Forgive me for using an anonymous account, but I’m in the process of applying for SFF funding and I don’t want to risk any uncomfortable consequences. However, I can’t stay silent any longer – it’s painfully obvious that the SFF has little regard for combating sexual harassment. The fact that Jacy was awarded funding is a blatant example, but what’s more concerning is that Michael Vassar, a known EA antagonist, still appears to be involved with the SFF to this day.
It’s alarming how Vassar uses his grant-making powers to build alliances in the EA community. He initiated a grant to Peter Eckersley’s organization AOI after Peter’s death. Peter was strongly against Vassar. Vassar seemed pleased that Peter’s successor Deger Turan doesn’t have the same moral compass.
That is very concerning; I’ve now read several separate accounts of his behavior toward others (friends, devotees, partners, strangers), and together they painted a terrible picture.
I plan on sending a concerned letter to SFF, though I’m not sure I expect it to do much. Others should consider doing the same.
But… this comment is false as far as I can tell? Like, I didn’t express myself ideally in my comment below (which I think deserves the downvotes and the lower visibility), and it’s an understandable misunderstanding to think that Michael still has somehow some kind of speculation grant budget, but at least to me it really looks like he is no longer involved.
Just to excerpt the relevant sections from the thread below:
There is a largish number of people who are involved as speculation grantors who have a pretty small unilateral budget to make grants with, and I had in my mind totally not cached them as “being involved in SFF” (and do also think that’s a kind of inaccurate summary, though one that I think is reasonable to have from the outside).
[...]
I also have access to an internal spreadsheet of speculation grantors and Michael is not listed on that, which does make me more sympathetic to my misunderstanding since I have looked at this spreadsheet a bunch more recently, and so was quite confident that he wasn’t listed on that one. My current best model is that he is no longer a speculation grantor (maybe because his budget went to zero), though I find him being listed on the website but not on the internal spreadsheet confusing enough that I might be missing something.
[… new comment]
Cool, yeah, looks like he was removed around the same time from the spreadsheet and from the public list, so I am now quite confident that he is no longer involved as a speculation grantor.
but what’s more concerning is that Michael Vassar, a known EA antagonist, still appears to be involved with the SFF to this day.
Sorry, can you say more? I’ve been very closely involved with a lot of SFF operations in the last 3-4 years and I have never interfaced with Michael in that context.
My guess is you just totally made this up or heard a rumor from someone that did since I can’t think of an interpretation under which this is true (edit: I was indeed confused and you were referring to his work as a speculation grantor, which makes more sense. See here for more followup)
Also, for the record, I find talking to Michael pretty helpful from time to time and wouldn’t judge someone else for doing that. I do think it’s not a good idea currently to put him into positions of power for various reasons, and like him having some distance from the broader community, but he is pretty smart and I learned a lot from him and some of his surrounding friend group.
I don’t know Michael, nor how SFF works, but a <1minute google search suggests that Michael Vassar was serving as a grantor as of Feb 2022. His name has since been removed, but it is unclear whether this is because he is no longer involved, or because he has rescinded consent to have his name listed, or because SFF no longer wish to list his name. It is reasonable to think that Michael Vassar may still be involved with SFF if you take either of the latter two interpretations.
My guess is you just totally made this up or heard a rumor from someone that did since I can’t think of an interpretation under which this is true.
This came across unnecessarily defensive to me, and I’m surprised that you missed this interpretation for someone “very closely involved with basically all SFF operations in the last 3-4 years”, given how easy this information was to find.
Additionally, did you know that Michael was involved in 2022, or had his name listed on the website? If you knew he was involved in 2022, but made the claim that you “can’t think of an interpretation that this is true” because he’s no longer involved in 2023, and accused burneraccountman of just totally making this up just because of that, this feels highly uncharitable to me (I would have expected you to clarify that you knew he was involved last year but this is no longer the case). If you did not know, then I suspect this is may be an update to how much you think you knew about “basically all SFF operations”, and how well calibrated you are about confident claims going forward.
There is a largish number of people who are involved as speculation grantors who have a pretty small unilateral budget to make grants with, and I had in my mind totally not cached them as “being involved in SFF” (and do also think that’s a kind of inaccurate summary, though one that I think is reasonable to have from the outside).
