How do you describe a person who doesn't care about making or having friends, just likes to pass the time with anyone in any gathering without sticking to specific people as his real friends?

I want a word here that has a negative connotation.

closed as off-topic by Drew, Hellion, user66974, Rory Alsop, vickyace Mar 31 '17 at 13:17

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions on choosing an ideal word or phrase must include information on how it will be used in order to be answered. For help writing a good word or phrase request, see: About single word requests" – Drew, Hellion, Community, Rory Alsop, vickyace
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    sociopath? this is also known as anti-social personality disorder – marcellothearcane Mar 30 '17 at 9:36
  • 1
    What do you mean by "trying to waste his time with others"? Do you mean that your person is wasting his own time, or wasting others' time by forcing himself upon them without actually being a "real" friend? – Andrew Leach Mar 30 '17 at 9:44
  • 2
    A social butterfly perhaps? – Lawrence Mar 30 '17 at 10:22
  • 2
    Do you want a noun or a verb? What about an adjective? – tchrist Mar 30 '17 at 12:32
  • 2
    Someone who is 'superficial' may be social but few if any good friends. – Mitch Mar 30 '17 at 13:26

There's quite a few choices here. The first, with a strong negative connotation, is

A person who dislikes humankind and avoids human society.

Other definitions go further than 'dislike', some use 'hate' etc.

The second, with a slight negative connotation, is

A person that prefers not to associate with others.

This is sometimes seen as a positive thing, with connotations of a mysteriousness that people might find intriguing (think Wolverine).

Another is

A person who lives alone and avoids going outside or talking to other people.

'Recluse' often has connotations of a certain creepiness. A recluse is often seen as a bit unusual or strange. Perhaps someone you might want to avoid.

Finally, if you did want a fairly neutral word with no real negative connotations, you could go for:

A person predominantly concerned with their own thoughts and feelings rather than with external things.

  • Can you provide a source for your 'Introvert' definition? I disagree that they are shy, they simply feel drained after social interaction and prefer to be alone. This is different from shyness - see this – marcellothearcane Mar 30 '17 at 10:38
  • 1
    All of the definitions have linked sources. – Michael Mar 30 '17 at 10:38
  • 1
    It's difficult to find a concise definition that doesn't use the word 'shy'. I've changed the definition to something else but I think it's a bit too wordy. Still, I only added 'introvert' as a throw-away alternative. It doesn't have the negative connotations OP was asking for. – Michael Mar 30 '17 at 10:44

In the sense of being able to pass the time with anyone, and experiencing friendships that tend to be relatively superficial, perhaps social chameleon would work.

Merriam-Webster lists the following example of this metaphorical usage:

at the summer resort he acquired a reputation as a social chameleon—someone who could be whatever his hosts wanted him to be

and provides a definition of a related sense:

2 a : a person who often changes his or her beliefs or behavior in order to please others or to succeed She's a political chameleon.

The connotations of social chameleon may be positive or negative depending on context. For an example of the positive and negative traits associated with this perceived behaviour, Psychology Today has a brief article including the following:

in the desire to fit in with the group and gain their approval, the person may become a sort of "social chameleon," changing attitudes, opinions, and feelings in an effort to fit in and be accepted ... Socially, the extremely high self-monitor fits in, but we never get a sense of who the social chameleon really is or what he or she believes in and stands for.

And from an article in the New York Times:

Social chameleons, on the other hand, prefer to have a wide range of friends and to have different friends for different activities. Moreover, they ''set up barriers, so it's hard for their friends to get to know them well,'' Dr. Snyder said.


We have a real problem with psychology and sociology here. We attempt to describe the indescribable, based on social experimentation, to come to conclusions. Specifically, we attempt to describe someone who lacks social interaction skills, or so it seems.

The human race does not have a single positive aspect to it whatsoever, rather only the one earth we share idea. At best, a human lives to better him or herself, but also bears in mind that he or she may actually do some good for others. At worst, the list goes on and would not be noteworthy.

If the only topic of discussion with someone would be his or her origins, or his or her origins must come up in discussion on a daily basis, then we have a serious problem with a vast majority of friendships. Friendships based on commonalities have no boundaries and transcend a person's origins. A true mark of a relationship allows people to have a certain amount of recognition that he or she does not need to fit in. Simply stating that someone is an outcast or that he or she doesn't fit the profile of a typical friend does not constitute a friendship concern.

Aside from a person's origins, the labeling does not stop there. Then comes religions and beliefs, and these would be far more complex than a person's origins. And the list goes on from there.

The fact of the matter is that the human brain is the most complex organ to understand, and yet we only use 10 % of it. So, how do you even begin to imagine why someone chooses to interact with another person or not? That's not describable, and only that person can possibly know why they choose to interact with some people and not others. It could just be a matter of spontaneity, rather than avoidance of others - break the routine concept.

As you can see, you would be absolutely absurd to try to call this utopia because it's reality. The reality is that life can be taken away from you at any moment, or it would happen by natural causes. Life is for the living, not the dead. Anyone alive then comes to the realization that only the individual person can create a better society or world, not groups of people and not companies or corporations. Self-discipline will be at the core of such a realization and leads to individual self-confidence and self-worth. With self-confidence and self-worth, the best case scenario plays out that has been mentioned above (at best, a human lives to better him or herself, but also bears in mind that he or she may actually do some good for others).

Therefore, you can only come to one conclusion and that would be that the human race is not the best species on the planet. We continually strive to be better than our predecessors, and we lose sight of the fact that there is no such thing as living a good life. If you live by your own rules on your own time, that is the best life you can hope for. If you do not break all the rules outside of your own time, then I'm sure you are living a decent life.

  • Could you please highlight the section where it answers the question "How do you describe a person who doesn't care about making or having friends?". – Cascabel Mar 31 '17 at 10:33

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.