I don’t see proposing a schism as necessarily a “wild overreaction”, but their certainty does indicate a likely emotionally driven-response.
I place a decent probability on the current state of drama being the new normal, in which case we need to do something. And there are other things we can try first, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Tim turned out to be right in the end.
IMO, I actually agree with the point that high decouplers and low decouplers can’t live together very well. Pessimistically speaking, EA probably has to split because of incompatible cultures from another comment I read:
Hey, I’ve been a follower the community for years and your post made me want to create an account and leave a thought. Full disclosure: I’m trans FtM from a not-Western country, never been to an EA meetup but have always been curious. I’m listing these characteristic as I think they’re directly relevant to what I describe below. Also, I have massive Asperger’s (and my English is not perfect), so I want to explicitly note that I 100% value your post, support having a discussion about this, and have no great solutions. Flagging this because the tone of my text may not convey this otherwise.
Some thoughts, ordered from most to least banal:
Punishment for confirmed bad sexual behavior should be swift, harsh, and very likely. Great care must be exercised to make the abused come forward.
Great care must be exercised to thoroughly vet accusations and protect the rights of the accused.
#1 and #2 involve a false positive/negative tradeoff between each other, and I suspect a solution to satisfy a good chunk of people across many backgrounds is likely impossible. This is likely not news to anyone reading this, so I apologize for wasting your time so far.
I think your post adeptly highlights the reason for why EA as a movement will almost inevitably (IMO) collapse or split.
I want to elaborate on the last point most of all. As an observer, I always thought that core point of EA was based in recognizing the fallibility of human emotion in guiding us about priorities, as strong emotional states can cloud our thinking (AFAIK this is not very controversial and is supported by research). This is why Paul Bloom’s “Against Empathy” is referenced relatively frequently in the community, right? My not important personal opinion is that this is a partial picture, because emotion can also be used as a driver/inspiration to care about injustices. Of course the difficult question is whether you can get the best parts of emotion into the movement without getting the worst of emotion as well.
But there’s something broader that concerns me, and I think spells trouble for the EA movement as a whole. I will start from a story that has to do with my FtM self. When I started hormonal therapy I noticed that some of my basic intuitions started changing, the feelings and views I wasn’t even aware of existing. I kind of took them for granted, they were transparent to me. For example, before, I felt a lot of instinctive anger at injustice, and now I still feel it, but it’s more detached and principled. “Less emotional” doesn’t quite describe it, it’s something about the anger becoming more calculating. Like I can be a bit more removed and hypothetical about different problems; I could turn off my empathy a bit (which actually felt scary!) to be more analytical. And to repeat, I assumed my previous emotional responses to be same as everyone’s, it didn’t even occur to me things could be any other way (I’m sorry if this all sounds like pseudoscience).
Now a lot changed in me that could have resulted in the above, and even though other T people I know have on average followed a similar switch (depending on the direction), I didn’t think much of it. So it could be totally useless anecdotally, but it did get me reading on the “gender divide” in Western politics. And to simplify it greatly, it seems like there’s pretty convincing argument that the gradual “feminization” of Western cultures in the last several decades drives a lot of the conflict in politics and across institutions, being in a tension with the typical “masculine” culture. And this is rooted partly in that women and men, on average, have different views on things like speech/harm tradeoff: women tend to prefer to limit speech to minimize harm, whereas men lean in the other direction. (Please note that these are average, population-level statements, and the distributions of these traits do overlap a lot!)
These are some of the more notable readings I’ve read on this divide:
NYT coverage of the gender divide in American politics: https://archive.ph/1LAwU
One interesting highlight:
Male students preferred protecting free speech over an inclusive and diverse society by a decisive 61 to 39. Female students took the opposite position, favoring an inclusive, diverse society over free speech by 64 to 35.
Pessimistically, I do not think there’s a way to accommodate these sets of views. Having to some limited extent “experienced both,” I don’t even know how to feel about them myself, internally, and struggle with this daily. How can we expect an entire movement to align then? Perhaps if the leaders and big thinkers of the movement come together, recognize this as the urgent problem, and figure out a way to approach it, there is some sort of resolution (a Scott Alexander megapost/initiative to organize this?). But again, my prediction is that the unobstructed, calculated, detached, low-anger-type discourse would have to give way as EA becomes more inclusive and accommodating of feminized culture.
Moderator here. The comment you quote describes the personal experience of someone who transitioned genders, but the selection you quoted doesn’t make that clear (or other nuance like that the commenter has Asperger’s and isn’t a native English speaker), which makes your quote unnecessarily inflammatory. Could you remove the quote and instead link to the comment? (Or quote the comment in its entirety.)
Thank you, this is very illuminating. You argue that:
Culture has become “feminised” (I assume this means it has started doing more of the housework)
This feminisation means that EAs are discouraged from engaging with DIFFICULT but IMPORTANT questions, such as “Are white men the smartest of them all.”
One potential solution—this, to me, was the apotheosis of your comment—is “a Scott Alexander megapost”
Spending time on this forum has clarified for me that although I support in principle many of the stated aims of the EA movement, I don’t wish to participate in the culture, which is hostile to anyone who refuses to make a fetish of rationality, while refusing to consider the ways in which such fetishisation is itself irrational. So: so long, and thanks for all the fish ✌️
While I disagree with a big chunk of the comment you’re responding to (and don’t really want to engage with the claims stated there), I think your comment misinterprets the parent comment in a way that is uncharitable (e.g. “‘feminised’ (I assume this means it has started doing more of the housework)” — this is not what the parent comment is talking about).
I don’t see proposing a schism as necessarily a “wild overreaction”, but their certainty does indicate a likely emotionally driven-response.
I place a decent probability on the current state of drama being the new normal, in which case we need to do something. And there are other things we can try first, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Tim turned out to be right in the end.
IMO, I actually agree with the point that high decouplers and low decouplers can’t live together very well. Pessimistically speaking, EA probably has to split because of incompatible cultures from another comment I read:
Moderator here. The comment you quote describes the personal experience of someone who transitioned genders, but the selection you quoted doesn’t make that clear (or other nuance like that the commenter has Asperger’s and isn’t a native English speaker), which makes your quote unnecessarily inflammatory. Could you remove the quote and instead link to the comment? (Or quote the comment in its entirety.)
Thank you, this is very illuminating. You argue that:
Culture has become “feminised” (I assume this means it has started doing more of the housework)
This feminisation means that EAs are discouraged from engaging with DIFFICULT but IMPORTANT questions, such as “Are white men the smartest of them all.”
One potential solution—this, to me, was the apotheosis of your comment—is “a Scott Alexander megapost”
Spending time on this forum has clarified for me that although I support in principle many of the stated aims of the EA movement, I don’t wish to participate in the culture, which is hostile to anyone who refuses to make a fetish of rationality, while refusing to consider the ways in which such fetishisation is itself irrational. So: so long, and thanks for all the fish ✌️
While I disagree with a big chunk of the comment you’re responding to (and don’t really want to engage with the claims stated there), I think your comment misinterprets the parent comment in a way that is uncharitable (e.g. “‘feminised’ (I assume this means it has started doing more of the housework)” — this is not what the parent comment is talking about).
Please don’t do that, folks.
The parenthetical was a joke. I won’t do it again.
Ok, thank you!