I was thinking that the subject of friendship, probably one of the most influential forces in human relations, is under-discussed in philosophy/ethics. Friends are just as important, if not perhaps more important than family. They shape our lives, and we shape their lives. A lot can be told about a person by who they make friends with.

So I was wondering-do we have ethical responsibilities to our friends that we do not have towards other people, or do we just act like we do? What makes a good friend, truth and honesty in a relationship? Or does it depend on the friendship?

the answer to the first question I find really hard. People should have responsibility towards all people, but humans are limited by their nature so perhaps the extra care and love we give towards our friends should be something we afford to all people but naturally cannot?

Im really too tired to write up something very good right now-I want to see what you ppl say about it.

so what i am hearing is that you would treat your friends differently than you would with outsiders? your moral behavior is as dubious as your refusal to help the tsunami victims.

As opposed to milton, who splits his time and resources equally with all people's of the world?

All people being identical in worth, and not being constrained like the rest of us with a physical body, milton of course achieves this effortlessly.

Extra attention and time should be given to dealings with friends, because they are different from everyone else.
The thing is to make sure its not just your friend's status that makes them different, that your justified in your descrimination because of the people they are.
Just as love shouldn't be unconditional, so neither should friendship, and failings and evils committed by a person should never be ignored just because they have "friend" status.
To do so is a weaker version of the woman who stays with an abusive husband because she "loves" him.

Well, barring that statement (which I disagree with 100% which I chalk up to the fact you're not at the point where you've had kids or been married), it's a good topic. Family is THE most important thing in life. I might take a bullet for my friends - I might even take one for a stranger under the right circumstances, but I would do anything to protect my family. Anything. No matter how otherwise wrong, stupid or whatever. That is the only group on this planet that I give that type of unconditional love and loyalty to.

I have to say, getting back to the topic of friendship, that I've found that over the course of my life while I've had dozens of people I'd call friends, that I have only had perhaps two or three that I felt such a bond with that I would put them in that highest category of friend. And I couldn't give a satisfactory answer as to why. It's not really the length of time of the friendship. It's not even the amount of time I'd see the person on a regular basis. It's not even having more in common with them. It's just a sort of.. clicking that happens. Perhaps I'm rambling on a bit, but to explain a little more it's almost like once in that rare long while that you have one of those friendships it's almost like you compliment each other. That you are just really, really happy to be in that person's company.

I sometimes catch myself wishing to find that type of friendship again when I think about it.

necrolyte asked 'ethical responsibility', not about my perceived liklihood in seeing reciprocal actions, which doubtless change my distribution of resources. of course, i can see why you are unable to differentiate these two divergent standpoints as they do not offer you the opportunity to bullshit a para or two.

your constant need to expound tangential and irrelevant points have once again led you astray and veered off the path.

Acow-sometimes ignoring Miltonius is an art well-learned (and oft forgotten on my part) to being a UPer

I like both of your responses. I was thinking something similair about unconditional love and being willing to do anything for someone-we shouldnt be willing to do anything for someone who would abuse that, as perhaps those are not the kind of people who we should surrender unconditional love and care for. And DS, we should be wary sometimes of being unconditional towards our family, as they can abuse unconditional love (look no farther than a younger sibling who mooches of her older siblings and does shit knowing you'll bail them out.)

I know that kind of friendship DS-I really love those. I've had VERY few of those-even some of my best friends I miss that with, where even if we have seperate interests, I feel like I can hang out with them anytime, and that I can chill with them without having to maintian conversation and small talk. You might be right about family and friendship and their importance on us-its probably my college student status your right.

so you believe then that moral responsibility is the same as complete impartiality in your redistribution of personal resources?

i can see why you'd change your topic to accommodate acow's points. your moral grounds are untenable and weak. indeed, a classic case of necrolitis constantchangesis.

Milton: "blah blah blah negativity; fake whit blah blah. Rhetor blah blah..."

Ideally, we should treat everyone with the same amount of great respect.

Realistically, friends (true friends with whom you have disagreements every now and then, but always resolve them) deserve more than a stranger from you, even if only because they're your friend. Obviously, they had to do something to get to that status or els ethey wouldn't be your friend, right?

Right, and you responded that because he acts differently towards his friends than he does to outsiders, that his morals are dubious.

Then i think i said in technical terms: Milton, fecal matter is pouring out your mouth again.

Of course, god forbid someone suggest that ethics and co aren't two divergent standpoints...sorry we can't all live in your ignorant little world where such things are just known by all to be fundamentally seperate and taken for granted.

