I'm actually not quite sold on that last point you made, and here's why.
Yes, in some cases I absolutely do think that getting help solving a problem from others is good.
But I do also think that using your own resources is extremely important.
In my profession, we talk about a client-centered, strengths-based approach. This means that, for example, if you were a client of mine, I wouldn't just be saying, "Okay, here's this money, here are these resources, here's this doctor to give you pills, have a nice day". I'd be talking to you about using your own skills, your strengths, your abilities, to better your position. If you needed help finding those strengths, that's okay. If you needed a bit of a nudge from the outside? That's okay too. And there really are situations where no amount of internal strength is just going to auto-solve a problem. It's a variation on the old bootstrap scenario.
So it's not that I think it's my complete responsibility to educate anyone and everyone. I just feel that, hey, if I -can help, why wouldn't I at least try, if I'm able? And most times I'm able.
You're correct in that not having a guide close by may teach most people eventually to just ask you questions. But the goal isn't just to teach people to talk to you, because, hello, of -course they're going to talk to you if you're the only one present. The goal, at least in my view, is to teach people -NOT to talk over you or past you. They are two different scenarios, and in my own life, your solution just doesn't suit because the people whose behaviour you're hoping will improve aren't actually getting a chance to deal with the problematic situation.
I'll put this another way.
I have categorically never dealt with someone who refused to talk to me when I was alone and they needed to interact with me. Not once. Why? Because people seem to realize that when it's one-on-one, all the normal rules apply, for the most part. There's nothing to solve there.
But the instant there's another person involved? Suddenly, bad behaviour can start. And while it's not my actual responsibility to fix that, my empathetic side says that if I'm capable of giving enough fucks to tolerate the inconvenience while perhaps getting someone to rethink what they're doing, it might just help someone else down the road who perhaps has far thinner skin or who, unlike me, might now how to advocate for themselves properly.
Again, I'm not faulting you for not doing this. I'm not even trying to go anywhere near that. As I said in an earlier post, you do you. That's fine with me. But this outlook works for me. Because at the end of the day, I am hoping to affect some small, positive change on the world. I don't just want to pass through it making the fewest waves possible. If I have to gently set someone straight, that's okay with me, if the alternative is that biases aren't challenged and bad behaviours continue. Doing it your way, in my opinion, is less likely to work because it's not invoking the problematic situation in the first place. If all I cared about was getting good service and treatment for myself, then sure, it works. But I care about more than that.
So this is my reframe. You structured it as me expecting others to solve problems for you, vs. you expecting people to deal with their own shit. For me, I see it as me caring about a broader perspective and the potential experiences of others, while you are more interested in the direct impact on you and whatever you're doing. Rather than socialist vs. antisocialist, it's more individualism vs. collectivism. Again, no negative judgments, but I think this distinction, while you may feel it is a hair-splitter of an argument, is quite important.
Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1