My ESL baby brain even lacks the competence to fully understand your post. I hope that is somehow related to the topic of discussion??

I can stop pretty well for most things, actually. The only thing that really gets me addicted is gaming. And I can game for days on end if I'm having fun, but I don't think it's really a bad thing. I have fun doing it and I don't really care about stuff outside of it. Socializing doesn't really form a "need" or "craving" for me either. I can do it if I need to and I can enjoy myself doing it at times too, but I don't have a need to. I can easily go a week plus ignoring everything and everyone around me unless I have obligations I've made for myself. I have a lot of those that I've made for myself so that I don't just completely withdraw from everything.

I get addicted to VNs.

I believe in tranquility from within, so even if I'm not in a social environment I'm content with what I have on my own time. I'm not anti-social either; I can be social when the situation requires me to.
As for other addictions, I'm addicted to my daily routine. I get jittery when I'm not doing/cant be doing what I was meant to be doing at that specific time. Which is why I'm not fond of spur-of-the-moment decisions. I don't see that "addiction" as a bad thing, it's just how I live my life: planned day-to-days. Maybe in a way, I'm addicted to what I do every day.

>>161442
Hard to say as I'd imagine everyone using this website are introverts to varying degrees
I think the best way to express the difference extroverts and introverts is that introverts expend energy in social situations and are at rest when alone, while extroverts expend energy by being alone and gain it back in social situations
What I'm getting at is that saying it's an addiction for most socialites is silly as they are effectively at rest in social situations, it would be the equivalent of saying sitting in a chair is an addiction
Likewise denying them social interaction is exhausting, not because you're denying them their fix, but because you are denying them their rest
Though I suppose there is an argument to be made for introverts being addicted to social situations, possibly from chasing some sort of social energy high
Not sure how common this is, and if it is, there is far worse addictions out there

>>161448
I'm not sure the classic intro/extra-vert distinction makes it feel explained. The common rarely challenged truism is that people - meaning whether introverts or extraverts - are "social animals."

There are too many "exceptions" to the case that they don't look like exceptions at all, because the description-turned-prescription rule just isn't relevant to truth: Western and Eastern monks, researchers, artists, and writers across history, people going off the grid completely whether due to an accident or by choice - they stray away by necessity or by circumstance, but, when they reintegrate back, if they were ok before and if they took care of themselves, they're well within socially accepted sanity range.

How come?
They weren't really concerned as to whether they'll be weird if they try to integrate back. That is, they completely bypassed the conditioning that makes them feel inadequate of they're not partaking in the vice. If the necessity or circumstance is strong enough, the same could happen with any other addiction.
They had their minds thoroughly busy with pondering, survival, research.
Therefore, people are cybernetic animals - in the data and information sense.

When people go mad in sensory isolation tanks or pandemic lockdowns, it's because their perception isn't attuned enough to receive a satisfying quota of input out of what they have at hand. It's possibly even that the perception ability is staying at baby level. Both introverts and extraverts can be like that.
The line between getting information and between social interaction is absurdly blurry. This might even extend beyond topics of people using VN/chatbots/parasocial media, or even animism. It's belief in what you're getting. People who dehumanize others due to own misanthropy or psychopathy and whatnot won't get "social nourishment" as the source of it would be believed to be worthless, but the unchecked conditioning subconscious belief that it's needed will stay in their mind, you could tell similarity in behavior between them and socially anxious recluses.

>>161442
People need a certain level of stimuli in order to feel alive, the amount is arbitrary and you can train yourself to create your own or be more perceptive of what's already there, but over-saturation or stupidity doesn't allow you to see. It even extends to ignoring something because it doesn't fit within an internal narrative of what should be noticeable. They will pick up on something and discard it unless they literally have nothing else to engage with. Most people are too stupid or can't engage with themselves enough to remove social interaction entirely out of their lives.
Very good insights.

>How addicted anon is?

Not at all. I hate being around other people but I have to do it.

>>161451
I think I understand what you mean in that sense social interaction exists in a loop like an addiction
I have gone a week without speaking to another human being, I crave interaction
I have gone a year without speaking to another human, I crave nothing (loop broken)
Just replace human interaction with booze and it still makes sense
I do wonder if this actually counts as an addiction for you as it seems like your main concern is that going without social interaction stifles your ability to communicate in the future, this sounds more like self maintenance/grooming than addiction
If I hadn't showered in a year I would be dying for a shower, but if I went a year without a shower I guess I wouldn't give a shit
Does this mean I'm addicted to showers?
Where does routine social pressure start and addictions end?

>>161454
That's a good question here. The difference is that there's an objective negative effect from not having personal hygiene, whatever are your beliefs. Pores get clogged, skin doesn't get to breathe, external microbiota interfering with your external bodily processes. For the addiction that is "social interaction", whether there's a negative effect is directed by the backdrop of your beliefs around what gives all the micro pings and tingles to your nervous system. I'd normally think at least exposure to others' pheromones of whatever sex would matter, but evidently that's irrelevant.

>>161442
maintaining a social network broadly increases your chance of survival, and enriches your life with extra possibilities by leveraging the resources of others. Being embedded in a society is a necessity for the most part, socialising is more like walking than any form of substance abuse.

>>161442
engaging in gambling broadly increases your chance of survival, and enriches your life with extra possibilities by leveraging the resources of others. Being embedded in a casino is a necessity for the most part, gambling is more like walking than any form of substance abuse.

>>161460
>maintaining a social network broadly increases your chance of survival
It depends only on yourself. If, for you, socialization really gives better ROI than anything else, then it is what it is.

