I downvoted this comment. While I think this discussion is important to have, I do not think that a post about longtermism should be turned into a referendum on Jacyâs conduct. I think it would be better to have this discussion on a separate post or the open thread.
We donât have any centralized or formal way of kicking people out of EA. Instead, the closest we have, in cases where someone has done things that are especially egregious, is making sure that everyone who interacts with them is aware. Summarizing the situation in the comments here, on Jacyâs first EA forum post in 3 years (Apology, 2019-03), accomplishes that much more than posting in the open thread.
This is a threaded discussion, so other aspects of the post are still open to anyone interested. Personally, I donât think Jacy should be in the EA movement and wonât be engaging in any of the threads below.
But what about the impact on the topic itself? Having the discussion heavily directed to a largely irrelevant topic, and affecting its down/âupvoting situation, doesnât do the original topic justice. And this topic could potentially be very important for the long-term future.
I think thatâs a strong reason for people other than Jacy to work on this topic.
Watching the dynamic here I suspect this might likely be true. But I would still like to point out that there should be a norm about how these situations should be handled. This likely wonât be the last EA forum post that goes this way.
To be honest I am deeply disappointed and very worried that this post has gone this way. I admit that I might be feeling so because I am very sympathetic to the key views described in this post. But I think one might be able to imagine how they feel if certain monumental posts that are crucial to the causes/âworldviews they care dearly about, went this way.
Having the discussion heavily directed to a largely irrelevant topic
I think this topic is more relevant than the original one. Ideas, however important to the long-term future, can surface more than once. The stability of the community is also important for the long-term future, but itâs probably easier to break it than to bury an idea.
affecting its down/âupvoting situation
I havenât voted on the post either way despite agreeing that the writer should probably not be here. I donât know about anyone else, but I suspect the average person here is even less prone than me to downvote for reasons unrelated to content.
I think this topic is more relevant than the original one.
Relevant with respect to what? For me, the most sensible standard to use here seems to be âwhether it is relevant to the original topic of the post (the thesis being brought up, or its antithesis)â. Yes, the topic of personal behavior is relevant to EAâs stability and therefore how much good we can do, or even the long-term future. But considering that there are other ways of letting people know what is being communicated here, such as starting a new post, I donât think we should use this criterion of relevance.
Ideas, however important to the long-term future, can surface more than once.
Thatâs true, logically speaking. But thatâs also logically true for EA/âEA-like communities. In other words, itâs always âpossibleâ that if this EA breaks, there âcould beâ another similar one that will be formed again. But I am guessing not many people would like to take the bet based on the âcome again argumentâ. Then what is our reason for being willing to take a similar bet with this potentially importantâI believe crucialâtopic (or just any topic)?
And again, the fact that there are other ways to bring up the topic of personal behavior makes it even less reasonable to use this argument as a justification here. In other words, there seem to be way better alternatives to âreduce X-risk to EAâ than commenting patterns like itâs happening here, that might risk âforcing a topic away from the surfaceâ.
And we cannot say that if something âcan surface more than onceâ, then we should expect it to also âsurface before it is too lateâ, or âsurface with the same influenceâ. Timing matters, and so do the âcomment sectionsâ of all historical discussions on a topic.
There are also some even more âdown-to-earthâ issues, such as the future writers on this topic experiencing difficulties of many sorts. For example, seeing this post went this way, should the writer of a next similar post (TBH, I have long thought of writing a similar post to this) just pretend that this post doesnât exist? This seems to be bad intellectual practice. But if they do cite this post, readers will see the comment section here, and one might worry that readers will be affected. More specifically, what if Jacy got this post exactly spot on? Should people who hold exactly the same view just pretend this post doesnât exist and post almost exactly the same thing?
I havenât voted on the post either way despite agreeing that the writer should probably not be here.
I am glad you tried to be fair to the topic. But just like to point out that ânot voting either wayâ isnât absolute proof that you havenât been affectedâyou could have voted positively if not for the extra discussion.
I donât know about anyone else, but I suspect the average person here is even less prone than me to downvote for reasons unrelated to content.
I have to say I am much more pessimistic than you on this. I think itâs psychologically quite natural that with such comments in the comment section, one might find it hard to concentrate through such a long piece, especially if one takes a stance against the writersâ behavior.
I am mindful of the fact that I am contributing to what I am suspecting to be bad practice here, so I am not going to comment on this direction further than this.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think you raised good points and Iâll only comment on some of them.
Mainly, I think raising the issue somewhere else wouldnât be nearly as effective, both in terms of directly engaging Jacy and of making his readers aware.
I am glad you tried to be fair to the topic. But just like to point out that ânot voting either wayâ isnât absolute proof that you havenât been affectedâyou could have voted positively if not for the extra discussion.
I noticed the post much before John made his comment. I didnât read it thoroughly or vote then,
so I havenât changed my decisionâbut yes, I guess Iâd be very reluctant to upvote now. So my analysis of myself wasnât entirely right.
I am mindful of the fact that I am contributing to what I am suspecting to be bad practice here, so I am not going to comment on this direction further than this.
