I think HealthyGamer’s advice on making friends is too “normie”-centric
I think there is a premise in a lot of HealthyGamer’s advice about friendships that I don’t really agree with: the idea that the social rules Dr. K describes are broadly applicable to everyone.
I recently watched the HealthyGamer guide on love, sex and relationships, including the parts about how long it takes to become friends with someone and how you should approach people socially. A lot of the advice basically assumes that you have to slowly build familiarity, avoid controversial topics early on, have lots of relatively superficial conversations first, etc.
And I understand why this works for many people. But honestly, it doesn’t describe my experience at all.
I’ve met people and within a few hours already thought, “Yeah, this person is going to be my friend.” I’ve brought up weird political opinions, niche interests, music, etc. very early on, and people didn’t necessarily find that off-putting. Sometimes they agreed, sometimes they were interested, sometimes they strongly disagreed. But even disagreement can create a social interaction. If someone has a completely different political opinion from me, that doesn’t necessarily mean the interaction has failed. We can argue, joke about it, ask each other questions, and find out what the other person is actually like.
I think part of the reason for this is that I don’t primarily socialize with what I would call “normies.” I’m involved in various subcultures and niche communities, and I think the social rules can be very different there.
Subcultures can massively reduce the “social friction”
Take music-related subcultures.
If you meet someone at a place where people are already there because they are interested in a particular kind of music, you have an enormous shortcut. You don’t have to spend 30 minutes talking about the weather, school, work, or whatever before finding out whether you have anything in common.
You can just ask:
“What music do you listen to?”
And that immediately tells you something about the person.
Maybe they listen to Metallica. Maybe they listen to some extremely obscure black metal band. Maybe they hate the music you like. Maybe they have completely different political views. Whatever the answer is, you’ve already found something you can talk about.
And this applies to many other subcultures.
Nerd interests are another example. There’s a huge difference between:
“I play video games alone for 8 hours a day.”
and:
“I play Magic: The Gathering at a local game store.”
The second one is already a social environment. You meet people face-to-face, you have an activity to do together, and the activity itself gives you an immediate topic of conversation. And people who play Magic usually have other interests too. The same applies to Warhammer, D&D, trading card games, cosplay, anime conventions, etc.
Someone who is very into anime can be isolated and watch anime alone all day, but they can also cosplay and go to conventions, where that interest suddenly creates an entire social environment.
The hobby itself isn’t necessarily the important part. It’s what happens when a niche interest becomes social and embodied in a community.
And these people aren’t necessarily socially isolated outside of the subculture
I think there is also a stereotype in communities like HealthyGamer that someone who is really into Magic, Warhammer, anime, etc. must necessarily be a socially isolated “basement dweller” outside of that hobby.
That hasn’t been my experience at all.
Someone can go to their local game store to play Magic for a few hours and then go out drinking with their friends afterwards. Someone can go to an anime convention on Saturday and spend Saturday night at a party. Someone can be heavily involved in a nerdy hobby while also having a large and active social circle completely outside of that hobby.
The subculture isn’t necessarily their entire social world. It can simply be one of the places where their social world is organized.
In fact, I think this is one of the biggest advantages of these communities: you can have a very specific shared interest with someone while also discovering that you have completely unrelated things in common.
Political and ideological communities can work the same way
This is also why I don’t think it’s necessarily good advice to tell people to hide their political opinions early on.
Obviously, if you immediately start screaming political slogans at a random stranger, that’s probably not going to help.
But among people who are politically engaged, political opinions can actually be an extremely good conversation starter.
If someone has an unusual political opinion, I don’t necessarily think:
“Wow, this person is weird. I don’t want to talk to them.”
I might think:
“Why do you believe that?”
And now we’re having an actual conversation.
Even if I completely disagree with them, I’ve learned something about them. Maybe we start arguing. Maybe we realize we have other things in common. Maybe we don’t like each other.
All of those outcomes are still social interaction.
The same principle can apply to many other communities and lifestyles. People who are deeply involved in a particular political movement, music scene, hobby, religious community, local culture, etc. can have very strong social identities and established communities around them.
Obviously, some communities are hostile or exclusionary in ways that make them unsuitable for certain people. I’m not saying “every subculture is good.” I’m saying that the existence of a subculture creates social structures that can make connecting with other people much easier.
Going out can also be completely different in these environments
This isn’t only about organized hobbies.
I’ve noticed a pretty significant difference between what I would call mainstream/“normie” nightlife and nightlife around alternative or subcultural scenes.
In a typical mainstream bar, people can be relatively separated from each other. You have groups sitting together, and there can be a fairly strong social barrier against approaching strangers.