Also, it's tough to have that ROI actually positive, as I see it.
>pic
https://www.crimeinamerica.net/most-people-are-violently-victimized-by-family-members-or-people-they-know/

>In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

>From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

etc
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x1998009-eng.pdf

And some types of theft and fraud are only possible to perform between acquaintances and family! Sadly I could find good stats on this. Even minor non-criminal conflicts, bullying, et cetera would decrease quality of life.
Social networks are basically criminal gangs and mafias, and social interaction is the crack they're peddling while grooming and peer-pressuring people to get addicted to it, when you think about it... I won't deny your point that it's possible to increase survival chances by joining a gang or a mafia, but it definitely depends only on yourself.

>>161461
You CAN'T experience domestic abuse in a casino, after all.

>>161462
>Sadly I could find good stats on this.
Could not.

>>161462
>between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims
DON'T think it's that simple
i'm pretty sure there's a class aspect to this, in that these were poor families dealing with drugs, crime, and all that which led to commit violence on people they knew they could get something from
like how a majority of rape is also committed by people close to the victim, in great part simply because of the power imbalance between an adult authority figure and a child
it doesn't mean that you as a grown ass man are going to be molested by your uncle, that pretty much doesn't happen
if you enter into a social network where everyone's decently off and it's not a literal cult, the risk of being harmed is minimal if present at all

>>161468
>if you enter into a social network where everyone's decently off and it's not a literal cult
This looks like it's made to sound very easy to do, first of all, in terms of even finding such a network. I'm considering that psychologically underdeveloped people aren't quite decently off even when they're billionaires, and are always rather cultish in ways an adequate person wouldn't want to deal with.

>>161470
the dorks at the trading card store are not going to hurt you

>>161442
>how
None.
It's not addiction. Rather most people tie their self-worth and identity to society. If society does this they do this, because without society they are nothing. They crumble. Social validation is self validation.

There's always a degree of dehumanization in socializing anyway, as an emergent effect. It's a problem only if you turn it into a problem. You don't have to.

>>161444
Is it gaming, or the state of trance it gives?

>>161677
Any amount of dehumanization is obviously unacceptable.

>>161678
Yeah, but it's not like people you'd feel like you have to socialize with would really appreciate what you have to offer. Better just do the dehumanization yourself first, on your own terms.

>>161679
I just act more reserved in those kinds of situations. If it's dehumanizing then there's a massive problem that should be addressed as soon as possible.

>>161442
i havent talked to another person irl in 4~ years
internet talking definitely feels addictive however

>>161797
amazeballs
how do you handle your logistics? just order groceries?

>>161798
yeah i order everything i can online and sustain on neetbux, if i need to go outside its easy enough to just walk to the store and use self checkout without interacting with anyone
i still talk to my cat so luckily i havent lost my voice or anything

>>161799
pic him

feeling like I'm getting close to something. this is a good place for the informed schizopost

the bible forbids non reproductive sex
casual sex is just pandering to communication addiction, merely a social co-validation

the bible calls out 7 mortal sins
social media is psychological torture that plays on 7 mortal sins of users and also their anxiety and fear
people are driven to use social media mostly by the communication addiction basically. FOMO is exactly this
the bible provides social co-validation through God and optimally maybe through community practices
this is the point where I'm feeling like there's convergence to be had

now, that's a human nature topic. this means we can look at anthropology. what do we see in ancient religions? ancestral worship, communal practices. shamans and chiefs don't get to isolate on their terms for long. if you isolated, it's either because you're under others' ritual, or you're to bring big spiritual gifts (if things fail, you're sacrificed. if things succeed, you're likely to be sacrificed anyway, but maybe later). ancient cities grew from such familial worships. isolated practice is self-ostracization, even if you're the last in the family, you're to blend in and formalize your stuff with other families, or else you're a walking taboo.
now, christianity. christianity was one of the big breakaways even before it was started to be called christianity. "we all have a common ancestor that still is and you wouldn't be able to pray on his burial grounds because that's fundamentally absurd on infinite levels". but what's the REAL selling point to people as they are in their human natures? "you can contact Him anywhere, anytime!"
definitely seems like the roman church canonization made a degenerate push to socialize the teachings and not allow "heresies" to exist. all is to be monitored.
even worse, "canon" nodes and "split" nodes all serve as defacto idols, ancestors. forest gets missed for the tree and you go to hell, do not pass, do not collect 20$. as if bible being an idol isn't enough. so much that people think if Jesus used medicine and alchemy instead of physics-bending miracles and didn't actually literally resurrect then this invalidates anything he said or anything of God. filth of no faith get the fuck out of here
it's why atheism, science, agnosticism utterly fail as counterpoints. the fuck I'm going to pray-talk to, stinky rotting losers dawkins and einstein?

not many practices I think can be called at least potentially alt-social like that. at least some Buddhisms for sure. islam, maybe.

but you know. getting bread by prayers to God alone requires a lot of prayer skill. I'm not gonna do spiritual bypassing and bargain with "you don't need to sustain yourself" poison.
getting bread by mundane means gets more difficult the less you're addicted to social communication. the less social communication addiction signals you give, the closer you are to being perceived a danger beyond a wolf with long onset rabies. thankfully the more clarity you have, the less you care, and the easier it gets to do perfect grassroots mimicry signaling.
but, you know... if getting bread by prayer is difficult, why, thorough history, the universal independent convergence towards this, competing with real visceral urges to drown in apes' communication signals? this is definitely beyond just developing temporary coping mechanisms as more difficulties became emergent with societies developing complexity - you certainly don't need deadend trash and this is too specific and symbiotic to be basically a cancer maladaption pattern. that's the tension point of mine right now.