Interesting. This raises the question of what should be considered an "orientation" vs just "a trait you currently have."
An orientation implies that something is innate, unchangeable, fine, and must be accepted by society.
"A trait you currently have" on the other hand, might be good -- but also it might be holding you back, making you and others less happy, etc.
How sure are you that your current approach to friendship is the former, not the latter? As someone in the middle (I think) of the friends-initiating distribution, it feels like I could increase or decrease this a good deal if it would make my/others lives better to do so. So, it does not feel like an orientation.
(As an aside, a similar criticism has been made of Myers-Briggs -- namely that, if interpreted as prescriptive rather than merely descriptive, it can lead people to create self-reinforcing stereotypes for themselves. Making everything an orientation could do the same.)
I think friendship orientation is exactly analogous to sexual orientation. People who are in the middle of the spectrum may not have strong preferences one way or the other, just as there are bi/pansexuals that feel indifferent to gender despite more restrictive sexual orientations existing. I agree with you that people should not reify self-definitions, but I also think there are people for whom a narrow orientation is very real and we should not push a cultural message that they could and should change themselves.
Most of all, though, I think it's useful to notice patterns and frictions in ourselves so that we can understand ourselves, focus on our strengths and find what works best for us. If I was focused on becoming a friendship top because I thought it was just a matter of effort, I think my potential to flourish would be limited, both because I'd be operating "cross class" and because others around me would view my shittiness at topping as being a shitty friend rather than being more open to the idea that I'm different and best perform as a friend in a different role.
My intuition differs on this, but I think the only way to really find out would be a study looking at how life outcomes/satisfaction changed when people are encouraged to be more outgoing as friends. I do worry that orientation applied to personality (in general, not on this specific issue in particular) could often give an excuse to people not to do hard work on themselves.
But I could be wrong! Just sharing that flip side of the orientation coin.
I agree that there are skills involved in being a friendship top that anyone could learn and benefit from. I just disagree that it would ever feel natural or come easily to some people. Depending on their situation and how much they need friends, being more proactive as a friend might be exactly what they need. What I'm describing is people's natural tendencies, and pointing out that people will vary in how strong these tendencies are.
This is very insightful and enlightening – for me anyways.
I'm Sad now that I realize that I've often thought about, e.g. flakiness, as something blameworthy. That's particularly Sad because I think I'm generally pretty good at charity, even towards much worse behavior!
I've long thought about the differences in 'friendship styles', tho without the convenient handles this post provides. Most of my friends are individual relationships, tho there are some weak ties to specific groups too; tho almost all pretty small groups. I also enjoy many weak, but still intimate, relationships with people I regularly encounter, like neighbors, or shop owners.
One difference might be that I was _somewhat_ able to be a (weak) 'top' in otherwise tenuous friendships. My 'hack' was to, when I learned a friend's birthday, add it to my calendar. Contacting people on their birthdays seems like a reasonable Schelling point and a good way to maintain minimal, but still regular, contact.
Sadly, I just started removing friend's birthdays from my calendar – because they weren't even contacting me on my birthday. I think I'm just missing friends (and a romantic relationship) and – so you've convinced me – unfairly punishing my distant bottom-friends out of resentment. (I want some (more) friends that wish _me_ a happy birthday!) I think now, thanks to you, that I should maintain the distinction between what kind of 'friend activity' I want, and what any particular friend is capable/willing to give me.
I think one aspect tho that's still hard, for some people (e.g. me), to handle is 'flaky talk'. It's hard (for me) to reliably translate what flaky people say into reasonable expectations. I haven't been able to entirely dismiss any expectations without also falling into 'friend nihilism'. Maybe it's unavoidable that each friendship has to be independently calibrated.
Re: flaky talk, maybe you can you could discuss the friendship orientations concept with your friends and use it as an opportunity to ask for real honesty from them and ask them to abide by what they do agree to, even though they might think it seems rude to tell the truth when they don't really want to hang out. Maybe they just aren't used to being able to be honest, especially about feeling conflicted about doing the kinds of things friends are "supposed" to do, or having someone require real honesty from them. They might even be less flaky just from knowing they know they can trust you to be honest going forward.
I have previously brought up 'flaky talk' with a few friends, and I think that, for most friendships, making explicit adjustments or accommodations might just be 'too expensive'. The 'transaction costs' of negotiating, and enforcing, a new 'friendship regime' seem steep – or seem like they seem steep to others. (I suspect they are steep.)
