Women in longtermism and EA are consistently better in respects of character, responsibility and diligence (there are outliers in animal welfare, who have been power-seeking for ideological and been destructive, implicated in ACE’s fate, but that’s probably because of the demographics).
Women do not engage in as much power-seeking as much or interact as poorly with the social fictions/status/funding dynamics that produce bad outcomes in EA (they tend to do more real things).
As we will see, even Caroline did the “least crime”. In the non-linear case, my guess is that Kat Woods was more self-involved and highly unqualified as a manager, with less tones of systemic malice that Emerson gives off.
Is there any evidence for this claim? One can speculate about how average personality gender differences would affect p(scandal), but you’ve just cited two cases where women caused huge harms, which seems to argue neutrally or against you.
But with no evidence, just your guesses. IMO we should wait until things shake out and even then the evidence will require lots of careful interpretation. Also EA is 2⁄3 male, which means that even minor contributions of women to scandals could mean they cause proportionate harms.
I’m fine with downvotes on stuff, I’m not OK with not being seen.
Zooming out, I think there’s a danger some people will see this as a game to be won. If that’s true, you’re going to see different classes of people “play the game” to win the online dynamics. Some classes of people are not going to play.
I think there are other ways of doing this. Another distinct class of people are going to play a game that “they only need to win once”.
Women in longtermism and EA are consistently better in respects of character, responsibility and diligence (there are outliers in animal welfare, who have been power-seeking for ideological and been destructive, implicated in ACE’s fate, but that’s probably because of the demographics).
Women do not engage in as much power-seeking as much or interact as poorly with the social fictions/status/funding dynamics that produce bad outcomes in EA (they tend to do more real things).
As we will see, even Caroline did the “least crime”. In the non-linear case, my guess is that Kat Woods was more self-involved and highly unqualified as a manager, with less tones of systemic malice that Emerson gives off.
Is there any evidence for this claim? One can speculate about how average personality gender differences would affect p(scandal), but you’ve just cited two cases where women caused huge harms, which seems to argue neutrally or against you.
In both cases, the examples of women have an explicit favorable comparison to their male counterparts.
But with no evidence, just your guesses. IMO we should wait until things shake out and even then the evidence will require lots of careful interpretation. Also EA is 2⁄3 male, which means that even minor contributions of women to scandals could mean they cause proportionate harms.
I’m fine with downvotes on stuff, I’m not OK with not being seen.
Zooming out, I think there’s a danger some people will see this as a game to be won. If that’s true, you’re going to see different classes of people “play the game” to win the online dynamics. Some classes of people are not going to play.
I think there are other ways of doing this. Another distinct class of people are going to play a game that “they only need to win once”.