Writing a book/post about friendship is inherently pretty antithetical to a lot of what is nice about friendship. It doesn't take a lot of thought, it doesn't require a lot of explanation, and it doesn't involve other parties. It is mostly physical, and relies heavily on face-to-face communication. You can maybe write advice for one party, but not really two. Alexey Guzey has a good post on friendships but it's mostly about the happy accidents that bring friends together, not relationship managment.
The only thing you need to do is maximize your happy accidents. This is why people giving advice on friendships tell you how to meet friends, not how to keep them. It is assumed that each friend is a friendship is playing a single player game, following rules set by the other friend.
The author, and the cited letters, exemplify violating the rules of those games: Envy for a friend who succeeds, directed focus on sensitive topics, failure to respect the new boundaries of a friend's changing life. This is framed as "something we all secretly do" but you have to question this premise rather than the entire concept of friendship. If your friend realizes you will envy their success, might make his wife mad at him, why should you expect them to stay your friend? This isn't a tragic underpinning of all friendships, this is basic consideration for a friend.
Doesn't it seem naive, almost immature, to avoid considering these things in private? Yes, if you aren't thinking about the other person. From a one-person vantage point it makes sense to prisoner's dilemma everything, that's how prisoner's dilemma works. Even if you find good partners, but still point out defection opportunities, you are losing player. Only way to win is not play, like really not play. Just blend some baseline level of self-preservation + good deeds done for no reason to get a guiding priciple like "embrace the kingly power of choosing to do quiet, unreciprocated good"
Alternative to thinking in the future about rewards is focusing on immediate costs. My consumption and enjoyment of junk food has plummeted ever since I went from 'this is bad for me but delicious' to 'this in fact tastes awful and my stomach hurts.' Obviously, this doesn't work as well with my favorite desserts, but if you improve your taste and your favorite desserts become super expensive/rare you rapidly decrease the amount of temptation you face.
The only thing you need to do is maximize your happy accidents. This is why people giving advice on friendships tell you how to meet friends, not how to keep them. It is assumed that each friend is a friendship is playing a single player game, following rules set by the other friend.
The author, and the cited letters, exemplify violating the rules of those games: Envy for a friend who succeeds, directed focus on sensitive topics, failure to respect the new boundaries of a friend's changing life. This is framed as "something we all secretly do" but you have to question this premise rather than the entire concept of friendship. If your friend realizes you will envy their success, might make his wife mad at him, why should you expect them to stay your friend? This isn't a tragic underpinning of all friendships, this is basic consideration for a friend.
Doesn't it seem naive, almost immature, to avoid considering these things in private? Yes, if you aren't thinking about the other person. From a one-person vantage point it makes sense to prisoner's dilemma everything, that's how prisoner's dilemma works. Even if you find good partners, but still point out defection opportunities, you are losing player. Only way to win is not play, like really not play. Just blend some baseline level of self-preservation + good deeds done for no reason to get a guiding priciple like "embrace the kingly power of choosing to do quiet, unreciprocated good"