I was faced with a choice: I could interject myself into her life, or I could respect the boundaries between us. Intervening might make her feel worse, or be inappropriate. But then, it might ease her pain, or be helpful in some straightforward logistical way.
Ease the author's discomfort, more like. If you need to think about whether to approach a distressed person, chances are that your subconscious is telling you to leave them the hell alone.
I disagree. It depends a lot on your type of personality. But if you are an introvert you think a lot about weather to approach a (distressed) person or not. And ultimately are almost are never going to do that.
If you just listen to your "subconscious" and not making an intentional effort of being more open to people this will negatively impact social interactions.
You won't do it. I'm not sure that's quite the same thing. I found that my social interactions improved greatly when I stopped going to the effort of making myself be open with people and started being vastly more selective in who was worth the time.
But are your assumptions correct? Just because you recognise situations where you would want to be left alone, is it not possible that extroverts wouldn't want to be left alone in those same situations?
>chances are that your subconscious is telling you to leave them the hell alone
The funny thing is, what is really happening is that it is hard to differentiate between reality (where there is no real evidence that strangers want to be comforted by us, and 9/10 times if you say "are you ok" and they will sniff and say "yes" then go on crying) and the feel-good stories we read about where a brave soul breaks through stifling conventions to reach out to another human being in need.
Which is ironic given that the author is complaining about how technology stops us connecting from one another, while the original technology that started this trend was the written word:
>So that perhaps, after all, there is more life in me than in you. Look into it more carefully! Why, we don't even know what living means now, what it is, and what it is called? Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise. We are oppressed at being men—men with a real individual body and blood, we are ashamed of it, we think it a disgrace and try to contrive to be some sort of impossible generalized man. We are stillborn, and for generations past have been begotten, not by living fathers, and that suits us better and better. We are developing a taste for it. Soon we shall contrive to be born somehow from an idea. But enough; I don't want to write more from "Underground."
In most cases, crying or bleeding strangers will use a handkerchief I give them. Bottles of water are also a hit with bleeding or sick people. It also gives them a chance to talk to me if they want. Sometimes they do, most of the time they don't, that's ok.
(I wanted to cite your post, but the relevant part is too long. HN could use citation boxes, I guess.)
"I apologize in advance for bothering you. If you need someone to talk to who doesn't know you, isn't going to judge you, and will probably never see you again, I am here."
Doesn't hurt to say something along those lines to someone in distress or down. If they shoo you off, that's okay. Better to do something and fail, than do nothing and wish you did. Introverts know the "shoulda coulda woulda" feeling all too well. And most of the time, upset people simply need an ear, and maybe a hug.
Good grief, no. If you want to help someone in emotional distress, offer them a tissue or simply ask 'can I help?' Don't make a speech in praise of your non-judgmental character.
I've had providing comfort to distressed people blow up in my face twice before along with some quite unpleasant accusations. And I know of other people who've had similar experiences. An old scout master a few houses down from mine when I was growing up was accused of abusing this kid who thought very highly of him when he left the area he used to live in - the kid eventually admitting he'd just made it up. I think the kid thought of him as a kind of father figure and when he left viewed it as abandonment.
Helping upset people exposes you to risk. If their life is messed up to the degree that they're crying in public, there may well be a reason in terms of how those around them have tended to treat them, how they've learned to treat others, and how they manage their personal life.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying do or don't do it. But if you are going to do it spare a thought to your liabilities. In my experience upset people stand a massively above average chance of attacking you socially. Don't go (or talk!) anywhere alone with them, don't give them your name, don't touch them, don't tell them where you live. Try to avoid talking to children at all, that's a whole bucket of crap you don't want to mess with.
You only have to comfort the wrong person once to do incredibly damage to your social and professional life. Think very carefully before you involve yourself in anyone else's life.
Personally I don't do it for anyone I don't know well and consider to be fairly stable anymore, it's just not worth the risk to me.
It just comes down to values, in my opinion. For me, if I have to question whether or not to approach a distressed person - then it makes life not worth living. To me, what is the point in life at all if we are to not reach out and help one another? Am I right about this stance? No. Just a question of my values.
You can still help people if you ask whether you're going to or not. Presumably you wouldn't go around helping people commit/get/achieve evil things. It's just another selection criteria - what's your risk in all this?
Maybe that seems a self-centred way of thinking to you. Most people seem to want to believe that their actions are motivated by compassion. However, I don't think this is incompatible with a compassionate system of thought: if you're in a situation where people love you and vest their trust in you... where they invest in you in other words... do you really have the right to take a high risk on yourself?
Maybe you have children or a job or something - I don't know. It would seem kind of selfish to risk the welfare of your kids to help one person right in front of you. To risk, beyond just your kids, all the others who are networked with you and benefit from your presence for the welfare of one person.
You can stand to lose those relationships if people attack you socially, and those people can stand to lose you. The cost of helping the wrong person is potentially all, and to all, you love and/or invest in.
From a compassionate standpoint I'm not sure that's a trade-off that makes sense anymore than it would from a purely selfish standpoint.
Ease the author's discomfort, more like. If you need to think about whether to approach a distressed person, chances are that your subconscious is telling you to leave them the hell alone.