I have grown concerned during my NDT* about friends giving off signals of being isolated. This came up a few times in the Autism Spectrum series, as a couple of people wrote things that they didn't seem to realise were a little alarming. I just wrote a digression with a footnote paragraph a week ago about how quickly things can go bad.
It's fine when you are providing other usefulness for people, such as being skilled at a job, or supporting a family, but when that goes away and you are old I worry that what people will put up with will quietly lessen. We all underestimate our vulnerability to isolation and loneliness. I worry that Aspies may be more vulnerable, thinking that their lower (sometimes) social requirements and need for alone time to recharge is an automatic protective factor. "I don't mind that it gets quieter around here. I have always liked the quiet life anyway." But the death of an important person in their lives, plus a friend who moves away to go into a retirement community near her daughter in another state, plus a third emotional support who loses mobility,** and you are sitting at your kitchen table wondering who you can call. Or worse, you do not even notice that your growing irritabilty or discouragement even stem from isolation, for recognising that problem would suggest solutions immediately. You just feel more unhappy. And those who have restricted and curated their contacts have less margin. The possible others who are cheerful and more active become thinner on the ground.
**At first he can't drive at night or has to limit stairs; then he can't drive at all and relies on Uber and has trouble even with curbs; then he moves and sees so poorly that it is an effort to leave the house. Through it all you feel mostly sorry for him, not yourself. Yet both of you are gradually moving to less live contact. Live contact is important in itself, but it is also one of the drivers of phone calls, emails, texts, zooms. Those replace live contact, and all have been wonderful at creating at least a temporary increase. Yet for the old, even those go away, as the young, and then the middle-aged move inexorably to being with each other.
I have some knowledge about coaching people about how to reduce their isolation. One trail has been with my patients or their families at the hospital, coaching over many years people who really need to find a way to not be so isolated. But because that was a professional context, of people who had to be approached more cautiously and with full attention to both words and contexts, I didn't connect that to my other group of people who I have discussed this with. Family, including parents as they observed what was happening with people in their age group; friends, going through the issue with their parents, or people they knew who had restricted mobility or some sort of shyness that ran deeper than most; and people from church. My wife has been in contact with far more of those than I am. She does nursery and nursing home well. I do not. I have a very hard time with non-conversations.
I suddenly connected those two trails. Duh. I don't have to carefully calibrate hinting that people might want to discuss...and you might be more vulnerable than you think...
So in one of those "upon further review, I went about this all wrong" moments, I realised that all the advice I was going to give was pretty much general anyway (it just applies to Aspies who might neglect it more), so I should just write it here. It applies to you or it doesn't. It fits with everything else I've been saying for years as well.
It is more important that you commit to other people than that they commit to you. The key to being less lonely is to care more about other people, not get them to care about you. And this is not just the "if you are nice to people they will be nice to you" strategy, it works all on its own. Even if your love is not reciprocated (and that does really suck), giving it out improves your mood. The number of people you identify that you care about is a far better predictor of you sense of well-being than the number you identify you think care about you. It is strong enough that about a decade two decades ago I started to think that the amount given back to you was irrelevant. That extreme does not turn out to be true, which I admit does make more sense. Affection and commitment are ultimately interactive, after all. It is not good for man to be alone.
The way to become rich is to be generous. And no, not one of those New-Agey "money will flow to people who have a positive attitude" things.
We forgive others not for their sakes, but for our own. Also You Can't Forgive Your Parents, a sermon I never got to preach.
Giving attention works better than getting it.
My high school buddy Frank is in a group of mostly pastors who discuss difficult experiences, including grief and failure. He believes he would have long ago left parish ministry without it. One key is the commitment to the group they have, which is what drives the commitment to each other. It started as a "chat group" but grew into something more, something necessary. Intentional commitment is necessary.
But hey, starting with a chat group is fine, especially if you haven't got one. When you go out for lunch or otherwise get together with someone, don't say "This was great, we have to do this again soon." Say "Why don't we have lunch every month. Are Wednesdays usually good for you?"
How often would you attend a class if there weren't a schedule? How often would you go to church if it was a matter of fitting it in? We don't have children in order to be praised by them, but to nurture another human being and help them grow.
We go into relationships, not to get our needs met, but to learn to meet the needs of others.
Seek ye first, and all that. Look for opportunities to risk a bit more.
Love is risk, and there is no way around it. Freya India talks about how risk averse in romance her generation is, which she directly relates to fewer marriages, fewer children, less sex, less satisfaction. So avoiding risk is ultimately the bigger risk. I have a friend who has avoided commitment for fifty years. She talks about how few people she sees from not only the old days, but even her work days. I'm glad she volunteers, which she says brings her joy. I am petrified what aging is going to be like for her.
Marry the girl after this many years, willya Jasper?
Buy a ticket, Morey.
Fill out a pledge card.
Giving out is the foundation of the rest of the strategies. I'll come back with some more.
*Nostalgia Destruction Tour. I should have switched to the initials months ago.
The group I referred to is one that is highly stylized and for a specific purpose. As such, in the formal group, there is a contract specifying boundaries and most them regard conversation. We have three forms of communication for our conversation: one, just talking, two, privileged conversation, and three, confidential. Most readily understand confidential. As the most serious kind of verbal exchange we know that to breach it will cause terrible consequences. It is the other two where lines of understanding get blurred. I find person's trust in groups happens here when people are clear about its boundaries. Someone may share feelings/thoughts/motivations in a group setting as a way of exploring any of those. Not sorted out if leaves the conversation open; thoughts to be processed. For a group member to then share any of those with someone else outside of the group could, might, or would lead to false assumptions about the person that said/expressed them. This is privileged conversation gone sour as it was only intended for discussion only within the group. I treat what is said within the group to be conversed only within the group whereas others are not so principled. They bear the burden of the risks so involved.
ReplyDelete