DS:



If your wife spontaeneously, cheated on you, cut you with a knife, and left you for another man, would your love still be unconditional?

If it turns out that your child is not your own, but actually genetically this other mans, and she is taking them to live with him, does this change anything?

your contribution, as usual, reiterates only the points made by others. good job. ferran. let's just quote the poster whom you plagerized from and be done with it.

acow,



once again, acow, your inability to construct any arguments have led you to post yet three more paras of worthless junk. are you not the same person who just lambasted those who cannot proffer 5 dollars for the tsunami relief? were you expecting repciprocity? no? yeah, i thought so.

from that simple example, we can plainly see that reciprocity is independent of ethics.

now, of course, you weren't able to capture the word 'reciprocity'. instead, you used the word 'co', which i assumed it to be co-operation. your inability to read aside, the two concepts are different. while i understand that if you were to stay on the topic, you wouldn't be able to write much b.s., please refrain from going off on tangential topics in the future.

and yes, reciprocity is taken for granted. too many literatures exist to show us that.

I would be hurt, I would be furious, and I might even not want to ever see her again - but yes, I would still love her I think, at least part of me. It's not an on/off switch I can flip. Incidentally, I imagine it would be possible to both simultaneously love and hate the same person for various reasons.



My sons are always and forever my sons and I'll never let anything break that. Though I'd obviously be hurt and angry if I found out they weren't genetically mine, my love for them can not be diminished. That much I do know for sure.

3 paragraphs of, one whole sentence in each.
Careful milton, you'll strain your eyes if you read so much.
Though still, i see your reading comprehension hasn't improved much.
Lambasted those who can't afford to give? Would this be in the same posts where i said that not giving can be acceptable? Where i said i'd given nothing?
Where the entire post was about people who CAN afford to give something?
Oh yeah, i gave them a real going over...



I honestly don't know why i bother to post sometimes.
Where did i talk about ethics?
Where did i imply recpiprocity?
I could actually type out that killing is wrong under all circumstances, and you would still come back and call me a killer.
Why don't you go join Ed, you could have fun with him and his leftists telling me that i think all military personel are immoral baby killers.



Such a method of abbreviation doesn't exist in my every day vocabulary. If you could kindly show me where i said 'co', it'd be much appreciated, because i just searched through said thread as well as this one and couldn't find it anywhere.
I find this perplexing, because barring someone else using it first, or it just being a typo, i highly doubt i would type such a word.



Damn i wish i could live in your world of economics and philosophy milton.

No need to think, or reason or queston or judge.
If people do it, or if its taken for granted, it must be valid.
Who needs philosophy in such a world.
Whatever happens is deemed correct.
As long as the majority think in such a way, it must be right!

once again, the junk has to be filtered. but that would leave us with nothing to go on since you continual inability to produce cogent arguments.



whoa, slow down there. do you need to lie now? is this compatible with your paltry philosophical learning that matches your equally horrendous knowledge in economics?

when lordbiteman spoke of the majority who couldn't afford to give, you promptly discussed how 'lexus' can be forego. indeed, you have lambasted those who couldn't give.



INTERESTING. so all this time you weren't discussing ethics? when necrolyte asked about 'ethical responsibiilties' to our friends?

you have efficiently wasted people's time with your ramblings, which you actually admit them to be of spams. take your bullshit elsewhere outside of this forum so we could address the topic in question instead of reading your off-topic musings. truly, if you weren't discussing ethics, then why did you posted all these crap here? just to spam?

or you talked so much you couldn't even keep your arguments straight anymore?



Of course, god forbid someone suggest that ethics and co aren't two divergent standpoints....

let's talk about reading comprehension.



ah, loads of bullshit just rolled off your tongue instinctively.
YOU said:"sorry we can't all live in your ignorant little world where such things are just known by all to be fundamentally seperate and taken for granted."

I therefore answered yes.

I didn't discuss its validity, desirability, or justifications. i simply disputed your claim that it is not taken FOR GRANTED.

let's discuss reading comprehension.

a restrain on bullshitting could cut down most of your mistakes stemmed from reading miscomprehension. while it is difficult for you to look back at your own writing and try to weed out varities of crap, you nevertheless should attempt to do so and get your arguments in order so to avoid self-contradiction. you have talked so much that you couldn't even remember what you have written in this thread. more reading, less talking.

Please dont egg him on acow, he's making a big enough ass of himself on his own.

