's understandable, but in no way nice. One side is going to bring their authentic shy and antisocial self, and stonewall the invitations, while the other side needs to keep smiling and send invitations no matter what. This sounds slightly lopsided, doesn't it?

  If you would like the other side to do you a small favor every time, it's worth considering to do the same. At least respond to the invitation with gratitude and a hope to maybe do it next time.

  By BeetleB 2025-09-2415:50

  > while the other side needs to keep smiling and send invitations no matter what.

  No one is suggesting one needs to. It's a choice. And when you make it a choice, it is indeed nice.

  By volemo 2025-09-249:01

  People have different capacity for social "niceties". Sometimes I'm full of energy and am happy to be Alexei for someone, sometimes I am Anna.

  By WA 2025-09-246:071 reply

  You can overcome shyness to some extend. Not getting invited anymore can also be a sign that the shy person has to change something about their behavior, instead of all others just accepting that.

  By mrheosuper 2025-09-246:29

  >the shy person has to change something about their behavior

  This is like asking depressing people to stop being "depressing"

  By mock-possum 2025-09-240:561 reply

  Oh wow that is foreign to me, but I’m sure you’re right - Collecting invites you never intend to answer just sounds like… I don’t know, some sort of weird social hoarding.

  If somebody I don’t want to hang out with keeps inviting me that doesn’t make me feel good about myself, that makes me feel anxious, like I haven’t properly clarified our relationship with them.

  > That person likes to be invited to feel like they are the more valuable person in the relationship.

  For me, I would expect the opposite - if you get invited all the time but never come, it’s because you’re not actually involved in their life, you’re not actually all that valuable. In order to be valuable you’d have to be making the effort to be present, or at the very least, communicating your availability so the other person would better understand when it’s appropriate to expect you.

  By mac-mc 2025-09-242:10

  It is ultimately a form of insecurity.

  By watwut 2025-09-248:55

  > That person likes to be invited to feel like they are the more valuable person in the relationship

  Or it was just a comment without any major feelings of dominance attached to it. Some people interpret everything as a status fight, but most dont.

  By squigz 2025-09-2323:281 reply

  I'm so glad I don't understand and thus can't play these games with people. It sounds tiring.

  By snapcaster 2025-09-243:351 reply

  What part don't you understand? I'm sure you engage with other forms of social status and signaling and this one seems pretty straightforward

  By Zenbit_UX 2025-09-248:562 reply

  I believe they were implying they don’t get social cues due to neurodivergence, likely autism. Hilariously you’re also not picking up on their social cues and implications, which is likewise telling.

  By squigz 2025-09-249:492 reply

  Quite right. Reading such intense motives behind such simple interactions is one of those allistic things that has me going like ???

  By BeetleB 2025-09-2415:541 reply

  Not reading such motives is not a sign of neurodivergence. If people are jumping to these types of conclusions, it's their deficiency. Plenty of normal, non-neurodivergent people refuse to read much into these things.

  I've read a number of books on effective communications, and they all emphasize not to read into these signals, and when you do, to go and have a conversation about it to confirm them. I found, as many have, that the error rate is about 50% (i.e. half the time you read the signals wrong).

  These books are for normal people - not neurodivergent folks.

  By squigz 2025-09-2416:00

  Only 50%? That would be nice.

  By bckr 2025-09-2411:21

  It’s perhaps even more maddening than that. Even if all these factors are at play, it doesn’t mean they actually matter all that much to anyone involved. These two coworkers might otherwise really get along and respect each other, but this is one of the games that they are playing with each other.

  On the surface, implicitly negotiating over who is more important sounds horribly dramatic, but it’s a game that’s happening constantly among everyone. Usually folks push and pull over some equilibrium point, one person making concessions, then the other, in turns, with the actual hierarchy determining roughly how many turns each person should concede before making a demand of the other. This is where you get dynamics like “he’s a very demanding boss but he cares a lot about his employees” (high amplitude of switching between demand and concession) or “she’s very sharp but also hard to get along with” (doesn’t concede enough to make others feel important).

  Concession in this game can be anything, small to large, from being the one who opens the door to let the other through, to offering help during personal problems, to letting someone take more credit on a collaboration.

