Comment by gjulianm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gjulianm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I get thinking about a system like this. I have given some thought about building something similar, but always ended up abandoning it for the exact same reasons this post strikes me as extremely weird:

- It feels weird classifying people in boxes of desired contact frequency. How do you decide that? Does the author think "I honestly don't care enough about this person to contact them more than once a year" ? Then why are these people still "friends"?

- Lack of flexibility. Organic relationships will have different contact frequencies over time. For example, I might have inconsistent contacts with a friend that I've known for a long time because of reasons, but if they're having a rough time I will probably be more attentive and want to contact them more frequently.

- Relationships are two-way, so you'd expect that the other part initiates contact a significant amount of the times. Given the myriad of ways that contact can happen, updating the database for hundreds of people can be a real hassle. The fact that this is not mentioned at all indicates that a lot of these might be one-way relationships, not actual friendships.

- I find it really really hard to write non-artificial messages when contacting on a schedule. Maybe the first one can be believable, but the second or third time you contact someone without any obvious trigger, it starts to feel weird. I think most people would catch wind that the other person is not contacting organically but on some kind of schedule, and I guess it could make them feel really weird about it: "This person doesn't really think of me, doesn't see any of my social media/blog/whatever updates... why are they contacting me?"

I understand what other people are saying in the comments about forgetting to contact people or being too busy, and needing reminders. But I don't think that's the same problem the author is solving.

Think of it as the lowest common denominator. It isn't "this person is not important, so I will contact them only once a year", it is "this person is important enough for me to contact them AT LEAST once per year". Flexibility isn't lost, but you have baseline level of commitment to every relationship. If you don't want to contact that person anymore - it's a conscious choice, not "just lost touch", but if you want to contact them, you have prompt "you are about to loose contact, do you REALLY want to do that?".

> I find it really really hard to write non-artificial messages when contacting on a schedule. Maybe the first one can be believable, but the second or third time you contact someone without any obvious trigger, it starts to feel weird. I think most people would catch wind that the other person is not contacting organically but on some kind of schedule, and I guess it could make them feel really weird about it: "This person doesn't really think of me, doesn't see any of my social media/blog/whatever updates... why are they contacting me?"

You, obviously, SHOULD try to read blog/twitter/whatever BEFORE contacting that person, try to find something interesting there and talk about it. Or check notes about person's interests and bring up something you recently saw/heard, that is related to their interests. I doubt that nothing interesting happened to person in three months that you hadn't spoke with them, so you have something to talk about. And some people don't use social media, and asking about their wellbeing is completely normal.

> but you have baseline level of commitment to every relationship.

Well, the issue is that baseline level of commitment is extremely low, to the point where I don't think it's an actual relationship if you only talk once a year. Once a year and zero are practically the same.

> You, obviously, SHOULD try to read blog/twitter/whatever BEFORE contacting that person, try to find something interesting there and talk about it. Or check notes about person's interests and bring up something you recently saw/heard, that is related to their interests. And some people don't use social media, and asking about their wellbeing is completely normal.

I know what the author is saying. That's why I say it would get weird. First time that you say "I just read your update from a month ago" or "two weeks ago I read something about DnD and now I remembered you like DnD" you can make it seem organic. Second, maybe still. Third one, fourth one? At some point the other person is going to notice that the triggers are never connected to the actual contacts. That's what I mean. If you have all these sources of information for this person and things that remind you of their interests, you probably don't need a reminder system on top of that (scheduling is a different issue, but I don't think a daily email is the best tool to solve schedule issues).

>Well, the issue is that baseline level of commitment is extremely low, to the point where I don't think it's an actual relationship if you only talk once a year. Once a year and zero are practically the same.

If your interactions sum up to a baseline level for a few times, you should lower frequency with which you contact a person. If it is already at the lowest level, you should stop talking. You are just making sure that you don't loose contact with anyone who you don't want to loose contact with, that's all.

Well, that's my point. Putting someone in the "once a year" category means you're putting them in the path for that relationship to disappear without actually doing anything to try to fix it. Like you're in a car going towards a cliff, and you're not accelerating but you're not pressing the brake either.

And yet, after 20 years of that approach, you might have lost some people you’d have a really difficult time trying to get back.

If I may, it seems like you’re assuming “if I only talk to this person once a year, it’s not worth it. Especially if I have to contrive some basis for reaching out.” If it’s that difficult, and that low value, sure, don’t bother.

