Thanks for publishing this Ollie—really interesting, and definitely great ‘truth-seeking’.
I think I’d highlight some of your caveats (although this could be a case of me prioritising intuition over data and being misled by that).
My experience as a full-time ED within EA is that retreats are substantially more valuable than EAGs/EAGxs/EAGxVirtuals. For example, I would skip every conference to go to the Effective Giving Summit; and I felt that this summit was roughly 10x more valuable than what I would otherwise have spent the time on. I expect this relates to my specific circumstances, where making connections within EA is relatively easy outside a conference, but deepening connections is relatively hard. (Also that the Summit was especially excellent.)
I also agree with you that cost-effectiveness might not be the best way to assess retreats, as demonstrated by the apparent cost-effectiveness of EAGxVirtuals, because if you make the costs small enough, the benefit can be very low and still seem very cost-effective. OFTW was able to host a conference online for $200 for 75 people, and I don’t think an in-person conference could ever compete with that on a cost-effectiveness basis because it would be at least two orders of magnitude more expensive; but I don’t really know anyone who thinks the online format was any good!
All-in-all, though, great work on this retrospective.
I think your online-conference paragraph points, among other things, to the cost of attendee time as an important factor to weigh in many cases. It’s plausible to me that the online vs in person decision would come down to a time-money tradeoff.
Fwiw I share Jack’s impression that EA retreats are substantially more valuable. In fact, I’d go much further—I think the ‘connections’ metric is inherently biased towards a events where you are encouraged to have a bunch of amiable and forgettable conversations with a large number of people.
For me the qualitative difference is extreme. I’ve been to maybe 5 EAG(x) events, and I think, after 6 months, the number of people I would actually reach out to ask for a favour has basically dropped to zero. Conversely, I went to one retreat about a decade ago, and still consider basically everyone I met there a friend—someone I would be happy to see, and pleased to be able to offer meaningful support to.
Inasmuch as you can metricify this kind of thing, I think for a fair comparison we really need both more nuance on how people should/do interpret ‘favour’ - which can mean anything from ‘give a text introduction to a mutual acquaintance’ to something out of the Godfather—and something like the integral of strength of favour you’re willing to ask over time.
Having said all of the above, I do also find EAGx Virtual distinctly good. A lot of that is the lower time/energy cost to me as a participant, but I think there are some subtle benefits like in the Gather Town careers fair (which I’m very biased on, having set up the GT), it’s much easier to openly eavesdrop on what people in front of you in the ‘queue’ are saying to each other than in a noisy room, often meaning the person at the stand can effectively answer the questions 3+ people have at once, and making the whole thing much more efficient.
I strongly suspect there’s a lot of room to play around with the online format in other ways that would similarly take advantage of it being online, rather than trying to mimic the processes you’d expect to find at a physical EAG.
Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if some retreats are more valuable for people who are already engaged, perhaps because the admissions process is more selective. But I would say you also aren’t the main target for community-building events; the difference seems small for those newer to the field.
Thanks for publishing this Ollie—really interesting, and definitely great ‘truth-seeking’.
I think I’d highlight some of your caveats (although this could be a case of me prioritising intuition over data and being misled by that).
My experience as a full-time ED within EA is that retreats are substantially more valuable than EAGs/EAGxs/EAGxVirtuals. For example, I would skip every conference to go to the Effective Giving Summit; and I felt that this summit was roughly 10x more valuable than what I would otherwise have spent the time on. I expect this relates to my specific circumstances, where making connections within EA is relatively easy outside a conference, but deepening connections is relatively hard. (Also that the Summit was especially excellent.)
I also agree with you that cost-effectiveness might not be the best way to assess retreats, as demonstrated by the apparent cost-effectiveness of EAGxVirtuals, because if you make the costs small enough, the benefit can be very low and still seem very cost-effective. OFTW was able to host a conference online for $200 for 75 people, and I don’t think an in-person conference could ever compete with that on a cost-effectiveness basis because it would be at least two orders of magnitude more expensive; but I don’t really know anyone who thinks the online format was any good!
All-in-all, though, great work on this retrospective.
I think your online-conference paragraph points, among other things, to the cost of attendee time as an important factor to weigh in many cases. It’s plausible to me that the online vs in person decision would come down to a time-money tradeoff.
Fwiw I share Jack’s impression that EA retreats are substantially more valuable. In fact, I’d go much further—I think the ‘connections’ metric is inherently biased towards a events where you are encouraged to have a bunch of amiable and forgettable conversations with a large number of people.
For me the qualitative difference is extreme. I’ve been to maybe 5 EAG(x) events, and I think, after 6 months, the number of people I would actually reach out to ask for a favour has basically dropped to zero. Conversely, I went to one retreat about a decade ago, and still consider basically everyone I met there a friend—someone I would be happy to see, and pleased to be able to offer meaningful support to.
Inasmuch as you can metricify this kind of thing, I think for a fair comparison we really need both more nuance on how people should/do interpret ‘favour’ - which can mean anything from ‘give a text introduction to a mutual acquaintance’ to something out of the Godfather—and something like the integral of strength of favour you’re willing to ask over time.
Having said all of the above, I do also find EAGx Virtual distinctly good. A lot of that is the lower time/energy cost to me as a participant, but I think there are some subtle benefits like in the Gather Town careers fair (which I’m very biased on, having set up the GT), it’s much easier to openly eavesdrop on what people in front of you in the ‘queue’ are saying to each other than in a noisy room, often meaning the person at the stand can effectively answer the questions 3+ people have at once, and making the whole thing much more efficient.
I strongly suspect there’s a lot of room to play around with the online format in other ways that would similarly take advantage of it being online, rather than trying to mimic the processes you’d expect to find at a physical EAG.
Thanks, Jack.
Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if some retreats are more valuable for people who are already engaged, perhaps because the admissions process is more selective. But I would say you also aren’t the main target for community-building events; the difference seems small for those newer to the field.
Yes, good point