Friendship

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Diana and Grouptalk,
     How nice to have an intriguing question emerge. I've incubated some contemplations, 
and stimulated by Diana, will add my 2 cents, in a provisional way, with just some 
thoughts.

Ah, sociometry and friendship networks. It reminds me how young our field is, and how 
relevant.
   There are so many variables here.

   1. Eric Berne, the psychiatrist who developed Transactional Analysis, spoke in terms of 
the need for a certain number of interpersonal "strokes" that are deeply needed.
       But questions abound:
                How many acquaintance strokes can make up for one close buddy thick 
strokes?
           Some thick buddy strokes are also more neurotic, more transference-loaded, 
colluding or enabling, etc.
               Different role groups and their friends-acquaintance gradients shift as 
ability and interest shift.
        (I'm thinking of a dying friend who has lost to some degree a significant part of 
his more fundamentalist old friend network because he's become more liberal in his 
spiritual views.)
       And the questions go on and on.

 So what is isolation and how absolutely does one need to be isolated?
      And some temperaments and character structures prefer smaller "social atoms"
            I for one hesitate to judge how many people in what roles anyone else "should" 
have...
       It's enough to gently monitor my own fluctuating network.

   Re Email. Definitely on a gradient, and many are acquaintances, and some are clearly 
friends. With a number, I exchange small talk and strokes, and keep up connections.
       With a few, I disclose more personal feelings, even vulnerable stuff. It's a lively 
resource and I would be hesitant to make any negative judgments too soon.

    This may be more true for folks whose recreation repertoire is more exotic. With golf 
and bridge, travel and some other generally popular activities, there are many peers with 
whom I could share direct contact. Alas, my tastes go in more rarefied directions. No 
implication that this is better or worse, just less popular, indeed, almost rare: depth 
psychology, mid-level rigorous philosophy, playful spirituality, spiritual playfulness, 
stuff like that.. well, it's not really what a lot of folks like to do. Nor in-depth 
discussions about ideas, exploring history, science, poetry, and the "deeper meanings" of 
these plus current trends and future possibilities.
        I'm happy to report that I've found a few colleagues, some whom I've never 
actually met in the flesh, yet we play a bit. Some I've met only on occasion, their being 
spread around the country, and travel is not inexpensive nor easy.

      All this by way of saying, while propinquity (physical, geographic closeness, being 
in the same room, or neighbors) may be nice, choosing this may not always fit psychetelic 
needs. One has more strokes hanging out with small talk--I need alcohol to help with that 
predicament-- but the strokes are inefficient. Better than nothing. (There's also the 
principle of being chosen for the criteria that you value more highly, rather than, say, 
being praised for a quality that is less close to your core challenges.)

       Also speaking to this general topic is a book written about 10-15 years ago, Habits 
of the Heart, by I think Robert Bellah.

   Finally, I'm wary of large "nomothetic" or statistical studies, because such studies 
lump too many subgroups that are largely irrelevant to me together. I'm more intrigued 
with considerations that deal with my peer groups and the real questions of how to promote 
greater sense of community, more interchange, etc., even within this experimental 
community known as Sun City Texas. I'm impressed with the sheer number of different 
variables involved.

         Warmly, Adam




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Diana Jones" <dianaj at orgdev.co.nz>
To: "Ann Hale" <annehale at swva.net>; <socionoetic at yahoogroups.com>; 
<List at grouptalkweb.org>; "Grouptalk Discussion Group" <grouptalk at albie.wcupa.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: RE: Friendship


> Hi Ann,
>
> Dr Jacob Moreno was reported in the New York times in 1933 estimating from
> his research that there were 10,000,000
> to 15,000,000 isolated individuals in America. Given his early research
> findings, how new are these recent findings?
>
> Last year, Lynne C. Giles et al of Flinders University in Adelaide,
> Australia, had their research reported in 2005 in NEW YORK (Reuters
> Health)under - 'Looking for the secret of a long life? Look closely at your
> friends. New research
> suggests that having a strong network of friends helps people live longer.'
>
> "Older people with better social networks with friends were less likely to
> die over a 10-year follow-up period than older people with poorer friends
> networks,"  Giles said. "Of course, that is not to say that social networks
> with children and other relatives are not important in many other ways,"
> Giles said. Study after study has shown that elderly people who are
> connected with lots of people tend to live longer lives. Giles's team set
> out to examine the relationship between various types of social networks and
> longevity in a group of almost 1,500 Australians who were at least 70 years
> old. Volunteers answered questions about their social networks and then were
> followed for 10 years.
>
> The researchers took into account several factors that could have influenced
> how long a person lived, including sex, age, health and smoking status.
>
> What the study showed was that older people who reported better social
> networks of friends were more likely to be alive at the end of the study
> than people with fewer friends. Similarly, people who reported strong
> networks of confidants -- people with whom participants shared a close,
> confiding relationship -- tended to live longer. Full article in the Journal
> of Epidemiology and Community Health, July 2005. full reprint at
> http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/59/7/574
>
> I think people have more connections with more people via email and txting,
> however the nature of these connections are new. Email enables more frequent
> contact with more people, however what remains unclear is the signficance of
> these connections with people's social and cultural atom. Are they
> strangers, aquaintances, entertainers, friends, confidants, intimate
> partners?  I know I get a lot of email from strangers offering odd things
> which I don't want. No mirroring or doubling in these emails.
>
> regards, Diana
>