  But, again, these are all played in the implicit layer. They can be raised to the explicit layer by having a “heart to heart”, like “you’re always so kind. I appreciated when you did XYZ”, or “I’d really like if sometimes you did ABC”.

  By snapcaster 2025-09-263:491 reply

  I did, but felt rude to just tell them they're autistic

  By tripzilch 2025-09-2811:51

  Yeah and you were rude anyway.

  Here's some advice: There will be literally never, ever, be a situation in your life when it is okay or even remotely appropriate to tell somebody else that "they're autistic".

  If you figure that someone is autistic just make the accommodation you notice they need, because if you don't you are in fact the one being demanding of them to do the work to make the social thing happen on account of two people.

  By mfru 2025-09-258:35

  That sounds like you projecting onto others

  By jacquesm 2025-09-2420:09

  You can't feel powerful by rejecting an invitation that you never receive in the first place.

  By 63stack 2025-09-2322:184 reply

  I had the same opinion and I am surprised by the amount of feelgood responses in this thread.

  Anna needs to realize that the amount of people who have the time and willingness to invite someone out for _years_ while receicing no is very low. These friends need to be treasured and appreciated, and Anna needs to make an effort by saying yes sometimes, or at least expressing what she's going through. The friends are making an effort by keeping her in the group, she needs to do the same.

  By readthenotes1 2025-09-245:42

  "invite someone out for _years_"

  In the story,it was only first semester, so at most mid August to mid December.

  By ryandrake 2025-09-242:304 reply

  I came here to make a feelgood response and I’m shocked by the highly upvoted grumpiness!

  “It costs nothing to be kind.”

  Whenever I go anywhere or make plans to do something social, I try to invite everyone I can. You’re sending the invite already, the marginal extra keystrokes it takes to add someone is trivial. And even if you know they’re not interested, the invitation might bring them some joy, so why not?

  Life is not a game where people build up points with you and you start to be kind to them only if they maintain themselves above a threshold.

  By ChrisMarshallNY 2025-09-245:072 reply

  > I’m shocked by the highly upvoted grumpiness!

  Sadly, I’m not.

  People can be quite cruel; especially as a mob.

  You’d think that a crowd like nerds, with our famously awkward aspect, and the way so many of us were treated, would be empathetic, but it seems that the treatment has actually had the opposite effect. I suspect many of us have had “nerdy” bosses that were walking nightmares.

  It didn’t happen to me, but that’s through no fault of my own. I had a lot of stuff happen to me, that forced me to become empathetic. If that hadn’t happened, I suspect I would have been a real demon.

  By watwut 2025-09-248:592 reply

  > You’d think that a crowd like nerds, with our famously awkward aspect, and the way so many of us were treated, would be empathetic, but it seems that the treatment has actually had the opposite effect. I suspect many of us have had “nerdy” bosses that were walking nightmares.

  The amount of nerds in tech is overstated and so is the absurd assumption that everyone here was bullied.

  And second, a lot of what we call "not having social skills" is frequently an euphemism for "being mean and then wondering why people avoid me" situation. It may be unintentional in some case, it may be they dont see relationship between other peoples behavior and their own. But it is a real thing.

  By ChrisMarshallNY 2025-09-249:221 reply

  I think that the composition of “technical” people has changed, over the years.

  When I was getting my start, it was almost exclusively nerdy white males.

  That is no longer the case. Tech now looks a lot more like any other community.

  Misanthropy is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s different from social awkwardness or fear.

  For myself, I’m “on the spectrum,” so high-stimulus environments are exhausting. That describes most social gatherings; especially amongst neurotypicals. It’s unfair for me to insist that they cater to my proclivities, and it’s also unfair for me to insist that they understand why I am the way I am.

  One of the things that I learned, early on, is that I am the variable. It’s not something to be self-pitying about, but understanding myself, helps me to interact better with others. I appreciate it when others understand, but I don’t expect it.

  By watwut 2025-09-2411:071 reply

  > I think that the composition of “technical” people has changed, over the years.

  I am old enough. It is not about changed composition. It simply never was true that everyone would be a "nerd" or bullied. Or even majority of us. Or that majority of the people in tech would ever be neurotypical. There might be more neuroatypical people then in teaching, but not enough to make it reasonable default assumption.

