Uhane said:

I appear to the observer as 'shut down', while I am actually in hyper aware mode

Appreciated your post and identity with the apparent external "shut down" versus actually internally hyper-aware mode.

If only there were an auto-pilot neon sign at that point across the forehead "patience please".

Sometimes isolation is what we need, no matter who we are.

Everything is truly relative to everything else.

If I am upsetting others with my actions I remove myself if I cannot comply with them.

Sometimes the 'shutters going up' if I can't remove myself and I appear to the observer as 'shut down', while I am actually in hyper aware mode, like I am in a duck-blind.

Really violent meltdowns are best conducted alone, away from others to avoid harm them.

In a word, cultivate detachment and control, by creating a safe physical or mental space for shutting or melting down in.

There is more valuable information to be culled from situational awareness than there is in 'being understood': no one really understands anyone else. We can make educated guesses, at best - based on that situational awareness.

If your worst is more than I can (or am prepared to) handle, then I'm simply not interested in your "best", go do it somewhere else!

There's a place for everyone in the world, so why does it have to be MY place? 

In my own case I am currently on close moderation and on my best behaviour, and apparently my best behaviour is still not good enough, let alone my poorer behaviour, (which reminds me of my childhood OFC) so if I observe my own standard, I need to either sucessffully moderate my behaviour, or leave this place and go do my thing somewhere else..  

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, is both true, and also a maxim that inevitably leads to discrimination and penalties being applied to those who would invade your space and behave objectionably.

As is happening in my case, and to a few other forum members right now. I'm not actually complaining about that, but I am inclined to complain when the "few" have manage to arbitraily change the rules and cutsoms under which the many have been operating fairly happily. 

The biggest example of this being the actual nation in which I was born, of course! The second biggest being Germany which I've had the opportunity to vist regularly for 20 years, and I have watched the bit I go to transition from "England in the sixties" to "England in the eighties". as Europe transitions from a set of monolithic societes to a "multicultrual mode". 

The german people I speak to about the progress of their country are like Brits in the 1970's and 80s', most are cluess about the bigger picture and just struggling to cope with the changes as they are happening, a few are indignant and trying to reverse the process.

As an old person I have had the opportuntiy to watch the 20 year cycle of destruction of public standards and safety in TWO countries now. The first time I could not see the wood for the trees, but the second time around watching Germany fall, has been really, truly, eye opening.  

Barbra Lerner Specter and others tell me that these changes I have witnessed over my life are planned events, not accidents, nearly everyone else tells me that I am wrong to even speak of what I have witnessed, and that my personal opinions formed as a result of my observations may actually be illegal!! 

My "worst" is to be telling the truth that many people would prefer we did not look at. I have watched two once prosperopus and generally "nice" and pleasant, high value, high trust societies go down the toilet in twenty year cycles the same way, and according to a published agenda.

I am offering no opinions, I've got a photographic record spanning the second decline so I've not imagined it. People in government and quangos are always talking about the changes happening in our societies, but for some reason a levelheaded sdicussion of such things rapidly deteriorates into name calling and accusations of "hate speech".

Admittedly that isn't helped by the hotheads, who might become aware of what is happening and get all angry about it and do violence and criminal damage. The only thing I currently have in common with such people is a sense of personal loss,

I do have some difficulty in adapting my thinking to the new society being formed at great speed in front of me, and to be honest view our leadership with the same affection and trust that I'd invest as a helpless passenger in a pilot who has taken a large dose of LSD, but to push the metaphor a bit further, my fellow passengers are oblivious, I don't have type certification or even familiarity with controlling THIS size and type of aircraft, and people keep telling me to "shut up"! 

The expectation that other people would have to handle "you" (not literally directed at you, but just used in a manner of speaking to answer the question itself) while you are being at your worst towards others, is showing that others were not handling and not tolerating your worst behavior in the "right" way to your satisfaction, but why would they have to do that for you? Would you like if others expected you to handle their worst, nightmarish, horrific behaviors towards you too? Every person you know just treating you like a pile of mud? I don't think I'd like to live in a society like that. 

And then the "you don't deserve me at my best" as if your best is a great reward for other people tolerating your bad behavior. Plenty of times I've been at my best, but never as a reward for after being bad to people, and them having to tolerate it. And my best isn't even good enough sometimes, because there's always someone in the world who is better than I am, and so if that's the case for me and everyone else in this world, then why would someone's best be some great reward for others, especially after they've been unkind towards them?

But if other people were not there for you when you were struggling with something, that's different. If you struggled alone while they rejected you, and then despite that you chose to get really good at something, and in the future you started getting rewarded for that thing,  then those same people come out of the woordworks to try and get a piece of the glory for themselves, then those people act like scavengers. Selfish enough to only think for themselves, but only entering your life once they see something valuable for themselves, and they'll try to get into your good graces to take bits and pieces of glory from you. Those people are horrible and parasitic. 

Sounds like a good excuse for an abusive relationship to be honest, one persons needs being more important than the others.

Stock phrases, of which that is one, tend to be used by people with rather rigid viewpoints, who do not want to explore the complexities of relationships or situations. They are also used as excuses for unreasonable behaviour. I don't like them.

My concern is that this phrase has been much (over) used within popular internet culture without a context of instance, timeframe or consideration of the necessary boundaries of the other person (the one in front of the other who is not currently at their best) to keep themselves well too - both for their own health and in order to enable them to also "be there" for the unwell person's recovery journey.

In those times when someone is really unwell; it can be tough on both parties (although it is understandably difficult for the unwell person to think about that at the time of crisis) - hence my list of the three parameters as they relate to the person trying their best to be supportive:

Instance - maybe, the episode of the unwell person is not an isolated event and during this particular iteration; the well person (who might otherwise be supportive of them) is just too worn down and burnt out (this time) to attempt bringing so much of themselves to the task of being supportive ... without also risking it being to their own detriment.  To "be there" when they are better able (in the long term) - they need to act in support of their own vital boundaries ...and take themselves out of the situation to regroup.

Timeframe - there is a big difference between someone not being able to be supportive of an unwell person during one event, as opposed to when; over a considerable period of time: they have been supportive - but now they themselves have additional stressors of their own / they are physically unwell / their workplace is being extra demanding / they have other caring responsibilities / they have exhausted their personal resources of what it takes to properly "be there" for the unwell person seeking their support ...they now need a break / some respite for their own wellbeing.

Boundaries - nobody can sustain "give, give, give" to another person without their own personal boundaries being deployed and respected as required - both people becoming unwell is not the reasonable outcome.

In summary, I am not in favour of the popular phrase as it is too lightweight to be applicable in all scenarios - even when we have been unwell and perhaps felt let down at the time by someone we trust to lookout for us when we need help - somewhere along our recovery journey, there needs to be some space to acknowledge that our supportive person is only human too. 

It sounds all too easy to say; that there should be neither shame, nor embarrassment, not point scoring, nor judgement applied ...in either direction.  After all, it is likely both parties are doing their level best in challenging circumstances.  Both parties are to be commended for their endeavour.

I know the saying and in a way I agree to it, but I do not like the phrasing of the saying at all, so I would never use this. I simplyfy it a little. If people (ie friends or partner) are only (!) there when you feel great and dont give you support when you really need that I personally dont want such people in my life. I might be too picky here. I understand if a person isnt able to handle some (!!) things, fair enough, but if one would always turn away when Id feel very bad its a big nope for me. So partially agree.

I've never heard it before. But I can understand why someone would say such a thing, I'm just not sure I agree with it.