I agree that I should have remembered the speculation grant program, and am sorry for the blunt response.
I do think giving Michael a small speculation grant budget ($200k initially) seems reasonable, and the speculation grant program includes a lot of people including a lot of people who I wouldn’t think of as being involved in the EA community at all. I was definitely interpreting the above as “had served as a recommender” or “has been institutionally involved with SFF”, which I was confident was wrong, but missed important interpretations of the original comment, which totally was a miscommunication that’s on me, especially given my confident response.
I also have access to an internal spreadsheet of speculation grantors and Michael is not listed on that, which does make me more sympathetic to my misunderstanding since I have looked at this spreadsheet a bunch more recently, and so was quite confident that he wasn’t listed on that one. My current best model is that he is no longer a speculation grantor (maybe because his budget went to zero), though I find him being listed on the website but not on the internal spreadsheet confusing enough that I might be missing something.
though I find him being listed on the website but not on the internal spreadsheet confusing enough that I might be missing something.
He is no longer on the website, which might explain the discrepancy, unless you meant he wasn’t on the internal spreadsheet even back in Feb 2022 or earlier?
Ooh, that’s a webarchive link, I somehow completely missed that. Cool, yeah, looks like he was removed around the same time from the spreadsheet and from the public list, so I am now quite confident that he is no longer involved as a speculation grantor.
Makes sense, thanks again. One small nitpick on re-reading your last message:
I do think giving Michael a small speculation grant budget ($200k initially) seems reasonable, and the speculation grant program includes a lot of people and I think includes a lot of people who I wouldn’t think of as being involved in the EA community at all.
I think I’d appreciate some clarification around your thought process around what kind of monetary value is acceptable for Michael (similar question for Jacy here).
I guess I get the sense that letting Michael act as a grantor is bad e.g. because of the signaling effects that SFF is willing to overlook someone’s history of sexual harassment/assault etc, and not because the money will necessarily be poorly spent. Whereas you think 50k to Jacy is reasonable and 200k to Michael as a grantor is reasonable because it’s sufficiently small that this effect doesn’t matter? I basically don’t follow, and I’d be interested in hearing more about your reasoning, if you’re happy to clarify!
I guess I get the sense that letting Michael act as a grantor is bad e.g. because of the signaling effects that SFF is willing to overlook someone’s history of sexual harassment/assault etc, and not because the money will necessarily be poorly spent. Whereas you think 50k to Jacy is reasonable and 200k to Michael as a grantor is reasonable because it’s sufficiently small that this effect doesn’t matter? I basically don’t follow, and I’d be interested in hearing more about your reasoning, if you’re happy to clarify!
I mean, I don’t think it makes sense to force everyone even vaguely nearby in the EA social network to defer to some EA consensus about who it is OK to engage with vs. not. I think it’s important that people can somehow signal “I don’t want my actions to be taken as an endorsement of the EA community, please don’t try to interpret my actions as trying very hard to reflect the EA consensus ”. The SFF has tried to do this in a lot of its writing and communications, and I think it’s pretty important for people to be able to do that somehow.
I also think it’s really important for grantmakers to somehow communicate that a grant from them is not a broad endorsement of all aspects of a project. This is actually frequently a huge obstacle to good grantmaking and there are all kinds of grants that things like the LTFF and OpenPhil and other grantmakers are averse to making because the grant would somehow inextricably come an endorsement of the whole organization or all individuals involved, and this prevents many good grants from happening.
Historically I have tried to fix this on the LTFF by just publishing my hesitations and concerns with individuals and organizations when I recommended them a grant, but that is a lot of work. It also stresses a lot of people out and gets you a lot of pushback, so I don’t think this is currently a solution that people can just adopt tomorrow (though I would love for more people to do this).
I do also think that $50k is really not very much, and also the grant isn’t “to Jacy”, but to an organization that Jacy is involved in, which I think reduces potential harm by another factor of 2-3 or so. I personally quite disliked this grant, and think it’s a bad grant, but I don’t think it’s a grant that I feel actually causes much harm. It just seems like a bad use of money that maybe causes a few thousand expected dollars in negative externalities.
There are grants that I would have paid serious money to prevent (like some historical grants to Leverage Research), but this is not one of them, and I think I would update a bit downwards on the judgement of a process that produces grants like this, but not much more.
