Conversation

There seems to be a fairly precise relationship between city size and number of in-person meetings that line up. In LA I have about 4x the number of people reaching out to meet up than I did in Seattle.
6
18
Replying to
With reservations. Lima has almost 10 million people and I never met peeps while there. LA—albeit much larger—is full of folk who are genuinely friendly, curious and interested in establishing a meatspace rapport. LA seems notably open-handed and cosmopolitan in this regard.
1
2
Replying to
Well Lima is also a much poorer developing country city, so smaller fraction of people have the leisure and flexibility in work to do this sort of thing :D Though most people who want to meet up with me anywhere are visitors, not locals
1
Replying to
I don’t think it has to do with leisure, but openness. Leisure is not an issue in many of my circles. Willingness to try something different is. I’ve seen far more open dispositions in poorer, smaller, less developed cities. Culture accounts for a lot.
2
2
Replying to and
Though I wasn’t on Twitter then, neither Boston nor New York—to stay Stateside—has the same ease of flow as LA. I imagine London would not be insular to me at this time, either. Wanna hear of a surprisingly smart and affable city? Quito. Smaller and poorer than all of the above.
1
2
Replying to and
There are, of course, what I call the pearlescent cities: places that are wary, more than provincial, but take you in completely once you’ve proven worthy of their secrets. Montevideo is the queen of the early snub, but the relationships I made there will be lifelong and golden.
1
2