Oh, and don't try to look for smart people. Half of those people we label as "smart" are actually complete idiots. Just because society currently describes people who can type mathematically-intensive instructions to a machine as "smart" does not mean that they are any more intelligent than the person who has dedicated their time to understanding social nuance and child-rearing, or whatever. A lot of "dumb", "average" people are a lot smarter than you at many things; cooking, talking to girls, changing a flat tire, whatever... Learn to enjoy this.

And finally, whatever you do, do NOT attempt to surround yourself with people who consider themselves "interesting." That's the absolute WORST. There's nothing worse than a group of people who sit around and congratulate themselves for being so cool and important - which is exactly why so many people in positions of power, feeling that they have "arrived" and can thus finally mingle with people worthy of their mystical talents, are so utterly impotent at accomplishing anything of significance. But hey, if you really want to smoke pot with Bono on his yacht and pretend you're saving the world, go for it. (That's not a joke, by the way. He really does that.)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/07/28/mf.mrrogers.n...

Mr. Rogers inspires me. Seriously. Check out #6.

Cal Newport also wrote a pretty decent blog about finding interesting/impressive/innovative activities. http://calnewport.com/blog/2008/10/01/a-simple-method-for-de.... Both links have more to do with college admission/life and entrepeneurship than personal relationships, but I think the idea can be applied to becoming an interesting person.

PS: It's not that I don't believe it, is that using it would bring me great joy.

Sounds like the "Stuff White People Like" kind of white people.

See, I've been alone for most of my life. Alone in the sense that I've only ever had two or three real friends, and I often go for weeks without having a conversation with another person.

As a kid I was fine with this. I was the guy who always sat by himself during lunch and recess, and nobody bothered me and I felt fine. I stayed the same until my senior year of high school, when I was struck by a burning need to make friends, meet girls and stop being alone all the damn time. I made some friends that year, but we were high school seniors, so we all moved off to college and I never heard from them again.

Now I'm in my third year of college, I have no friends and I can't believe how hard it is to meet people. Though I guess the problem isn't meeting people specifically, but getting the acquaintances I make to turn into friendships. I just don't seem to really click with anyone.

"You should join an organization for something you're into!" Well, I've looked but 90% of the organizations I see are racial, religious or political, and the rest just don't interest me. If I could find, say, an OCaml or Lisp programmers group, or an early music society, I'd be thrilled, but of course there isn't one. Maybe I'm just a narrow person, I don't know.

Hmm... I'm not sure now why I'm posting this, but I typed it so what the hell. submit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06...

Loneliness does have the effect of making it harder to connect with other people. It has this effect on everyone. It goes away when you're no longer lonely, but it makes it more difficult to get rid of the loneliness.

There is no easy solution either. The only thing you can do is try harder. Maybe you need to know people better or get used to them before it 'clicks'. If joining an organization is the only way you see to meet people regularly, join an organization.

Being alone sucks, but before you kill the pain with the companionship of idiots, you should ask if the cure is worse than the disease. Looking back, I regret time spent on idiots a lot more than time spent alone. YMMV, of course.

everywhere. My network of friends includes less than 10% that work in IT. Most are not geeks but are ok with the fact that I am as I accept and don't really define what they are. I just enjoy their company.

I had a friend that worked on the documentary series where they interviewed a group of people each year for, well, I forget how long, but a long time. I can't remember the series at the moment. The obvious question I had was "How did you pick the group of people to interview for such a long project? You need to make sure you pick potentially interesting people, right?"

My friend told me that my intuition was not correct. It turns out it didn't matter, everyone is interesting.

Hope this helps :)

I always feel like the odd one out -- you may be partially imagining this 'odd man out' status; also, others you see as 'close knit' may feel just as tenuously connected as you do.

my close friends [are not] a social group... they are all from different groups and aren't friends with each other -- have they met? what if you made them a group around you?

I can't [talk on a wide variety of subjects] with anyone I know -- are you sure? what happens if you try? maybe they are so nervous about going off-script they're sticking to safe topics, too, and would welcome a change.

The peer groups I see are all so specialized... none of them are generally interested in everything -- are you sampling all peer groups? do you see them in all their expressions? is there a chance you've defined 'peer group' as 'sharing narrow common interests', and thus it's impossible for you to see other kinds of peer groups, even right in front of you?

I can recognize the flaws in how I handle friendships -- what if you're misdiagnosing the issues?

I don't have much hope in [waiting until college] -- consider the possibility 'everyone' else is right in ther advice, and those people who don't find close friends in the contrived HS environment do find them in college and other non-HS activities.

'The map is not the territory'; your analysis may have prematurely converged on counterproductive (but self-reinforcing) conclusions.

Stepping away from your exact words: you seem to think of friend groups almost like formal clubs, that preexist, with clear memberships and standards, that have to invite new people in.

Try instead the assumption that they are all ad hoc, popping in and out of existence, with ever-changing memberships, and open to anyone who shows up. You belong the moment you decide you belong, and others will assume you're 'in' unless you take explicit steps to opt out.

Think on that statement for a little while, and maybe you'll see the source of your trouble. This is kind of a growing up phenomenon. You aren't unique in this regard.

You seem to expect your friends to be a perfect clone of you, with the same interests (you have a few things that you're interested in; you are not a "mixture of all things"). The older you get, the more you'll realize that sharing one or two interests with someone is enough, as long as you enjoy each others company. You may find a few "soul mate" type friends in college, who like the same bands you like, who enjoy the same activities, are nerdy, etc. If you go to a school that specializes in nerdy subjects it's actually very likely, whereas if you go to the local party school, it is very unlikely. So, yes, it may get a lot better in college--but then when college is over, you'll still have to be able to build relationships without that forced captivity thing, so you might as well develop the skill now.

The best way I know is to get involved in something you like. If it's music, start a band. If it's nerdy stuff, start a group that builds crazy nerdy crap and call it art. If it's theatre, join a local company or take classes. If it's a sport, join a league. If it's drinking heavily, start tailgating at football games.

I'm deeply introverted and a loner (and mostly I like it that way), but whenever I've felt the need to expand my social circle I've usually started a band, and right away my circle of friends expands dramatically. I happen to love talking about, listening to, and performing, music...so this works out. If you find that people who only talk about one thing are tedious, this can be a problem...so I guess you'll need to figure out something that you don't mind only talking about for a few hours each week, so that you can do it regularly enough to experience a bond with folks.

Where are the truly interesting people in life?