On the other hand, I think the $200k speculation grant budget to Michael is actually a good idea, though definitely a high-variance choice and I could totally be convinced it’s a bad idea. $200k as a regrantor is just really not very much (I think substantially less power than $50k of direct funding, for example), and as far as I can tell the grants he recommended were extremely unlikely to cause any problems in terms of weird power dynamics or pressure (I don’t feel comfortable going into details since speculation grant info is private, but I do think I can share my overall assessment as these grants having been very unlikely to give rise to any undue pressure).
I do think this is a reasonable thing to worry about. I also think Michael is exactly the kind of person who has in the past suggested projects and perspectives that have been extremely valuable to me, and I think giving him some money to highlight more of those is totally a worthwhile investment. If I was doing something like giving him a speculation grant budget, I do think I would probably take some kind of precaution and block some grants that look maybe like they would involve weird power-dynamics, but it doesn’t look like it ever came to this, so it’s hard for me to tell what process might have been in place.
I also separately just want to iterate my own personal epistemic state, which is that I haven’t heard of any credible allegations of sexual abuse for Michael. I personally find being around him quite stressful, I know many people who have had bad experiences with him, and he seems very manipulative in a ton of different ways, but I do want to distinguish this from the specific ground truth of sexual abuse and assault. As I said before, I don’t currently want him to be part of my community or the Effective Altruism community more broadly.
I might totally be missing something, and if Michael was more closely involved in the community and would pose more of a direct risk, I would probably spend the (very considerable) effort investigating this in more detail, and I would currently be happy for someone else to investigate this in more detail and share as much as they can, but I also don’t currently have the personal capacity with all my other responsibilities to investigate this much further (and my guess is the community health team also thinks there is no immediate urgent need given that he is really not very involved in community things these days).
I do want to avoid contributing to an information cascade that somehow updates on there being tons of confirmed evidence of sexual assault for someone, when at least I haven’t seen that evidence. The only evidence I know of are these two tweet threads by a person named Jax (who I don’t know), and in that tweet thread they also say a bunch of stuff that seems really extremely likely to be false to me, or extremely likely to lack a ton of relevant crucial context, so that I don’t consider those allegations to be sufficient for me to update me very much.
Again, there is totally a chance I am missing information here, and I have my own evidence (unrelated to any sexual abuse or assault stuff) that makes me not want Michael be involved in the EA and Rationality community more than he currently is, and if other people have additional evidence I would love to see it, since this does seem at least somewhat important.
IIRC, Jax is Bryk is the one who made up the “math pets” allegation against me, which hopefully everyone knows to be false. I don’t know anything about the state of the rest of the allegations against Michael, but if I’m recalling correctly that Jax is that particular known-false-accuser, we probably want to subtract anything from Jax and then evaluate the rest of the list.
I strong upvoted this because it’s a great comment, with a lot of good info and perspective on grantmaking, but I would push back on the idea that there aren’t “credible allegations of sexual abuse against Michael”. Or, I wonder where you draw the line at defining “sexual abuse”? You yourself appear to admit he is troubling, and when in a relationship that can so easily just become sexual abuse, sexual gaslighting, sexually demeaning statements, etc. It’s not like “sexual behavior” is a protected category. It’s just another type of behavior. Sure it’s a very special type of behavior that is attached very strongly to the buttons for dopamine, power, self esteem, and pleasure, but that doesn’t make it special for an abusive personality type of person such that they would necessarily put a gate up in their minds around it… it makes it more likely they press that button. Especially once in relationship, it’s important to remember sexual misconduct is not rare, for some portion of people (and it sounds like vassar is highly likely to be one of these), who suck at relating to others (like suck so hard it becomes abuse), sexual conduct is just another way to relate, and that poor (abusively poor) sexual relating can be very common for such people.
Whether or not their relationship was even 2-way toxic, it doesn’t excuse sexual abuse so I am not sure I can think of a lot of context that makes up for it.
