Same here! Thanks for the boost - posted yesterday and ended up with a lot of engagement and a good confidence boost from the process! :)

Awesome, glad you appreciated the post and I'm pleased it echoed some of your own reflections and got you to think about approaching this year differently!

Awesome, thanks for that additional insight. I agree with the potential for these dynamics and will try to be cognisant of them as Bristol kicks off soon!

Ah, awesome. Let me know if you're ever around! And yeah, I know Chris. He's great. He's helping organise this year, so I'm excited for him to be involved.

Ah that's awesome Aaron! I do feel like these social approaches can lead to really cool unexpected outcomes, which I think is harder to achieve with things like fellowships and a more "teachy" approach. 

I also think this adds to my feeling that the best community builders are... the best at community building, not just the most knowledgeable - good generalist abilities and intuition, prior experience, and strong social skills (approachability, likability, openness, etc.) all feel more important in my mind than a mental index of the forum/ being really brought into the ideas (these things can be helpful, but don't feel nearly as important) 

Thanks for this Brad, I totally agree! 

The thing that made utilitarian ethics click for me was the idea that often the problems stem from the proxies for impact rather than the impact itself and that nth order indirect effects of your direct actions should still be factored into the moral calculus of your decisions. 

I also think a portfolio of proxies is useful in the space because of the moral uncertainty about what the most important things to track are. Even if fellowship completions were a strong metric (which I am very sceptical of), I think at least trying my social-first approach could give lots of valuable insights! 

I think I agree with this - I'm very pro agency multiplying (this is what I think, e.g. Non-Trivial and Leaf's fellows programmes do particularly well). With EA Bristol, which I run, for example, the plan is to have the social group dynamics be the basis for these discussions, but I absolutely want to target stuff around soft skill development through project sprints, discussions based on fun stuff (e.g. use media to kickstart conversations around ethics and stuff), etc. Rather than explicitly having a session where we "explore ITN", it would be more conversational in nature, with the emphasis being on people exploring these ideas and discussing them, as well as learning through doing (e.g. projects where the ideation is supported by frameworks like ITN) rather than more teachy sessions which create some of the power imbalances I discuss in the post. 

I also agree we shouldn't discount the "Effective-first" EAs, however, I think by their nature they are more likely to carve out a path for themself and access upskilling resources, independent projects and fellowships with less reliance on a central community. I think we of course could still benefit them with community, but it is harder to cater to both camps at the same time and counterfactually I suspect the altruists benefit more.

Of course, feel free to push back on any of this or correct me if I misunderstood your point. Thanks for the comment! :)

I hadn't come across this fable before, but found it really interesting. I thought it nicely introduced several of EA's common topics about choosing how to do the most good and convincing others about issues worthy of prioritizing. Thanks for sharing!