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)?

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.)

> 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.

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.

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.

I am one of those people that could be described as "not intiators". I genuinely appreciate when people get in touch. I am sorry that I'm almost never the intiator, it's a trait I unfortunately have and I'm working on getting better.

I used to be the one who would never initiate and would feel sad when a relationship just drifted away.

Now I am the initiator most of the times.

Cuz the Buddha said its the path to nirvana. Disconnection breaks you out of the cycle of suffering.

In today's info overload overwhelming reality, its natural that lot of people are going to disconnect.

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!

As the non-glue friend - YES, we do appreciate it, so so much.

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

> the veracity of this type of contact

you mean, are they really good friends or not? One is always reassessing that, I guess.

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.

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?

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.

To be honest, I actually give them the benefit of doubt at first, because what you said does have merit.