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.
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.