Thanks for doing all this analysis, very interesting. Did you ask if people had ever attended an EAGx or EAG before? (I was in the control group but can’t remember whether I was asked this or not). For me personally, I’m pretty confident my first EAGx made the most counterfactual difference in continued engagement, vs subsequent EAGxes.

It’s the last line in your second screenshot

> funded by organizations/program areas that made decisions using the lens of EA

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar thing occured - those orgs/programs decide that it isn't that cost-effective to do GHW community-building. I could see it going another way, but my baseline assumption is that any sort of community-building in developed countries isn't an efficient use of money, so you need quite a strong case for increased impact for it to be worthwhile.

I think the correct interpretation of this is that OP GHW doesn’t think general community building for its cause areas is cost effective, which seems quite plausible to me. [Edit: note I'm saying community-building in general, not just the EA community specifically - so under this view, the skewing of the EA community is less relevant].

What was EV’s official policy post-Ben Delo?

Examples of arguments you see as having this issue

Could you give some examples?

Where do they say the handpicked line?

Yeah this seems the most straightforward interpretation

Breaking a charitable pledge of this magnitude (he has no plans to actually give the money away, it could very well just sit there) should be severely looked down upon IMO - otherwise the concept of a pledge has no power.