I love this very much and strongly agree: I hate receiving those sheepish catch ups, especially when I anticipate an ask coming. In fact, if I sense I want to make an ask but I haven't spoken with someone in a long time, I just won't ask them for the thing because we don't have that context/rapport yet: it's a way of honoring them.

Continuing to make it practical, one thing that has served me well was to maintain a list of friends (I still do this) and text them at least once every day just following up or checking in. Some like it, some don't. For those that don't, that's their choice. The topics around abandoning lost causes kind of apply there: not that these people are lost causes, but daily checkins are. That's okay, to each their own. :)

> an ask

I only see people writing this here in HN. Is it some expression from old that has been revived or is it some activist thing?

OED added this use of "ask" (as in a big/huge ask) in 2005 and said it's originally Australian.

https://english.stackexchange.com/a/111601

It's just shorthand for when people want to ask for things, common among investors (so, YC/HN).

So a request, then.

It's techspeak for 'a request'.

I find it interesting that techspeak has a way of turning verbs into nouns. Ask, invite, compute.

I thought it's corporate America jargon

Technologists seem to have a special proclivity for linguistic nominalization (functional transformation of a verb or adjective into a noun).

Examples: build, patch, commit, deploy, sync, mock, update, upgrade, deliverable, standup, kickoff, resolve, retry. There are probably many more.

'verbing a noun'

Also there's a stylistic difference between coining something new and necessary e.g. 'mock','patch', vs. creating something faddish and unnecessary e.g. 'an ask'.

Is "an invite" techspeak?

The proper word is "invitation".

I thought so too until I checked, but the references I cite above say 'an invite' has also been used since the 17th century, at least for US English.

"an invite" is not specifically techspeak because it's widely used outside tech (esp. in US English), unlike "an ask".

Dictionaries say "an invite" has been used as a noun for centuries.

[0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/can-you-use-invite-a...

[1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/68937/invite-vs-...

yes

> bit strange when you only hear from people once every few years, just as they need an intro or career advice or whatever

This might out me as a psycopath, however, cut to the f'ing chase. If it is a transactional conversation don't insult my intelligence by pretending that it isn't. Obvioulsy this can create a problem as I tend towards "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

If something is within my means and the person hasn't made it onto my shit list I love to help out, it's what makes getting up in the morning worth while. Unfortunately we are all far more powerless than anyone can imagine and actually being able to do more than point people in the right direction, offer advice or just talk to someone is incredibly rare.

You're not a psychopath: I feel the same. However I still value showing them honor so I often deal with them with more kindness externally than I feel internally, recognizing my internal feeling is my own issue not theirs.

> Obvioulsy this can create a problem as I tend towards "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

The fact that most people enjoy exactly the opposite of what I do was revolutionary to me, really explained a lot, and allowed me to navigate social interactions better.

Having said this, I don't see the ROI on pleasing people I don't like. I try to gauge whether someone has the same vibe as I do, and if that's not the case, then I'll be polite but that's it.

What are some primary reasons you don't like some people? Is it just a vibe mismatch like the chemical reactions the article suggests?

First, most common mismatch: different goals. The things I'm trying to achieve are not the things someone else is trying to achieve, which makes cooperation difficult. Or we might be trying to achieve the same thing, effectively competing for the same resources.

Second, less common but still common mismatch: different emotional responses. If an event happens and I react in way A while the other person reacts in way B, either of us needs to suppress the emotional reaction, which is exhausting. I'm not willing to do that, unless genuineness is not expected by definition (at work, at family reunion).

I love how self-aware you are about this. Honestly if I encounter the first mismatch I tend to operate just like you: will honor the person but also move away and towards my goal. Thanks for sharing!

Psychopath? No. But it's also not insulting their intelligence by having that little catch up. You're asking someone for something that they don't have to do for you. Showing up in their inbox saying "Give me something" might seem to you like you're being concise and to the point, but to the person reading it, there's not much motivation for why they should give you that thing you need.

The catchup, as mundane and obvious as it is, at least signals to the person that you see some value in them and value your relationship, even if it's transactional in nature. Does it need to go on for paragraphs or multiple emails back and forth? Absolutely not, but having some lead in makes it less like you're only concerned about what you can get from the person.

