Iâm one of the Community Liaisons for CEAâs Community Health and Special Projects team. The information shared in this post is very troubling. There is no room in our community for manipulative or intimidating behaviour.
We were familiar with many (but not all) of the concerns raised in Benâs post based on our own investigation. Weâre grateful to Ben for spending the time pursuing a more detailed picture, and grateful to those who supported Alice and Chloe during a very difficult time.
We talked to several people currently or formerly involved in Nonlinear about these issues, and took some actions as a result of what we heard. We plan to continue working on this situation.
From the comments on this post, Iâm guessing that some readers are trying to work out whether Kat and Emersonâs intentions were bad. However, for some things, intentions might not be very decision-relevant. In my opinion, meta work like incubating new charities, advising inexperienced charity entrepreneurs, and influencing funding decisions should be done by people with particularly good judgement about how to run strong organisations, in addition to having admirable intentions.
Iâm looking forward to seeing what information Nonlinear shares in the coming weeks.
Re âwork like incubating new charities, advising inexperienced charity entrepreneurs, and influencing funding decisions should be done by people with particularly good judgement about how to run strong organisations, in addition to having admirable intentionsâ, I think this is the single best sentence that has been written on this so far.
Hmm. I think if I had been in an abusive situation such as the ones OP describes, and I (privately) went to the Community Health team about it, and the only outcomes were what you just listed, I would have considered it a waste of my time and emotional energy.
Edit: waste of my time relative to âgoing publicâ, that is.
Nonlinear has not been invited or permitted to run sessions or give talks relating to their work, or host a recruiting table at EAG and EAGx conferences this year.
Kat ran a session on a personal topic at EAG Bay Area 2023 in February. EDIT: Kat, Emerson and Drew also had a community office hour slot at that conference. Since then we have not invited or permitted Kat or Emerson to run any type of session.
We have been considering blocking them from attending future conferences since May, and were planning on making that decision if/âwhen Kat or Emerson applied to attend a future conference.
Are you familiar with any concerns about nonlinear not raised in Benâs post? Ben seems particularly concerned that nonlinear creates an epistemic environment where he wouldnât know if there was more. If there is, that seems pretty central to confirming Benâs concerns.
Could you kindly provide information regarding the initial reporting of the case to the Community Health committee, along with the identity of the individual or individuals entrusted with the caseâs investigation?
Your assertion that, âWe were familiar with many (but not all) of the concerns raised âŚ,â piques curiosity as to which specific concerns had been previously acknowledged. Furthermore, could you elucidate the methodologies employed to ascertain their veracity?
In the spirit of transparency, and recognizing the historical underreporting tendencies of certain individuals like Julia Wise, it would be appreciated if you could enumerate the precise steps undertaken in the course of taking actions as alluded to.
Given the gravity of allegations, such as the solicitation of recreational substances from employees and the encouragement of unlicensed driving, is there not ample cause for the temporary suspension of individuals such as Emerson and Kat from participation in community events and forum activities? What threshold of misconduct would necessitate the Community Health committee to perceive such behavior as detrimental to the Effective Altruism community, thus contravening its mission and setting an undesirable precedent for newcomers?
To facilitate a clearer understanding of the investigative timeline, could you please divulge the duration of the ongoing investigation, its commencement date, and your projected timeline for the publication of conclusive findings?
To facilitate a clearer understanding of the investigative timeline, could you please divulge the duration of the ongoing investigation, its commencement date, and your projected timeline for the publication of conclusive findings?
This sneaks in the presumption that publication is a good idea and a good use of CH time? I havenât seen much positive evidence for this proposition, and indeed Iâm seeing some negative evidence, live.
I understand your desire to know this information, Morpheus_Trinity. Iâm sorry but weâre not in a position to share all that information here. This comment provides a partial answer.
I admire what your doing here overall in terms of keeping up pressure on the Community Health team to do something about bad actors and asking tough questions, but I donât see what in that link supports the claim Kat Woods and Julia Wise are particularly close. I mean itâs reasonable to suspect that if a small blog interviews someone from a small world like EA, the interviewee is a close friend of the blogger. But itâs very far from guaranteed, and no closeness is mentioned in the blog post itself.
I think the pertinent question here is primarily not âWere Kat and Julia closeâ, but âWhat standard should we hold the Community Health team to hereâ. If you updated significantly negatively on Julia/âthe Community Health team due to recent events, you might want to hold them to a standard closer to the one Morpheus is proposing. This is especially true if you view the cause of inaction closer to some kind of deferral/âinformation cascade (they are well-established and well-regarded members of the EA community), rather than due to Juliaâs close personal relationship with the people in question. I do think this may be a good opportunity for the community health team to regain some trust though, and I would be interested in hearing more about the Community Health teamâs involvement too, and whether we should be understanding this as âBen spent his time on something that the Community Health team should have done but actively deprioritizedâ, or âThe Community Health team played an active role in this investigationâ, or something else.
For what itâs worth, I actually strongly upvoted Morpheusâ comment. I just think âshe once interviewed herâ is a bit unfair to cite as somehow evidence of corruption, regardless of how confident people should be in Julia Wise overall.
Iâm one of the Community Liaisons for CEAâs Community Health and Special Projects team. The information shared in this post is very troubling. There is no room in our community for manipulative or intimidating behaviour.
