I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the intersection between two separate thoughts I've been presented with on a single topic- the idea of asking for help.
It's no secret that humans are collaborative creatures. Even the most introverted of us need outside help sometimes. This is normal, natural, and a product of being human. Still, Western society has largely stigmatized the concept of collectivism in favor of intense individuality. If you're not totally independent, there's a problem.
To be clear, being completely dependent is a problem, and I'm not advocating for a drastic swing in either direction (I may have mentioned that I admire Aristotle?). If you're totally dependent, you're incapable of handing problems on your own if no one else is available to help you. Further, you don't strengthen your own resolve when you rely solely on the power of others.
However, by the same token, if you're totally independent, you've lost a great and powerful tool in a support structure. You have no one to turn to, no one who knows what's going on in your life, and you're not vulnerable to anyone. Being vulnerable is, likewise, seen as a weakness in America. And it's true that the exact value of allowing yourself to be selectively vulnerable is somewhat difficult to determine.
http://www.natashafondren.com/writing/musings/vulnerability-happiness/
Ultimately, being vulnerable opens us up for deeper connection and trust. This author doesn't quite go far enough in describing the pain that vulnerability can cause, however. When you allow yourself to be vulnerable to another human being, they can hurt you. Deeply. This is because the deeper your connection and vulnerability, the happier you are. The more content you are, the harder you fall if the rug is pulled from underneath you.
So what does that mean exactly? I'm dancing around the point I'm interested in pursuing here. I've stated really briefly a good reason to be vulnerable and a good reason not to be vulnerable. If you can brace yourself on the rug, maybe you won't fall if it's pulled out from under you. Alternatively, you can stand tall and happy at the risk of injury. Is one of these necessarily better than the other one? They both seem like adequate philosophical approaches to life, don't they?
I'd like to examine an analogical situation to better describe my thought process on the matter.
The Prisoner's Dilemma. One of the most fundamental ideas of game theory, posits a situation in which two criminals are caught. They are both given the opportunity to rat out the other in exchange for a lighter sentence. However, if both rat the other out, neither receives a reduced sentence. There's only a benefit if just one of them squeals.
here is a picture depicting the standard Prisoner's Dilemma.
If both stay quiet, they both have a minimal sentence by comparison. If only one squeals, the sentence for the other is 10 years, but the snitch gets to go home. If they both squeal, they both get six years.
The idea behind the Prisoner's Dilemma is to give a mathematical basis for trusting someone else by the law of averages. Frankly, in our case, it's a shitty example, so I'm going to play around with some numbers.
Instead of "years in prison" as a unit (a little dour, don't you think?), let's try "Arbitrary Unit of Happiness" or AUH for short.
Instead of "Confess" and "Stay Quiet," our two options will be "Trusting/Vulnerable" and "Reserved."
For the purposes of this really simple thought experiment, being "reserved" is literal. You're holding something back, whether it's emotional, mental, or what have you. You are not completely open with the other person. Whereas the practice of being "Trusting/Vulnerable" is a total system of trust, meaning that there is no information you wouldn't willingly share with this person. (Thereby, making you a squishy pink blob of openness)
So, our 2x2 grid contains these possibilities:
1. A is Reserved. B is Reserved.
2. A is Trusting. B is Reserved.
3. A is Reserved. B is Trusting.
4. A is Trusting. B is Trusting.
Two people who are Reserved towards each other creates a very mild bond that is not particularly strong. It provides little happiness, but also has only a small risk of causing pain in the unfortunate event that something goes wrong. AUH for both parties in situation 1 would be 2. A and B experience 2 AUH towards each other.
In situation 2, A is much closer to B, but this is not a reciprocated Trust. As a result, A feels somewhat happier towards B, but is painfully aware of the Reservation, recognizing that their relationship isn't where A wants it to be. A experiences an AUH of 6, while B still only experiences an AUH of 2 or 3.
Situation 3 is the same as 2, but reversed such that B experiences the higher AUH than A.
In situation 4, however, both parties are Trusting, leading to a higher AUH. A and B feel an AUH of 10 towards each other, feeling that their relationship is completely in sync and fulfilling.
Of course, in the event that B betrays A, both their AUH would plummet to 0, resulting in a much larger injury than if they had both began as Reserved towards each other. Quantitatively, this would be an injury of approximately 10+ AUH (It might go into the negatives depending on how badly the Trust was breached).
Contrarily, if, in situation 1, B betrays A, their AUH would sink the two points back to 0 (possibly to the negatives depending on the breach of trust), resulting in a much less explosive landing. In any case, the higher you stand, the harder you fall if something goes wrong.
SO, what are we left with if we parse this complicated mathematical nonsense out? We're likely to see more emotional stability, but less emotional extremes as a result of being Reserved. Meaning, less overall happiness, with reduced possibility for extreme breach of trust feelings. As a result of being Trusting, we'll see more emotional extremes (a wider gap between the lows and the highs), which will feel more unstable, but will be fueled by more overall happiness.
I'm not about to suggest that anyone not be selective about who they trust. Everyone should be picky to that end, but I am going to suggest that it's better for our overall health, happiness, and productivity to have someone (or several people) that we have a mutual Trust bond with. If you're not experiencing emotions like happiness to their full potential, is life really being lived? There's a philosophical argument to be made for either side, but I think the science would suggest that people fare a lot better with happiness.
[Honestly, I got pretty side-tracked from where my original intent was headed...]
Wanting to have this connection and this Trust with the people you love isn't wrong. It's best to communicate with them openly to ensure both parties are on the same page as far as intent goes. But with that said, if we provide that level of Trust for others, and everyone works together to fuel the happiness machine, no one will be left wanting for someone to turn to in their time of need.
On that note, make yourself available for the people you care about. Make them know you're there, able to be reached if need be. And if you see someone struggling, reach out to them first. It sucks feeling like a burden, and it sucks to feel like you're begging others for help. Even if the person you're talking to is totally willing, it still feels like shameful behavior. Well, it's not. Cut it out. Right now. Make the preemptive strike if you see someone who might be in need.
We've all been there, and we'll all be there again.
Sure, we could become emotionless robots in order to prevent us from getting hurt, but where's the fun in that, right?
-
Waddles
(Seriously, this was a pretty awful stream-of-consciousness post. I'm kinda' all over the place here. tl;dr: Trust is good and it makes us happy even if culture doesn't want you to have any level of dependence. Culture is dumb and backwards. Trust the people you love. Let them in. Help them out. Reciprocate. All that jazz.)
No comments:
Post a Comment