Reliance on others: Strength or Weakness? Make your case.

[ygolo]

Recently, I have had occasion to think about whether reliance on others is a strength or weakness. Of course, a dichotomous choice in itself could be a case of narrow framing.

I suppose a case can be made for many, many things.

Relying on others to do what we are (relatively) bad at so that we can do what it is that we are (relatively) good at is the cornerstone of making us more productive overall. This is embodied in the notion of opportunity cost in economics. It is also the foundation of the case made for diversity in society, and finds its way into notions of partnership in pair bonding.

However, the above can also imply a "transactional" view point that may imply that if we are too needy, and do not provide enough in return, that it is a weakness. However, when what we provide is more than what we take, then it is a strength...or we can even flip it. Those who take more then they give are stronger because it serves their self-interest better. If we add a transactional component to otherwise uncontroversial views, then how strong or weak someone is can be different if viewed from the stand point of the individual or the society.

We could interpret "reliance" to include emotional reliance. Perhaps here, being individually "compartmentalized" is a strength? Or even in the realm of emotion, is there a notion of opportunity cost?

Anyways. I post this in the philosophy section, and leave the framing of the question intentionally open ended. (A poll would prompt too little thought, with pre-selected answers). So let us know how you interpret the question, make your case for your answer.

 

[RaptorWizard]

If you can have hope in others and give it to them, then there's much strength in that. But if you believe everyone must do stuff for you, then it's a weakness.

There's nothing wrong with giving others the chance to help us. It's just that we also need to be strong enough to help ourselves as well when it doesn't do any good to bother others about it.

I don't know for sure though. This is a good question. It might revolve greatly around the idea of justice, or even the principle of the greatest good, whether for now, or what makes us better in future times.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

We all rely upon others and have no choice in the matter. It is a reason why humans are so successful.

To what extent though, is more subjective. The extent is relative to the vantage point.

It's a collective strength and an individual weakness.

 

[freeeekyyy]

"Needing" others isn't good, but caring for them, and being tied to them in as much as is required to be empathetic, is good. Empathizing with somebody is feeling what they feel, which requires a certain level of "need." But beyond that, no, I don't think it's good.

 

[AzulEyes]

We are NOT made equal.
We cannot do it all alone.
Relying on others- accepting our human-ness is a strength.
Denying this truth is a weakness.
It is NOT a competition. My husband takes care of me (I feel) MORE than I take care of him.
It's okay. He is satisfied. I am satisifed. We do not keep score.
Strength.

 

[Santosha]

You said it yourself, a dichotomous choice and narrow framing. A balance needs to be found and what that balance is, is far too individual. Ones needs, resources and ideals need to be entered into the equation. For me personally, I feel that I've relied far too much on others and need to develop more self-sustaining traits. I suppose it's the reason behind the choice that is most important. IF you rely on others through your own insecurity then it's ultimately a weakness. It'll be a weakness because the continuance will never challenge and succeed past the mental or emotional limitations one needs to be a more secure person. Otoh, someone may rely on others out of preference instead of need and many secondary benefits can occur.

 

[Lark]

If a realistic assessment and analysis was done of anyone I strongly suspect they would prove to be much less self-reliant than they would believe they are, there are often co-operative and collectivist norms underpinning all individualist thinking and behaviour and making it possible in the first place.

Marx and others criticised Robin Crusoe and other similar books (there were many but no one remembers them because they were the equivalent of clones or pulp fiction) as the literary equivalent of the ideologies reigning in culture or in economics as utopias and aspirational fiction. I think that's pretty important. I like to read science fiction, fantasy and ghost stories, I wouldnt suggest that any of them are a basis for public policy or a personal philosophy.

 

[Amargith]

It is a skill set, like anything else in life.

 

[five sounds]

Balance baby. It's all about balance.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

Weakness:

1. You'll always have to depend on them for tasks, and there is no way you can control their conduct.


Strength:

1. You'll have time to focus on other things.

 

[garbage]

balance etc.

Also, learn from the people you 'rely upon' along the way. Allow them to teach you how to fish.

 

[Coriolis]

Reliance leads to vulnerability. If you are truly reliant, you need some outside source to do or provide something for you; you cannot do it yourself. Should that source cease to be available, you can easily be stuck with no means to provide for yourself. All the same, some measure of reliance on others is usually unavoidable, so this is just another risk of which one must remain aware, and for which one should have contingency plans.

By contrast, one can enhance one's productivity and impact by pooling resources with differently abled and inclined people. This relates to the idea of opportunity cost mentioned in the OP. The important distinction is that you could do these things for yourself, it is just more efficient and effective to let someone else do them, while you do and share what you do best. I would call this collaboration or cooperation rather than reliance.

Also, learn from the people you 'rely upon' along the way. Allow them to teach you how to fish.

This is a great way to turn reliance into cooperation.

 

[highlander]

It's a strength.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be self-reliant, which I'm a big proponent of. Issue is there are things you suck at that others are good at.

 

[garbage]

Learned quite a bit about reliance yesterday.

My car's battery died. A passerby who happened to know more about cars offered his help, and I reluctantly accepted. Not that I don't trust people, but I hate asking for help. I'm stuck on the principle of self-reliance.

He noticed that I have a 5-speed and taught me an odd method--that someone could push the car, and at the right time, I could pop the clutch and switch the ignition on and the thing would start. He pushed for me, and indeed it (magically, from my perspective) worked.

Despite knowing that method, I could not have pushed my own car and popped my own clutch at the same time.


Later on in the day, I heard that a friend-of-a-friend's house had just burned down a day or so ago, husband was in ICU, and so on. I followed my natural instinct, which was to write a check. It made me reflect on my own experience earlier in the day, as petty as it was. I'm also stuck on allowing others to be self-reliant, but expecting someone to pull through a tragedy like that on their own is patently ridiculous.