But anyway I agree with you that he shouldn’t be in community anyway. It;s weird that for so many people sexual abuse would be the breaking point they want absolutely confirmed or denied, when actually there are a lot worse things someone can do before that. I do kinda wonder if people near him should run an intervention though, that unless he seek help for anger issues and other personality issues (did you know there are meds to reduce angry outburts? plus of course other treatments you prob know about, CBT, DBT, etc) and make detialed apologies and accountings of his wrngdoings and accusations til that point, they will cut ties. Like, that would be the agentic option if friends with someone like that. I don’t get it. He is probably financially privileged so why can’t he use his money to try to fix his issues? Red flag he isn’t, or if he has he needs to do a public update to that effect, and what issues he is still struggling with (broken brain is real and maybe permanent but like it’s better to admit than people think you don’t care to try). Given his prominence in these discussions it is just insane that he has not done something like that. I would steer clear even personally tbh, but of course, I’m a woman so I expect he would scoff at me and mistreat me at any slip of mine which is not right.
Separate from the harassment accusations, Jacy (and ACE while he was there, where I expect he had influence but far from unilateral control) had a bunch of criticisms of their work I would also want addressed before I gave money to an org founded and run by Jacy and his spouse.
Totally. As I said in another comment, I think the grant was bad, but lots of grants made from the EA community are (in my opinion) pretty bad. It doesn’t feel like the kind of decision that makes me go and try to actively stop someone from doing it.
I’m also curious about the thinking on this. By having Michael act as a grantor, SFF isn’t just overlooking his history of sexual misconduct. It is also potentially enabling further misconduct, since it is giving him power and he has a track record of abusing power.
Also, for the record, I find talking to Michael pretty helpful from time to time and wouldn’t judge someone else for doing that. I do think it’s not a good idea currently to put him into positions of power for various reasons, and like him having some distance from the broader community, but he is pretty smart and I learned a lot from him and some of his surrounding friend group.
Are you aware of the various allegations about his behavior? Is there a level of harm that you think merits rejecting someone entirely, rather than just from the broader community?
Is there a level of harm that you think merits rejecting someone entirely, rather than just from the broader community?
Feels quite extreme to me. Like, I would still be interested in talking to SBF for example, even though I think he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, since he also seems clearly extremely smart and might totally see things that I fail to see. I think Sam is the kind of person I am probably most hesitant to engage with though, since he is very charismatic and I would be slightly worried about my own sanity when engaging with him, though I can still definitely imagine situations where I would talk to him.
In-general I am not a huge fan of total punishment. I think even very bad people deserve to have some basic support and friends, as long as we actually really take seriously the obligation to limit the harm they can cause other people (I am also not categorically opposed to retribution as a component of a justice system, I just think isolation is a particularly bad dimension of punishment for various reasons).
For Michael, I think in my mind he has crossed many lines that make me really not want him to be part of the EA or Rationality community, and currently feel quite strongly about that.
What do you mean by rejecting someone entirely, and why does it entail not talking to them when you’d find this helpful?
Is this about
punishment through the psychological effects of social isolation?
punishment through some other effect of social isolation?
concern about being manipulated?
a “good guy” talking to a “bad guy” may be helpful, but a “bad guy” talking to another “bad guy” lets them coordinate to do bad things, therefore we apply social pressure to prevent anyone from talking to someone we’ve identified as a “bad guy”?
Forgive me for using an anonymous account, but I’m in the process of applying for SFF funding and I don’t want to risk any uncomfortable consequences. However, I can’t stay silent any longer – it’s painfully obvious that the SFF has little regard for combating sexual harassment. The fact that Jacy was awarded funding is a blatant example, but what’s more concerning is that Michael Vassar, a known EA antagonist, still appears to be involved with the SFF to this day.
It’s alarming how Vassar uses his grant-making powers to build alliances in the EA community. He initiated a grant to Peter Eckersley’s organization AOI after Peter’s death. Peter was strongly against Vassar. Vassar seemed pleased that Peter’s successor Deger Turan doesn’t have the same moral compass.
That is very concerning; I’ve now read several separate accounts of his behavior toward others (friends, devotees, partners, strangers), and together they painted a terrible picture.
I plan on sending a concerned letter to SFF, though I’m not sure I expect it to do much. Others should consider doing the same.
But… this comment is false as far as I can tell? Like, I didn’t express myself ideally in my comment below (which I think deserves the downvotes and the lower visibility), and it’s an understandable misunderstanding to think that Michael still has somehow some kind of speculation grant budget, but at least to me it really looks like he is no longer involved.
