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.