I don't know. What do you mean by "truly interesting"? Are you truly interesting? Does everyone in your life have to be truly interesting for you to want them as friends? I'm empathetic to your position on this, as I kinda suck at having and keeping friendships alive, too, and it's partly because I find most people tedious after an hour or two of their company. But, I'm old enough to realize that no one is perfect, including me. Some of the most interesting people I've ever met (including a handful of famously interesting folks) are still not people I would want to spend several hours a day with.

There's also something I've learned only in the past couple of years: When a conversation falls flat, it's always as much my fault as it is the person I'm talking to. As dumb or slow or weird or bland as the person I'm talking to may be, there is almost certainly something I can do to make it more interesting for both of us. Maybe it's just telling a joke, and being funny (because being entertaining is as much fun for the entertainer as the entertainee). Maybe it's introducing the person to someone else, and making the pair into a trio or more. pg is hilariously and famously good/bad at this (anyone who's spent more than an hour or two with him has heard the words, "This is the guy you need to talk to!").

How do you stop yourself from over-analyzing your current friendships?

Do something else. If you find yourself thinking too hard about something dumb, like, "Are my friends smart/interesting enough?" Call them up and go do something that you enjoy with them. That'll answer the question, because they've just shown that they're smart/interesting enough to do whatever it is you enjoy, and it'll take your mind off of the wacky self-analysis. Of course, if they all bail on the idea and don't want to leave the house or something, then it answers the question as well...in the other direction. Find more interesting friends who like to do stuff. Doing stuff is actually a really good cure for a lot of mental blocks. I recommend it. It doesn't even matter what stuff. Ride bikes, go bowling, serve soup at the local homeless shelter, build big art, put on silly clothes and golf, etc.

You're absolutely right about doing stuff as a good cure for mental blocks. I got a road bike and started going for daily rides, and that helped a bit.

First of all Daniel, college won't solve your problem. In fact, don't rely on any external factor to solve your problem (such as transferring to a "more interesting" school). It's all you.

I used to (and still do sometimes) have the same problem as yours, which is thinking that a lot of people are not interesting. This is simply not true, because if I end up spending more time with that person, I would usually change my mind.

What we are experiencing is a typical out-group mentality. It's a human instinct to be on the defensive when we first meet someone not in our tribe, because he can potentially be a spy from another tribe who plans to destroy our tribe.

This simply doesn't apply in the modern days, but we still have that emotion leftover from evolution. Being an emotion means you really have no control over it, you might even make up reasons for your behavior such as "oh this person is just not interesting." It's a known fact, that emotion is felt first and then re-interpreted by your brain. (Check out books on neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, if you want to learn more.)

However your brain can be retrained, just like how you can re-train someone who stutters. Believe me, the latter one is a lot harder to do.

This is what you can do to re-train yourself:

1. Get out of your house (exercise if you don't already)

2. Meet five strangers everyday (any age group is fine)

3. You goal is not to make friends. You goal is to make them laugh five times in twenty minutes

4. Keep a log of the people you meet and write down one thing interesting about each one. (Don't write "not interesting". There's always something interesting.)

5. Keep doing this for at least a month

Making friends is about giving, not taking. I can be the most boring person in the world if I don't want to be friends with you. So give me a reason to be interesting. Make me laugh and I will be interesting. If I'm still not interesting by then, you are having a good time, so what does it matter.

Eventually you'd want to do what SwellJoe has suggested, start a band, start a club, be a leader. Leader gives tons of value to the group, that's why people follow him (and be friends with him).

So, stop thinking, Daniel. Turn off your computer, get out and meet someone right now.

P.S. If you are interested in these kinds of networking/entrepreneurial training, I'm writing a series of blog posts on this topic.

In short, in any situation, if you see someone who might be interesting, just go up and say hi, don't hesitate, you have nothing to loose.

I have to go to work soon, so I will give you the long version later.

How old are you? Where are you?

Excellent! Don't dismiss the old-timers. Some of the most interesting people I've ever known have been a lot older than me. In fact, actually, most of the truly interesting folks I've know have been older than me--they've just had more time to acquire crazy and funny stories. I took a job at an independent television station when I was in college, and that was a great experience (it got acquired by the WB, now CW, while I was there, and the character of the station changed and most of the old-timers left). Several of the folks I worked with had been involved in building the tower and broadcast station back in the sixties. Those old guys (and one gal) had some fantastic stories about the birth and growth (and changing mores, like the fact that smoking pot in master control on the night shift was accepted practice in the 70's) of the station, and had a lot of interesting insight into technology and changes; they'd seen the station go from film to analog video of multiple types to digital video, along with the introduction of satellites and other wonders of modern technology.

Work past the awkward, be friendly and interested in their stories (fake it till you make it), and you'll probably learn something about making friends with folks who aren't exactly like you. Older folks are also more likely to be able and willing to make up for your lack of social graces. Generally, the older you get, the less clique-oriented you become...you might get more set in your ways in a lot of regards, but older folks tend to be happier to talk to new and different people, especially if the new people are truly interested in what they have to say.

Another interesting old-timer story: A friend of mine worked with a lady who was maybe 10-15 years older than her. They became friends, because they were both vegetarian, and had a few other things in common. Turns out the lady was Jimmy Dale Gilmore's (probably best known as Smokey from The Big Lebowski outside of Texas, but he's a famous Grammy-wielding country musician) wife. You want interesting stories? Ask an old music star. Point is, you never know who you're going to find when you actually get to know someone.

Anyway, the old-timers aren't generally going to be your best friends, of course. But, socializing merely for the sake of socializing is good for you.

Plus, when it comes time to network for your start-up, old-timers tend to have a lot more connections and resources too.

Thank you for your effort. I'd really appreciate it.

Edit: please don't downvote him. It was a good question, so let's all encourage him to continue contributing to Hacker News eh?

Besides, based on my observations, the inclination that "txt speech" is indicative of an immature manner is dead on, and people do indeed grow out of it. Today's txt-ers will type normally once they grow up. I can wait. l33t sp34|< is not a new phenomenon, anybody with eyes should be able to observe that it is not an endpoint... for anybody interesting, anyhow.

I have NO idea how someone who writes in "txt" gets to be here, haha. Then again, the web is public. I sigh.

"But we're hoping that, as in past influxes, the new arrivals will with some prodding from the existing inhabitants learn the local customs." - pg

http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pg

http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=PG

EDIT: wait, does that mean there might be a ghost Unalone out there making me look bad? Suddenly I feel the need to register a hundred permutations to stay safe.

