Of your two concerns regarding community gatekeeping, I’m not concerned about funding because I think good projects still get funded. BUT I’m semi-concerned about “logs” of things or rumors. I don’t think there are outright “blacklists” unless we are talking about banning names from EA events due to harrassment, smear journalism, etc. However of “logs” I am concerned about, I am not concerned about the EA forum if you are actually being rigorous or something which is totally in everyone’s control.
The type of logs or rumors I am concerned about are well-summed in this quote of yours:
“The individual asked the organiser why they weren’t invited when everyone else in the same position was invited. The organiser ignored their questions.”
I find this concerning and went through something similar myself. I think lack of transparency of reasoning or feedback in personal cases istoo common and we should continue to push back against it. It’s the fact that a person can’t respond to soothe criticism etc that makes it much worse. And one has to wonder if information cascades are happening there. That said of course there is always the chance that leaving the person out was the right decision (these retreat spots cost money after all, and every attendee shapes the culture, no one is owed one), but reason should be given since the rest of the team attended.
You claim that blacklists gatekeeping to the extent it occurs is due to rationality culture, but FWIW I disagree, as I think traditional LW style rationality is very pro-transparency. I think lack of transparency about why someone is left out of things is usually due to typical human stuff like avoidance, fear, laziness, fatigue, overwhelm, confusion over what words to use, lack of time to answer well, frustration at being the one slated to answer over email for decisions which were made jointly thereby needing to pass an email around and around to be sure one gets phrasing right, etc. As the saying goes: “Don’t first assume malicious intent when incompetence will do.” But this does cause real issues. But again I don’t think this relates to EA forum comments as much as social rumors and one’s professional history.
I guess I’ll also say, in general: It is odd and maybe even slightly-hypocritical to request more accountability and professionalism for grantmakers and EA leaders but less for commentors by being so bullish on anon posting. If the EA movement and social scene were one gigantic company, only those of us with the most serious well-researched complaints would be able to say anything anonymously[1] and be taken very seriously. No more than you’d take an anonymous email sent to you seriously, when compared to the reports of your coworkers who all use work emails and real names.
So I hope you can see that over-professionalizing the EA world may not leave a cultural space for anonymous accounts to actually have their concerns taken seriously by actual EA leadership, unless that anon is writing a thing which is exceptionally well written and researched. IDK just be careful what you wish for here, and be careful to not prove too much
Of your two concerns regarding community gatekeeping, I’m not concerned about funding because I think good projects still get funded. BUT I’m semi-concerned about “logs” of things or rumors. I don’t think there are outright “blacklists” unless we are talking about banning names from EA events due to harrassment, smear journalism, etc. However of “logs” I am concerned about, I am not concerned about the EA forum if you are actually being rigorous or something which is totally in everyone’s control.
The type of logs or rumors I am concerned about are well-summed in this quote of yours:
“The individual asked the organiser why they weren’t invited when everyone else in the same position was invited. The organiser ignored their questions.”
I find this concerning and went through something similar myself. I think lack of transparency of reasoning or feedback in personal cases is too common and we should continue to push back against it. It’s the fact that a person can’t respond to soothe criticism etc that makes it much worse. And one has to wonder if information cascades are happening there. That said of course there is always the chance that leaving the person out was the right decision (these retreat spots cost money after all, and every attendee shapes the culture, no one is owed one), but reason should be given since the rest of the team attended.
You claim that
blacklistsgatekeeping to the extent it occurs is due to rationality culture, but FWIW I disagree, as I think traditional LW style rationality is very pro-transparency. I think lack of transparency about why someone is left out of things is usually due to typical human stuff like avoidance, fear, laziness, fatigue, overwhelm, confusion over what words to use, lack of time to answer well, frustration at being the one slated to answer over email for decisions which were made jointly thereby needing to pass an email around and around to be sure one gets phrasing right, etc. As the saying goes: “Don’t first assume malicious intent when incompetence will do.” But this does cause real issues. But again I don’t think this relates to EA forum comments as much as social rumors and one’s professional history.I guess I’ll also say, in general: It is odd and maybe even slightly-hypocritical to request more accountability and professionalism for grantmakers and EA leaders but less for commentors by being so bullish on anon posting. If the EA movement and social scene were one gigantic company, only those of us with the most serious well-researched complaints would be able to say anything anonymously[1] and be taken very seriously. No more than you’d take an anonymous email sent to you seriously, when compared to the reports of your coworkers who all use work emails and real names.
So I hope you can see that over-professionalizing the EA world may not leave a cultural space for anonymous accounts to actually have their concerns taken seriously by actual EA leadership, unless that anon is writing a thing which is exceptionally well written and researched. IDK just be careful what you wish for here, and be careful to not prove too much
except to HR, which in EA is kinda like the Community Health Team, and yes you can speak with them and your complaint be logged anonymously