really like what you do, but not in this case. if to compare what you wrote with a real life friendship (even the simplest), it will be like comparing a present time microchip with human brain.
a friendship is much more complex than what you described. It involves a lot more elements and it cannot exist if there is no respect and common interests.
If taking only the plain attraction - the maximum you can expect is flirt pal or sex pal, but not more.
If a relation is based on supply/demand it’s more likely that it’s an acquaintance, a work based relationship.
it’s much broader than that :)

Inca trei categorii de prietenie am gasit (:

1) prietenie din mila (asta in cazul in care unul din prieteni e o persoana puternica, care vede ca una mai slaba cauta prietenia ei si o lasa sa creada ca-s prieteni pentru ca nu vrea sa-i faca rau)

2) prietenie din frica (fricade a fi singur, adic exista cazuri in care nu ai de unde alege, ori ai un singur prieten, ori n-ai nici unul; poti face o paralela economica- monopol, existenta unei singure puteri comerciale care detine o intreaga nisa economica => lipsa posibilitatii de a alege => conformarea cu ceea ce este; ca si in acest tip de prietenie.)

3) prietenia colectionarului (am inceput sa citesc o carte in care se mentioneaza un personaj in primele pagini, care se prezinta ca fiind un colectionar de prieteni; pentru el nu e atat de important “cine” este prietenul lui, ci “ragul” acestuia si “importanta” in societate. daca largim sensul, putem obtine o intreaga categorie de prieteni care incearca sa aiba cat mai multi si mai diversi prieteni din toate sferele din pur interes sportiv, neimplicandu-se foarte tare moral si sentimental in vreuna din prietenii

4) asta asa… nu sh daca ai mentionat-o: sclavia in prietenie in numele iubirii, unul iubeste si accepta statutul de prieten doar pentru ca sa poata fi alaturi de celalalt; celalalt pastreaza relatia de prietenie doar din motiv ca-i convine devotamentul primului.

I think you jump to fast to calling friendship what is not. Many people in those categories are not my friends, they may be buddies, pals, mates, or using the Romanian language amici, tovarasi (not in the communist sense) and so on.

The only criteria I think is valid is “respect-based". The other may be at best illusion of friendship.

Quote:
> The difference is that you’re not offering a service to
> an unknown person in the street, instead you’re doing
> it for someone you’re familiar with.

I do exactly this, but not “in the street", but on various online places: mailing lists, forums and so on. You may call it “common interests friendship” but is correct when is about people you talk for the first time? And maybe only once?

Thank you for your feedback, I greatly appreciate your comments.

I realize that the descriptions above may not sound like something friendship-related, I anticipated such a reaction. However, I spent quite some time thinking things over, so I will try to support my statements with additional info.

Perhaps it is a matter of thresholds - when does one cross the line between ‘acquaintance’ and ‘friend’? Obviously, each of us has their own standards, but let us assume for a moment that we use the same threshold to define who are friends.

So far we all agree that a friendship is what was described in “respect-based friendship"; but you should try to make a list of people you know, and place them in these categories.

• Think about the way the friendship started; did you make contact because you liked how they looked? Because they had/knew something you needed? Or because you simply wanted to know them better?
• Think about the pulse of the friendship if you are somehow separated by time and space; will it be just as intense? Or will you hear “we’re losing him! Charge! Clear!” somewhere in the background?
• Is it mutual? Think about the other person’s motives to be engaged in the social connection, are they the same as yours?

I thought about describing friendship when I noticed that some of my friends were suddenly lost, off the radar, as if they weren’t there at all. In each case there was respect, and there was a broad range of common interests. We could spend days together, we went to each other’s birthday parties, we knew each other’s parents and siblings, and we felt at home in each other’s homes. I deliberately call them friends, because they were far closer than someone we refer to as “pal", “buddy", or “mate".

In other words, my point is that you should apply the above categories to those who you think are your true friends (according to your own definition), and you will notice that “all friends are equal, but some are more equal than others” :-) I thought I could get away with not coming up with a definition for ‘friend’ (because that would generate a lot of controversy).

It could be that even if you apply this scheme to your true friends, you really get nothing but “respect-based” friendship. In that case, the explanation is that your threshold is so high, that only a small group of people qualifies for the “friends” group.

Other points:

• People at work - not all my work colleagues are my friends. I get along well with everyone, but only a subset of them I talk about non-work topics, meet outside the context of the job, etc
• Helping people in the street, or on the Internet - I don’t call them friends, I call them “other inhabitants of the planet” :-) I find it perfectly normal to help a stranger, giving them directions or advice, or spending some of my time explaining something. There is no reason not to do that, my policy towards strangers is “trusted by default” (unless they give me reasons to think otherwise)
• Rarely someone will “perfectly” fit into one particular category. One of the ideas was to see how much of each element is present in the friendship, and then determine how reliable the friendship is (kind of like “phlegm, winter and water” make you a phlegmatic, while “blood, spring and air” make you a sanguine)

Olga’s suggestions make me think about an idea I failed to take into account - not all friendships are mutual. In a hypothetical scenario, all evidence points to the fact that someone I think is a friend really is a friend, and my analitical skills fail to detect the fact that I am simply being manipulated. I would call this category - “one way friendships". Otherwise, they seem to fit in the “supply/demand” category, because in each case one sees the other as a source/provider of something (ex: subordination, pity - which gives you the chance to be “the mighty and merciful Caesar", etc).

