Loose Lips Sink Ships: But Then, How Do I Call the Coast Guard?

I was thinking recently about secrets. We all have secrets, some more than others. This is neither good nor bad, simply a fact of life. Otherwise, it would be like a scene from the Invention of Lying. But the interesting part is the decision process. When and why do we make the decision about what should be a secret?

In observing the people around me and comparing with myself and others, I notice a plethora of differences in mannerisms, morals, values, and general perspectives. Namely there can sometimes be a vast difference in the social habits of people in regard to how much information they share. The tricky part about this is that, based on what we tend to do with our information, our decision is often affected (or possibly affected by) our expectations about what a social partner should do in return.

A conversation works thusly - I supply an utterance. You respond. I respond. We continue along merrily until time is up or we become tired. Within this pattern, if I provide a certain amount of information, generally I expect a somewhat equal amount in return. If I am a person who shares great amounts of information, I may begin to develop a vast array of ideas on why you are not contributing as I do. The reasons do not matter so much as the fact that I'm now in a position to question our interaction and possibly even our relationship.

So what would cause one to share more and another to share less? Certainly it could be the dreaded basic fact that the other does not wish to participate - you're just not that interesting. Please go away.  On the other hand, believe it or not, some people are simply not prone to sharing. It has little or nothing to do with their valuation on the friendship, but rather, the information.

I realized that I have been raised in the context of a certain sub-culture that values quantity over quality. [I'm only now beginning to realize the extent of this dynamic - keep an eye out for my memoir on that.] But as far as secrets go, this means that there must be a good, solid reason for me to keep a secret. I can keep them - this is not an issue of trustworthiness.  But, I generally require an explanation or a logical reason that said information needs to remain confidential. This is because if I were to interact with my family and close friends, or even any friends for that matter, I have been led to believe that a proportion of silence to communication is a signal that the interaction is unfavorable. When it comes to social relationships, the rule is "just keep talking." If you value the relationship, then you value their opinion. Even if you know it will be to the contrary or disagreeable. Yes, even if you know they will attempt to disarm you with largely uneducated "facts" until they are blue in the face. You bring it up anyway because the act of sharing is caring. If the other were to find out you are keeping information (in the case of awkward dead end conversations where one abruptly answers a question with "We don't need to talk about that") then the interrogator feels slighted and offended. We don't want that.

Here's where my world has been forced to expand. I used to be that angry interrogator. I'm sure sometimes I still am. Then I began to notice what sort of information was being kept either by myself, or in a case more prominently behind my discovery, was meant for me to keep from others. I can't know much about the information kept from me. But I noticed a trend in the information that someone told me to keep a secret. Many times it was not information that I felt needed to be secret, at least I saw no logical reason for it. In fact, the information was the type I would most promptly share - the type of things you would be proud of even if currently incomplete or in the air.  Then I realized that this person fears for themselves the uncertainty of these potentially great tidings. In a way, they were attempting to shield their information. It was about the information itself and not who it was shared (or not shared) with. The information may be promising new projects, potentially good results, possible life paths that had not yet solidified and this person simply did not want to open the door for either Negative Nancies, or Happy Harries. Allowing unnecessary negativity in would be simply that, unnecessary at this point. Too many sets of "Congratulations" would be hell to return if the news did not follow through. While there were no ships to sink in this case, it just seemed silly to discuss the idea of an iceberg emergency plan with no ship to sail. This person believed, and often rightly so, in the power of words and thoughts. By hoping for the best turn out, they wanted to shield the plan/event/news from potential bombardments of negativity, competition, jealousy, and even ill-founded joy. They wanted to continue living in neutrality until the news was confirmed. And that is their right.

I certainly can attest I have participated too long in too many conversations. Like with a child who continuously asks "why" from sun up to sun down - a few responses can be instructional, but after a time, you realize they were just trying to bait you for no reason at all. I'm sure we've all been sucked into arguments that found no resolution and only left each party more aggravated than when they went in. We've often found out "TMI!" about people in our lives that is now permanently and utterly seared into our brains. These are the risks I take as a sharer, and these are the risks others avoid in selectivity. But our intentions are generally good either way. I share to show pride, interest or concern about information. Others keep secrets because of pride, interest, or concern about the information. Things to remember the next time you sit with a dubiously silent comrade.