Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethbr1 | Hacker News Reader

There's a few problems, at least in the US:

1. Hyper-perfect social media / television setting "the best" expectations for an event.

2. Decreased knowledge of how to host a gathering. It's not rocket science, but throwing one the first time can seem daunting. And throwing one well does take skill. E.g. icebreakers, identifying and facilitating the right introductions by highlighting mutual interests, making sure wallflowers have a good time, defusing tensions, food, etc.

3. Decreased American tolerance for and ability to handle awkwardness, and there's always going to be some awkwardness in social interactions.

4. Decreased public/accessible American meeting places. There used to (< 2000) be a plethora of low-cost, broadly-accessible spaces that could serve as training wheels for events (handling food, furnishings, cleaning, etc). They've essentially all been privatized, commercialized, and optimized to turn seats -- think real coffee shops disappearing in favor of Starbucks.

View on HN

I believe this. My recipe for not burning out is:

- lower expectations (my own and everyone else's). I work out the bare minimum that would work for the event and do that. People need food. They don't need music.

- tell people how to contribute: "bring snacks and drinks", ask one specific person to bring ice. when people arrive I often give specific tasks: "can you find someone to help move the table and chairs into the other room", "can you sort out music"

- do it the same way every time so it's less mentally taxing

- get a friend to help with setup

Lower expectations is a great tip.

I find that the more a group does things, the more everyone chills out. It's like the expectations come from a fear of being judged and from uncertainty. When everyone has information from the last ten events then you don't need to stress anymore, because everyone knows how this one will go and they've all judged one another already.

It helps to remember that you are competing with: no event.

If there are other parties happening and you're trying to make a better one, by all means, go all out. But mostly people in their 40s aren't going to many house events, so they're just happy to be somewhere with people. They don't care that you didn't decorate or sweep the floor or prepare an elaborate meal. You made soup and they're thrilled.

I'd also add that first-event nerves (on host and attendee sides) can be an uncertainty problem. No one wants to misunderstand the dress code, social code, etc. Once people have been together, there are now group norms that assuage that (aka "I know what's acceptable to wear and talk about").

Absolutely. I throw “open houses” with open hours. There will be some food and company and some booze. Probably music. But in the end everyone brings what they can and it rules.

Granted it’s still a lot of effort but it’s low key and I find people prefer that unless it gets enough momentum to become a “thing” haha

Ah, success through lowered expectations! This has been my mantra for the last 40 years, and it has worked surprisingly well. I started out with a New Year’s resolution to not intentionally consume significant quantities of human flesh, and have worked my way up from there.

It may seem ridiculous, but it’s a form of stoicism adjacent philosophy that presumes nominally more control over one’s circumstances, and it has had excellent outcomes for me. Ratchet forward but expect modest clicks and be delighted when something goes right or someone comes through.

> I started out with a New Year’s resolution to not intentionally consume significant quantities of human flesh

ծ_Ô

An easily achievable resolution for the vast majority of people.

Yeah, the phrase "significant quantities of" is really throwing the whole comment for an unfortunate loop. Maybe "I choose not to steal any vehicles" or "I choose not to commit fraud" and work up from _there_ instead of somehow trying to faux-normalize cannibalism. Very strange indeed.

That's why it's funny sourpuss.

When a stranger posts online joking about cannibalism, you never really know…

It’s surprisingly difficult to not eat a little human flesh. People nibble on loose skin and the insides of thier mouth a little, you end up swallowing blood, and there is often a tiny bit of human biomass in processed food.

Ergo the “significant” qualifier. Imagine the sense of defeat to fail in your New Year’s resolution to not resort to cannibalism by years end… so you have to be careful how you define your test case.

If I were a cannibal, it would have been an ambitious resolution, but the whole point was success through low expectations.

But fair enough, people tend to be touchy about people eating people, and rightly so. No way that ends well as a mainstream practice.

problem is you slip up once and you've blown the entire goal. The OP's resolution feels much more AA-style, it's about not stealing cars any more

Well, I added that after realizing that it wasn’t uncommon to accidentally eat small parts of your mouth, fingertips, things like that in the course of a year, and I was not about to fail in my quest to reject cannibalism for the year. I mean, for me, that would have been a new low.

Well you know, probably everyone is constantly swallowing some of their own dead skin cells. Nobody's perfect. So I'm not going to feel too guilty when I cheat and buy a human-balogna sandwich every now and then, especially if they're free range.

This thread sounds like a very modest proposal.

I'm assuming this is referencing "taking a pound of flesh" generally meaning to being cruel in demanding what you're owed (from Shakespeare Merchant of Venice). Presumably they're tired of unloading on people for not following thru or contributing. Doesn't seem like the best use here, particularly so indirectly.

Nope, I meant literally not consuming human flesh as food. After years of unsuccessful New Year’s resolutions, I decided to pick one I was sure I could stick to. Success through lowered expectations.

