5 ms·

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

by 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.
- mattcwilson 5y ago
  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.
  - gjulianm 5y ago
    > 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.

by terafo 5y ago

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.
mattcwilson 5y ago
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.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  > 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.