Dragonspirit and Acow-would you fall in love with a person who would do that to you? Which means, can you have unconditional love for your idea of who someone is, and not the actual person?

Ferran-however you're not aware of the quality of the character of the stranger. That stranger could be a friend in the future, and is in the same place in your eyes that your friend was in before you knew him. Meaning when you refuse to help a stranger, you're refusing to help your friend. I dunno... what I just said reminds me of a Joyce essay I read in ethics class.

is that why you still refuse to answer the question whether or not you would treat outsiders ethically, necrolyte? what are you afraid of?

speaking of making an ass out of oneself, check this out.

If we have infinite resources of time and "money", then your obligations would be different. But since we do have limitations, then friends definitely get a bigger "share of the pie". That should answer your first question, Necro.

A good friendship would really depend on your interests. Just like lovers and family, you need to spend time with friends to make a friendship work. It is easier to do that if you have something similar. Similar interests makes the easiest way to get a friendship going. Work is alright, but not as easy.

I don't think I would, but you can't positively know. The fact that I love her is already done, checked off, in the books -- and I don't think she would ever betray me obviously. But if she did, it doesn't erase the fact that I love her.

ds,

paternal uncertainty is a huge problem in marriage and children tend to suffer as a result. now, i am wondering, how would you react to the kid if the uncertain has become an absolute certainty as the kid is genetically not yours? would you withhold your resources?

Honestly no, I would not withhold any resources or support just because genetically they weren't mine. I can't speak for others, but for me passing on my genetics is only a minor interest in any event. I love my kids not just because they are mine, but because I have bonded with them. I have fully accepted and embraced them as my children.

I believe that parents who adopt are just as capable, for example, to have the same level of love as any genetic parents in that same vein of thought.

I wouldn't even need a court to force me to pay money to support them in such a case btw. It baffles and saddens me that we have so many "deadbeat dads" in the world. I would always WANT to support my kids.

i don't understand why people think genetic resemblences is something that we keep in mind all the time. we do NOT do genetic calculations. this is an evolved mechanism where we are innately attracted to those who are similar to us. just like we do not consciously calculate the probability of burning our house down when playing with fire, we do not calculate genetic composition in our kins.

while we do not know how adopted parents fared, but since they had to go through so many hurdles just to adopt, it's likely that they are good at rearing the kids. but we do know that step parenthood is actually one of the greatest danger to the welfare of the child.

I don't deny that for many, it would change how they would treat their kids (or whether they would even consider them their kids anymore). I also admit that I prefer it to be this way - that they are my kids genetically as well. As I said, I can only speak for myself when I say at this point it wouldn't change anything in how I approach my relationship with them.

If I may paraphrase Aristotle, "A friend is one soul in two bodies" (Nicomachean Ethics, IIRC); and Cicero, "When one looks one a true friend, one looks, as it were, on a reflection of one's self. Though absent, they are always present, and toughest still, though dead, still alive." (Laeilius de Amicitia)

There's a number of people we call `friends` in the sense that politicians call each other `gentleman` on the House floor: it is merely a ephemism for something else, in this case, `acquaintancship.` These are people who we may perhaps spend time with, and even enjoy the company of, but out interests do not diverge outside of a few interests. While, to quote Cicero again, with a true friend, "one may discourse on any subject as though with himself."

If I may paraphrase Seneca as well, he begins a moral epistle with a remark that he asks Seneca not to discuss anything contained within the letter with the friend who delivered it; Seneca says that, at once, he has both affirmed and denied his friendship with the deliverer, the latter comming from "discuss nothing."

True friendship is, naturally, a rare thing - at most, it extends between only a small group of people; and many of us have no more than perhaps 3 or 4 over the course of our lives.

At the same time, I am willing to say that the bonds of this true friendship are stronger even than the bonds of family, for if goodwill is removed from family, the ties of blood still remain; while goodwill cannot be removed from friendship without destroying the thing itself.

One interesting point-some of the stuff you just said is from a Greek western standpoint. Friendship means something very different to easterners, who are caught up in manners of custom and respect, however friendship is still something which is a universal, human concept.

Caeleddin-what I'm saying though is that stranger which you dont help is someone who has the potential to be one who shares those interests or whatnot, and is the same to you as your friend before you knew him.

Dragonspirit-that comes down to your beleif that you've fallen in love with her, not your idea of her. Perhaps it is safer as a human to fall in love with our ideas of people.

really? perhaps necrolyte can elucidate on such differences. hopefully he could do a better job than remaining decidedly mum to his dubious ethical actions toward outsiders.

