8 ms·

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 reason

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.

terafo 5y ago
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.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  > 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).
  - terafo 5y ago
    >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.
    - gjulianm 5y ago
      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.
lordnacho 5y ago
> 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.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  > 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.
olivertaylor 5y ago
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.
Vivtek 5y ago
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?

terafo 5y ago

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.

gjulianm 5y ago
> 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).
- terafo 5y ago
  >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.
  - gjulianm 5y ago
    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.

lordnacho 5y ago

> 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.

gjulianm 5y ago
> 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.

olivertaylor 5y ago

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.

Vivtek 5y ago

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?