4 ms·

What do they mean by "vulnerability" here? There is this constant redefinition of words. In mainstream usage, "vulnerability" is not a good thing as it means yo

What do they mean by "vulnerability" here? There is this constant redefinition of words. In mainstream usage, "vulnerability" is not a good thing as it means you are open to problems and can easily be attacked. They presumably mean it in the sense of being "open to your own emotions" or tender. Silly misuse of words for a serious subject.

falcor84 1y ago
I don't think there's any redefinition here, and it's exactly this dichotomy that makes this a big issue. Vulnerability is indeed not "a good thing", but the issue is that the struggle to constantly keep yourself invulnerable at all times is a "worse thing", leading to many stress-related issues (amongst other problems). So the modern psychological advice, as I understand it, is to find particular people, spaces and opportunities where we can let our guard down, even at the risk of being open to attack, because the alternative is worse. There's a stoic quote I love: > our ideal wise man feels his troubles, but overcomes them - Seneca, Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 9 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_9 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Let... The way I see it, if you never let yourself be vulnerable, you can never fully feel your troubles, and you cannot fully overcome them.
- mewpmewp2 1y ago
  I guess the question is -> why do we need that guard in the first place? Is this about other people being immature or looking to abuse us? Is this something that generally goes beyond school?
  - ben_w 1y ago
    > Is this about other people being immature or looking to abuse us? Is this something that generally goes beyond school? Yes to both. Psychopaths do to everyone what everyone does to out-groups, and we're all someone else's out-group.
    - akimbostrawman 1y ago
      You really don't need to reach that far. As a man if you are too often vulnerable, too much, for the wrong reasons or at the wrong time you will loose the respect of your partner and soon after there love.
      - squigz 1y ago
        Not everyone's partner is that shallow.
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Exceptions don't invalidate the rule. Everybody thinks there partner isn't right until they are.
        squigz 1y ago
        Your experiences don't validate the rule, either.
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Right I forgot we are on HN where we even need a scientific paper on "do women like weak vulnerable or strong confident men?" because nobody ever goes outside.
        squigz 1y ago
        Not really, it's just that most of us are adults who have experiences with healthy adult relationships. "Is my partner going to leave me if I display emotional vulnerability" is not really a concern in healthy, adult relationships.
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        An actual adult realizes the real world differences between "should not" and "will not".
  - Joeboy 1y ago
    > Is this something that generally goes beyond school? The things that make you vulnerable change depending on what year and situation you're in. I can very much get behind the idea that you should consider whether your legacy sense of what makes you vulnerable is relevant to your current circumstances. I'm not so much behind the "freely dispense the rope people will use to hang you" version.
    - mewpmewp2 1y ago
      There's a lot of abstraction in this thread, but I would like to hear specifics. What are the exact vulnerabilities that we are talking about? From my side I guess I can say I frequently feel like impostor type of things or that I'm not doing enough. I won't mention that at work, but I definitely share those feelings to my partner. I would hate not being able to share something like that to my partner for instance. I wonder what others are talking about?
      - Joeboy 1y ago
        When I was at school (and in the 20th century generally) admitting to anything outside traditional masculinity / heterosexuality made you vulnerable to physical / verbal attack. Which remains the case for a lot of people in the 21st century. If they want to be loud and proud then good for them, but I can understand it if they prefer to keep it quiet. Whereas, at least around me, now, I think you can come out as gay without too much concern for your physical safety. Conversely, at my school you could be as overtly homophobic as you wanted with no consequences, whereas now you should probably be a lot more cautious if you harbour homophobic sentiments. Talking about partners in particular, I've had partners I felt fairly safe sharing anything (most things anyway) with, and I've also had partners who would mine our conversations for any kind of viable ammunition. Which led to me being a bit more careful what I said. We can perhaps agree the first kind of relationship is better.
        mewpmewp2 1y ago
        Yeah, I think the 2nd type of relationship is much worse than no relationship, I'd say the problem there wouldn't be with someone being vulnerable, it's the problem with the relationship... Yeah, during school it's difficult since you are forced together with potentially toxic people. As an adult you can choose at least in personal life and to an extent workplace, although sometimes workplace can also be difficult to get right. I'd 100% rather be alone than around people who might judge or use in someway against me anything about me. It would feel internally disgusting for me to think that someone might be trying to get at my expense and that I'm not around people who are there to try and build each other. What a waste of time.