  Some people were nerds and some people were bullied. There was overlap between those groups, but not perfect circle and it was far from majority of people in tech.

  > Misanthropy is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s different from social awkwardness or fear.

  Yes. And what I had in mind was something kind of third. When I said "mean I meant literally "being mean": being condescending, telling people they are idiots, mocking them or their interests.

  There is being awkward, which is socially punished. And then there is something else that is euphemized away as "awkward" so that we avoid saying something negative.

  By ChrisMarshallNY 2025-09-2414:30

  Well, I started in 1983, so things have, indeed, changed, since then. In the field I was in (defense electronics, then, financial hosting, etc.), it was definitely "nerdy white males." Probably for the first eight years or so of my career.

  We also had a lot of ties, back then. Sucked. I did learn to tie a Windsor, though, so I guess it's not a total loss.

  By underlipton 2025-09-2412:371 reply

  >a lot of what we call "not having social skills" is frequently an euphemism for "being mean and then wondering why people avoid me" situation.

  Nah, Dunning-Kruger is in effect here. People are frequently far less emotionally-intelligent than they believe themselves to be, and will misinterpret the actions and intentions of others, often projecting onto them their own hang-ups, insecurities, and vices. There is also an erroneous conflation of comfort and prosociality, where someone who merely makes another individual (or, more likely, someone of the social group that individual is a part of with large amounts of social capital) uncomfortable is branded as "mean" or "an asshole", while another person - who is charismatic, but actively harming the people around them - is accepted, or even admired.

  IME, "nerds" (frequently neurodivergent) tend to be observant, but have difficulty wearing social masks. This is where the above comes in: they actually have above average emotional intelligence, but because their attempts to be prosocial are considered rather than instinctual, they come off as "unnatural", their efforts are misinterpreted as malice, arrogance, apathy, etc., and they themselves begin to believe that they're socially-inept. Meanwhile, they are, unfortunately, surrounded by people who are often incapable of identifying or acknowledging this dynamic.

  The irony is that this comment is meant to elucidate and inspire empathy, but it will itself likely be misinterpreted as condescending.

  By watwut 2025-09-2413:171 reply

  > who merely makes another individual (or, more likely, someone of the social group that individual is a part of with large amounts of social capital) uncomfortable is branded as "mean" or "an asshole"

  I am talking about people who are insult others, mean, condescending, refuse to consider very real and practical needs of others as valid. These absolutely exist and they get euphemized away, just like you do it now, as "just being awkward and misunderstood".

  You basically refuse to consider such situation, unless the person in question is also charismatic. If someone is not highly charismatic, they can not be jerk, basically.

  > The irony is that this comment is meant to elucidate and inspire empathy, but it will itself likely be misinterpreted as condescending.

  You are refusing to listen and read what I said, projecting some kind of completely different situations onto the one I described. That wont elucidate empathy, because you are simply not considering what I said in the first place.

  > they actually have above average emotional intelligence, but because their attempts to be prosocial are [...] their efforts are misinterpreted as malice, arrogance, apathy

  I will stop at "malice". If on ended up doing harm to others unintentionally, his/her emotional and social intelligence is not high. And if it was not unintentional or result of not caring about others, then it is what it is.

  Same goes with arrogance. Someone is being overbearing manner to others or operates on the assumption that others are dumb so much, that it is noticeable. When others notice, their conclusion that he is arrogant is correct and valid. It is not awkwardness nor fear nor anything like that.

  By underlipton 2025-09-2518:24

  >I am talking about people who are insult others, mean, condescending, refuse to consider very real and practical needs of others as valid. These absolutely exist and they get euphemized away, just like you do it now, as "just being awkward and misunderstood".

  I didn't say that it doesn't happen. I said that people are very bad at distinguishing when it does from when it isn't happening. The crux of this discussion is regarding when one should make assumptions about someone's possibly antisocial behavior, and I'm saying that most people aren't able to do this in a way that isn't itself antisocial.

  >You are refusing to listen and read what I said, projecting some kind of completely different situations onto the one I described. That wont elucidate empathy, because you are simply not considering what I said in the first place.

