Most African Americans probably do not want to go to conferences where a sizeable minority of people are spreading the idea that they are genetically inferior. This is an entirely reasonable opinion to have. You can be welcoming to racists or black people, but not both.
Empirically, EAGs aren’t very good at getting African American attendance either and I don’t think its because of a minority of pro-eugenics speakers[1].
I’d like to poll the black people who attended manifest and are part of forecasting more generally what they want. If they feel it makes them less likely to attend then I’m more interested than arguing about hypothetical people who probably weren’t going to attend anyway.
Without wanting to assume the predictivity of a single person, @Isa is the only self-described black person who I’ve heard talking about this event and their opinion falls somewhere between our own:
I don’t know what the right path forward is wrt allowing certain speakers at Manifest, but I want to encourage people not to dismiss that “wtf” feeling many people have towards him and other speakers as lacking some kind of intellectual rigor or curiosity about the world.
I would like to see more people who want to attend manifest attend. And I’m willing to trade that against attendance from people who behave a bit racistly. But what is the actual trade we are considering? Currently I doubt this is likely to be very effective. [2]
Again, last year I pushed against Hanania speaking at Manifest and was successful. Please do not assume those in the “manifold can do what it likes” faction support Hanania speaking
I don’t think “the black people who attended manifest and are part of forecasting more generally” is a valid sample to survey. People who attended Manifest presumably knew who the special guests were, so people with a strong desire not to attend a conference with those people already selected themselves out. Moreover, it’s difficult to exclude the hypothesis that other people might counterfactually be in the forecasting community but for a more general feeling that it tolerates racism.
I think the hypothesis that forecasting is not very black because of racism implies the same about EA in general, given their similarly low levels of black representation.
If I had to guess, I’ve known a couple of black forecastingy people and their views are a bit different form the typical progressive. I’d guess the median isn’t a fan of Hanania is probably would not have him as a speaker but reluctantly would allow attendees to think what they like, but with a finger on the pulse of the event to decide whether to attend or not. Probably there are some who are put off by the speakers so push the median a bit towards inhibiting speech. Not sure that the median would want all the geneticsy speakers disinvited though.
But I don’t know why we guess rather than figuring out the correct group and then asking them.
Ideally, a group of Black individuals who have characteristics that would suggest they would have interest in and success at forecasting, generally matching relevant demographics (e.g., age, educational background). One could then infer the range of viewpoints in the population we are looking to apply the results to: Black individuals who aren’t in the forecasting community but are in the candidate pool (so to speak).
Obviously the inability to fully operationalize membership in the group of Black people who might be into forecasting would be a source of error here. It’s plausible that there are characteristics we didn’t take into account. But I think sampling from that group would likely generate error opposite to the error generated by sampling people who are already in the forecasting community (who may be self-selected for willingness to tolerate its culture).
If you got similar results from both your proposed sample and mine, you could have a decent amount of confidence in the result. If you got different results, then I’d be inclined to call the overall results indeterminate.
Empirically, EAGs aren’t very good at getting African American attendance either and I don’t think its because of a minority of pro-eugenics speakers[1].
I’d like to poll the black people who attended manifest and are part of forecasting more generally what they want. If they feel it makes them less likely to attend then I’m more interested than arguing about hypothetical people who probably weren’t going to attend anyway.
Without wanting to assume the predictivity of a single person, @Isa is the only self-described black person who I’ve heard talking about this event and their opinion falls somewhere between our own:
I would like to see more people who want to attend manifest attend. And I’m willing to trade that against attendance from people who behave a bit racistly. But what is the actual trade we are considering? Currently I doubt this is likely to be very effective. [2]
Again, last year I pushed against Hanania speaking at Manifest and was successful. Please do not assume those in the “manifold can do what it likes” faction support Hanania speaking
As opposed to inviting Coleman Hughes, John McWhorther and several black debate streamers.
I don’t think “the black people who attended manifest and are part of forecasting more generally” is a valid sample to survey. People who attended Manifest presumably knew who the special guests were, so people with a strong desire not to attend a conference with those people already selected themselves out. Moreover, it’s difficult to exclude the hypothesis that other people might counterfactually be in the forecasting community but for a more general feeling that it tolerates racism.
Which group would you like to poll?
I think the hypothesis that forecasting is not very black because of racism implies the same about EA in general, given their similarly low levels of black representation.
If I had to guess, I’ve known a couple of black forecastingy people and their views are a bit different form the typical progressive. I’d guess the median isn’t a fan of Hanania is probably would not have him as a speaker but reluctantly would allow attendees to think what they like, but with a finger on the pulse of the event to decide whether to attend or not. Probably there are some who are put off by the speakers so push the median a bit towards inhibiting speech. Not sure that the median would want all the geneticsy speakers disinvited though.
But I don’t know why we guess rather than figuring out the correct group and then asking them.
Ideally, a group of Black individuals who have characteristics that would suggest they would have interest in and success at forecasting, generally matching relevant demographics (e.g., age, educational background). One could then infer the range of viewpoints in the population we are looking to apply the results to: Black individuals who aren’t in the forecasting community but are in the candidate pool (so to speak).
Obviously the inability to fully operationalize membership in the group of Black people who might be into forecasting would be a source of error here. It’s plausible that there are characteristics we didn’t take into account. But I think sampling from that group would likely generate error opposite to the error generated by sampling people who are already in the forecasting community (who may be self-selected for willingness to tolerate its culture).
If you got similar results from both your proposed sample and mine, you could have a decent amount of confidence in the result. If you got different results, then I’d be inclined to call the overall results indeterminate.
Yeah I’d be interested in this.