Indeed, you are correct, my threshold for calling someone a "friend" is very high. I know some people apply this label to all people they are talking with, but I (it may be caused by my engineering background?) insist in using the most accurate label.

About your questions:

• how it started? hard to say, probably people find themselves spending time together, discover a number of things in common and gather in time mutual trust;
• pulse? of course time and space will kill a friendship. old friends part their ways and when they meet find noting remained, only a convenience
• if is not mutual then why? why should I beg for frienshup to someone who does not find me good enough?

Scenario:

Your best friend (time-tested friend) needs an [insert organ here] transplant and you are a perfect donor match. As much as you want to help your friend, you don’t give up your organ. Your rationale: “what if my child ever needs this transplant?”

Discussion points:
1. The chances of your child ever needing the same organ are very slim. Is it irrational to think in terms of “what ifs” to such extent?

2. Timing aspects - your friend’s life requires immediate actions, while your child’s does not. Do you respond to immediacy and hope that in the future, if something happens to your kid, your kind gesture will be returned by another person? Is this hope justifiable?

3. Prisoner’s dilemma:
It seems more utilitarian to give the organ to the friend. Let’s say we universalize this example and all people choose to give the transplant to the friend. This allows a freer and more efficient movement of transplants throughout the community/world. This guarantees or at least increases significantly the chances of your child being saved in the future, if he/she needs the same transplant or even a different type of transplant. Conversely, if all people chose to hang on to their transplants thinking their ilk might need it in the future, then the organ market will become very rigid, resulting in many dead friends and children. So the best solution is for all to give transplants to friends. But how can you be sure that all will?

4. Motherly Feelings - how can you tell a mother that her fear of her child ever needing that transplant is statistically irrational? Feelings trump reason in the case of a mother-child bond.

5. Consequently, does your decision of not giving the transplant to your friend, label you as an irrational, selfish individual and a bad friend?

6. If tables are reversed and you find yourself in your friend’s situation, how would you react to not receiving the transplant and to the rationale behind it?

Vica, thanks for the interesting challenge. Before I tell you what I think about it, I have to let you know that the way it is worded is not very good - because the “OMG! Think of the children!” card comes into play. People are extremely sensitive when it comes to kids, by using these keywords in the problem’s description, you practically ask people to give you biased answers.

Point #4 is another appeal to emotion, this time it is the mother-child bond. Point#4 should only be taken into account if, and only if, #1 is true. There is no need to talk about mom’s feelings when the life of the child is not endangered at all.

I would choose to offer the donation without a second thought, unless of course I have reasons to believe that my kid may run into a similar problem (say, I am aware of some genetic defects I have passed on to my child). Otherwise I see no drawbacks, and the benefit is that I get to save a friend’s life.

I like the reference to the prisoner’s dilemma. The argument is reviewed in more detail in Richard Dawkins’ “Nice guys finish first” (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,305,Nice-Guys-Finish-First,Richard-Dawkins–BBC, there is a video there too). It is an old documentary, I strongly recommend it. The idea is very simple - altruism is a good strategy, and it gives the best results when everyone does it.

If someone chooses to exploit others’ altruism, they are going to be less lucky next time (check out “tit for tat", it is discussed in the movie too); so there are strong incentives to be good. It is tempting to cheat, but in the long run this strategy is inefficient.

Note that I have special views regarding friendship, in my case it is very easy to say “I’d go for the transplant without second thoughts", but this is because of some experiences other people haven’t gone through. [A poem about this will be published soon, I’m drawing an illustration for it now]

#5 is a good question. If I have reasons not to offer the transplant - then I am not selfish nor rational, it is a simple matter of choosing the less evil option from two evil ones. If I don’t have such reasons - yes, I am irrational. Check out “the ultimatum game", it is an interesting mind exercise.

I recently stumbled upon an interesting overview of the prisoner’s dilemma and the ultimatum game, as well as a discussion on the success of rational people: http://academicearth.org/lectures/evolution-emotion-and-reason-emotions-2

(I recommend you to go through the entire course)

Zilele astea tocmai gandeam la aceasta tema.. si ce as putea sa mai adaug. Cunosc oameni, printre care si ma aflu si eu, care au o tendinta, sa ii zicem asa, constand in a cauta prietenie cu oameni deosebiti. Criteriul “deosebitului” e pentru fiecare diferit, care de exemplu ii plac oamenii singuratici, pentru care extrainteligenti, carturari etc… Ce fel de prietenie e asta? :) Nu o pot categoriza la “Supply/demand friendship” pentru ca nu se foloseste de vreo capacitate a acelui prieten, nici respect based (pentru ca deobicei e unilateral), nici phisical, nici colectionar (tine la celalalt), nici mother-baby relation… :)

Hmm… eu cred ca e un fel de “supply/demand” friendship.

Demand = comunicarea cu oameni speciali si senzatiile pe care le primesti pe parcursul acestei interactiuni.
Supply = omul care poseda trasaturile respective iti poate oferi senzatiile pe care vrei sa primesti.

Intrebarea “de ce ai nevoie de astfel de senzatii?” e o alta intrebare, la care pina cind nu am raspuns. Dar banuiesc ca se poate de explicat simplu - e firesc ca oamenii sa tinda sa interactioneze cu alti oameni care seamana cu ei.

Supply/demand nu se limiteaza doar la “exploatare a unei capacitati obisnuite", ci si la “exploatarea capacitatii lor de a fi cum sunt” (singuratici, carturari, etc). Difereta e ca ei nu se simt exploatati deoarece nu ceri nimic de la ei (in mod explicit).