  Please consider the implications of the fact that I said "elucidate and inspire empathy," not "elucidate empathy".

  >If on ended up doing harm to others unintentionally

  Discomfort is not necessarily harm. You are likely to feel discomfort when you're wrong. That should be okay, as correcting that since of discomfort should shepherd you to a more correct stance.

  If not, then there's an element of hypocrisy involved, as "nerds" (often neurodivergent) are frequently made to feel uncomfortable. They are told that this discomfort is natural and simply a part of socialization, even while they're the only ones made to feel this way (and often because of misinterpretations of their behavior or intent). This reservation of a right to comfort to a default group is an ACTUAL harm, as it's a tenet of many social ills, including classism, white supremacy, and caste.

  By happymellon 2025-09-247:03

  Bullied people repeating the cycle of bullying is unfortunately not a new phenomenon.

  By the_snooze 2025-09-242:372 reply

  Extending an invitation is indeed a kindness. But repeatedly declining them signals that the invitations are unwelcome and unvalued. It's really that simple. Relationships aren't one-sided.

  By ryandrake 2025-09-242:542 reply

  Coincidentally, I just had a conversation with my wife about this. She likes doing girls-night with her friends, but she gets frustrated that nobody else prompts it. They always say yes, and they always have a good time, but she complains that it’s always her doing the inviting, and that it’s one-sided.

  To me, a relationship doesn’t need two people to maintain and keep it going: it only really needs one, so be that one person!

  I realize people are busy and have their own lives, but I still call, I still ask how they are, I still ask what they’ve been up to. Gestures like these are tiny, tiny investments that pay off in the form of a rich, robust social life.

  Nobody has ever told me stop reaching out, stop trying, but if they did, of course I would.

  By OkayPhysicist 2025-09-2416:43

  In my experience, it takes two people, but they're not necessarily playing the same role. Social circles are maintained amongst pretty much any group that has at least one person who is willing to take the initiative to invite people to things, and at least one person who almost always says "yes" to invitations.

  I tend to take a relatively Stirnerite view of it: As long as I'm getting more enjoyment out of hanging out with someone than the effort of inviting them, I'll keep inviting them even if they never proactively invite me to do stuff, because it's still in my self-interest. If someone always says "Hell yeah", or at least "Can't do it that day, how about this other day", then the negatives of slight inconvenience of planning are wildly dwarfed by the positive of hanging out with this person I like to hang out with. If they say no frequently, then I'm experiencing far more negatives (beyond the linear scaling of energy to invite per frequency of meetups, rejection is a big demotivator).

  By the_snooze 2025-09-243:041 reply

  We're talking about different things here. In the linked article, Anna never accepts the invitation, nor does she propose alternatives. It's OK for someone to intiate contact more often than others, as long as the counterparty actually accepts the invitation every so often (or picks up the phone or chats or responds positively). That's not the case with Anna, who repeatedly says "nah" in the face of consistent kindness and consideration.

  By walterbell 2025-09-243:291 reply

  > as long as the counterparty actually accepts the invitation every so often

  Per the article, the collegiate counterparty did accept other invitations:

    We ended up hanging out quite a bit during those early months.
  

  The social ritual in the article's title was specifically about party invitations:

    “Why do you keep inviting Anna out when she’ll just say no?”
  
    “I know she’s always going to say no, but that’s not the point. I invite her out so she’ll always feel included in the group.”

  By the_snooze 2025-09-243:501 reply

  If it's indeed specifically about party invites and not other things, then you're right and I misread it. I wish the author were more explicit about that beyond just a fleeting line at the beginning "We ended up hanging out quite a bit during those early months."

  My read was that Anna never acted like she's actually part the group because she's only ever shown repeatedly declining invitations.

  By walterbell 2025-09-244:07

  Another comment relevant to partying:

    definitely a goody-two-shoes

  By BeetleB 2025-09-2415:56

  > But repeatedly declining them signals that the invitations are unwelcome and unvalued

  Or they just can't make it each time.

  > It's really that simple.

  Simple, yet wrong.

