My apologies, specific evidence was not presented with respect to...
...the quasi-censorship/emotional blackmail point because I think it’s up to the people involved to provide as much detail as they are personally comfortable with. All I can morally do is signal to those out of the loop that there are serious problems and hope that somebody with the right to name names does so. I can see why this may seem conspiratorial without further context. All I can suggest is that you keep an ear to the ground. I’m anonymous for a reason.
...the funding issue because either it fits the first category of “areas where I don’t have a right to name names” (cf. ”...any critique of central figures in EA would result in an inability to secure funding from EA sources...” above) or because the relevant information would probably be enough to identify me and thus destroy my career.
...the reading list issue because I thought the point was self-evident. If you would like some examples, see a very brief selection below, but this criticism applies to all relevant reading lists I have seen and is an area where I’m afraid we have prior form—see https://www.simonknutsson.com/problems-in-effective-altruism-and-existential-risk-and-what-to-do-about-them/#Systematically_problematic_syllabi_reading_lists_citations_writings_etc . I am not accusing those involved of being “indoctrinators” or of having bad intentions, I am merely observing that they ignore much of academic existential risk work in favour of a restricted range of texts by a few EA “thought leaders” and EA Forum posts, which, to newcomers, presents an idiosyncratic and ideological view of the field as the only view.
Again, I’m really not sure where these downvotes are coming from. I’m engaging with criticism and presenting what information I can present as clearly as possible.
I disagree with much of the original comment, but I’m baffled that you think this is appropriate content for the EA Forum. I strong-downvoted and reported this comment.
While this comment was deleted, the moderators discussed it in its original form (which included multiple serious insults to another user) and decided to issue a two-week ban to Charles, starting today. We don’t tolerate personal insults on the Forum.
Hi Charles. Please consider revising or retracting this comment; unlike your other comments in this thread, it’s unkind and not adding to the conversation.
My apologies, specific evidence was not presented with respect to...
...the quasi-censorship/emotional blackmail point because I think it’s up to the people involved to provide as much detail as they are personally comfortable with. All I can morally do is signal to those out of the loop that there are serious problems and hope that somebody with the right to name names does so. I can see why this may seem conspiratorial without further context. All I can suggest is that you keep an ear to the ground. I’m anonymous for a reason.
...the funding issue because either it fits the first category of “areas where I don’t have a right to name names” (cf. ”...any critique of central figures in EA would result in an inability to secure funding from EA sources...” above) or because the relevant information would probably be enough to identify me and thus destroy my career.
...the reading list issue because I thought the point was self-evident. If you would like some examples, see a very brief selection below, but this criticism applies to all relevant reading lists I have seen and is an area where I’m afraid we have prior form—see https://www.simonknutsson.com/problems-in-effective-altruism-and-existential-risk-and-what-to-do-about-them/#Systematically_problematic_syllabi_reading_lists_citations_writings_etc . I am not accusing those involved of being “indoctrinators” or of having bad intentions, I am merely observing that they ignore much of academic existential risk work in favour of a restricted range of texts by a few EA “thought leaders” and EA Forum posts, which, to newcomers, presents an idiosyncratic and ideological view of the field as the only view.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/u58HNBMBdKPbvpKqH/ea-reading-list-longtermism-and-existential-risks
http://www.global-catastrophic-risks.com/reading.html
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wmAQavcKjWc393NXP/example-syllabus-existential-risks
Again, I’m really not sure where these downvotes are coming from. I’m engaging with criticism and presenting what information I can present as clearly as possible.
<Comment deleted>
I disagree with much of the original comment, but I’m baffled that you think this is appropriate content for the EA Forum. I strong-downvoted and reported this comment.
While this comment was deleted, the moderators discussed it in its original form (which included multiple serious insults to another user) and decided to issue a two-week ban to Charles, starting today. We don’t tolerate personal insults on the Forum.
Hi Charles. Please consider revising or retracting this comment; unlike your other comments in this thread, it’s unkind and not adding to the conversation.
Per your personal request, I have deleted my comment.
...um