3 ms·

Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? I also wonder if

Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? I also wonder if the social obligation to be bad at things - that is, to avoid arrogance at all costs, even at the risk of withholding potentially useful advice - is more an American thing than a worldwide phenomenon. Not being embarrassed when you can't spell words correctly seems to be unique to American culture.

Godel_unicode 6y ago
> Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? No. That's the whole point. If it works for them why would it be bad? Let's try and not shame people for having different approaches to things.
- jmaa 6y ago
  Well, depends what he means with "your"; OP specifically, or an arbitrary person? Because I think we are getting dangerously close to shooting down useful criticism and discussion for fear of hurting someones feelings. It's obviously insensitive to say that OP is a bad person because he is doing one-on-ones, but it should be totally acceptable to say "this is weird (from my perspective), I can see several issues with this, I wouldn't personally do this, but you-do-you", and often "(from my perspective)" and "but you-do-you" parts are implied; their absence shouldn't necessarily be taken as proof of mocking. (Disclaimer: I have no opinion on partner one-on-ones.)
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    Weird is one of those truly terrible words that's used to control people who are different than us. It's nice for the person using it, since it doesn't actually mean anything and is thus impervious to arguments stronger than "nuh uh". It's almost never actually the right word, and should be avoided in favor of more descriptive language. In order for criticism to be constructive, it must be easily understandable by the person receiving it. "Don't call people weird" seems like a good general principle (unless they self-identify as weird, in which case knock yourself out). I don't understand this compulsion to try and get people to fall in line and stop being weird. The from-my-perspective and you-do-you parts are the most important parts, why would you leave them out? You're not in charge.
dpeck 6y ago
It sounds silly, but set aside time for a purpose is a good thing. A friend of mine and his spouse do a twice a year “offsite” where they go camping somewhere and spend half of the Saturday talking about where they are in the year financially, relationship, what they want to accomplish as a couple, etc
amflare 6y ago
Sure, as long as you acknowledge that trying to date your employees/manager as a regular part of your professional interactions is also not "in any way a good idea". Getting your translation files mixed up when communicating can make anything seem weird and out of place. Find the root - "intentional interaction with the other party within the established context of the existing socio-personal relationship for the purpose of strengthening and improving said relationship" - then retranslate into the environment in question. You date your wife and hold one-on-ones with co-workers. Its not weird, its just the wrong translation.
karatestomp 6y ago
> Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? Some folks have a gut-level extremely bad reaction to structuring or treating relationships (romantic or otherwise) "scientifically" or in some structured way. I'm one of them. Grosses me out as surely as seeing maggots burrowing in my steak. It's not rational and goes against everything I rationally believe about the power of systems and environment to engineer success, and I've had to learn to work against that feeling pretty often, but, there you go. Knowing that doesn't get rid of the feeling and tendency toward aversion. I suspect the people making posts that "pissed off" OP were largely having this reaction and didn't get that not everyone has it.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > It's not rational and goes against everything [...] It's a justified reaction to how corporations work[0]. Similar to how people feel viceral revulsion at burn scars, even though burn scars are not in any way contagious, (in part) because they look similar to horrible skin diseases that are quite contagious. It's (probably) unfair in this particular case, but it's not at all unjustified. 0: As usual, someone more eloquent than me has put it: "This company is my dream. ...And it's built from the dreams of people who work here. Just the way this building is built out of stone." "This building is made of concrete. Actually. [...] Stone that's been ripped out of the ground, pulverized, mixed with foreign materials, and forced into molds to fit the will of the designer. Stone that bears no resemblance to its original form."
xeromal 6y ago
Yeah, you're the person he's talking about. If that's the way he can better communicate with his wife and she's ok with it, that's all that matters. I used to randomize calendar events on my phone to remind me to call grandma, see dad, game with my brother, etc. It was very robotic looking and if I told anyone about it, I got weird looks but years later, I have great relationships with everyone in my family because I basically trained myself and the people I reached out to communicate well and not let conversation be awkward. If OP kept this up, I bet his relationship at worst would be the same and more likely healthier.