  By guappa 2025-09-249:35

  Nobody wants to be the clingy weirdo who doesn't take no for an answer…

  By matheusmoreira 2025-09-243:043 reply

  > Life is not a game where people build up points with you and you start to be kind to them only if they maintain themselves above a threshold.

  Be careful. It is trivial for others to take advantage of such selfless kindness. Ingratitude is common, as is sociopathy. Altruists often discover that the world does not reciprocate.

  By cbolton 2025-09-247:25

  Is there any data on this? Ingratitude and sociopathy are not at all common in my experience. Differences in character, defensiveness, insecurity are more common already (and sometimes they look like ingratitude when you don't understand the other person's point of view), but the vast majority of people I meet are just nice...

  By bshacklett 2025-09-2412:312 reply

  And yet, at the end of the day, I always sleep better knowing that I put the effort in to be a good person, even if it didn’t work out the way I’d hoped.

  I get the cynicism; it’s easy to feel like the world is just full of uncaring people sometimes. But, does adding one more help?

  By carlosjobim 2025-09-2413:563 reply

  You aren't a good person for being subservient. You are a bad person, because you are enabling bad people.

  Evil is in most cases a Yin/Yang system of abuser and willing victim. Both are dependent on each other for their common goal of creating evil in this world.

  The abuser from primitive motives: "I have to do it to them, because if I'm not an abuser, somebody will make me a victim."

  The willing victim because he thinks it's an easy path to be a good person: "I don't have to engage my heart and soul, just take abuse and each "point" of abuse turns into good boy points for me."

  There is nothing to be admired about victims and the victim cult is a mistake. They deserve empathy and help, they don't deserve admiration.

  By bshacklett 2025-09-2416:201 reply

  There’s a lot of pain and anger in this reply. I’m sorry you have had to experience whatever has led you here.

  By carlosjobim 2025-09-2417:00

  Not at all. It's a reflection on human behaviour, in the content that the other commenter said that you shouldn't concern yourself with bad actors as long as you can later say that "you did the right thing". That can bring you to bad situations, as another poster warned about above.

  Taking care to not be an abuser and to not be a victim is rather the best path, even if it demands more from the person. It's easy to just do what others tell you, but it will soon bring misery.

  By BeetleB 2025-09-2415:57

  > You aren't a good person for being subservient. You are a bad person, because you are enabling bad people.

  To stay on topic:

  You definitely are not going to be invited to my parties!

  By ryandrake 2025-09-2415:05

  Wow, what a thread drift! I thought we were talking about inviting friends to have fun.

  By matheusmoreira 2025-09-2419:58

  It's that hope that things will work out that causes suffering and disappointment.

  "I'll be nice, and others will be nice in turn" is magical thinking. There is no such deal in place.

  It's perfectly possible for others to soak up all that niceness and then suddenly leave without being equally nice in return. If pressed, they might even say they didn't ask for the goodness that befell them, they were just happy to accept when it was offered, thereby absolving themselves of any obligation.

  By anticrymactic 2025-09-2410:09

  > Be careful. It is trivial for others to take advantage of such selfless kindness.

  What harm does is do? Altruistic kindness is not affected by the response. That's the point. Being "exploited" for kindness is not possible, it's not a currency.

  > Ingratitude is common, as is sociopathy.

  Source? If anything, most anecdotes point to the opposite, gratitude and kindness is extremely common.

  By BeetleB 2025-09-2322:34

  My comment was not meant as a judgment on Anna, and if she's depressed, I would not put this kind of onus on her.

  I was merely pointing out that most people who don't respond or always say "no" are not like the Anna in this submission. If I know someone who is in similar shoes as Anna, then I have no problem continuing to invite.

  By dvsfish 2025-09-240:56

  100% agree. You'd start to think "Anna doesn't like us" and just move on. Despite what they're going through, some level of responsibility falls on them to express a sense of "it's not you it's me", if they legitimately do want to remain part of the friend group. Not engaging with the friend group is effectively the same as not being a part of it. If the "pleasant feeling of being included in the group" is the entirety of your involvement, it's actually a somewhat selfish and shallow position after a while. That's not to say that the group has to ban her, but at a certain point there is no valid reason to engage with someone (in a group context) who doesn't engage back.

