Friendship

[HV Psychodrama]

    I seem to remember from grad school days, which seems quite far away 
now, a study on suicide that showed that the only clear predictor of suicide 
was related to the shrinking of the social atom. If this is true, that what 
is significant is not so much the number of people initially but the change 
over time.
   Bottom line is how many people in one's social atom does the individual 
need to maintain sociostasis.
  I also wonder if that changes over time. For some, the social atom of 
one's youth may be filled with many people from school and an active social 
life, but they may change quickly. Where as we age there may be fewer but 
more consistent, deeper connections.
When I look at my own social atoms from my early twenties I see them very 
filled with friends that felt important at the time but whom I scarcely 
remember. My social atom is smaller now, but filled with people with whom I 
have deep and committed relationships that have stood the test of time.
   There was a very sad article in the AARP Bulletin ( see, I told you grad 
school was a long time ago) yesterday about an apartment building in 
Baltimore being turned into condos, and the many elderly folks who had lived 
there for decades having to leave. It mentioned how  And not only because 
moving is stressful, but because losing one's social connections can lead to 
ill health for the elderly. I have a feeling that may be true for all of 
us...
Rebecca


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Blatner" <adam at blatner.com>
To: <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Friendship


> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>