Iâm grateful for this comment, because itâs an exemplar of the kind of comment that makes me feel most disappointed by the EA community.
Itâs bad enough that influential EAs have caused a lot of damage to other individuals, and to the good work that might be done by the community. But itâs really upsetting that a lot of the community (at least as exemplified by the comments on the forum; I know this isnât fully representative) doesnât seem to take it seriously enough. Weâre talking about really horrible examples of racism and sexual harassment here, not âwoke activismâ gone too far. It hurts people directly, it repels others from the community, and it also makes it harder to further important causes.
Itâs also couched in the terms of ârationalismâ and academic integrity (âlet me try to steel-man a possible counter-argument...â), rather than just coming out and saying what it is. I donât think youâre (merely) trying to make a hypothetical argument. Similarly the âI hope EAs see whatâs [really]* happening here, and understand the clear and present dangers...â sounds alarmist to me.
*I included the [really], because it seems to me like the author of the comment is trying to lend weight to their argument by implying they are revealing something most people would otherwise miss.
I understand the frustrations you and others are voicing, but to me I think itâs more a lack of competence and understanding of management/âpower differentials/âsocial skills from some of the higher level EAs. I highly doubt that the upper echelons of EA are full of malicious sociopaths who are intentionally harming people.
EA has done a lot of good, and people make mistakes often. I do think we need to rectify them and punish bad behavior, but we should try and make sure we donât alienate the old guard of EA for making mistakes in the socializing/âdating world. A lot of people struggle to understand what is okay and what isnâtâIâd rather try and reconcile or educate them than attack each other. Thatâs the point of this post.
My comment here was about Geoffrey Millerâs comment, rather than your original post as a whole (albeit I separately took issue with your use of ârelatively petty...â), so Iâm not sure I follow where youâre going here.
FWIW, if youâre referring to recently-come-to-light examples of sexual harassment and racism when you say âitâs more a lack of competence...â, then I would disagree with your characterisation. I think by saying that the likes of Owen Cotton-Barratt and Nick Bostrom arenât âmalicious sociopathsâ, and that they didnât do it âintentionallyâ you fail to acknowledge the harm theyâve done. Itâs a similar line of argument to your original post when you compare the harm done with âthe survival of the human raceâ. I think itâs missing the point, itâs insensitive, and implies that theyâre not soooo bad.
I also worry when the initial reaction to someoneâs misdeeds is âletâs make sure we donât punish them too harshly, or weâll alienate themâ, rather than âthis is really wrong, and our first priority should be to make sure it doesnât happen againâ. My initial response isnât to shed a tear for the damage to the career of the person who did the wrong thing.
I disagree with your framing this as âattackingâ the people that have done wrong. If anything, itâs the people on the end of the sexual harassment that have been attacked.
I find it distasteful when people point to things like âEA has done a lot of goodâ or âEA has saved a lot of livesâ in the context of revelations of sexual harassment etc. While it might be factually correct, I think it gives the sense that people think itâs OK to do horrible personal things as long as you donate enough to Givewell (I very much disagree).
And one final point: I donât think âthe old guard of EAâ is the right frame (although Iâm somewhat biased as I was involved in EA in 2011-12). I donât believe the majority of wrongdoers are from this group, nor do I believe the majority of this group are wrongdoers.
Thanks for responding. For what itâs worth I personally think OCB should be permanently resigned from a powerful position in EA, and possibly socially distanced. Strong incentives against that type of behavior, especially right now, are extremely important. Iâm disappointed with the response from EVF and think it should be far harsher.
The distinction Iâm trying to make is that we shouldnât assume all powerful people in EA are bad apples as a result of this scandal breaking.
I agree with thisâit is also why I disagree-voted, and no, I donât have notifications set up for Geoffrey (as mentioned in another comment by them).
The comment felt to me like it was undermining a lot of the recent criticism regarding people in powerful positions, AT THE VERY LEAST, showing very bad judgement. The comment makes me very sad and angry.
Iâm grateful for this comment, because itâs an exemplar of the kind of comment that makes me feel most disappointed by the EA community.
