From one side you are correct and entitled to be able to do that. From another, and IANAPsychologist, I doubt the psychological effect of trying to emotionally isolate yourself from people you spend most of your time with is positive.
I used to do that. But people are dangerous, they just want to take benefit of others. So in some cases, if you self-distant, you won't see what could affect you, as outsiders are just outsiders.
A balance is needed, self-distant is not enough to deal with people.
Why are any of these possibilities relevant or desirable? You're complicating something that is simple: spend time with people you want to spend time with, don't spend time with people you don't want to spend time with, and tell the truth about it.
The "possibility" this opens up is not taking responsibility for your own choices, and keeping really inane secrets from people who are supposedly your friends.
I agree. Sometimes getting away from certain people can be beneficial. As William Gibson said "Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes." Then there's that other saying "Everywhere you go, there you are" which points to yourself as the problem.
I completely agree with that. I do not mean you should ignore those close to you, but instead meant that they should not be used as an excuse to have a negative impact on the world outside of that inner circle. Thank you for explaining that better than I was able to.
I don't like this, as a rule. The author warns of its shortcomings pretty well:
>Of course, if you care about them, then you owe it to yourself to transmit your positive attitude to them.
I've found that who you surround yourself with is quite often outside of your control. Sooner or later, you're bound to care about someone with negative qualities that you don't want to see in yourself. I do not believe that is justification for cutting them out of your life!
Value brilliance and positivity in people, and avoid participating in negativity is a better rule, for me.
made me think of George Washington's rules of civility[1] (# 56):
Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad Company
Actually you can do whatever you want and there won't be any consequences. The scare tactic that they will talk of some perception to others and single you out is as non-important as your effort during the context that you know you are being phased out. The commenter is creating a moral soap box which when opened smells bad. If you want to treat them the way they treat you, game theory is on your side.
I meant that it might be a personal shortcoming that I'm not able to be that blunt with people I have to see on a regular basis. I respect your system and wish I could carry it out, but for me, it's just something I really don't want to deal with. Whatever serotonin fix I would get from Facebook isn't worth it to me.
> cherish friends and family even when it's difficult
I generally agree with what you're saying except for this. You should cherish friends and family... unless doing so ends up being a net negative. Maybe that goes beyond "even when it's difficult", but... life is too short to keep people around who hurt you, even if they're blood relatives.
Set boundaries. If people fail to respect those boundaries, then they don't deserve to be in your life, at all. Cutting someone out of your life shouldn't be a decision taken lightly or on a whim, but it's a tool in your toolbox for keeping toxic people from bringing you down.
I don't think cutting them out of your life is setting a boundary. That's like the difference between putting a fence around a cow pasture (a boundary) and slaughtering the cows for meat. One is a bit more permanent than the other. Not really a boundary but an excising.
reply