[impendia]

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.

[Aurornis]

> 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.

[lovich]

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.

[tejaskumar_]

> 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.

[Dracophoenix]

What one may call the treatment of an "impersonal machine" is another's assessment 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 at least clarifies) the incurrence of "social debt" between the two parties rather than assume mutually shared rules of engagement right off the bat.

[lovich]

>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