A man who commits to the bit. I respect it.

You'd probably like the signs I do in Chicago.

"Terrible advice, only $3"

"Awkward smalltalk, only $2"

"Premium snowballs, only $1"

Will be doing one of these tomorrow in fact. Probably in my usual spot.

I mean, it is kind of a bit, in a way, but I really did announce to my social group my resolution, about 40 years ago, and I’ve been ratcheting it up gradually ever since. I have kept my public and official New Year’s resolutions for 37 years running. I’m up to “intentional and senseless acts of violence that end in the injury of innocents“.

You may scoff, but senselessness is highly contextually dependent and can easily apply to something that seemed rational under the fog of circumstance. Thats actually not that easy to promise without forsaking the option of violence altogether, which I am not at liberty to do, since I have a family to protect.

It’s a slow, intentional process. I don’t want to risk overreaching. Still, they are worthwhile goals. Low-hanging fruit is still fruit.

The useful thing to me has been to expect little from people and life in general, but a lot of myself. Then be delighted when things go as they should, or when people come through. It’s a contagious positivity masquerading as cynicism, or maybe the other way around, I’m not sure… but it allows me to focus on my role in things, my choices, my actions, and reactions to the external world. It is stoicism adjacent.

The New Year’s resolutions are mostly an advertising campaign for the overall philosophy, really, by promising people easy success in something that is often a struggle, and illuminating the fact that we choose our successes and failures by how we view external circumstances, not so much by the circumstances themselves.

Agree with this approach. I've hosted a lot of "work adjacent" events over the years, with no real idea what I'm doing. I've always focused on the intent (why do I want to attend?) and a few crux details; everything else tends to work out or is just not that important. It seems to be one of the areas where "fake it until you make it" not only works but might be superior to ultra-planning.

Once you've got the gist down, try and find one thing that you can go a little overboard on; it makes it very memorable. Examples: I made a big pot of home-made chili once, and another time we did (what looked like) an extravagant nacho bar. It was both better and way cheaper than typical event food.

Definitely enlist an accomplice, but be aware you likely need to (appear to) be the mastermind.

> I've always focused on the intent (why do I want to attend?) and a few crux details; everything else tends to work out or is just not that important

This was my primary takeaway from some time spent doing higher-end catering front of house. You'd be amazed what absolute fuckups can occur on non-critical stuff... and no one even notices.

(Possibly the bride, but that's why we had dedicated bride handlers to appropriately message that kind of stuff)

I’m going to add a strange note here:

I recently moved into a very upper class neighborhood (pacific heights) and enrolled my child in the neighborhood private school.

The social hosting skill I’ve observed and and able to do as well is extraordinarily high. People throw parties, know how to act, are cordial and polite and seem to reasonably enjoy each others company while also teaching their children the same.

This is how I remember mere middle class parents acting in the late 90s and early 2000s but my fellow millennials and z seem to be completely incapable of.

One huge aspect I’ve noticed is that it’s wildly expensive in time and money to host. An open cocktail night cost me nearly 3000 dollars to host. I can imagine this would not be common for Gen Z these days.

That seems to be a very narrow definition of a party. I have friends over for pizza and board games. We've had ice cream making parties. Cheese dinners.

This is fine too. Seems like most can’t even attempt that though.

Can't or won't?

I am a millennial and my parents did no events, since they both worked and had long commutes. I wonder when the middle class entertainment slowed down—I want to guess it’s when you have more two income households, that don’t earn enough to hire home help.

Minimum wages have not increased in decades. Cost of living has increased a lot meanwhile, and the rich vs poor divide has increased. So lower class and middle class are suffering, while upper class have become richer from their labors. In earlier generations, the middle class could work for some years and afford to buy a house (on mortgage). But these days, middle class cannot afford a house, they live in rented apartments. Hosting parties is the least of their priorities, when they are struggling with the monthly bills.

Housing availability and leisure time (afforded by excess income) are probably the biggest components.

And in answer to "When that changed?" from parent, my guess would be mid-90s.

In that generations coming of party-hosting age after that were increasingly less likely to host.

I don't think it's that, my parents weren't two income and never had friends or did events or social things and barely left the house.

My mom would constantly complain she used to be a social butterfly but having kids "ruined" that for her. Which never made sense to me, it's not like she ever interacted with us much.

How the heck do you manage to host a $3K cocktail party?

You can run an open bar with two bartenders for 50 people for that price? (Unless everybody is a complete lush, I guess ;)

Well 50 people attended. So. Yea? Two parents for 21 students or so plus a few extras.