Necrolyte - Help is a broad term. If you mean helping an old lady across the street, then that is something that cost no money and little time. Helping a stranger out of a financial hole, is somoething else.

For strangers, I would do the former, but not the latter. For friends, I would do both. Why? Finite resources.

And, no, friendship is NOT very different to Easterners. It is different, especially where the boundaries are, but not VERY different. Take it from an Easterner.

Greco-Roman, actually; many of my views on friendship follow Cicero and Seneca.

And like Milton, I wait for you to elucidate more upon the difference, or at least direct me to some resources on the Eastern concept.

Adam, you are a Cynic

No, I'm a Stoic. I'm wearing a shirt.

Doesn't count. Now, if you were wearing a toga.....

hmm-the image of eastern friendship that I've gotten through immigrant friends, people who have experienced asians, and through reading is that friendship tends to be much more formal, and it lacks the up-front, honest nature of Western friendship. I could be wrong however.

You could argue that the view I've presented would have a highly formalised set of duties and obligations attached to it, even if there are not elaborate social customs attached to it (correction: not strict social customs we tend to notice)

It is less superficial, yes. But our friendships, REAL friendships, last a great deal longer. The Chinese, especially, tend to be more aware of the feelings of others. They don't have the "It is my right, so fuck you! I'm doing this" attitude.

For example, something as simple as a car-parking scenario. A car is backing out of a carpark. An Asian driver trying to get out would stop and let the car go out first. A Westerner would drive on, forcing the backing out car to slam on the brakes or back into it as it goes past.

It is the same with friendships. Westerners are more "honest". So long as they are in your face. Orientals are more circumspect, more willing to consider another's feelings. But if an Oriental truly considers you friend, I would prefer that to a Westerner that repeatedly proclaims himself your friend.

the problem with being over-considerate is it actually impedes another-I think anyone who has been caught at a stop sign when an Asian has stopped to wait for you when they clearly dont HAVE a stop sign. Being considerate towards others is good, but can be overdone for sure.

Oh, puh-lease.

You stretch that any further and it will be permanently deformed.

I said considerate. And I would still prefer for people to be over-considerate and live in a world of "me no like you! DIE!" Which would be about the right, if you go the other way as far as the example you have just provided went this way.

At the end of the day, people need to be considerate but honest, and selfless but not when common sense would say not to be.

If you over-regard other people's feelings, then you get a superficial society where your no longer talking to people, but people's polite image that they are exposing to the world.

so you attempted to dissect the eastern view on friendship based on the impressions you got from your friends?

the poems from chinese writers exudes the strong bond between friends. from Analects, first chapter:

"does is it not bring joy when you review what you have learned; does it not bring happiness when friends come from afar? is it not gentlmanly to be calm when peopel failed to recognize your talent?"-Kong-Tse

in another words, necrolyte, stfu.

There's more to it than that, including memoirs and other books I have read set in Asia or with Asian characters, where the excessive amount of custom and superficiality to prevent people from loosing face causes trouble. I can quote my share of literature about the Asian ideal of friendship too. And living in an area with a high Asian immigrant population, who have mostly had parenting very foreign to my western eyes, I think if I'm not an expert I have witnessed enough of how Asians treat friendship to speak on how its different than how non-Asian Americans treat friendship.

I also never said there aren't strong bonds.

This is amazing-there's nothing on friendship online.

I've searched every sociological site I could find looking for stuff about friendship so I could give Milton some evidence of the increased superficiality of Asian friendship, and OMFG THERE IS NOTHING. As I said at the beginning of this thread, this is a totally-underdiscussed topic.

sorry Milton, cant really debate this point with you, at least not unless I can find something at the library, which I doubt I will because I dont have the time to scrounge around for information I assumed you knew.

let us discuss your statement:
friendship tends to be much more formal, and it lacks the up-front, honest nature of Western friendship.

what i was talking about, obviously, was this ignorant protrayal of the general friendship in eastern culture. it'correct that you said strong bonds COULD be formed in eastern culture. so then, what makes friendship in east different from the one in west? ah, well, according to you, it's the predisposition, or the 'tendency' that bonds formed amongst esterners are weaker than western counterparts.

so, let us first parse out your arguments:

1. formal customs prevent bonds from forming
2. memmoirs detailing superficiality
3. unspecified quotes about the ideal of friendship

Let's address one at a time and hopefully, necrolities constantchangis will not surface and you will not resort to the usual running away in the face of overwhelming arguments.

