I have a pretty high level of default trust in people. Not so much that I would loan any person on the street $5000 or something, but I default to cooperate. I’m a software engineer, and a white male, so generally high social-economic status, which means that it is easier for me to trust, as I have backup when I do wind up getting burned. I’m not driven to try to make big changes in society, but rather prefer to be the change that I want to see in the world.
I generally find that vulnerability is strength in several ways. First, when you are vulnerable, it is easier to get the help that you need, because you can just ask for it, rather than being circumspect. Does this increase the possibility that someone fill knock you down more? Sure. Most of the time though, even if that does happen, there are others that will help you up. Like when I am having a bad brain day, I will tell my coworkers if it is relevant. Often by doing that, I can work on tasks that require less focused concentration, and more creativity, or work with others directly. My team does the same, and because of this, we are better able to make up for each others shortcomings.
The most important strength in vulnerability is the connections with others that it brings. When you take a risk and share important things about yourself, it puts people at ease with doing the same. This lowers the barriers to empathy, and builds trust, which are really the foundations of any relationship. I’m not particularly charismatic, but I can get along with just about anyone, and I make friends pretty easily.
One of the most useful forms of vulnerability that I have found is related to your 9th footnote. I think of it as blackboxing people. Basically, I try not to infer intent, and rather take people at their word. When I am confused, I ask. Often disagreements start with a poor interpretation of intent. It’s easy to ascribe behaviors of others to malevolent intent, when often they just didn’t properly anticipate the consequences of their actions, and how that affects others. Even when there is some actual antisocial motivation, being understanding and patient can be effective. An example of this was when my partner saw one of her neighbors had a lamp of hers in their apartment, after it had gone missing from her porch. Instead of confronting them with anger, she instead approached it with curiosity, and asked him about it. At first he was very defensive, but after he saw that she wasn’t accusing him of stealing, he wound up giving her her lamp back. Was he lying about not meaning to steal it? Likely, but it didn’t matter: he didn’t care about him being punished; she just wanted her lamp back. Because she focused on the result, and not his intent, she defused what could have been even a dangerous situation.
Professionally, I would be a lot more open with the work that I do if that were possible. I believe in the power of open source software. I have contributed to several open source projects, and often when I come across a problem with some library that I use, if I am able I will post a fix for it. I wish that I could share my main project more broadly, but unfortunately that’s not just my decision. Still, I actively work to release as much code as we can, so that others can benefit from our collective efforts.
I really do think that if I were in a room with 100 clones of me, that we would generally get along. I could trust them to make a best effort to be true to their word, and care for the group, even when it is hard. I’m not exactly sure what we would do, but I think that we would be able to form ad-hoc cooperatives to take on any task we need. I’m the kind of leader that likes to lead by example, and is more than happy to share power. As long as I’m feeling heard, I don’t have to get my way.
I don’t know how well this generalizes though. While I would get along with a 100 clones, there really is something to be said for people that approach life from a more competitive perspective. I’m a terrible entrepreneur. Money and power just aren’t interesting to me as anything more than a means to an end. Don’t get me wrong, I gotta pay my bills just like everyone, but money isn’t going to motivate me to work 60 hours a week to do it.
Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply.
I basically agree with everything you say about the upsides of vulnerability and trust. It’s important to have this written down so one doesn’t forget it when operating from low trust, so I’m glad you wrote it.
I just feel your ambition level is much lower than mine so the downsides of openness are smaller for you. I’d probably have the same level of openness as you if I had the same career goals as you (work 40 hour weeks on software my whole life, retire peacefully?).
I have a pretty high level of default trust in people. Not so much that I would loan any person on the street $5000 or something, but I default to cooperate. I’m a software engineer, and a white male, so generally high social-economic status, which means that it is easier for me to trust, as I have backup when I do wind up getting burned. I’m not driven to try to make big changes in society, but rather prefer to be the change that I want to see in the world.
I generally find that vulnerability is strength in several ways. First, when you are vulnerable, it is easier to get the help that you need, because you can just ask for it, rather than being circumspect. Does this increase the possibility that someone fill knock you down more? Sure. Most of the time though, even if that does happen, there are others that will help you up. Like when I am having a bad brain day, I will tell my coworkers if it is relevant. Often by doing that, I can work on tasks that require less focused concentration, and more creativity, or work with others directly. My team does the same, and because of this, we are better able to make up for each others shortcomings.
The most important strength in vulnerability is the connections with others that it brings. When you take a risk and share important things about yourself, it puts people at ease with doing the same. This lowers the barriers to empathy, and builds trust, which are really the foundations of any relationship. I’m not particularly charismatic, but I can get along with just about anyone, and I make friends pretty easily.
One of the most useful forms of vulnerability that I have found is related to your 9th footnote. I think of it as blackboxing people. Basically, I try not to infer intent, and rather take people at their word. When I am confused, I ask. Often disagreements start with a poor interpretation of intent. It’s easy to ascribe behaviors of others to malevolent intent, when often they just didn’t properly anticipate the consequences of their actions, and how that affects others. Even when there is some actual antisocial motivation, being understanding and patient can be effective. An example of this was when my partner saw one of her neighbors had a lamp of hers in their apartment, after it had gone missing from her porch. Instead of confronting them with anger, she instead approached it with curiosity, and asked him about it. At first he was very defensive, but after he saw that she wasn’t accusing him of stealing, he wound up giving her her lamp back. Was he lying about not meaning to steal it? Likely, but it didn’t matter: he didn’t care about him being punished; she just wanted her lamp back. Because she focused on the result, and not his intent, she defused what could have been even a dangerous situation.
Professionally, I would be a lot more open with the work that I do if that were possible. I believe in the power of open source software. I have contributed to several open source projects, and often when I come across a problem with some library that I use, if I am able I will post a fix for it. I wish that I could share my main project more broadly, but unfortunately that’s not just my decision. Still, I actively work to release as much code as we can, so that others can benefit from our collective efforts.
I really do think that if I were in a room with 100 clones of me, that we would generally get along. I could trust them to make a best effort to be true to their word, and care for the group, even when it is hard. I’m not exactly sure what we would do, but I think that we would be able to form ad-hoc cooperatives to take on any task we need. I’m the kind of leader that likes to lead by example, and is more than happy to share power. As long as I’m feeling heard, I don’t have to get my way.
I don’t know how well this generalizes though. While I would get along with a 100 clones, there really is something to be said for people that approach life from a more competitive perspective. I’m a terrible entrepreneur. Money and power just aren’t interesting to me as anything more than a means to an end. Don’t get me wrong, I gotta pay my bills just like everyone, but money isn’t going to motivate me to work 60 hours a week to do it.
I hope that some of this is helpful to you.
Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply.
I basically agree with everything you say about the upsides of vulnerability and trust. It’s important to have this written down so one doesn’t forget it when operating from low trust, so I’m glad you wrote it.
I just feel your ambition level is much lower than mine so the downsides of openness are smaller for you. I’d probably have the same level of openness as you if I had the same career goals as you (work 40 hour weeks on software my whole life, retire peacefully?).