greenshackle2 6y ago
A "one-on-one" is a weird way to phrase it but I've done regular "relationship check-ins" and it worked pretty well. It wasn't weekly though, that's too much for me, I'd probably go for monthly. Recurrent meetings is another thing people rarely do in personal relationships that I found works pretty well. I got the idea from the fox in the Little Prince: The next day the little prince came back. "It would have been better to come back at the same hour," said the fox. "If, for example, you come at four o'clock in the afternoon, then at three o'clock I shall begin to be happy. I shall feel happier and happier as the hour advances. At four o'clock, I shall already be worrying and jumping about. I shall show you how happy I am! But if you come at just any time, I shall never know at what hour my heart is to be ready to greet you . . . One must observe the proper rites . . ." "What is a rite?" asked the little prince. "Those also are actions too often neglected," said the fox. "They are what make one day different from other days, one hour from other hours. There is a rite, for example, among my hunters. Every Thursday they dance with the village girls. So Thursday is a wonderful day for me! I can take a walk as far as the vineyards. But if the hunters danced at just any time, every day would be like every other day, and I should never have any vacation at all." So I tried it. For a while I had a recurrent Wednesday lunch with a couple of friends, and I had a weekly scheduled date with my girlfriend at the time. It really does work like the fox says, after a while I started being happier the day before, expecting the event - in a way I don't for one-off scheduled things. Of course, I didn't call them "recurrent meetings", that's business-speak.
shoes_for_thee 6y ago
I did weekly one-on-ones with a former gf. We'd just check in, see how the week went.. make sure everyone is feeling good and getting enough attention and whatnot. I thought it was a good idea, and maybe it was. It felt fine at the time. Our lives took us in different directions and we parted ways after a couple years dating. I thought we left things amicably, but I got an email a few years later (after I had married someone else) that made it clear that my then-gf does indeed seem to hate my fucking guts now. I don't do one-on-ones with my wife, but it still doesn't strike me as a bad idea. It's entirely possible I'm an idiot.
Mvandenbergh 6y ago
I think the main reason people don't like it is aesthetic. If you told people that whatever else was happening, you always made time to have a conversation with your wife at least once a week that wasn't purely transactional (discussing the week's meal planning, children's school schedules etc.). I think people would think that was a good idea. Using a "corporate" term for it, rubs many people the wrong way. Secondarily, some people are uncomfortable using scheduling for personal relationships in general because they feel that these things should be spontaneous. That is, this should be unnecessary because you have deep meaningful conversations with your wife all the time as a matter of course. That's nice if that's the case, but what is not so nice is the attitude that if it doesn't happen spontaneously then it is somehow illegitimate to schedule it. When I was younger, I thought "date night" for couples was unbearably gauche. Surely, going out for dinner, going to a concert was just an inevitable part of a relationship? If you're going to plan it, you might as well move to the suburbs, buy a Subaru, and give up. I don't think that any more. If you're living a life where spontaneous time is indeed filled with activities like that, that's great and no need for cringy "date nights". Realistically for a lot of people that's just going to mean sitting at home eating takeaway in front of the tv. We are in a slightly odd place in society where it is considered a bit lame to try. Society feels that it is indeed better to go out for a nice dinner than to sit on the couch watching sitcoms, but society is also a little uncomfortable with people who put effort into doing that rather than it just happening effortlessly.
- xigency 6y ago
  > It is considered a bit lame to try. I believe this is the real thesis of the article. Why it is okay to be successful is that you no longer need to try - or if you believe talent is innate that some people never had to try. Struggling to get better, being bad, and improving all reek of “trying.”
  - jpindar 6y ago
    Note that the term try-hard is an insult.
codingdave 6y ago
Of course you are allowed to disagree. But would you think of it differently if it was phrased as "We go to couples therapy to strengthen our marriage"? What about "We have a weekly date night." I believe the larger point is not about the status of the author's marriage, not about American arrogance,or even our spelling. Instead it is to see the underlying goal people are trying to achieve, and appreciate that they are working to improve something in their life.
m463 6y ago
I've found that one-on-ones are vitally important for any relationship, no matter what you call them. I would even make one observation. If there is a sort of time or power imbalance in a relationship, the personal meeting is probably of vital importance to the one with more time or less power. In other words "the meeting is for them, not for you"