Points 1 and 2 can be refuted at the same time. those who are confined by customs and superficiality are unlikely to form strong bonds with anyone. that means their interactions are defined by necessity, not by friendship. we can therefore say that superficiality and customs prevent friendship from being formed, but they do not dilute friendship. Friendships are formed when barriers are transcended.

We do not need to delve deeper as we could find similar examples in typical western scenarios. take, for example, race. A friendship can be struck between a white and an african american when both could look over barriers, and in this case, it is race. If the two are bounded by customs or superficiality such as 'blacks are just dumb', or 'whites are naturally racists', then their interactions are just that, interactions. they do not transcend to friendship.

similarly, interactions between two easterners become friendship when customs and superficiality can be overlooked. but until then, what they did was a mere formality.

you may say that friendships are much harder to be found in eastern culture, but they are not diluted in the east by any means. for any one of your cheap memmoirs or personal interactions, i could list 5 stories on heroic acts that stemmed motivated by friendship.

care to try it?

Let us look at your third point, and that is, the sort of literature that defines friendship as that of an dishonest one, as evidenced by your statement that:

"it [eastern friendship] lacks the up-front, honest nature"

I will be very interested to see any literature that describes eastern friendship to have a tendency to be dishonest.
please, necrolyte, list them.

Necrolyte - Books? Works of fiction, perhaps? Therein lies your problem. Do you think that D&D is an accurate portrayal of life in the Middle Ages? Or Shakespeare's Julius Caeser an accurate portrayal of life in Ancient Rome? How about bodice rippers being the ultimate referrence to life during the Renaissance?

You claim to know enough Asians to make a comment. Yet you disregard a comment FROM an Asian who is living in Asia. If you have Asian friends, you are doing them no credit with your attack on their integrety.


What do you think calling them all liars mean? Praise?


Opps. CORRECTION: Who GREW UP in Asia.

i bet one of the two will happen:
1. necrolyte will deny that he has ever claim that eastern friendship has a tendency to be dishonest, despite he has explicitely said so. and in his haste to deny what he has said otherwise. furthermore, he fails to produce any literature.

2. he runs away.

edit: since necrolyte' 'work' has not detracted him from making several other innane posts, i am inclined to go with number 2. odds: 3-2

I have work to do. I'll reply over the weekend.

10:1

Lets just see if i can't post these in the right thread this time:



Right, so your in with the "those who have a lexus can't afford to give" crowd.

Right, i'll surely think of your posts highly in the future.

(again, you ignore that no where did i say those that can't afford to give are bad. Next you'll ignore the part where i say i didn't give anything, and where its moral not to give. Then i'm sure you'll ignore that the entire point of the post was to show that they CAN afford to give. Except you've already done that, so i'm really not sure what to expect but more idiocy. Go ahead milton, lets just say i labast those who can't afford to give. Whatever passes for truth in that twisted reality of yours)



Ah, excellent, i did not see it and i admit my error.

Co. as in company as in abbreviation for present company.

The present company in this case being that which you contrasted with ethics in teh post that was reffering to, where you said:



The simple reason i do not see them as divergent is because i do not hold them to be so. Percieved liklihood, reciprocal actions, distribution of resources and change of them. I consider all to be involved in ethics and ethical responsibility.



Oh right, here i am thinking you bring these things up as arguements, where really your just adding irrelevent chatter.

Forgive me for thinking you had a point that was relevent milton. next time can you post a header or waiver before your posts such as "not actually relevent to validity, justification, or desirability, just pointing out that people don't take it for granted. Again, not making an arguement, just typing, thought you boy's would just like ot know that peice of irrelevent info, toodles".

Of course, you'll notice your full of crap. The sentence to which you responded was:



Perhaps it would do good for me to spell it out even clearer.

"THAT YOU TAKE THEM TO BE SEPERATE AS TAKEN FOR GRANTED".

Not that "reciprocity is taken for granted".

Now that we've straightened that little misunderstanding out, i'm sure you can respond to my actual points.

Of course again, the question is taken for granted by whom. Just because its taking for granted in a place like academia, or your own head, doesn't mean its still not an ignorant little world.

This next part i singled out just because it shows milton jumping around and dodging like a tool.

Now lets take a look at the actual flow of quotations.

Notice milton is talking about the tsunami aid thread:

Milton



Acow responds to the talk about miltons arguement and interpretation from the tsunami thread,

First he replies to milton's bizare interpreation from that thread:



Then replies to where milton draws conclusions from his reasoning in the tsunami thread:



Here's where milton, in his tricky and whily ways, suddenly changes course.