Tarks 1y ago
My take is you've got the right reasoning but the wrong conclusion, I agree with your contextless definition of vulnerability and with the use of it in this context, vulnerability makes people vulnerable, by definition. From my experience, the reason you'd risk being vulnerable is there are some things you can't achieve without doing so, it'd be like trying to do surgery with a scalpel on someone wearing platemail, or trying to detect radiation with a Geiger counter behind 20 meters of lead, for some tools to work properly they're required to be in a position where they're 'vulnerable', like eyes. I think it's sad that performative emotions & vulnerability seem to be a popular thing to have to signal for acceptance. Which in my opinion is worse than nothing as at least when you're not faking something it's easier to agree that you haven't really tried it.
- andersonpico 1y ago
  > I think it's sad that performative emotions & vulnerability seem to be a popular thing to have to signal for acceptance. You only think it's performative because you think people are signaling. They're not and performative anything is not required for acceptance, but people are not accepting of others who deal with their social interaction in these terms and your very language betrays where you stand. These imaginary requirements for affection are not what's sad here.
  - Tarks 1y ago
    > You only think it's performative because you think people are signalling You're correct that I think something because I think something else. You're assuming I'm unwilling or unable to tell the difference. I don't see a betrayal to state that I think it's a shame that people that have copied a performative action, gotten nothing out of it and are then hesitant to try again because they feel they've already tried that avenue and had bad results. It's the same feeling of sadness I get when people have tried therapy, for whatever reason haven't gotten much out of it and then write it off as a sham. I do get that you're saying 'aha ! I've detected your true intent through my clever analysis of your language' - consider your assumption "You only think it's performative because you think people are signaling. They're not" They're not? You can state absolute facts with confidence about the people I've experienced in my life that you don't know anything about? That is either some amazing superpower or regular old conjecture. It might help you to notice how many times I said I think or in my opinion, and how many absolutes you're willing to state.
tene80i 1y ago
It’s not a misuse - it’s exactly the intended meaning and it is perfectly common in mainstream usage. Allowing yourself to be vulnerable means you are indeed open to attack. But it is also a large part of emotional connection. The alternative is being a fortress - with all the relationship problems that entails. The very fact that you see vulnerability as “bad” is a perfect example of what that language is intended to highlight.
- lazide 1y ago
  If you are under attack, vulnerability is bad. Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. Because in many situations, it works. Despite the complaining. And being less ‘emotionally connected’ is valuable when people use that connection to exploit or hurt you. A very common experience for many men. That people (especially women) then complain you won’t open up to them is a riot in those situations because it’s like someone complaining you keep putting on your bullet proof vest - while they keep shooting at you. Historic male mental health issues also resulted. But notably, folks depending on the stoic persona for their own wellbeing would typically throw you under the bus for those issues too. “How dare you get mad! You’re a dangerous threat!” says the person constantly harassing the person, or the boss putting you in worse and worse work conditions while pretending they are doing you a favor, etc. They do that, of course, because mad people actually fight back. But if you need the job or are dependent on the relationship… As many men have experienced, the only way to ‘win’ is shut off caring about what people say on that front - among other emotions.
  - andersonpico 1y ago
    > (especially women) It's always about that isn't it? Not getting the reaction you want, vilifying your interlocutor, then run crying with fingers in your ears screaming "lalala I didn't want it anyway" and declaring yourself a stoic is really indicative of the type of people who in the present day call themselves stoics. This whole thread is just a long-winded version of redpill discourse, people who can see past minor adolescent romantic mishaps. How pathetic is it to still model your whole life after women while pretending to be an isle of self-reliance? Men really are lost.
oersted 1y ago
I think you are projecting the sense of the word from computer security onto people. But "vulnerability" always has that second sense in common speech, as in "showing vulnerability". If a person is actually open to being harmed in some way we use the phrasing "they are vulnerable to ...", which has quite a different meaning.
- nephihaha 11mo ago
  No, definitely not thinking in computer terms. I know the word from a completely different context. I think what they mean is sensitivity (which can be good or bad) and tenderness (which is generally good). But there are contexts in which it is not helpful. We have a problem with street violence where I live, and showing your emotional side to a potential attacker is not the best way of avoiding trouble.
m4rtink 1y ago
CVEs basically.

