the most valuable part of a social event is often not the part that is ostensibly the most important, but rather the gaps between the main parts.
at ML conferences, the headline keynotes and orals are usually the least useful part to go to; the random spontaneous hallway chats and dinners and afterparties are extremely valuable
when doing an activity with friends, the activity itself is often of secondary importance. talking on the way to the activity, or in the gaps between doing the activity, carry a lot of the value
at work, a lot of the best conversations happen outside of scheduled 1:1s and group meetings, but rather happen in spontaneous hallway or dinner groups
I have heard people say this so many times, and it is consistently the opposite of my experience. The random spontaneous conversations at conferences are disproportionately shallow and tend toward the same things which have been discussed to death online already, or toward the things which seem simple enough that everyone thinks they have something to say on the topic. When doing an activity with friends, it’s usually the activity which is novel and/or interesting, while the conversation tends to be shallow and playful and fun but not as substantive as the activity. At work, spontaneous conversations generally had little relevance to the actual things we were/are working on (there are some exceptions, but they’re rarely as high-value as ordinary work).
I think you are possibly better/optimizing more than most others at selecting conferences & events you actually want to do. Even with work, I think many get value out of having those spontaneous conversations because it often shifts what they’re going to do—the number one spontaneous conversation is “what are you working on” or “what have you done so far”, which forces you to re-explain what you’re doing & the reasons for doing it to a skeptical & ignorant audience. My understanding is you and David already do this very often with each other.
the number one spontaneous conversation is “what are you working on” or “what have you done so far”, which forces you to re-explain what you’re doing & the reasons for doing it to a skeptical & ignorant audience
I’m very curious if others also find this to be the biggest value-contributor amongst spontaneous conversations. (Also, more generally, I’m curious what kinds of spontaneous conversations people are getting so much value out of.)
One of the directions im currently most excited about (modern control theory through algebraic analysis) I learned about while idly chitchatting with a colleague at lunch about old school cybernetics. We were both confused why it was such a big deal in the 50s and 60s then basically died.
A stranger at the table had overheard our conversation and immediately started ranting to us about the history of cybernetics and modern methods of control theory. Turns out that control theory has developed far beyond whay people did in the 60s but names, techniques, methods have changed and this guy was one of the world experts. I wouldn’t have known to ask him because the guy’s specialization on the face of it had nothing to do with control theory.
I do not find this to be the biggest value-contributor amongst my spontaneous conversations.
I don’t have a good hypothesis for why spontaneous-ish conversations can end up being valuable to me so frequently. I have a vague intuition that it might be an expression of the same phenomenon that makes slack and playfulness in research and internet browsing very valuable for me.
the most valuable part of a social event is often not the part that is ostensibly the most important, but rather the gaps between the main parts.
at ML conferences, the headline keynotes and orals are usually the least useful part to go to; the random spontaneous hallway chats and dinners and afterparties are extremely valuable
when doing an activity with friends, the activity itself is often of secondary importance. talking on the way to the activity, or in the gaps between doing the activity, carry a lot of the value
at work, a lot of the best conversations happen outside of scheduled 1:1s and group meetings, but rather happen in spontaneous hallway or dinner groups
I have heard people say this so many times, and it is consistently the opposite of my experience. The random spontaneous conversations at conferences are disproportionately shallow and tend toward the same things which have been discussed to death online already, or toward the things which seem simple enough that everyone thinks they have something to say on the topic. When doing an activity with friends, it’s usually the activity which is novel and/or interesting, while the conversation tends to be shallow and playful and fun but not as substantive as the activity. At work, spontaneous conversations generally had little relevance to the actual things we were/are working on (there are some exceptions, but they’re rarely as high-value as ordinary work).
I think you are possibly better/optimizing more than most others at selecting conferences & events you actually want to do. Even with work, I think many get value out of having those spontaneous conversations because it often shifts what they’re going to do—the number one spontaneous conversation is “what are you working on” or “what have you done so far”, which forces you to re-explain what you’re doing & the reasons for doing it to a skeptical & ignorant audience. My understanding is you and David already do this very often with each other.
I’m very curious if others also find this to be the biggest value-contributor amongst spontaneous conversations. (Also, more generally, I’m curious what kinds of spontaneous conversations people are getting so much value out of.)
One of the directions im currently most excited about (modern control theory through algebraic analysis) I learned about while idly chitchatting with a colleague at lunch about old school cybernetics. We were both confused why it was such a big deal in the 50s and 60s then basically died.
A stranger at the table had overheard our conversation and immediately started ranting to us about the history of cybernetics and modern methods of control theory. Turns out that control theory has developed far beyond whay people did in the 60s but names, techniques, methods have changed and this guy was one of the world experts. I wouldn’t have known to ask him because the guy’s specialization on the face of it had nothing to do with control theory.
I do not find this to be the biggest value-contributor amongst my spontaneous conversations.
I don’t have a good hypothesis for why spontaneous-ish conversations can end up being valuable to me so frequently. I have a vague intuition that it might be an expression of the same phenomenon that makes slack and playfulness in research and internet browsing very valuable for me.
What would an event optimized for this sort of thing look like?
Unconferences are a thing for this reason