Hmm. Should I have not replied then? ⊠I considered it, but eventually decided some parts of the reply were important enough.
I think it is a good place to have the discussion. Apparently someone has been the subject of numerous sexual harassment allegations throughout his life is turning up at EA events again. This is very concerning.
But wouldnât a new post on this topic serve the same purpose of expressing and discussing this concern, without having the effects of affecting this topic?
I downvoted this comment. While I think this discussion is important to have, I do not think that a post about longtermism should be turned into a referendum on Jacyâs conduct. I think it would be better to have this discussion on a separate post or the open thread.
We donât have any centralized or formal way of kicking people out of EA. Instead, the closest we have, in cases where someone has done things that are especially egregious, is making sure that everyone who interacts with them is aware. Summarizing the situation in the comments here, on Jacyâs first EA forum post in 3 years (Apology, 2019-03), accomplishes that much more than posting in the open thread.
This is a threaded discussion, so other aspects of the post are still open to anyone interested. Personally, I donât think Jacy should be in the EA movement and wonât be engaging in any of the threads below.
But what about the impact on the topic itself? Having the discussion heavily directed to a largely irrelevant topic, and affecting its down/âupvoting situation, doesnât do the original topic justice. And this topic could potentially be very important for the long-term future.
I think thatâs a strong reason for people other than Jacy to work on this topic.
Watching the dynamic here I suspect this might likely be true. But I would still like to point out that there should be a norm about how these situations should be handled. This likely wonât be the last EA forum post that goes this way.
To be honest I am deeply disappointed and very worried that this post has gone this way. I admit that I might be feeling so because I am very sympathetic to the key views described in this post. But I think one might be able to imagine how they feel if certain monumental posts that are crucial to the causes/âworldviews they care dearly about, went this way.
I think this topic is more relevant than the original one. Ideas, however important to the long-term future, can surface more than once. The stability of the community is also important for the long-term future, but itâs probably easier to break it than to bury an idea.
I havenât voted on the post either way despite agreeing that the writer should probably not be here. I donât know about anyone else, but I suspect the average person here is even less prone than me to downvote for reasons unrelated to content.
Relevant with respect to what? For me, the most sensible standard to use here seems to be âwhether it is relevant to the original topic of the post (the thesis being brought up, or its antithesis)â. Yes, the topic of personal behavior is relevant to EAâs stability and therefore how much good we can do, or even the long-term future. But considering that there are other ways of letting people know what is being communicated here, such as starting a new post, I donât think we should use this criterion of relevance.
Thatâs true, logically speaking. But thatâs also logically true for EA/âEA-like communities. In other words, itâs always âpossibleâ that if this EA breaks, there âcould beâ another similar one that will be formed again. But I am guessing not many people would like to take the bet based on the âcome again argumentâ. Then what is our reason for being willing to take a similar bet with this potentially importantâI believe crucialâtopic (or just any topic)?
And again, the fact that there are other ways to bring up the topic of personal behavior makes it even less reasonable to use this argument as a justification here. In other words, there seem to be way better alternatives to âreduce X-risk to EAâ than commenting patterns like itâs happening here, that might risk âforcing a topic away from the surfaceâ.
And we cannot say that if something âcan surface more than onceâ, then we should expect it to also âsurface before it is too lateâ, or âsurface with the same influenceâ. Timing matters, and so do the âcomment sectionsâ of all historical discussions on a topic.
There are also some even more âdown-to-earthâ issues, such as the future writers on this topic experiencing difficulties of many sorts. For example, seeing this post went this way, should the writer of a next similar post (TBH, I have long thought of writing a similar post to this) just pretend that this post doesnât exist? This seems to be bad intellectual practice. But if they do cite this post, readers will see the comment section here, and one might worry that readers will be affected. More specifically, what if Jacy got this post exactly spot on? Should people who hold exactly the same view just pretend this post doesnât exist and post almost exactly the same thing?
I am glad you tried to be fair to the topic. But just like to point out that ânot voting either wayâ isnât absolute proof that you havenât been affectedâyou could have voted positively if not for the extra discussion.
I have to say I am much more pessimistic than you on this. I think itâs psychologically quite natural that with such comments in the comment section, one might find it hard to concentrate through such a long piece, especially if one takes a stance against the writersâ behavior.
I am mindful of the fact that I am contributing to what I am suspecting to be bad practice here, so I am not going to comment on this direction further than this.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think you raised good points and Iâll only comment on some of them.
Mainly, I think raising the issue somewhere else wouldnât be nearly as effective, both in terms of directly engaging Jacy and of making his readers aware.
I noticed the post much before John made his comment. I didnât read it thoroughly or vote then, so I havenât changed my decisionâbut yes, I guess Iâd be very reluctant to upvote now. So my analysis of myself wasnât entirely right.
Hmm. Should I have not replied then? ⊠I considered it, but eventually decided some parts of the reply were important enough.
I think it is a good place to have the discussion. Apparently someone has been the subject of numerous sexual harassment allegations throughout his life is turning up at EA events again. This is very concerning.
But wouldnât a new post on this topic serve the same purpose of expressing and discussing this concern, without having the effects of affecting this topic?