  If you have friends you think are depressed or have something else going on, by all means reach out, but thats not the same thing.

  By stevage 2025-09-246:071 reply

  I knew a guy who had a clear "three strikes rule". If you turned down invitations three times in a row, you were told clearly that you weren't getting any more invites until you had extended one yourself. It's pretty fair.

  These days I know a lot of busy people, so my softer version is, if I invite you to a thing and three times in a row you don't even reply, I'll probably just quietly stop inviting you altogether. I'm ok to keep you on the list if you make the effort to reply and explain why you can't come.

  By jll29 2025-09-246:571 reply

  You bringing in the "three strikes rule", I'm reminded of game theory.

  They have the famous (repeat) prisoner's game, where two parties decide to either collaborate or to screw the other party. People ran software simulations of various strategies, and the winner is: Tit for tat. In other words, you start positive (invite), and stay like that until the other person screws you. They you screw them once next time and turn collaborative again immediately after (no hard feelings).

  I'm not advocating you play the prisoner's game on people, but it's interesting that people worked formally on something relating to this.

  By stavros 2025-09-2415:212 reply

  AFAIK the strategy was slightly different: You start collaborative, and then simply repeat the other person's last action. This means that, if they screw you, you keep screwing them until they turn collaborative, at which point you collaborate in the next iteration.

  By waterhouse 2025-09-278:08

  Yup. In real situations, one element is that sometimes things are misunderstood, and in particular sometimes collaborating is mistaken for defecting, so if all sides are playing pure tit-for-tat, then one can end up in a defect-defect loop forever (or, I guess, until the opposite misinterpretation occurs). Therefore, an element of forgiveness (some percent chance that you'll respond to a defect with a cooperate) can be helpful.

  By lynnharry 2025-09-241:19

  First year in collage is probably a rare case. Everyone is in a new environment and everyone's social group is quite limited. They probably know that they're Anna's only social connnection at the campus so the effort can be worthwhile.

  By NuclearPM 2025-09-240:142 reply

  > To which I'd love to respond with s/any more/ever/

  What does that mean?

  By bigstrat2003 2025-09-241:26

  It's a sed command, which (as the other poster said) replaces the first occurrence of the first string with the second in some document.

  By GreenWatermelon 2025-09-240:41

  `s` is a replace command, so parent is saying "substitute 'anymore' with 'ever' "

  By Vinnl 2025-09-249:311 reply

  I don't think you always have to invite every Anna to everything. Usually, there are somewhat natural groups that are relevant to invite, and you invite the Anna's that are part of that. So if I'm having drinks with colleagues, I'll also invite my colleague Anna, but not my former college classmate Anna.

  Nowadays this happens even more naturally, as my different groups will also be organised in their own Signal groups. So I'll just send a group message to my colleagues group, and there will always be people in there that never go - but they're welcome to.

  By dmesg 2025-09-249:49

  This, especially since I don't want to come off with tech bro vibes by asking "Would you like $thing?":

  [YES!!!] / [Remind me later™]

  By egorfine 2025-09-2411:44

  > your list of potential Anna's will be in the high dozens

  Yes. The strategy outlined in the article works for college, but really afterwards. It's really creepy to constantly invite someone who has clearly stated intentions of never joining.

  By slumberlust 2025-09-2411:05

  I'll initiate three or four times before I pull back and let them show some interest. Family friends are an exception.

  By type0 2025-09-2322:121 reply

  > By the time you get to my age, your list of potential Anna's will be in the high dozens. You simply cannot keep this up with all the Anna's.

  By the time facebook has been used to plan events, your list of potential Anna's will be in the high dozens, because Anna doesn't use fb and it's too difficult to send sms's. You simply cannot keep this up with all the Anna's.

  By BeetleB 2025-09-2322:351 reply

  I have no idea what you're trying to say, but FWIW I never used social networks - at least not the ones you can use to plan events (LinkedIn doesn't count).

  By type0 2025-09-2323:011 reply

  Alice and Bob are planning a party, they might invite Anna but don't want Mallory to show up and ruin everything so they turn to Facebook and create a closed group for party planning. Anna, being privacy conscious, doesn't use fb and expects to receive an invite on Signal. But Alice and Bob decide not to invite Anna because they're Danish politicians and Anna is against Chat Control.

