Recently, I've been thinking about a question: should one partner with familiar people or with strangers in business? My intuitive feeling is that collaborating with familiar people makes communication easier, but it can also be harder; partnering with strangers is more formal, but it can be less flexible. Over time, strangers can become familiar people. If I consider the need for security, I tend to prefer working with familiar people, but for sustained stability, strangers might be more reliable.
This brings up another question: whether familiar or unfamiliar, it's best to choose partners of the opposite sex. Perhaps because I am a woman, I am more wary of the emotional nature of women; to put it nicely, it's "emotional," and to put it bluntly, it's "losing rationality." I recall some same-sex partners I worked with on projects, and beyond dealing with the professional aspects, there was often a clash of emotions. I admit I am not particularly rational, and if my partner is also not rational, it can lead to situations of "infighting," and I have experienced failures in this regard.
Does being of the opposite sex guarantee rationality? Not necessarily; many people in the arts are more emotional than rational. There have also been many failures in this context. As a result, I prefer to collaborate with "outsiders." Although outsiders can sometimes interfere, at least they rarely exhibit the "I invested, so you must listen to me" kind of disruptive behavior. The few times it has happened mostly ended with a consensus before the investment. Looking at it this way, I feel quite lucky.
It might also stem from a deep-seated insecurity; if my partner is in the same field and happens to have some status, I instinctively follow their lead. This kind of partnership, while unfair, feels safe. However, this raises another issue: what if the other party is "unworthy of their position"? Status is a mysterious concept, not solely determined by professional excellence, but influenced by opportunities, hype, qualifications, and other factors. I realized this issue only after wasting several years. But I am grateful for this understanding, as it has demystified some so-called "big shots" in my circle.
Later, when I took on projects myself, I still lacked confidence, worrying that I would disappoint investors, so I would always say to get the work done beautifully before collecting payment. Unknowingly, I ended up nurturing many "deadbeats." Looking back, there are indeed people in this circle who lack a sense of contract, but not as many as I thought. It was my insecure, people-pleasing behavior that turned those who originally had no intention of defaulting into defaulters; they found me easy to talk to and bully, so they prioritized settling with the "tough" ones and delayed or defaulted with me. Therefore, setting clear rules from the start, adopting a "first the petty, then the gentleman" approach can help avoid some troubles. Sometimes it's not that others don't understand the rules, but that I have not lost my bottom line; being bullied is also deserved.
In fact, whether collaborating with the opposite sex or with outsiders, the two are not directly comparable. Moreover, the probability of encountering the same issues is not high, so there are no fixed rules to follow; one can only respond to each situation as it arises. However, it can be affirmed that if we analyze the problem from the perspective of human nature, most of the time, projects go relatively smoothly.
At the same time, I realized another issue: social circles. What I mean is not just social status, but the overall perspective. Some people, even if they have high status, may still act in ways that disregard the rules due to their narrow mindset. However, if the social circle is high-end enough, it will naturally filter out some lower-level individuals. This is often the case with those who suddenly gain wealth. Online, we often see someone exposed or in trouble, and most of them belong to this category.
Therefore, striving to break into high society is not only about gaining more resources but also because people there tend to follow the rules. This is why some say: people in high society support each other, people in middle society compare with each other, and people in low society step on each other.
Broadening the perspective a bit, this applies not only to work but also to interpersonal relationships. Or rather, work itself is a part of interpersonal interaction. In a different context, handling relationships with parents, spouses, in-laws, siblings, friends, and neighbors can also follow these rules. Otherwise, why do some mothers-in-law like to set rules for new daughters-in-law? Smart girls are already doing the final screening when meeting the parents.
So, should we choose to collaborate with familiar people or strangers? I think this question shouldn't be rushed to answer; we should first consider how to handle our own relationships. Just like those who learn to treat themselves well are less likely to be bullied by others, this leads to the topic of boundaries. Or rather, this is essentially the same topic.
For those with a vague sense of boundaries, collaborating with anyone will not yield ideal results. We can believe in our kindness, but we must also recognize the human tendency to bully the weak and fear the strong. Perhaps being with people we are not too familiar with can actually be more relaxed. After all, there are not so many "handles" known to the other party. Therefore, solitude can sometimes be a form of self-protection, especially for "nice people" with weak boundaries.
Similarly, when accepting help from others, the same principle applies. Not wanting to trouble others also means not wanting to be troubled by others. Considering how to reciprocate before accepting help seems to be the most prudent approach. Just as when accepting an investment, one must also think carefully about how to earn the money back; when it comes to interests, everyone is calculating. At the same time, when the other party considers investing, they are also looking for value returns; while there is some element of personal favor, it is not significant.
Once we understand these issues, we need not be fixated on whether to collaborate with strangers or acquaintances. Helping others should also be based on whether they are worth helping. There aren't so many instances of altruism in this world, and moreover, the principle of "helping in emergencies, not in poverty" is the norm for most reasonable people.
We might as well place emotions last in our interactions with others; while this may sound harsh, it is more prudent. Don't parents also have the investment mindset of "raising children to prevent old age"? Otherwise, why are there so many "tiger parents"? It is also easy to understand the profit-seeking behaviors related to school district housing and key classes.
Perhaps the questions posed in the title have countless answers, and behind each answer is a complete logical thought chain and growth trajectory, so there is no fixed pattern to follow, just as success cannot be replicated. This also explains why we should read more. The more we understand, the deeper our thinking becomes; everything has its own trajectory. Reading and thinking simply bring us closer to these, allowing us to go with the flow.
Thus, the literal meaning is just the meaning of the words themselves, right? Not necessarily. Otherwise, why would there be reading comprehension? I suddenly feel that words are magical; running thoughts through words is a wonderful feeling.
The end