One of the things I was hoping I'd hear people comment on here what Miller says towards the end, that perhaps Kish's aversion to physical closeness, perhaps "loving" in general, and a desire to be independent, were mutually exclusive. While, I personally would agree there is an argument that being a helicopter parent does not help build a sense of independence in someone, I'm really curious if it really is true that a desire of closeness to others in general is really the opposite of that.

I guess it makes some sense naively (independence or apartness vs. dependence or together-ness)? But the way I think about it is that a desire to be independent needs to be tempered with a desire to socialize and be close with others. May be they are orthonormal axes in a person's "personality space," but a healthy balance of both will give a person a good norm overall. This seems opposite of what they hint at toward the end, that these two qualities may not be orthogonal but in fact, anti-parallel.

Perhaps Daniel's aversion helped him overcome the enormous odds against him, an entire culture that put that "blind" label on him and would have necessarily pulled him far into that the more "dependent" side--I mean, that was the point on the whole rest of the episode. It was needed for him given the extreme pressure he was under from this culture. Still, I hope that for many other people who do not have this extreme desire for independence that they need not be forced into it just so that the rest of us see them as equal. That certainly is not fair for them if they do not desire it.

I say all this because while I have a close love for a few close friends and family members, I usually like to be independent myself. However, I've learned as I've gotten older that sometimes you need to rely on others even when you think you won't, which isn't easy for me. A healthy balance seems better, as I've reluctantly accepted.