But the other lens to apply here is “how at risk am I of never talking to this person again if I don’t manage to say something, however simple, at least <once a year>?” There may be folks in your life with whom your relationship is threatened if you don’t consciously make an effort, or if you don’t have a system like this to help you.

> But the other lens to apply here is “how at risk am I of never talking to this person again if I don’t manage to say something, however simple, at least <once a year>?” There may be folks in your life with whom your relationship is threatened if you don’t consciously make an effort, or if you don’t have a system like this to help you.

But do you really need to build a system to talk to people once a year? Just reviewing your contact list on Christmas is going to achieve the same thing, and I bet it doesn't give off as weird vibes.

Another issue is that, if after 20 years, you've only managed to contact people once a year, I don't think any system is going to save that relationship.

Seeing at how my handling of contacting people and not only goes? I'd like that system, enhanced with direct mental prodding, too.

> Well, the issue is that baseline level of commitment is extremely low, to the point where I don't think it's an actual relationship if you only talk once a year.

I send all my former clients and coworkers an email every year to wish a happy new year and ask them how things are going/how the latest projects I knew they were working on is going.

It’s very different to having no contact at all. It’s always nice when you end up working with them again. They know you are not only a mercenary and view the relationship as something which will exist in time.

Well, this is precisely the point some commenters are making, that it feels more like a system for clients and companies and business contacts than for actual personal relationships.

Business relationships are personal relationships. I maintain them even when I change companies or when I don’t presently work in the field. Relationships exist on a continuum from close friends to acquaintances.

To me a business relationship is a business where you don't really care about the person but about the business/work potential. Of course you can make personal relationships in business, but those are different things.

And yes, "relationship" technically includes any kind of relation between two persons, but I think the context makes it clear that I'm talking mostly about friendships. And I really don't think one can call a relationship a friendship when consistently the contact happens once a year because of a scheduled reminder.

> And yes, "relationship" technically includes any kind of relation between two persons, but I think the context makes it clear that I'm talking mostly about friendships.

Well, no, a relationship is a relationship and a friendship is a friendship. Both the original post and the discussion are about maintaining contacts with people which is broader than strictly friendship.

> To me a business relationship is a business where you don't really care about the person but about the business/work potential. Of course you can make personal relationships in business, but those are different things.

I don’t see things this way. Business relationships remain interpersonal relationships. While these relationships keep a level of formality and distance they remain meaningful. I will send a card for meaningful events in the life of the customers and coworkers I have known for a long time. It is never strictly economical.

There are tons of people that I see only once per year, and I always have a blast with them. We're both fine it's on a very low backburner. Tons of people are like this.

And like I said in a previous post, I don't manage my friendships in a rational way. This just happens. So I can definitely see it being a category if I'd manage my friendships in a more formal/rational way.

There’s a huge difference between once a year and zero. Think of the strong traditions behind birthday or annual holiday greetings, for instance.

Look at it this way. Let’s say you reach out to 100 people once a year. Well there are 7.7 billion people on Earth. You’re putting those 100 people into your 99.999999 percentile for that year!

> Think of the strong traditions behind birthday or annual holiday greetings, for instance.

And I don’t know of any meaningful relationship that is maintained just by that bare minimum.

I think maintained is exactly what that can do.

I'm friends with someone in college. We graduate and move to separate cities. We go from regular contact to every few months. By 2 or 3 years from graduation its just a text on birthdays. That last for a year or two. We both get married and then reconnect because of X. We become closer friends again.

That same situation is less likely to happen without the yearly contact. At the very least the friendship is maintained, even if the maintaining can only last a few years before deteriorating, and it gives the relationship a higher chance to pick back up at a later date.

I have some meaningful relationships that are. So, now you do!

Pretty much by definition if your only contact with someone is to say "happy birthday" once a year, that relationship is not currently meaningful.

> Relationships are two-way, so you'd expect that the other part initiates contact a significant amount of the times.

Seems both fair and reasonable, but IME it's wrong.

It's wrong in a way that is stable as well, and that is why it takes effort to fight: people easily get anxious about rejection, and they easily get it in their heads that the other person doesn't want to hear from them. Anything from "we had a bad interaction" to "they didn't reply last time" seems to be an excuse to cut contact.

According to (probably dubious) tests, I'm not especially extroverted or introverted. But I make conscious effort to keep contacts alive, because I just like the human contact and keeping updated on people's stories.