falcor84 1y ago

I don't think there's any redefinition here, and it's exactly this dichotomy that makes this a big issue. Vulnerability is indeed not "a good thing", but the issue is that the struggle to constantly keep yourself invulnerable at all times is a "worse thing", leading to many stress-related issues (amongst other problems). So the modern psychological advice, as I understand it, is to find particular people, spaces and opportunities where we can let our guard down, even at the risk of being open to attack, because the alternative is worse. There's a stoic quote I love: > our ideal wise man feels his troubles, but overcomes them - Seneca, Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 9 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_9 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Let... The way I see it, if you never let yourself be vulnerable, you can never fully feel your troubles, and you cannot fully overcome them.

mewpmewp2 1y ago
I guess the question is -> why do we need that guard in the first place? Is this about other people being immature or looking to abuse us? Is this something that generally goes beyond school?
- ben_w 1y ago
  > Is this about other people being immature or looking to abuse us? Is this something that generally goes beyond school? Yes to both. Psychopaths do to everyone what everyone does to out-groups, and we're all someone else's out-group.
  - akimbostrawman 1y ago
    You really don't need to reach that far. As a man if you are too often vulnerable, too much, for the wrong reasons or at the wrong time you will loose the respect of your partner and soon after there love.
    - squigz 1y ago
      Not everyone's partner is that shallow.
      - akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Exceptions don't invalidate the rule. Everybody thinks there partner isn't right until they are.
        squigz 1y ago
        Your experiences don't validate the rule, either.
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Right I forgot we are on HN where we even need a scientific paper on "do women like weak vulnerable or strong confident men?" because nobody ever goes outside.
        squigz 1y ago
        Not really, it's just that most of us are adults who have experiences with healthy adult relationships. "Is my partner going to leave me if I display emotional vulnerability" is not really a concern in healthy, adult relationships.
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        An actual adult realizes the real world differences between "should not" and "will not".
- Joeboy 1y ago
  > Is this something that generally goes beyond school? The things that make you vulnerable change depending on what year and situation you're in. I can very much get behind the idea that you should consider whether your legacy sense of what makes you vulnerable is relevant to your current circumstances. I'm not so much behind the "freely dispense the rope people will use to hang you" version.
  - mewpmewp2 1y ago
    There's a lot of abstraction in this thread, but I would like to hear specifics. What are the exact vulnerabilities that we are talking about? From my side I guess I can say I frequently feel like impostor type of things or that I'm not doing enough. I won't mention that at work, but I definitely share those feelings to my partner. I would hate not being able to share something like that to my partner for instance. I wonder what others are talking about?
    - Joeboy 1y ago
      When I was at school (and in the 20th century generally) admitting to anything outside traditional masculinity / heterosexuality made you vulnerable to physical / verbal attack. Which remains the case for a lot of people in the 21st century. If they want to be loud and proud then good for them, but I can understand it if they prefer to keep it quiet. Whereas, at least around me, now, I think you can come out as gay without too much concern for your physical safety. Conversely, at my school you could be as overtly homophobic as you wanted with no consequences, whereas now you should probably be a lot more cautious if you harbour homophobic sentiments. Talking about partners in particular, I've had partners I felt fairly safe sharing anything (most things anyway) with, and I've also had partners who would mine our conversations for any kind of viable ammunition. Which led to me being a bit more careful what I said. We can perhaps agree the first kind of relationship is better.
      - mewpmewp2 1y ago
        Yeah, I think the 2nd type of relationship is much worse than no relationship, I'd say the problem there wouldn't be with someone being vulnerable, it's the problem with the relationship... Yeah, during school it's difficult since you are forced together with potentially toxic people. As an adult you can choose at least in personal life and to an extent workplace, although sometimes workplace can also be difficult to get right. I'd 100% rather be alone than around people who might judge or use in someway against me anything about me. It would feel internally disgusting for me to think that someone might be trying to get at my expense and that I'm not around people who are there to try and build each other. What a waste of time.