GP said 'open bar with 2 bartenders'. I.e. commercially priced drinks, and staff. Did you have those? If so, pro tip, next time just get a few cases of various drinks, plonk them on a table with a bunch of glasses (rented, if need be) and call it good. People can't drink soft drink for more than, say, 3 USD worth in an afternoon; and even if you served 12 years Glenfiddich to everyone including the children, enough of it to knock them all out, you still wouldn't have spend more than $1000.

So yeah still wondering what sort of party you threw. I mean, yeah it's easily possible to spend that much, but it's also possible to do it for much less and you don't even need to really try.

> If so, pro tip, next time just get a few cases of various drinks, plonk them on a table

That's not a cocktail party, that's a tailgate.

> GP said 'open bar with 2 bartenders'. I.e. commercially priced drinks, and staff.

GP here, and no, that doesn't mean that.

It means you hire 2 bartenders to make the drinks, and you buy the supplies they use.

And, no, if you want a cocktail party, you don't "plonk a few cases of drinks on the table". That's also a fun party, but a different kind.

This is not a 'pro tip' this is a clueless tip.

I can easily imagine a high end catered party costing that much.

I don't think there is an upper limit on how much hosting a party costs. You can always go fancier if you have money to burn.

That honestly seems quite cheap for 'very upper class' where I imagine everyone's suited and booted, dressed up for the evening, possibly some live music, etc.

Correct. I did not spring for live music or help.

Christmas dinner for my immediate family almost $500. That was pretty much dinner and our favorite appetizers but does not count the liquor and wine. This was just me, my ex, five kids, a daughter in law and grandchild. I can see getting to 3k pretty fast.

How did you spend $500 on dinner for 9 people? I hosted Christmas dinner for my family with about 10 adults and 10 kids, and it cost at most $200 divided between 5 families, alcohol included.

Dinner for twenty people at $200 is farcical in the US unless your family owns a farm or something. Going to need more details because I'm inclined to say that's bullshit.

Beer and liquor alone would blow past that figure.

"host" implies in your home, not in a restaurant.

If your version of hosting is "let's outsource it and just open the wallet", then, yes, sure, you can spend a lot of money. It ain't hosting, though. You failed the "what if I just replaced you with a bank account" test.

Yes, I know what hosting is and $200 for that many people is still farcical.

No farm is needed. It's not that hard. I spent about: $25 on a chicken dish (chicken from Costco + ingredients), $15 for baked mac & cheese (ingredients from Meijer), $20 on ciders, $40 on 2 bottles of Cherry Republic wine. The other family members: $20 on raw vegetables and cheese platter; $20 on fruit; $10 potato dish; $10 vegetable dish; $15 on dessert; $15 on salad. Oh and $2 on juice boxes for the little kids (~4 from a juice box 40 pack from Costco). I'm estimating what the others spent, but that's what it would cost me to make the same dishes. That totals to $192.

>> I recently moved into a very upper class neighborhood (pacific heights)

A neighborhood which is sometimes referred to as "Specific Whites" (but only tongue-in-cheek, right?)

I know the US is ludicrously expensive, but 3000 dollars for a cocktail party? Did you have a couple of hundred guests? The kind of party where you can lock in friendships, have meaningful conversations and personally play host tops out around 30 people. At those kind of numbers, you really don't need to hire a staff - you can provide canapés and make cocktails and or have a friend so at very reasonable cost. Source - I had hundreds of (often fairly raucous parties) at my old apartment. Alas I no longer live in a basement so my entertaining options are much more limited.

One is reminded of this - https://x.com/dril/status/384408932061417472?lang=en

I was not looking to 'lock in life long friendships.' I was hosting a cocktail party as a favor for our school at my home and was obligated to ensure the overall experience was somewhat nicer than 'a wild party at an apartment' as fun as that is as well. These are somewhat normal things as part of a knit-community adult life. You have distant people come as well as close friends and open your home. That is ... hosting.

Partly what I was trying to point out is how 'adult life' gets complicated and expensive and most people are understandably just opting out. But at the same time, whats going out with it is just basic manners and social habits -- which is unfortunate.

My point stands - if anything a cocktail party is potentially less expensive to host since you know in advance numbers and preferences.

> These are somewhat normal things as part of a knit-community adult life.

As something of an adult myself (I'm 46), I'm well aware of how community functions. I'm also aware of the 'keeping up with the jones' nature of wealth and how corrosive that is to community - being entirely founded on the selective and exclusive nature of spending.

My contention stands, there is no need whatsoever to spend thousands on a cocktail party. One doesn't need to 'opt out' of social life. It's perfectly possible to serve cocktails yourself, to buy 'off the shelf' brands rather than expensive whiskey etc. It's perfectly possible to prepare your own food, or work with a chef who organises 'super club' style catering, which does not cost thousands.

It's a choice to live this way, not a fate. And doubtless it affords status among other high worth individuals - just as it dooms you to a life of fruitless comparison and ostentatiousness.

This can be said of literally anyone living in the first World.

