Social interaction and isolation

[FlippyD]

But an imaginary friend isn't a friend. It's a figment of your imagination.

bullshit. why can't it be both

Because you're the only one qualifying it as a friend. A friend would be someone or something that would consider you a friend in kind. It's my Halle Berry example, I can say she's my girlfriend but that doesn't make her my girlfriend. A boy/girl/friend/associate/whatever has to be someone or something that can reciprocate that same sentiment.

An imaginary friend doesn't exist, it isn't something that can consider you a friend because it doesn't have that choice. All it is is a projection of whatever you want it to be, thus it's only a part of yourself. I don't see why I have to explain this really. >_>;;

 

[Despain]

Because you're the only one qualifying it as a friend. A friend would be someone or something that would consider you a friend in kind.

but my imaginary friend would consider me a friend too...

thus it's only a part of yourself.

so you're saying that it's impossible to be your own friend?

personally i think that i am my own best friend. there's nobody that i enjoy spending time with more than myself and i trust myself more than i trust anybody. i have a lot in common with myself too!!

 

[FlippyD]

I-... I don't believe you're being serious at all.

 

[Despain]

nobody takes me seriously anymore

 

[Venetia]

thats what happens when your a troll

 

[nohmaan]

Friend's come in all various forms, imaginary and anonymous. 

Friend:
–noun
1. a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.
2. a person who gives assistance; patron; supporter: friends of the Boston Symphony.
3. a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile: Who goes there? Friend or foe?
4. a member of the same nation, party, etc.
5. (initial capital letter) a member of the Religious Society of Friends; a Quaker.

Person:
–noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person.
7. the body in its external aspect: an attractive person to look at.
8. a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
9. an individual of distinction or importance.
10. a person not entitled to social recognition or respect.
11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.
12. Grammar. a category found in many languages that is used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to or about whom he or she is speaking. In English there are three persons in the pronouns, the first represented by I and we, the second by you, and the third by he, she, it, and they. Most verbs have distinct third person singular forms in the present tense, as writes; the verb be has, in addition, a first person singular form am.
13. Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
—Idioms
14. be one's own person, to be free from restrictions, control, or dictatorial influence: Now that she's working, she feels that she's her own person.
15. in person, in one's own bodily presence; personally: Applicants are requested to apply in person.

 

[FlippyD]

Ok, no. Seriously, can we put a stop to people who throw out definitions found or otherwise from various websites and sources unless it actually raises a point? It was especially overplayed in the atheism threads and we don't need to go through that again. (Merriam-Webster says atheism is this! Well, the New Oxford Dictionary says this. My Chinese to English dictionary defines aethism this way, and since that book is thicker I'm obviously right.)

Not to mention your post Nohmaan really doesn't prove anything other than you went through the trouble to throw out 75 different variations on what a "friend" might mean, most of these variations not making any sense or proving your original statement.

I'm not going to bother proving why imaginary friends are not friends anymore, unless someone actually has a compelling and competent reason other than "Blooregard Q. Kazoo is my BFF!"

An anonymous person or persons can be your friend if they consider you a friend of theirs as well, anonymous or otherwise. A collective group of anonymous people are not your friends. Some of those anonymous people might be, but they can't all collectively go "holy shit, Mike's making another post. Let's all bake him a batch of brownies."

 

[nohmaan]

An imaginary friend can constitute as a person by extension of one's self.  A segment of someone's thought or imagination can be considered as a separate entity if the brain processes it as such.  It is similar to someone with a split personality.

A collective group can be a friend, even given complete anonymity- your definition of 'friend' lacks dimension.  You shouldn't blame me for your inability to interpret the meaning of those words in this context.

 

[FlippyD]

What? No! I didn't give a definition for friend because I thought the concept was so basic it didn't require one (and I already went to extensive means of "defining" it in my posts.) I don't need to drum up a "definition" I cherry picked from the internet to prove something so simple. I'm not blaming you for not understanding your "meaning", I'm blaming you for text dumping an unconvincing non-argument.

If you were arguing a point in a relatively small and specialized field, or term that isn't broad and expansive then you'd be unto something. But you're not, you're defining "friend" and "person" from some unknown source and then went "this is proof that friends can be whatever you want." That's not an argument, that's "here's something I found, and you do the research for me." And after doing the research I say you've said nothing of interest. At best you suggested that a person can constitute a group of people, but only in regards to legal terms and definitions. And then, only your fourth definition of friend somewhat applies to this discussion.

