3 ms·

It's easy to be cynical, but it's important to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course you can make friends at work, but no, they're not going

It's easy to be cynical, but it's important to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course you can make friends at work, but no, they're not going to be the kind of friends whose shoulders you can cry on when a relationship goes south, but if you can have a discussion about non-work matters, if you could imagine having them over for a backyard barbecue, "friend" still seems like a reasonable term. Even calling them "fairweather friends" seems derogatory. They're not super close friends, for sure, but nothing wrong with "friend". For sure, this kind of semantic puritanism seems like a great way to convince yourself that you're an unlikeable person with no friends.

pavel_lishin 8y ago
Not every friend has to be a best friend. If's fine to have acquaintances and drinking buddies.
oldcynic 8y ago
I think you;re missing the point. Not being cynical or semantically pure. Least ways I don't think so. Nothing wrong with drinking buddies or casual friends at the local cycling club or wherever your hobby interests lie. But they won't be true friends in the sense of people you could call on for advice or assistance if life has just presented you with "a challenge". What has surprised me over the years is how poorly I can predict closeness - both with myself and others. People you'd think were your closest friends can, and do, disappear when you have sudden need. Fairweather friend probably is derogatory but I guess they only get called that after some shitty event? Here, we probably are into semantics. :) Conversely I've been just as surprised by people who didn't seem that close but went above and beyond to help some situation. > seems like a great way to convince yourself that you're an unlikeable person with no friends I have no idea at all how you arrive here. :)
- mseebach 8y ago
  I think my point is that you can look at friend-closeness as a spectrum, and there will naturally be more people on the less close end, and very few in the very close end. But to jump from that insight, to a slogan like "most of your friends, aren't" is puritanism. Yes, it's important to be able to gauge the degree of closeness accurately (at least not be very wrong about someone being a close friend), but that's a bit of a different concern, imo. >> seems like a great way to convince yourself that you're an unlikeable person with no friends > I have no idea at all how you arrive here. :) Having many friends is generally considered important for general wellbeing, and is a social success-criterion. If you're telling yourself that all those people who enjoy being around you and that you enjoy being around (even if they might probably not be there for you in a deep crisis) aren't friends, that they're somehow fake, it's easy to get lost. At the very least, it's easy to rationalise not spending time with them. And you'll certainly never have a chance to convert any of them to "real" friends.

pavel_lishin 8y ago

Not every friend has to be a best friend. If's fine to have acquaintances and drinking buddies.

oldcynic 8y ago

I think you;re missing the point. Not being cynical or semantically pure. Least ways I don't think so. Nothing wrong with drinking buddies or casual friends at the local cycling club or wherever your hobby interests lie. But they won't be true friends in the sense of people you could call on for advice or assistance if life has just presented you with "a challenge". What has surprised me over the years is how poorly I can predict closeness - both with myself and others. People you'd think were your closest friends can, and do, disappear when you have sudden need. Fairweather friend probably is derogatory but I guess they only get called that after some shitty event? Here, we probably are into semantics. :) Conversely I've been just as surprised by people who didn't seem that close but went above and beyond to help some situation. > seems like a great way to convince yourself that you're an unlikeable person with no friends I have no idea at all how you arrive here. :)

mseebach 8y ago
I think my point is that you can look at friend-closeness as a spectrum, and there will naturally be more people on the less close end, and very few in the very close end. But to jump from that insight, to a slogan like "most of your friends, aren't" is puritanism. Yes, it's important to be able to gauge the degree of closeness accurately (at least not be very wrong about someone being a close friend), but that's a bit of a different concern, imo. >> seems like a great way to convince yourself that you're an unlikeable person with no friends > I have no idea at all how you arrive here. :) Having many friends is generally considered important for general wellbeing, and is a social success-criterion. If you're telling yourself that all those people who enjoy being around you and that you enjoy being around (even if they might probably not be there for you in a deep crisis) aren't friends, that they're somehow fake, it's easy to get lost. At the very least, it's easy to rationalise not spending time with them. And you'll certainly never have a chance to convert any of them to "real" friends.