To save you the effort - you cannot do the same on HN :).

http://www.☃.net/

I have no social group of my own and go back and forth between their friend circles.

I'd ignore social groups entirely. Seriously, just forget any of these artificial groups of friends. I know that's not actually possible but in general don't worry about it. When I look back at the stratification of my high school social order it seems like it was straight out of "lord of the flies". Interact with the people who are doing interesting things. People who you find interesting or enjoy spending time with. Don't join any friend groups, that's an entirely isolating situation. Right now you can freely "group" with whoever you want.

Everyone has told me to wait until college, and then I will find new people, but everyone I know in college generally sticks with the same friend group that they had in high school (hence why I would know), so I don't have much hope in that.

Don't go to college where everyone else is going to college. Get away from all this. I did, and it was one of the best decisions I made when I was a teenager. Everyone in high school will likely think you are crazy for not going to the usual schools, but who cares.

I think the single best thing you can do is just get out and... do things. This is surprisingly simple but will really make a difference. I think it's been echoed here already by a number of other people. Pickup a new sport, go see a movie, go to clubs, take classes at the community college, go on a road trip (gas is affordable again!), see a concert you would otherwise not see, play cards, go to a house party, study with people you usually wouldn't study with, volunteer somewhere, go to a museum, get an unusual part-time job, do something that no one else is doing. Go buy a copy of Make magazine and pick a project (http://www.makezine.com/). Before you know it, you'll be the interesting person that other people will want to spend time with.

And of course read PG's take on high school and nerds: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html Somehow this hasn't been linked to in the post. I know it represents my high school experiences very well and he gives great advice.

Feeling alienated sucks but you might find that not belonging to just one group is one of your strengths. It can give you a unique perspective because you have a wider range of experiences. It can also increase your tolerance for change and uncertainty. People that stay in groups tend to want things to stay the same and you don't meet interesting people in Berlin or Beijing by staying the same.

And you may want to reconsider your thoughts about psychologists. They are a great resource for figuring out how you feel because they're trained listeners and neutral to your situation. Sometimes you need to try out a couple before you find one that you find helpful.

I'm geeky, I love my mac, I love podcasts, etc. My friends aren't crazy about computers really. A person I consider my best friend is really into cars, mechanics, etc. I'm really into SEO/marketing/startups.

The reason we get along is because we don't have a lot of the same interests. I get along with him because he's a good person, fun to hang out with and compliments me (as cheesy and fruity as this all sounds).

Stop looking for that person who is your clone. I have geeky friends that I meet with at local events, coffee shops, etc - but none of these people are my day to day good friends.

You also need some good online friends. Some may not agree, but I think having friends online is great. I have about 3 really good friends online who compliment me and who I talk to almost daily about.. whatever. I've known some of them for over 3yrs online. Some I have met in person, some I haven't. You obviously don't want to spend all day online but having a few of these friends and people to talk to is always good in my mind.

That said, online friends are definitely not a substitute for real life ones, but it's not a bad way to build a group of people you can use as an always available sounding board for the random crap that pops into your head.

For the OP, the thing about people is that talking about the one thing you have in common is _easy_. No one really only has a single interest, but you have to actually spend quite a bit of time with people to get them to open up and start sharing more about themselves. You'd be surprised by the kinds of people you'll find yourself having things in common with if you have the chance to get to know them.

If you haven't already - Travel, move overseas, etc - the world is a big place.

Sounds trite, but broad horizons help.

1.Traveling alone will help you to meet new people.

2.Do this with the objective of evolving your view of how humans work, not making specific life-long friends (though of course, that is possible).

3.Hitch-hiking is even better for meeting people and learning about people. In a way, a discussion with a lone driver in their own car is much like an accelerated version of making a friend. Hitch hiking is tough in the US, but easier elsewhere.

4. Keep looking for people who are similar to yourself. At my high school <10% of people were similar to me. At my college >50% of people were similar to me. It was like night and day. It may not be college for you, but it's somewhere.

Part of what you say sounds like the trouble of growing up. There is an age when what interests you automatically interests your friends. When I was a kid, other kids I met were usually open enough to get interested in whatever I was interested in, and we could easily have shared passions. These interests were also more shallow and less complicated than those I developed later. I am 39 now, and at my age everybody seems so specialized that they rarely pick up new interests. This is compensated by the lesser importance interests take in a friendship. I met some of my best friends because they make comics, like me. When I see them nowadays, we almost never speak about comics. I have practically no common interests with my wife, but we get along fine.

Maybe you have not found a psychologist that fits you, but a good one could be helpful. Their job is not to tell you what you want to hear, but often they will repeat what you say to make sure they understand you correctly. I went to see a psychologist once when I had a depression. I think what helped me most was to have a relation to someone I could trust. Feeling less lonely could be enough to get rid of some of the problems you mention, like thinking too much about the differences between you and your friends. Building a relationship is something a psychologist should really be good at, and seeing how he does it with you can help you with others.

Look at all the "popular" people you know - individuals with lots of friends, a pretty busy social life, etc. What makes them like that? Easy: when they interact with people, the things that light up in their brains are all sorts of pleasure centers and reward sites and parts of the brain that generate positive emotions, and stuff like that. I don't know the proper names for those things, but you get the gist, I'm sure.

Even when just thinking about social interactions, before they even get up and go out and do it, the simple thought of interacting with people generates the same reaction in their brains. So they are motivated to start doing it, rather than sitting passive.

How about those with few (or no) real friends? When interacting with people, there's no such reaction in their brains. No reward sites, no positive emotions, nothing. Or, even worse, negative emotions are generated. And yes, that may happen even as that person feels "alone" - those are different processes, not mutually incompatible.

The solution? This is one of those rare instances when self-help books and New Age literature and stuff like that actually works. "Change starts with yourself", "positive thinking", heck even "love thy neighbor". All those stereotypes, in such a situation they do apply pretty well.

Secondly, friends are also like women: you'll find a good one when you've really reached a point of frustration where you find yourself swearing that "This is enough of suffering for me! I do NOT need a friend/girlfriend to be happy and to feel fulfilled. If I have to, I'll go by myself just fine, thank you!" OTOH, nobody wants to befriend someone who really wants a friend, maybe just any friend. You can't seek for friendship, it will seek for you.

