[EDIT: Okay I guess the current top comment is enough. FWIW I never meant to imply that the discussion already happening was not of good quality but just that I don’t want to see people’s time and energy wasted, nor do I want to see people’s concern spiked for little reason. I still hope, if this not a job for forum mods, that the community health team chimes in much like they did here on the crossposted Time piece but yes perhaps this is not the job for mods and maybe I should weakly hold that it is not necesssary anyway]
Mods, can you please write a comment and pin it? A short one commenting that this post is more to do with the rationality community and they can join the conversation on LW [edit: if they know the rationality community enough that they have reason to engage with rationalist-gender discussion]? It seems that despite the title of this post, people are thinking that, by simple virtue of it being posted here on the EA Forum, means that the EA community has something to do with any of the claims the forum has not heard before (and the ones the forum has heard before have been handled). You could also link some comments that have been made here that summarize the discussion and address the concern well.
You might also note that “pace of conversation” on this forum post is not necessarily a relevant signal for how important this post should be to the EA community. I fear there might be a cascade where people are taking commenting as proof that this is a noteworthy case having to do with EA in ways we didn’t already know, and that just isn’t so. Let the rationalists take care of themselves, but also please ensure we EAs don’t have to pay penance for things that have little if anything to do with us. The things in here that have to do with EA have already been addressed and so I think it would be helpful for new visitors if a short point to that effect is linked prominently, pinned at the top of discussion @Lizka
[EDIT: Okay I guess the current top comment is enough. FWIW I never meant to imply that the discussion already happening was not of good quality but just that I don’t want to see people’s time and energy wasted, nor do I want to see people’s concern spiked for little reason. I still hope, if this not a job for forum mods, that the community health team chimes in much like they did here on the crossposted Time piece but yes perhaps this is not the job for mods and maybe I should weakly hold that it is not necesssary anyway]
Mods, can you please write a comment and pin it? A short one commenting that this post is more to do with the rationality community and they canjoin the conversation on LW[edit: if they know the rationality community enough that they have reason to engage with rationalist-gender discussion]? It seems that despite the title of this post, people are thinking that, by simple virtue of it being posted here on the EA Forum, means that the EA community has something to do with any of the claims the forum has not heard before (and the ones the forum has heard before have been handled). You could also link some comments that have been made here that summarize the discussion and address the concern well.You might also note that “pace of conversation” on this forum post is not necessarily a relevant signal for how important this post should be to the EA community. I fear there might be a cascade where people are taking commenting as proof that this is a noteworthy case having to do with EA in ways we didn’t already know, and that just isn’t so. Let the rationalists take care of themselves, but also please ensure we EAs don’t have to pay penance for things that have little if anything to do with us. The things in here that have to do with EA have already been addressed and so I think it would be helpful for new visitors if a short point to that effect is linked prominently, pinned at the top of discussion@LizkaI agree with the sentiment here.