Personal Fragility

In the prior post I opened the discussion of anti-fragility and fragility, focusing for the most part on large entities like nations and economies. In this post I want to address how the framework tells us why we as individuals (and small groups like families) are fragile. The next post will continue the discussion and suggest how we might become more anti-fragile and what that means for us and for those around us. 

We know that a system or organism is anti-fragile if it can grow or improve when subjected to certain types of shocks or stressors. Being fragile, on the other hand, refers to an entity that responds poorly to stressors or disruptions. We also know that entities (humans for this post) can be anti-fragile in one arena and fragile in another, and can be either in degrees. A person might be anti-fragile toward investment disruptions because she has spread her wealth over a wide number and types of financial opportunities, possibly including gold under the bed. But she might be fragile in her relationships with co-workers because she has a high need to be liked. I am some degree less fragile to my anger than I was before I started working on the issue. But at a deeper level this really means that I am less fragile to not getting my way, which is what much anger is all about, protestations of angry people to the contrary notwithstanding. 

What does it mean to have personal fragility? As mentioned, mostly it is being harmed and possibly diminished by challenges from people or events. This harm arises mainly from our need to have things work exactly as we want them to. Since nature generally does not oblige, we suffer, and we generally inflict that on others.  

Where does this fragility come from? Two big sources are the views, beliefs and attitudes we have about ourselves and the world, and our emotional needs. As I have mentioned in previous posts, some views we have about ourselves, such as that we are objective, fair, inclusive, compassionate and tolerant, may well be partially or totally false. Views about the world are often similarly dubious, such as that there is a single and simple Answer to everything; that humans are infinitely perfectible; that things can be seen and understood solely in black and white terms; or that a lot of or no government will solve all societal problems. These simplistic nostrums clearly make a person or group fragile. Even if these views are not outright wrong (I happen to think they are), they are at best incomplete. Held as correct or complete when they are neither pushes the one holding them into fragility because reality will win out, one way or the other. 

Personal needs are also a huge factor in our fragility. People with high emotional needs are very likely to be fragile since they MUST have a certain outcome in stressful  situations, and respond unhealthily if they do not get it. Examples of these include the need to be right, for certainty, to win, to be loved, to precipitate conflict, to be secure, for order, to control, to be appreciated, or to be admired. At some level we all have needs like this, but they only become problematic beyond a certain point, different for each person---and for those who think they have no such needs, it’s best to lie down until the thought goes away. This needful state dictates that only one outcome is possible---a fulfillment of the need. But since the need is primarily the result of inner emptiness, it can never be fulfilled from outside. It is insatiable. For that reason, absenting great personal inner work or therapy, the person’s futile efforts never cease. Fragility is “institutionalized.

 

For those with high personal needs, each encounter with a stressor brings emotional upset, especially if it is from another person. I know a very bright and charming man whose sense of self is so delicate that he is endlessly on the look-out for slights and criticisms, most of which he manufactures. He is fragile to his very high need for validation and that creates unpleasantness in interactions with others. His need, like all such, is based on fear (terror?), in this case that someone will call into question who he is, which in his view they do constantly with their “insults.” 

Beyond the big fragility-inducing aspects such as false beliefs and major needs, simple everyday upsets are the main contributors to fragility. Some examples: The man in the market check-out line who wants to chat with the checker, distracting her. The driver who cuts you off. The spouse who sulks whenever he is offended. The diner near you whose voice could not get any louder if she were screaming. The friend who, in any discussion, liberally uses sarcasm. The person who, under the guise of righteousness, allows his anger to dictate his responses. A person who uses the counter-punch technique to vanquish others. The guilt-tripper. The list is endless, but the point is clear. We will encounter situations like this all the time, and if we respond poorly to them we have fragilized ourselves, and we pay the price. 

But there is more to these stories. People acting in these ways are clearly fragile themselves as they respond badly to difference or to upset, or who act in ways that ignore the well-being of others (loud diner). They all want something that they think or feel they can only get if they misbehave, often using the highly manipulative techniques mentioned above. Of course, there is no conscious recognition of this misbehavior. If there were, the positive stories they tell themselves would prove false, and that is unacceptable. 

This is not to say that all emotional upset indicates chronic fragility. Situational fragility can often be perfectly normal and even healthy. The loss of a loved one does not call for stoic pretending that all is well. Not feeling loss and great sadness is unhealthy, and, paradoxically, an indication of fragility. 

As we saw in the last post, fragility is exportable. In the personal realm responding badly to those acting inappropriately, as cited above, is illustrative. A particularly interesting example is raising children. Over-protective parents raise fragile children, ones who cannot deal well with distress or setbacks, whether those are physical, emotional or intellectual. Less protective parents raise children to be anti-fragile by ensuring that those children experience and learn from normal life challenges and disappointments. The latter are anti-fragile because they have reserves of energy and response (options) that take into account often difficult situations that they might experience. The fragile children have no such reserves.  

The challenging thing for parents is that they have to accept or even encourage in their children randomness, adventures, self-responsibility, mistakes, hurts, messes, uncertainty, and self discovery. But some do it anyhow, meaning they are anti-fragile (not uncaring) to their children’s troubles and development. Fragile parents, on the other hand, live in endless anxiety knowing they must be constantly on guard for the next challenge from which they must protect their child. Since this is impossible, they live a life filled with fear and anxiety.  

Most people have no idea that they are fragile, or that they are exporting fragility; they just know that things often do not go right. They maintain their fragility by assigning the responsibility for all things that go wrong or upset them to other people or bad luck. But some people are aware that they are on the receiving end of exported fragility. It could be from a spouse, life partner, other relative or friend, and I am familiar with a number of people who are in this situation. They have consciously accepted that they will be the target of an occasional unpleasantness. While I still see this acceptance as unhealthy for both, and indicating often significant fragility for the receiver, at least the latter is making a deliberate and informed choice.  

So where are we? Some readers will recognize the connection of being fragile to the Eastern concept of attachment. Both reflect the need to have things exactly as we want them, a futile condition. It is clear that chronic or inappropriate situational fragility is very undesirable, as we are constantly emotionally unbalanced and upset, prohibiting attaining deep happiness. It is also clear that we all have some fragile aspects. Deny them and we (and others) pay a big price. Acknowledge them and try to develop equanimity, and all is open to us. The prescription is to think, feel, and act in ways that express deep-rooted anti-fragility. Easier said than done, by a long shot, but I’ll take a stab at it in the next post.