Would you rather a waiter just come up to your table and say "Order!?" or have a little bit of pleasantries before asking what you'd like to eat. There's no more transactional relationship than a diner and a waiter, but most people would prefer the latter.

Those pleasantries also keep the door open for more interactions. If you ask someone for help, being sociable will make them feel at ease and more open to asking your insights too, and that's a win-win for everyone. And really, that's how personal and professional networks are formed: through small gestures you do consistently over time, you build up comfortable interactions with the people around you.

This also varies a lot across cultures: in Germany, people actually expect waiters to show up and say "Order?" and sometimes get irritated when they're overly bubbly. In the USA, the opposite is expected.

Right, it's about showing that you respect the social and cultural expectation, not about the specific expectation.

Some people have a very hard time adapting or accepting different cultural expectations, and their world is necessarily narrowed. It always makes sense logically, "Why should I have to play these games to show that I mean well, people should judge me by my more meaningful actions" but another way of looking at it is it's not worth it to them to make the microscopic effort to communicate willingness. If they're not willing to make even that little effort to make communication easier, what else are they unwilling to do?

Yeah, strong agree.

I nearly lol'd at the people immediately jumping to "you're not a psychopath", as if that's a bad thing. Psychopathy can be essentially the selective inhibition of empathy (not to be confused with a total lack of empathy as in ASPD). If you choose not to feel empathy for people who are trying to small-talk you then that could technically be called psychopathy. And also a relatively common symptom of autism! (I, also, hate small talk in many transactional conversations, and am autistic.)

This isn't entirely accurate. Psychopathy involves impaired affective (emotional) empathy as a core trait, while cognitive empathy remains intact or can even be enhanced. This is slightly different from autism, which typically shows impaired cognitive empathy but intact affective empathy.

Psychopathy is not about choosing not to feel empathy - it's a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent deficits in emotional responsiveness and empathic concern for others (meaning they can't). -"opathy" is usually a disorder outside of one's control.

I think you might have run into the exact thing I put in my comment: "not to be confused with ASPD", which is also sometimes called sociopathy. I use psychopathy and sociopathy differently (such that psychopathy is chosen while sociopathy is inherent) and choices like these can be an autistic trait. I'm not talking about empathic struggles, but rather a choice not to care too much about someone's emotions in a particular context. I don't know how to square these with the commonly accepted definitions because the commonly accepted definitions are kind of ridiculous (the terms psychopathy, sociopathy, and ASPD are collectively sort of ambiguous because they all each mean everything somehow; nearly everyone is confused about them in some way).

This is why I said psychopathy "can be" the selective inhibition of empathy, because by some definitions that's what it is. Other definitions like yours essentially define it as what I call sociopathy (simply being without empathy in the first place). I don't claim my definition to be the only definition because psychopathy can sort of mean either thing depending on who you ask, but I use my definition just for the sake of argument.

Heard! Sorry if I came across as combative! I spent way too much time around clinicians and tend to stick to formal definitions a little too much.

The thing about psychopathy sort of being defined either way depending on who you ask is that we don't necessarily know for sure which definition is right anymore. They're essentially both "correct in a way". The term also has a somewhat muddied history that makes it difficult to figure out what it was truly originally supposed to mean, so we don't even know which definition today is supposed to be the right one.

I get it, as engineers we value efficiency and truth above almost everything else. But most people are not like us.

They want to be appreciated, acknowledged, and seen above almost everything else. If you call up an old acquaintance and start the conversation by asking if they know of any job openings, you will be seen as someone who only values what they can DO for you, instead of who are they ARE to you. Nobody likes being a tool, they like being a friend, and like feeling that they are doing something good for someone that likes them for who they are.

Now, we ALL know that the call out of the blue to catch up often has an ulterior motive but it's polite (and necessary) to at least PRETEND that the ask is not the main reason you called.

Exactly. Humans are so much more irrational and illogical than the machines we know. And this is a feature, not a bug.

Nit: If it's irrational and it works, it's not irrational

It's a feature if you're neurotypical

You don't even have to pretend that the ask is not the main reason you called. Of course you call me because you need something, I do this too.

But if you called, and you are not even slightly interested in catching up, that just makes you a rude ass.