No longer are the posts referencing the tsunami thread, but suddenly necrolytes posts in this one!

Milton:



Notice this sly trick of the milton friendman.

Despite no previous references to necrolyte, and all replys being explicitly about the logic of the tsuanmi thread, the arguements, and the reasonings contained therein, suddenly my commrade milton has taken everything and pretended it references speech from this one.

Notice where i said i didn't mention ethics in the tsunami thread.
Now what do you think milton replies with.

That's right, necrolyte and his ethical responsibility in this thread.

It would be funny, if it weren't so horribly tragic that some posters still listen to him or take him seriously.

Milton its been fun talking with you, yet the sheer incoherancy means we're going to have to stop.

Preferably before you quote my words and pretend i was referencing DS...

This has been your public milton warning system.

Beware of nonsensical pompous pricks...

a fascinating babbling. did you ran out of places to troll so you decided to came here instead?



Here was the discussion in question (paraphrased):

LBM: 70% of the people cannot contribute
Acow: the lexus can't run; we can't buy as much, etc.
LBM: I said those who cannot to contribute, so they obviously do not own Lexus.

This indicates that you thought those who can't contribute have an above-average quality of life. perhaps in your haste to troll, you forgot about what you have posted.



this above is as nonsensical as most of your posts. the sarcastic remark, provided above between you and LBM clearly showed that you had a problem with those who did not contribute.



two concepts can exist independently without being divergent of one another. these concepts are certainly not in opposite of one another.



incorrect. i brought up your ignorant thesis in a vain hope that you could update your stupidity in the light of psychological research that clearly contradict your idea.



once again, your b.s. has detracted you from the flow of the debate. to wit:


necrolyte: what are our ethical responsbilities
MF: do you have a different set of moral codes for outsiders
acow: i am sure that MF has unlimited resources
MF: I was discussing ethical responsiblities, not redistribution of resources and expectation of reciprocity. which would no doubt change my preference

from the above, it's quite clear that you were unable to grasp the difference between reciprocity (which was what I was discussing with necrolyte), and ethical treatments. I maintain that, with scientific study, that reciprocity and moral obligations are independent of one another. my first reply to necrolyte was the view that we have the same moral obligations to everyone. But we would do things differently to our friends because of our expectation for reciprocation.

You, on the other hand, continue to expound on the notion that moral and reciprocity is conjointed. this, of course, neither address my point, that I could have the same moral obligations to everyone but reciprocate and redistribute my resources differently according to the level of intimation i feel with the person, nor was your point a right one, as evidenced by the psychological research.

i would suggest you to take a break from b.s. and keep tracking the discussion from the beginning.

------
your second post:

the beginning was simply impossible to understand. i do not know how necrolyte's decision to reply to my thread has anything to do with me 'jumping around'.


i did make an error by mistakenly taking necrolyte's quote instead of yours. the fault is entirely mine. sorry.

then let me help you in finding more on the topic that has been WILDLY discussed:

Peer Relationships among Chinese Boys: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Adolescent boys: Exploring diverse cultures of boyhood. Way, Niobe (Ed); Chu, Judy Y. (Ed); pp. 197-218. New York, NY, US: New York University Press, 2004. xv, 380 pp.

S. C. H. Wong & M. H. Bond. Personality, self-disclosure and friendship between Chinese university roommates. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 2(2), Aug 1999. pp. 201-214.

And an excerpt of abstract:

it was found that both the respondent's and the roommate's self-disclosing behavior contributed separately to increasing the respondent's friendship ratings, as has also been found in Western research.

just a quick search to start you off.

Milton, I wont delete my post because that would be cowardly. If people want to read me saying something which they find dumb, read it. I said it. And its most definately not offensive, if it is, as you argue, a poor generalization.

i dont know what you are talking about. i never asked you to delete your post.

Well,it is difficult question ,but to me ,from personal feeling , it happen that close friend share goodness and badness ,happiness and sadness, agree , disagree ,argue and maybe fighting so according to this relation, being close friend to someone and knowing lot of things about my friend which a lot of people and maybe thier family don't know ,oblige me inside and give me more duty towards this friend as we were always true friends .


Honesty and truth are strong reasons which make friendship last in the end .
But they are not everything too cause sometime there is excuse and sometime there is forgiven otherwise no one born angel .the strong friendship come from common things maybe in interest or personality or even feeling inside towards life.