Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

jakobgreenfeld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 510 posts

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#221

Post by mettamage »

gjulianm wrote: post #190
terafo wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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…

There are tons of people that I see only once per year, and I always have a blast with them. We're both fine it's on a very low backburner. Tons of people are like this.

And like I said in a previous post, I don't manage my friendships in a rational way. This just happens. So I can definitely see it being a category if I'd manage my friendships in a more formal/rational way.

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#222

Post by cyborgx7 »

notreallyserio wrote: post #211

The biggest reason I don't maintain contact with people from my past is I was a much worse person in my past and I'm either embarrassed about my behavior or concerned that my shittiness is what led to our relationship in the first place. In any case, I find it's easier (and emotionally satisfying) to stay in touch with a couple people that I can have natural, unforced conversations with. Scheduling interactions on a…

> The biggest reason I don't maintain contact with people from my past is I was a much worse person in my past and I'm either embarrassed about my behavior or concerned that my shittiness is what led to our relationship in the first place.

Perfect summary. The people I'm still in contact with are those that grew into better people together with me.

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#223

Post by mettamage »

lordnacho wrote: post #203
gjulianm wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 eve…

> maintaining the "last contact" column is going to be a real hassle, and I find it weird it's not even mentioned. This is one thing I thought about doing, but it seems like there's a lot of APIs that are now closed. But also, relationships are not like a tennis match, it's ok to write twice. > I honestly don't think so. A consistent lack of response usually indicates the other person doesn't care. I send out a load…

> They won't forget you but they also won't contact you. A lot of people just feel weird about it.

Or lazy, or forgetful, or they never thought this was a "thing" (basically 0 initiative). All three apply to me, and I need to change it. IMO, the system outlined by the author seems worth trying (or any other systems that I'm picking up in the comments).

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#224

Post by gjulianm »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #214
gjulianm wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. I send all my former clients and coworkers an email every year to wish a happy new year and ask them how things are going/how the latest projects I knew they were working on is going. It’s very different to having no contact at all. It’s always nice when y…

Well, this is precisely the point some commenters are making, that it feels more like a system for clients and companies and business contacts than for actual personal relationships.

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#225

Post by gjulianm »

mattcwilson wrote: post #207
gjulianm wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 neve…

> 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 ?” 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.

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#226

Post by gjulianm »

terafo wrote: post #196
gjulianm wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 s…

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.

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#227

Post by MaxBarraclough »

MrYellowP wrote: post #5

So he's treating people like assets, not friends, and these assets need to be checked on on a regular basis. If there were friends, he'd not need to be reminded of contacting them. He'd miss contacting them. So instead he needs a tool to remind him of that "friend" he needs to contact, because pretending to care is beneficial. One might some day need them. It's incredibly sad that his social life, or rather: the illu…

> If there were friends, he'd not need to be reminded of contacting them.

That sounds rather strong. It's not unusual to keep a Christmas card list, which is pretty much the same idea.

Personally I don't see a problem unless it's automatically sending messages giving the impression they're not automated. The blog post makes it clear that all the messages he sends are written by him, the system only prompts him to write+send them. I don't see an issue in using a system to send reminders.

Incidentally this topic has been discussed before in a thread 7 months back. [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27643328

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#228

Post by otikik »

lelandfe wrote: post #13
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn’t talk about friends you are. Still you can safely assume most of the people in the three weeks category are close contacts. Unless you are in college and have little to no obligations, it gets hard to stay in touch with all your friends and keep track of what is happening to them. It’s not treating people like assets. He is putting efforts on his side towards keeping connections and to do that he needs tools…

The author explicitly says the goal of this work is for opportunities

I don't read it as being the goal. More like one of his motivations.

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#229

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

gjulianm wrote: post #224
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I send all my former clients and coworkers an email every year to wish a happy new year and ask them how things are going/how the latest projects I knew they were working on is going. It’s very different to having no contact at all. It’s always nice when y…

Well, this is precisely the point some commenters are making, that it feels more like a system for clients and companies and business contacts than for actual personal relationships.

Business relationships are personal relationships. I maintain them even when I change companies or when I don’t presently work in the field. Relationships exist on a continuum from close friends to acquaintances.

Re: A simple system I’m using to stay in touch with hundreds of people

#230

Post by gjulianm »

lordnacho wrote: post #203
gjulianm wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 eve…

> maintaining the "last contact" column is going to be a real hassle, and I find it weird it's not even mentioned. This is one thing I thought about doing, but it seems like there's a lot of APIs that are now closed. But also, relationships are not like a tennis match, it's ok to write twice. > I honestly don't think so. A consistent lack of response usually indicates the other person doesn't care. I send out a load…

> This is one thing I thought about doing, but it seems like there's a lot of APIs that are now closed. But also, relationships are not like a tennis match, it's ok to write twice.

I know, but if the tool stops being synced with reality, it loses value and in the end you can end up ignoring it because it's not up to date and then because it's not up to date it has even less value.

> I send out a load of mails over New Year's almost each year, and each year someone writes in April or July saying "OMG I forgot to write back" and then picks up the thread. There's no reason the people who never write back have decided not to, except in very obvious circumstances of relationship breakdown.

But that's not a consistent lack of response, it's just someone missing one interaction. I imagine that if you write someone on new years and they never answer, at some point you stop sending them messages, right?

> They won't forget you but they also won't contact you. A lot of people just feel weird about it.

I do not agree, people might get used to the other person contacting and not think about sending a message, but I don't think feeling weird is common. Of course this is personal experience, so I can't know the universal experience.

Post reply on HN