This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

I have added a small section about a positive side of asociality, and in particular related to the ability to be not too much subject to social influence and its dangers (cf. Milgram experiment).

Having say that, I would certainly not want to make assocility looks as something 'positive'.

Please, feel free to rework this part --Nabeth (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this section needs expansion, along with the section on introversion. As an introvert, a large part of this article seems overly negative to me. Most of it is concentrating on psychological and behavioural disorders/problems, when a fairly large part of the general population are just introverts and prefer spending most of their time on their own rather than with company. The perception that this is a negative thing seems to me misguided at best, and really should, in this sense, be viewed with a bit more understanding and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.199.252 (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 😛 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.170.130 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from briefly mentioning that asociality is viewed as a good thing in some culture at the beginning, the rest of article simply equate it as a class of psychiatric disorder that must be coped and treated. It largely ignore that asocial is just another kind of personality (a part of introversion spectrum), which is perfectly fine as long as it does impede person's daily life; the article content is not neutral at all.

  I have marked the article as neutrality-disputed until the expansion of corresponding section and viewpoint balancing take place.

  — Nvtj (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to raise the point that a formal definition of asociality is not given in the article page. A-social literary means not-social, and is the third option of being social, a-social or anti-social. Since social is a fuzzy concept which can have many senses, so is asocial.

Invoking a parallel to game theory, one may say a social individual places a positive value on being social, an asocial individual places no value (or a neutral value) on being social, and an anti-social individual places a negative value on being social.

Freethinkers can be considered asocial and/or amoral, because they place themselves above or outside social consensus and norms. This does however not mean they don't enjoy the company of other people.

Feel free to edit, rework or critique this part. GullLars (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find a reliable definition of "asociality", and it seems like the term is used interchangeably with "social anhedonia". Would it be correct to equate the two? 69.119.232.155 (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A degree of asociality is routinely observed in introverts, while extreme asociality is observed in schizophrenia patients. In schizophrenia it is characterised by an inability to empathise, to feel intimacy with, or to form close relationships with others (Davidson & Neale 1994). Asociality has also been observed in individuals who have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and Autism, usually due to bullying and social discouragement in adolescence."

Why is there no mention of schizoid personality disorder in this article? Is this not an extreme form of asociality? I would think it is more relevant to mention than schizophrenia, as SPD is a disorder based around the lack of need to socialize, while in schizophrenia it seems to be more of a secondary symptom in an otherwise unrelated disorder. 137.224.225.176 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have sections on schizoid personality disorder and schizotypal personality disorder, both of which include prominent asociality. Jim Michael (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, the Black Triangle of the Nazis is equated with asociality. I think that this association is incorrect. The meaning of the German term "asozial" is quite distinct from that of the English term "asocial". The English term refers to a lack of motivation to engage in any social interaction. The German term "asozial" refers to a lack of motivation to engage in social interactions with "proper people". That is, a person deemed "asozial" will actively engage in social interaction, but not with the people deemed "proper". Take for example, a member of a motorcycle gang. They could very much engage in and enjoy the social activities of their group, i.e. they are not "asocial". Yet, they could be labeled with the German term "asozial", because their social interaction is not with "proper people". The source cited for the Nazi "asozial" statement uses the definition "[those] who show very often significant tendencies opposing community life and who repeatedly show their incapacity or hostility concerning community life". Here, community life refers to the community of "proper people". I would equate the German "asozial" with the English terms "scum" or "lowlife". Translated from the second half of the first paragraph of de:Asoziale (Nationalsozialismus): "In the Nazi era, the term 'Asoziale' collectively referred to those considered to be persons 'of lesser value' or from lower social classes ('those who exist as a burden to society'), defined by the Nazis as those belonging to social fringe groups or those showing major problems adjusting or contributing. Persons and people were thus labelled as public-resource-using-'vermin' or 'non-useful feeders', for whose deficits the majority of the 'benevolent' and 'hardworking' 'People's Community' had to compensate'." I would remove the statement relating "asozial" with "asocial" altogether, or replace it with a statement explicitly explaining that the two words are not synonyms. 2001:470:1F0B:10D6:FC05:484D:8E12:B18 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The passage has been removed. 2001:470:1F0B:10D6:2DB:DFFF:FE14:DF7 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Please also see: Asozialität https://de.teknopedia.teknokrat.ac.id/wiki/Asozialit%C3%A4t Tjlynnjr (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I found and added a needed citation to this subsection. In the References section, it is number 13. I also added a little bit more information and reworded a few parts to make it flow a little better. Cellander (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definition given in the article. I believe the definition provided by the American Psychological Association would work nicely.

asocial adj. 1. declining to engage, or incapable of engaging, in social interaction.

2. lacking sensitivity or regard for social values or norms. —asociality n.^[1]

Austin Psych (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of this article needs work. It makes us believe that the whole article is about introversion, but then it heavily focuses on asociality connected to mental illnesses while introversion is barely covered. Further, it barely mentions mental conditions which seems to be the focus of the article. Lastly, it mentions that asociality is sometimes viewed as a positive thing by different cultures and in different situations, but then this topic is not mentioned again in the article. --Sam Larson (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a mere two paragraphs on introversion. Yet, there are more than two sections on personality disorders. The claim that this article mainly focuses on introversion does not appear to be supported by the brevity of the section compared to the verbosity of other sections. JoeBo82 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 April 2023 and 17 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GrizzlyJuice42 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GrizzlyJuice42 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]