Some community events have built-in "atmosphere catalysts" that drive crowds to enthusiasm
I wonder if you've attended in-person events—not lectures by famous authors or celebrities, but gatherings organized around a specific theme or where participants share similar backgrounds? Yet after most events, the sense of fulfillment usually lasts only about a day. Looking back, you realize these activities actually weren't high-quality or valuable.
After leaving my previous job, I had more free time. Over a span of about 5 weeks, I attended 8 events—averaging one every 4.3 days.
These events ranged from large-scale gatherings of 200+ people to intimate 20-person sharing sessions. Having worked as a journalist, I encounter at least 10 different professions daily, so I'm relatively sensitive to and observant of the outside world. This makes it easy for me to spot who truly has substance and which events have genuine quality and value. Let me break this down gradually.
Some people assume that being invited as a speaker means they have the strongest storytelling ability or are particularly exceptional. Or people feel admiration for someone who's accomplished something most couldn't. But when you dig deeper, you discover the speaker might struggle with live presentations, resulting in vague content that yields less than a page of notes—or they're just vague as a person overall. Yet they charge premium prices. (I hope my own talks don't give people that impression; please let me know if they do.)
Of course, market mechanisms set ticket prices. But honestly, some events are really about attending for the "atmosphere." Some people come hoping to meet other accomplished individuals—and yes, that's possible. But when participants aren't fully open, and when the event itself lacks a focused participant demographic, the people you meet are just... that. Everyone's a group wanting to meet someone different from themselves, but genuine exchange of perspectives and sparks of collaboration are absent. Attending actually causes internal friction, and you share your thoughts without getting equivalent returns.
If participants lack aligned intentions, offline events easily become platforms for self-promotion
"Knowledge exchange works like this: you share one, I share one, and we both leave with two." But we often get lost in the atmosphere of exchange, feeling that by earnestly engaging with something unfamiliar, we're absorbing lots of knowledge. At first, it feels fresh and happy meeting so many people, seemingly fulfilling. But after reflection, you realize some people might just use communities and social circles as self-promotion tools and "performance platforms." (I genuinely dislike that.)
Of course, I don't intend to judge whether people are good or bad. I also want to learn to accept groups I previously didn't understand or feel close to. But after getting closer, I'm often filled with repulsion, even questioning myself: "Why" don't I trust these kinds of people? Obviously I can't find the answer alone. I can only try to dilute this nameless emotion, then ask myself "Why" again to clarify whether this feeling is unhealthy.
"Socializing requires balanced footing." We should all clarify why we attend events and share. Communities can lead to like-minded friendships, but that requires prerequisites. If it's only time- and money-consuming, it's better to devote that time to your own creative work and thinking, or muster courage to invite people you genuinely want to know—and those worth learning from. That has more value. Whether you can actually meet them depends on how much substance you have.
