On friendships, balance theory, transitivity, and the art of being loved.

One of my least favorite things is interpersonal politics. In the past few months I have been introduced to a wide variety of people who make and maintain relationships on an us-versus-them basis. There is a tacit support economy going on in these interactions -- if you diss my ex for me, I will diss your ex for you. If you come to my party, I will stop interacting with someone you dislike. If you vote for me, I will be friendly behind your back as well as to your face. Now that I am paying attention, I think that that is how 95% of people work.

It leaves me at once horrified and worried for my future. I don't have the time or inclination to invest in intentionally building up a network of people who will diss on the people I dislike and support the people I like, in exchange for me following their lead on who they like and dislike. And I am not interested in having the sort of person who would be that petty as a close confidante or friend. But I've realized recently, since I don't play along, I tend to end up alone, frozen out, and gossiped about when people who do play these games try to collect me.

Apparently I am going against human nature in my life-and-let-live desire that everyone interact with those they like and hold their tongues about those they dislike (well, actually, I guess the vegetarian thing isn't all that natural either). At least, "give up already, Master!" is what balance theory tells me. Balance theory says that any affective triangle between things must be balanced, that is, have a positive sign. In other words, the following situations are stable:

1. Two people are friends. They both like the third thing or individual.
2. Two people are enemies. One likes the third thing or individual, and the other dislikes it.

And these situations are unstable:

1. Two people are friends. One likes the third thing or individual, and the other dislikes it.
2. Two people are enemies. They both like the third thing or individual.

In the unstable situations, as long as the third thing or individual is salient enough, it causes cognitive dissonance. The individuals in question, subconsciously or consciously, endeavor to resolve the situation, through:

1. Switching their friendship status,
   
2. Switching what they like and dislike, or
3. Rendering that third thing or individual no longer salient.

As I'm writing this, I'm realizing that I tend to opt for #3, and hate on #1 and #2. Most people, it seems, opt for #1 -- as I've mentioned, to my horror.

This is why breakups and non-secret elections ruin friendships. It is also is why I'm no longer close with someone who had been seriously crushing on me, and why she is still endeavoring to become close with anyone I show any interest in making friends with.

It also works in a kind of tension with another finding from network analysis -- standing between two other people who don't interact themselves puts you in a strong position. Then you can govern when and how those individuals interact, and much of the information that they have regarding the other one. On the other side, to avoid being caught as one of the ends of the triangle, it is best to try to complete the relationship and make friends with the other triangle leg. Completing the triangle decreases the likelihood that you'll end up frozen out, derided, or gossiped about.
This phenomenon is one of the reasons many people don't share their friends until they have to. (It is also tied closely to management promotions: managers get promoted who are particularly talented at maintaining their central position by keeping people away from each other.)

The new thing for me in all this is the idea that some people intentionally seek out and foster relationships on the basis of these ideas, just to have people who support them and won't backstab or gossip about them. Until a few months ago, I had thought all these phenomena were naturally occurring and never intentionally manipulative. But no. Some people -- I would even say "a lot of people", especially those who are charming, functionally extroverted, and have high EQ -- make friends with people so that those same people won't be their enemies, and they work to make friends with a wide variety of people so that they themselves are always in that central position. They manipulate situations so that they come out safe.

Me? I am blown away. And I still can't decide whether I want to devote the amount of time to playing this friendship game that I would need to play it well, or whether I even want the sort of friendships that come out of treating other people like pawns in pursuit of feeling safe and good about myself. But it isn't as if choosing not to play is safe, either -- not playing leaves me an army of one, surrounded on all sides by alliances snubbed by me daring to like and dislike individuals as I please.