Godel_unicode 6y ago

> Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? No. That's the whole point. If it works for them why would it be bad? Let's try and not shame people for having different approaches to things.

jmaa 6y ago
Well, depends what he means with "your"; OP specifically, or an arbitrary person? Because I think we are getting dangerously close to shooting down useful criticism and discussion for fear of hurting someones feelings. It's obviously insensitive to say that OP is a bad person because he is doing one-on-ones, but it should be totally acceptable to say "this is weird (from my perspective), I can see several issues with this, I wouldn't personally do this, but you-do-you", and often "(from my perspective)" and "but you-do-you" parts are implied; their absence shouldn't necessarily be taken as proof of mocking. (Disclaimer: I have no opinion on partner one-on-ones.)
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  Weird is one of those truly terrible words that's used to control people who are different than us. It's nice for the person using it, since it doesn't actually mean anything and is thus impervious to arguments stronger than "nuh uh". It's almost never actually the right word, and should be avoided in favor of more descriptive language. In order for criticism to be constructive, it must be easily understandable by the person receiving it. "Don't call people weird" seems like a good general principle (unless they self-identify as weird, in which case knock yourself out). I don't understand this compulsion to try and get people to fall in line and stop being weird. The from-my-perspective and you-do-you parts are the most important parts, why would you leave them out? You're not in charge.

dpeck 6y ago

It sounds silly, but set aside time for a purpose is a good thing. A friend of mine and his spouse do a twice a year “offsite” where they go camping somewhere and spend half of the Saturday talking about where they are in the year financially, relationship, what they want to accomplish as a couple, etc

amflare 6y ago

Sure, as long as you acknowledge that trying to date your employees/manager as a regular part of your professional interactions is also not "in any way a good idea". Getting your translation files mixed up when communicating can make anything seem weird and out of place. Find the root - "intentional interaction with the other party within the established context of the existing socio-personal relationship for the purpose of strengthening and improving said relationship" - then retranslate into the environment in question. You date your wife and hold one-on-ones with co-workers. Its not weird, its just the wrong translation.

karatestomp 6y ago

> Can I agree with his overall premise but disagree with thinking that scheduling weekly one-on-one's with your wife is in any way a good idea? Some folks have a gut-level extremely bad reaction to structuring or treating relationships (romantic or otherwise) "scientifically" or in some structured way. I'm one of them. Grosses me out as surely as seeing maggots burrowing in my steak. It's not rational and goes against everything I rationally believe about the power of systems and environment to engineer success, and I've had to learn to work against that feeling pretty often, but, there you go. Knowing that doesn't get rid of the feeling and tendency toward aversion. I suspect the people making posts that "pissed off" OP were largely having this reaction and didn't get that not everyone has it.

a1369209993 6y ago
> It's not rational and goes against everything [...] It's a justified reaction to how corporations work[0]. Similar to how people feel viceral revulsion at burn scars, even though burn scars are not in any way contagious, (in part) because they look similar to horrible skin diseases that are quite contagious. It's (probably) unfair in this particular case, but it's not at all unjustified. 0: As usual, someone more eloquent than me has put it: "This company is my dream. ...And it's built from the dreams of people who work here. Just the way this building is built out of stone." "This building is made of concrete. Actually. [...] Stone that's been ripped out of the ground, pulverized, mixed with foreign materials, and forced into molds to fit the will of the designer. Stone that bears no resemblance to its original form."

xeromal 6y ago

Yeah, you're the person he's talking about. If that's the way he can better communicate with his wife and she's ok with it, that's all that matters. I used to randomize calendar events on my phone to remind me to call grandma, see dad, game with my brother, etc. It was very robotic looking and if I told anyone about it, I got weird looks but years later, I have great relationships with everyone in my family because I basically trained myself and the people I reached out to communicate well and not let conversation be awkward. If OP kept this up, I bet his relationship at worst would be the same and more likely healthier.

