There are no neutral people in your life. I think I first heard that statement from the Michael Basiden show . He or his guest expounded, “People are either hurting or helping you. There is no in- between.” As I get older I couldn’t agree more. When we examine our relationships using this very definitive standard we discover quickly how few people are present solely to promote our personal progress.
If we assessed our affiliations in the context of whether or not they added value to our lives many of us would find ourselves with a handful of people who enhance rather than hinder our personal growth . We are so entrenched in dysfunctional activities and relationships whose sole function is to detract value, yet we fail to sever ties as we are bound by a sense of duty , obligation or necessity.
I’ve heard responses to this idea including that relationships are a give and take, people (including yours truly) have flaws and there are no gray areas. Yet I can’t help but to stand by this very absolute standard. Within the ebb and flow of all of your relationship you must ask: “Is this person helping or hurting me?” Once you truthfully answer, the gray areas will become plainly black or white.
I am not suggesting that you eliminate those you deem a hinderance because quite frankly for many of us our connection to these individuals may be unbreakable. What I would like to offer is that we better prioritize how much attention and energy we give people based on their ability to “add value” to our lives. By giving more of our energies to those individuals who add value and rationing our resources to those who do not, I am confident that the inhibitors of your progress will slowly eliminate themselves or at the very least minimize their level of interaction with you.
W. Reid
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 13, 2009 at 10:18
Mocha Dad
I don’t think this issue is black and white. All of have have moments when we hurt others and when we help others. We have to decide if those that are hurting us are worth keeping around no matter how much they have helped us in the past.
June 15, 2009 at 10:18
Wenylla
I think you just agreed that the issue is black and white with: We have to decide if those that are hurting us are worth keeping around no matter how much they have helped us in the past. That is a very clear cut statement to me.
June 15, 2009 at 10:18
Push Nevahda
I understand both pov. People aren’t perfect though, and I certainly wouldnt like to think that I could easily discard someone from my life simply over a matter of whether or not they were hurting or helping me. Life is too complex to be that arbitrary in ho wwe deal with folk. I’m flawed too. Sometimes I’m a great friend, lover, father, whatever; sometimes I’m not. But that applies to everyone. So, then, the problem with the statement is that it is too divisive, isolationist, and plain ole inhumane (whether Baisden said it or not). We – all humans – need to keep on with the struggle of how to find better ways to accept the people in our lives for whom they are rather than what we want them to be. Thats love. Maybe your statement speaks more to the economy than to the current state of personal relationships. In other wors, perhaps it is economically/financially wise to shut people out of our lives. I dont know. But in this situation always put yourself on the opposite side of the dilemma. (Thats how you see it from a human perspective.)
June 15, 2009 at 10:18
Wenylla
I don’t recall stating that we should shut people out, quite frankly there a people in our lives that we can never shut out, I do however believe that we can prioritize how much attention we give the Debbie Downers, Kevin Kill Joys, Tommy the Takers or Judy the Jerks. If at any moment you occupied any of the above categories on a consistent basis, the level of attention you recieved would be drastically reduced.