of trust and personal censorships

Two of my closest friends each made a rather huge revelation over the summer holidays; friend A announced that he will be discontinuing his studies at his current university and restart his first year in another university while friend B said that there is a high probability that he will stop studying at his current university because his first year grades didn't meet the required
standards.

What struck me most wasn't the gravity of the announcements themselves; rather it was the way, the tone in which those announcements were made.

I sensed that friend A tried to inject some humor into his announcement in an effort to give it a slight tone of light heartedness - though I thought that it was obvious that the subject was anything but humorous to him.

It felt as if he is trying his best to conceal his true feelings towards the matter by showing that he is not nearly as affected by the matter as he ought to be; he wanted people to think that the matter is not really a big deal to him, and it should be so too for others.

I don't pretend to be expert in reading other people's true intentions or thoughts, but I think I am sufficiently able enough to tell whether someone is trying to hide something from me, having being their friend for the past two years.

In my opinion, friend A's effort to conceal his true thoughts rings hollow through and through; it lacks the sincerity of emotions one would come to normally expect from the announcements of such nature.

I admit that everyone is entitled to select or filter the emotions and thoughts which one want others to accept or perceive - there are plenty of other less self-centered reasons for doing so. But where should line be drawn between self-censorship and trust?

I suppose the criteria for deciding between the two are of personal nature and it should be left entirely to the discretion of that individual.

But isn't the whole issue about censorship of any kind is that it breeds mistrust and animosity between the one enforcing the censorship and the target audience?

I believe a reasonable amount of censorship necessitated by a sincere and thoroughly insightful motivation are healthful in the long run; the interests and well-being of the audience should be given the utmost priority whenever such censorships are planned.

However, when the censorships are imposed solely to protect the interests and position of the censors themselves that it ceases to be an indispensable mechanism to protect and preserve and becomes a ruthless mechanism to subdue and stiffle.

And when that happens, the imposition of censorships will start to work against the interests of the censors themselves; indeed it will be detrimental to the censor's original cause of putting those censorships in the first place.

Those who underestimates the resourcefulness and ingenuity of their charges will come to realize that doing so will greatly compromise the long term stability and security of their position.

Their actions achieve nothing except create enemies out of their own audience or charges.

Like most things, one's initially noble and admirable intentions might eventually be perceived as self-centered and opportunistic once personal gains start to take precedence over the interests of others.

In short, those who think that they can have the cake and eat it as well are only hastening their exit or demise.

Therefore, in the case of friend A, I felt that it would have been kinder if he is able to tell his complications the way it really is without any need to glaze over the emotional repercussions.

That is not say that he should bear himself out entirely to others but at the very least allow others to emphatize and share his disappoinments or lingering regrets rather than putting a stoic and impersonal face to the world.

It is not bravery when one have to interchange between two diametric emotions to suit different circumstances; if one can hold one's head high in one situation, then being brave dictates that one should be able to do the same in all situations.

Multiplicity is not a sign of bravery; it is a sign of fear.

Of course, I am not accusing him of being a liar; but I sort of wished that he could realized that telling the matter the way it is and sharing his true emotions with me would not make me think any less of him.

I just wanted people to know that for once, I will refrain from being too critical or judgemental towards them; I want people to be able to tell me something without any fear of being rebuked.

If friend A hesitated to bear his true emotions to others, then friend B must certainly lie at the end of the spectrum.

I was taken aback by his calm composure when he told me about his unfortunate situation; he seemed so practical when he talked about it, always looking forward and never showed any wish to dwell on the issue much longer.

Unlike friend A, he didn't make an effort to lighten the matter up - he spoke of the matter as the way it really is. He explained the string of events which lead to this situation, any further actions he have taken and his own thoughts about the matter.

His concerns at the moment are mostly practical rather than sentimental in nature; he seemed eager to get over the matter and start something new as soon as possible.

I guess that is one way to cope - to always look ahead, keep moving and never pausing for a bit; for I think he is afraid that he might remain stationary indefinitely if he were to allow himself to think too much about it.

I admire his steadfastness and his courage to bring himself to tell others about his circumstances and I appreciate his efforts to inform me about it.

When you think about the issue as a whole, it is amazing how deceptively simple it is to either inspire or destroy one's confidence and faith in someone; one way is to make people think that you are coping well with it while the other is to set out the facts of the situation and allow the goodwill of others to decide for themselves.

It is true that one should be given the liberty to decide how one should reflect about our own circumstances; whether one should feel good or bad about it or the things one should continually tell oneself in order to cope with it.

But I believe to expect other people to feel the same way about it by carefully potraying the situation so that it would elicit that particular response in others is nothing but a lame effort to protect one's ego and image rather than to seek true empathy from others.

In such situations where I personally believe that the concern of others are most desperately needed, doing so will only sow further doubts and mistrusts.

Isn't that too much trouble to inflict upon oneself on top of all the dissapoinments and regrets one already have to bear with?