Friends

[andrewducker]

[Poll #953404]

Comments

[avatar.livejournal.com]

Maybe I've biased it, but I don't think I have a primary group of friends anymore. Most of the friendships I have these days are very much one-on-one or two-on-one where their relationships are concerned.

Even when I hang out with a group of people, it doesn't really feel like I'm part of the group, I'm just there with people; one-on-one with each of them.

[rahaeli.livejournal.com]

I have a loose tribe and confederacy of people spread out across everywhere, who are My People. I answered "completely", because I know that even if I don't see them for months, for years, I can call them up and say "hey, need you", and they're there in a heartbeat, even if they have to sell a kidney to do it. For me, the amount of time one spends with one's friends network isn't the thing, it's the passion with which you care for each other, and I never, ever doubt that I am completely and wholly loved.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

Every time I move, I lose the group of people I has established as friends. And this is completely my fault. I am not very good at consistant contact across the miles. Though thats not to say that I ignore them, its just difficult to maintain (close) friendships across a distance for me. I hate telephone communication and rely on the internet too much, thus only skimming the surface.

I don't have a group of friends here, and I doubt I will. Like one of your other commenters its either a 1-on-1 or very small groups... or dept outings, which arent really the same thing.

[sneaks.livejournal.com]

i have no friends..

heh :)

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

sorry, but I don't understand the question.

Perhaps I don't have a 'primary group of friends' either.

Lizzie

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

*scritches head* Not sure I have a "primary" group of friends at this stage of my life, really. Several sets of friendgroups, but they're all in other locations, so while I feel I belong very much when I'm there, I'm generally elsewhere and in contact via internet.

[autodidactic.livejournal.com]

"A part of" confuses me a little, too. Does that mean I go to their funerals, or they visit me in the hospital? Are these people I'm supposed to lend money to?

Oh, and if everyone in your group of peeps is annoyed by one of the peeps, it doesn't mean he's not part of the group. Stranger still, the annoying one might be far more "a part of" the group than anyone. Just an annoying part, is all.

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. And the definition is up to you. If you feel entirely part of a social group despite them not being the kind of people you'd lend money to, then that's fine.

I'm mostly looking to see how much people feel a part of a social group. If you feel entirely seperate then that's a 1. If you feel like the centre of it, clutched to their bosom, then that's a 10.

[andrewducker]

On the contrary. You have 176 of them.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

When I was at school, I had a very distinct group of friends. We all hung out together and rarely saw people outside of our little group. To be fair most of us played computer games, or football down the park, which we re the common links between us.

Then we all went to university and it all changed as we all went to different institutions. I suppose something similar happened at uni, I fell in with a group of friends with similar interestsd (role-playing, sci-fi) but we were nowhewre near as exclusive. Almost everyone had friends outside of the clubs, be it people they lived with, people on their course or whatever. That's one of the best things about university life, people are less judgemental and you can easily meet someone you don't know and end up talking to them.

After uni, there was a short period where a group of us started hanging around together in evenings or weekends, as we had all moved back to the town we grew up in but it didn't last for long as we all got jobs and ended up living in different places.

Now most of my friends are spread out across the country. We see them only a few times a year, and normally only for a day or so at a time. I'm probably less close to them in a tribal sense, but that seems to be the norm as people grow older. I do sometimes miss having a group of friends that live locally and hang out together, but as most people I have met in recent years have settled down, and either have kids or just don't seem to go out much that's not going to happen. I suppose that, yes, I do feel less part of a group nowadays because there is no group as such.

[andrewducker]

Tis true that living in Edinburgh makes life a lot easier in that respect. Larger numbers of people means I can find many more similar ones.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

My 'true' friends are the kind of folk I like to 'share' with each other. We are all friends together. I think that perhaps you may be such a person if I met you in real life, as it were.

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

The friends I have made for myself, independent of constraint or year? Nine or ten

My friends in my college, my peers, in my year? Does the number have to be a positive integer?

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

yeah, the kids thing is a biggie. Means you end up spending more time with under 30s or over 50s - at least if you want to go out...

I had a couple of very intensely social hobbies for a long time - but again, coming together at weekends, once a month or so, not on a day to day basis.

It's a bit better here in Guildford - rock nights are a good focal point, and the crowd of folks I have met (mainly through Andy's brother Mike) are quite a social crew. My weekends tend to be taken up with sailing or biking events (especially in the summer), so it's nice to get out in the week...

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

The whole idea of "a primary group of friends" is something that elapses for most people after school/university, or fairly shortly after. (It's significant that the group I suspect you think of as yours mostly consists of students, postgrads or rough equivalent, or people who were that very recently.)For most people, life moves towards becoming a couple as primary social unit, then a family as the primary point of reference. For some (like myself) a variety of groups develop, related perhaps to work, location, hobbies, former uni, former school - I relate to my work friends from Edinburgh, my fandom friends (sub groups, Cambridge, London, USA.. etc), my Book Club pals, some of "your" crowd, and less so, there are groups like my old school pals who still form a clump in GLasgow. For those who have longterm partners there will also be often "his" friends and "her" friends (or same sex equivs); not everyone marries within their peer group so "one primary" group of friends just won't apply (I am exogamous myself by preference); many couples develop a social group of other couples for sheer utility eg babysitting.The idea of a single "gang" and how much you are in with the "in crowd" of it is I hate to say, more appropriate to a Facebook than an LJ poll (and also it's intersting on a quick scan of your respondents that there's a definite correlation between age (lack of) and how high you rated your centrality (and vice versa). (Of course that could just be the irrepressible ego of youth :)

[andrewducker]

I assume that was a response to me, rather than the comment you actually replied to :->

And I have to say I largely agree about things changing over time, although the respondents to this don't match that that well - there are people older than me with high scores and people much younger with low scores.

[sneaks.livejournal.com]

a mild technicality.
i meant i never see any of my friends anymore.
well, in a social sense.

[andrewducker]

Meant to say a few days ago - yes, I agree. It's possible we will, we have people in common after all :->

[cx650.livejournal.com]

Excellent! You can show me around Edinbugger please. I've wanted to visit for a long time.

[andrewducker]

Very happy to do so :->