Yes, and — IMO — you should consider seeking out relationships with cumulative risk and reward if you don't have them already. Intimacy builds naturally in relationships where people aren't filling roles where they're fungible, like companionship. That's vital, but not sufficienthttps://twitter.com/simonsarris/status/1182344417887358976 …
-
Show this thread
-
Optionality isn't a *bad* thing, but it trades off against stability — if friends/partners can be replaced, they can replace you. An ideal cultural settling point allows people to abandon harmful relationships but feel secure in their net-positive ones during periods of turmoil
1 reply 2 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
Importantly, committed couples & tight-knit friend groups enable better & qualitatively different outcomes than a bunch of individuals engaging in one-off trades. You can raise kids, build orgs, buy costly communal goods/investments, create financial slack during volatile periods
3 replies 1 retweet 41 likesShow this thread -
This all sounds really clinical, but love itself is *necessarily* the kind of commitment I'm talking about. It's a word that's thrown around a lot, but I don't think there's any reasonable usage for "love" that doesn't imply a high-risk, high-reward investment in another person
3 replies 1 retweet 42 likesShow this thread -
To love someone is to make yourself extremely vulnerable to their own outcomes. If what happens to them isn't intertwined with what happens to you on some deeply important level, I don't know how you can call that "love"
10 replies 10 retweets 59 likesShow this thread
Love is SCARY and DANGEROUS. It's giving someone deep access to your well being. It gives them incredible power to lift you up OR tear you down.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.