Having done a math PHD and now working as a programmer I find math proofs and programming semi-similar. Though I think programming is less "relaxing." In mathematics if you have an argument that works and isn't insanely complicated you can call yourself victorious. You can look for a simpler method if you want but there is really no imperative to do so. In programming there is almost always a better way to solve a given problem and the differences in speed matter alot.
High barrier to entry. I expect that at my current skill level I'd get caught pick-pocketing the first time I tried it, and that would impact my ability to try it a second time.
It seems like you just really like programming.
There's a seemingly limitless amount of skills that fit these criteria:
I disagree with the statement that electronics "is basically still programming". There are similarities between the two, but also significant differences; particularly if you consider electronics outside of the digital realm.
I also do not understand why you question whether math is "useful in the real world". I imagine that anyone involved in engineering, science, finance, artificial intelligence, marketing or a great many other "real world" occupations would vouch for the usefulness of mathematics.
Social skills. If you have no skills at all, simply going to omegle and chatting with strangers can be a first step.
If you want to get further you can focus on dating, coaching, negotiating or networking.
Studying stuff using spaced repetition systems, e.g. Duolingo. (Though it may lack "useful in the real world" depending on, among other things, what exactly you're learning.)
Music. It's pretty much all math. Every part of it. When you try to learn a riff, and you play it, and it sounds like you think it should, interesting things happen.
Music is like the art of math. The playing of musical instruments is art, but the writing of it and the instrument design and the understanding of how those instruments operate is all math. Music can be created without art, but music cannot be created without math; not even in the slightest aspect of it. It is the only major form of classical arts to which that claim can be prescribed. A drum requires a calculation to generate reverberation to make itself heard. A scale must be calculated from its underlying frequencies. Strings must be measured in length, thickness, and tension to determine their resonance. The hole spacing and size of wind instruments must be calculated. Even something as simple as humming while alternating between high and low is a binary expression of either volume or frequency. It is only over the course of several millennia that we have developed the ability to teach an artistically gifted person to generate music without learning a bit of math. But that person still owes their artistic creations to the mathematicians of history. The connection is not at all tenuous. It is a very clear case of cause and effect.
It is only over the course of several millennia that we have developed the ability to teach an artistically gifted person to generate music without learning a bit of math.
What? This doesn't sound like you're describing folk music at all.
Programming is quite a remarkable activity: