(In this comment I’m assuming that the context Owen provided is accurate.)
I expected worse from the TIME Magazine article. I don’t see this as sexual harassment. If this is true, then the TIME article pointed to what seems like a one-off mistake, and it’s unreasonable that you have to resign because of this.
If you perceived a friendship where unusually direct and honest communication with the person was permitted, and the person went along with it, and you communicated in a way that was similar in the levels of ‘edginess’ to some previous conversations, then the feelings that were hurt are on her—not you.
People have a personal responsibility to tell others to stop what they’re doing if they don’t feel like they want others to do those things. Don’t expect others to read your mind.
If anyone feels that someone’s career deserves to be harmed to such an extent because they unintentionally made someone else feel uncomfortable with a single comment which led to that other person openly object to that former person’s behavior a single comment, then I think people who hold that opinion should grow up.
If anyone feels the need to harm someone’s career to such an extent just because they felt uncomfortable from a single comment that wasn’t intended to harm them, then frankly, I think that person needs to grow up.
I have a lot of other issues with this comment, but I think just from reading Owen’s statement your portrayal of “if anyone feels feels the need to harm someone’s career to such an extent just because they felt uncomfortable from a single comment” is just objectively false?
who said in a recent email to me “I deliberately did not name you as I want to draw attention to [systemic issues]”
The mischaracterisation of people who come forward like this is something I really really wish nobody in the EA community would do. It can be incredibly hard to come forward. (And comments like this one make it harder.)
(Edit: you edited your comment, and your new wording I also disagree with. It seems to me that “someone’s career deserves to be harmed” wasn’t her motivation. It was drawing attention to systemic issues. Which would make sense and is plausibly very altruistic. To just strongly assume otherwise seems bad faith.
Personally, your phrasing “should grow up” is what I disagree with most. This is a serious conversation and that is not an argument, just an insult, which should have no place here.)
If anyone feels that someone’s career deserves to be harmed to such an extent because they unintentionally made someone else feel uncomfortable
My argument is that if people continue to push for more absurd demands on other people’s behavior (‘this person should have known this other person was uncomfortable even though this wasn’t communicated to the former person through multiple opportunities during repeated interactions of a similar kind’), those demands are going to critically damage the society they live in.
People naively ignore the fact that if they agree on penalizing people to such an extent for simple mistakes, then it’s likely that a reaction from other parts of society (parts that I assume many people here have to little to do with) will cause at least some rollback of the freedoms that were hard-won by more serious activists from the past, as well as prevent progress on many serious efforts that are ongoing today, by being associated with such radicalism.
Also, I think it’s simply authoritarian. Let people make mistakes without having to endure this kind of persecution.
a. They do not think your description of the situation matches the description Owen provided.
b. The desserts language is misleading because it’s not about who deserves career advancement but about can the person be placed in areas where their career has advanced in way that does not induce uncomfortable sexual situations upon others.
I’ll rephrase that as “If anyone feels that someone’s career deserves to be harmed to such an extent because they unintentionally made someone else feel uncomfortable with a single comment, then I think people who hold that opinion should grow up.”
This comment seems willfully obtuse.
The person is referring to a pattern of behavior, ergo a series of comments and bad experiences. A comment that comes at the end of a series and culminates in someone trying to take corrective action is not “a single comment that led to” their action.
Please reflect on how much you might be mad/sad/hurt/fearful and saying foolish things. Maybe don’t say them, or at least come back and fix them later.
If you perceived a friendship where unusually direct and honest communication with the person was permitted, and the person went along with it, and you communicated in a way that was similar in the levels of ‘edginess’ to some previous conversations, then the feelings that were hurt are on her—not you.
People have a personal responsibility to tell others to stop what they’re doing if they don’t feel like they want others to do those things. Don’t expect others to read your mind.
I’d be about 50%* on your side if there weren’t for power dynamics. With the power dynamics, it’s more like 5%. I agree that Owen’s account sounds less concerning than the one in the TIME article, but I still think this sort of thing shouldn’t happen. Since it sounds like this was a work trip for an interview rather than a visit at a friend’s place, the person who’s responsible for getting you the interview shouldn’t be testing the waters for what might or might not make you uncomfortable enough to speak up. That doesn’t involve mind reading – it involves staying away from anything sexually or romantically pressuring. (Many would say that this means staying away from anything sexual or romantic altogether in an asymmetric power dynamic, since it’s hard to foresee what is or isn’t “pressure.” I think that makes sense for the most extreme types of power dynamics, like supervisor and direct reports. For power-and-(perceived)-friendship dynamics like the one Owen describes, I think it’s not per se indefensible to express interest in some way (not that Owen necessarily did this by mentioning masturbation – but it can straightforwardly be interpreted to have these undertones). However, I’d say it’s on the person at the upper end of the power dynamic to make extra sure they’re choosing a timing and method of expression that’s as easy to reject as possible (and also minimize fallout/subsequent awkwardness). (So, not before a job interview when the other person has no place arranged to stay except your flat.) And if you can’t see this going well, then don’t express interest or breach these topics. (For these reasons, many orgs have a strict policy against this, which is of course separate from the moral question of it, but still, it’s often good to mimic what’s “good practice” if the context is similar.) In any case, if Owen had deliberately thought about it from that angle, he’d himself have realized that he shouldn’t do the thing he did. (I read his apology to imply agreement with this view I just expressed.)
*On why I only agree 50% with “People have a personal responsibility to tell others to stop what they’re doing if they don’t feel like they want others to do those things. Don’t expect others to read your mind”: The user “nananana.nananana.heyhey.anon” expresses this really well in their comment. Sure, ultimately, it’s your responsibility to say something. At the same time, people also have a responsibility to not go around pushing boundaries. Imagine a psychopath who always stops doing things when explicitly told to stop doing that specific thing, but he keeps pushing boundaries left and right whenever he’s not asked to stop. Clearly, such a psychopath shouldn’t be a part of the sort of communities we want to build. Therefore, there’s more to the picture than “Others have to speak up if they’re uncomfortable.” When a person expresses that they were made uncomfortable, that means things already went too far.It’s not a big deal if this happens unintentionally, but it’s still regrettable. It shouldn’t form a pattern. We can’t read minds, but we can guess – and it’s important to cultivate this sort of guessing and learn to get good at it.
[Edited to distinguish between “you” the individual and the general “you/us/people.”]
“People have a personal responsibility to tell others to stop what they’re doing if they don’t feel like they want others to do those things. Don’t expect others to read your mind.”
Correction:
“[I believe that] People have a personal responsibility to tell [me] to stop what [I’m] doing if they don’t feel like they want [me] to do those things. Don’t expect [me] to read your mind.”
You can take totally that stance. I personally even like that stance sometimes and have found it empowering sometimes!
We know we can’t actually dictate a reality where everyone else takes that stance?
Even if you might wish it were the case.
Your version of Ought =/= Is.
For a truth-seeking community, I get really frustrated when EAs miss this point. We interact with lots of people — people who believe what you believe, people who believe basically the opposite, and everyone in between. They may believe personal responsibility means modifying your behavior to avoid possible awkwardness, rather than expecting others to inform you if they found the behavior awkward.
Regardless of professed belief, it’s quite common to behave in a way that aligns with this reality:
Giving negative feedback is often uncomfortable or even scary for a lot of humans. They are inconsistent in their willingness or incentives for overcoming that aversion.
People who have or are perceived to have more influence/power/authority over others should recognize that it is socially riskier, more difficult, and more aversive for well-meaning others to give them negative feedback, and act accordingly.
If we want to live according to an accurate model of reality, I think you have to be willing to cope with this reality and try to “read others’ minds” (eg empathize) more.
One can maybe refuse to date people who see “personal responsibility” differently, but one can’t refuse to work with such people.
If I see that someone refuses to accept that this variation exists in the definition of “responsible behavior” in society and in our workplaces and even across different scenarios with the same individuals, if they’re unable or unwilling to modify behavior sometimes to learn from that variation, I hope I don’t have to work with them or refer people I know to work under them.
