Yeah, that's totally fair. I think the dynamics around public events probably vary a lot across the US.

And, yeah, I think I pretty much entirely agree with your second paragraph. Creating free in-person events from online platforms can only do so much.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

I'm reasonably idealistic in thinking that we could basically just do a bunch of interventions that make it easier to socialize and that would resolve most of the problem, but I'm definitely pessimistic that we could get much culture change, since it doesn't feel like there's much motion to do that. It seems hard to imagine an American culture that encourages people to actively socialize each week in community settings. And, the problem of "increasingly entertaining other options" is probably intractable.

I do think you're wrong about the platform thing though. As someone in their early 20s, I know pretty much no one who uses platforms other than Meetup and online forums/word of mouth/fliers to find events. As such, to me, it does feel like Meetup has a seriously monopoly. Additionally, a lot of people in my town will commonly say that they wish there more public events to go to so, at least where I live, it seems like supply of events is the real issue and not the events being too low quality.

I also think you're overemphasizing the need for group culture and leaders to be designed well, since I think this stuff just naturally arises in environments where typical people with shared interests come together.

Hey Charlie,

I'm super glad you made an attempt with that events building app!!

Yeah, I agree that it's definitely just a very multi-causal problem, which makes it really difficult to approach. Last year, I read Dr. Vivek Murphy's (the former attorney surgeon general of the US) book on the loneliness epidemic, and I was pretty disappointed that his ideas were mostly just along the lines of "get people together more."

For what it's worth, I think that the culture on Meetup really depends on the city and the exact kind of event. When I lived in a large city, it seems like a significant portion of attendees were people who were really struggling to make friends, which made for a very awkward and kind of tense environment. But, when I moved to a smaller city, it seemed like crowds that would show up were pretty representative of the actual demographics of the town. Additionally, it seems like events that are like "Let's meet people" can vary from a very excellent experience to very awkward. On the other hand, stuff like hikes and particular interest groups seem to be pretty quality groups from my experience. So, that said, I wouldn't discount Meetup entirely. The reason I said "Developing online platforms that allow individuals to host in-person community events for free." was because Meetup currently costs $175 a year and is the main platform in my city, which means that they're basically monopolizing the online public events space but also reducing the number of events that are occurring by making it cost-prohibitive to do so.

I also agree that tractability seems unclear, but, without having looked into the issue very much, it seems like it's reasonably neglected. For instance, at the university I attended, my RAs never hosted events, cafeterias weren't designed as places to interact with people, and the events that were hosted by the university were often not designed for socializing. It seems like a researcher could pretty easily trial a bunch of different initiatives at universities, and the universities would have profit incentives to implement them since students who have better mental health are probably less likely to drop out. A researcher could also try something similar at like companies or small towns or suburbs or large cities.

I wrote an essay that categorizes these interventions more specifically:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7J84hGaiLArjPEsx9/categorizing-longtermist-cause-areas

I wrote up a post that responds to this essay series. I thought I'd share that here for convenience.

Ah, thanks for sharing that!!

Gotcha, thanks! I appreciate the fast response.

I see. Yeah, I expressed what I was thinking incorrectly here. What I meant was that our preferences are slightly abnormal compared to what you would expect but not extraordinarily alien.

In our ancestral environment, we developed a taste for sugary things because berries, which are sugary, are good for us. Knowing this, you would expect that we would eat berries but not ice cream. The fact that we eat ice cream is somewhat abnormal. That said, it is not extraordinarily alien. If we, for instance, devoted our entire lives to eating as much sugar as is physiologically possible without dying, that would be very alien.

I should have said that their argument implies that AIs might have weird preferences but not extremely bizarre ones.

Thanks for catching that!