Staying engaged

A fundamental value of life is achieving your values, and establishing relationships with people - no matter how profoundly important or superficial. Enlisting the support of others is the most compelling approach to achieving success. Some people see enlisting others to achieve your goals as 'using people', but there is nothing wrong with it if:
1. You are honest with people about your intent - they are not manipulative
2. Those relationships serve all vested interest groups - they are good for everyone

Most of us develop our relationship skills during adolescence. Sadly for many of us, we dont learn the explicit message that relationships offer a powerful means of achieving our goals. For this reason, we might be inclined to see relationships as an end in themselves...but of course nothing is an end in itself. Anyone who suggests there is really just hasnt identified their ends. The alternative end or goals are:
1. Non judgement - the sense that you might loose self-respect, whether it be from self-realisation or as a result of others perception
2. Loss of value - the sense that you might loose from a relationship, eg. a material loss

It is fair to say that people who have a strong ego but lack the validation of self-mastery or achievement will exhibit a greater degree of urgency with respect to achieving their goals. Hopefully they will remain respectful to the interests of their counter-parties or associates. It is common however for the counter-party to fail to appreciate the need for validation of these people, and indeed rebuff them as selfish, pushy or even manipulative. This is a misinterpretation which highlights a tendency for people to form judgements based on a lack of knowledge. Sadly people generally have a poor understanding of their own needs, and a poor understanding of other people's needs is a consequence of that.

Clearly the best chance people have for developing meaningful, goal-orientated relationships with others is to:
1. Know thyself - your values and your goals
2. Know your counter-parties
3. Interpret your counterparties values and goals to determine their level of commitment, historical performance, integrity
4. Make a judgement about their capacity to meet your needs
5. Negotiate a relationship

By negotiating a relationship I mean that you should never close a relationship unless a person doesn't respond to your needs. There are several possibilities:
1. Neediness: A counterparties need for validation is so great that it overrides your needs, leaving you unfulfilled. The best strategy is to tell the person how you feel, why you think its a problem, what you think the cause is, and then seek their feedback. They might not be willing, able or ready to change, but in a sense you have left the ball in their court, so you can continue with your life. I dont see this as disengagement, rather as engaging on your terms, and your communication should convey that.
2. Disrespect: A counterparty doesnt treat you with respect, leaving you feel demeaned, misunderstood or unappreciated. The best approach is to ask them to explain their actions with respect to concrete events to dtermine how they interpret their or your actions.

There is a tendency I think in the community for people to detach themselves from these relationships. Whilst I think a person should not place themselves in danger if they feel threatened, nor over-invest in other people's lives, I do see a value in constructive engagement, for being straight, for displaying empathy, and attempting to understand. I also see no problem in conveying that you are only prepared to do so much, spend so much time, or help so much. The problem with detachment is:
1. You might be misjudging the counterparty
2. You are causing confusion by not offering feedback - inevitability delaying any possibility of recovery
3. You are undermining the self esteem of the person (alienation)

The problem is people have a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes their self-interest, and helping others is often just not on the page. There are several reasons for this, but they largely all derive from a lack of efficacy in dealing with personal issues - whether theirs or others. This is actually an opportunity to correct the problem, but actually most people are inclined to avoid the confrontation. I would suggest that the reason is that parents did not develop these skills during childhood by in fact remaining aloof and not being engaged in their children's lives. Another motive is a social value system which places others on a hierarchical peeking order, where people are only interested in relationships which advance their standing in the community. These people dont see others as offering a sense of efficacy, but rather as pulling them down in their 'social standing'.

At the end of the day the intention is to:
1. Serve your own goals - this requires discipline and focus
2. Remain open to broader possibilities of achieving value
3. Advance those relationships in your life that serve
4. Remain engaged with people even if you dont enlist them in the achievement of your higher goals

There is no question that such a strategy will cause some resentment among others, if they see that you diminish your time for them in favour of others, but there are several positives from this strategy:
1. You are conveying the reality that your own interests are supremely important to you
2. You are conveying the possibility of a higher relationship in future
3. You are conveying the fact that you have a hierarchy of values
4. You are acting as a role model for your values, and if you are effective/successful, that in itself should be a powerful motivator (education) for them, and thy might eventually come to understand the nature of their own resentment or jealousy.

The tendency in society is to not apply this strategy but rather to:
1. Disengage: Rationalise that you have some very important things to do - to disengage
2. Evasion: Rationalise that you cant develop the relationship, eg. A sit aunt in town
3. Hypocrisy: Affirm that you really like them, but act in a different way.

People use these tactics because it suits them as a short term strategy for serving their interest, but in the long run it just causes confusion, ill-feeling and prompts the counterparty to 'feel the victim' because they see the lack of truthfulness. People will tell me that the 'direct approach' does not work. But realistically it can only work if a large number of people do it. But there are a great many spin-offs if people did this. If people acted with integrity and empathy I have no doubt that the insidence of psychological troubles would decline.

But its not just about how we relate to people, its also about the values we convey. The reality is that society regards religion (Christianity and Islam) as credible moral systems despite their impracticality. This contradiction can only undermine the efficacy of people's thinking, their self esteem and thus their psychological well-being.