> Relationships with other people can become strained if you are at least approximately self-sufficient.
If I (or anyone) is happier in solitude than in interacting with person X, it strikes me as quite patronizing to come to the conclusion that 'gosh, they may feel weak, better throw them a bone.' It simply means that the two people in question should probably seek out others to meet their respective companionship needs.
Self-sufficient people are not 'defective' any more than more social types are. People who are self-actualized do not owe more social people anything, any more than someone who craves social activity should force themselves into loneliness to meet the more independent person's wishes. They're just different personalities, and both have their own value.
>The mutual exchange of vulnerabilities is an important component of close friendships.
I do not think this is a universal. This has never been the case in any of my friendships, and I am not a misanthrope. I feel lucky to be able to say that I have lifelong, close friends, whose company I greatly enjoy. What we all have in common, even though we are all very different people, is enough comfort and trust in one another to be able to speak our minds freely, without any reservations, even when we know the other will disagree. The discussions that come of it are treasures.
Hmm, maybe I phrased my original comment incorrectly. I'm not trying to say that self-sufficiency is bad, but rather that loneliness is not entirely bad, and indeed a little neediness maybe appreciated by people close to you. I think at least low levels of this need are present in almost everybody, even many HN stoic types who've come to believe that true self-sufficiency is a worthy goal. Especially for those people, I think paying attention to that kind of loneliness can actually be good.
I don't think we particularly disagree overall- I completely agree with you in that most everyone appreciates feeling useful and helpful to the ones we care about.
It is just that I chafe at the word neediness. Speaking just for myself- If I were to suddenly succumb to the Bus Factor, I know all of my friends would be just fine. Sad, but fine. They don't 'need' me. (This is not a self-esteem issue- the same is true in reverse.) But this actually makes me feel good, in the sense that I have trust in them to carry on doing the things we all enjoy, even if something bad happens to any one of us. We still improve each other's lives while we're here! I feel that this is a healthy form of peer relationship. Compare that to a situation where someone genuinely 'needs' something about our relationship. At that point, it becomes more of a caretaker role, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't personally see it as nearly as comforting, in either direction.
If I (or anyone) is happier in solitude than in interacting with person X, it strikes me as quite patronizing to come to the conclusion that 'gosh, they may feel weak, better throw them a bone.' It simply means that the two people in question should probably seek out others to meet their respective companionship needs.
Self-sufficient people are not 'defective' any more than more social types are. People who are self-actualized do not owe more social people anything, any more than someone who craves social activity should force themselves into loneliness to meet the more independent person's wishes. They're just different personalities, and both have their own value.
>The mutual exchange of vulnerabilities is an important component of close friendships.
I do not think this is a universal. This has never been the case in any of my friendships, and I am not a misanthrope. I feel lucky to be able to say that I have lifelong, close friends, whose company I greatly enjoy. What we all have in common, even though we are all very different people, is enough comfort and trust in one another to be able to speak our minds freely, without any reservations, even when we know the other will disagree. The discussions that come of it are treasures.