One of the benefits of playing the game is signaling that you're willing to follow norms even if they don't directly benefit you or make sense to you. Someone refusing to play along with anything that doesn't immediately make sense to them or reasonate with them is a yellow flag, since it shows that they don't value the social contract and aren't willing to humble themselves or make other people the priority.

We're social animals, and when people overtly signal that they're disinterested in the existing paradigm, they're communicating that they're going to be exhausting to interact with, since you're going to have to explain and justify every individual thing you want out of them that they don't already understand, and they'll never just go along with things for the sake of others.

I know a few people like this and can confirm: they're extremely difficult to be around and take pride in it, feeling great about being "free thinkers" and breaking from the "herd mentality".

This I feel is unfortunately counter to the design of humankind, where we are—as you said—social animals and the only way to change for the better—at a species level—is to change together.

Isn't that basis for criticism a little broad? It sounds like you're saying that vegetarianism, every religion, and a higher than average scrupulousness towards not littering are in the same category as picking your nose during a one on one.

I don't think so: those are strong convictions that people have according to their value system and moral code and it's their right to have them. I'm not talking about that at all. To me, those are "closed handed" issues: we respect them without negotiation.

I'm talking about "open handed" issues where people tend to debate and negotiate: preferences, not convictions—if 3/4 friends want to go get a sandwich, but 1/4 insists on either salad or "go without me", this can be taxing on the relationship—especially if they also are usually open to sandwiches and have no strong conviction against it.

People with strong value systems that differ from those around them are the freethinkers your friend with the tempestuous relationship with sandwiches is comparing themselves to.

It's not that people who clean up after camping have to drag all of humanity with them before they can claim to have done some good - it's that the sandwich shop example doesn't have anything to do with actual human values.

Do you find that vegetarians, the religious, and people that are mindful about littering frequently take vocal pride in being "free thinkers"?

The ones that I know don't, but I'm sure some do. Either way, these aren't the people I'm talking about.

It's what they are, relative to a society that eats meat, doesn't really follow their self identified religion and that must put that garbage by the side of the trail somehow. :-)

I'll add to this: If you want to practice following up but are afraid of "bugging" someone, start by wishing 1-3 people happy birthday every day. I put every person I know birthday on one giant Google calendar and wish people happy every day. It's a super easy way to at least say "hi" to someone once a year.

I love this.

I tried this, but it didn't work very well for me. Maybe I was just catching people at a bad time? They'd always brush me off with some version of

  "uh, it isn't my birthday"

  "you've said that to me every day for a week, please stop"

  "stay away from me".

What could I be doing wrong? Am I just choosing the wrong people to try to befriend?

I think you might be choosing the wrong people. :grimacing:

> "you've said that to me every day for a week, please stop"

Did you, or didn't you ??

Relationships are like a garden, they require continual, repeated effort to maintain.

It doesn’t need to be an onerous amount of effort, but reaching out to people to shoot the shit once even a year is often enough to maintain the relationship for professional networks at least.

In software we have an unfortunate amount of people who don’t value social connections at all so we end up with a large tranche of people who can’t get past the “but why would I talk to them without a specific reason?” argument and then lament why all of their relationships end up transactional, or even better lament why no one will help them specifically because all their relationships are transactional and they aren’t offering anything of value

>In software we have an unfortunate amount of people who don’t value social connections at all so we end up with a large tranche of people who can’t get past the “but why would I talk to them without a specific reason?” argument and then lament why all of their relationships end up transactional, or even better lament why no one will help them specifically because all their relationships are transactional and they aren’t offering anything of value

Yup, you get a lot of people complaining about the pointlessness of small talk, but the reality is that small talk is social glue. People want to work with people they like, and you only get that by having some level of casual ease with one another. Being 100% business all the time is the opposite of casual ease.

Post a longtime job out of grad school via on-campus interview (which is a bit of an irrelevant story itself), every other of my (few) jobs were through a professional network. Nothing formal, but people I ran into and maintained some connection with. I know there are a lot of people who (at least until recently) are they just ping a recruiter and get offers dropped in their lap. Or who are deeply resentful that it seems like "who you know" is the modus operandi for some. But without being anything like deliberate or cynical about the whole thing, it worked for me.

