"You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with"

[Galena]

You are seen as the average of the five people you are with most, unless you actively reject the appearance. Could that be more accurate?

 

[Lexicon]

At the moment, I can't think of 5 people I spend a meaningful amount of time with. When I did, they weren't people I necessarily wanted to spend time with and can't say I felt like I was an average of them (like, at the office).

To an extent you can judge people for the company they keep, but I think it would be something of a mistake to assume they are like the company they keep. Indeed, what is sometimes so baffling and ripe for judgment in the choice of company people make is that people so often pick company worlds apart and all wrong for themselves.

Essentially this.


Besides, I spend all my time with one person and one cat.

 

[Showbread]

Mmmmm, I have a hard time with this. Mostly because the 5 people I spend the most time with are all introverts...

 

[Udog]

Mmmmm, I have a hard time with this. Mostly because the 5 people I spend the most time with are all introverts...

Look beyond the surface. Values, ambitions, moods, interests. That sort of thing.

 

[Zarathustra]

Look beyond the surface.

That's the thing.

I think, in a lot of ways, when you look beyond the surface, you're not really like those five people.

I think the way those five people influence who you are tends to be way more surface-level than not.

 

[Lady_X]

That's the thing.

I think, in a lot of ways, when you look beyond the surface, you're not really like those five people.

I think the way those five people influence who you are tends to be way more surface-level than not.

heeey...look who's posting again.

 

[Honor]

Mmmmm, I have a hard time with this. Mostly because the 5 people I spend the most time with are all introverts...

Haha

 

[Honor]

I agree it's an oversimplification, but I think there is truth to this as well. There's quite a bit out there about how social networks influence us... you can predict (statistically) how likely someone is going to get divorced by whether or not their friends were recently divorced, for example. The same goes for obesity and weight loss.

People aren't statistics, and there will always be exceptions, but I think there is enough truth to this that you should be aware of who are you are spending most of your time with.

Yup. This is definitely true to a certain extent. We pick up a lot from the people we associate with. On the other hand, the people in our lives can change quickly, and with that, we can change quickly.

 

[skylights]

I disagree with the literal statement though understand and agree to some extent with the sentiment.

One is heavily influenced by one's close company, but the fabric of one's being is not dependent on the company one keeps.

 

[Totenkindly]

I disagree with the quote, if it means we become like the five people we hang out with. There are those who might, but it's not a rule.

 

[Udog]

That's the thing.

I think, in a lot of ways, when you look beyond the surface, you're not really like those five people.

I think the way those five people influence who you are tends to be way more surface-level than not.

What kind of things do you consider to be surface level?

The context of the quote is also worth noting. Jim Rohn, the author of the quote, is a self-help guru. His quote is for those trying to improve their personal and business life. If you are trying to lose weight, then making friends with 5 healthy, active people will help towards your goal, while making friends with 5 obese people who choose to eat junk will hinder your goal. In this context, I think it's useful. As ageless wisdom like something from the Tao Te Ching... it falls a bit short.

Yup. This is definitely true to a certain extent. We pick up a lot from the people we associate with. On the other hand, the people in our lives can change quickly, and with that, we can change quickly.

This too. People change quickly when those close to them undergo crisis, which can have wide a wide affect.

 

[Honor]

What kind of things do you consider to be surface level?

The context of the quote is also worth noting. Jim Rohn, the author of the quote, is a self-help guru. His quote is for those trying to improve their personal and business life. If you are trying to lose weight, then making friends with 5 healthy, active people will help towards your goal, while making friends with 5 obese people who choose to eat junk will hinder your goal. In this context, I think it's useful. As ageless wisdom like something from the Toa Te Ching... it falls a bit short.



This too. People change quickly when those close to them undergo crisis, which can have wide a wide affect.

I meant that but also who you are immediately surrounded by can change quickly, which means that who you are can change quickly if you give credence to the original post.

 

[Udog]

I meant that but also who you are immediately surrounded by can change quickly, which means that who you are can change quickly if you give credence to the original post.

Oh, okay. Yeah, the quote is definitely more of a Te "part of the plan towards growth" piece of advice rather than a Ti "model of how people work" theory, I think.

 

[cafe]

Well this is concerning because one of my five will be leaving the country in a few months for awhile and my alt is questionable.

 

[Honor]

Well this is concerning because one of my five will be leaving the country in a few months for awhile and my alt is questionable.

Haha!

 

[Glycerine]

I would hope not... yikes. I only have somewhat similar values to 1 out of 5 and even then that can be a bit questionable.

 

[violet_crown]

I thought the idea was that you are the average of your five closest FRIENDS, not just any rando you happen to be around.

 

[FDG]

I thought the idea was that you are the average of your five closest FRIENDS, not just any rando you happen to be around.

Yes, that's what I was thinking too (and what I was agreeing with).

 

[Totenkindly]

The context of the quote is also worth noting.

I disagree. The context of the quote was not offered as the basis for discussion of this thread, it was offered as a stand-alone starting point and self-contained.

All the context offers is what the original speaker of the quote might have meant by it, but there's no indication the thread creator was considering it in that light when offered as a topic of discussion.

As a stand-alone quote, obviously it has some shortcomings.

 

[Udog]

I disagree. The context of the quote was not offered as the basis for discussion of this thread, it was offered as a stand-alone starting point and self-contained.

And it was quickly dismissed as a stand-alone quote, and fairly so. But if we are going to dissect and analyze an idea, isn't it worthwhile to see how it works in various contexts once we concede that it doesn't work in all of them?