And, personally, my own feelings are complicated because I myself am guilty of flaky talk too at times. I know I've been on the other end of this resentment – a few friends have brought this up to me, about me. I think my own feelings are just redirection/projection (because I _would_ like to see certain people more or more often), and not because of, e.g. my own improvements at talking less flakily.
But now that you've pointed this all out explicitly, it does seem much easier (and less fraught) to think about it clearly.
I’ve struggled with the feeling that I should be acting certain ways in friendships a lot. It’s incredible how judgey people can get when relationships are imbalanced in terms of effort. I guess they are protecting themselves from others’ opportunistic free riding? It really punishes those who are built different though.
For me, the orientation framing isn’t ideal, because I find my ability to invest effort into my friendships changes, and is also dependent on life circumstances. My personal frame is that I have executive functioning, energy and anxiety difficulties (autism lel) that impact my ability to put effort into relationships. This lowers the pool of people who will befriend me, but I remain open to befriending both tops and bottoms. I think if I had all my challenges accommodated completely, my natural orientation would be top, but I’m ok with how things are now.
Do you have any of the energy etc stuff going on, or is it purely preference? Either is valid imo
Energy levels are definitely a big part of it for me. I think it's valid to describe friendship bottoming as an orientation or a tendency because I need to be super emotionally comfortable and confident and on top of my life to act more like a top. Without that surplus my natural tendency is to be less proactive or withdraw from active participation in friendships. But, as with sexual orientations, I think very few people are obligately one way or the other, but somewhere more on the middle of the spectrum, and the right circumstances could have them behaving outside of their general orientation. I also think some people can bootstrap themselves from friend bottom to friend top just like I think some people can tune up whatever low level of native bisexuality they have (bihacking) or train themselves to overcome barriers to polyamory (polyhacking), but others are going to have an extremely hard time with that. Nor is it reasonable to expect people to do conversion therapy on themselves to suit other people's tastes or beliefs about friendship.
The only circumstance where I'm naturally a top is if the other person is more bottom-y than me. But even then I'm only a *relative* top. Overall the friendship would seem really low energy and inactive to most outside observers.
Makes a lot of sense. Totally agree that life would be better for everyone if there was more awareness of people’s differences in abilities and preferences wrt to friendship. Btw never heard of bi or polyhacking before—interesting!
I read this a long time ago, and I found it again by chance. I'm interested about the fact that your primary relationships are your family and your partner - I'm assuming family is exclusive to people who are related to you by blood/raised you or were raised in the same home as you. In this sense, I wonder if you don't feel as though you could feel a connection to a friend that is familial or natural in that way? I wonder if it is a question of having a really good relationship to your relatives and that being enough, or maybe the inherent sense of loyalty that comes with 'blood' - you know 'family comes first' and all. When people escalate their romantic relationships through marriage, having kids, the partner also becomes family. I'm rambling, but I feel so differently about this and it is surprising to read this perspective. I don't know what I'm asking maybe... Is there something less rewarding about when you do spend time with friends after they initiate, is it just more pleasurable or easy showing up for family and no other relationship if not romantic? Have you ever felt a sense of euphoria and deep intimacy with friends? I've read a few interesting texts on the element of romance in friendship, not what you may initially think... Have you ever felt a sense of friendship with a romantic partner, maybe before having initiated a relationship?
You also say that friendship is "valourized" in our current moment... that "marriage doesn't last but friends are forever" is apparently a common belief right now. I think just because more conversations about what people want or do not appreciate from friends are being had does not mean that there has been a true shift. I don't know of a type of relationship more pushed on people or seen as more aspirational and essential to achieve wholeness than being in a monogamous relationship - especially a marriage. The stigma around being, for example, a single woman after a 'certain age' as they say... the shame in 'remaining a bachelor' and not settling down. It is actually pretty accepted that 'after college, you lose friends" or "once you have kids and settle down, friendship takes a backseat".
I do have close friendships— closeness isn’t limited to my family and spouse— but if I didn’t have them, I wouldn’t feel like I *need* them. I have experienced a romantic element in friendship but I think it’s been more flirtatious for me than a serious romantic connection as an expression of the friendship. I have deeply loved having friends and felt deeply connected to them but I don’t long for them. I really appreciate them when I have them but I feel a lot more zen about how friendship ebbs and flows in my life compared to romance and family, which I feel a strong need for.
I have friendships with all my romantic partners, current and past. But their role is my life as a romantic partner makes them different.
True that marriage is still seen as the more central, life-defining relationship. My milieu is highly polyamorous and so there’s a particular emphasis on friendship first so I’m reacting to that.
Interesting. This raises the question of what should be considered an "orientation" vs just "a trait you currently have."