So you proved that a group of people can be considered a "person" in a court of law, and that this "person" is a friend by the incredibly loose definition that you and said "person" are from the same usergroup of internet users (the inclusion of "etc" at the end of that definition shows a lax regard in terms of actually defining anything, and is obviously a weak point to stand on.)

And the definition of friend doesn't require more dimension (at least, enough dimension for you to claim your point is correct.) You seem to be confusing the term "dimension" with "enough free space to make up whatever convenient claim I need."

Next problem: the collective conscious of a person is split into multiple personalities de facto. These personalities shift between one another, however memory and information is shared alike amongst them. You have a different personality when talking with a spouse then when talking with an employee or stranger on the street. Someone with a "split personality" (of which psychologists debate over it's factuality) does not share information between his or her personalities, theorized as a hiccup in memory storage. This causes the two personalities to drift apart and develop separately with separate memories and information.

That said, persons with DID are not in the same position as someone with an imaginary friend as the actions of the imaginary friend are composed by a conscious mind. split personality is the side-effect of an illness of the mind (if it exists), an imaginary friend has no free-will or choice outside of what the creator gives him, her or it. It cannot act, think or react in ways outside of its original creator's experiences, and it cannot choose to not act as a friend. This lack of control is the major reason why imaginary friends can never be considered a real friend.

 

[nohmaan]

My point is that regardless of your idea or definition of a friend, friendship is purely a matter of perspective.  Can people be friends with their pets?  Do their pets have that much option in the matter?  Even if the person you're claiming friendship with is a figment- can you not still benefit from that relationship? 

While technically your mind controls all the actions of the friend at a subconscious level, most people with imaginary friends report that the friends act of their own accord.  And is it not reasonable that, if you are at a subconscious level generating a friend that you believe to be real, that the imaginary friend has a level of free will that operates outside of the creators understanding or influence?  If the creator can't control the actions of their imaginary friend then you can imply that the imaginary friend has chosen to be friends with their creator.  There are imaginary antagonists as well that people create which influence their actions and generate motivation, similar to Don Quixote.

With a collective group, if the majority of the population in the group is acting in a befriending manner, or creating a beneficial relationship for you- then you could easily consider a collective a friend.  And while the collective is reciprocating that feeling of friendship, then it is assumed that the collective has imparted to you their acknowledgment of the relationship.

Some people don't function within our society as well as others.  For those people, relationships with others who are more adept at maintaining "socially acceptable" friendships are unappealing.  People tend to become friends with other people who have similar interests and opinions.  If you desire to retain anonymity/solitude in your pursuits of friendship, then a collective such as 4chain or an imaginary friend is an extremely viable choice- and a reciprocation of your ideas of comfort and friendship.

 

[FlippyD]

I argue that it can't be a matter of perspective. If that's the case then I can assume that anything tangible or intangible that I experience is whatever I wish it to be. Where's the bottom floor? What's the quantifiable criteria for being a friend? Is a friend only someone you can benefit from? It seems everyone in this discussion is looking at the concept of friend from the individual observing the friend, but I argue it's not all about the one person, that the one being considered a friend must have some say in the matter.

A person can still be friends with a pet or an animal because the pet or animal has free will. If you mistreat a pet enough it will dislike you, and if you treat it with kindness and care it will appreciate you. The animal will then treat you with kindness and love in return. You're not projecting a personality unto the pet, the pet is acting of  its own volition.

The whole imaginary friend thing is standing on the notion that they're real and can exist, supported by anecdotal evidence. Until you can prove with scientific evidence to the contrary, why should anyone believe that an imaginary friend is real, or as real as anyone else? Lastly, Don Quixote is not a good sample for your argument as he is a fictional character.

Spoiler: sidenote

And an imaginary friend must operate inside the creator's understanding and influence because the mental playground with which an imaginary friend would exist in would be fixed to what the individual knows. This information would not completely affect behavior of an imaginary friend, but would support it in what decisions it makes. I.E. an American child with no knowledge of buddhist scripture cannot have an imaginary buddhist friend. If the subject is conditioned to fear school tests and gym class the imaginary friend will likewise have a pre-concious fear of these things, but react to that fear in a different way (if we're going off of the multiple personality model.)

