Talk:Loner

Don't need references
The article is in a gray area of much content of current English wikipedia. If it were scholarpedia, or veropedia it would probably be discussed strictly within the context of Psychology and Sociology and the received thinking current in those disciplines. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were make-shit-up-o-pedia this article would probably win an award. Especially for the exhaustive and pointless lists at the end. We've tried so many times to fix it, and it gets reverted every time. It should be marked for deletion Lostsocks (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Disdain! Superiority!
Maybe it's the perception of the non loner of their own inferiority that is the problem, and their own self disdain they put on the loner! Or maybe the loner really is a superior being.... I find people that are too sociable not very bright... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.2.0 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.236.146 (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that half of the people editing this article are discussing the popular stereotype of the "Loner," cf "Jock (Athlete)," while the other half are discussing actual people who do not socialize a great deal. I think the obvious bias included with the discussion of the Loner stereotype merits a change in wording to reflect the fact that it's a stereotype (again c.f. "Jock (Athlete)"). It is, of course, offensive to loners like myself that these prejudicial biases are being presented as truth in this article, and furthermore that our attempts to remove them are being reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.102.181.136 (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychology Today
I don't have the english skills for it, but if there is anyone interested, this article gives a lot of good info that could be included in this article.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20070320-000001.html

Shadow phoenix (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Article issues
The issues mentioned in the tag are that the article may contain original research, it has insufficient sourcing, and its neutrality is disputed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is sort of related to the WP:OR issue, it reads like there is a synthesis problem. That is, conclusions are being drawn that may not supported by the sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with the article's opening paragraph, in which it describes the "simplistic belief" of those who criticize loners. That sounds very POV, and the word "simplistic" adds no information to the sentence other than a biased emphasis. If some people criticize loners, then let's say that and not taint the article with our beliefs (I happen to be a bit of a loner myself, so I do sympathize). I'm removing the word unless someone has a good reason it should remain. And arguing that criticizing loners IS simplistic isn't an argument, it's an opinion. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Well, I am a loner and it looks OK to me. 209.90.238.120 (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a loner too, and have been diagnosed with Social Dyspraxia and Asperger's. I believe there is a non-neutral POV on this page. 'While the loner desires to be alone...'. That line implies that the loner desires to be alone. Not all loners desire to be alone! The condition is not just self imposed. The page makes it sounds all loners are variations on Greta Garbo - 'I want to be alone'. While in fact a sizable amount of people are loner's because they actually cannot (not out of choice) CANNOT express themselves in the usual social settings. I thought that inaccurate assumption would not exist under 'possible characteristics', as it was cleared up in the introduction 'A loner is a person who does not actively seek, avoids, or is isolated from human interaction' I HATE being a loner, but it is a tag I have to live with because of my lifelong condition. I hate being alone and not social. To a loner the social world seems alien in many ways, but it is more extreme than someone who is just 'socially awkward' at times. Can someone please make a more accurate edit of the page? The page makes it sound like loners are self-consumed martyrs with their own chosen beliefs who don't want to 'come to the party'. when in fact some loners do, but their medical condition(s) render(s) them UNABLE to and thus they are still tagged as loners by society. 15:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.52.10 (talk)
 * If your "loner" tendencies are caused by Aspergers, that is not really what is being discussed here. This article is not about autism disorders and their social effects. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

JerryTime?
There is a strange and irrelevant link on this page: It's JerryTime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.221.179 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

✅ I removed it, you're right it's unrelated to this topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Loners are editing this page...
What is with all of these nonfactual generalizations on this page? It is not very encyclopedic or scientific. I thought this would be one of the best pages on Wikipedia because loners have so much free time, but I was wrong. Also, being a loner is a pretty negative thing in terms of a healthy phycology so someone re write it in that light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you have a loner conspiracy fixation heh. Twobells (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that being a loner is inherently unhealthy, since most loners still have SOME social interaction. But I absolutely concur that some people with very low self-esteem are editing this article with massive amounts of baseless opinion and unsourced generalizations. For example, stating that loners are more likely to accomplish their tasks more easily and be "miles ahead of those around them" is a biased, unreasonable and completely unsourced statement. There's nothing wrong with being a loner, but there's also nothing magical about it. Let's keep some objectivity, people. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

INTP
The description of a loner in this article reminds me a hell of a lot of the INTP psychological profile. I can identify with both descriptions, and believe they are connected, as INTP's are critical of themselves and others, intellectual and insightful, and take most things in a serious debate process, leading them to be much of the loner and viewing other non INTPs/loners as dim minded and mostly incapable of generating their own pure theories and opinions, which is to an extent, a reality. Though I face much confusion on how my mind must deal with it's issues and desires, as I do desire relationship with more people to develop a stronger sense of status as I strongly believe egotism is of the only existing moral truths in the universe. But I am plagued by a natural unease and stress that comes with important social encounters, causing me to avoid them and find comfort in my loneness and freedom of mind, which in the end is the strongest cause of my depression. But feelings are unimportant, and only destructive to ones pride and superiority, to express your feelings to others is to get rid of the near perfect peace of connection that exist between intelligent entities. One who longs for a sense of completeness must not falter or degrade himself to that of an annoyance to the peace of the moment when dealing with other significant factors to his/her existence, thus maintaining the self respect that protects ones mind from meaningless judgement, but opens it to meaningful judgement and constructive criticism. Inferior status in the significant categories hinders debate and allows for disruption and more unneeded intrusion of feelings. Once one covers these status barriers, perfect debate can be carried out, and intrusion of feelings can be instantly dismissed. The product is infinite peace with oneself, mental paradise and completeness. But in till then, there is a tense and corroding sense of failure inflicting harm to peace and and serenity of my mind and a longing for contentment with myself. With all this I am strongly confused on how to go about most tasks not involving me and myself alone. I strive to understand myself, to correct myself, and achieve contentment, but being INTP this seems as unachievable due to my inferiority to my own self-image, and an impending failure. With this I contemplate easier ways out of my minds chaos, such as suicide. But so much remains to be completed, and only through pursuing grand achievement can I achieve my perfection, or beyond it even. Being a loner ever so prevents my progress in life, yet is almost the only way to live when your placed in such a scenario. A curse but a necessity for all wanting to be more than nothing.NexCarnifex (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the Myers-Briggs test is not indicative of any scientific information, right? 209.221.91.105 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Speechless
One of the major reason for being a loner is that, they simply can't keep a conversation going, or really not good in socializing. Might just look stupid if they forcefully try to talk just because they want to say something. But being unable to have good conversation skills doesn't mean they're stupid though. There are a lot of genius and famous people who are introverts and not so good in talking in a social manner anyway, like Einstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bummiegadores (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right! However, the Talk page is for discussing the article. In what way would you like to change the article?  Lova Falk     talk   07:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Loner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090505180220/http://mothershandbook.net:80/2009/01/26/youre-not-alone-youre-just-a-loner/ to http://mothershandbook.net/2009/01/26/youre-not-alone-youre-just-a-loner/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090517105419/http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/14/a-defense-of-quiet-loners to http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/14/a-defense-of-quiet-loners
 * Added tag to http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20070320-000001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"Sigma male" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sigma male. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 19:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)