An orientation implies that something is innate, unchangeable, fine, and must be accepted by society.
"A trait you currently have" on the other hand, might be good -- but also it might be holding you back, making you and others less happy, etc.
How sure are you that your current approach to friendship is the former, not the latter? As someone in the middle (I think) of the friends-initiating distribution, it feels like I could increase or decrease this a good deal if it would make my/others lives better to do so. So, it does not feel like an orientation.
(As an aside, a similar criticism has been made of Myers-Briggs -- namely that, if interpreted as prescriptive rather than merely descriptive, it can lead people to create self-reinforcing stereotypes for themselves. Making everything an orientation could do the same.)
I think friendship orientation is exactly analogous to sexual orientation. People who are in the middle of the spectrum may not have strong preferences one way or the other, just as there are bi/pansexuals that feel indifferent to gender despite more restrictive sexual orientations existing. I agree with you that people should not reify self-definitions, but I also think there are people for whom a narrow orientation is very real and we should not push a cultural message that they could and should change themselves.
Most of all, though, I think it's useful to notice patterns and frictions in ourselves so that we can understand ourselves, focus on our strengths and find what works best for us. If I was focused on becoming a friendship top because I thought it was just a matter of effort, I think my potential to flourish would be limited, both because I'd be operating "cross class" and because others around me would view my shittiness at topping as being a shitty friend rather than being more open to the idea that I'm different and best perform as a friend in a different role.
My intuition differs on this, but I think the only way to really find out would be a study looking at how life outcomes/satisfaction changed when people are encouraged to be more outgoing as friends. I do worry that orientation applied to personality (in general, not on this specific issue in particular) could often give an excuse to people not to do hard work on themselves.
But I could be wrong! Just sharing that flip side of the orientation coin.
I agree that there are skills involved in being a friendship top that anyone could learn and benefit from. I just disagree that it would ever feel natural or come easily to some people. Depending on their situation and how much they need friends, being more proactive as a friend might be exactly what they need. What I'm describing is people's natural tendencies, and pointing out that people will vary in how strong these tendencies are.
This is very insightful and enlightening – for me anyways.
I'm Sad now that I realize that I've often thought about, e.g. flakiness, as something blameworthy. That's particularly Sad because I think I'm generally pretty good at charity, even towards much worse behavior!
I've long thought about the differences in 'friendship styles', tho without the convenient handles this post provides. Most of my friends are individual relationships, tho there are some weak ties to specific groups too; tho almost all pretty small groups. I also enjoy many weak, but still intimate, relationships with people I regularly encounter, like neighbors, or shop owners.
One difference might be that I was _somewhat_ able to be a (weak) 'top' in otherwise tenuous friendships. My 'hack' was to, when I learned a friend's birthday, add it to my calendar. Contacting people on their birthdays seems like a reasonable Schelling point and a good way to maintain minimal, but still regular, contact.
Sadly, I just started removing friend's birthdays from my calendar – because they weren't even contacting me on my birthday. I think I'm just missing friends (and a romantic relationship) and – so you've convinced me – unfairly punishing my distant bottom-friends out of resentment. (I want some (more) friends that wish _me_ a happy birthday!) I think now, thanks to you, that I should maintain the distinction between what kind of 'friend activity' I want, and what any particular friend is capable/willing to give me.
I think one aspect tho that's still hard, for some people (e.g. me), to handle is 'flaky talk'. It's hard (for me) to reliably translate what flaky people say into reasonable expectations. I haven't been able to entirely dismiss any expectations without also falling into 'friend nihilism'. Maybe it's unavoidable that each friendship has to be independently calibrated.
Thank you, I'm so glad this was helpful to you!
Re: flaky talk, maybe you can you could discuss the friendship orientations concept with your friends and use it as an opportunity to ask for real honesty from them and ask them to abide by what they do agree to, even though they might think it seems rude to tell the truth when they don't really want to hang out. Maybe they just aren't used to being able to be honest, especially about feeling conflicted about doing the kinds of things friends are "supposed" to do, or having someone require real honesty from them. They might even be less flaky just from knowing they know they can trust you to be honest going forward.
I have previously brought up 'flaky talk' with a few friends, and I think that, for most friendships, making explicit adjustments or accommodations might just be 'too expensive'. The 'transaction costs' of negotiating, and enforcing, a new 'friendship regime' seem steep – or seem like they seem steep to others. (I suspect they are steep.)
And, personally, my own feelings are complicated because I myself am guilty of flaky talk too at times. I know I've been on the other end of this resentment – a few friends have brought this up to me, about me. I think my own feelings are just redirection/projection (because I _would_ like to see certain people more or more often), and not because of, e.g. my own improvements at talking less flakily.
