I feel like âpeople who worked with Sam told people about specific instances of quite serious dishonesty they had personally observedâ is being classed as ârumourâ here, which whilst not strictly inaccurate, is misleading, because it is a very atypical case relative to the image the word ârumourâ conjures. Also, even if people only did receive stuff that was more centrally rumour, I feel like we still want to know if any one in leadership argued âoh, yeah, Sam might well be dodgy, but the expected value of publicly backing him is high because of the upsideâ. Thatâs a signal someone is a bad leader in my view, which is useful knowledge going forward. (Iâm not saying it is instant proof they should never hold leadership positions ever again: I think quite a lot of people might have said something like that in similar circumstances. But it is a bad sign.)
I feel like âpeople who worked with Sam told people about specific instances of quite serious dishonesty they had personally observedâ is being classed as ârumourâ here, which whilst not strictly inaccurate, is misleading, because it is a very atypical case relative to the image the word ârumourâ conjures.
I agree with this.
[...] I feel like we still want to know if any one in leadership argued âoh, yeah, Sam might well be dodgy, but the expected value of publicly backing him is high because of the upsideâ. Thatâs a signal someone is a bad leader in my view, which is useful knowledge going forward.
I donât really agree with this. Everyone has some probability of turning out to be dodgy; it matters exactly how strong the available evidence was. âThis EA leader writes people off immediately when they have even a tiny probability of being untrustworthyâ would be a negative update about the personâs decision-making too!
I meant something in between âisâ and âhas a non-zero chance of beingâ, like assigning significant probability to it (obviously I didnât have an exact number in mind), and not just for base rate reasons about believing all rich people to be dodgy.
I feel like âpeople who worked with Sam told people about specific instances of quite serious dishonesty they had personally observedâ is being classed as ârumourâ here, which whilst not strictly inaccurate, is misleading, because it is a very atypical case relative to the image the word ârumourâ conjures. Also, even if people only did receive stuff that was more centrally rumour, I feel like we still want to know if any one in leadership argued âoh, yeah, Sam might well be dodgy, but the expected value of publicly backing him is high because of the upsideâ. Thatâs a signal someone is a bad leader in my view, which is useful knowledge going forward. (Iâm not saying it is instant proof they should never hold leadership positions ever again: I think quite a lot of people might have said something like that in similar circumstances. But it is a bad sign.)
I agree with this.
I donât really agree with this. Everyone has some probability of turning out to be dodgy; it matters exactly how strong the available evidence was. âThis EA leader writes people off immediately when they have even a tiny probability of being untrustworthyâ would be a negative update about the personâs decision-making too!
I took that second quote to mean âeven if Sam is dodgy itâs still good to publicly back himâ
I meant something in between âisâ and âhas a non-zero chance of beingâ, like assigning significant probability to it (obviously I didnât have an exact number in mind), and not just for base rate reasons about believing all rich people to be dodgy.