+100 to this.

"Yup, you get a lot of people complaining about the pointlessness of small talk, but the reality is that small talk is social glue."

Only with some people. Trying to do smalltalk with me, will not make me your friend. I simply hate smalltalk. (Talking unimportant things for the sake of talking)

But there are a million of other interesting non buisness things I am willing to talk about at length. I also like to joke around and be silly. But that requires a connection, you won't get with me while talking about the weather. And I know many people are like me, most just adopted to "like" smalltalk, as they think this is the way it has to be.

Small talk doesn’t need to be about the weather as the trope goes.

It can be as simple as “hey have you seen {shared colleague} recently?” Or “Hey man, you get into any new hobbies recently?”, or “I’ve been dabbling in {x} tech, have you done anything like it or are could recommend an alternative based on {personal information you got from collaborating with this person}”

The main point in making is that you need to continue in performing these relationship maintaining activities _before_ you need said persons help.

For the extremely oblivious who haven’t researched any game theory but know some comp sci, imagine that relationships with all other humans needed regular mechanical Turk transactions with yourself or they will be identified as high risk groups that shouldn’t be afforded any leeway.

"The main point in making is that you need to continue in performing these relationship maintaining activities _before_ you need said persons help."

Well, but I am quite good in determining if another person is just trying to be (fake) friendly, so they can get my help later and I am not interested in that and smalltalk won't create that bond for me. I am interested in genuine connections.

So if someone asks this question "Hey man, you get into any new hobbies recently" and is actually interested in my response - then this is simply not smalltalk anymore by my definition. And I gladly answer. And maybe form a bond. And of course help each other later.

But if I feel, it is just a mechanical and calculated approach to bond with me, well, no thank you. But I also help people without doing smalltalk if I can.

small talk isnt pointless if done with an aim. this video help explains that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw5CPtEyedU. seduction as applied to conversation.

also rather mundane conversation can be fun if done in the right manner. this video talks more on the right manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRG-YubP1rw

> Well, but I am quite good in determining if another person is just trying to be (fake) friendly, so they can get my help later and I am not interested in that and smalltalk won't create that bond for me. I am interested in genuine connections.

Can I presume that this is the burner account of some particular billionaire if you are that good at recognizing the social situations?

> Can I presume that this is the burner account of some particular billionaire if you are that good at recognizing the social situations?

I'm pretty certain GP isn't as good as he thinks he is. Literally no one can tell the difference between me making smalltalk because I think I may need you later and me making smalltalk because I am genuinely interested in you.

The reason I say this is because even I cannot tell tell the difference, because I tend to find something interesting in everyone. I've made smalltalk with literal ditch-diggers, and two weeks later with a billionaire, and the conversations were both pretty much the same.

"The reason I say this is because even I cannot tell tell the difference"

Then you are acting natural. I mean cold calculated attempts to bond to benefit. And nice empty small talk as an art to get there. This is the small talk I mean and don't like. Talking about small things in a fun way I enjoy

I fully agree with this.

Small talk probably doesn't even need to be "talk", a consider the (in/)famous example of asking for a cigarette lighter.

just make jokes? what did the weather do to you?

I'd like you to consider a different perspective. Maybe ask yourself if your current perspective is too self-focused and maybe also a perspective that lacks self-awareness.

======================

I think you might be using a different definition of "smalltalk" than most people.

Me, for example ... I don't talk about weather or sport. I won't pretend to be interested in 'em either.

And yet, I have no problem engaging even strangers for 30m or more at a time. I just pick something in context and mention it.

For example, if you can strike up, and then continue, a conversation with the person next to you in line for boarding a flight, then you're golden. I once lead with "That's a damn small plane[1]. I hit my head the first time I went into one of those." to a tall gentleman behind me in the line, and had a 30m conversation with someone who turned out to be a very interesting litigator.

I mean, if you're in a specific place, at a specific time, and cannot find anything contextual to use as a conversation starter, then I don't think that the problem is that the whole world is too dumb[2] for your level of "smalltalk" topics.

When you "connect", you're not looking to marry the person, just find something you both have in common. If you run into too many situations where you have absolutely nothing in common with people around you, you are the problem, not the people around you.

