This was a good conference for other reasons, and there may be some lessons here for all of us about how to hold a good conference, how to choose a good conference, and how to participate in a conference in ways that make it memorable.

First, there was the size of this conference: about 325 folks in attendance. That was large enough to make all the behind-the-scenes arrangements viable, but not so large that a participant felt lost in a crowd. I obviously did not meet everyone, but I did see everyone over a period of a few days, and a comfortable familiarity resulted.

Second, given the manageable size, the keynote talks were able to be attended by virtually all of the participants, and they were attended. Common experiences - intellectual and otherwise - were provided that the participants could share. I've been to plenty of conferences in which even the most well-attended talks were heard by only a small fraction of conference participants, either because there were too many participants to fit available rooms or because some number of the "participants" used the conference as an excuse to vacation. I've been guilty of that, I admit, but I realize that it does not make for a good conference experience for anyone.

Third, the Australian conference varied the sorts of sessions throughout the day. They were the usual suspect conference sessions: keynote talks, panel discussions, posters, and specialized workshops. But there were also different sorts of sessions, including icebreaking get-to-know-you one-on-one exercises at lunch in which virtually everyone participated, kind of like speed dating without the dating.

And the most memorable session had the conference participants split into several groups and sing in harmony. Say what? Under gentle and light-hearted tutelage, we became a chorus. I don't think I've sung anywhere but in a shower for many decades, and singing with other people was not only fun but uplifting.

Maybe it says something about positive psychologists, or maybe it says something about Australians, but the chorus worked very well. Would it work so well at another conference, one attended by the terminally timid or by cynics or by those trying to network for their own gain? Maybe not, but the lesson I took away is that a conference's mode should mirror its message. In the case of positive psychology, the message is that what makes life worth living is not limited to solitary intellectual activity.

Fourth, and most importantly, this conference was a good one because it was attended by researchers and practitioners who took each other seriously. Whether one did "basic" or "applied" work was a job description and not the basis of segregation during the conference. Coaches and clinicians wanted to know about correlation coefficients, and those of us from ivory towers wanted to know about schools, hospitals, and businesses. When done well, basic work and applied work are symbiotic, and a first step toward eventual symbiosis is respectful communication. That abounded and is a good lesson for those attending other conferences to heed.

On a purely personal note, I also enjoyed the conference because I like Australia and Australians.

If there is such a thing as a pretentious Australian, I never met him or her during my time there. Australia seems a much more horizontal society than the United States, and that was evident in the conference. I couldn't tell who was "important" because everyone was.

When you ask people in Australian hotels, restaurants, or airports for help, they don't roll their eyes and refer you to someone else; they say "no worries" and make it so.

And the street signs say GIVE WAY (which sounds positive) rather than YIELD (which sounds negative). Those signs always made me smile. Other people matter, especially at intersections.