I think it's important to acknowledge that it's
always okay to avoid interaction that we either get a gut feeling about or which we don't even particularly feel any ROI in (return of investment). I don't think it's anyone else's place, ever, to dictate to us where or to whom we 'should' dish out our attention. Worst case scenario: someone believes we are unkind, that we're perpetuating a comfortable echo chamber in which we don't have to challenge our own perception, and/or maybe something else I haven't thought of. But sometimes counterwill is a healthy feeling that protects us when someone feels like they NEED us to kowtow to their perception. If we practice being honest with ourselves, then it isn't as much a threat when someone believes something about us that we don't like.
This is a large part of why this has been on my mind:
I also think there is danger when people internalize the idea of difficult people teaching us something about ourselves. This bothers me a lot because I know that the most controlling and manipulative people are expert at projecting their crap onto others. So, when they encounter someone who is open and trying to accept them and learn, they run rough shot and fuck with the person's head. Some people are psychologically very dangerous and it is simply not wise to get involved. They don't make us stronger, but do everything in the instinctual power to destroy other people. Having lived with narcissistic people and encountered many other people with terrible psychological problems, I would say that a safe distance is really important. I don't think that everything we initially reject reveals something about ourselves, but it is the delight of the people with severe personality disorders to use that to project into other people.
I think even people who genuinely believe their own intentions are good can do significant damage. People often mistake their NEEDING something from others as love or concern for them.
One of my favorite books on this topic is
The Gaslight Effect by Robin Stern. It takes work to make oneself resilient to that^ kind of manipulation. For example, if it's important to someone to be kind, then someone who is manipulative can pick up on that (unconsciously) and use the fear of being perceived as unkind to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction. Or if it's important for a person to be 'open', then a gaslighter will use the fear of not being open to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction. According to Stern, the way to shake lose of the gaslighter's hold is to learn to be okay with someone else thinking things about you that you don't like. Just like the quote above by Rumi. I'm forever bringing up the Buddhist slogan, "
Of the two witnesses, hold the principle one." If we cultivate the capacity to let others believe whatever they (feel like they) need to believe about us without it effecting what we believe about ourselves - not only does that give other people the room to feel/think whatever they truly feel/think in our presence (which is truly a gift to the world), but it breaks the hold that gaslighters use to steer shared reality in a self-serving direction.
According to Stern, gaslighters need to be Right (her words) and to have their Rightness affirmed by others in order to maintain a secure sense of self; when/where they can't dictate the lion's share of reality, they feel unbearable distress. So they gravitate towards people who are sensitive to external feedback (in other words, people who are exceptionally open to external feedback) and create a sort of vicious cycle that Stern refers to as the "gaslight tango". To those involved, it all happens under the radar of either's perception: the gaslighter simply thinks they are repeatedly pointing out 'the truth', and the gaslightee thinks they are good at taking feedback. But a sort of resentment builds up for the gaslightee - they can't really put their finger on it, but they start feeling resentment/depleted/depressed.
I also think what Gordon Neufeld has to say about (what he calls) an alpha dynamic is germane here too: it's natural to organize attachments hierarchically. Typically (in a healthy relationship/attachment), there are ways in which each person brings their alpha-ness to the dynamic. In a married couple with children, for example: one person might be the alpha at getting the kids to cooperate and do chores/go to bed/etc when they're supposed to; the other parent might be inherently better at managing finances and making sure there is a hefty college fund waiting for the kids when they graduate highschool. In any group of people wherein there is any attachment going on, there's typically different strengths for different things within the group, and those individuals who are particularly strong in their own niche are the 'alphas' of that niche. It becomes a problem with someone feels the need to be alpha without actually having the skills to organically command the alpha position - they achieve it through manipulation or oafish bullying instead.