[1] Embraer 139, or something. Can't remember now.

2] I dunno how else to interpret "talking for the sake of talking".

Well, partly it is indeed about defining smalltalk.

"then I don't think that the problem is that the whole world is too dumb[2] for your level of "smalltalk" topics."

I also don't think other people are too dumb to have conversation with me.

But I do value silence more, than well "talking for the sake of talking".

Meaning 2 people thinking they need to do smalltalk, but both people are not that interested in the other person. Casual blabla to pass the time. Or artificial attempts to "network". (Won't work like this) I can smile about such awkward conversations, but not take part in it.

Otherwise I can make deep connections very fast with completely random strangers and talk about anything. If I feel like it.

It might be the depression talking, but I think in truth I don't want to like people.

I'm not playing a strong Devil's Advocate for this thread, my comments are explanations and not excuses - I just don't like people, and I would need to be convinced that relationships are worth having, before I cared about how to have them. If I wanted lots of platonic business relationships I would be interested in how to have them.

If it's not too personal—why do you not want to like people?

Not them, but can relate. I dwell on the asymmetrical nature a bit. Relationships take more than they provide.

It's certainly an indication that I should maintain better relationships... but it's vastly easier to keep them minimal.

I hear people now: "but opportunities!". Can't miss what you already have.

To know I have a friend (of a certain class, at least) I have to be ready to effectively double the size of my life. It's already been pretty overwhelming. Different types of resilience involved or being developed

Back on topic: I find it's less about the people and more... everything in between. The act of sorting; rarely worth the effort. Manufacturing productive business relationships has been far simpler than personal. Where some find benefit joining them... I actually enjoy space between.

> because all their relationships are transactional and they aren’t offering anything of value

Why is a transactional relationship considered bad? And why would one consider a transactional relationship as something not offering value?

I don't like small talk, but if I like the person I would try to help them anyway with their transactional request, with the expectation that I might have a similar transactional request at some point in the future. If the relationship is equally transactional in both directions, I don't see a problem with that.

I am an academic mathematician, and one thing I love about our culture is that transactional relationships are considered perfectly okay.

I can invite a colleague at another university, whom I might consider an old friend even though I haven't spoken to them in ages -- to come give a talk in my department. Very often they'll agree to come; we'll roll out the red carpet for them, and they and I will have a wonderful time.

That said, this is far from universal in academia, and many academics do enjoy small talk and prefer to keep in touch regularly.

I don't think any sort of relationship can be called "bad" or "good" in the abstract -- but a lot of people consider transactional relationships "bad" in the sense that they don't like them. And, if you want to build relationships with people, often you have to do it on their terms, or at least try to meet them halfway.

> I can invite a colleague at another university, whom I might consider an old friend even though I haven't spoken to them in ages -- to come give a talk in my department. Very often they'll agree to come; we'll roll out the red carpet for them, and they and I will have a wonderful time.

You're giving the person an opportunity in this case. You're also rolling out the red carpet to make it good for them.

Usually when people talk about transactional relationships, it means they only call on you when they need something from you. For example, calling someone up every 5 years when you need a referral or you want them to solve a problem for you.

Transactional relationships are completely fine, and personally I prefer them in the work space.

I was commenting on people who’s behavior creates transactional relationships when they wanted something with a deeper interpersonal relationships, and people whose behavior causes transactional relationships but also have nothing of value to make the transaction worth it.

If a billionaire calls me up once every five years for a favor but pays me a couple of million for it, I’ll take the call any day.

If someone I met at college a few times calls me up once every few years when they got laid off and only are talking to me for a reference but are never in a position to to help me, what reason do I have to help them other than a feeling of charity?

I guess I’m saying you shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated unless you are ok with that same behavior being turned back on yourself.

> I guess I’m saying you shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated unless you are ok with that same behavior being turned back on yourself.

This! However if you'll allow me—I think it's worth saying we shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated _at all_ because we're never really okay with that same behavior being given back to us because of millenia of social, communal evolution.

>This! However if you'll allow me—I think it's worth saying we shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated _at all_ because we're never really okay with that same behavior being given back to us because of millenia of social, communal evolution.

That’s an argument I think I agree with but am not ready to defend tonight.

