OP: this is not a direct criticism of your idea or implementation (in fact, by the end, you might notice I'm not sure I even have a valid criticism here), just a general observation on a trend I feel is common on this sort of initiative.
I don't know about y'all, but I hate this idea of random 1-on-1s. Nothing sends my anxiety levels to the freaking roof as the idea of having to talk alone to a complete stranger.
Make it 3+ people, though, and I'm absolutely game for it. This is not about being reclusive/introverted/autistic/antisocial/whatever: I actually like socializing, and meeting new people (well, to a certain extent, but I digress). It's just that, at least for me, 1-on-1 interactions are the most intense ones, even with people you know, let alone with strangers. Group interactions put much less pressure in each person, and it increases the chances of having at least one more extroverted person to lead the conversation.
And yet, almost every single instance of this trope of "helping people connect through random pairings" is 1-on-1.
Maybe I'm the exception here, or maybe it's easier to implement 1-on-1 pairings, I don't know. But I'd love to see more things like this, but that didn't promote one of my worst nightmares as a feature.
Just to add myself to the contrasting voices: I used to be like you but nowadays I enjoy the idea of 1-on-1s with strangers.
Perhaps what changed for me was accumulating knowledge and experience over the years by simply being very curious about all sorts of things. Thus I found that I don't even have to try anymore, my natural curiosity + experience automatically leads me through such encounters all the while being fully aware of the risk of being confronted with an absolute nutcase which only makes things a little more exciting.
To bring a contrasting perspective, I see nothing weird about meeting people one-to-one, and I see it as the most natural and efficient process for discovering opportunities.
I meet with potential co-founders on StartupSchool and customers for my consulting business one-on-one all the time. You shoot the shit for 10min, see if there is common ground, and take it from there. Nothing prevents you from connecting with a third person or more later!
I'm interested in DevClad as it is and have added it to my to-do list to try in the coming weeks.
Same for me. In group situations I always have the pressure to talk so I am not overtalked by other people. This obviously depends on the group, but that's gow I usually feel.
I also have a quite high "response latency" and people just tend to answer and share the stories quicker and more eagerly, so I feel often left out in those situations.
funny enough, i used to have MASSIVE anxiety spikes when i thought about talking to a random stranger 1-on-1, to the point where i would basically lock up.
two things helped: i started taking CBD oil (with a medical prescription) and, more importantly, i started interviewing people at my last job, which meant i had to talk to strangers at least once a week.
nowadays i still have some anxiety, but after making my self go through 1-on-1 interviews i got used to it, and now i actually enjoy it :)
Nothing sends my anxiety levels to the freaking roof as the idea of having to talk alone to a complete stranger.
Gaining experiences through the platform might be a useful tool for mitigating that anxiety.
But if you have a therapist, maybe talk to them first. Or not. Or you don't.
My point being that learning as an adult means breaking habits, jumping into situations that you habitually avoid, and generally doing things that you are either bad at or put you at discomfort.
> This is not about being reclusive/introverted/autistic/antisocial/whatever
Sounds like it might be about being extraverted. It of course depends on the specific scenario, but introverts tend to be more comfortable 1 on 1 or in small groups, whereas extraverts tend to prefer small groups or large groups.
Honestly? I'm not an extrovert at all but a group of 3+ people makes it a lot easier to keep my distance and get a feel for how people are before engaging with them. For me this is very much an autism thing.
When going to conferences I've made it a habit to try to talk to new people on every break out of principle (because after all, if I just want to watch the talks, usually there are recordings available afterwards or even a livestream, so they're a waste of money on their own). But approaching strangers standing alone is extremely awkward unless you have a plausible excuse (e.g. queuing) so the "open circle" group of 3+ people (i.e. keeping enough space while facing each other so at least another person can easily join) tends to work best.
Being in a group of 3+ people also reduces the social anxiety of whether it's okay to back out because you're not abandoning the person specifically, while also making it easier for an additional person to join because there's already a conversation going so it's fine if you find that you have nothing to add.
Tbh, it sounds like it might be about not wanting to connect that bad. Because if you want to connect really bad (for romance, business, friendship, or what have you), you learn very quickly that one-to-one connections are not something you dispense with.
There's an important distinction here between the concepts of "wanting to" and "knowing how to" and how they impact someone's decision to attempt something. For example, your car may break down and you may ultimately decide to have it towed to a garage and repaired by a mechanic even though you may very badly "want to" repair it yourself. You make that decision because you understand that you do not "know how to" fix it yourself. The outcome of that scenario can be very different based on the degree to which you want to or know how to approach it.
Similarly, someone who decides to avoid a one on one interaction with someone may very badly want to make a connection with someone else but they decide not to because they don't know how to appropriately handle such a situation. This may not be entirely anxiety driven since many people will have repeatedly attempted one on one connections and failed badly, leading them to believe perhaps rightly that they don't know how to and so they must lean on some other device such as socializing only in group settings where they can build off of others' social skills.
I'm not saying it's impossible for anyone to learn how to successfully connect one on one with others, I'm just asking that you not assume that everyone has the same learned skills and knowledge that you do.
I think the TLDR is that you might WANT to build a business, form romantic relationship or friendships, but not have the skills to do so or else be uncomfortable with the process of getting to that point (despite wanting the end result).
one way this 1-on-1 evolved in the past was shared culture, aspirations, commitments.. you like the same music, you know you agree on some things, you are on the same (tribal+ sized) team.
1-on-1 can be a lot of stress - empathy on that
computers attract .. what is the term "neuro-atypical" or something? one of the few times I really lost my patience was with an Ausberger-kind-of-guy.. I thought I was patient, I tried to be patient.. maybe there are some learned skills..
limiting the scope of what the interaction involves, also can be constructive
Group chats also reduce the likelihood for abuse, which is why all prevention nowadays requires more than two people present in abuse-prone situations like locker rooms etc.
I don't know about y'all, but I hate this idea of random 1-on-1s. Nothing sends my anxiety levels to the freaking roof as the idea of having to talk alone to a complete stranger.
Make it 3+ people, though, and I'm absolutely game for it. This is not about being reclusive/introverted/autistic/antisocial/whatever: I actually like socializing, and meeting new people (well, to a certain extent, but I digress). It's just that, at least for me, 1-on-1 interactions are the most intense ones, even with people you know, let alone with strangers. Group interactions put much less pressure in each person, and it increases the chances of having at least one more extroverted person to lead the conversation.
And yet, almost every single instance of this trope of "helping people connect through random pairings" is 1-on-1.
Maybe I'm the exception here, or maybe it's easier to implement 1-on-1 pairings, I don't know. But I'd love to see more things like this, but that didn't promote one of my worst nightmares as a feature.