greenshackle2 6y ago

A "one-on-one" is a weird way to phrase it but I've done regular "relationship check-ins" and it worked pretty well. It wasn't weekly though, that's too much for me, I'd probably go for monthly. Recurrent meetings is another thing people rarely do in personal relationships that I found works pretty well. I got the idea from the fox in the Little Prince: The next day the little prince came back. "It would have been better to come back at the same hour," said the fox. "If, for example, you come at four o'clock in the afternoon, then at three o'clock I shall begin to be happy. I shall feel happier and happier as the hour advances. At four o'clock, I shall already be worrying and jumping about. I shall show you how happy I am! But if you come at just any time, I shall never know at what hour my heart is to be ready to greet you . . . One must observe the proper rites . . ." "What is a rite?" asked the little prince. "Those also are actions too often neglected," said the fox. "They are what make one day different from other days, one hour from other hours. There is a rite, for example, among my hunters. Every Thursday they dance with the village girls. So Thursday is a wonderful day for me! I can take a walk as far as the vineyards. But if the hunters danced at just any time, every day would be like every other day, and I should never have any vacation at all." So I tried it. For a while I had a recurrent Wednesday lunch with a couple of friends, and I had a weekly scheduled date with my girlfriend at the time. It really does work like the fox says, after a while I started being happier the day before, expecting the event - in a way I don't for one-off scheduled things. Of course, I didn't call them "recurrent meetings", that's business-speak.

shoes_for_thee 6y ago

I did weekly one-on-ones with a former gf. We'd just check in, see how the week went.. make sure everyone is feeling good and getting enough attention and whatnot. I thought it was a good idea, and maybe it was. It felt fine at the time. Our lives took us in different directions and we parted ways after a couple years dating. I thought we left things amicably, but I got an email a few years later (after I had married someone else) that made it clear that my then-gf does indeed seem to hate my fucking guts now. I don't do one-on-ones with my wife, but it still doesn't strike me as a bad idea. It's entirely possible I'm an idiot.

Mvandenbergh 6y ago

I think the main reason people don't like it is aesthetic. If you told people that whatever else was happening, you always made time to have a conversation with your wife at least once a week that wasn't purely transactional (discussing the week's meal planning, children's school schedules etc.). I think people would think that was a good idea. Using a "corporate" term for it, rubs many people the wrong way. Secondarily, some people are uncomfortable using scheduling for personal relationships in general because they feel that these things should be spontaneous. That is, this should be unnecessary because you have deep meaningful conversations with your wife all the time as a matter of course. That's nice if that's the case, but what is not so nice is the attitude that if it doesn't happen spontaneously then it is somehow illegitimate to schedule it. When I was younger, I thought "date night" for couples was unbearably gauche. Surely, going out for dinner, going to a concert was just an inevitable part of a relationship? If you're going to plan it, you might as well move to the suburbs, buy a Subaru, and give up. I don't think that any more. If you're living a life where spontaneous time is indeed filled with activities like that, that's great and no need for cringy "date nights". Realistically for a lot of people that's just going to mean sitting at home eating takeaway in front of the tv. We are in a slightly odd place in society where it is considered a bit lame to try. Society feels that it is indeed better to go out for a nice dinner than to sit on the couch watching sitcoms, but society is also a little uncomfortable with people who put effort into doing that rather than it just happening effortlessly.

xigency 6y ago
> It is considered a bit lame to try. I believe this is the real thesis of the article. Why it is okay to be successful is that you no longer need to try - or if you believe talent is innate that some people never had to try. Struggling to get better, being bad, and improving all reek of “trying.”
- jpindar 6y ago
  Note that the term try-hard is an insult.

codingdave 6y ago

Of course you are allowed to disagree. But would you think of it differently if it was phrased as "We go to couples therapy to strengthen our marriage"? What about "We have a weekly date night." I believe the larger point is not about the status of the author's marriage, not about American arrogance,or even our spelling. Instead it is to see the underlying goal people are trying to achieve, and appreciate that they are working to improve something in their life.

m463 6y ago

I've found that one-on-ones are vitally important for any relationship, no matter what you call them. I would even make one observation. If there is a sort of time or power imbalance in a relationship, the personal meeting is probably of vital importance to the one with more time or less power. In other words "the meeting is for them, not for you"