I am lacking some fundamental aspect of being; an incompleteness that suppresses appreciation for individual human interaction. This deficiency does not lessen the value I perceive in the individual. I have said many times, and I very strongly believe, that each individual is every bit as necessary as each and every other individual. I believe this lack of appreciation, (or shortcoming as some would see it), is more a reflection of (what I perceive as) the speciousness of most individual human interaction.

To express appreciation for another individual as a connected part of the whole is okay. But to gush over an individual or small group of individuals and not understand their specific individual contribution(s) is not okay. I see anything beyond “Thank you for being here, for being you, and for being part of the whole (or team)” as gushing. Phrases such as “everything you do” and “we couldn’t do it without you” are unnecessary and, (especially if the gusher does not understand the specific individual contribution), manipulative; and thereby, specious.

Like every functioning human I have known, I have a deeply-rooted instinctive desire to be understood. Yet this desire in me, does not come out as an equivalent desire to seek human interaction. I suppose this is partially because when human interaction seeks and finds me, I am too trusting; then I am let down, and disappointed; and then I am angry. Outside of human interaction, this anger maintains and keeps me outside of human interaction. In the interactive moment, I am a sponge soaking up all the understanding, only to become disappointed in the next moment.

So what am I lacking?

Is there a limiting mechanism that aids most individuals in tempering trust? Or perhaps another that tapers anger? Or one that compacts and discards disappointment? Now the question becomes, if I could acquire one or all of these regulating devices, would I choose to do so? Or am I at an advantage with no limitations on my trust, disappointment and/or anger?

I want to believe that my lack of governance is an advantage that helps me to better understand reality; and I want to believe that if more individuals were too trusting, then severely disappointed, and in turn consistently but rationally angry, we, as a species, would exponentially increase our odds of survival, or, at the very least, discover, practice, and work to perfect an ever-evolving, enlightened, living justice. Even if that proverbial meteor, no matter our effort, one day wipes us out, wouldn't it be nice to take care of each other in the moments or days or decades or centuries we do have left?

There is a significant amount of wasteful individual human interaction. Many though would argue that common courtesy and a show of respect is necessary for productivity and progress. This is a valid argument. And I would also agree that gushing can and does encourage and motivate some; perhaps many. But those who are encouraged and motivated by gushing, are being guided (or manipulated) into actions that suit the agenda of the gusher. So as long as the gusher is good and just, I guess that's okay; but we should be skeptical; we should ask questions; and we should not lose sight of personal individual contributions that work more effectively toward goodness and justice.

So where then do we draw this line to halt the advance of individual human interaction? For me, it should definitely be laid down to turn back gushing, and in many instances, I would like to see it deter most unnecessary pleasantries and inanities unless they include applicable and/or compelling humor, or unless they are coming from a very significant other. I also believe that this line should be drawn according to the setting or circumstance. For example, on the job, minimal gushing is to be expected and as discussed above may be necessary; but excessive gushing is likely to be seen by most for what it is—manipulative—and may ultimately be counterproductive. And as also said, pleasantries from a significant other are, well, often very pleasant. And even the occasional gushing from a significant other may be welcome and productive.

Obviously there is no hard or fast rule for extent of individual human interaction. I believe my takeaway from this written thought is not about where to draw the line (especially when interacting with others), but more about encouraging less (human interaction) to accomplish more. Not only would we accomplish more because we would be trading pleasant inanity for the potential of productivity, but I also believe if we allow an unencumbered naïveté to trigger disappointment and in turn strategically stoke a slow-burning rational anger, we are more likely to see reality for what it is.

I don’t believe individual human interaction should be nonexistent; but I do believe that today, there is an inordinate quantity of unnecessary, ineffective, counterproductive, wasteful individual human interaction.

We can do better. We should do better.