I think there is value in trying to write a more agreeable version of this case, but in particular I think “People have a personal responsibility to tell others to stop what they’re doing if they don’t feel like they want others to do those things” is just not most people’s understanding of consent let alone randomly telling someone sexually explicit stuff.
I think ‘randomly’ doesn’t apply here. Owen had multiple conversations with the person about ‘edgy’ things, including sexual things, including masturbation.
Suppose I have a friend who sometimes talks to me about masturbation, and with whom I sometimes talk to about masturbation. Suppose one day, my friend said that they were uncomfortable all along, I would find that regrettable, but I don’t think it’s my fault they didn’t speak up previously.
I don’t how much ‘soft power’ Owen was supposed to have 5 years ago (by being older and more involved in the community). While it’s regrettable if someone pretended to be comfortable while actually being uncomfortable, it’s unclear to me that the perception of ‘soft power’ would matter so much that one cannot speak up.
The fact that this comment is at −160 karma is frankly shocking to me. Trust is important in any community, and the fact that people appear to be completely dismissing the fact that Owen and anon had established an atypical norm of honesty and forthcomingness about their thoughts and emotions and are choosing to frame this norm being followed as somehow inappropriate makes me expect that any agreements I might make with another EA will likely be broken as soon as it’s socially advantageous to do so. I enjoy and appreciate the EA community because, at least up until recently, people here seemed committed to caring about what’s true and what will maximally benefit the world, not jumping on the social shaming bandwagon. I sincerely hope I’m misunderstanding what’s going on here, because if EA really is giving up their epistemic integrity as it looks to me like is happening here, that indicates a much darker future than I expected.
(It’s theoretically possible that all the downvotes are people disagreeing with the last paragraph only, and I think disagreement with that one is indeed much more justified. But the first four paragraphs are clearly the main point of this comment, and if someone agrees with those and disagrees with the last one, I don’t think they should be downvoting the comment overall.)
(In this comment I’m assuming that the context Owen provided is accurate.)
I expected worse from the TIME Magazine article. I don’t see this as sexual harassment. If this is true, then the TIME article pointed to what seems like a one-off mistake, and it’s unreasonable that you have to resign because of this.
If you perceived a friendship where unusually direct and honest communication with the person was permitted, and the person went along with it, and you communicated in a way that was similar in the levels of ‘edginess’ to some previous conversations, then the feelings that were hurt are on her—not you.
People have a personal responsibility to tell others to stop what they’re doing if they don’t feel like they want others to do those things. Don’t expect others to read your mind.
If anyone feels that someone’s career deserves to be harmed to such an extent because they unintentionally made someone else feel uncomfortable with a single comment which led to that other person openly object to that former person’s behavior
a single comment, then I think people who hold that opinion should grow up.If anyone feels the need to harm someone’s career to such an extent just because they felt uncomfortable from a single comment that wasn’t intended to harm them, then frankly, I think that person needs to grow up.I have a lot of other issues with this comment, but I think just from reading Owen’s statement your portrayal of “if anyone feels feels the need to harm someone’s career to such an extent just because they felt uncomfortable from a single comment” is just objectively false?
The mischaracterisation of people who come forward like this is something I really really wish nobody in the EA community would do. It can be incredibly hard to come forward. (And comments like this one make it harder.)
(Edit: you edited your comment, and your new wording I also disagree with. It seems to me that “someone’s career deserves to be harmed” wasn’t her motivation. It was drawing attention to systemic issues. Which would make sense and is plausibly very altruistic. To just strongly assume otherwise seems bad faith.
Personally, your phrasing “should grow up” is what I disagree with most. This is a serious conversation and that is not an argument, just an insult, which should have no place here.)
Please read my edit carefully.
My argument is that if people continue to push for more absurd demands on other people’s behavior (‘this person should have known this other person was uncomfortable even though this wasn’t communicated to the former person through multiple opportunities during repeated interactions of a similar kind’), those demands are going to critically damage the society they live in.