It's also the case that people like to help, and will do so readily if you reach out to them, which is another weird hold-up in people's minds (can I ask this person that I kinda know about this thing? 90% of the time, yes). Just this week I reached out to people who were my primary school teachers for some advice, I kid you not. Now do I talk much to these ladies that I knew 30 years ago? No. Now and again I'll send out a short piece about how my family is doing, and that's it. But even if they read it and don't reply, chances are they appreciate it. Kinda like TCP, you can have an open connection even though nothing is sent over it.

Another case is that friend who sucks at staying in touch. I have a number of friends who are super warm and chummy when I'm near them, but they never take it upon themselves to initiate anything. Think about when you were a kid, how many people did you hang out with, vs how many people bothered to organize parties? It's like 50 and 4. So a lot of people will just wait for an invite, and they'll get enough that they don't need to do anything.

As for the logistics, I don't have a custom program to do it for me, it's just a Trello, plus FB and LinkedIn that I scan from time to time. FB tells me birthdays, so that is a good time to write a DM. LinkedIn tells me when they changed jobs, which is also a good time to update. And then Trello because not everyone is active on the other two. I'll also do a quick scan if I'm travelling, in case someone I know is at the destination, and I'll send out some emails at Christmas/NY.

> It's wrong in a way that is stable as well, and that is why it takes effort to fight: people easily get anxious about rejection, and they easily get it in their heads that the other person doesn't want to hear from them. Anything from "we had a bad interaction" to "they didn't reply last time" seems to be an excuse to cut contact.

I get that can happen with some relationships. But with all of them? I think that even accounting for some relationships where contact is one-sided, maintaining the "last contact" column is going to be a real hassle, and I find it weird it's not even mentioned.

> Kinda like TCP, you can have an open connection even though nothing is sent over it.

I honestly don't think so. A consistent lack of response usually indicates the other person doesn't care.

> I have a number of friends who are super warm and chummy when I'm near them, but they never take it upon themselves to initiate anything.

And I do think that the best thing to do in that case is to tell them that they should make an effort to initiate contact. I don't need them to be on a schedule, but I'd like to think that my friends won't forget about me completely if I stop contacting them.

Again, I get that some relationships can be one-sided. But not all. That's why I find it weird that the system doesn't really plan for that.

> maintaining the "last contact" column is going to be a real hassle, and I find it weird it's not even mentioned.

This is one thing I thought about doing, but it seems like there's a lot of APIs that are now closed. But also, relationships are not like a tennis match, it's ok to write twice.

> I honestly don't think so. A consistent lack of response usually indicates the other person doesn't care.

I send out a load of mails over New Year's almost each year, and each year someone writes in April or July saying "OMG I forgot to write back" and then picks up the thread. There's no reason the people who never write back have decided not to, except in very obvious circumstances of relationship breakdown.

> I'd like to think that my friends won't forget about me completely if I stop contacting them

They won't forget you but they also won't contact you. A lot of people just feel weird about it.

Mostly I guess I'm default-positive. Very few people have ever let it be known, directly or indirectly, not to write to them anymore.

> They won't forget you but they also won't contact you. A lot of people just feel weird about it.

Or lazy, or forgetful, or they never thought this was a "thing" (basically 0 initiative). All three apply to me, and I need to change it. IMO, the system outlined by the author seems worth trying (or any other systems that I'm picking up in the comments).

> This is one thing I thought about doing, but it seems like there's a lot of APIs that are now closed. But also, relationships are not like a tennis match, it's ok to write twice.

I know, but if the tool stops being synced with reality, it loses value and in the end you can end up ignoring it because it's not up to date and then because it's not up to date it has even less value.

> I send out a load of mails over New Year's almost each year, and each year someone writes in April or July saying "OMG I forgot to write back" and then picks up the thread. There's no reason the people who never write back have decided not to, except in very obvious circumstances of relationship breakdown.

But that's not a consistent lack of response, it's just someone missing one interaction. I imagine that if you write someone on new years and they never answer, at some point you stop sending them messages, right?

> They won't forget you but they also won't contact you. A lot of people just feel weird about it.

I do not agree, people might get used to the other person contacting and not think about sending a message, but I don't think feeling weird is common. Of course this is personal experience, so I can't know the universal experience.

I use a much simpler system, I have recurring reminders setup and when they trigger I just reach out to that person. I try to keep things light, like a text message, photo, link, etc. the great thing is that you can use the same message/photo/link for everyone. At first it felt impersonal but the message is always simply a trigger for the conversation that comes next. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what you say when you reach out.

Look, I'm 55 years old. There are people I haven't heard from in maybe thirty years, easy. I wouldn't mind catching up on those people yearly - and it would be at least a thirty-fold improvement over my current management technique, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com