6 ms·

I'll admit I'm biased in that I'm the opposite of what I think the author's stance is but even after reading it I'm not entirely sure what their point is. In m

I'll admit I'm biased in that I'm the opposite of what I think the author's stance is but even after reading it I'm not entirely sure what their point is. In my mind self-reliance, is growing and having strength unto one's self but giving freely of that strength to others to build relationships. I feel like the author is speaking to an author audience, though, so maybe that's why the article is obtuse to me.

shkkmo 7y ago
> In my mind self-reliance, is growing and having strength unto one's self but giving freely of that strength to others to build relationships. I think that the point is that "strength unto one's self" exists within a myriad of external supports. That strength exists because of the the physical and mental tools built and maintained by a multitude of other individuals. This is not saying that there isn't variance in levels of dependence external, but that true independence is not possible. To acknowledge only the gifts you give, and not the gifts you receive and have received is to miss out on some of the beauty of life.
pknight 7y ago
Those who grow in strength are able to do so by receiving the support of others. It's a causal relationship. The myth is that we arrive at strength through overcoming the need for support, having grown our metaphorical muscles through force of will. Many have it as a goal, in fact. They think that the measure of strength is the ability to function without external help of some kind and to indulge in the fantasy that it is their unique individual application of their mindset that is the source of that strength. This illusion is actually quite easy to penetrate by looking at our biology. Our body grows and heals to the degree it perceives it has external support. There's a built-in biological feedback system that requires these external inputs for our bodies to function to the peak of our abilities. At it most extreme it can be seen in babies. If they are deprived of touch and attention, their brain development stunts, they don't grow as healthy. It has a lasting effect through life. People think that reliance only is required at these more vulnerable phases of life, but not, say, as we become adults. But that's a fairy tale, our physiology continues to respond positively to cues of support, growing in strength when in receipt of support through all stages of life, On the other hand it declines in the face of lack of support. The effects are large and predictable, we are social creatures and our physiology is setup that way, we don't have a choice over it. The concept of self-reliance tries to tell a story that defies and in a sense denigrates our basic nature. Rather than questing for self-reliance to indulge in the fantasy of independence, it is far more empowering, to me at least, to live in the knowledge that as individuals we have the ability to make others stronger.
- mech1234 7y ago
  Do you have study- or experiment- backed evidence for the claim that we physiologically respond positively to cues of support of others as adults? I figure it's true, I've just never seen any data on it. Some latent part of your lizard brain probably changes when your tribe respects you vs. when you are ostracized. Broadly though I think the concept of self-reliance does not do anything to contradict the pro-social behavior you advocate. Those who are self-reliant and capable of independence are, all else equal, those who are most capable of helping others. Most who practice self-reliance do not do so to go off the grid, but rather to learn their own limits and capabilities. The process of learning a skill from scratch and inventing from blank slate is creative in ways that are unique, freeing from social pressures and socially imposed constraints.
  - pknight 7y ago
    There is an enormous pile of scientific evidence indicating this directly and indirectly. For direct examples you can for example look at studies involving touch. A hug, for example, can lead to a multitude of beneficial physiological responses in part because you get a release of oxytocin, which itself is a sign that our physiology is wired for 'coregulation'. Touch receptors are one of the ways that our body picks up on these kinds of cues. For a broader theoretical basis for this idea that cues of support are pivotal to ongoing health and wellness in adults, there is a groundbreaking theory called Polyvagal Theory which is well worth looking into. We also have a vast number of examples of negative evidence in the literature (because scientists tend to hunt for what makes things go wrong). For example it is very well established that social isolation leads to worse health outcomes. The basic principle at work is that humans require coregulation to maintain physical and mental health and it doesn't matter what phase of life you are in, those feedback systems are operational from start to finish. Because humans in particular are social creatures, we have physiology that is designed to pick up on social cues, because it is through group participation and social bonds that our species obtains better chances of reproduction and survival. If we have poor social bonds and lack of social support/connection, the body picks up on that. You will get feelings of loneliness for example, which in a way is hoping you to drive you back to seek out a social group to belong to, as it increases your chances of survival. That's your body saying it is reliant on others. Social disconnect is also a influencing what our immune system and the profile of our autonomic nervous system functioning is up to. If the body does not get cues that is safe - and for mammals like us that means perceiving social connection and social support - it is going to favour stressful physiology which over time deteriorates our health. Note that giving support (rather than receiving it) is also a cue to our body that we are in a social group that is positively affecting our survival and reproductive chances. But, note that to get these cues you are still relying on others to get that positive feedback loop working for your physiology. There are a lot of studies showing this dynamic as well, doing community work and altruism boosts all kinds of markers of mental and physical health, giving a massage reduces stress and promotes oxytocin release in the giver as well etc. The bottom line is that our physiology makes us coregulators, rather than self-regulators and that is such a key distinction that is frequently missed. > Those who are self-reliant and capable of independence are, all else equal, those who are most capable of helping others. The people that in practice help the most are the most skilled and able coregulators. To become the strongest, or as I like to think of it, the most resourceful person, you don't get there by self-reliance, you get there by being an effective coregulator. To get close to maximum impact, strength and health you have to strong connections with others - you can't get there on your own, others are required because our physiology recruits the outside world as a means of regulating its own state. And lastly, one of the perks of having a secure feeling about your social connections and sense of support, is that it opens up an ability to explore more freely and roam more widely. Many of the multi-million dollar making basketball stars in America who've come from poor backgrounds share the same story, while growing up they had at least one person and more commonly a whole group that supported their path to the NBA - it was their support that made their success possible. It's not uncommon to hear how their childhood peers kept them away from bad people because this person had a shot at something special. In just about every success story, whether it's a rags-to-riches scenario or the story of how a group of athletes largely from middle-upper class assembled one of the best teams in basketball history (GSW) you can trace back the critical role of enduring social support.
ska 7y ago
The authors point is trying to make, I think, is that a particular form of "self reliance"; that espoused by Emerson (and with far less nuance by Rand) doesn't actually exist, and pretending it does is a disservice. Roughly speaking, I think they would say that the only way you could achieve the state you speak of ('having strength unto one's self but giving freely of ...') is through a complicated web of relationships making you anything but self reliant.
munchbunny 7y ago
Put in a more trite way, and as an example, in America freedom comes in part from having enough money to pay for health insurance and medical bills. Which is to say that it's not really self-reliance. It's buying into a system and relying on the indirect support of many others (who buy into the insurance) in a way that frees up your time/worries enough for you do the things you want to do. The point being that your perceived freedom exists because something/someone else enabled it, and that's freedom earned by relying on someone else.

