I'm not a loner

A few days ago, I had the best day because I interacted with cool people all day. First, I went to an online writing group with friendly people. Then I went to an online training by someone who works with people, who actually likes people (which I've written about before): he always starts the meetings by acknowledging every person in the "room," then as he lectures, he often pauses for questions and comments, and looks at the chat as well. He speaks in a warm, knowledgeable, communicative way; even though it's online, I feel like I'm in a supportive offline environment. 

Then, after I texted back and forth with a coworker/friend of mine, we ended up having an hour-plus phone call. She's one of those rare people who not only likes people, but helps people and is honest; she's a sincere, accepting person, sans superficiality. After that, a friend from the online writing group told me that she was dining at a restaurant across the street, so we went out for coffee in an upscale milieu on the Mag Mile and talked for a while. When she caught her bus back home, I walked through the Gold Coast and called another friend, who I talked to for over an hour. He also gave me some really good advice for my livestream. I had a pretty weird/toxic conversation with someone that night, but it was offset by having a drink with yet another friend at a place in River North, where we met the manager of a steak restaurant that we're definitely going to try out; she even told us to contact her before we go.

So the day was fantastic, and for an extrovert like me, all days should be like this. This is what energizes people with my personality type, rather than sitting silently in front a computer. And I didn't just socialize, but I socialized with decent people who like people. That's the key. (The reason why I'm mentioning extroversion is because I've written about faking introversion before, and how the world seems to be constructed for introverts.) 

So what does this all have to do with the title? Well I've obviously demonstrated that I am not a loner, but also, this is in response to a belittling person I met at a baby shower a while ago. When I think of people who are on the level, I contrast it with people who aren't. And I had such an experience at that baby shower. I knew no one but the expectant mother, so no matter where I sat, I had to strike up a conversation, or else I'd sit there in silence. I was kicked out of the family table, even though I'd been talking to the grandmother, so I went to another table, where I sat next to a religious, smug woman who spoke disparagingly about the people there with her daughter, in addition to gossiping about people who weren't there.

I made huge mistake that has been a cautionary tale ever since. I talked to her because I'm not introverted, thinking that she'd be cool or at least gracious since she was proud of being religious, and what I got were questions and accusations about my lifestyle. I was also going through some heavy stuff due to grief and increased responsibilities, so my life wasn't all happy and social and busy according to a church-lady's expectations. She was appalled that I didn't have kids, and I think she had 5, and had already moved from the city to the burbs. For some reason, I felt like I wanted to keep talking to her, because, again, I'm not a wallflower, but I should've just changed tables, because it never got any better. We were talking about other stuff, and then she said reproachingly, "So you're a loner." I was like, no, but she didn't believe me, so I assumed it probably appeared that way to her because I didn't have her kind of lifestyle. She was so judgmental and not encouraging, even after I told her about the loss I'd experienced, I felt even more deflated, but I didn't want to tell her off or be rude; I just concluded that she is into righteousness by appearance only.

But I'm not making the assumption that religiosity leads to ostracism. I had an incredible conversation today with a religious person that lasted for more than a couple of hours, where we had downtime while volunteering. Today's person clearly likes people and connecting with people. The other person doesn't. So it matters. Just filling time with people doesn't.

What FOMO was like before the Internet

On Saturday night, I had no plans, but I didn't care. I went out the day and night before, which was fine. Then I had an in-person meeting yesterday, so I got enough social interaction over the weekend. Maybe I would've wanted more in the past, but it was enough for me. It's gotten easier for me, but for for some people, not going out is rough. And it's made worse during the digital age; people get FOMO if they see pictures and reels on social media. But before the Internet, it wasn't the same.

The analog version of FOMO happened if you heard about people doing things, or they told you about it, or you talked on the phone about it. Or you could get FOMO by just sitting around, imagining what other people were doing. They could be doing nothing just like you, but if you perceived that they were out somewhere without you, then you could get FOMO. Teens could spiral in their own way and worry about it, but they could get distracted or talk to a friend on the phone (talking into a handset that was connected to a wall via a cord), or do something to get their mind off it. There were lots of things to do, and no one else had the means to show you what they were doing, so you couldn't compare yourself. 

It must be really tough for teens when they see pictures and videos of other people having fun. Even professionals get envious and question their own lifestyles when they look at LinkedIn, or see posts on Instagram and Fakebook. People cope by coming up with strategies to stay away from social media, or they try to stay strong as they scroll. BI (Before the Internet), there was less neuroticism about what other people were doing, and the world wasn't magnified around you. 