But now that you've pointed this all out explicitly, it does seem much easier (and less fraught) to think about it clearly.
I’ve struggled with the feeling that I should be acting certain ways in friendships a lot. It’s incredible how judgey people can get when relationships are imbalanced in terms of effort. I guess they are protecting themselves from others’ opportunistic free riding? It really punishes those who are built different though.
For me, the orientation framing isn’t ideal, because I find my ability to invest effort into my friendships changes, and is also dependent on life circumstances. My personal frame is that I have executive functioning, energy and anxiety difficulties (autism lel) that impact my ability to put effort into relationships. This lowers the pool of people who will befriend me, but I remain open to befriending both tops and bottoms. I think if I had all my challenges accommodated completely, my natural orientation would be top, but I’m ok with how things are now.
Do you have any of the energy etc stuff going on, or is it purely preference? Either is valid imo
Energy levels are definitely a big part of it for me. I think it's valid to describe friendship bottoming as an orientation or a tendency because I need to be super emotionally comfortable and confident and on top of my life to act more like a top. Without that surplus my natural tendency is to be less proactive or withdraw from active participation in friendships. But, as with sexual orientations, I think very few people are obligately one way or the other, but somewhere more on the middle of the spectrum, and the right circumstances could have them behaving outside of their general orientation. I also think some people can bootstrap themselves from friend bottom to friend top just like I think some people can tune up whatever low level of native bisexuality they have (bihacking) or train themselves to overcome barriers to polyamory (polyhacking), but others are going to have an extremely hard time with that. Nor is it reasonable to expect people to do conversion therapy on themselves to suit other people's tastes or beliefs about friendship.
The only circumstance where I'm naturally a top is if the other person is more bottom-y than me. But even then I'm only a *relative* top. Overall the friendship would seem really low energy and inactive to most outside observers.
Makes a lot of sense. Totally agree that life would be better for everyone if there was more awareness of people’s differences in abilities and preferences wrt to friendship. Btw never heard of bi or polyhacking before—interesting!
I read this a long time ago, and I found it again by chance. I'm interested about the fact that your primary relationships are your family and your partner - I'm assuming family is exclusive to people who are related to you by blood/raised you or were raised in the same home as you. In this sense, I wonder if you don't feel as though you could feel a connection to a friend that is familial or natural in that way? I wonder if it is a question of having a really good relationship to your relatives and that being enough, or maybe the inherent sense of loyalty that comes with 'blood' - you know 'family comes first' and all. When people escalate their romantic relationships through marriage, having kids, the partner also becomes family. I'm rambling, but I feel so differently about this and it is surprising to read this perspective. I don't know what I'm asking maybe... Is there something less rewarding about when you do spend time with friends after they initiate, is it just more pleasurable or easy showing up for family and no other relationship if not romantic? Have you ever felt a sense of euphoria and deep intimacy with friends? I've read a few interesting texts on the element of romance in friendship, not what you may initially think... Have you ever felt a sense of friendship with a romantic partner, maybe before having initiated a relationship?
You also say that friendship is "valourized" in our current moment... that "marriage doesn't last but friends are forever" is apparently a common belief right now. I think just because more conversations about what people want or do not appreciate from friends are being had does not mean that there has been a true shift. I don't know of a type of relationship more pushed on people or seen as more aspirational and essential to achieve wholeness than being in a monogamous relationship - especially a marriage. The stigma around being, for example, a single woman after a 'certain age' as they say... the shame in 'remaining a bachelor' and not settling down. It is actually pretty accepted that 'after college, you lose friends" or "once you have kids and settle down, friendship takes a backseat".
I do have close friendships— closeness isn’t limited to my family and spouse— but if I didn’t have them, I wouldn’t feel like I *need* them. I have experienced a romantic element in friendship but I think it’s been more flirtatious for me than a serious romantic connection as an expression of the friendship. I have deeply loved having friends and felt deeply connected to them but I don’t long for them. I really appreciate them when I have them but I feel a lot more zen about how friendship ebbs and flows in my life compared to romance and family, which I feel a strong need for.
I have friendships with all my romantic partners, current and past. But their role is my life as a romantic partner makes them different.
True that marriage is still seen as the more central, life-defining relationship. My milieu is highly polyamorous and so there’s a particular emphasis on friendship first so I’m reacting to that.
I think I understand now why you didn’t want to swap numbers after our lovely, explicitly non-romantic chat at the Meetup. 😌 I like your writing.