Few good friends are better than many acquaintances... sure?
I often hear something along the lines of "It's better to have few good friends instead of many acquaintances" and different variations of that phrase which seem to convey the same point.
I would like to ask you why you think such phrase would apply or "be true"; and why, according to you, the opposite ("it's better to have many acquaintances than just a few friends") would be bad.
I'm growing up and though I had the former attitude in the beginning, I'm starting to feel that the latter is more true. I won't say why yet. For now I just want to re-assess why that phrase/saying is so accepted world-wide...
If they are real friends they are people you can trust, rely on, talk to about things that go beyond small talk and you'll have a connection. Those are worthwhile things. Having many acquaintances means you'll have people to say hi and bye to, maybe people to do things with and talk to on a very superficial level, but you'll be holding people at arm's length. However, whilst having a few good friends is great, letting them get close to you gives them more of an opportunity to hurt you, whereas acquaintances might irritate you, but probably won't be able to hurt you. Overall, I'd prefer a few friends to many acquaintances, BUT... all the better if you have a few friends AND many acquaintances.
I think this is also what I usually used to think: I had many acquaintances and few friends.
But let me elaborate on why I think that - for my life - it's more convenient not to have any too close friends at all, and distribute/share my time with everyone equally (even if they're thousands...):
As you said, the closer the friends, the more they know about you, and if anything negative should happen, the easier it is for them to hurt you than if anyone else does.
That's just one point. I think there's more...
The more they know about you, the easier it is for them to "control" you in some way. Even if they do it unconsciously, they create this kind of dependence and bond that remove some freedom from your own actions, thoughts and opinions.
Throughout the years I constantly had this impression that my closer friends influence me a lot. Whereas I have more freedom to "do the things the way I want" when I'm working or hanging around with people to whom I don't reveal a lot about myself.
Close friends have the ability to humiliate you in public without even knowing that they're doing so. Simply because they joke around unconsciously and don't know what effects might be produced.
And there's another thing that makes me prefer a bit of distance rather than too close friendship: when I'm with people who don't know too much about me, I can flexibly use my authority; whereas among too close friends, I'm the village idiot :P
It's nice to joke around and trust me I have a great sense of self-humor (which I'm quite popular for), but even that doesn't work when it comes to demonstrating some authority if my too-close-friends are around.
BTW Have you ever experienced situations in which you're with your close friends and you are trying to flirt with someone you just met... and your friends just start joking around and ruining everything?
That's number one reason I don't want close friends anymore.
And then... all the silly comments in social situations...
no, I'm fed up with that.
I think you're too orientated on control to be honest. That's exactly what close friendship is about... losing some control over the situation. If close friends humiliate you, either itntentionally or unintentionally, on a regular basis it means that they are not considerate of your feelings at all, and I'd question whether they are *good* friends at all. If certain people have constantly made you feel like you're the village idiot or marginalised you frequently, again, I'd question whether they were really such good friends. After all, a friend can be close without being a good friend. However, it is possible to have both. Just difficult to find.
Today, 01:35 AM