Just to excerpt the relevant sections from the thread below:
Sorry, can you say more? I’ve been very closely involved with a lot of SFF operations in the last 3-4 years and I have never interfaced with Michael in that context.
My guess is you just totally made this up or heard a rumor from someone that did since I can’t think of an interpretation under which this is true (edit: I was indeed confused and you were referring to his work as a speculation grantor, which makes more sense. See here for more followup)
Also, for the record, I find talking to Michael pretty helpful from time to time and wouldn’t judge someone else for doing that. I do think it’s not a good idea currently to put him into positions of power for various reasons, and like him having some distance from the broader community, but he is pretty smart and I learned a lot from him and some of his surrounding friend group.
Hi Habryka,
I found this comment disappointing to read.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230203024435/https://survivalandflourishing.fund/speculation-grants
I don’t know Michael, nor how SFF works, but a <1minute google search suggests that Michael Vassar was serving as a grantor as of Feb 2022. His name has since been removed, but it is unclear whether this is because he is no longer involved, or because he has rescinded consent to have his name listed, or because SFF no longer wish to list his name. It is reasonable to think that Michael Vassar may still be involved with SFF if you take either of the latter two interpretations.
This came across unnecessarily defensive to me, and I’m surprised that you missed this interpretation for someone “very closely involved with basically all SFF operations in the last 3-4 years”, given how easy this information was to find.
Additionally, did you know that Michael was involved in 2022, or had his name listed on the website? If you knew he was involved in 2022, but made the claim that you “can’t think of an interpretation that this is true” because he’s no longer involved in 2023, and accused burneraccountman of just totally making this up just because of that, this feels highly uncharitable to me (I would have expected you to clarify that you knew he was involved last year but this is no longer the case). If you did not know, then I suspect this is may be an update to how much you think you knew about “basically all SFF operations”, and how well calibrated you are about confident claims going forward.
Oops, yep, sorry, I fucked up.
There is a largish number of people who are involved as speculation grantors who have a pretty small unilateral budget to make grants with, and I had in my mind totally not cached them as “being involved in SFF” (and do also think that’s a kind of inaccurate summary, though one that I think is reasonable to have from the outside).
I agree that I should have remembered the speculation grant program, and am sorry for the blunt response.
I do think giving Michael a small speculation grant budget ($200k initially) seems reasonable, and the speculation grant program includes a lot of people including a lot of people who I wouldn’t think of as being involved in the EA community at all. I was definitely interpreting the above as “had served as a recommender” or “has been institutionally involved with SFF”, which I was confident was wrong, but missed important interpretations of the original comment, which totally was a miscommunication that’s on me, especially given my confident response.
I also have access to an internal spreadsheet of speculation grantors and Michael is not listed on that, which does make me more sympathetic to my misunderstanding since I have looked at this spreadsheet a bunch more recently, and so was quite confident that he wasn’t listed on that one. My current best model is that he is no longer a speculation grantor (maybe because his budget went to zero), though I find him being listed on the website but not on the internal spreadsheet confusing enough that I might be missing something.
No worries, thanks for the response.
He is no longer on the website, which might explain the discrepancy, unless you meant he wasn’t on the internal spreadsheet even back in Feb 2022 or earlier?
Ooh, that’s a webarchive link, I somehow completely missed that. Cool, yeah, looks like he was removed around the same time from the spreadsheet and from the public list, so I am now quite confident that he is no longer involved as a speculation grantor.
Makes sense, thanks again. One small nitpick on re-reading your last message:
I think I’d appreciate some clarification around your thought process around what kind of monetary value is acceptable for Michael (similar question for Jacy here).
I guess I get the sense that letting Michael act as a grantor is bad e.g. because of the signaling effects that SFF is willing to overlook someone’s history of sexual harassment/assault etc, and not because the money will necessarily be poorly spent. Whereas you think 50k to Jacy is reasonable and 200k to Michael as a grantor is reasonable because it’s sufficiently small that this effect doesn’t matter? I basically don’t follow, and I’d be interested in hearing more about your reasoning, if you’re happy to clarify!
