Hey, do you happen to know me in real life and would be willing to talk about these issues offline?
I’m asking because it seems unlikely you will be able to be more specific publicity (but it would be good if you were and were to just write here) and so it would be good to talk about the specific examples or perceptions in a private setting.
I know someone who went to EAG who is sort of skeptical and looks for these things, but they didn’t see a lot of bad things at all.
(Now, a caveat is that selection is a big thing. Maybe a person might miss these people for various idiosyncratic factors).
But I’m really skeptical about major issues and in the absence of substantive issues (which by the way, doesn’t need hard data to establish), it seems negative EV to generate alot of concern or use language.
One issue is that problems are self fulfilling, you start pointing a lot about bad actors in a vague way and you’ll find that you start losing the benefits of the community. As long as these people don’t enter senior levels or community building roles you’re pretty good.
Another issue is that trust networks are how these issues are normally solved, and yet there’s pressure to open these networks, which runs into the teeth of these issues.
To be clear, I’m saying that this funding and trust problem is probably being worked on. Having a lot noise about this issue or people poking the elephant or just having bad vibes, but not substantiated, can be net negative.
Thank you for the comment. I edited out the bit you were concerned about as that seemed to be the quickest/easiest solution here. Let me know if you want more changes. (Feel free to edit / remove your post too.)
Hi, this is really thoughtful. In the principle of being consonant with your actions in your reply, following your lead, I edited my post.
However, I didn’t intend to create an edit to this thread and I especially did not intend to undo discussion.
It seems more communication is good.
It seems like raising the issue is good, as long as that is balanced with good judgement and proportionate action and beliefs. It seems like a good action was to understand and substantiate or explore issues.
Hey, do you happen to know me in real life and would be willing to talk about these issues offline?
I’m asking because it seems unlikely you will be able to be more specific publicity (but it would be good if you were and were to just write here) and so it would be good to talk about the specific examples or perceptions in a private setting.
I know someone who went to EAG who is sort of skeptical and looks for these things, but they didn’t see a lot of bad things at all.
(Now, a caveat is that selection is a big thing. Maybe a person might miss these people for various idiosyncratic factors).
But I’m really skeptical about major issues and in the absence of substantive issues (which by the way, doesn’t need hard data to establish), it seems negative EV to generate alot of concern or use language.
One issue is that problems are self fulfilling, you start pointing a lot about bad actors in a vague way and you’ll find that you start losing the benefits of the community. As long as these people don’t enter senior levels or community building roles you’re pretty good.
Another issue is that trust networks are how these issues are normally solved, and yet there’s pressure to open these networks, which runs into the teeth of these issues.
To be clear, I’m saying that this funding and trust problem is probably being worked on. Having a lot noise about this issue or people poking the elephant or just having bad vibes, but not substantiated, can be net negative.
Thank you for the comment. I edited out the bit you were concerned about as that seemed to be the quickest/easiest solution here. Let me know if you want more changes. (Feel free to edit / remove your post too.)
Hi, this is really thoughtful. In the principle of being consonant with your actions in your reply, following your lead, I edited my post.
However, I didn’t intend to create an edit to this thread and I especially did not intend to undo discussion.
It seems more communication is good.
It seems like raising the issue is good, as long as that is balanced with good judgement and proportionate action and beliefs. It seems like a good action was to understand and substantiate or explore issues.