The strategy “if you spend lot of time with few people, be careful; if you meet many strangers, be bold and explore” is counter-intuitive. I guess this is about vulnerability: it feels more dangerous to be vulnerable with strangers than with close ones, and more dangerous to be vulnerable with many than with a few.
I guess it depends on the actual type of risk. Things like “this can become super awkward” are multiplied by time, so if you never meet the person again, go ahead and tell them <example deleted>, you might find a kindred soul! Though there is always a small risk of finding out that the mysterious stranger actually is your colleague or neighbor, you just never noticed each other before… but now you certainly will.
And there is also a “black swan” type of risk that the stranger is some kind of stalker, and because of some information you shared they now become obsessed with you. Finding people’s real identity can be surprisingly simple: follow them home; take a photo and do a reverse search; use some information they volunteered, like school or club or neighborhood; or if you notice they know someone, simply ask that person, or identify that other person, and then go through their contacts on social networks.
Also, not all people want deep relationships. Which is okay if they are open about it and say “no thanks”. The worse case is when you start doing something that seems like building a deeper connection, and gradually you find yourself in some twisted mind game with no easy way out (kind of similar to joining a cult). -- I guess my point is that a strategy that seems profitable on average may actually contain some extreme rare risks. And if you try to eliminate those risks, then you are not meeting hundreds of strangers anymore. Vulnerability is not just an imaginary weakness that should be overcome; it may also point to something real.
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.
Wow, lots of thoughts, I feel overwhelmed...
The strategy “if you spend lot of time with few people, be careful; if you meet many strangers, be bold and explore” is counter-intuitive. I guess this is about vulnerability: it feels more dangerous to be vulnerable with strangers than with close ones, and more dangerous to be vulnerable with many than with a few.
I guess it depends on the actual type of risk. Things like “this can become super awkward” are multiplied by time, so if you never meet the person again, go ahead and tell them <example deleted>, you might find a kindred soul! Though there is always a small risk of finding out that the mysterious stranger actually is your colleague or neighbor, you just never noticed each other before… but now you certainly will.
And there is also a “black swan” type of risk that the stranger is some kind of stalker, and because of some information you shared they now become obsessed with you. Finding people’s real identity can be surprisingly simple: follow them home; take a photo and do a reverse search; use some information they volunteered, like school or club or neighborhood; or if you notice they know someone, simply ask that person, or identify that other person, and then go through their contacts on social networks.
Also, not all people want deep relationships. Which is okay if they are open about it and say “no thanks”. The worse case is when you start doing something that seems like building a deeper connection, and gradually you find yourself in some twisted mind game with no easy way out (kind of similar to joining a cult). -- I guess my point is that a strategy that seems profitable on average may actually contain some extreme rare risks. And if you try to eliminate those risks, then you are not meeting hundreds of strangers anymore. Vulnerability is not just an imaginary weakness that should be overcome; it may also point to something real.
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.