I mean, I don’t think it makes sense to force everyone even vaguely nearby in the EA social network to defer to some EA consensus about who it is OK to engage with vs. not. I think it’s important that people can somehow signal “I don’t want my actions to be taken as an endorsement of the EA community, please don’t try to interpret my actions as trying very hard to reflect the EA consensus ”. The SFF has tried to do this in a lot of its writing and communications, and I think it’s pretty important for people to be able to do that somehow.
I also think it’s really important for grantmakers to somehow communicate that a grant from them is not a broad endorsement of all aspects of a project. This is actually frequently a huge obstacle to good grantmaking and there are all kinds of grants that things like the LTFF and OpenPhil and other grantmakers are averse to making because the grant would somehow inextricably come an endorsement of the whole organization or all individuals involved, and this prevents many good grants from happening.
Historically I have tried to fix this on the LTFF by just publishing my hesitations and concerns with individuals and organizations when I recommended them a grant, but that is a lot of work. It also stresses a lot of people out and gets you a lot of pushback, so I don’t think this is currently a solution that people can just adopt tomorrow (though I would love for more people to do this).
I do also think that $50k is really not very much, and also the grant isn’t “to Jacy”, but to an organization that Jacy is involved in, which I think reduces potential harm by another factor of 2-3 or so. I personally quite disliked this grant, and think it’s a bad grant, but I don’t think it’s a grant that I feel actually causes much harm. It just seems like a bad use of money that maybe causes a few thousand expected dollars in negative externalities.
There are grants that I would have paid serious money to prevent (like some historical grants to Leverage Research), but this is not one of them, and I think I would update a bit downwards on the judgement of a process that produces grants like this, but not much more.
On the other hand, I think the $200k speculation grant budget to Michael is actually a good idea, though definitely a high-variance choice and I could totally be convinced it’s a bad idea. $200k as a regrantor is just really not very much (I think substantially less power than $50k of direct funding, for example), and as far as I can tell the grants he recommended were extremely unlikely to cause any problems in terms of weird power dynamics or pressure (I don’t feel comfortable going into details since speculation grant info is private, but I do think I can share my overall assessment as these grants having been very unlikely to give rise to any undue pressure).
I do think this is a reasonable thing to worry about. I also think Michael is exactly the kind of person who has in the past suggested projects and perspectives that have been extremely valuable to me, and I think giving him some money to highlight more of those is totally a worthwhile investment. If I was doing something like giving him a speculation grant budget, I do think I would probably take some kind of precaution and block some grants that look maybe like they would involve weird power-dynamics, but it doesn’t look like it ever came to this, so it’s hard for me to tell what process might have been in place.
I also separately just want to iterate my own personal epistemic state, which is that I haven’t heard of any credible allegations of sexual abuse for Michael. I personally find being around him quite stressful, I know many people who have had bad experiences with him, and he seems very manipulative in a ton of different ways, but I do want to distinguish this from the specific ground truth of sexual abuse and assault. As I said before, I don’t currently want him to be part of my community or the Effective Altruism community more broadly.
I might totally be missing something, and if Michael was more closely involved in the community and would pose more of a direct risk, I would probably spend the (very considerable) effort investigating this in more detail, and I would currently be happy for someone else to investigate this in more detail and share as much as they can, but I also don’t currently have the personal capacity with all my other responsibilities to investigate this much further (and my guess is the community health team also thinks there is no immediate urgent need given that he is really not very involved in community things these days).
I do want to avoid contributing to an information cascade that somehow updates on there being tons of confirmed evidence of sexual assault for someone, when at least I haven’t seen that evidence. The only evidence I know of are these two tweet threads by a person named Jax (who I don’t know), and in that tweet thread they also say a bunch of stuff that seems really extremely likely to be false to me, or extremely likely to lack a ton of relevant crucial context, so that I don’t consider those allegations to be sufficient for me to update me very much.
Again, there is totally a chance I am missing information here, and I have my own evidence (unrelated to any sexual abuse or assault stuff) that makes me not want Michael be involved in the EA and Rationality community more than he currently is, and if other people have additional evidence I would love to see it, since this does seem at least somewhat important.
IIRC, Jax is Bryk is the one who made up the “math pets” allegation against me, which hopefully everyone knows to be false. I don’t know anything about the state of the rest of the allegations against Michael, but if I’m recalling correctly that Jax is that particular known-false-accuser, we probably want to subtract anything from Jax and then evaluate the rest of the list.
