I think the issue of “how rational vs. emotional should we aim for in key debates” (assume there is some kind of clean distinction) is quite tricky.
I would point out some quick thoughts, that might be wrong. 1. I’m also curious to better understand why there isn’t more discussion by women here. I could imagine a lot of possible reasons for this. It could be that people don’t feel comfortable providing emotional responses, but it could also be that people notice that responses on the other side are so emotional that there may be severe punishment. 2. Around the EA community and on Twitter, i see much more emotional-seeming arguments in support of Robin Hanson than for him. Twitter is really the worst at this. 3. Courts have established procedures for ensuring that both judges and the juries are relatively unbiased, fair, and (somewhat) rational. There’s probably some interesting theory here we could learn from. 4. I could imagine a bunch of scary situations where important communication gets much more emotional. If they get less emotional, it’s trickier to tell. I like to think that rationally minded people could help seek out biases like the one you mention and respond accordingly, instead of having to modify a large part of the culture to account for it.
“Courts have established procedures for ensuring that both judges and the juries are relatively unbiased, fair, and (somewhat) rational. There’s probably some interesting theory here we could learn from.”
In this analogy, I don’t feel like I’m commenting as a rational member of the jury, I feel like I’m commenting as an emotional witness to the impact of tolerating sexist speech in the EA community.
Yea, I think the court analogy doesn’t mean we should all aim to be “rational”, but that some of the key decision makers and discussion should hold a standard. Having others come in as emotional witnesses makes total sense, especially if it’s clear that’s what’s happening.
Thanks for the points Denise, well taken.
I think the issue of “how rational vs. emotional should we aim for in key debates” (assume there is some kind of clean distinction) is quite tricky.
I would point out some quick thoughts, that might be wrong.
1. I’m also curious to better understand why there isn’t more discussion by women here. I could imagine a lot of possible reasons for this. It could be that people don’t feel comfortable providing emotional responses, but it could also be that people notice that responses on the other side are so emotional that there may be severe punishment.
2. Around the EA community and on Twitter, i see much more emotional-seeming arguments in support of Robin Hanson than for him. Twitter is really the worst at this.
3. Courts have established procedures for ensuring that both judges and the juries are relatively unbiased, fair, and (somewhat) rational. There’s probably some interesting theory here we could learn from.
4. I could imagine a bunch of scary situations where important communication gets much more emotional. If they get less emotional, it’s trickier to tell. I like to think that rationally minded people could help seek out biases like the one you mention and respond accordingly, instead of having to modify a large part of the culture to account for it.
“Courts have established procedures for ensuring that both judges and the juries are relatively unbiased, fair, and (somewhat) rational. There’s probably some interesting theory here we could learn from.”
In this analogy, I don’t feel like I’m commenting as a rational member of the jury, I feel like I’m commenting as an emotional witness to the impact of tolerating sexist speech in the EA community.
Yea, I think the court analogy doesn’t mean we should all aim to be “rational”, but that some of the key decision makers and discussion should hold a standard. Having others come in as emotional witnesses makes total sense, especially if it’s clear that’s what’s happening.