In the first case, the guy had knowledge that he could share without much burden to himself, but that helped me to a great degree. In the second, I traded a very, very small bit of stability to help someone out who could benefit much more from it.

 

[garbage]

A halfassed, separate post for a separate but semi-related issue.

Irresponsibility, man, it really gets my goat. I have a .. erm.. family member who has a habit of getting drunk and having other people drive her home or, worse, calling people at 3am and having them pick her up. This family member has learned not to call me.

What's the quality or principle that separates this from the above? Is it degree of necessity, self control, enabling, ...? Is there a separation?

 

[Coriolis]

A halfassed, separate post for a separate but semi-related issue.

Irresponsibility, man, it really gets my goat. I have a .. erm.. family member who has a habit of getting drunk and having other people drive her home or, worse, calling people at 3am and having them pick her up. This family member has learned not to call me.

What's the quality or principle that separates this from the above? Is it degree of necessity, self control, enabling, ...? Is there a separation?

That quality is effort - the drive at least to try to help yourself before (or along with) asking help from others. Your relative must know by now that she does this quite frequently. If she is unable or unwilling to change her drinking habits, she needs to plan her own transportation ahead of time, either budgeting for a cab, or arranging with some willing person to drive her. Her irresponsibility reflects a refusal to expend effort on her own behalf. She expects others to expend the effort for her.

 

[sculpting]

For myself, historically, reliance upon others has been a weakness as it opens me up to emotional exploitation and being controlled. If I can completely rely upon myself as much as possible, I remain free to follow my values and be true to what I feel is right in a situation, without having to cater to another's values instead because of a need for their care.

As a child the issue with dependence upon others was illustrated for me by my mother and grandmother, both who relied upon men to care for them and did not find ways to be financially independent. This trapped them in situations where they were abused yet they could not leave as they had no financial means of support. My sister has repeated this same pattern.

I have a hard time accepting help from people, as they always feel like they have ties to my emotions, even though I realize that isnt the motive. However I love helping others more than anything, especially anomolously. It is a value mismatch I should sort out I think.

 

[RDF]

The question in the OP was framed (in part) in terms of economics. I think the answer can be found there as well.

For example, if I have a broken sewer pipe, if my car won’t start, or if the fuse box at my house sparks and starts on fire, I don’t even raise questions about reliance or independence. I phone the plumber, car mechanic, or electrician. We work out the terms for the job, they do the work, I write a check.

Pretty much any other interaction can be framed in much the same terms. I’m free to contract out my own services or engage the services of others; the main thing is just to be clear on the terms. If a co-worker is good at a task and I’m weak at it, I can ask him to help me with the task or do it himself; I just say, “You’ll be doing a favor for me, and I would really appreciate it. Is there anything I can do for you in return?” If he says “No, I don’t mind doing it for free. Let’s just say that you owe me one,” then that’s an acceptable response. If he tries to call in that favor at a later date, I can then negotiate whether the return favor is a fair balance against the original favor.

If you watch something like “Jersey Shore,” you’ll see them relying on each other for favors all the time. But if you look closely, they negotiate those favors pretty rigorously. And if the balance of favors owed vs favors repaid gets too far out of balance, people raise hell about it.

So my point: Treat these things as an economic transaction, and I think the lines become much clearer. And if there are any questions on either side of a given transaction, then you just work out the terms of the transaction ahead of time so that there are no hurt feelings afterward.

 

[RDF]

A halfassed, separate post for a separate but semi-related issue.

Irresponsibility, man, it really gets my goat. I have a .. erm.. family member who has a habit of getting drunk and having other people drive her home or, worse, calling people at 3am and having them pick her up. This family member has learned not to call me.

What's the quality or principle that separates this from the above? Is it degree of necessity, self control, enabling, ...? Is there a separation?

Jumping off from my previous post: if you treat this situation as an economic transaction, then I think the lines become much clearer.

Some people are like a sieve. You give them help, but the help goes right through them. They have the capacity to take in infinite amounts of assistance, draining everyone around them. So the people around them have to set limits. An economic view helps here.

For example:

When I was in the military, I came into a small inheritance. It was in the form of stocks and bonds, so for a while I was getting a daily flow of financial papers in the mail: Stock reports, prospectuses, annual reports, stock voting papers, etc.

It didn’t escape the notice of my fellow Marines, and people started calling me “the million-dollar sergeant.” They also started coming by just before payday and asking for a small personal loan to tide them over till their next check. It was a little bit of a bind: there’s an unwritten rule in the barracks that you help out others when you can; but the potential liability was unlimited if word got out that I was handing out money just for the asking.

So I came up with a simple rule: If asked, I would loan anyone up to $10 the first time around. For those individuals who paid me back on the following payday, then I would consider up to $20 the next time around, and so on in $10 increments. As for those who *didn’t* pay me back, if they asked for another loan in following weeks, I would just say, “What do you take me for? You didn’t pay me back when you had money of your own. Pay me back the money you owe me, and *then* I’ll consider loaning you more money in the future.” And that solved my problems. I was available for people if they really had an emergency, but I set limits on my exposure. No one could fault the fairness of the system.

Same thing when dealing with individuals who are like a sieve. I try to be available for them, but I negotiate a price for my assistance ahead of time. I try to make sure that the price isn’t onerous, but also that it will represent a fair return on what I gave them. If they accept my assistance but then balk when it comes time for repayment, then it’s on them to make good the debt. If they refuse to do that, then I obviously have a one-sided relationship with them, and that fact has to be addressed in some manner before any further liabilities pile up on one side or the other.