Not too long ago, my friendship theory went public. Whilst I received an overwhelming positive response, I have heard it all when it comes to people who disagree with my ideas on friendship.

I have no problems with the fact that they disagree, I’ve only claimed that this theory works for me.

If it doesn’t work for you, that’s because it’s not supposed to work for everyone.

Advertisements

Time and time again, I would hear the same responses one after the other. Every person seems to disagree for one of three reasons.

They are filtered through the way society views how we interact with one another and follow a series of (anti) social rules.

These are the arguments that are put forward by people who disagree with the theory.

ONE: People who understand it but don’t feel it applies to them.

They read the theory, but they don’t believe there should be such an explicit hierarchical structure, and say everyone is their ‘friend’ on an equal basis.

While I can understand that the theory is not for anyone, anyone who claims that every human being they know socially is on the same level, is well disillusioned or perhaps does not want to think about it because its very confrontational.

TWO: Those who either understand or don’t understand – but they’re just trolling, but I still have relatively good relations with them. When the teasing gets quite strong, I begin to call them a frenemy (friendly enemy), with more emphasis on the friendly than the enemy part. When my theory came out, it became a tool for the frenemies to use. All of this is within playful banter, so it is pretty harmless.

THREE: those who criticise, without understanding intentionally – just hate for the sake of it.

They say the most ironic rubbish to judge me and my ideas and it really does not make any sense. Without truly understanding the premises of the theory, they accuse me of hurting others.

They say I’m too sensitive, too brutal, trying to be divisive etc, without being able to offer a tangible argument.

I have not once, had an intelligent conversation with someone where it has been proved that the theory hurts people.

The worst the theory does, it exposes and leaves little room for fake friends.

I get most disappointed when I meet the third type of argument.

If you’re going to disagree, do it intelligently with full knowledge of what you’re disagreeing to.

You cannot reason with a person who listens, only to think of a comeback rather than listens to understand.

Unfortunately, the third argument is the most common.

I think the reason for this is people have absolutely no idea how to discuss friendships.

It’s not figured out properly, and therefore everyone seems to think of letting friendships exist and depart naturally.

But the truth is, it’s not natural. Human beings are selfish, cowardly, lazy, and forgetful – and this is how friendships breakdown, by a lack of effort.

My theory brings to light the idea that not everyone is equal, and specifies what levels there are.