[squigz]

Why would I seek emotional support from someone so disconnected from their emotions they can't show more than a "modicum" of vulnerability?

How could I trust someone's resilience when they don't show they've been through things that built that resilience, and demonstrate it?

How can I trust someone who so closely monitors how much and what sort of emotions to show to me?

[zozbot234]

Why are you assuming that someone who sensibly refrains from overly impulsive behavior wrt. showing their emotions (this is what "self-monitoring" ultimately means: we all do it in all sorts of social contexts, and it's a normal part of being a healthy, well-adjusted person) must necessarily be "disconnecting" from them altogether and lacking in emotional resilience?

[squigz]

If you manage to "self-monitor" all the time, and never show more than a modicum of vulnerability, that seems very disconnected to me.

Perhaps 'disconnected' is the wrong word, but what I mean is that emotionally healthy people feel their emotions and express them, not just hold them at arm's length and pick and choose which to feel and express.

[zozbot234]

On the contrary, part of being a well-adjusted person is learning how to express any emotion in a gradual and controlled fashion, without letting it dominate your behavior in dysfunctional ways. As the ancient philosopher Epictetus famously put it: "If anyone were to deliver your body in public to whomever he wished, that any passer-by might do as he liked with it, you would certainly be angry and indignant. But that you should then set your mind at the mercy of all the world, to be troubled and disturbed whenever anyone should happen to revile you--are you not ashamed of that?" In a way, this is at essence the underlying tension that's inherently in play whenever someone advocates for "vulnerability".

[squigz]

I don't see how being emotional vulnerable means letting your emotions "dominate your behavior in dysfunctional ways"