Third, you should make up your mind about what you want. What do you want from your friends should you become blessed with one? What do you want to talk about with them? What do you want to do with them? Unless you know what you want, you'll just keep bumping into friends or "friends" who want to do their stuff. Nobody is going to come and probe you for subjects that you might want to talk about, everyone just settles for some topic they know you know too. Also, being occasionally brave enough to talk about what YOU want to talk about is a great device to weed out people who can't or won't align with your interests. For example, if you want to talk about life, start doing that and you'll soon find out who will bounce back and who simply can't handle it.

Generally, whatever it is that isn't working will just keep happening again and again until you find a way to change yourself, causing different and possibly more desirable things to keep happening.

This might be realistic in the case of a girlfriend, but is hard to believe in the case of friends. You can't just decide that loneliness doesn't hurt you anymore, can you?

Or if you can, it would be very interesting to know more. There is a lot of research that points the other way.

There are some good books on the subject. Solitude: A Return to the Self by Anthony Storr was one of the first I read and had a strong focus on psychology. For a more opinionated text, Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto by Anneli Rufus was good at building confidence in living this way.

Judging by what I see on amazon.com, Storr analyzes the life of some famous people that apparently managed to be happy through work despite 'inferior relationships'.

The one I've read is 'Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection' by John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick. It quotes a lot of studies that statistically link feeling disconnected with all sorts of things you want to avoid, including health problems.

Of course, instead of having friends, you can try to avoid loneliness by getting rid of your social needs, in a kind of ascetism. I never managed to do that. On the other hand I read that Alexander Selkirk, the stranded sailor who inspired Robinson Crusoe, suffered terribly from loneliness the first one and a half years, but then got over it completely. Later, back in Scotland, he even regretted his time on the island. I was wondering if this story was true, and if there were other examples.

Relationships with people are hugely rewarding and enjoyable but you can't depend on them for happiness (or anything). See people as the oases in your life. Depend on yourself for what you need and enjoy people as you find them.

Over analysis and introspection are just a habit of mind. They are not always productive but have their place, especially at certain times (just broken up, just done something shocking, had a profound experience, failed in some way) but prolonged bouts can be destructive.

All the advice so far seems to point to finding something else to occupy your mind. Do that and you will find people with different interests a welcome distraction. Of course whatever you find to occupy your time other will do too, so there is your social circle.

It seems trite but you need to do stuff. I don't want to make you feel worse but if you spend all your time self absorbed then people will never have the same interests as you and yo won't be that interesting so won't meet life's 'truly interesting' people ( people like me ;) )

What do you like to do?

Even though you might not find people with the exact same interests as you, if you look hard you will find that interesting people have similar qualities, regardless of their specific interests. Seek out people who are good at what they do, and avoid people who aren't. Academics are a good start—befriend your local valedictorian. Find people in any activity—math, science, music, newspaper—and if they're winning any competitions,

As for over-analyzing relationships goes, that shouldn't really be a problem so long as it doesn't stop you from actually executing them. The key to a friendship is to be useful to the other person. Always pay more attention to them than you do to yourself. Figure out things they like/need but don't have, and buy gifts for them.

Keep in mind that the social landscape can change drastically in a very short time. Don't assume that a year from now nothing will have changed. It's your job to make sure the change comes out in your favor.

So have you actually met any people yet? This sounds like you're just trying to kiss someone's ass. That's not how real friendships are forged.

Sure, the college you choose will be the standard destination for some group of people, and so they will be coming to college knowing a lot of their classmates. But people usually come to college with the goal of meeting a lot of new classmates, and as long as you make an effort to meet new people and get involved, you should be successful.

I remember coming to college not knowing anyone, and somewhat stressed out that I might not make a lot of friends. This might have made me come across as a little desperate. So, don't worry about making close friendships when you just meet someone new. Just get to know a little bit about them and what they find interesting. And when you get invited to something, or are doing an activity, invite people who you know might be interested. And then, after a while you will have made a lot good friends. Personally my social life now is a lot better than it ever was in high school, or even my first quarter of college.

I also had the problem of over-analyzing my friendships a little too much. I just realized that I couldn't expect to have the same level of friendship with everyone I meet. So what has helped me is spending time with more people. Sure, I'm better friends with some people than others. But knowing a lot of people helps when my better friends are all busy with other people or activities on the weekends, since I know that I'll be able to spend time with somebody I like. And once I realize that I don't really need a specific friendship to be around interesting people, or too spend time with people I like, then I mostly stop over-analyzing that relationship.

I've been three places where I've felt real kinship with the people around me, to varying degrees. I find it when I go to work out; there's a focus amongst everybody in doing something pure and on self-improvement. That's the least I've felt it. I find it among theater people - the real obsessives. Theater is such an odd thing that the people who are drawn to it are very focused on doing as good a job as they can, they're confident enough to have a good time doing so, and they understand how hard it is, so that they welcome most anybody who wants to learn. It was most focused at a summer program I spent a month at, that selected high school students based entirely on talent rather than GPA and resume, and made itself entirely free of charge. I was one of the writers in the program, and everybody in every field was absolutely incredible. Once you get to that sort of group, everybody's interesting and unique and loves everybody else to some degree.

So that's the tried-and-true method: find the places that are pockets of talent. Those places attract more talent and become really focused. If you can't immediately get there, the method I've found works is to just act like yourself. Don't avoid parts of your personality just because other people find them off-putting. That's uncomfortable. Instead, try and focus on doing what you want to do, and find the sorts of people that gravitate towards you based on who you are. I found, actually, that in my senior year of high school the people doing that all found each other, and while that group broke apart again, we had a few really wonderful months where we were all with people we'd never known really well before, where we liked each other not just for intellect but for personal honesty.

That's not as easy a route, depending on what kind of person you are. I'm very sharp-tongued, for instance, and I'm not very interested in most people. That in itself offends some people, or at least makes them indifferent. But the result is that when you are with people, you really value them. I really connected with my roommate - he got me into lifting weights, actually - and a few people on my floor. Some musician/gamer/coder/work-out types. Nobody who's exactly my personality type, but a lot of people who really tolerate each other for who we are. And that's better than pretending friendships and having none.

Despite that, I've got phases. I have some periods where I feel outright hateful hostility towards the people who aren't like me. I usually just keep that inside me, and focus the angst that I've got on working. The first major period of it I wrote a book. After that I wrote a few bursts of poetry and designed a web site. I'm half in the middle of one now and it's really keeping me focused on my work. It helps to focus it outwards at something (though, as a warning, I tried to get rid of it by drinking once and as a result half my floor wouldn't speak to me for months).

