I once had a close friend whose method of disconnecting from things, eras in life, and people was much different than my own. He would put a lot of time and energy into building something awesome, then enjoy the fruits of his labor for years, only to one day kick it to the curb calling it a worthless piece of junk.
Nothing he called “junk” was junk at all. He simply couldn’t see how to bring the object, habit, or person into his next phase of life with him. Since he couldn’t form a plan to mix the old with the new, he automatically thought that the old must be gotten rid of. Labeling it as worthless was the only way he knew how to depart from it.
The gap in his reasoning evolved from his belief that by that point in his life he should know how to handle life. To save face from not knowing that more options for dealing with the situation existed, his ego assumed that his default method of departure was the only way to handle it.
Respectfully departing would involve feelings of loss, disappointment, evaluations of love, and many other emotions that, in order to save face, he had a strong urge to hide. These, more positive, goodbye emotions were replaced with disrespect. In justification for his actions, he pushed aside the good aspects to focus on the few things he felt resentful for. Since objects and people are never perfect, flaws pointed out can hold a lot of weight, especially when other people feel as if the flaws are the result of some sort of personal failure.
If something is junk, well then obviously someone wouldn’t think twice about getting rid of it. But a pattern of calling once-cherished things junk just to avoid facing the loss…is, well, sad. But people do what they do and it picking up the pieces gives them more things to do.
Risk of being reduced to a stepping stone
Exposed to different peoples social rules and levels of what is polite. Also their own concept of time. Should one person feel that a week is a long time to go without some sort of validation of the relationship and you think a month is enough then the person with the need for a shorter interval for (not justification but…. What’s the word?) reassurance then the more secure person (assuming the ability to go longer periods of time without reassurance or change in the perception of the status of the relationship indicates less insecurity) must accommodate the insecurities of the other and add this action to the list of what friends are for. With insecurity comes a higher threshold for being let down. Those who are more secure and less in need of constant reassurance have stricter boundaries.
The weak minded are easily influenced by the opinions of other people whom they hold to be of better judgment or character than themselves. They often can easily hide behind confidence of intellect to mask their emotional insecurities. Justification for their actions is often sideswipe as unnecessary since there is most likely either no logical reason for their behavior to put into words or the logical reason is constantly deemed as a constant (which others are assumed to already know) by the mind and thus is never expressed directly. They apply salesmen desperation as hope upon outcomes involving people around them who depend upon them as fulfillment of their own typically social existence.
Rebellion is only a problem when it inhibits one from performing a seemingly normal everyday life and continues to push a person to make choices that continuous put them at a disadvantage to what they were perfectly capable of achieving. When the mind is sick with rebellion, it must rebel against anything identified as a social construct, out of shame from the fact that they, too, were sucked in and enjoyed it and also from fear that outsiders might actually figure out that their confident gait is hiding nothing more than a fool like they believe everyone else to be. Their constant rebellion, which may indeed prove positive at times, most often does nothing more for them than keep them running. This endurance depicts to the outside world that the runner is superior to what they are running from, that they understand it and thus have chosen wisely against such a thing, which can be anything, even a glass of water.