People naively ignore the fact that if they agree on penalizing people to such an extent for simple mistakes, then it’s likely that a reaction from other parts of society (parts that I assume many people here have to little to do with) will cause at least some rollback of the freedoms that were hard-won by more serious activists from the past, as well as prevent progress on many serious efforts that are ongoing today, by being associated with such radicalism.
Also, I think it’s simply authoritarian. Let people make mistakes without having to endure this kind of persecution.
I think people are disagree voting because:
a. They do not think your description of the situation matches the description Owen provided.
b. The desserts language is misleading because it’s not about who deserves career advancement but about can the person be placed in areas where their career has advanced in way that does not induce uncomfortable sexual situations upon others.
You are correct. My mistake.
I’ll rephrase that as “If anyone feels that someone’s career deserves to be harmed to such an extent because they unintentionally made someone else feel uncomfortable with a single comment, then I think people who hold that opinion should grow up.”
Cotton-Barratt writes “(this wasn’t the first time I’d mentioned masturbation)”—this wasn’t about a single comment.
Very well. “a single comment which led to that other person openly object to that former person’s behavior”.
This comment seems willfully obtuse. The person is referring to a pattern of behavior, ergo a series of comments and bad experiences. A comment that comes at the end of a series and culminates in someone trying to take corrective action is not “a single comment that led to” their action.
Please reflect on how much you might be mad/sad/hurt/fearful and saying foolish things. Maybe don’t say them, or at least come back and fix them later.
Again, I think you’re missing the point. This is about a pattern of behaviour.
Should I add the word “ultimately”?
I’d be about 50%* on your side if there weren’t for power dynamics. With the power dynamics, it’s more like 5%. I agree that Owen’s account sounds less concerning than the one in the TIME article, but I still think this sort of thing shouldn’t happen. Since it sounds like this was a work trip for an interview rather than a visit at a friend’s place, the person who’s responsible for getting you the interview shouldn’t be testing the waters for what might or might not make you uncomfortable enough to speak up. That doesn’t involve mind reading – it involves staying away from anything sexually or romantically pressuring. (Many would say that this means staying away from anything sexual or romantic altogether in an asymmetric power dynamic, since it’s hard to foresee what is or isn’t “pressure.” I think that makes sense for the most extreme types of power dynamics, like supervisor and direct reports. For power-and-(perceived)-friendship dynamics like the one Owen describes, I think it’s not per se indefensible to express interest in some way (not that Owen necessarily did this by mentioning masturbation – but it can straightforwardly be interpreted to have these undertones). However, I’d say it’s on the person at the upper end of the power dynamic to make extra sure they’re choosing a timing and method of expression that’s as easy to reject as possible (and also minimize fallout/subsequent awkwardness). (So, not before a job interview when the other person has no place arranged to stay except your flat.) And if you can’t see this going well, then don’t express interest or breach these topics. (For these reasons, many orgs have a strict policy against this, which is of course separate from the moral question of it, but still, it’s often good to mimic what’s “good practice” if the context is similar.) In any case, if Owen had deliberately thought about it from that angle, he’d himself have realized that he shouldn’t do the thing he did. (I read his apology to imply agreement with this view I just expressed.)
*On why I only agree 50% with “People have a personal responsibility to tell others to stop what they’re doing if they don’t feel like they want others to do those things. Don’t expect others to read your mind”:
The user “nananana.nananana.heyhey.anon” expresses this really well in their comment. Sure, ultimately, it’s your responsibility to say something. At the same time, people also have a responsibility to not go around pushing boundaries. Imagine a psychopath who always stops doing things when explicitly told to stop doing that specific thing, but he keeps pushing boundaries left and right whenever he’s not asked to stop. Clearly, such a psychopath shouldn’t be a part of the sort of communities we want to build. Therefore, there’s more to the picture than “Others have to speak up if they’re uncomfortable.” When a person expresses that they were made uncomfortable, that means things already went too far. It’s not a big deal if this happens unintentionally, but it’s still regrettable. It shouldn’t form a pattern. We can’t read minds, but we can guess – and it’s important to cultivate this sort of guessing and learn to get good at it.