shkkmo 7y ago

> In my mind self-reliance, is growing and having strength unto one's self but giving freely of that strength to others to build relationships. I think that the point is that "strength unto one's self" exists within a myriad of external supports. That strength exists because of the the physical and mental tools built and maintained by a multitude of other individuals. This is not saying that there isn't variance in levels of dependence external, but that true independence is not possible. To acknowledge only the gifts you give, and not the gifts you receive and have received is to miss out on some of the beauty of life.

pknight 7y ago

Those who grow in strength are able to do so by receiving the support of others. It's a causal relationship. The myth is that we arrive at strength through overcoming the need for support, having grown our metaphorical muscles through force of will. Many have it as a goal, in fact. They think that the measure of strength is the ability to function without external help of some kind and to indulge in the fantasy that it is their unique individual application of their mindset that is the source of that strength. This illusion is actually quite easy to penetrate by looking at our biology. Our body grows and heals to the degree it perceives it has external support. There's a built-in biological feedback system that requires these external inputs for our bodies to function to the peak of our abilities. At it most extreme it can be seen in babies. If they are deprived of touch and attention, their brain development stunts, they don't grow as healthy. It has a lasting effect through life. People think that reliance only is required at these more vulnerable phases of life, but not, say, as we become adults. But that's a fairy tale, our physiology continues to respond positively to cues of support, growing in strength when in receipt of support through all stages of life, On the other hand it declines in the face of lack of support. The effects are large and predictable, we are social creatures and our physiology is setup that way, we don't have a choice over it. The concept of self-reliance tries to tell a story that defies and in a sense denigrates our basic nature. Rather than questing for self-reliance to indulge in the fantasy of independence, it is far more empowering, to me at least, to live in the knowledge that as individuals we have the ability to make others stronger.

