So looking at the set of polls I wrote, what would the community have had happen here? Seemingly on net we don’t think that people should publicly report immediately or that behaviour like this is instant disqualification. I guess many believe Owen acted wrongly, but there is little agreement afterwards.
In short, I’m confused as to what agreed ideal behaviour was here, beyond not making this woman uncomfortable in the first place.
Also, there seems to be a big difference between the two accounts of this event. In the accusers account it is clearly awful and Owen has a lot power over her and women like her. In Owen’s account they previously know one another, it’s unclear why she ends up staying with him and he has little power over her job.
I would not conflate “the accuser’s account” with “the account of the Times article”.
My best guess is that the author heavily cherry-picked statements by the accuser and set up context to make things seem maximally scandalous. Indeed, the Times article really doesn’t score highly on accuracy, and this post seems to corroborate that.
I think the perspectives might still differ a lot, but we don’t know, we only have info through a highly filtered lens of the times article, which I would not treat as a reliable source about anyone’s sentiments.
I’m not sure the accounts actually are that different. The only statement in the article that owen said was false was that he wasn’t an official recruiter at the time. However, if we look at the statements:
My role didn’t develop to connecting people with different positions until later, and this wasn’t part of my self-conception at the time
(However it makes sense to me that this was her perception)
This implies that while he wasn’t officially a recruiter, it was reasonable for her to think that he was. It’s plausible to me that he was playing the role unofficially at the time, but thought he was just helping out friends with recommendations. He did confirm that he “suggested her as a candidate” and had “signficant power”.
I think some of the context was flattened in the editing of the times article, but I don’t see any contradictions between the accounts.
I think on the first report, how far this needs to go depends on the person who was harassed. It’s ok not to require a public apology and it’s ok not to want the accused to lose their job (although it’s also ok to want the opposite!).
But after Wise became aware of more cases, he should have been removed from the board. Personally I think he should have also apologized publicly (like he now did), but I find this less important.
But after Wise became aware of more cases, he should have been removed from the board.
I agree this definitely has to happen if Julia became aware of more cases through further complaints or through an investigation unearthing other things that are at least 50% as bad as the incident described by Owen.
However, if these “other cases” were just Owen going through his memory of any similar interactions and applying what he learned from the staying-at-his-house incident and then scrupulously listing every interaction where, in retrospect, he cannot be 100% confident that he didn’t make someone uncomfortable (and regrets the way he expressed interest), then it’s a bit different. (In that case, removing him from the board doesn’t seem mandatory to me, but I also don’t find it unreasonable.)
Edit: And this seems like the interpretation you’d arrive at if you believe Owen’s account. I’m quoting it here for context:
Was this incident an isolated case? Yes and no. I think this was by some way my most egregious mistake of this type. However, in my time in EA there have been four other occasions on which I expressed feelings of attraction towards someone in a way that — in retrospect as I’ve developed a more nuanced understanding of power dynamics — I regret. (In most of these cases I’m still on very good terms with the person.) I’ve slowly been improving my implicit models (so I never quite make the same mistake twice), but honestly it’s gone more slowly than I think it should have done.
If you believe this account is accurate, then that’s quite different from what a reader unfamiliar with this info would infer from “after Wise became aware of more cases.”
So looking at the set of polls I wrote, what would the community have had happen here? Seemingly on net we don’t think that people should publicly report immediately or that behaviour like this is instant disqualification. I guess many believe Owen acted wrongly, but there is little agreement afterwards.
In short, I’m confused as to what agreed ideal behaviour was here, beyond not making this woman uncomfortable in the first place.
Also, there seems to be a big difference between the two accounts of this event. In the accusers account it is clearly awful and Owen has a lot power over her and women like her. In Owen’s account they previously know one another, it’s unclear why she ends up staying with him and he has little power over her job.
Seems underrated how different those are.
I would not conflate “the accuser’s account” with “the account of the Times article”.
My best guess is that the author heavily cherry-picked statements by the accuser and set up context to make things seem maximally scandalous. Indeed, the Times article really doesn’t score highly on accuracy, and this post seems to corroborate that.
I think the perspectives might still differ a lot, but we don’t know, we only have info through a highly filtered lens of the times article, which I would not treat as a reliable source about anyone’s sentiments.
I’m not sure the accounts actually are that different. The only statement in the article that owen said was false was that he wasn’t an official recruiter at the time. However, if we look at the statements:
This implies that while he wasn’t officially a recruiter, it was reasonable for her to think that he was. It’s plausible to me that he was playing the role unofficially at the time, but thought he was just helping out friends with recommendations. He did confirm that he “suggested her as a candidate” and had “signficant power”.
I think some of the context was flattened in the editing of the times article, but I don’t see any contradictions between the accounts.
Doesn’t seem like a big difference to me.
I think on the first report, how far this needs to go depends on the person who was harassed. It’s ok not to require a public apology and it’s ok not to want the accused to lose their job (although it’s also ok to want the opposite!).
But after Wise became aware of more cases, he should have been removed from the board. Personally I think he should have also apologized publicly (like he now did), but I find this less important.
I agree this definitely has to happen if Julia became aware of more cases through further complaints or through an investigation unearthing other things that are at least 50% as bad as the incident described by Owen.
However, if these “other cases” were just Owen going through his memory of any similar interactions and applying what he learned from the staying-at-his-house incident and then scrupulously listing every interaction where, in retrospect, he cannot be 100% confident that he didn’t make someone uncomfortable (and regrets the way he expressed interest), then it’s a bit different. (In that case, removing him from the board doesn’t seem mandatory to me, but I also don’t find it unreasonable.)
Edit: And this seems like the interpretation you’d arrive at if you believe Owen’s account. I’m quoting it here for context:
If you believe this account is accurate, then that’s quite different from what a reader unfamiliar with this info would infer from “after Wise became aware of more cases.”