3 ms·
It doesn't seem like a bad thing that they do care. The end result in the study was that people trusted the person who doesn't make time for them less. But that
by lnanek2 5y ago
It doesn't seem like a bad thing that they do care. The end result in the study was that people trusted the person who doesn't make time for them less. But that's exactly the right result. You should be less close and show less trust toward someone who won't make time for you, since they are, by definition, not going to be there for you as often when you need it. It seems quite natural to move trust and closeness to a party that, for whatever reason, isn't going to decline invitations to engage. Nothing wrong with the other party if they have other priorities, but it does mean they aren't a good person for the inviter to depend on. Sort of avoiding codependency.
- giantg2 5y agoI guess it depends on the circumstances. If you've ever seen That 70s Show where Kitty asks Red to name his friends and he names someone he hasn't seen in years. This sort of thing can happen in real life. Some people have friendships that last even without constant contact. I have a few of these.
- leetcrew 5y agoI don't think that's entirely fair. I have a limited amount of energy to spend on social activities in a week. just because I decline many of your invitations to hang out doesn't mean I won't clear my schedule to help you move, drive you to the hospital, or even help you make rent every once in a while. unless there's some additional context (eg, "I have something important to discuss", "I want you to meet {important person to me}"), I tend to consider social invitations as low priority requests.