I overanalyze friendships to death, to answer your last question. I overanalyze everything. I think that's a good thing. It implies that you're seeking for something meaningful and lasting. If something's not working, then it doesn't hurt to try and change it. Just don't get off to too drastic a start, or you'll burn bridges that you regret burning later.

Hope that helps you! :-)

The people who I think are most talented - the people I try to emulate - are the people who never stop asking questions. The more you ask, the more comprehensive view you have of the thing, and the more you've got to master. There's nothing particularly hard to it.

The people who don't ask questions, but accept things as they are, are the people who comfortably fit into a niche. I think most people do this: they get to a certain level, then stop, and they settle in with people who've settled there. The people who are skill-less settle in with people who have that mindset. So they end up with some sort of a satisfaction.

The people who impress me the most, in every single field, are the ones who are never satisfied entirely. The ones who constantly move forward. It leads to a mindset like the one in the OP: you feel dissatisfied with the people around you, the people who settle in. And while the whole idea is that you never do settle in with a group when you're like that, you do acknowledge the people who are similar to you, and you develop bonds like that. Those are my closest friends: the people who, to some degree or other, never stop pushing themselves forward. It's because they always change: they always stay interesting. And while all of those close friends belong to entirely separate groups, while most of them have never met each other in person, they're still a very definitive group in my mind. And I'd like to think that I belong to that same group in their minds.

The part of that culture that I dislike is that there's no emphasis on figuring out what's most worth figuring out. There has to be a period of figuring out what's worth your time before you dedicate your time. It's present in American culture, though not as prominently as it ought to be, but from what I've seen of asian culture it's not there at all. It's why the few big Japanese successes that fascinate me - though I don't know very many people, I'll admit - are ones that are openly West-influenced. Shigeru Miyamoto and Nobuo Uemats, for instance: the one is more influenced by The Beatles than anything else, and the other originally tried writing songs like Elton John.

I believe the only thing I cannot do is be myself.

In short, what I am is an overpowering urge to be anything else.

If you want to do great things, here is how: Keep learning new subjects, keep finding new problems, talk to other talented minute, work hard, and enjoy yourself. Worrying about being "smart" is a lame excuse. The "smartest" man in the world is this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan

You may not notice it, if you live in your own little isolated world.

Yes, you can be very intelligent, and incompetent; but no, you cannot be competent, able to get stuff done, and not intelligent.

Again and again, as a kid, I'd come across situations with bullies and go with the lie that the bullies were stupid and jealous. Then in high school, I'd realize that some of those bullies were very bright, clever, and talkative, and that my own actions towards other kids could be perceived as bullying, when to me it was more a good-natured hazing. I started to realize that even the stoner deadheads that I thought were entirely mindless were in fact intelligent people who knew they were ruining their lives and just didn't care.

From the people I've seen, the idea of exclusive intelligence is not as true as most people think it is. I've met people with higher IQs than me who seem less intelligent than I am, because they weren't raised in the way I was, and so went around laboriously working on schoolwork without ever once finding their own interests. For me, that was the height of unintelligence: doing things without asking why. On the other hand, I know one or two people I used to think were stupid going out and doing some pretty impressive things, not because they were particularly bright, but because they kept at something longer than other people did.

The line about genius being 99% perspiration keeps coming up in my mind during this conversation. Most people have good ideas: one statement I read says everybody has three million-dollar ideas every year. We've all thought of cool things and then seen somebody else making a fortune of that cool thing. The difference between that person and the rest of the people with that idea is that that person knew what to do with his idea. The idea itself wasn't uncommon, but its realization was.

Most people don't do great things because most people don't care to do great things. They never try once. Look at the startups you see here. Most of them are interesting, most of the coders have good things in mind. But how many would you call great? Even the really good coders rarely take on anything monumental.

Most people are very bright and just don't care to apply themselves.

I think it's probably closer to the truth to say most people don't know how to apply themselves. Just about everyone starts off with dreams of doing something great. Most people, no matter how smart, either give up to quickly or (less often) spend their lives working on the wrong thing. Figuring out what to work on, and then not giving up, is way more important than raw intelligence.

Perhaps you've missed this because some people give up so quickly that it appears they never tried at all.

Stop! Stop! Now I feel less special!

People are successful for all different reasons, and the best anyone can do is put themselves out there and take advantage of opportunities. The minute you convince yourself that are not smart enough or too lazy or whatever, then you're just committing to failure—most likely because psychologically safe—which is stupid because no one has the recipe for success. Chase your dreams!

Certainly, they can be successful, but at what? Not likely anything great.

If you're like me and think that greatness is a few-times-in-a-century thing, then look at the people who achieve it, you'll be astonished. Some of my big-list people aren't people you'd expect at all. Bill Watterson, who was by all accounts keep-to-himself in school. Samuel Beckett, who entered college as a cricket fiend and slowly gravitated towards writing.

Nobody tries to be great. There's the limit. Few average-minded people will attempt anything extraordinary. Few smart people will, for that matter. And if you don't try, you don't do it.

That said, none of the great works I've seen in my life are things I've felt to be beyond me. Do you feel otherwise? Do you look at things and feel like you could not, at birth, have entered a path of life capable of producing those things?

The things I think are beyond me are beyond me by choice. I won't ever write virtuoso piano music, because I don't want to spend 20 years learning to play the piano well enough to write that stuff. But if I really, really wanted to, I could, given enough time.

The problem is that few people realize that. They see something complex and decide they could never do that, not realizing that the more you know the simpler it seems.

On second read, maybe that's not what you're saying, and I missunderstood. Forgive me--I haven't slept in 40 hours. :-)

Have you read, or read of, any of these longitudinal studies?: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/faq/gt-long.html

The best known longitudinal studies were conducted by Louis Terman. In 1921 Terman and his colleagues began a longitudinal study of 1,528 gifted youth with IQs greater than 140 who were approximately 12 years old. Over a period of approximately 40 years, the researchers laid the groundwork for our understanding of giftedness and paved the way for efforts to identify and nurture giftedness in school. Terman died in 1959 but the study will continue until 2020, to encompass the entire lives of his original 1528 gifted youth. Results of the study have been published in several volumes

http://books.google.com/books?id=KQ4rLiAbHQQC&pg=PA41...

Intelligence is an important determinant of lifetime achivement. The classical study demonstrating this association was carried out by Lewis Terman and his colleagues. The study began around 1920 by intelligence testing a large number of children in California. From this sample they selected 1,528 (857 boys and 671 girls) with IQs of 135 and above. The minimum IQ of 135 represents approximately the top one percent of the population. The average IQ of the total sample was 151 (Terman, 1925).

