Thanks for writing up your thoughts on the incident and showing that much respect to both sides of the argument!
I’m a bit confused about the last parts (7. and 8.): 1. Would a rephrasing of 8. as “Some of the people who spent a lot of time having private conversations with community members think that EA should be more cautious and attentive to diversity. And some of them don’t. So we can’t actually draw conclusions from this.” be fair? 2. By whom is EA is presented as some kind of restrictive orthodoxy? So far, I did not get the impression that it is such presented.
What do you think are the main trade-offs to be made in making EA more attentive to diversity? That there are more impactful causes to invest time and effort in? Or would making EA more attentive to diversity actually have potential negative effects? Is there a good write-up of these trade-offs?
Yes, you could rephrase it that way. I’ve spoken directly to the people who think we should be more cautious/attentive, but only heard secondhand from them about the people who think this is a bad idea (and have talked to lots of community members about these topics—I’ve met people with views all over the spectrum who haven’t had as many such conversations).
I was referring mostly to the comments that popped up in the various Twitter threads surrounding the decision, one of which I linked at the top of the piece. A few quotes along these lines:
“Effective altruism has been shown to be little more than the same old successor-ideology wearing rationalism as a skin-suit.”
“They believe they are in a war and the people like Hanson are the enemy.”
“If EA starts worrying about PR and being inoffensive, what even is the point anymore? Make EA about EA, not about signaling.”
“There always was something ‘off’ about so-called effective altruism.”
Some of these types of comments probably come from people who never liked or cared about EA much and are just happy to have something to criticize. But I sometimes see similar remarks from people who are more invested in EA and seem to think it’s become much more censorious over time. While there is some truth to that (as I mention in the piece), I think the overall picture is much more complicated than these kinds of claims make it out to be.
*****
Regarding trade-offs, that would be a much longer post. You could check the “Diversity and Inclusion” tag, which includes some Forum posts along similar themes. Kelsey Piper’s writing on “competing access needs” is also relevant.
Thanks for writing up your thoughts on the incident and showing that much respect to both sides of the argument!
I’m a bit confused about the last parts (7. and 8.):
1. Would a rephrasing of 8. as “Some of the people who spent a lot of time having private conversations with community members think that EA should be more cautious and attentive to diversity. And some of them don’t. So we can’t actually draw conclusions from this.” be fair?
2. By whom is EA is presented as some kind of restrictive orthodoxy? So far, I did not get the impression that it is such presented.
What do you think are the main trade-offs to be made in making EA more attentive to diversity? That there are more impactful causes to invest time and effort in? Or would making EA more attentive to diversity actually have potential negative effects? Is there a good write-up of these trade-offs?
Yes, you could rephrase it that way. I’ve spoken directly to the people who think we should be more cautious/attentive, but only heard secondhand from them about the people who think this is a bad idea (and have talked to lots of community members about these topics—I’ve met people with views all over the spectrum who haven’t had as many such conversations).
I was referring mostly to the comments that popped up in the various Twitter threads surrounding the decision, one of which I linked at the top of the piece. A few quotes along these lines:
“Effective altruism has been shown to be little more than the same old successor-ideology wearing rationalism as a skin-suit.”
“They believe they are in a war and the people like Hanson are the enemy.”
“If EA starts worrying about PR and being inoffensive, what even is the point anymore? Make EA about EA, not about signaling.”
“There always was something ‘off’ about so-called effective altruism.”
Some of these types of comments probably come from people who never liked or cared about EA much and are just happy to have something to criticize. But I sometimes see similar remarks from people who are more invested in EA and seem to think it’s become much more censorious over time. While there is some truth to that (as I mention in the piece), I think the overall picture is much more complicated than these kinds of claims make it out to be.
*****
Regarding trade-offs, that would be a much longer post. You could check the “Diversity and Inclusion” tag, which includes some Forum posts along similar themes. Kelsey Piper’s writing on “competing access needs” is also relevant.