I find it deeply laughable anyone would stand on a soap box who lives in a modern first world environment and lecture like this while not seeing the irony that they do it themselves at their level as well.

Please. Stop. Look around. And maybe visit a place where you see how the other half of the planet lives. Likely your world is wildly ostentatious and unnecessary comparatively.

The plank in your eye before your neighbor and all that.

Three grand! For a cocktail night?

I mean I've spent a couple hundo at Costco buying booze and food and paper supplies for a party I hosted and THAT was flabbergasting. How the fuck do spend three grand on cocktails? Is it like all top shelf liquor or something?

Hosted cocktail parties are generally not “paper plates and red cups”.

It’s interesting that you’re proving my point. General manners and expectations have been lost

It's a level of excess whose loss is probably a net positive for society. I would argue that there are very, very few cases where such a level is justified.

for $3000 you can cover a decent 100 people wedding in my country.

California, and San Francisco specifically has become "Hyper-Monoaco without the fun"

People surprised by Mr. $3000-cocktail party's expenses are forgetting about class and wealth differences.

Up to a point, expenses are elastic and proportionate to income. Across different incomes, things like "dinner" or "cocktail" mean (and cost) very different things, to the point that someone on either end of the scale doesn't even know what is on the other end. A very wealthy individual might not know about the $1.50 Costco dog, and a less wealthy individual won't know about the $10,000 bottle of cab sauv (okay I'm making that up, I don't know either, but you get the point).

If you have $100k you'll make do with that, if you have 10x more, most people will find ways to scale the expenses accordingly. If you have 1,000x more, that's just wasted cash that does nothing for society, but that's another discussion...

Also bog standard middle shelf cocktail liquor, wine, glassware, food, and additional (forks, knives, small plates, food prep) for 50 people is gonna cost 3k almost anywhere.

I was highlighting partially how it's just generally expensive to host the first time a large group.

What planet are you on? $60/head for a simple party with middle shelf drinks and basic food is necessary "anywhere" for passing acquaintances?

> glassware, and additional (forks, knives, small plates)

Do you guys break all the plates like at traditional Greek weddings?

No you have to buy it for the first time though.

It’s amazing to me how classically foolish so many HN comments are.

> 3. Decreased American tolerance for and ability to handle awkwardness, and there's always going to be some awkwardness in social interactions.

I wonder how much of this is due to our ever increasing sense of obligation to be "performing" all the time. Maybe increased by the perpetual presence of social media and the habits and mindset that both creating and consuming for it creates.

I thought that originally, but I actually think it's more experiential/exposure-side.

Hypothesis: modern society (especially apps) has decreased the amount of realtime, face-to-face social interactions at all stages of life, which has eventually manifested into a decreased average (there are still some social people!) capability to deal with social awkwardness. And consequently less comfort/appetite for putting oneself in situations where it might happen.

I don’t think it’s this. I’ve lived in NYC recently and people there don’t have tolerance for shit behaviors either and you’re surrounded by people all the time.

It’s due to people having higher standards than before and being bifurcated on every issue. There is deep polarization and tribalism within American culture.

Everyone consumes different content and there’s very little homogeneity within our culture. Like… Americans are more diverse than ever in terms of their thoughts and behaviors. They genuinely have little in common compared to many other cultures.

I'll buy that, especially in NYC-like urban environments where frequency of exposure is definitely not the issue. Suburbs and rural may be different.

Part of the increased diversity is unavoidable due to technological changes eroding previous touchpoints. E.g. limited broadcast TV becoming cable becoming streaming.

But there does seem to be an increasing dearth of the logical tonic: discussion-facilitating diverse spaces. Places where people of different opinions can mingle, there are strong social norms around mutually productive conversation (and enforcement to discourage / weed out poison apples?), and that are open to new people.

> Hyper-perfect social media / television setting "the best" expectations for an event.

My approach around this is suggesting the idea to people up front and then throwing everyone into a WhatsApp chat and laying down the plan. Anyone who can't join gets removed/leaves. No one expects a whatsapp group to be a refined VIP experience. It's just people getting together and sharing an experience.

Having moved countries and needing to start up a new friend group, things like Meetup or Facebook groups help a lot. There are _many_ people out there who are looking to meet people.

For throwing a party, my general rule of thumb is expect 50% of people to turn up.

It used to be predominantly women who did it. It was part of being a housewife. Joy of Cooking even has an entire chapter dedicated to hosting a dinner party. But now women work for billionaires too. Nobody has time to work for themselves.

1000%, but I didn't want to make my post too long.

If you want a kick, read through the 1957 edition of Air Force Social Customs [0].

It makes you realize how the art of entertaining has atrophied over the decades.

[0] https://archive.org/details/answerbookonairf00wier/mode/1up

>Decreased knowledge of how to host a gathering.

I have my own saying for this. “Swimming is how you learn to swim”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com