These children were followed up thirty-five years after their initial identification when they were in their early forties. By this time, the authors of the follow-up concluded that "the superior child, with few exceptions, becomes the able adult, superior in nearly every respect to the generality" (Terman and Oden, 1959, p. 143).

Terman and his associated found that 70 percent of their sample had graduated from college; two fifths of the men and three fifths of the women had gone through graduate school. Of the men, 86 percent were in the two highest socioeconomic categories of professions and management. None of these individuals were in the lowest socioeconomic category of unskilled workers, as compared with 13 percent of the male population at that time. Seventy of the men were listed in American Men of Science, and three had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Thirty-one were listed in Who's Who in America. Between them, they had produced nearly 2000 scientific papers, some 60 books in the sciences, 230 patents, and 33 novels. Fourteen percent of the men did not fulfill the promise of their high IQs and failed to obtain socioeconomic class one or two occupations. These men were almost all impaired by psychiatric problems or lack of motivation.

Among the women, most of them became housewives and mothers and consequently did not have such visible achievements. Nevertheless, seven women were listed in American Men of Science and two in Who's Who in America. Between them they had produced 32 scholarly books, 5 novels, more than 200 scientific papers, and 5 patents.

The other possibility is that I am completely wrong...

What I said in the other branch of this thread is that you'll never know if you can be great unless you spend your life trying, and that so few people do try that almost all of the people who really strive for it end up succeeding, to at least some degree.

Are you just speaking hypothetically, or do you really think you are unable to be smart? Because if you do think that, chances are you're wrong.

> In short, what I am is an overpowering urge to be anything else.

Join the club.

"A man was sentenced to death, but the king wanted to give him a last chance. He asked the man to choose from one of the three knights that were there. One of the knights was the Knight of Life, and he always told the truth. The second Knight was the Knight of Death, and he always told lies. The third knight was the Knight of the Dungeon. He sometimes lied and sometimes told the truth. If the man chose the Knight of Death, he would be executed before sunset. If he chose the Knight of Life, he would be acquitted and set free right away. If he chose the Knight of the Dungeon, he would spend the rest of his life imprisoned in the Dungeon. The man was allowed to ask the three knights one question each. Thus, he asked the fat knight, "What is the name of this tall knight?" The reply was, "He is the Knight of Life." He asked the small knight, "What is the name of this tall knight?" The reply was, "He is the Knight of Death." Then he asked the tall knight, "Who are you?" "I am the Knight of the Dungeon" was the reply. After that, the man was able to correctly choose the Knight of Life, and was set free immediately. Who is the Knight of Life, and who are the other two knights?"

This puzzle seemed beautiful to me because it was so pure. If you can understand English, then you have the potential to solve it.

My friend solved it in about forty seconds, according to him. I solved it in over twenty minutes, and only after being wrong once.

I am an extremely slow programmer. I have had the good fortune of being around many productive programmers, so I know this to be the case. I used to make excuses as to why I was so. But in the end, it doesn't really matter; I am wrong 90% more often than I am correct, and I act stupidly most of the time. My memory is so horrible that I routinely forget the start of the sentences I am writing. I often re-read what I write (be it English or C++) over ten times before I am satisfied it means what I meant. My mathematical skills are a wash. (I still don't even understand the meaning and utility of 'e', and not for lack of trying.) My mind's eye is blind; I find it almost impossible to imagine what a given figure should look like, if I am about to draw it, so something such as Paul's painting http://bookshop.gfu.net/AxCMSTemplates_GFU/pics/products/013... seems nothing short of magic. My hand-eye coordination is decent, but not great. My reflexes are decent, but not great. So in summary, I feel I am decent, but not great; but I have an overwhelming appetite to be great.

I don't want to give up on becoming a genius, and I don't want to believe that I cannot become one just because I wasn't born one.

    fat:   "tall is Life"
    small: "tall is Death"
    tall:  "tall is Dungeon"

Now, one of the other two must be Life (because tall isn't), and so one of them must be telling the truth about tall. He's called Death and Life, so he must be one of them. We know he can't be Life, so tall is definitely Death.

Whoever called him Death was telling the truth, and must be Life. Only small called him Death, so small is Life. (edit I should have said: Life must be telling the truth about him, so if only one of them does that, that one is Life).

And the remaining guy - fat - must be the remaining knight - Dungeon. Dungeon can lie or truth, so it doesn't matter what he said (in fact, he was lying: he said tall was Life, when tall was Death). It only mattered what he said so we could distinguish between him and small.

    fat   is Dungeon
    small is Life
    tall  is Death

If the second guy is lying, that means we know the two liars and the third must be Life. But he says he isn't. Therefore, the second knight is Life, the third is Dungeon, and the first is Death.

But solving a puzzle isn't genius. It's logic. Some people spend much more time with logic than others: programmers have lots of games like these. The Blue Eyes puzzle comes to mind as a particularly hard one. Similarly, the more people program, the more they learn mental shortcuts that let them be more productive. Time fixes everything, and the best attribute to fix things is passion. You've got that. You just need to make sure to unfailingly look for whatever your goal is, and to learn everything you need to pursue it. Remember: there's more to building something than programming.

Let me try to prove this from a different direction. You've probably heard of Henry Molaison, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_(patient) ... His hippocampus was surgically removed, rendering him unable to form new memories. Do you truly believe it would have been possible for him to build Quake 3 just because he was overwhelmingly passionate about doing so?

So I solved that puzzle quick-ish. But then, as a kid I played logic games to pass time. Other kids would play sports, and I'd pore through books of puzzles and solve them. So suddenly I'm able to do that. But it means that now, as a freshman at the gym, I'm operating as a near-pathetic level. For Christmas I got two 30-pound weights because that's a level that's easy for bench and hard for curls. But compared to my roommate? That's nothing. He does 50s for light workout. It's because he's spent much more time doing that than me.

There are always impediments. The best trick is to figure out how best to work around them and do what you want anyway. Figure out where you best fit in to the process of creation. Look at the top Apple team. Steve Jobs and Tim Cook and Jony Ive - the three I know of best - are quite different people. Jobs is hotheaded. Cook is known for incredible stamina but he's not a design guy. Ive is all design, nothing else. They're very different people who excel at doing a few things very well, and they work together to create their brilliant products.

However, that rarely matters as much as it's emphasized. The more you focus on something, the more brilliant your end results will seem.

