Talk:Loner

bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've removed the following paragraph from the entry:

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

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

"Fictional loners"

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

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

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