  By alex1138 2025-09-245:25

  To further the analogy, Alice and Bob decide on potentially emailing Anna instead but Zuckerberg is such a megalomaniac that he's overriden everybody's email addresses https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433

  ("But that's on Facebook, which Anna doesn't have" - true, but apparently syncing contacts with Facebook - something FB presumably often does automatically - will wipe out email addresses of your contacts)

• By waysa 2025-09-245:423 reply

  This is especially valuable for friends who struggle with depression. They almost never feel like going out because depression sucks out all their energy. But they'll appreciate the invite and that they're not forgotten. It's harder this way for them to isolate and go deeper down the spiral.

  One rule that helped me fight my depression was to accept invites no matter what. Go to the loud bar I don't like? I'm in. Cake decorating workshop with annoyingly cheerful Jennifer? Sign me up. Join Joel for his 5am workout? I'm not sleeping anyway.

  You get the idea. But it can only work when others take the initiative.

  By yazaddaruvala 2025-09-247:134 reply

  I think one of the most important lessons in life (even as a healthy person) is realizing “motivation and action are cyclically causal”

  Of course “action follows motivation” but even when not motivated “motivation follows action”.

  For example, even as a healthy person I am not always motivated to go to the gym after a busy day at work which I am “so tired from”. I go dispite the lack of motivation. Unsurprisingly, I walk out of the gym feeling re-motivated and “with more energy”.

  By BeetleB 2025-09-2416:01

  There are different types of depression, and going to a party when you're depressed can definitely exacerbate the depression.

  It sucks being alone at home. It sucks more to be alone in a party.

  By braebo 2025-09-2510:03

  Acting with neither intrinsic nor extrinsic motivation is technically impossible, no? Otherwise, i wonder how this mysterious third force compelling you into a gym absent motivation relates to your personal psychology / environment, and how executive dysfunction (both genetic, and technology-induced) fits into the picture.

  By OkayPhysicist 2025-09-2416:261 reply

  You can take advantage of this phenomenon to snowball small actions into bigger ones, too. To get into the habit of working out, I started going to the gym everyday. I didn't work out everyday, but the act of going out of my way to be at the gym lent me the motivation to actually work out more often than not.

  By yazaddaruvala 2025-09-2416:55

  Facts!

  I now get to the gym (or some form of exercise) 6 days a week. That was entirely because I made the decision to go to the gym and watch some YouTube.

  Then I’d end up staying 90 mins but I’d get my 50 min workout in with a lot of long breaks! Then things started becoming a habit but I still have many days where I just watch YouTube at the gym lol

  By andai 2025-09-2412:09

  I like how my friend phrased it:

  You can create energy through effort.

  By wvh 2025-09-248:34

  Excellent point. As somebody with experience of major depression, even when you don't get taken up on your offer, always make sure people have an alternative to suicide. Put something in their calendar, even if you're sure they won't show up.

  This is one main reason loneliness is a silent killer: nothing gets put into the calendar.

  By Aerbil313 2025-09-2412:561 reply

  I have a counter-anecdote.

  In order to get over my social anxiety I did the same. First year of college, I'm in to every event, hangout and gathering. I made many close friends, connections, memories.

  Yet after any significant social interaction I was somehow, inexplicably, almost mysteriously, extremely exhausted. A lunch with few close friends would have me resting on the couch for a few hours afterwards. A meetup with more people would incapacitate me for the weekend. There was no alcohol or anything, the exhaustion wasn't physical but mental.

  I kept at it for a year but the anxiety never eased off like so many "Get out of your room, touch grass, socialize" people claim. By the second year I was literally dreading getting out of my dorm room to get groceries for the off chance I'd meet a friend in the building. Meanwhile everybody loved me and were very friendly to me, but for some reason I was feeling like secretly everybody doesn't like me. I had negative amounts of self confidence and had constant people-pleasing behavior.

  My friends kept inviting me because I was showing up to every event.

  It turns out I had undiagnosed autism and ADHD. I was masking all this time[1]. The reason I felt why everybody doesn't like me was because I didn't like my friends, but never deemed my emotions important enough to even realize that.