Next question: how do you determine whether you're born with it? At what point does your demonstrated ineptitude force you to admit that you are incapable of realizing your goals?

("you" doesn't refer to you specifically, obviously. I just talk in the active voice.)

However, if you give up, you'll never know if you could have been. The struggle is what makes it so hard, but it's what makes it worth it in the end.

Not all of the YC startups that failed have failed just because the founders stopped working on them, I'd imagine. At what point should you let failure overwhelm you?

I'd bet that most of the failing YC founders learned important lessons from their failures. Nobody succeeds every time.

The problem is, it is not at all a foregone conclusion that you will become one of the greats just because you throw most of your life at it. Should a retard give up on his life's goals sooner, later, or ever?

How disciplined are you? Everyone values genius, welcome to the crowd. It is a convenient excuse to obsess on others' talent as if genes and childhood were all that separated you from them. You appear to be focusing too much on outcome rather than on the hard work necessary to achieve it. Skills always look natural from the outside! But ask the honest, reflective people you admire and they'll tell you: they worked their butts off on fundamentals. Psst: fundamentals are open to you too.

Don't obsess over shortcuts. I would love to see you explain to a person with no arms how you'd gladly cut yours off for slightly better gray matter.

Practice with intense effort. If forum composition and wordsmithing is a challenge, discipline your technique by journaling stream-of-consciousness. To improve your memory treat it like a muscle: high reps, low weight at first.

How is your health? Do you exercise, eat right, avoid alcohol, have a positive attitude and sleep well? These are simple but powerful levers.

Talent is overrated. Upgrade your attitude not your physical brain, silly. :)

Not to mention: as you go for it, you find better and better people along the way.

It's hard not to be devilishly jealous of their towering talent, though. Also, I'd imagine it would be extremely hard to earn their respect, so it they would be hard or impossible to find, or to keep.

You bring up a really interesting point. To me, doing the work myself matters more than realizing the vision. I never knew that about myself before, so thank you.

I'm not really sure that intelligence matters as much as people think it does. K.A. Ericsson is a psychologist who studies expert performance, and he's clearly shown that a high iq is not required to become an expert in something. What is required is 1000's of hours of deliberate practice. So basically when you see overnight successes, you're really missing the hard work that got them there. Everyone needs to put in the effort.

And besides research is coming out that really supports the idea that intelligence can be raised. There is some evidence that practicing the Dual-n-back test will raise your fluid iq. And the test isn't domain specific. http://cognitivefun.net/test/5 is a good site for the test.The community there is also really good.

Which one is the best programming candidate? :)

Not much finesse in that (possible) solution to your problem, but it sounds like you don't have many options.

I don't think Methylphenidate is an amphetamine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritalin

My brain basically broke it down like this: 1. Anyone saying someone else is the knight of life must be either the dungeon or the death. i. If the person he said is the knight of life, calls himself the knight of life then things get complicated... ii. Luckily the person that was called the knight of life, in fact called himself dungeon, which means that neither could be the knight of life. 2. Since the knight of life is the small, believe what he says. The tall = death. 3. This leaves only the Fat to be paired with the dungeon.

Fun puzzle.

Nothing is immediate. Everything takes years and years of work. So whatever you want to do, start now! Begin learning. Learn everything. If you ever have a question, or wonder why something is the way it is, ask! You'll learn more, more, more, and eventually you'll find a question without an answer. That's when you begin work.

Forgive me for being immodest and talking about myself, but that's the story I know and I hope it helps. When I was really young, I was surrounded by books, and learned how to read when I was 2 or 3. I'd read quite a lot by middle school, and so when we were asked to write things, I wrote by copying a lot of the things I'd read from different sources. Some people called it a matter of intelligence, but it wasn't: I had just read a lot, and so had a wide palette to blatantly steal from. At the same time, I had computers around since I was an infant, but I'd never really learned about things like forums until I was about 13 - which from some stories is pretty damn old online! From there, though, I learned a lot about communities, and tried making my on site two years later. It was all a matter of timing: if I'd discovered forums at 19, my first site would have launched a lot later. As it happens, now I'm working on a site for writers, and I'm combining a lot of the things I've learned in the past to make it happen.

Passion's the real key, and from what you've written you've got that. Now you need to make that passion last. You can just go out and start trying things, but be warned in advance that they won't seem impressive at first. Each one gets a little bit better. And the more perspective you've got, the more this happens. Something you thought was perfect seems awful once you see things other people have made - I know this happens in both writing and web design, and I'm sure it must happen in every other field imaginable. It'll take time; nothing happens overnight. Not even for child prodigies: Mozart spent 6 years immersed in music before he became a prodigal violinist, after all, and he had a father who'd spent his life learning the craft that Mozart learned and then mastered.

Never let generalizations stop you from getting something done. Don't worry about intelligence. Worry about doing things, thinking things. Let other people compliment you after the fact, and if you get things done they will. Focus your effort on accomplishment and you'll be guaranteed to succeed.

You might be 50% better than your baseline in some areas, but if you can't learn to feed yourself then you are not going to become a dancer.

PS: I think it's best to look at it as leverage, if you need less sleep you can get more done, if you have a higher IQ you can get more done, but if you spend time watching TV then you're getting nothing done.

Normal people just want to live a normal life, have their statistically approved 2.1 kids, have sex every wednesday and friday and live their life like everyone else. That is why they are called normal.

And then there's this peculiar breed of man that doesn't seem to be satisfied with the acceptance of every rule and to do as he's told but want to question assumptions and discover new things. He is rare, and thus normally has problems finding peers that have the same curiosity towards life as him.

I think you're one of those people. Don't feel bad about that, they are the ones that change the world.

You are learning how to deal with the real world, the world you must navigate to find happiness. Sooner than later you'll fall in love and then even this goes out the window. You think you're confused now? Just wait.

Just be thankful you have a place like this, where people want to answer with contemplated gems and not something something...

Have you actually tried talking about other topics? It sounds like you're making assumptions about what your friends are interested in, but haven't actually tested your hypothesis.

I don't think I've met anyone who isn't keen to learn something new or teach me about one of their interests.

Go get help. You don't sound suicidal or anything (though if you are, run to the nearest psychiatrist) but you do sound like you've got something other than teenage angst (in my highly unqualified opinion) so you should at least run your problem by a psychologist. What could it hurt?

1. Take others advice with a grain of salt. 2. Dig down and get tough otherwise this beat you up. 3. Standards are worth having.

