All fair points. There are always risks, and always tail risks of super bad outcomes. But also the positive upside risk of excellent outcomes, and ‘finding a new close friend’ definitely qualifies as this for me. Ultimately, everything is a cost-benefit calculation. For me, this strategy has been overwhelmingly worth it, and I refuse to let the fear of tail risks close off such vast amounts of potential value. But it’s hard to compare small probabilities of very bad or very good outcomes to each other, and maybe the opposite trade-off is correct for other people? Idk, my guess is that most people have a significant bias towards paranoia and risk-aversion, not the other way round. I’d also guess it depends on the social circles you move in, and the base rate for very bad outcomes. A party with friends-of-friends will probably have pretty different base rates to random strangers?
Vulnerability is not just an imaginary weakness that should be overcome; it may also point to something real.
Agreed! I’m arguing that most people have much higher barriers to being vulnerable than they should, and that many things that feel vulnerable to share really aren’t that dangerous to share. That doesn’t mean nothing vulnerability protects is worth protecting. Eg, sharing my deepest insecurities is a pretty bad idea, if the person can then turn around and use them to cause me a lot of pain.
My guess is that most people shy way too far away from being vulnerable, and being nudged towards ‘just say fuck it and practice being vulnerable’ will get them closer to the optimal amount of vulnerability. And that it’s probably much harder to overshoot and end up too vulnerable, if you’re already someone who has major issues with it.
I agree that after some initial screening (e.g. using this strategy with friends of friends), this strategy can greatly improve life, without introducing significant risk.
All fair points. There are always risks, and always tail risks of super bad outcomes. But also the positive upside risk of excellent outcomes, and ‘finding a new close friend’ definitely qualifies as this for me. Ultimately, everything is a cost-benefit calculation. For me, this strategy has been overwhelmingly worth it, and I refuse to let the fear of tail risks close off such vast amounts of potential value. But it’s hard to compare small probabilities of very bad or very good outcomes to each other, and maybe the opposite trade-off is correct for other people? Idk, my guess is that most people have a significant bias towards paranoia and risk-aversion, not the other way round. I’d also guess it depends on the social circles you move in, and the base rate for very bad outcomes. A party with friends-of-friends will probably have pretty different base rates to random strangers?
Agreed! I’m arguing that most people have much higher barriers to being vulnerable than they should, and that many things that feel vulnerable to share really aren’t that dangerous to share. That doesn’t mean nothing vulnerability protects is worth protecting. Eg, sharing my deepest insecurities is a pretty bad idea, if the person can then turn around and use them to cause me a lot of pain.
My guess is that most people shy way too far away from being vulnerable, and being nudged towards ‘just say fuck it and practice being vulnerable’ will get them closer to the optimal amount of vulnerability. And that it’s probably much harder to overshoot and end up too vulnerable, if you’re already someone who has major issues with it.
I agree that after some initial screening (e.g. using this strategy with friends of friends), this strategy can greatly improve life, without introducing significant risk.