Okay I’ll address the rest of the argument. You’re also not giving a lot of context. It’s hard to understand but based on your whole comment I can also see it being possible that you bumped into situations where people were trying to sort out interpersonal issues privately, and you got wind of it and tried to make it public.
There is a world of difference between those situations and situations where people are not intellectually honest, which is most of the situations OP describes and discusses.
And it makes the last part of your comment even more uncalled for.
“I can also see it being possible that you bumped into situations where people were trying to sort out interpersonal issues privately, and you got wind of it and tried to make it public.”
Thank you for responding! And, no, that is not accurate. The leader of EA Berkeley was ousted; that’s not an ‘interpersonal issue, privately’. That’s the organization wanting to protect a brand by leaving their problems unmentioned, which is exactly the dishonesty part. I believe I’ve rebutted your argument—unless you have more to add?
Additionally, I understand if you took offense that I said ‘nerd’ - I’m happy to apologize to anyone in the Berkeley group who was offended or hurt, in person, with anyone else present they wish. Unfortunately, with Bankman’s incestuous corporate structure updating my assumptions, I do believe it is right to ask: are they dating their PAs? That’s a question for internal review, privacy, yet the statistical results should be public.
Unfortunately, with Bankman’s incestuous corporate structure updating my assumptions, I do believe it is right to ask: are they dating their PAs?
So are you saying that because people at a company that donated a lot of money to EA causes seem to have dated each other in ways that caused conflicts of interest, it’s right for you to ask on a public forum: Did this woman only get a PA job working for EAs in Berkeley because she’s dating the person who hired her?
Oh, no—not ‘because-dating-already’, nor as a favor, nor her aspiring to use beauty, or being unqualified. Rather, if people doing the hiring are selecting among excellent candidates, yet their selection favors people who those same authorities hope to try dating. It’s the hirer, not the one hired, who I call into question; as I said originally “hoping to hire-in” which places agency and blame with those being biased in their hiring.
Also, I don’t expect a flat ‘gender disparity’ to be indicative of this sort of hiring—rather, internal measure of co-worker and boss relationships would show if the social graph is incestuous. And, though it isn’t reasonable to say “the funder of a charity was hiring inappropriately, so the charity must also be doing so,”—and, at the same time, “a bunch of young college kids with money who all live and hang out together, dating each other,” is the shared characteristic that I argue warrants inclusion of that risk.
Okay I’ll address the rest of the argument. You’re also not giving a lot of context. It’s hard to understand but based on your whole comment I can also see it being possible that you bumped into situations where people were trying to sort out interpersonal issues privately, and you got wind of it and tried to make it public.
There is a world of difference between those situations and situations where people are not intellectually honest, which is most of the situations OP describes and discusses.
And it makes the last part of your comment even more uncalled for.
“I can also see it being possible that you bumped into situations where people were trying to sort out interpersonal issues privately, and you got wind of it and tried to make it public.”
Thank you for responding! And, no, that is not accurate. The leader of EA Berkeley was ousted; that’s not an ‘interpersonal issue, privately’. That’s the organization wanting to protect a brand by leaving their problems unmentioned, which is exactly the dishonesty part. I believe I’ve rebutted your argument—unless you have more to add?
Additionally, I understand if you took offense that I said ‘nerd’ - I’m happy to apologize to anyone in the Berkeley group who was offended or hurt, in person, with anyone else present they wish. Unfortunately, with Bankman’s incestuous corporate structure updating my assumptions, I do believe it is right to ask: are they dating their PAs? That’s a question for internal review, privacy, yet the statistical results should be public.
Thank you again for engaging with a rebuttal!
So are you saying that because people at a company that donated a lot of money to EA causes seem to have dated each other in ways that caused conflicts of interest, it’s right for you to ask on a public forum: Did this woman only get a PA job working for EAs in Berkeley because she’s dating the person who hired her?
Oh, no—not ‘because-dating-already’, nor as a favor, nor her aspiring to use beauty, or being unqualified. Rather, if people doing the hiring are selecting among excellent candidates, yet their selection favors people who those same authorities hope to try dating. It’s the hirer, not the one hired, who I call into question; as I said originally “hoping to hire-in” which places agency and blame with those being biased in their hiring.
Also, I don’t expect a flat ‘gender disparity’ to be indicative of this sort of hiring—rather, internal measure of co-worker and boss relationships would show if the social graph is incestuous. And, though it isn’t reasonable to say “the funder of a charity was hiring inappropriately, so the charity must also be doing so,”—and, at the same time, “a bunch of young college kids with money who all live and hang out together, dating each other,” is the shared characteristic that I argue warrants inclusion of that risk.