Some thoughts on your suggestions of where to go from here:
I’m somewhat sympathetic to banning discussion on the forum. I think this topic takes up way more attention than it deserves, and it generates that attention because of its edgy and controversial status.
However:
I’d at least have some worry that this would be taken by people as confirming evidence for unfortunate beliefs they already held --
Some people might think that this was evidence in favour of scientific racism (why else would they try to close down discussion?)
Some people might think this was evidence of widespread belief in scientific racism in EA (what are they trying to hide?)
This would be in tension with another of your suggestions, “EAs should be empowered to speak out against race science and its proponents”
I think that people are currently welcome to speak out on this, including on the forum, and this often attracts a lot of upvotes
I can’t see a good way to draw boundaries which would continue to allow this, while also banning the discussion you don’t want to see on the forum
Note that I think there is very little actual discussion of race science on the forum; most of the discussion is about social responses
(The most substantive thing I remember reading is someone saying basically “FYI, I looked into this and the claims of scientific racism seem to be false”, although of course there may be things I missed)
It seems kind of unhealthy to facilitate people saying “X makes me uncomfortable” while in the same space banning people from saying “X doesn’t make me uncomfortable” (though I think it’s fine to ban direct discussion of X)
Overall, this makes me feel worse about banning than not-banning, but I could imagine being persuaded otherwise on that point, and am curious about your takes on the downsides
On “Major EA organizations and leaders should publicly disavow race science and human biodiversity” --
I’m into public condemnation of problematic actions, e.g. the CEA statement on Bostrom’s old emails:
“Effective altruism is based on the core belief that all people count equally. We unequivocally condemn Nick Bostrom’s recklessly flawed and reprehensible words. We reject this unacceptable racist language, and the callous discussion of ideas that can and have harmed Black people. It is fundamentally inconsistent with our mission of building an inclusive and welcoming community.”
I think it would be inappropriate for people to present as epistemic authorities on topics where they aren’t
On “EA should avoid any public association with people who have a history of making statements sympathetic to race science” --
I don’t think EA does have any direct public or private association with folks like Hanania
This is IMO absolutely the right choice
It’s possible that that lack of association should be more publicised
It’s kind of funny to stress it? It’s not like “we are cutting ties”, because I don’t think there ever were any ties
But maybe it would be helpful to do anyway
However, EA is publicly associated with orgs (or at least with Manifest) which are publicly associated with Hanania
But here the grounds for rejecting public association seem much shakier
Manifest may be making mistakes, but they seem to be grounded in a desire for intellectual freedom
I can see an argument for making public statements making clear that Manifest’s actions are not the ones EA orgs would choose
Generically these feel a bit bad-neighbourly (like it’s impolite to criticise other people’s choices, rather than just get on and do your own thing well), but if there’s a risk that people are perceiving EA as making the choices that Manifest does, perhaps it would be worthwhile
I think the idea that it would be appropriate to disavow association with Bostrom is wrong
I think it’s right and good to condemn his old emails
I think his apology was underwhelming in his insight about the harms of the original email, and it’s fair to criticise that (although I think it’s important that he repudiated the original email, and I believe him to be sincere in that)
The University of Oxford investigated here, and they concluded that he was not a racist and did not hold racist views (source: quotes from the outcome of that investigation, now included at the bottom of Bostrom’s apology)
Although the nearly-three-decade-old emails were obviously problematic, I worked with Bostrom for several years, and never observed anything even resembling being edgy about these topics; nor have I heard reports of that from anyone who did
I also think he is clearly a person of high integrity, and generally sincere (even at times when it might be politically convenient for him to be less sincere), and while I’m sympathetic to your concerns about good faith in Hanania’s case, I think it would be quite unfair to tar Bostrom with the same brush
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Some thoughts on your suggestions of where to go from here:
I’m somewhat sympathetic to banning discussion on the forum. I think this topic takes up way more attention than it deserves, and it generates that attention because of its edgy and controversial status.
However:
I’d at least have some worry that this would be taken by people as confirming evidence for unfortunate beliefs they already held --
Some people might think that this was evidence in favour of scientific racism (why else would they try to close down discussion?)
Some people might think this was evidence of widespread belief in scientific racism in EA (what are they trying to hide?)
This would be in tension with another of your suggestions, “EAs should be empowered to speak out against race science and its proponents”
I think that people are currently welcome to speak out on this, including on the forum, and this often attracts a lot of upvotes
I can’t see a good way to draw boundaries which would continue to allow this, while also banning the discussion you don’t want to see on the forum
Note that I think there is very little actual discussion of race science on the forum; most of the discussion is about social responses
(The most substantive thing I remember reading is someone saying basically “FYI, I looked into this and the claims of scientific racism seem to be false”, although of course there may be things I missed)
It seems kind of unhealthy to facilitate people saying “X makes me uncomfortable” while in the same space banning people from saying “X doesn’t make me uncomfortable” (though I think it’s fine to ban direct discussion of X)
Overall, this makes me feel worse about banning than not-banning, but I could imagine being persuaded otherwise on that point, and am curious about your takes on the downsides
On “Major EA organizations and leaders should publicly disavow race science and human biodiversity” --
I’m into public condemnation of problematic actions, e.g. the CEA statement on Bostrom’s old emails:
“Effective altruism is based on the core belief that all people count equally. We unequivocally condemn Nick Bostrom’s recklessly flawed and reprehensible words. We reject this unacceptable racist language, and the callous discussion of ideas that can and have harmed Black people. It is fundamentally inconsistent with our mission of building an inclusive and welcoming community.”
I think it would be inappropriate for people to present as epistemic authorities on topics where they aren’t
On “EA should avoid any public association with people who have a history of making statements sympathetic to race science” --
I don’t think EA does have any direct public or private association with folks like Hanania
This is IMO absolutely the right choice
It’s possible that that lack of association should be more publicised
It’s kind of funny to stress it? It’s not like “we are cutting ties”, because I don’t think there ever were any ties
But maybe it would be helpful to do anyway
However, EA is publicly associated with orgs (or at least with Manifest) which are publicly associated with Hanania
But here the grounds for rejecting public association seem much shakier
Manifest may be making mistakes, but they seem to be grounded in a desire for intellectual freedom
I can see an argument for making public statements making clear that Manifest’s actions are not the ones EA orgs would choose
Generically these feel a bit bad-neighbourly (like it’s impolite to criticise other people’s choices, rather than just get on and do your own thing well), but if there’s a risk that people are perceiving EA as making the choices that Manifest does, perhaps it would be worthwhile
I think the idea that it would be appropriate to disavow association with Bostrom is wrong
I think it’s right and good to condemn his old emails
I think his apology was underwhelming in his insight about the harms of the original email, and it’s fair to criticise that (although I think it’s important that he repudiated the original email, and I believe him to be sincere in that)
The University of Oxford investigated here, and they concluded that he was not a racist and did not hold racist views (source: quotes from the outcome of that investigation, now included at the bottom of Bostrom’s apology)
Although the nearly-three-decade-old emails were obviously problematic, I worked with Bostrom for several years, and never observed anything even resembling being edgy about these topics; nor have I heard reports of that from anyone who did
I also think he is clearly a person of high integrity, and generally sincere (even at times when it might be politically convenient for him to be less sincere), and while I’m sympathetic to your concerns about good faith in Hanania’s case, I think it would be quite unfair to tar Bostrom with the same brush