The vast majority of people in their lives will never truly have a so-called "confidant." Those notions of a soulmate, best buddy, or close friend are often derived from literature, movies, or early life illusions. In reality, friendships fundamentally depend on the proximity of social levels. The so-called best friends or close friends are not necessarily because of deep feelings, but because: income levels are similar, lifestyles are comparable, spending habits are alike, and life rhythms are synchronized. Once this "similarity" is broken, the relationship doesn't suddenly end; instead, it naturally cools down and gradually drifts apart. For example, two people originally living similar lives, but later one clearly does better: topics become uneven, spending rhythms no longer match, emotional support diminishes, and even sharing a meal can cause psychological pressure. At this point, both parties usually won't argue or cut ties; they simply maintain a tacit distance. The phrase "fellow sufferers" itself indicates one point: friendship is most solid during shared hardships and similar circumstances. But once one person moves on and the other remains behind, this relationship is unlikely to go far. It's not about who is right or wrong, but human nature. So, when you're not doing well and your former friends are thriving: not reaching out to them is a way of protecting yourself. If they don't reach out to you, it may not be cold-hearted, but because this relationship has lost its "sustainability." Ultimately, friends are not maintained by feelings alone, but by the synchronization of living standards. Relationships with large income gaps and broken social levels are no longer truly friendships; they are just "acquaintances." This is not pessimism; it is reality.