Itâs bad enough that influential EAs have caused a lot of damage to other individuals, and to the good work that might be done by the community. But itâs really upsetting that a lot of the community (at least as exemplified by the comments on the forum; I know this isnât fully representative) doesnât seem to take it seriously enough. Weâre talking about really horrible examples of racism and sexual harassment here, not âwoke activismâ gone too far. It hurts people directly, it repels others from the community, and it also makes it harder to further important causes.
Itâs also couched in the terms of ârationalismâ and academic integrity (âlet me try to steel-man a possible counter-argument...â), rather than just coming out and saying what it is. I donât think youâre (merely) trying to make a hypothetical argument. Similarly the âI hope EAs see whatâs [really]* happening here, and understand the clear and present dangers...â sounds alarmist to me.
*I included the [really], because it seems to me like the author of the comment is trying to lend weight to their argument by implying they are revealing something most people would otherwise miss.
I understand the frustrations you and others are voicing, but to me I think itâs more a lack of competence and understanding of management/âpower differentials/âsocial skills from some of the higher level EAs. I highly doubt that the upper echelons of EA are full of malicious sociopaths who are intentionally harming people.
EA has done a lot of good, and people make mistakes often. I do think we need to rectify them and punish bad behavior, but we should try and make sure we donât alienate the old guard of EA for making mistakes in the socializing/âdating world. A lot of people struggle to understand what is okay and what isnâtâIâd rather try and reconcile or educate them than attack each other. Thatâs the point of this post.
Does that framing make sense to you?
Hi Wil,
My comment here was about Geoffrey Millerâs comment, rather than your original post as a whole (albeit I separately took issue with your use of ârelatively petty...â), so Iâm not sure I follow where youâre going here.
FWIW, if youâre referring to recently-come-to-light examples of sexual harassment and racism when you say âitâs more a lack of competence...â, then I would disagree with your characterisation. I think by saying that the likes of Owen Cotton-Barratt and Nick Bostrom arenât âmalicious sociopathsâ, and that they didnât do it âintentionallyâ you fail to acknowledge the harm theyâve done. Itâs a similar line of argument to your original post when you compare the harm done with âthe survival of the human raceâ. I think itâs missing the point, itâs insensitive, and implies that theyâre not soooo bad.
I also worry when the initial reaction to someoneâs misdeeds is âletâs make sure we donât punish them too harshly, or weâll alienate themâ, rather than âthis is really wrong, and our first priority should be to make sure it doesnât happen againâ. My initial response isnât to shed a tear for the damage to the career of the person who did the wrong thing.
I disagree with your framing this as âattackingâ the people that have done wrong. If anything, itâs the people on the end of the sexual harassment that have been attacked.
I find it distasteful when people point to things like âEA has done a lot of goodâ or âEA has saved a lot of livesâ in the context of revelations of sexual harassment etc. While it might be factually correct, I think it gives the sense that people think itâs OK to do horrible personal things as long as you donate enough to Givewell (I very much disagree).
And one final point: I donât think âthe old guard of EAâ is the right frame (although Iâm somewhat biased as I was involved in EA in 2011-12). I donât believe the majority of wrongdoers are from this group, nor do I believe the majority of this group are wrongdoers.
So no, that framing does not make sense to me.
Thanks for responding. For what itâs worth I personally think OCB should be permanently resigned from a powerful position in EA, and possibly socially distanced. Strong incentives against that type of behavior, especially right now, are extremely important. Iâm disappointed with the response from EVF and think it should be far harsher.
The distinction Iâm trying to make is that we shouldnât assume all powerful people in EA are bad apples as a result of this scandal breaking.
Thanks Wil. I can agree with that.
I agree with thisâit is also why I disagree-voted, and no, I donât have notifications set up for Geoffrey (as mentioned in another comment by them).
The comment felt to me like it was undermining a lot of the recent criticism regarding people in powerful positions, AT THE VERY LEAST, showing very bad judgement. The comment makes me very sad and angry.