If we're going off of the projection model of an imaginary friend, the friend can posses any number of personality traits outside of the creator, and can fear or dislike things that the creator doesn't, but the imaginary friends sphere of influence is still contingent on the creator. The creator's sphere of influence is the shared network of memories and emotions attached to them that make up the creator's mind. If information is not there, the imaginary friend cannot posses it. This is only to clarify the sentence where you stated that an imaginary friend can operate outside of a creator's understanding or influence.

While it's true you can have a collective friend, I do not believe that a majority of anonymous are friends with Dissonance or Andy. Or anyone else really. Kenyans are mostly friendly to Obama, but I doubt any anonymous message board would ever appreciate any one person outside of the quasi-superstar quality of certain persons (i.e. anonymous likes Rick Astley due to his meme status. And then it's less of a friendship relationship and more of a worship-based relationship.)

Imaginary friends are a perfectly normal part of a child growing up, but it's a phase that is grown out of at age 3-6. An imaginary friend is not a healthy thing to have for a young adult and older because it stunts character growth. I know I supported introversion and internet friends earlier, but that was made under the assumption that the person could make friends offline, but simply chose not to. What you're describing is someone with a distinct lack of social skills, and who uses anonymity to avoid the fear of talking with others face to face. However this person lives in the real world, not the internet world, and must learn the proper social skills for conversing and being with real people in the real world if he or she wishes to survive in it.

An imaginary friend or 4chan might give a person the feeling of friendship, but it requires little effort in attaining and keep such a person from facing his or her real problem with how to deal with real people in the real world. Besides, I don't think there are too many people who assume 4chan is their only source of friendship anyway.

 

[nohmaan]

Do animals really possess that kind of free will as a pet?  I would submit that not all pets enjoy their owners, regardless of their accepted behavior to them.  Can not pets be victim to Stockholm Syndrome? 

With regard to imaginary friends, I agree from what you say that the imaginary friend operates on a network of data stored within the creator's brain.  However, the creator does not have to be aware of this information- if the friend's traits and behavioral patterns are being generated from a subconscious level then the creator can have no direct control or influence over the subject.  With that situation, the friend operates on a level of free will unbeknownst to their creator.  At that level you may imply that the imaginary friend can be capable of reciprocating friendship, or denying it. 

And even if you were in a situation where an imaginary friend can't decide to not be your friend, does the motivation really matter?

How does an online friend differ so much from an offline friend?  Both types of friend are capable of sharing a number of activities unique to the environment on which your relationship operates.  At the other end of the computer is another person online who shares in a similar interest (and a big one at that).

Again, it comes down to a matter of perspective.  To you it seems that you are defining a friendship in a more socially acceptable way.  After making that definition of the meaning of a friend, any other forms of the friendship become increasingly obsolete.  There are many different ways to perceive the "real world", and many different ways to perceive how people operate both within and outside of that "real world".  The connections and relationships that people can form with imaginary beings, online friends, or collective groups that operate as a whole are just as meaningful and play just as much of a role in that person's life and actions.  Don Quixote is merely a character that illustrates that sort of relationship, not scientific evidence. (regardless of being a fiction novel).

 

[FlippyD]

People can have Stockholm Syndrome as well (if it exists), and so the same could be said about any friendship. And if you're willing to submit that people can be friends with other people even if they suffer from mental trauma, then pets can follow suit. That and I doubt all pets suffer from Stockholm Syndrome anyway. There are only a few scant reports of Stockholm Syndrome existing, but there are countless reports from all time periods and every culture of pets who turn against their masters for mistreating them, and certain pets will knowingly use their masters if they come to learn they can get away with certain things.

Your second point is correct, but I'm beginning to think we won't really know until we understand what causes children to create imaginary friends. If they're the creation of the child due to loneliness then I'd say they don't count, since it's still the creator inventing a friend for themselves (if they fail to make a friendship that's something else entirely.) If it's a naturally occurring psycho-phenomena without any provocation then I would have to agree that technically they are friends. But then I'd fear people might try to capitalize on that to avoid learning how to socially deal with other people in the real world.

And yes, motivation is very important to this whole situation. In the real world, you couldn't just label anyone as your friend, they have to act friendly to you. That's why I feel like this whole discussion is pretty basic. Everyone's taking a very self-centric view on the matter, when it really isn't. You don't decide who's your friend and who isn't, it's the acts of others around you that determine that.

I never argued that an online friend isn't a friend. In fact I was defending that point from my first post. I just disagree that a spore of friends can be a friend.

