Hacker News Reader

Comment by beryilma | Hacker News Reader

> because all their relationships are transactional and they aren’t offering anything of value

Why is a transactional relationship considered bad? And why would one consider a transactional relationship as something not offering value?

I don't like small talk, but if I like the person I would try to help them anyway with their transactional request, with the expectation that I might have a similar transactional request at some point in the future. If the relationship is equally transactional in both directions, I don't see a problem with that.

View on HN

I am an academic mathematician, and one thing I love about our culture is that transactional relationships are considered perfectly okay.

I can invite a colleague at another university, whom I might consider an old friend even though I haven't spoken to them in ages -- to come give a talk in my department. Very often they'll agree to come; we'll roll out the red carpet for them, and they and I will have a wonderful time.

That said, this is far from universal in academia, and many academics do enjoy small talk and prefer to keep in touch regularly.

I don't think any sort of relationship can be called "bad" or "good" in the abstract -- but a lot of people consider transactional relationships "bad" in the sense that they don't like them. And, if you want to build relationships with people, often you have to do it on their terms, or at least try to meet them halfway.

> I can invite a colleague at another university, whom I might consider an old friend even though I haven't spoken to them in ages -- to come give a talk in my department. Very often they'll agree to come; we'll roll out the red carpet for them, and they and I will have a wonderful time.

You're giving the person an opportunity in this case. You're also rolling out the red carpet to make it good for them.

Usually when people talk about transactional relationships, it means they only call on you when they need something from you. For example, calling someone up every 5 years when you need a referral or you want them to solve a problem for you.

Transactional relationships are completely fine, and personally I prefer them in the work space.

I was commenting on people who’s behavior creates transactional relationships when they wanted something with a deeper interpersonal relationships, and people whose behavior causes transactional relationships but also have nothing of value to make the transaction worth it.

If a billionaire calls me up once every five years for a favor but pays me a couple of million for it, I’ll take the call any day.

If someone I met at college a few times calls me up once every few years when they got laid off and only are talking to me for a reference but are never in a position to to help me, what reason do I have to help them other than a feeling of charity?

I guess I’m saying you shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated unless you are ok with that same behavior being turned back on yourself.

> I guess I’m saying you shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated unless you are ok with that same behavior being turned back on yourself.

This! However if you'll allow me—I think it's worth saying we shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated _at all_ because we're never really okay with that same behavior being given back to us because of millenia of social, communal evolution.

What one may call the treatment of an "impersonal machine" is another's assessment of what an appropriate relationship looks like. Some people prefer such associations even in deeper relationships because it prevents one person's encroachment upon another's individual agency and minimizes (or at least clarifies) the incurrence of "social debt" between the two parties rather than assume mutually shared rules of engagement right off the bat.

>This! However if you'll allow me—I think it's worth saying we shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated _at all_ because we're never really okay with that same behavior being given back to us because of millenia of social, communal evolution.

That’s an argument I think I agree with but am not ready to defend tonight.

It’s much easier to defend the point that if you treat me solely as a resource to be exploited then you shouldn’t be surprised if others or myself treat you solely as a resource to be exploited

Because in transactional relationships the other person only shows up when they need something and then they disappear again until the next time they need something from you.

Transactional relationships are fine if that's the deal up front. I have a lot of transactional relationships with freelancers, contractors, and repair people. I call them up needing something and I'm going to pay them for it. The transaction.

I dislike transactional relationships when they're disguised as personal connections or friendships. People who pretend to want to get to know you, but they really just want to be able to call on you when they need something from you. Often when you call on them for something they're nowhere to be found.

This. It's the deceit that's hurtful, not the transactional relationship itself.

You only quoted a portion of my sentence.

Transactional relationships can be fine if both parties are on with it, but you actually need to bring something of value.

If you and I have a fully transactional relationship, then why would I do anything for you if you won’t/can’t do anything for me?

It's only bad if one of the parties doesn't understand that it is transactional. When you succeed you might find that some people you thought you were just trading with feel betrayed in some way.

If you "like" a person, it's probably not really a transactional relationship. "Hi, I'm one of the 100K alumni who went to the same school as you did, can we do coffee?" is.

>> "Hi, I'm one of the 100K alumni who went to the same school as you did, can we do coffee?" is

I have absolutely gotten similar requests from students through my Alumni organization and have accepted them in the past. I don't see a problem here.

Here is a direct quote from a request that I have accepted in the past(redacted a little): "Hi <name>, I am a MS in CS student at <university> graduating in spring '25 and I saw your profile on <university>'s alumni page. I'm pursuing a career in software engineering and I'm wondering if we can connect and chat sometime about your career and the culture at <company>."

I was a bit flippant. Depends on the specificity of the request, how it's worded, and how big a request it is. (I'm far more likely to have a quick phone chat or answer a specific question by email than I am to drive to meet someone for coffee.) It's also a pet peeve when I spend the time to answer some questions and... crickets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com