It’s much easier to defend the point that if you treat me solely as a resource to be exploited then you shouldn’t be surprised if others or myself treat you solely as a resource to be exploited

One person's view of an "impersonal machine" is another's view of what an appropriate relationship looks like. Some people prefer such associations even in deeper relationships because it prevents one person's encroachment upon another's individual agency and minimizes (or least clarifies) the "social debt" between the two parties rather than assume mutually shared rules of engagement right off the bat.

If you "like" a person, it's probably not really a transactional relationship. "Hi, I'm one of the 100K alumni who went to the same school as you did, can we do coffee?" is.

>> "Hi, I'm one of the 100K alumni who went to the same school as you did, can we do coffee?" is

I have absolutely gotten similar requests from students through my Alumni organization and have accepted them in the past. I don't see a problem here.

Here is a direct quote from a request that I have accepted in the past(redacted a little): "Hi <name>, I am a MS in CS student at <university> graduating in spring '25 and I saw your profile on <university>'s alumni page. I'm pursuing a career in software engineering and I'm wondering if we can connect and chat sometime about your career and the culture at <company>."

I was a bit flippant. Depends on the specificity of the request, how it's worded, and how big a request it is. (I'm far more likely to have a quick phone chat or answer a specific question by email than I am to drive to meet someone for coffee.) It's also a pet peeve when I spend the time to answer some questions and... crickets.

It's only bad if one of the parties doesn't understand that it is transactional. When you succeed you might find that some people you thought you were just trading with feel betrayed in some way.

Because in transactional relationships the other person only shows up when they need something and then they disappear again until the next time they need something from you.

Transactional relationships are fine if that's the deal up front. I have a lot of transactional relationships with freelancers, contractors, and repair people. I call them up needing something and I'm going to pay them for it. The transaction.

I dislike transactional relationships when they're disguised as personal connections or friendships. People who pretend to want to get to know you, but they really just want to be able to call on you when they need something from you. Often when you call on them for something they're nowhere to be found.

This. It's the deceit that's hurtful, not the transactional relationship itself.

You only quoted a portion of my sentence.

Transactional relationships can be fine if both parties are on with it, but you actually need to bring something of value.

If you and I have a fully transactional relationship, then why would I do anything for you if you won’t/can’t do anything for me?

I think this is tricky.

I'm someone who very highly values social connections, but finds it a little bit awkward to just "shoot the shit". I really enjoy interacting with people based on shared experiences, of whatever type -- but as you say, many people really enjoy interactions which are lower-key.

You're not wrong, but interacting with others on their terms rather than yours can be a bit challenging at times, and easy to get wrong.

The cool thing is though that the real ones will have grace when either side gets it wrong, and the others won't.

Relationships really are like a garden—if you don’t tend to them, they wither

Love this. Thank you for posting it!

yeah i switched from business to software engineering, and it felt like an sysphean task to develop and keep relationships up in this new hemisphere. thought it was just me but didnt really have that issue with business people. in software it feels like the relationship halflife is accelerated. wonder how to get around that issue with people you literally have to strong arm the social stuff for them. i know doing computer gaming socials and having mutually overlapping projects can help be temporary glue but beyond that, trying to muster things up continues to be a struggle at least with a large portion of the software community. whats the secret to effortless networking and convincing introverts to so social stuff that they are repelled to doing.

I don't know, this sounds a bit like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Why not go find extroverts instead?

Very good point.

What's the old saying "A friend in need, is a friend, indeed."?

I like to have personal relationships, as opposed to corporate ones.

Funny story: During the 1990s, my direct boss was a fairly low-key Japanese man. I really liked him. He was a marketing type, so we didn't really have a technical basis for our relationship. He was a decent chap, and I happily followed his orders. In return, he gave me a great deal of agency.

After he returned to Japan, we'd run into each other, from time to time, and it was always a warm, effusive greeting.

Years later, he was the Chairman of the Board of the corporation. I never leveraged the relationship, but my team was always treated well, at our level. We were a small technical team, and it would have been inappropriate to focus on us too much. I had very little ambition to go much higher up the corporate food chain, so all was fine. Once, he made a visit to our office (the US branch). It was a really big deal, and people were snapping to attention all over the building.