mech1234 7y ago
Do you have study- or experiment- backed evidence for the claim that we physiologically respond positively to cues of support of others as adults? I figure it's true, I've just never seen any data on it. Some latent part of your lizard brain probably changes when your tribe respects you vs. when you are ostracized. Broadly though I think the concept of self-reliance does not do anything to contradict the pro-social behavior you advocate. Those who are self-reliant and capable of independence are, all else equal, those who are most capable of helping others. Most who practice self-reliance do not do so to go off the grid, but rather to learn their own limits and capabilities. The process of learning a skill from scratch and inventing from blank slate is creative in ways that are unique, freeing from social pressures and socially imposed constraints.
- pknight 7y ago
  There is an enormous pile of scientific evidence indicating this directly and indirectly. For direct examples you can for example look at studies involving touch. A hug, for example, can lead to a multitude of beneficial physiological responses in part because you get a release of oxytocin, which itself is a sign that our physiology is wired for 'coregulation'. Touch receptors are one of the ways that our body picks up on these kinds of cues. For a broader theoretical basis for this idea that cues of support are pivotal to ongoing health and wellness in adults, there is a groundbreaking theory called Polyvagal Theory which is well worth looking into. We also have a vast number of examples of negative evidence in the literature (because scientists tend to hunt for what makes things go wrong). For example it is very well established that social isolation leads to worse health outcomes. The basic principle at work is that humans require coregulation to maintain physical and mental health and it doesn't matter what phase of life you are in, those feedback systems are operational from start to finish. Because humans in particular are social creatures, we have physiology that is designed to pick up on social cues, because it is through group participation and social bonds that our species obtains better chances of reproduction and survival. If we have poor social bonds and lack of social support/connection, the body picks up on that. You will get feelings of loneliness for example, which in a way is hoping you to drive you back to seek out a social group to belong to, as it increases your chances of survival. That's your body saying it is reliant on others. Social disconnect is also a influencing what our immune system and the profile of our autonomic nervous system functioning is up to. If the body does not get cues that is safe - and for mammals like us that means perceiving social connection and social support - it is going to favour stressful physiology which over time deteriorates our health. Note that giving support (rather than receiving it) is also a cue to our body that we are in a social group that is positively affecting our survival and reproductive chances. But, note that to get these cues you are still relying on others to get that positive feedback loop working for your physiology. There are a lot of studies showing this dynamic as well, doing community work and altruism boosts all kinds of markers of mental and physical health, giving a massage reduces stress and promotes oxytocin release in the giver as well etc. The bottom line is that our physiology makes us coregulators, rather than self-regulators and that is such a key distinction that is frequently missed. > Those who are self-reliant and capable of independence are, all else equal, those who are most capable of helping others. The people that in practice help the most are the most skilled and able coregulators. To become the strongest, or as I like to think of it, the most resourceful person, you don't get there by self-reliance, you get there by being an effective coregulator. To get close to maximum impact, strength and health you have to strong connections with others - you can't get there on your own, others are required because our physiology recruits the outside world as a means of regulating its own state. And lastly, one of the perks of having a secure feeling about your social connections and sense of support, is that it opens up an ability to explore more freely and roam more widely. Many of the multi-million dollar making basketball stars in America who've come from poor backgrounds share the same story, while growing up they had at least one person and more commonly a whole group that supported their path to the NBA - it was their support that made their success possible. It's not uncommon to hear how their childhood peers kept them away from bad people because this person had a shot at something special. In just about every success story, whether it's a rags-to-riches scenario or the story of how a group of athletes largely from middle-upper class assembled one of the best teams in basketball history (GSW) you can trace back the critical role of enduring social support.

ska 7y ago

The authors point is trying to make, I think, is that a particular form of "self reliance"; that espoused by Emerson (and with far less nuance by Rand) doesn't actually exist, and pretending it does is a disservice. Roughly speaking, I think they would say that the only way you could achieve the state you speak of ('having strength unto one's self but giving freely of ...') is through a complicated web of relationships making you anything but self reliant.

munchbunny 7y ago

Put in a more trite way, and as an example, in America freedom comes in part from having enough money to pay for health insurance and medical bills. Which is to say that it's not really self-reliance. It's buying into a system and relying on the indirect support of many others (who buy into the insurance) in a way that frees up your time/worries enough for you do the things you want to do. The point being that your perceived freedom exists because something/someone else enabled it, and that's freedom earned by relying on someone else.