I agree with your critique that there were important red flags and am glad you pointed them out, but I think itâs inappropriate to call the comment âlaughably disingenuousâ, since thatâs a claim that the author is not being sincere. Most of us were blindsided by this, even if there were red flags we should have been paying attention to and worrying about. I think the definition of black swan could still apply to the EA community based on our subjective (but badly calibrated or poorly informed) beliefs about FTX:
The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.
(...)
Based on the authorâs criteria:
The event is a surprise (to the observer).
The event has a major effect.
After the first recorded instance of the event, it is rationalized by hindsight, as if it could have been expected; that is, the relevant data were available but unaccounted for in risk mitigation programs. The same is true for the personal perception by individuals.
It was a black swan to many of us, but should not have been, and may not have been a black swan to outsiders who were paying more attention and giving more weight to the red flags.
And even if it isnât definitionally a black swan, that doesnât call for âlaughably disingenuousâ, and you should assume good faith.
maybe not everyone deserves the assumption of good faith? I feel like this forum perhaps just got a reminder about the value of not always thinking the best of people, but no, everyone just wants to forget all over again maybe
This is a warning, please do better in the future; continued violation of Forum norms may result in a temporary ban.
I want to be clear that this warning is in response to the tone and approach of the comments, not the stances taken by the commenter. We believe itâs really important to be able to discuss all perspectives on the situation with an open mind and without censoring any perspectives. We would like Sabs to continue contributing to these discussions in a respectful way.
I donât see how the third comment is objectionably âharshâ? It is a straightforward description of how many conventional financial firms operate, relevant to the topic at hand, combined with (accurately) calling the parent comment nonsense. Is the objection that it contains a swear word? If that is the rule it should probably be made explicit. (Also, âharshâ does not appear in Guide To Norms, with good reason, as the truth can be harsh!)
I donât think everyone deserves the assumption of good faith at all times, but you havenât given enough reason to believe Geoffrey Miller doesnât, and Iâm pretty sure you canât. If youâre going to make accusations, you should have good reasons to do so and explain them. Merely contradicting something someone said is not nearly enough; people can be wrong without being disingenuous. Accusations make productive conversation more difficult, can be hurtful, can push people away from the community and may have other risks, so we shouldnât have a low bar for making them.
You also donât even have to privately assume the best of someone or good faith; just keep conversations civil and charitable, and donât make unsubstantiated accusations. If you want to argue that we should be more skeptical of peopleâs motives, thatâs plausible and that can be a valuable discussion, but shouldnât be started by attacking another user without good reason.
With FTX, there were important red flags, including the ones you pointed out.
I agree with your critique that there were important red flags and am glad you pointed them out, but I think itâs inappropriate to call the comment âlaughably disingenuousâ, since thatâs a claim that the author is not being sincere. Most of us were blindsided by this, even if there were red flags we should have been paying attention to and worrying about. I think the definition of black swan could still apply to the EA community based on our subjective (but badly calibrated or poorly informed) beliefs about FTX:
It was a black swan to many of us, but should not have been, and may not have been a black swan to outsiders who were paying more attention and giving more weight to the red flags.
And even if it isnât definitionally a black swan, that doesnât call for âlaughably disingenuousâ, and you should assume good faith.
maybe not everyone deserves the assumption of good faith? I feel like this forum perhaps just got a reminder about the value of not always thinking the best of people, but no, everyone just wants to forget all over again maybe
The moderation team has noticed a trend of comments from Sabs that break Forum norms. Specifically, instances of rude, hostile, or harsh language are strongly discouraged (and may be deleted) and do not adhere to our norm of keeping a generous and collaborative mindset.
This is a warning, please do better in the future; continued violation of Forum norms may result in a temporary ban.
I want to be clear that this warning is in response to the tone and approach of the comments, not the stances taken by the commenter. We believe itâs really important to be able to discuss all perspectives on the situation with an open mind and without censoring any perspectives. We would like Sabs to continue contributing to these discussions in a respectful way.
I donât see how the third comment is objectionably âharshâ? It is a straightforward description of how many conventional financial firms operate, relevant to the topic at hand, combined with (accurately) calling the parent comment nonsense. Is the objection that it contains a swear word? If that is the rule it should probably be made explicit. (Also, âharshâ does not appear in Guide To Norms, with good reason, as the truth can be harsh!)
I donât think everyone deserves the assumption of good faith at all times, but you havenât given enough reason to believe Geoffrey Miller doesnât, and Iâm pretty sure you canât. If youâre going to make accusations, you should have good reasons to do so and explain them. Merely contradicting something someone said is not nearly enough; people can be wrong without being disingenuous. Accusations make productive conversation more difficult, can be hurtful, can push people away from the community and may have other risks, so we shouldnât have a low bar for making them.
You also donât even have to privately assume the best of someone or good faith; just keep conversations civil and charitable, and donât make unsubstantiated accusations. If you want to argue that we should be more skeptical of peopleâs motives, thatâs plausible and that can be a valuable discussion, but shouldnât be started by attacking another user without good reason.
With FTX, there were important red flags, including the ones you pointed out.