I am broadly glad more concerns are coming out and more information is being shared. But I think that the following attitude makes things worse rather than better:
with rumours of secret Google docs and WhatsApp groups in which the leaders of the movement discuss how to position themselves and how to hide their more controversial views or make them seem palatable
Every organization and movement has private docs and group chats. That’s normal and good for the same reason it is normal and good for people to have private thoughts. Banning organizations from having private discussions makes everyone dumber and less competent.
This description could be anything from “muahaha, how do we trick the rubes into funding our math contest” to “what among our interests is most relevant to this group?” We might make guesses from their public actions, but we could make those anyway. The fact that an org doesn’t publish every single document isn’t nefarious.
I argue that EA orgs should self-censor / do PR spin less, but I agree that private docs and chats are good.
I want to argue my case to EA orgs and then have them feel free to debate the pros and cons of candor in private! I don’t want them to feel pressured to hide or distort their thought process even in within-org conversations; it has to be OK to float impolitic ideas, so they can be genuinely evaluated. Heck, it has to be OK to defend both “be less honest” and “be more honest” positions, so that both positions can get a fair hearing.
Yeah that’s a good distinction- even if a decision should very clearly be public, it doesn’t automatically follow that the decision making process should be.
I agree that private docs and group chats are totally fine and normal. The bit that concerns me is ‘discuss how to position themselves and how to hide their more controversial views or make them seem palatable’, which seems a problematic thing for leaders to be doing in private. (Just to reiterate I have zero evidence for or against this happening though.)
I think it’s good to discuss those topics internally at all, though I agree with you that EAs should generally stop hiding their controversial views (at least insofar as these are important for making decisions about EA-related topics), and I think we should be more cautious about optimizing for palatability (exactly because it can be hard to do this much without misleading people).
I am broadly glad more concerns are coming out and more information is being shared. But I think that the following attitude makes things worse rather than better:
Every organization and movement has private docs and group chats. That’s normal and good for the same reason it is normal and good for people to have private thoughts. Banning organizations from having private discussions makes everyone dumber and less competent.
This description could be anything from “muahaha, how do we trick the rubes into funding our math contest” to “what among our interests is most relevant to this group?” We might make guesses from their public actions, but we could make those anyway. The fact that an org doesn’t publish every single document isn’t nefarious.
I argue that EA orgs should self-censor / do PR spin less, but I agree that private docs and chats are good.
I want to argue my case to EA orgs and then have them feel free to debate the pros and cons of candor in private! I don’t want them to feel pressured to hide or distort their thought process even in within-org conversations; it has to be OK to float impolitic ideas, so they can be genuinely evaluated. Heck, it has to be OK to defend both “be less honest” and “be more honest” positions, so that both positions can get a fair hearing.
Yeah that’s a good distinction- even if a decision should very clearly be public, it doesn’t automatically follow that the decision making process should be.
I agree that private docs and group chats are totally fine and normal. The bit that concerns me is ‘discuss how to position themselves and how to hide their more controversial views or make them seem palatable’, which seems a problematic thing for leaders to be doing in private. (Just to reiterate I have zero evidence for or against this happening though.)
I think it’s good to discuss those topics internally at all, though I agree with you that EAs should generally stop hiding their controversial views (at least insofar as these are important for making decisions about EA-related topics), and I think we should be more cautious about optimizing for palatability (exactly because it can be hard to do this much without misleading people).