1. Iād really recommend finding a different phrase than ālow levels of emotional controlā, which is both more insulting than seems ideal for conversations in an EA context and too vague to be a useful descriptor. (There are dozens of ways that ācontrolling oneās emotionsā might be important within EA, and almost no one is āhighā or ālowā for all of them.)
2. āLess welcoming for everyone elseā is too broad. Accommodating people who prefer some topics not be brought up certainly makes EA less welcoming for some people: Competing access needs are real, and a lot of people arenāt as comfortable with discussions where emotions arenāt as controlled, or where topics are somewhat limited.
But having āhigh emotional controlā (again, Iād prefer a different term) doesnāt necessarily mean feeling unwelcome in discussions with people who are ideological or āless controlledā in some contexts.
One of the features I like most in a community is āpeople try to handle social interaction in a way that has the best average result for everyoneā.
Iād consider āwe figure out true thingsā to be the most important factor we should optimize for, and our discussions should aim for āfiguring stuff outā. But thatās not the only important result; another factor is āwe all get along and treat each other wellā, because thereās value in EA being a well-functioning community of people who are happy to be around each other. If having a topic consistently come up in conversation is draining and isolating to some members of the community, I think itās reasonable that we have a higher bar for that topic.
This doesnāt mean abandoning global poverty because people think it seems colonialist; it might mean deciding that someoneās Mormon manifesto doesnāt pass the bar for ādeserves careful, point-by-point discussionā. That isnāt very inclusive to the manifestoās author, but it seems very likely to increase EAās overall inclusiveness.
This is one of those circumstances where changing the phrase would likely mean avoiding the issue. I agree that we donāt want people to be unfeeling automatons and that there are circumstances when expressing even ānegativeā emotions like anger can be positive. At the same time, the idea that different people have different levels of emotional control seems to be a very useful model, even if it doesnāt perfectly describe reality (ie. context-dependence). Youāve already noted that some behaviours put a burden on most peopleāhaving low levels of emotional control/ābeing ideological falls inside this category.
Iāll note one argument that you could have put forward: possibly low levels of emotional control is correlated with positive characteristics, such as creativity or the ability to be enthusiastic or authentic. So perhaps a filter on this quality would be net negative.
Iām not sure what you mean by ālow emotional control.ā Are you talking about people who canāt control their reactions, or who can but find it tiring, or who can but choose not to?
Iām very emotional, but if someoneās rude to me in the context of a government negotiation, no one would be able to tell I even heard the insult (dependingāin some contexts itās strategic to assert yourself and set boundaries).
If someoneās rude to me in a social context, though, theyāre going to get an earful! I donāt get paid to take your crap, so when someone insults me, either theyāre going to hear about it or Iām going to leave.
Soā¦ Is that a low level of emotional control, or a high level of emotional control? What exactly are you referring to?
1. Iād really recommend finding a different phrase than ālow levels of emotional controlā, which is both more insulting than seems ideal for conversations in an EA context and too vague to be a useful descriptor. (There are dozens of ways that ācontrolling oneās emotionsā might be important within EA, and almost no one is āhighā or ālowā for all of them.)
2. āLess welcoming for everyone elseā is too broad. Accommodating people who prefer some topics not be brought up certainly makes EA less welcoming for some people: Competing access needs are real, and a lot of people arenāt as comfortable with discussions where emotions arenāt as controlled, or where topics are somewhat limited.
But having āhigh emotional controlā (again, Iād prefer a different term) doesnāt necessarily mean feeling unwelcome in discussions with people who are ideological or āless controlledā in some contexts.
One of the features I like most in a community is āpeople try to handle social interaction in a way that has the best average result for everyoneā.
Iād consider āwe figure out true thingsā to be the most important factor we should optimize for, and our discussions should aim for āfiguring stuff outā. But thatās not the only important result; another factor is āwe all get along and treat each other wellā, because thereās value in EA being a well-functioning community of people who are happy to be around each other. If having a topic consistently come up in conversation is draining and isolating to some members of the community, I think itās reasonable that we have a higher bar for that topic.
This doesnāt mean abandoning global poverty because people think it seems colonialist; it might mean deciding that someoneās Mormon manifesto doesnāt pass the bar for ādeserves careful, point-by-point discussionā. That isnāt very inclusive to the manifestoās author, but it seems very likely to increase EAās overall inclusiveness.
This is one of those circumstances where changing the phrase would likely mean avoiding the issue. I agree that we donāt want people to be unfeeling automatons and that there are circumstances when expressing even ānegativeā emotions like anger can be positive. At the same time, the idea that different people have different levels of emotional control seems to be a very useful model, even if it doesnāt perfectly describe reality (ie. context-dependence). Youāve already noted that some behaviours put a burden on most peopleāhaving low levels of emotional control/ābeing ideological falls inside this category.
Iāll note one argument that you could have put forward: possibly low levels of emotional control is correlated with positive characteristics, such as creativity or the ability to be enthusiastic or authentic. So perhaps a filter on this quality would be net negative.
Iām not sure what you mean by ālow emotional control.ā Are you talking about people who canāt control their reactions, or who can but find it tiring, or who can but choose not to?
Iām very emotional, but if someoneās rude to me in the context of a government negotiation, no one would be able to tell I even heard the insult (dependingāin some contexts itās strategic to assert yourself and set boundaries).
If someoneās rude to me in a social context, though, theyāre going to get an earful! I donāt get paid to take your crap, so when someone insults me, either theyāre going to hear about it or Iām going to leave.
Soā¦ Is that a low level of emotional control, or a high level of emotional control? What exactly are you referring to?