[bgroat]

I agree with your distinction, but not with your degree.

It's *hard* v. *complex*, but it doesn't take as long as you'd think.

- Approach

- Chatting for an hour

- 10 texts back and forth to coordinate a meet

- Meet for 90 minutes

(repeat the last two bullets 3-5 times)

Is a pretty reliable path to "good friend".

Good friend is defined as: "Will reliable hang with you, schedule permitting 60% of the time you ask... and you will both have a good time"

Good friend is not, "Will donate a kidney"

[denton-scratch]

> Good friend is not, "Will donate a kidney"

I have a rather tighter notion of a "good friend". It includes things like "will not steal from me", "won't betray my confidences", "will be straight with me". Otherwise they're just mates; people I feel OK hanging out with.

I have no good friends just now, and I haven't had good friends for quite a few years. I don't think my standards are exacting; I have mates, but I just wouldn't rely on them. I'd be quite surprised to learn that they were relying on me.

A good friend is a scarce treasure. If you're lucky enough to have one, hang on tight.

[Edit] I don't think you can plan to make a "good friend". It involves trust, which involves time. You can make friends with someone in an evening, but I've never had a "good friend" that I've known for less than a few months. All of my good friends were people I'd known for several years, but it doesn't need to take that long.

[SoftTalker]

I like your definitions. And I agree, good friends are rare. I haven't had one since high school, nearly 40 years ago.

[bgroat]

I'd be willing to except that my definition of "friends" aligns with your definition of "mates".

Nothing too emotionally intense. Just a loneliness balm and reliable cool hangs

[lisper]

We're quibbling over terminology. To me, a "good friend" is a relationship that lasts for a long time, maybe a lifetime, and survives significant challenges. It doesn't have to be a kidney, but I think a friendship should survive, for example, a relocation. Otherwise I would call it an acquaintance, not a friend.

Acquaintances are indeed easy to make. The problem is, that kind of relationship is fragile and transient and superficial. I think most people want more. I know I do.

[danenania]

The relocation point is interesting. I have a lot of friendships that are in 'good friend' territory when we're in the same place, but otherwise go dormant for long periods. I'm ok with this and generally don't feel a need to try to change this dynamic with people. I guess they aren't close friends in exactly the way that you're describing, but they are definitely a lot more than acquaintances.

In a strange way I even feel that it can be a testament to the strength of the underlying friendship that we can pick up where we left off after years of minimal contact. I'm actually grateful for these kinds of relationships. I really don't have the time, energy, or desire to keep up ongoing text/email/social media conversations with all these people, but when we are able to meet up I have a great time and find it hugely valuable.

[lisper]

> we can pick up where we left off after years of minimal contact

Sure, but you have to actually do that from time to time.

I've lost count of the number of people I thought I was really close with who moved away insisting that they would keep in touch, and then I never hear from them again, ever after reaching out.

(Having kids is another reliable "friendship"-killer.)

[SoftTalker]

Yes, I've never had a friendship survive a relocation. Not to say that I dislike or resent any of these people at all; we simply never talk anymore.

Kids could possibly do the same especially if your friends are not also having kids at the same time. Kids can also easily contribute to the making of new acquaintances (parents of other kids) as well. These might turn into friendships, or might fade out quickly once the kids' interests diverge (or they grow up and leave the nest).

[actually_a_dog]

I think I'd count those "dormant but not dead" relationships as good friends, myself, provided that we end up seeing each other semi-regularly (say, minimum every couple years or so).

[actually_a_dog]

+1 to this. I have a lot of problems maintaining relationships of any sort once the "proximity effect" no longer applies. I suspect many people do, which is why most people lose all their school friends after they leave school, for instance.

[roofone]

I like the straightforward, logical approach -- it's helpful for me to think about the process in those terms. Thank you.

However, thinking about the process this way makes it really apparent that I've got no desire in trying to make friends -- each of those steps individually feels like a nearly insurmountable nightmare for me... much less doing all of them (and more than once!).

[bgroat]

And that's kind of my point.

The little bit you know about me from this thread... would you want to grab a beer if all you had to do was read the text and confirm you were available?

These steps ARE scary for some people... and that's okay... I'm happy to do it. I just want to get to you know you!

[roofone]

That makes sense and I appreciate the reply.

I'd probably choose not to grab a beer -- unless the social cost/effort in saying no was higher than saying yes. Quite likely I'd feel put upon with having to respond in a way that I thought didn't offend you...and all by pithy text messages. What a hassle!

Totally get that's a me problem though and I'd fall into your 70%.

Thanks for the insights though -- I find the concept of friendship fascinating (if perplexing).

[bgroat]

In my mind this was was “best case engagement”

I told you what I’m about.

You told me your preferences.

They don’t mesh, so we both split after having spent a pleasant 90 seconds