I think this post represents how a lot of people in EA feel they get the most value out of EAG, but I disagree with a lot of it and find I get more value from doing the opposite a lot of the time.
I don’t have time rn to list all the areas I’d choose to act differently, although I can aim to later if people are interested, but one basic comment is that I usually find spending 2 hours with a small group of 4 who have something in common much more rewarding than spending 30 minutes in 4 different 1-1 conversations.
The 2 hour group conversation means that we don’t duplicate sharing our knowledge and I can get a better sense of how these people relate to each other as well, plus I have the chance to follow up with people individually or as a group which is nice.
I know I’m a bit late to this post/thread, but I’d like to add a +1 to the above comment. I found reading this very useful (having already been to a few EAGs/EAGxs), however I have sometimes gained as much/more value out of some longer small group conversations. So it’s a case of finding what works for you, and not worrying if you aren’t doing all of the above!
I’ve also found ‘accidental 1:1s’ very useful (but with more variance), i.e. spending e 10-30 minutes speaking to random people you come across in the mornings/while having a snack/having lunch. Of course there’s a larger chance that you won’t have much in common with those that you meet at random, but I’ve also found that some of my most productive meetings at some EAGs have been the chance ones. Because of this, I deliberately leave some time free rather than booking 1:1s both for rest and for chance meetings.
This is pretty far out from when this was posted, but I still find it sad to see only a negative review on this post, especially one that seems to miss the mark a bit.
Kirsten, I’m not sure that you literally mean that you get more value from doing the opposite, or else I’m a bit confused. Fundamentally, Kuhan and Akash’s post seems to be geared towards highlighting the importance of 1-on-1s and also sharing a bit about how they think you can prepare/orient yourself to them to make them go well (largely by being thoughtful about what you want out of it, and how you can help both them and the larger network you’re a part of). The opposite of this take is not “hang out in groups” but rather something like “only go to lectures” or “avoid doing interactions with other people at all” which doesn’t seem to be the thing you are endorsing at all. Rather, you seem to agree with the basic premise that interactions at EAG(x)s are really important, but just disagree that 1-on-1s are the best format here.
If this isn’t the case, I would really like to hear why you do value the opposite of this, because that doesn’t certainly seem novel to me, but otherwise I think your comment is much better framed in what is mentioned above. But alternatively, if the take is more like the outline above, then I would also be interested in hearing you take this further, and explain a bit more why you think small groups are better, maybe share some of the experiences you’ve had with them, and also some thoughts on what the implications would be for this going forward (i.e. should more small group things be scheduled at EAGs, should this change how we focus on 1-on-1s with other community building things, etc.).
It’s perhaps worth noting that I’ve had a similar experience as you, but don’t reach the same conclusions and think 1-on-1s are generally very good, depending on how you go about them. I could certainly understand why you’d dislike them if they are just sharing the same pieces of knowledge repetitively for you, but this is not the only way 1-on-1s can go, and I think maybe exploring other formats could be interesting for you.
Yes you’re right, when this was posted I had seen several recent posts about how 1-1s should be the majority of your time at EAG, so I was pushing back against that idea generally rather than this specific post. Obviously I had no idea at the time that no one else was going to choose to comment! I actually think this post is pretty good—it’s certainly structured very well and easy to read which is very nice to see.
I think this post represents how a lot of people in EA feel they get the most value out of EAG, but I disagree with a lot of it and find I get more value from doing the opposite a lot of the time.
I don’t have time rn to list all the areas I’d choose to act differently, although I can aim to later if people are interested, but one basic comment is that I usually find spending 2 hours with a small group of 4 who have something in common much more rewarding than spending 30 minutes in 4 different 1-1 conversations.
The 2 hour group conversation means that we don’t duplicate sharing our knowledge and I can get a better sense of how these people relate to each other as well, plus I have the chance to follow up with people individually or as a group which is nice.
I know I’m a bit late to this post/thread, but I’d like to add a +1 to the above comment. I found reading this very useful (having already been to a few EAGs/EAGxs), however I have sometimes gained as much/more value out of some longer small group conversations. So it’s a case of finding what works for you, and not worrying if you aren’t doing all of the above!
I’ve also found ‘accidental 1:1s’ very useful (but with more variance), i.e. spending e 10-30 minutes speaking to random people you come across in the mornings/while having a snack/having lunch. Of course there’s a larger chance that you won’t have much in common with those that you meet at random, but I’ve also found that some of my most productive meetings at some EAGs have been the chance ones. Because of this, I deliberately leave some time free rather than booking 1:1s both for rest and for chance meetings.
This is pretty far out from when this was posted, but I still find it sad to see only a negative review on this post, especially one that seems to miss the mark a bit.
Kirsten, I’m not sure that you literally mean that you get more value from doing the opposite, or else I’m a bit confused. Fundamentally, Kuhan and Akash’s post seems to be geared towards highlighting the importance of 1-on-1s and also sharing a bit about how they think you can prepare/orient yourself to them to make them go well (largely by being thoughtful about what you want out of it, and how you can help both them and the larger network you’re a part of). The opposite of this take is not “hang out in groups” but rather something like “only go to lectures” or “avoid doing interactions with other people at all” which doesn’t seem to be the thing you are endorsing at all. Rather, you seem to agree with the basic premise that interactions at EAG(x)s are really important, but just disagree that 1-on-1s are the best format here.
If this isn’t the case, I would really like to hear why you do value the opposite of this, because that doesn’t certainly seem novel to me, but otherwise I think your comment is much better framed in what is mentioned above. But alternatively, if the take is more like the outline above, then I would also be interested in hearing you take this further, and explain a bit more why you think small groups are better, maybe share some of the experiences you’ve had with them, and also some thoughts on what the implications would be for this going forward (i.e. should more small group things be scheduled at EAGs, should this change how we focus on 1-on-1s with other community building things, etc.).
It’s perhaps worth noting that I’ve had a similar experience as you, but don’t reach the same conclusions and think 1-on-1s are generally very good, depending on how you go about them. I could certainly understand why you’d dislike them if they are just sharing the same pieces of knowledge repetitively for you, but this is not the only way 1-on-1s can go, and I think maybe exploring other formats could be interesting for you.
Yes you’re right, when this was posted I had seen several recent posts about how 1-1s should be the majority of your time at EAG, so I was pushing back against that idea generally rather than this specific post. Obviously I had no idea at the time that no one else was going to choose to comment! I actually think this post is pretty good—it’s certainly structured very well and easy to read which is very nice to see.