Not the best advice, but in reality you'll ultimately do whatever you decide and not what we tell you. Good luck.

Stop coming up with reasons to dislike your friends. Stop waiting for something to magically change in your life (college won't be that different.

And definitely stop framing the problem as _other people_ alienating _you_. Even if it were true, that's not a problem you can do much about.

Spend time with people you like, and try to let people surprise you.

and all the interesting people are in startups ;)

If you feel that way, I'm free to talk - send me an email or aim me - Spyckie (at) gmail or Spyckie on aim.

college, hopefully, will blow your mind. it may not be everything you want it to be, and may not even be right for you, but it will take a great personal undertaking on your part to not meet some excellent people.

Holden? I've wiki'd it to no avail. Can someone enlighten me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_Caulfield

Your friends don't need to share the same interests as you and you can still be friends.

my Spanish teacher a few years ago told me that the word in Spanish is the same in either case: aburrido. the downside is that most English speakers will assume you mean "a burrito." the upside is that it makes a lot of sense to combine these two words into one thing.

www.curi.us

I am a freshman in college with my first semester finished. In high school, I had about 3 good friends I enjoyed hanging out with. Besides them, I rarely had any social interaction. I was rarely (maybe once or twice?) invited to anything by anyone other than those 3 friends. The end of my senior year especially was depressing. I got to see everyone else, including my good friends, get invited to a good number of graduation parties while I stayed home. Weekend nights on the computer (like this one now) were common.

Enough about myself, but hopefully that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from. This advice is from very recent experience. I understand what you mean by having people you only have a specific interest with. While others say this is normal, I don't think they git it. If every time you're with them, the conversation turns to just computers or whatever, it's not real friendship. One piece of advice is that you could try doing something or going somewhere with people, so it's not all about a conversation. I also know that living in certain towns (like my hometown) finding something to do can be near impossible.

Now, for making new friends. Honestly, this is hard in high school, but not impossible. Friendships ebb and flow, and all of my friendships have seen different levels. Joining clubs is one good strategy. You could even try starting a club with someone else. For example, if you know someone who enjoys programming and you do too, you could both start a programming club. Why when I just said that only talking about computers is not frienship? Because having a club means you have to interact with people and it can bring in situations for meeting other people. Often, just having a good time with someone is a good sign.

Now, for the advice that is probably most important, what will happen at college. I'm a geek, and I chose NYU, a college that I'm pretty sure is not very geeky at all. I did this on purpose, because I wanted a clean slate and an environment that actively pushed me to become more social. Here's some tips:

- You have to do whatever you can to meet random people in the beginning. Sit with people at lunch, talk to people before class, join clubs, go out with floormates. I didn't do this at all, and now I regret that my only friends are from my floor. You just have to take advantage of this critical period when socializing is extremely open.

- I was extremely depressed during my first few days at college. Many others seemed to have something amazing about them, playing an instrument, photography, acting, etc. Everyone else also seemed much more sociable while I stayed quiet most of the time. I often thought whether I made the right college choice. But after those few days, I suddenly fit in well enough. I was still very much the same person, but after all the stuff about "whoa! you play guitar!" or "dude, you've got so many movies", personalities became more dominant. I wasn't an asshole, and I could be funny on occasion, and I danced like an idiot, but a funny idiot. So the moral of this is, do something in high school that you can show off to other people so those first few college days won't be as painful. Otherwise, just be a nice guy and if you come up with something funny, clever, or interesting, say it!

- After a few weeks of college, you will notice that everyone seems to have an individual label. I don't mean prep, jock, goth, or things like that. More like, everyone has a few personality traits that make them who they are. Somebody might be the big, outgoing guy, or the californian Asian dude, or the quiet we-need-to-get-this-guy-a-date nerd (guess who I am). Whatever happens, don't be the awkward guy. This will mean being natural and casual. If you don't think you can hold a one-on-one conversation with a girl, even if she's just a floormate, then frankly, don't. Large groups are your safest bet.

To return to your high school troubles, here's one last piece of advice. Even though the guy who might be good at acting or talking to girls has his own kind of smartness, make sure that both you and other people respect you. Don't mix with people who disparage science if you're into science. Find people who are willing to be intellectual.

I'm afraid that much of the above was too long, off-topic, or just weird. I'm pretty much writing this as stream-of-consciousness. Just remember: Be yourself. You can change yourself. You have to like what you change into.

That's a sign that you're an interesting person. It's painful, though.

I feel like when I talk to my "friends", I either have to talk all about computers, or all about music, or whatever that they're interested in, but never a mixture of everything.

You need to swallow your pride and learn how to make small talk. It's frustrating for intense people like us, not because we're too smart or to good for small talk, but because we frankly don't care about things like sports teams or the weather (or if we do, we care too much and can recite sports/weather statistics and bore people to death). However, it's a skill you'll need to learn, and you might as well do it now.

Everyone has told me to wait until college, and then I will find new people, but everyone I know in college generally sticks with the same friend group that they had in high school (hence why I would know), so I don't have much hope in that.

College is less cliqueish than high school, but still much more cliqueish than the real world.

Most people have "cliques" (which usually emerge from what floors people are on in freshman year) because they are insecure and need a set of people whom, even if they are not close to any of them individually, they recognize as "friends". They rely on their base social group (most of whom are not very close friends) more than on individual friends, and meet dates and new people through this group.

The high school cliques break up a bit in college, unless a large number of students from your high school go to the same school.

Where are the truly interesting people in life?

All over the place, literally and figuratively. Quality people are both rare and common; there are few of them, but they can be found everywhere. Most of my friends in college were international students, but I've met interesting and smart people literally everywhere, of all nationalities, races, and social classes.

Resist the urge to think of a weakness (having a hard time socializing) as a strength.

anyway, if your friends annoy you, spend less time with them, and go to places you haven't been before, pursuing whatever interests you have, and see if you meet people.

personally I deal with alienation by telling everyone I know to go to hell and seeing who sticks around anyway. I'm not actually qualified to give anybody advice on this topic, but I'm just reiterating my initial point now.

might as well reiterate my second point. I have the opposite problem: making too many new friends and not having the time to follow through on the friendship. this comes about because I have a lot of interests that I pursue really intensely. if you pursue a lot of interests, you'll meet people. so do that, but without being too intense about it to make any space for new friendships to develop, and you're good.

http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html

I can't find a web version, here's the really old school app (Mac OS classic) http://www.tex-edit.com/index.html#Azile