3 ms·

I think sometimes you have to realize that it's OKAY if you're always the one to keep in touch, and no one else seems to make any effort. As long as they're ha

I think sometimes you have to realize that it's OKAY if you're always the one to keep in touch, and no one else seems to make any effort. As long as they're happy to talk when you call, or they show up at the group event when you badger them enough: that's fine. Some people are just not initiators, and it's either you make the effort, or you lose touch with them. You can't insist on reciprocity.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
luqtas 3y ago
have you checked on the veracity of this type of contact? last time for me it was a good time with an old one; but continuing would be just nostalgic bazinga... anyway i'm surviving and happy new year [+2 days] nerds!!!!!!!11
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  > the veracity of this type of contact you mean, are they really good friends or not? One is always reassessing that, I guess.
  - luqtas 3y ago
    [dead]
andirk 3y ago
That's me. I've been my friends' glue to some extent since we moved away from high school. I like to think they appreciate it, as I appreciate when they reach out. Happy New Year all HN!
- BlackjackCF 3y ago
  As the non-glue friend - YES, we do appreciate it, so so much.
taylorius 3y ago
Is it OK? I'm genuinely not sure. I have been considering a new year's resolution not to keep propping up relationship that aren't reciprocated. Are they "not initiators" in all relationships, or just with you? Why do you conclude that it's ok (genuinely interested)?
- kibwen 3y ago
  It's entirely natural that some people become "initiators" as a relationship develops. At the beginning of a relationship, person A will initiate X% of the time, and person B will initiate (100-X)% of the time. Unless X is exactly 50 (unlikely), this means one person will naturally initiate more than the other. And then, over time, the person who initiates less will realize that the other person tends to initiate, and will come to expect it. Notably, that doesn't mean that the person who initiates less doesn't value your company! (Of course, it also doesn't mean that they do value you, only that the frequency of initiation is not a good proxy for the health of the relationship.)
  - rrishi 3y ago
    > the frequency of initiation is not a good proxy for the health of the relationship it may not give a 100% accurate picture. but it's certainly one of the variables that plays into the health of the relationship.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  It CAN be ok. Or maybe "never initiating" is a sign that they just don't care. I've had it shake out both ways.
- behnamoh 3y ago
  I'm with you. What I realized is when you take the lead and throw a party or happy hour at a bar or something, your social status increases as well. Most people are followers, few are leaders. If you feel lonely because you don't get invited to parties or events, it might be that they don't think of you as a fellow-follower. It could be that you're actually the leader type and could benefit from that.
- 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sidlls 3y ago
Nope. If someone doesn’t reciprocate that’s an indication of their level of interest. This is true for friendships and romance. If the other party is always a passive recipient of attention, they aren’t interested in the relationship. It’s pointless to invest one’s time and emotions into such a relationship.
- johnisgood 3y ago
  I agree. We could use a different terminology to make a much better sense out of it. Perhaps the word "give" and "take". If I am the person giving and the other person is just the one that takes, without giving back anything, then nope, I am leaving that relationship for reasons that should be obvious. Another term to call the "takers" would be "leech" or "parasite". It does not sound good now, does it?
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    You're right, it's definitely one data point. If you look at your algorithm's ROC: you really want to avoid false negatives ("nope, not a real friend" when they actually could be). Whereas a false positive ("yep, could be a real friend" and they turn out not to be) is something you will notice & correct eventually.
    - johnisgood 3y ago
      To be honest, I actually give them the benefit of doubt at first, because what you said does have merit.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

luqtas 3y ago

have you checked on the veracity of this type of contact? last time for me it was a good time with an old one; but continuing would be just nostalgic bazinga... anyway i'm surviving and happy new year [+2 days] nerds!!!!!!!11

AlbertCory 3y ago
> the veracity of this type of contact you mean, are they really good friends or not? One is always reassessing that, I guess.
- luqtas 3y ago
  [dead]

andirk 3y ago

That's me. I've been my friends' glue to some extent since we moved away from high school. I like to think they appreciate it, as I appreciate when they reach out. Happy New Year all HN!

BlackjackCF 3y ago
As the non-glue friend - YES, we do appreciate it, so so much.

taylorius 3y ago

Is it OK? I'm genuinely not sure. I have been considering a new year's resolution not to keep propping up relationship that aren't reciprocated. Are they "not initiators" in all relationships, or just with you? Why do you conclude that it's ok (genuinely interested)?

kibwen 3y ago
It's entirely natural that some people become "initiators" as a relationship develops. At the beginning of a relationship, person A will initiate X% of the time, and person B will initiate (100-X)% of the time. Unless X is exactly 50 (unlikely), this means one person will naturally initiate more than the other. And then, over time, the person who initiates less will realize that the other person tends to initiate, and will come to expect it. Notably, that doesn't mean that the person who initiates less doesn't value your company! (Of course, it also doesn't mean that they do value you, only that the frequency of initiation is not a good proxy for the health of the relationship.)
- rrishi 3y ago
  > the frequency of initiation is not a good proxy for the health of the relationship it may not give a 100% accurate picture. but it's certainly one of the variables that plays into the health of the relationship.
AlbertCory 3y ago
It CAN be ok. Or maybe "never initiating" is a sign that they just don't care. I've had it shake out both ways.
behnamoh 3y ago
I'm with you. What I realized is when you take the lead and throw a party or happy hour at a bar or something, your social status increases as well. Most people are followers, few are leaders. If you feel lonely because you don't get invited to parties or events, it might be that they don't think of you as a fellow-follower. It could be that you're actually the leader type and could benefit from that.
3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sidlls 3y ago

Nope. If someone doesn’t reciprocate that’s an indication of their level of interest. This is true for friendships and romance. If the other party is always a passive recipient of attention, they aren’t interested in the relationship. It’s pointless to invest one’s time and emotions into such a relationship.

johnisgood 3y ago
I agree. We could use a different terminology to make a much better sense out of it. Perhaps the word "give" and "take". If I am the person giving and the other person is just the one that takes, without giving back anything, then nope, I am leaving that relationship for reasons that should be obvious. Another term to call the "takers" would be "leech" or "parasite". It does not sound good now, does it?
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  You're right, it's definitely one data point. If you look at your algorithm's ROC: you really want to avoid false negatives ("nope, not a real friend" when they actually could be). Whereas a false positive ("yep, could be a real friend" and they turn out not to be) is something you will notice & correct eventually.
  - johnisgood 3y ago
    To be honest, I actually give them the benefit of doubt at first, because what you said does have merit.