Talk:Loner/Archive 1

This article seems rather biased - it seems to have been written with an anti-loner bias. (86.156.15.192 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

"It is also worth noting that loners can potentially be exceptionally sexually attracted to one another but no further contact can be established since they have great difficulty approaching strangers."

What????!!!!! That declarative statement is, to me, imbecilic!!! No proof of the subjective opinion is given. I am a "loner" who is one by choice for MY reasons. No difficulty approaching strangers here. I can also address a large crowd with ease. Approaching females is NO problem. And, I do not believe I am the exception when it comes to "loners." My own experience has been that "loners" are above average in intelligence with innate abilities that allow interactions with others when such interaction is desired.68.13.191.153 19:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A loner stating that loners are of above average intelligence? That sounds like a perfect illustration of this portion from the article:

Some individuals refuse to interact with others because of perceived superiority. They wish to only relate to individuals they consider worthy of their time and attention. Therefore, a loner will have very few intimate relationships. Many feel anxious in their presence because they perceive the loner's disdain towards them. It is also common for people to believe them to be arrogant and egotistical.

Not meant as an attack or anything, as you might say I'm a loner myself. I'm just making an observation. But really though, "lonerism" is a pretty broad category that could describe anyone from a misanthrope to a "loser" with bad social skills. Probably the only common denominator they really have is that they shun social interaction, and to say that "loners tend to have above average intelligence" is a pretty big generalization. --Foot Dragoon 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. That's why I'm now afraid that, after the Virginia Tech massacre, all loners would suddenly be misdiagnosed, thanks to the media, as having Cho-like tendencies, being socially inept stalkers, and being potential mass-murderers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.170.210 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 April 2007

Inasmuch as I'd venture that the majority of active Wikipedians are loners, that would mean the majority of us are "potential mass-murders". What a comforting thought! :-) -- llywrch 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The world doesn't objectively relate "goths" and "loners"

I've removed the following paragraph from the entry:

The loner is sometimes related to the goth subculture, perhaps in part due to the perception that "goths" don't really care to be with other people and may hate other people. Loners sometimes overlaps with the emo subcultures, but not as strong as the goth. Nerds and geeks are sometimes classically defined as "loners" because of the social ineptness and the possiblity of Autistic Spectrum conditions.

It's speculative, subjective, and digressive digressive; and it describes one possible viewpoint of one culture. Also, autism spectrum disorders were already at least cursorily mentioned. Dan 05:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Fictional loners"

This section is amusing, because it primarily highlights the things Wikipedians are interested in. It is, of course, in no sense a list of notable fictional characters who were loners. Nor, for that matter, does it add anything to the topic.

Sometimes I consider making an account just so I can kill sections like those with fire without being instantly reverted -- although, even with an account I'd probably be instantly reverted. 82.95.254.249 14:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this was pretty amusing. Cloud Strife from FFVII? --68.60.18.222 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Link is a loner? Ah, I feel so proud now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.42 (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Heres a real dilemma for you:

How about people who are loners but DO NOT shun social contact or have any particular social problems, they are the ones being alienated, not doing the alienation, and do NOT desire being alone. Though theres no literature about this topic that i know of. - 75.58.62.235 may 30 2007

I'd call that an outcast, not a loner. There's a difference.

Some shy people are kind of like that.

I think there might be, if you look at it from the outcast angle, many societies have had people that have been made taboo for various reasons, or used social alienation as a punishment. I'm too lazy to actually do go looking for sources right now, but maybe if someone started along those lines? Lostsocks 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for a year

This article has been lacking sources and citations for a year, I've highlighted a few of my own concerns in it (absurd sweeping statements about loners), but I think it needs a heavy reworking. At the moment it is just a mix of various peoples romantic ideas about loners. Lostsocks 14:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

entire article is full of assumptions

a loner is someone who simply doesn't want to be around other people. its not as complicated as the chimpanzee who wrote this article makes it out to be.

Not even that. A Loner is just someone who isn't around other people. There is no implied cause or nature that necessarily goes with that. I think this article needs re-writing from the bottom up. It has been tagged to long, and is full of uncited original research, and NPOV. Lostsocks 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this couldn't be more right. Some loners want to be around people, but can't for whatever reason. Not all loners shun interaction. Thus, a loner should be defined as someone who isn't chronically around other people, voluntarily or involuntarily. It's not as complicated but it's not as simple either. 129.97.22.201 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the alleged "lack of social skills" is a characteristic of the people surrounding them: if you have an IQ of 160, you can be as social as you like, but everyone around you will still be like children in comparison. For some reason, people who pathologically consider themselves as normal and expect others to imitate them like to bully and exclude others for not being the same, but that does not mean the "loner" is the one lacking social skills (the "normals" can only relate to one another in stereotypical fashion if they all conform to narrow stereotypes and interests). Someday, labelling someone as "nerd" or "loner" or "geek" etc will be seen as no different to labelling someone as "nigger", "wog" or "gook". The root cause is very similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.198.141 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, many people with very high IQs get along just fine socially and enjoy the company of their peers. If your comment were true, would it not be so for every person of intelligence? Being different certainly can be a factor in solitude, but so can poor social skills, the latter I suspect being much more common. And indeed, adults and children are quiet capable of socialising. Some people choose solitude out of a perceived superiority I'm sure, but this does not mean refusing to accept poor social skills as being one of the most common causes, on the basis that a few people find it offensive. If a fact offends, it is not the fact that is in the wrong. I think the article should keep speculation on the reasons for solitude to a bare necessary minimum, since anything other than this always seems to turn into absurdly biased speculation. Lostsocks (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is an insult to loners. People should not stereotype loners. And, I agree with the definition of 129.97.22.201. RS2007 04:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the above definition (chronically around..)and agree that loners should not be stereotyped as I believe there are as many types of loner as there are loners. In my own case I avoid most social contact because my conversation SKILLS are (for whatever reasons) under-developed (just as I am useless at tennis but good at squash) but belong to numerous groups as the bias is towards doing things rather than talking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musoboy (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Godzilla?