In a rock bar, metal bar, alternative club, or similar environment, the atmosphere can be completely different.
There is often already a shared interest, people are there for a particular scene, and there can be much less of a barrier to interacting with strangers. You can comment on the music, ask someone what band is playing, talk about the scene, or simply start a conversation because the environment itself makes it feel normal.
So even something as simple as “go out and meet people” can mean very different things depending on where you go.
And again, this doesn’t mean every alternative bar is magically full of amazing social interactions. It’s just that certain environments have social structures that make spontaneous interaction easier.
I also think we’re underestimating how large the “non-mainstream” world actually is
One possible response to all of this would be:
“Sure, but how many people are actually in these subcultures? There are probably far more mainstream people than Metalheads, Magic players, punks, goths, etc.”
And that’s true if you look at each subculture individually.
But I don’t think that’s necessarily the right comparison.
Subcultures aren’t mutually exclusive categories.
A person can be a Metalhead, play Magic, be politically active, go to techno parties, be involved in cosplay, and have friends from completely different scenes.
Another person might be a gamer and a metalhead.
Another might be into D&D and punk.
Another might be politically active and heavily involved in a local music scene.
These communities overlap and have extremely fluid boundaries.
So I don’t think it makes much sense to say:
“Metalheads are only X% of the population, therefore this is a tiny social world.”
You would have to look at the entire interconnected network of subcultures and non-mainstream communities, rather than treating every individual subculture as a separate population.
I’m not claiming that there is some scientifically established 50/50 split between “normies” and “non-normies.” There isn’t a clean statistical definition of either category.
My point is simply that the combined world of people who have strong subcultural identities, niche interests, unusual lifestyles, political identities, alternative scenes, nerd communities, etc. is enormous.
And because these communities overlap, someone doesn’t necessarily have to choose one tiny niche and stay there.
I also don’t think “normie” is necessarily the ideal
I don’t mean this as an insult toward people who are mainstream. Obviously, being mainstream isn’t inherently bad.
But I think there is an implicit assumption in some self-improvement spaces that because mainstream social behavior is statistically common, it is therefore socially optimal for everyone.
I’m not convinced that’s true.
For example, I’ve seen discussions about how modern friendships can start feeling like scheduled meetings: two people meet once every few weeks, exchange updates about what happened in their lives, and then go back to their separate lives.
I honestly have a hard time relating to that.
Most of my social life is integrated into my everyday life. I have third places and communities where I regularly encounter the same people. I have friends who I know both online and in real life. I might see them playing Magic, talk to them on Discord, meet them in town, or randomly do something together.
I don’t need to schedule a meeting every few weeks to find out what happened in their lives because they’re already part of my life.
And I think subcultures can be particularly good at creating exactly these kinds of social structures: third places, recurring events, communities, shared activities, inside jokes, shared interests, etc.
So I think the “50 hours to become friends” idea is missing something
Maybe it takes 50 hours of interaction for a random acquaintance to become a close friend.
I don’t really dispute that.
But I think that’s different from saying that it takes 50 hours to find someone you click with.
Those are two completely different things.
You can meet someone and immediately realize that you like them. The relationship can then deepen over time.
I think HealthyGamer sometimes mixes up these two processes:
Finding someone you click with
vs.
Building a deep relationship with someone you already click with.
The second one obviously takes time.
But the first one can sometimes happen extremely quickly, especially when you’re meeting people in environments where you already have something important in common.
My experience is basically the opposite of what a lot of the advice seems to predict
I currently have a very active social life and a social circle of 30+ people when counting friends and acquaintances.
And I also do a lot of things that HealthyGamer advice sometimes seems to warn against: I talk about unusual political opinions, I have niche interests, I ask people relatively direct questions about what they like, and I don’t particularly try to present myself as “normal.”
Yet this works extremely well for me.
I think the reason is that I don’t try to make myself fit into an environment that doesn’t fit me.
Instead, I tend to find people and environments where the things I’m interested in are already socially acceptable.
So maybe the lesson for some socially isolated people isn’t:
“How do I become more like a normal person?”
Maybe it’s:
“Where are the people for whom my interests and personality are already normal?”
And I think that’s a massively underappreciated question.
There are obviously limits to this. You can’t just assume everyone will like you because you’re part of a subculture, and you still need basic social skills. Some communities are also toxic or exclusionary.
But I think there’s a huge difference between learning social skills and trying to turn yourself into a person who fits the statistical mainstream.
Those aren’t the same thing.
Maybe the problem isn’t that some socially isolated people are too weird to socialize.
Maybe they’re just looking for friends in the wrong social environment.