You're being downvoted probably because hn is too sensitive to you calling me judgy but you have a good point. It's hard to write about this without sounding weird, and I guess if I wanted to write about what makes a good party I'd also sound weird. I guess my point was more about the mindset of how you even think about the thing. For me it just "is", and that's a good part of why it works. I wouldn't want to think everyone at the party is focused on maximizing the fun instead of, you know, just naturally having fun.

Like imagine if during sex you think your partner is just meta-thinking about giving you a good experience - they should just be enjoying and so should you. To me this example makes it more visceral but upon reflection I'm just making a basic "live in the moment" cliche.

I don't know about the Netherlands, but having spent a bit of time in Germany, you may be underestimating the mount of party planning that is ingrained into the various European cultures.

From an outside perspective, even fairly casual German gatherings feel like they are orchestrated with a level of precision that would do a military campaign proud - but the Germans I was with don't really seem to notice this (likely because they all already know their roles, and to them it's just part of their culture)

Thanks. I'm no fan of the article, and likely for the reason you mention: trying to write down how to perform social interactions is extremely weird (although I don't think it is "sociopathic"). I do admire people that are good at explaining their internal social thinking!

It was interesting to read in part because different people do things so differently: I'm sure we could find successful party creators that have "rules" that are completely incompatible! An example, the writer clearly very carefully curates their invite list; however an opposite technique can be to have zero curation (which can definitely be great). The network of social ties leads to certain outcomes without forcing.

> For me it just "is", and that's a good part of why it works.

Naturalness is great for those that are smart. The implied rule is to "be natural": that rule makes sense to write yet it is simultaneously nonsense.

Overthinking anything is silly. But sometimes it can lead to insight. I think that "Let your irrational mind run the show" is also a good rule for life yet somewhere we need to fit in rationality even though that is a contradiction.

I think their #1 rule is strangely unobvious to some people. I'm a social idiot yet I can think of more than one case where I have tried to encourage a hostess to let go of their hostessing anxiety (when I've felt I could do so tactfully and hurtlessly). It isn't a sexist thing, it is just a personal observation that it is a common issue (I would try and help a guy out too if I saw the problem and I thought I could help rather than harm).

It seems maybe I've pondered the above, yet writing it down is just freaky weird. Perhaps writing is the issue!? Talking of course has its own failures.

Ideally we intuitively soak up good ways to do things. If we are fortunate then our friends help us to learn when we've been misled by our intuitions.

Going too meta is another fail!