I strong upvoted this because it’s a great comment, with a lot of good info and perspective on grantmaking, but I would push back on the idea that there aren’t “credible allegations of sexual abuse against Michael”. Or, I wonder where you draw the line at defining “sexual abuse”? You yourself appear to admit he is troubling, and when in a relationship that can so easily just become sexual abuse, sexual gaslighting, sexually demeaning statements, etc. It’s not like “sexual behavior” is a protected category. It’s just another type of behavior. Sure it’s a very special type of behavior that is attached very strongly to the buttons for dopamine, power, self esteem, and pleasure, but that doesn’t make it special for an abusive personality type of person such that they would necessarily put a gate up in their minds around it… it makes it more likely they press that button. Especially once in relationship, it’s important to remember sexual misconduct is not rare, for some portion of people (and it sounds like vassar is highly likely to be one of these), who suck at relating to others (like suck so hard it becomes abuse), sexual conduct is just another way to relate, and that poor (abusively poor) sexual relating can be very common for such people.
Whether or not their relationship was even 2-way toxic, it doesn’t excuse sexual abuse so I am not sure I can think of a lot of context that makes up for it.
But anyway I agree with you that he shouldn’t be in community anyway. It;s weird that for so many people sexual abuse would be the breaking point they want absolutely confirmed or denied, when actually there are a lot worse things someone can do before that. I do kinda wonder if people near him should run an intervention though, that unless he seek help for anger issues and other personality issues (did you know there are meds to reduce angry outburts? plus of course other treatments you prob know about, CBT, DBT, etc) and make detialed apologies and accountings of his wrngdoings and accusations til that point, they will cut ties. Like, that would be the agentic option if friends with someone like that. I don’t get it. He is probably financially privileged so why can’t he use his money to try to fix his issues? Red flag he isn’t, or if he has he needs to do a public update to that effect, and what issues he is still struggling with (broken brain is real and maybe permanent but like it’s better to admit than people think you don’t care to try). Given his prominence in these discussions it is just insane that he has not done something like that. I would steer clear even personally tbh, but of course, I’m a woman so I expect he would scoff at me and mistreat me at any slip of mine which is not right.
Separate from the harassment accusations, Jacy (and ACE while he was there, where I expect he had influence but far from unilateral control) had a bunch of criticisms of their work I would also want addressed before I gave money to an org founded and run by Jacy and his spouse.
Totally. As I said in another comment, I think the grant was bad, but lots of grants made from the EA community are (in my opinion) pretty bad. It doesn’t feel like the kind of decision that makes me go and try to actively stop someone from doing it.
I’m also curious about the thinking on this. By having Michael act as a grantor, SFF isn’t just overlooking his history of sexual misconduct. It is also potentially enabling further misconduct, since it is giving him power and he has a track record of abusing power.
Are you aware of the various allegations about his behavior? Is there a level of harm that you think merits rejecting someone entirely, rather than just from the broader community?
Feels quite extreme to me. Like, I would still be interested in talking to SBF for example, even though I think he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, since he also seems clearly extremely smart and might totally see things that I fail to see. I think Sam is the kind of person I am probably most hesitant to engage with though, since he is very charismatic and I would be slightly worried about my own sanity when engaging with him, though I can still definitely imagine situations where I would talk to him.
In-general I am not a huge fan of total punishment. I think even very bad people deserve to have some basic support and friends, as long as we actually really take seriously the obligation to limit the harm they can cause other people (I am also not categorically opposed to retribution as a component of a justice system, I just think isolation is a particularly bad dimension of punishment for various reasons).
For Michael, I think in my mind he has crossed many lines that make me really not want him to be part of the EA or Rationality community, and currently feel quite strongly about that.
What do you mean by rejecting someone entirely, and why does it entail not talking to them when you’d find this helpful? Is this about
punishment through the psychological effects of social isolation?
punishment through some other effect of social isolation?
concern about being manipulated?
a “good guy” talking to a “bad guy” may be helpful, but a “bad guy” talking to another “bad guy” lets them coordinate to do bad things, therefore we apply social pressure to prevent anyone from talking to someone we’ve identified as a “bad guy”?
some other consideration / model I’m missing?
Props for saying what is kind of a hard thing to say here. I agree there are people I listen to who I would not want in the community.