One thing I’ll add which I haven’t seen in the comments is some of the vibe of ‘EA is unusally bad’ is that EA is probably unusually bad in some ways due to the makeup and culture of our community, and less bad in others. Bluntly I think much of this comes down to things like being worse at reading social cues, a high male to female ratio, and a community that is an unusual mix of professional and social network.
I get the impression from female friends that being in EA means tolerating, for example, a lot more being hit on in unprofessional situations (e.g. EAG) down to creepier contexts, with the men missing being rebuffed multiple times.
This doesn’t discount your main argument Nathan, but to the extent that people complain about EA being worse, this might be what they’re pointing at some of the time.
I also agree with others’ comments that a lot of this conversation is about how EA is ‘bad’ rather than ‘worse’, and that as community builders we want to do better, even if we’re already above average.
And if someone makes a comment which implies that EA is unusually bad and you replied “actually EA is comparable”, do you think that would go well? And if not, do you think this might be biasing how we think about things?
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?
One thing I’ll add which I haven’t seen in the comments is some of the vibe of ‘EA is unusally bad’ is that EA is probably unusually bad in some ways due to the makeup and culture of our community, and less bad in others. Bluntly I think much of this comes down to things like being worse at reading social cues, a high male to female ratio, and a community that is an unusual mix of professional and social network.
I get the impression from female friends that being in EA means tolerating, for example, a lot more being hit on in unprofessional situations (e.g. EAG) down to creepier contexts, with the men missing being rebuffed multiple times.
This doesn’t discount your main argument Nathan, but to the extent that people complain about EA being worse, this might be what they’re pointing at some of the time.
I also agree with others’ comments that a lot of this conversation is about how EA is ‘bad’ rather than ‘worse’, and that as community builders we want to do better, even if we’re already above average.
Hey,
And if someone makes a comment which implies that EA is unusually bad and you replied “actually EA is comparable”, do you think that would go well? And if not, do you think this might be biasing how we think about things?
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?