Tarks 1y ago

My take is you've got the right reasoning but the wrong conclusion, I agree with your contextless definition of vulnerability and with the use of it in this context, vulnerability makes people vulnerable, by definition. From my experience, the reason you'd risk being vulnerable is there are some things you can't achieve without doing so, it'd be like trying to do surgery with a scalpel on someone wearing platemail, or trying to detect radiation with a Geiger counter behind 20 meters of lead, for some tools to work properly they're required to be in a position where they're 'vulnerable', like eyes. I think it's sad that performative emotions & vulnerability seem to be a popular thing to have to signal for acceptance. Which in my opinion is worse than nothing as at least when you're not faking something it's easier to agree that you haven't really tried it.

andersonpico 1y ago
> I think it's sad that performative emotions & vulnerability seem to be a popular thing to have to signal for acceptance. You only think it's performative because you think people are signaling. They're not and performative anything is not required for acceptance, but people are not accepting of others who deal with their social interaction in these terms and your very language betrays where you stand. These imaginary requirements for affection are not what's sad here.
- Tarks 1y ago
  > You only think it's performative because you think people are signalling You're correct that I think something because I think something else. You're assuming I'm unwilling or unable to tell the difference. I don't see a betrayal to state that I think it's a shame that people that have copied a performative action, gotten nothing out of it and are then hesitant to try again because they feel they've already tried that avenue and had bad results. It's the same feeling of sadness I get when people have tried therapy, for whatever reason haven't gotten much out of it and then write it off as a sham. I do get that you're saying 'aha ! I've detected your true intent through my clever analysis of your language' - consider your assumption "You only think it's performative because you think people are signaling. They're not" They're not? You can state absolute facts with confidence about the people I've experienced in my life that you don't know anything about? That is either some amazing superpower or regular old conjecture. It might help you to notice how many times I said I think or in my opinion, and how many absolutes you're willing to state.

tene80i 1y ago

It’s not a misuse - it’s exactly the intended meaning and it is perfectly common in mainstream usage. Allowing yourself to be vulnerable means you are indeed open to attack. But it is also a large part of emotional connection. The alternative is being a fortress - with all the relationship problems that entails. The very fact that you see vulnerability as “bad” is a perfect example of what that language is intended to highlight.

lazide 1y ago
If you are under attack, vulnerability is bad. Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. Because in many situations, it works. Despite the complaining. And being less ‘emotionally connected’ is valuable when people use that connection to exploit or hurt you. A very common experience for many men. That people (especially women) then complain you won’t open up to them is a riot in those situations because it’s like someone complaining you keep putting on your bullet proof vest - while they keep shooting at you. Historic male mental health issues also resulted. But notably, folks depending on the stoic persona for their own wellbeing would typically throw you under the bus for those issues too. “How dare you get mad! You’re a dangerous threat!” says the person constantly harassing the person, or the boss putting you in worse and worse work conditions while pretending they are doing you a favor, etc. They do that, of course, because mad people actually fight back. But if you need the job or are dependent on the relationship… As many men have experienced, the only way to ‘win’ is shut off caring about what people say on that front - among other emotions.
- andersonpico 1y ago
  > (especially women) It's always about that isn't it? Not getting the reaction you want, vilifying your interlocutor, then run crying with fingers in your ears screaming "lalala I didn't want it anyway" and declaring yourself a stoic is really indicative of the type of people who in the present day call themselves stoics. This whole thread is just a long-winded version of redpill discourse, people who can see past minor adolescent romantic mishaps. How pathetic is it to still model your whole life after women while pretending to be an isle of self-reliance? Men really are lost.

oersted 1y ago

I think you are projecting the sense of the word from computer security onto people. But "vulnerability" always has that second sense in common speech, as in "showing vulnerability". If a person is actually open to being harmed in some way we use the phrasing "they are vulnerable to ...", which has quite a different meaning.

nephihaha 11mo ago
No, definitely not thinking in computer terms. I know the word from a completely different context. I think what they mean is sensitivity (which can be good or bad) and tenderness (which is generally good). But there are contexts in which it is not helpful. We have a problem with street violence where I live, and showing your emotional side to a potential attacker is not the best way of avoiding trouble.

m4rtink 1y ago

CVEs basically.