He dropped by my tiny little office, to say hi. It was really amusing, to see the puzzled expressions on all the corporate bigwigs in his entourage.

A similar thing happened to me recently. A chap I knew at a previous bank when I was an AVP and he was a VP is now on the board of my (very large multinational) company.

When we caught up it was nice to see that he was exactly the same, and remembered me and said hello.

These people are the real MVPs.

The way I think of it, top executives or famous people are just someone with a different job than mine.

So I treat them that way, and that works really well for me.

Hahaha, what a lovely story! Really shows what happens when we engage as _people_, not _opportunities_.

This is a lot of the misunderstanding around "networking" you see in discussions. A lot of tech people see it as an unwelcome task/burden. Whereas, it should be generally viewed as a pleasurable opportunity to just get to know people who may (or may not) be useful at some point in the future.

My theory is that that term has this reputation because it is somewhat dehumanized: you _talk_ to people, you _network_ with opportunities.

I think this happens because networking is always proposed as a way out of a bad career situation. Someone complains online about lack of opportunities then commenters come along to parrot networking as a solution. It sounds like a task you do for career gain.

I have another theory that this creates a lot of rebound anger at the idea of networking. When I was doing mentoring (external to my company, people I didn't work with) I spent a depressing amount of time convincing young engineers that it was a bad idea to burn bridges as they left a company. Way too many people are enamored with the idea of ghosting their job or telling off their coworkers on the way out the door. It takes some convincing to get them to realize that leaving a bad impression on an entire office of people is the fastest way to poison their potential network. Nobody will want to refer you for future jobs if you're a jerk in your final days.

I'm not used to putting effort into friendships, so it does sound like an unwelcome task.

And it sounds phony, since I have never put effort before. If I have to put effort then am I not faking it?

I'm "on the spectrum," so human relationships are a bit foreign to me. I'd make a great hermit.

Pretty much every relationship I have "doesn't come natural." I need to put conscious effort into every one.

I have also been involved in an organization, for most of my adult life, that has been instrumental, in helping to force me to have relationships with others, and it has taught me to be a good friend, and has given me good friends.

I'm not really into "transactional" relationships. In many cases, the extent of our relationship is only where we need to work with each other. I don't need to be their buddy, but, in the context of our work, I have found that it helps me to develop a true interest in the other person.

In my experience, I have realized that I'm actually a "people person." I really like people, and have found great utility, in ignoring my prejudices, and actually finding out a lot about the others in my life.

I really identify with your last sentence! Well actually your whole comment.

> Pretty much every relationship I have "doesn't come natural." I need to put conscious effort into every one.

In what way exactly?

Hard to explain. I don't "get" people, naturally. I don't feel the "proper" emotions, for situations, I have a fairly self-sufficient internal world, that doesn't really "need" other people.

It's made me a good coder, but has made my relationships challenging.

It's really a long story, and one that others have told, far better than I can.

I'm not sure I understand this: do you mean you don't put in effort, or you do but the effort doesn't _feel_ like work?

minimal effort can be fun. you cam always think of people as specialized tools with needs. if you get a good idea about both and refresh it periodically you are done. If you document enough you will be able to satisfy some needs, sometimes with very little effort. They will remember they owe you and love to elaborate about what else they need. Listen and move on. fill up the rolodex

I think the misunderstanding, in fact, is in reverse, demonstrated by the above comment. The networking required for career growth is, for many people, never going to pleasurable.

My social circles don't have much overlap with, for example, startup founders. Developing personal relationships in my network is not likely to ever benefit my career growth. When people give the advice to "network" to enable my career growth, the people who would be most helpful tend not to have much in common with me, and building relationships with them often means not being true to myself, or even hiding myself.

It isn't enough to simply build relationships or even be good at building relationships. Mostly, one needs to buy goodwill from those people who actually have power to help you.

This was a really insightful comment!

> When people give the advice to "network" to enable my career growth, the people who would be most helpful tend not to have much in common with me, and building relationships with them often means not being true to myself, or even hiding myself.

Then it's best to recognise this early and decide if you want to be true to yourself or if you want to succeed[1].

