It’s important to note that few people will share their negative experiences with the Community Health Team because the CHT blacklists people from funding, EAG attendance, job opportunities, etc.
Also, if they cause people to leave the community, you’re unlikely to hear about it because they’ve left the community.
This leads to a large information asymmetry.
I know many people who’s lives and impact have been deeply damaged by the CHT but they won’t share their experiences because they are afraid of retaliation or have given up on the EA community because of them.
I’m definitely sympathetic to this point, yep. I think it would be very difficult to write a post of this nature if you felt that your participation in EA was being wrongly affected by CH.
At the same time, I think both the negative and positive experiences are difficult to talk about, due to their sensitive nature. I felt comfortable writing this because the incident is now four years old and I’m lucky to be in an incredibly supportive environment; many who have had positive experiences will not want to write about them. Thus, I am not confident there is a “large information asymmetry” in either direction, there are deterrents to information sharing on both sides.
I think the unfortunate reality is: Community Health is not infallible, I would be very keen to hear about mistakes they’ve made or genuine concerns, as would the team, I’m certain. I’m also acutely aware that a lot of people who exhibit poor behaviour, and are then prevented from taking certain actions within the community, will claim to have been slighted. People who cross clear boundaries and then face consequences do not often go, “this seems right and fair to me, thank you for taking these measures against me to protect others.” This is certainly not to say, “no one who says they’ve been blacklisted or slighted can be correct.” This is to say that, I am not sure how to update on claims that CH has damaged people’s lives without more information.
It’s important to note that few people will share their negative experiences with the Community Health Team because the CHT blacklists people from funding, EAG attendance, job opportunities, etc.
Also, if they cause people to leave the community, you’re unlikely to hear about it because they’ve left the community.
This leads to a large information asymmetry.
I know many people who’s lives and impact have been deeply damaged by the CHT but they won’t share their experiences because they are afraid of retaliation or have given up on the EA community because of them.
I’m definitely sympathetic to this point, yep. I think it would be very difficult to write a post of this nature if you felt that your participation in EA was being wrongly affected by CH.
At the same time, I think both the negative and positive experiences are difficult to talk about, due to their sensitive nature. I felt comfortable writing this because the incident is now four years old and I’m lucky to be in an incredibly supportive environment; many who have had positive experiences will not want to write about them. Thus, I am not confident there is a “large information asymmetry” in either direction, there are deterrents to information sharing on both sides.
I think the unfortunate reality is: Community Health is not infallible, I would be very keen to hear about mistakes they’ve made or genuine concerns, as would the team, I’m certain. I’m also acutely aware that a lot of people who exhibit poor behaviour, and are then prevented from taking certain actions within the community, will claim to have been slighted. People who cross clear boundaries and then face consequences do not often go, “this seems right and fair to me, thank you for taking these measures against me to protect others.” This is certainly not to say, “no one who says they’ve been blacklisted or slighted can be correct.” This is to say that, I am not sure how to update on claims that CH has damaged people’s lives without more information.