To your questions, depends on the person. Definitely some people and contexts where it would go poorly. And yes I do think you’re pointing at something that is probably true, but see my other comment, I think the risk of biasing things in these conversations can go both ways.
So maybe you agree that it’s common to see poeple imply that at least some aspect of EA is unusually bad. And you think that often to say that EA isn’t unusually bad would go poorly in some contexts.
Can you tell me how the risk of biasing goes both ways? Cos currently I only see one way it can be biased. ie people are often employ slightly hyperbole and sometimes refrain from moderating because it would go poorly. Both of those point in the same direction.
In what circumstance are we going to underrate the harms here?
This isn’t a symmetrical issue, but the risk of saying ‘EA is no worse or even better than some reference class’ in relative terms is sorta kinda like ‘sexual harrassment in EA is not that bad’ in absolute terms.
From speaking to some friends it seems like the many minor and occassional major harrassment incidents, and ways EA is unusually bad (e.g. misreading social cues and intense professional/social overlap), these ‘not that bad ’ issues might be burnout, leaving EA, needing to quite one’s job, panic attacks, which doesn’t even take into account all those people less able to do good in the world as a result.
Do you think it would be better for us to talk about this more accurately if we could avoid the pitfalls you see. Like we could acknowledge the specific areas where things are worse but also some where it’s better?
And would it be good to compare that against other communities to give some sense of perspective and what might and might not work?
To your questions, depends on the person. Definitely some people and contexts where it would go poorly. And yes I do think you’re pointing at something that is probably true, but see my other comment, I think the risk of biasing things in these conversations can go both ways.
So maybe you agree that it’s common to see poeple imply that at least some aspect of EA is unusually bad. And you think that often to say that EA isn’t unusually bad would go poorly in some contexts.
Can you tell me how the risk of biasing goes both ways? Cos currently I only see one way it can be biased. ie people are often employ slightly hyperbole and sometimes refrain from moderating because it would go poorly. Both of those point in the same direction.
In what circumstance are we going to underrate the harms here?
This isn’t a symmetrical issue, but the risk of saying ‘EA is no worse or even better than some reference class’ in relative terms is sorta kinda like ‘sexual harrassment in EA is not that bad’ in absolute terms.
From speaking to some friends it seems like the many minor and occassional major harrassment incidents, and ways EA is unusually bad (e.g. misreading social cues and intense professional/social overlap), these ‘not that bad ’ issues might be burnout, leaving EA, needing to quite one’s job, panic attacks, which doesn’t even take into account all those people less able to do good in the world as a result.
Do you think it would be better for us to talk about this more accurately if we could avoid the pitfalls you see. Like we could acknowledge the specific areas where things are worse but also some where it’s better?
And would it be good to compare that against other communities to give some sense of perspective and what might and might not work?