Can we stick on whether I am reading them right? Which of the three comments that I quoted do you think doesn’t imply that this community is unusually bad here?
Only 3 months ago we had a writeup detailing a shockingly terrible response to sexual harrassment by one of the most prominent EA orgs out there. The response is far worse than anything I’ve ever seen at any organisation I’ve ever been in. This indicates to me that the environment is nowhere the high standards that should be aimed for.
Regardless of the actual base rates, the question that matters the most is whether there is room for improvement, and I think it’s blindingly obvious that the answer is yes.
You don’t think “shockingly terrible” and “far worse than anything I’ve ever seen at any organisation I’ve ever been in” imply that EA is worse?
Seems there is a pretty clear comparison between the handling of an incident and how other communities would have handled it.
I agree they are saying that there is “room for improvement” and they seek not to discuss base rates. But I think there is implicitly a view that EA is unusually, unacceptably bad here.
“shockingly terrible”, no, that’s still not a comparison.
“far worse than anything I’ve ever seen at any organisation I’ve ever been in”—this one is a comparison! (In my defence I hadn’t seen titotal’s comment when I made mine.)
But here it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to respond to that comparison with “where’s your evidence?” or “what about Durham?”. It’s clear where the comparison is coming from, and it’s clear that it’s not about base rates, it’s about one specific org and a specific thing they did, and it’s specific about what standard they’re held to. Are you saying that it’s the wrong standard?
So you now seem to agree that all comments I pointed at do in fact imply that EA is unusually bad in at least some way.
Now if I could find 10 or 20 such comments, and only 2 or 3 that push back, would you agree there is a general vibe that we imply that EA is unusally bad, even if that’s not what we literally believe?
I think that one comment mint have a specific meaning. But if there are 10 or 20 then maybe there is a general view which informs them. In this case, that general view is that EA is in some way unusually bad (or perhaps, to shift slightly, that it’s fine to say this, even if we don’t believe it).
Can we stick on whether I am reading them right? Which of the three comments that I quoted do you think doesn’t imply that this community is unusually bad here?
I think the third one most clearly. Doesn’t suggest that other communities successfully take sexual harassment seriously, to my eyes.
You don’t think “shockingly terrible” and “far worse than anything I’ve ever seen at any organisation I’ve ever been in” imply that EA is worse?
Seems there is a pretty clear comparison between the handling of an incident and how other communities would have handled it.
I agree they are saying that there is “room for improvement” and they seek not to discuss base rates. But I think there is implicitly a view that EA is unusually, unacceptably bad here.
“shockingly terrible”, no, that’s still not a comparison.
“far worse than anything I’ve ever seen at any organisation I’ve ever been in”—this one is a comparison! (In my defence I hadn’t seen titotal’s comment when I made mine.)
But here it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to respond to that comparison with “where’s your evidence?” or “what about Durham?”. It’s clear where the comparison is coming from, and it’s clear that it’s not about base rates, it’s about one specific org and a specific thing they did, and it’s specific about what standard they’re held to. Are you saying that it’s the wrong standard?
So you now seem to agree that all comments I pointed at do in fact imply that EA is unusually bad in at least some way.
Now if I could find 10 or 20 such comments, and only 2 or 3 that push back, would you agree there is a general vibe that we imply that EA is unusally bad, even if that’s not what we literally believe?
I think that one comment mint have a specific meaning. But if there are 10 or 20 then maybe there is a general view which informs them. In this case, that general view is that EA is in some way unusually bad (or perhaps, to shift slightly, that it’s fine to say this, even if we don’t believe it).