Adding Godzilla to the list of loners is ridiculous. Is Godzilla even a person? I think there should be some sort of a criteria to decide who belongs to the list of "Fictional loners" or whether the list should be there at all. mirageinred 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The old list was a joke. I've already started cleaning it up.Aikaterinē 18:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

this article sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.127.254 (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism. Aikaterinē 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Video game characters

I think examples of loners from literature are a valuable addition to the article. However, a few insist video game characters be included on the list of fictional loners. Many of these are clearly not human. I understand that loners love video games, but these characters are not appropriate and don't add anything to the article. Aikaterinē 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok you could understand that they love video games but what you dont understand is that why they would love video games. Because they are different and they accept it and maybe they want to find something to look up too or something they can reference with? I mean jeez why waste your energy and time trying to censor something? I mean just because loners are loners does that mean they cant be happy? if fantasy characters and sci fi characters make them happy or feel better then why change it? thats all im asking User:Rashkae

I realized after I wrote that comment that it made no sense to try to get rid of the videogame references. However, I disagree that fantasy and science fiction characters can bring real happiness. Someone who believes that is in denial about what's missing in their life.Aikaterinē 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

bias indeed

This sentence:

"They are less prone to self-deception, and are more likely to hold an accurate view of reality since they are not compelled to conform to societal norms."

smacks of pro-loner flattery. To be balanced one shouldn't have to stretch for good points to oppose the bad ones. This needs a citation. Shelleycakes 3:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

This article is not encyclopedic. It contains no references at all and appears to be composed of personal opinions and assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.243.216 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Right

Having removed a lot of the nonsense from this article once before, I notice it has been slowly sneaking back in. I have cleaned it up, removing things that are without citations, and things that seem gratuitous, as well as the pro-loner weasel words. I also removed the list. Come on guys, if we list every single loner that has ever graced any form of media, we will have a page a mile long. Maybe one or two archetypal loners, but that is enough.

I someone decided to just revert it back again, without any discussion at all. I've tagged this article, and propose we revert it to [[1]] until folks start providing some real sources.

Lostsocks (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste your time providing sources. Lostsocks will simply delete them. Aikaterinē (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What sources are you referring to? The only three on the page are websites and "manifestos" written by self-confessed loners. They are hardly citations qualifying the incredibly biased tone of this article, I see you have not responded to any of my actual criticisms. I'm happy to discuss the article and reach a compromise, but it's present state is unencylopedic, and acts as a mouthpiece for people trying to push their own idea of what a loner is and should be. Lostsocks (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to the three external links, which I agree are simply manisfestos. I was talking about the six sources I provided:

- Pulkkinen, Lea. Adult life-styles and their precursors in the social behaviour of children and adolescents. European Journal of Personality, Vol. 4 Issue 3, p237-251. Sep90.

- Hojat, Mohammadreza. Comparison of transitory and chronic loners on selected personality variables. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 74 Issue 2, p199-203. May83.

- France, Peter. Hermits: The Insights of Solitude. St-Martin's Press. Dec1998.

- Wilson, Colin. The Outsider. Indigo. 1997.

- Svoboda, Elizabeth. The Real Insiders. Psychology Today, Vol. 40 Issue 2, p43-44. Mar/Apr2007.

- Klawans, Stuart. Films. Nation, Vol. 252 Issue 7, p246-248. 2/25/1991. Aikaterinē (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are not cited in the article, nor have I removed them from any claims to which they were attached. Which claims in the article specifically are backed by those sources? Lostsocks (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this article is complete nonsense.

I'm deleting a lot of it because it's complete nonsense and RUBBISH with no sources. From reading what other people said, it seems that others are of the same opinion, so I think they'd agree with the deletion. Anonywiki (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Second that, this may be the worst article of this size I've seen here yet. Jenifer Aniston a loner, come on. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't help pointing out that moral and ethical superiority is a defacto consequence of intellectual superiority, if the latter is taken seriously as being required for a determination of the former. 74.78.162.229 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

agree that there are no references

"Some individuals refuse to interact with others because of perceived or actual superiority in terms of ethics or intellect."

However, some brilliant lines such as this, which are very much true, I have rarely seen to describe a loner. To me, despite lack of references, this shows a deep understanding of the topic, and I would like to see this expanded.

Thank you, I'm glad you appreciated my insight. Aikaterinē (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

References and the like

You cannot have an article without references. If this article is to be taken seriously by readers- regardless of however true or untrue the unverified and original research is- it must have apporpriate citations. Also, the list of 'loners' seems particularly questionable. I removed Einstein from this list, because I am aware that he had a family and two wives. This article needs major work, or else should be deleted. As it is now, it is worthless.

--98.169.71.114 (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)