I just have a problem with people being so lax with definitions. I'm not saying that relationships with imaginary people or anonymous groups of people don't exist, but I feel they fall out of the definition of friend, and that to use such a definition to define the relationship might distort it's meaning for the user. And yes, a group of people can be friendly to someone, or an imaginary friend can be friendly towards its creator, but is it really the same situation as friendships we define in the real world? Pets are fundamentally in a different situation than people, but still can act friendly towards it's owner and for the same reasons as any normal friend.

Thinking of an anonymous group like a town of people, I can concede to you that an anonymous group can be considered a friend. Though I'm still iffy about that. I would consider them friends, but not a friend (singular, and I think that's where we were disagreeing.)

As for imaginary folks I think there's too many unknowns to say for sure, and like transsexuals, asperger's syndrome sufferers, sufferers of depression, quickly labeling them as such will lead to a disuse of the term. In fact, I feel it's this pervasive attitude that "anything can be anything if it's close enough to believe it" is an inherent flaw with people who use the internet all the time. There's a massive amount of second-hand disinformation and people are so willing to believe something is fact based on a Wikipedia entry that's slightly similar to what they're experiencing.

That and, imaginary friends are illusionary. When I was a kid I had a Pokemon Yellow, a game where Pikachu follows you around, and regards you with friendship if you treat him in a friendly manner. I know he's programmed to be friendly if I do X, but I don't really know or understand what X is. Is a videogame Pokemon my friend then? An imaginary friend can be friendly as well, even though you don't know how. He/she/it/skle creates feelings of friendship, but aren't they caused by imaginary stimulus? The image of food on tv will make you hungry, but it's not actual food you can actually eat, only an image. In the words of Magritte, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe," just because something causes a reaction, does not mean it's anything more than an association with a non-fictional object.

The phenomena of kinship with non-real entities is a common one, I feel like one of the gang when I watch Scrubs, but Turk and J.D. aren't real. Dr. Cox isn't real, he's a fictional character. Just because he provides the same feeling of a friend, does not make him a friend. Just really good television.

And seriously, do we need MORE kids who think that they're real anime characters, or half-vampire/werewolf/dragon/elf/furry/fairy/the codpiece of Princess Leiah's slave costume?

 

[Tosharu]

Ok, so I very carefully read over every last post in this topic.

First of all. Going back on topic to the original question and argument...

Essentially, my advice is to do your best to understand both viewpoints.
I say that if you are taking care of your physical needs, and atleast socializing a little each day. There's no harm.
However.. your friend could also be correct. Maybe you need to try to get out more and you may not like it but that could just be a matter of getting used to it.

And it may also be that you haven't met the right kind of people in person.
I'm not even going to bother comparing the online world to the offline one as it's pointless.
The way I see it, even if you are sitting at a computer you are a real person.. and there is alot to this world that isn't available through the internet.

Here is a personal example:

I used to spend tons of time online... like atleast 8 hours a day. I wouldn't want to go outside or do anything beyond the scope of being involved in my activities on the computer.
And now..
I will be logged onto msn and I will simply walk away for a couple hours. Years ago that never would have happened with me. And. To be honest I do regret spending so much time (or for better words wasting?) just online. When there is so much more in this world to see and do.

You just need to meet people within your area who share similiar interests... and also. Why not try developing some new interests. The whole "Drinking/smoking/drugs/sex/partying" whatever you want to call it.. that whole culture may not appeal to you and you may find yourself at a party asking yourself "Why did I come to this stupid thing" because you don't even like or know half the people there. I've also been in that situation... and I think maybe you are being a slight evasive as well...

If you don't like those people don't hang out with them. Find new friends who you DO like. And start spending time with them.

Generally.. no one can really say that it's unhealthy for you. If you feel that you should consider what your friend has said a little more.. I would do so. But, you have to be the judge of it in the end. No one else should make choices for you.

 

[Wolfgang]

Your choice of lifestyle is completely valid, given that you are not an overweight useless blob that is more of a drain on society as a whole then anything else. Which I will assume you are not, but others who have chosen the same introverted lifestyle are those unhealthy people that the shiny happy in-the-sun-all-day people tend to rag on. I don't get these 'normal' people and their definition of life. I get outside, I exercise by swimming and walking the few miles to my college and my work everyday. I'm healthy but I spend my spare time at home with my girlfriend, not really socializing with anyone else. This makes me happy. Why do I have to go be social with the assholes of the world?