  After I realized this I let go of %99 of my "friendship"s and I'm much, much happier, content and stress-free than ever before. The comfortable level of socialization for me is maybe an outdoor activity with a close friend once a month.

  1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_masking

  By embeng4096 2025-09-2416:171 reply

  Wow, I really relate to this. It got to the point where I was reading self-help about social skills and such, and tried to follow the "always say yes" like you did and "never eat alone" type fluff advice. People had lots of good things to say about me, and I even tried doing things like writing those things down in a gratitude journal or taking screenshots of the texts, etc, to help shift my mindset (unsuccessfully). I still have the low self-confidence and people-pleasing you talk about to this day.

  To your last point, I'm feeling much better when not pushing myself so hard to be social but the question I'm grappling with now is somewhat selfish but about how to make sure I have support? E.g. I had a friend who just went through a cancer diagnosis and a lot of us friends and his community rallied for him. It also made me wonder about what happens if I get very sick, or lose my job and don't have a professional network to reach out to or personal/friendship support, or just if my car breaks down at 1am or something, or just being very lonely without real close friends.

  How are you reconciling this sort of thing in your own life?

  By Aerbil313 2025-10-0318:561 reply

  To be honest, I don't have a good answer.

  Indeed, I don't have the friend network since I stopped forcing myself to be social. Most people don't call again if you don't answer their calls for a few months [1].

  I too witnessed people calling their friends for help in hard situations (like car broke down at 1am) and wondered who I could call if that happened to me.

  I have a family and extended family who are very supportive. That is my social safety net, and they would help in any serious issue like money, car broke down at 1am, etc. This is a part of our culture where I live (It's not the US.) If you don't have that, it gets trickier.

  For example, if you live in a different city than your family (which is a historically new phenomenon) you can't rely on them for car breakdown at 1 am situation.

  Setting aside family, I think, for life-and-death issues (e.g. cancer) even people who know you at a superficial level (e.g. classmates, colleagues) would be willing to help, at least where I live.

  For middle sized issues (car breakdown at 1am) I could call exactly 1 friend in my hometown, and 1 another in the city I study. They are close friends who like me as the person I am. They are content with our low-effort low-contact friendship. If you want advice, I think if you meet enough people (that's the hard part ofc) you'll eventually find one of these. Funnily one of these friends is extremely social, the sort of person you'd expect to greatly succeed in politics.

  For smaller matters (e.g. an assignment in college) I have to admit I refrained from asking people for most anything ever since I stopped being forcibly social. This did lead to some (small) losses over time.

  I live by the principle of "never ask any more than you gave to a person". Though it's not uncommon to see NT people who barely know each other confidently ask for small favors, offering nothing in return, simply because they don't have the social anxiety that I do.

  1: I know it's rude. But iykyk the anxiety.

  By embeng4096 2025-10-0815:59

  I also feel similarly about owing people things. I think it does tend to bind people together to have a history of giving to each other and receiving but like you mention, it can be anxiety-inducing as well.

  Thanks for the advice, I know there's not really a "perfect" solution, I was just curious about how you've approached it in your own life so I appreciate you sharing.

• By circadian 2025-09-2320:571 reply

  I'm in my 40s now, but when I was very young I had quite a rough time living in shared accommodation. It was people reaching out and asking me if I wanted to go out, whether or not I could, that in the same way stuck with me as helping to deal with being lonely. I still have the memory of peoples kindness and this story reminded me of those kindnesses. It's kind of a beautiful memory to have, even when the times were dark.

  My interpretation is that Alexei might well have understood that Anna felt lonely / homesick. The reaching out could well have been simply sympathetic and well thought through to help include someone. That's what people did for me when I was young and out of my depth. Those people probably helped steer me into a good place when it could've gone bad.

  It's always nice to reflect on the kindness of others. :)

  By bigiain 2025-09-2323:47

  > My interpretation is that Alexei might well have understood that Anna felt lonely / homesick.

  Maybe? Perhaps Alexei was just one of those rare people who treated everybody with kindness?

  Either way, respect to Alexei - and everybody like him.