AI: outsourcing your brain

I've noticed that AI can be helpful as an interactive journal or for kicking around ideas. But it can also be a way to outsource your brain.

For instance, if I'm "discussing" something with it (via text; so far, I haven't spoken to it), it will say something like, "Do you want me to write an email for you that would work in this situation?" or "Do you want me to create an outline?" or "Do you want me to write [something substantial and/or creative]?" etc. I always say no because I basically know how to write. If I don't know how to write something (such as a compelling fictional scene), I'm willing to work it out, i.e., stretch my brain to try to figure it out. Using my own brain is challenging but satisfying because I am generating the ideas, and there's a breakthrough feeling that comes after the struggle. It's like feeling better after exercising. 

Sometimes AI will offer to edit something I've already written; it tells me that I can upload a file or paste in text, and it will review and correct it, and rewrite sections. Even though people say AI can mimic our writing style, I've noticed its writing voice sounds sort of flat. Someone even did an AI text-generating experiment on my writing, but it didn't sound like me. I can see AI's clichéd sentences all over the Internet, such as "I hope this email finds you well," or "I'm seeking a new role and would appreciate your support. If you hear of any opportunities or just want to catch up, please send me a message or comment below. I'd love to reconnect." I've also seen lists in online posts, punctuated with emojis and pictograms instead of bullet points or even just narrative paragraphs, which I suspect were generated via AI because it has generated those for me when I asked it a question about something.

If I were to say yes to AI, it would generate a lot of text for me and basically anything else I need. If I were to do research only using AI, it would create "facts" for me, sounding confident even if the facts were synthesized by fantasy. But it's that confidence that dupes people into thinking it's true. Fact checking requires an active brain, but what people have done is outsource to AI to do their work, as a real-life assistant would. There are famous people who trusted their assistants' flawed work instead of checking it, but AI is making it even easier to not engage at all; just a push of a button or a simple "ok" will launch a lot of automated work while you make coffee in the kitchen.

When I ask AI a question and it generates an answer, I ask, "Why do you think that?" or "What is that based on?" Then it will explain itself or provide links. Also, if I want to know some information about something, and the links aren't that great or the information seems odd, I will do my own search online then tell it what I've discovered. Then it will say something like, "Yes, that's right; such-and-such place closed three months ago," and give me different links and updated information. But the update was instigated by me, and AI confirmed. 

It can make you avoid thinking by just generating a bunch of stuff while "conversing" with you, and when it asks something like, "Do you want me to..." offering to organize your thoughts in an essay or outline or blog post or whatever, you can say "yes," and then it launches into a bunch of stuff that you are able to do yourself, if you put forth the intellectual effort. I'm not saying that it comes up with everything you would think, but it allows you to skip the thinking process. Students who use it think they're bypassing the system, but engaging the brain to do assignments helps with growth and skills, and there will be future situations where spontaneous critical thinking is necessary. It's not just about getting work done but adding experience and insight as life continues.

And AI can help someone avoid reading. I can understand if people have to wade through a lot of information and want to use AI to help them get the gist of various articles, especially when the articles bury the lede. But AI is also a way for people to outsource their reading, like a 21st-century Cliff Notes. Engaging with a text requires brain power, and if people only use AI to read something, they might not even get the accurate meaning of the text, especially if they don't analyze what is written. Or they won't develop their own take on a reading, thus their thinking will be flattened and conformist. Depending only on AI, such as for reading texts and writing papers for school, for instance, can lead to complications later on when someone has to be successfully analytical for a job, or if they just want to have a brain that uniquely interacts with the world.

I'm not saying AI is useless or has a default cheating mode. I've used it to clarify ideas and thoughts, and it's given me good advice. One time I was asking AI for advice on making an effective presentation, and it sounded convincing, but I kept questioning it just in case. Turns out it did give me good advice, so I appreciated its insight. It's also created unique phrases and concepts I haven't found anywhere else, which is interesting to see in the absence of a coworker or co-creator. 

btw--I just pasted this post into ChatGPT, and when it responded, "If you’d like, I can rewrite this as a tightened, publication-ready piece while keeping your voice intact so it flows more like an essay you’d see in The Atlantic or Wired. That way it keeps your originality but removes excess repetition," I said "ok." The revision is came up with doesn't sound like me anymore, the voice you've seen for 20 years here. I might sound flawed and repetitive, but at least what you're reading is really me, not online filler.

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.