What an impoverished way of looking at relationship. I’m not surprised Boz wrote this one—someone with a reputation of being high friction and being hard to work with.

I couldn’t imagine thinking of relationships so transactionally, like every moment I spend with someone is just increasing or decreasing my score with them. There is very little room in this tersely communicated philosophy for intimacy and vulnerability, and in fact, the “hard feedback” he mentions can only be delivered successfully within the context of a trustful relationship.

▲

johnfn 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, viewing relationships transactionally is not good for either participant. But I think you have taken a rather distorted view of the article - and there’s a more charitable way to view this than a brutal utility optimization:

> someone comes with a question and leaves feeling small, they’ll stop asking. If they bring you a hard problem and you meet it with curiosity, you’ll get more of those. If you always solve things for people, they’ll outsource their judgment. If you always critique, they’ll start hiding the work.

I take this as a reminder that my off-hand remarks to people can really make a difference. I don’t think that is “impoverished” at all.

	▲	iamflimflam1 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s always important to remember what your position is when making off hand remarks. An off the cuff comment to a friend or a colleague where you are both equal in stature/responsibility - probably fairly harmless. But important to also remember that you often don’t know what someone else is going through. An off the cuff comment when you are the CEO or CTO to someone junior - potentially catastrophic for them.

▲

jarbus 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It can be an exhausting way to view relationships, but I think it’s true. I’d argue there also is plenty of room for intimacy and vulnerability when it’s genuine. I think people appreciate these traits when they are genuine and appropriate, and prefer it to a fake aura of confidence

	▲	jwpapi 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Red vs blue pill

▲

alphazard 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> like every moment I spend with someone is just increasing or decreasing my score with them

This is more of a statement about the other person, especially if true, than the person trying to estimate the score, who is just trying to model their world as accurately as possible.

If you don't like it, the only thing you can do is try to be more complicated than a single score yourself. If it is in fact a good model of most human, then there is nothing you can do to change it, and being angry at the person who made you aware of the model doesn't help either.

▲

AndrewKemendo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the rule - with the notable exceptions being the people that that society lionizes as “good” or “empathetic” or “kind.” For example MLK, Fred Rogers, Steve Irwin, Bob Ross etc…. these are people whose avatars demonstrate relational capabilities that transcend transactional.

In day to interactions with people in modern industrial society, 99% of the interaction is transactional by default. However if you look around you’ll notice that again the plurality of relationships are transactional at their root.

This is in contrast to transcendental relationships, like the achievable ideal relationship between parent and child, between siblings or romantic partners.

This is especially true for people who got into a position of power via “climbing the ladder”

The ladder in this case is made up of other people that you step on in order to get to the next rung in the ladder.

Transactionalism is ultimately the foundational basis for capitalism and our existing social order globally, and unfortunately also the root of all evil.