We were familiar with many (but not all) of the concerns raised in Benâs post based on our own investigation. Weâre grateful to Ben for spending the time pursuing a more detailed picture, and grateful to those who supported Alice and Chloe during a very difficult time.
We talked to several people currently or formerly involved in Nonlinear about these issues, and took some actions as a result of what we heard. We plan to continue working on this situation.
From the comments on this post, Iâm guessing that some readers are trying to work out whether Kat and Emersonâs intentions were bad. However, for some things, intentions might not be very decision-relevant. In my opinion, meta work like incubating new charities, advising inexperienced charity entrepreneurs, and influencing funding decisions should be done by people with particularly good judgement about how to run strong organisations, in addition to having admirable intentions.
Iâm looking forward to seeing what information Nonlinear shares in the coming weeks.
Re âwork like incubating new charities, advising inexperienced charity entrepreneurs, and influencing funding decisions should be done by people with particularly good judgement about how to run strong organisations, in addition to having admirable intentionsâ, I think this is the single best sentence that has been written on this so far.
What happened as a result of this, before Ben posted?
Hey Agrippa, this comment provides a partial answer.
Hmm. I think if I had been in an abusive situation such as the ones OP describes, and I (privately) went to the Community Health team about it, and the only outcomes were what you just listed, I would have considered it a waste of my time and emotional energy.
Edit: waste of my time relative to âgoing publicâ, that is.
I assume the actions youâve taken canât be shared? (No pressure if it canât).
Thanks for asking Yadav. I can confirm that:
Nonlinear has not been invited or permitted to run sessions or give talks relating to their work, or host a recruiting table at EAG and EAGx conferences this year.
Kat ran a session on a personal topic at EAG Bay Area 2023 in February. EDIT: Kat, Emerson and Drew also had a community office hour slot at that conference.
Since then we have not invited or permitted Kat or Emerson to run any type of session.
We have been considering blocking them from attending future conferences since May, and were planning on making that decision if/âwhen Kat or Emerson applied to attend a future conference.
Are you familiar with any concerns about nonlinear not raised in Benâs post? Ben seems particularly concerned that nonlinear creates an epistemic environment where he wouldnât know if there was more. If there is, that seems pretty central to confirming Benâs concerns.
Can you share what you mean by âintimidating behaviorâ? How does the community health team define, âintimidating behaviorâ?
Could you kindly provide information regarding the initial reporting of the case to the Community Health committee, along with the identity of the individual or individuals entrusted with the caseâs investigation?
Is it within the realm of possibility that the relationship between Julia Wise and Kat Woods, as evidenced by the content accessible via the following link: https://ââjuliawise.net/ââinterview-with-kat-woods-decision-making-about-having-kids/ââ, may have influenced the expeditiousness with which the Community Health committee executed pertinent actions?
Your assertion that, âWe were familiar with many (but not all) of the concerns raised âŚ,â piques curiosity as to which specific concerns had been previously acknowledged. Furthermore, could you elucidate the methodologies employed to ascertain their veracity?
In the spirit of transparency, and recognizing the historical underreporting tendencies of certain individuals like Julia Wise, it would be appreciated if you could enumerate the precise steps undertaken in the course of taking actions as alluded to.
Given the gravity of allegations, such as the solicitation of recreational substances from employees and the encouragement of unlicensed driving, is there not ample cause for the temporary suspension of individuals such as Emerson and Kat from participation in community events and forum activities? What threshold of misconduct would necessitate the Community Health committee to perceive such behavior as detrimental to the Effective Altruism community, thus contravening its mission and setting an undesirable precedent for newcomers?
To facilitate a clearer understanding of the investigative timeline, could you please divulge the duration of the ongoing investigation, its commencement date, and your projected timeline for the publication of conclusive findings?
No, because if nothing else you need to give them time to respond.
This sneaks in the presumption that publication is a good idea and a good use of CH time? I havenât seen much positive evidence for this proposition, and indeed Iâm seeing some negative evidence, live.
I understand your desire to know this information, Morpheus_Trinity. Iâm sorry but weâre not in a position to share all that information here. This comment provides a partial answer.
I admire what your doing here overall in terms of keeping up pressure on the Community Health team to do something about bad actors and asking tough questions, but I donât see what in that link supports the claim Kat Woods and Julia Wise are particularly close. I mean itâs reasonable to suspect that if a small blog interviews someone from a small world like EA, the interviewee is a close friend of the blogger. But itâs very far from guaranteed, and no closeness is mentioned in the blog post itself.
I think the pertinent question here is primarily not âWere Kat and Julia closeâ, but âWhat standard should we hold the Community Health team to hereâ. If you updated significantly negatively on Julia/âthe Community Health team due to recent events, you might want to hold them to a standard closer to the one Morpheus is proposing. This is especially true if you view the cause of inaction closer to some kind of deferral/âinformation cascade (they are well-established and well-regarded members of the EA community), rather than due to Juliaâs close personal relationship with the people in question. I do think this may be a good opportunity for the community health team to regain some trust though, and I would be interested in hearing more about the Community Health teamâs involvement too, and whether we should be understanding this as âBen spent his time on something that the Community Health team should have done but actively deprioritizedâ, or âThe Community Health team played an active role in this investigationâ, or something else.
For what itâs worth, I actually strongly upvoted Morpheusâ comment. I just think âshe once interviewed herâ is a bit unfair to cite as somehow evidence of corruption, regardless of how confident people should be in Julia Wise overall.