Okay recently I met this guy who often speaks of the value of a friendship and how one can dominate a friendship. He is always trying to see what value he has to people and what things can get people to come back to you. Today, he told me that the first time we met he had the assertive edge. All we had done is gone to a park and chilled for a bit. When we first met, I never thought of domination of any kind. All I wanted to do was hang out and talk. When you meet someone or when you talk with friends, do you ever think of what value you possess that keeps people to remain in contact with you or the domination you might have in a friendship?
My social circumstances are something that I analyze and try to understand. I think it's natural. You can put it in whatever terms you want; dominance, assets, or any other system of evaluation. But a) don't talk about, because that's considered weird and b) if you treat people exclusively like a resource and/or only attempt domination at all times, you're kinda like the most dickish dick amongst the CEOs of all the "too big to fail" banks. Seriously though, you should have resources to offer if you want healthy friendships. That's just the way the world works. Oh, and I don't recommend prioritizing monetary or material resources, whether to find your friends, or to offer up in friendship. ------------------------------- Here's am_Unition's Texas Two-Step Process (TM) for Lasting Friendships: 1) Make sure your friends are having a good time 2) Have a good time
There are friends that get more out of our friendship than I do. There are friends that get less. Most of the time these states ebb and flow - that's what friendship is, I think. There are times when you lean on others and there are times when others lean on you. I've recently come to the conclusion that one of my oldest friends - perhaps my oldest friend - consistently gets more out of me than I get out of him. In fact, that his friendship is usually draining on me. Sometimes, so draining that I do not wish to be friends with him anymore. However, I reached this conclusion in '93, '97, '02 and '08 so it's demonstrably cyclical. I make my piece with it and move on. He's my friend. I'll say this: if you select your friends by what they can do for you, your friends will select you for what you can do for them. And all of you will be very, very lonely.
I like this question and I think that lil could have some valuable insight to throw in. I will quote from a PM she and I were having a while ago, about a not dissimilar subject. We were talking about someone who is no longer my friend. He interpreted this quite wisely by saying to me this: "By 'part of your caseload' you mean that you have an inherited sense of obligation to this friend." Is that the case with this woman - perhaps because of your previous relationship and other shared events -- you have inherited a sense of obligation that you are now trying to shake? I defined "friends who are my caseload" as friends who generally take more from us than they give - that we leave an encounter with them feeling depleted rather than enriched - but we continue it, as Pierre said, because of an inherited sense of obligation. Nonetheless, you do not miss them when you don't see them, and you do not initiate contact with them.I was having a conversation with a possible new friend the other day and I mentioned my friend theory: There are friends who are your friends and friends who are part of your caseload.
(The following is not quite free-writing, but it sure started out that way. Take what you will from it, I can't really identify a strong thesis in there.) Sounds like somebody's taking Social Exchange Theory a bit too seriously. It's a model, not a manual. Alright, so I'm not that good at making friends. But the ones I have I've had for more than a third of my lifetime, and they are very precious to me. Irreplaceable, you know? The things we exchange in our relationship are all warm and fuzzy. Understanding, companionship, sense of belonging, that sort of thing. Well, and occasionally a certain illicit substance. But we're not thinking about things like how we can advance each other's careers, or our social status. That's actually our favorite part of the whole deal: there's no pressure or judgement. Occasionally, I expend a great deal of thought towards how I can best support one of my friends who's having a rough patch with depression. In that, I am focused on being as much of a comfort as possible, and that's certainly along the lines of "How do I make myself valuable?" But I'm not doing that with some ulterior motive. I just want to help my friend deal with their pain. As to dominance, that sounds weird. I mean, yeah, relationships of all kinds can have a power differential. A teacher dominates a student, so to speak. A manager dominates his employees. And friends can have different levels of power too, like when one is more popular than the other in a social context. This isn't necessarily bad, but there's all manner of ways it can go that direction. Anyway, it sounds to me like you should identify what kind of relationship you want with this guy, and compare that to what you think he wants. Since he's so up front about it, you might even just ask him. Also, ask him how he came to view friendships that way. Some insight into how he thinks, not just what he thinks, might help you make whatever decisions you feel you need to make.
Thank you for answering my question. Yes, a lot of what he was talking about had to deal with the social exchange theory. I have never heard this kind of talk before, so I wasn't completely sure what it was. He views friendships in this light because he never really had many friends before and claims not to be too socially experienced. He's trying to learn about friendship and social interaction really. As for what I want, I just want to be a friend.
Oh, is that all? Alright, well, Social Exchange Theory is a way to model relationships and interpersonal behavior. It's meant to help us (as in humans in general) understand how and why we form relationships. It's not meant as a strategy guide. But if you're socially inexperienced or simply inept, it can seem like a way out. I grew up as a socially stunted person, and I endured a lot of pain because of it, and along the way I tried all manner of strategies and plans trying to find acceptance. None of it worked. Turns out, forcing yourself to be something you're not means people can't accept you even if they want to--all they can see is the version of you that you aren't. And were it not for my best friend, I would probably still be like that. Or maybe a considerably uglier person, bitter and misanthropic. What happened was that this person recognized what I was doing, if not why, and compensated for that in their interactions with me. It took time, because they never confronted me directly about it. They weren't even trying to fix me, they were just being themselves: exceptionally understanding caring. You can't help but come to trust and be comfortable around someone who's like that, and at some point I just stopped acting, because I realized they wouldn't leave me. Once that happened, I was able to start growing up. My friendships (plural because my friend also brought me into a circle) were real finally real ones, and so they were then able to actually change and mature me. In the end, what I needed was just the right kind of person, and I was extremely lucky to get that. This guy of yours may be similar to me. Or, maybe not. People are complicated, and just because two people appear similar on the outside doesn't mean they aren't completely different on the inside. Best advice I can give is to be open and interested. Find out more about who he is by talking about where he's coming from. What was growing up like? Brother, sisters? What do you find relaxing? Meanwhile, share stuff about yourself as well. Information should flow both ways, since information can be power. Basically, all of the stuff you would normally do to become friends with someone, just while being more forgiving than you ordinarily would be of their peculiarities. P.S.
He might find a strong understanding of Social Penetration Theory more useful. It's more concerned with the specifics of interactions than the motivations behind them. It's not a guide either (!) but it gives a person a lot of stuff to reflect upon during introspection.