[1] Depending on your definition of "success", plodding along for 40 years as an IC, contributing your skills to whichever employer and eventually retiring is, for many, "Success" with a capital "S". The people giving the networking advice are using a different definition, which is usually "rising in your career until you are making an impact far larger than an IC could". Not networking with the other rising stars gives you a very low chance of attaining that second definition of success.

Hm, I mostly agree, but I think that's a bit tangential.

It's not like people really get to make that choice and still have a good chance at success. In order to meet any definition of success[1], you need to get hired. And also, if you're in a job that's making you miserable, you once again need to get hired (somewhere else). Networking is the solution to that problem. If you're not someone who can enjoy and/or succeed at networking, your career is at risk. There's not much you can do about that except take a different path.

[1] excluding either "leave the field and succeed somewhere else" or "start your own company"[2]

[2] although starting one's own company without a robust network would probably also be a pretty difficult path

All relationships in some form require you to not be true to yourself. It's just the way it works, we are all very different from each other so being able to create a shared bubble of understanding is an essential skill. That's not disingenuous or something to be lamented. It's how people bond.

I don't at all agree with that. Or at least, it's only true enough to be misleading and to downplay/obscure the real concerns I'm raising.

Because, of course it's true not all my friends are just like me. But I don't have to hide who I am from them. I can be completely true to myself and we can disagree about some things but still feel genuine connections.

I consider that qualitatively different from a relationship with a person who would dislike and distrust me unless I hide important facets of my identity/personality.

edit: I see that I made the distinction in my original comment between "not being true" vs "hiding", so I think that's where you jumped in. My fault for leaving that gap open; I hope my position is more clear here.

How did you "run into each other, from time to time"?

This seems to be the key part. There's research that shows that relationships are built via multiple, random encounters. Do you think he still would have dropped by your office if you hadn't had these run ins?

I would go to Tokyo, once or thrice a year. Long trip. I don't really miss it.

We'd usually run into each other at the train station, or in the corridors of the meeting room floor.

Our meets were always quite brief and serendipitous. We were in very different orbits.

Does anyone have any practical advice to keeping up with former remote coworkers?

My last job was remote with some fantastic people, but as time has passed and the company hasn't done incredibly well, people have scattered (including myself) and I've found it tricky to keep in touch. I'll video chat with some of them once every few months online, but I only have contact with some of them this way.

For others, it feels like the best contact I have is LinkedIn messages. It's usually a quick exchange about how they've been, if they've been up to anything interesting, how the kids are, and how work is - but it's all fairly brief.

Maybe that's fine? Would love to hear if others have better ways to keep in touch with people they enjoyed their time with, but no longer see on a regular basis or live anywhere near.

What works for me is overt intentionality: I just tell them I'd like to continue to keep in touch with them and ask if it's okay if I sporadically text them somewhat regularly. Some folks have said outright no and that's fine, it's their choice, but others (most of them mentioned in my essay) have said yes and it's a really beautiful arrangement. Sometimes if they don't hear from me, they now proactively reach out.

That's a great point! I find that it's easy (for myself, at least) to gloss over the simplest and straight forward path for communication! It's always easier to be direct. I appreciate the advice!

People hate LinkedIn but it's my solution. I only "follow" former coworkers and ask how they are doing once in a while, and sometimes to have lunch at noon.

LinkedIn sucks unless you you restrict yourself to coworkers and IRL friends.

It's a hard one. If you lived nearby, I'd say that meeting up for lunch or a drink is unbeatable.

Maybe ask for their help or opinion on stuff you encounter? Whether it's technical problems, interpersonal stuff, personal musings about the industry... once every few months is probably enough, you don't have to stick to professional topics but that's probably a good way to start!

I tend to use LinkedIn for that. It's fairly asynchronous and not too "in your face." I used to roll my eyes at their anniversary reminders, but then I realized it was a great opportunity to find out how someone was doing and just do a brief keep in touch kinda thing.

Hey, this is actually a really good idea!

The other thing you can do is "Hey, I remember when we spoke you were interested in XX. I just found this article on it that I thought you might find interesting."

It's a tiny favour, but it also shows you listened to the other person.

Love this!

It really depends on the long term goals, I would also argue that if there are no personal stakes in such relationships it's tough to keep track.