[Edited to distinguish between “you” the individual and the general “you/us/people.”]
“People have a personal responsibility to tell others to stop what they’re doing if they don’t feel like they want others to do those things. Don’t expect others to read your mind.”
Correction: “[I believe that] People have a personal responsibility to tell [me] to stop what [I’m] doing if they don’t feel like they want [me] to do those things. Don’t expect [me] to read your mind.”
You can take totally that stance. I personally even like that stance sometimes and have found it empowering sometimes!
We know we can’t actually dictate a reality where everyone else takes that stance? Even if you might wish it were the case. Your version of Ought =/= Is.
For a truth-seeking community, I get really frustrated when EAs miss this point. We interact with lots of people — people who believe what you believe, people who believe basically the opposite, and everyone in between. They may believe personal responsibility means modifying your behavior to avoid possible awkwardness, rather than expecting others to inform you if they found the behavior awkward.
Regardless of professed belief, it’s quite common to behave in a way that aligns with this reality: Giving negative feedback is often uncomfortable or even scary for a lot of humans. They are inconsistent in their willingness or incentives for overcoming that aversion. People who have or are perceived to have more influence/power/authority over others should recognize that it is socially riskier, more difficult, and more aversive for well-meaning others to give them negative feedback, and act accordingly.
If we want to live according to an accurate model of reality, I think you have to be willing to cope with this reality and try to “read others’ minds” (eg empathize) more.
One can maybe refuse to date people who see “personal responsibility” differently, but one can’t refuse to work with such people.
If I see that someone refuses to accept that this variation exists in the definition of “responsible behavior” in society and in our workplaces and even across different scenarios with the same individuals, if they’re unable or unwilling to modify behavior sometimes to learn from that variation, I hope I don’t have to work with them or refer people I know to work under them.
I think there is value in trying to write a more agreeable version of this case, but in particular I think “People have a personal responsibility to tell others to stop what they’re doing if they don’t feel like they want others to do those things” is just not most people’s understanding of consent let alone randomly telling someone sexually explicit stuff.
I think ‘randomly’ doesn’t apply here. Owen had multiple conversations with the person about ‘edgy’ things, including sexual things, including masturbation.
Suppose I have a friend who sometimes talks to me about masturbation, and with whom I sometimes talk to about masturbation. Suppose one day, my friend said that they were uncomfortable all along, I would find that regrettable, but I don’t think it’s my fault they didn’t speak up previously.
I think it’s worth dialing it back a bit and trying again. Thank you for trying to present an unpopular view.
The hail of disagreevotes is probably due to your original comment not recognizing the power dynamics at play in Owen’s situation.
I don’t how much ‘soft power’ Owen was supposed to have 5 years ago (by being older and more involved in the community). While it’s regrettable if someone pretended to be comfortable while actually being uncomfortable, it’s unclear to me that the perception of ‘soft power’ would matter so much that one cannot speak up.
The fact that this comment is at −160 karma is frankly shocking to me. Trust is important in any community, and the fact that people appear to be completely dismissing the fact that Owen and anon had established an atypical norm of honesty and forthcomingness about their thoughts and emotions and are choosing to frame this norm being followed as somehow inappropriate makes me expect that any agreements I might make with another EA will likely be broken as soon as it’s socially advantageous to do so. I enjoy and appreciate the EA community because, at least up until recently, people here seemed committed to caring about what’s true and what will maximally benefit the world, not jumping on the social shaming bandwagon. I sincerely hope I’m misunderstanding what’s going on here, because if EA really is giving up their epistemic integrity as it looks to me like is happening here, that indicates a much darker future than I expected.
(It’s theoretically possible that all the downvotes are people disagreeing with the last paragraph only, and I think disagreement with that one is indeed much more justified. But the first four paragraphs are clearly the main point of this comment, and if someone agrees with those and disagrees with the last one, I don’t think they should be downvoting the comment overall.)