Re: “was there any accountability”, I’m not aware of any other than CEA now acknowledging this project on their Mistakes page. That page makes it pretty clear that the Pareto Fellowship was not the main reason why the staff who ran it no longer works at CEA (“For a variety of reasons mostly unrelated to this program, neither the staff who directly ran the program nor the management staff who oversaw it still work at CEA.”)
I’m pretty sure the “management staff who oversaw it” was Kerry Vaughan, who was in charge of EA Outreach. Assuming that’s correct, it doesn’t seem like there was much accountability there either. Despite Pareto’s problems, he continued to be given important responsibilities like EA Funds (launched a few months after Pareto’s closing was announced).
Re: “is there going to be any accountability” I’d encourage you (and anyone else who cares about this) to support and participate in meaningful governance conversations. The best way to ensure there’s accountability for future projects that go off the rails like this is to have clear standards and expectations about what should happen in those cases. You can comment on this thread and/or communicate your concerns directly to CEA leadership (which can be done anonymously). I’m not sure it’s practical or desirable to have any accountability for the Pareto Fellowship at this point, but we can make sure there’s accountability if/when future projects have similar problems.
I was in charge of the EAO team when two members of my team initially conceptualized Pareto, but mid-way through EAO merged into the rest of CEA , and Will was in charge. Will was responsible for fundraising for Pareto, and he signed off on having it at the 454 building (where many of Leverage’s staff were located).
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Pareto was overall culty or anything like that. I’ve seen the post-program evaluations, and they seem to have been pretty good overall, with high ratings given to much of the content taught by Leverage and Paradigm staff. Also, many of the Pareto Fellows went on to do important work in and around the EA community.
I was in charge of the EAO team when two members of my team initially conceptualized Pareto, but mid-way through EAO merged into the rest of CEA , and Will was in charge. Will was responsible for fundraising for Pareto, and he signed off on having it at the 454 building (where many of Leverage’s staff were located).
The interview process seems to have been the most problematic part of Pareto and was presumably designed by your team members who ran the project. Who should have nipped that in the bud? If Will didn’t take over until mid-way, would that have been your responsibility? Are you aware of any accountability for anyone involved in the creation or oversight of the interview process?
When Will signed off on having Pareto at the Leverage building, was he aware participants wouldn’t be informed about this?
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Pareto was overall culty or anything like that. I’ve seen the post-program evaluations, and they seem to have been pretty good overall, with high ratings given to much of the content taught by Leverage and Paradigm staff.
Were fellows anonymous when submitting their evaluations and confident that their evaluations could not be traced back to them? I imagine they’d have been reluctant to criticize the program (and by extension highly influential EAs involved including yourself) if they could not be completely confident in their anonymity. I’d also note that the fellows likely had very high thresholds for cultyness given that they weren’t turned off by the interview process.
I imagine the fellowship itself was less culty than the interview process (a pretty low bar). As to how culty it was, I’d say that depends to some degree on how culty one thinks Leverage was at the time since Barnes also noted: “Several fellows ended up working for Leverage afterwards; the whole thing felt like a bit of a recruiting drive.”
Zoe’s account (and other accounts described here and here) certainly make Leverage sound quite culty. That would be consistent with my own interactions with Leverage (admittedly quite limited); I remember coming out of those interactions feeling like I’d never encountered a community that (in my subjective opinion based on limited data) emitted such strong culty vibes, and that nothing come particularly close.
Also, many of the Pareto Fellows went on to do important work in and around the EA community.
I don’t doubt at all that many Pareto Fellows went on to do great work. Given the caliber and background of the people who participated, it would be weird if they didn’t. But I’m not aware of any evidence that Pareto positively contributed to their impact.
For the record, while I’m highly critical of the Pareto Fellowship as a program, those criticisms do not extend to the Fellows themselves.
I’m confused and skeptical that the defence of “cultiness” or other negative traits, includes referencing internal evaluations in these comments.
Setting aside how internally conducted evaluations are performative or manipulated subtly and easily by the administrators, I would expect most “highly demanding” organizations to filter and steer internal people, e.g. making sure they are “small” enough.
E.g., The people inside these organizations, who would pass the various process, would not be reliable evaluators.
For evidence, this very interview below is designed as part of the system to create the resulting culture that is problematic.
<Insert link/quote to the wildly inappropriate/aggressive/abusive interview I read about (I don’t have time to fully write this comment.)>
I’m friends with several people who went through the program, I’ve seen the evaluations, they don’t paint a picture of the program as culty. That doesn’t mean everyone enjoyed the program but I think the picture you have in mind is inaccurate. I think the program was probably slightly to moderate weird compared to programs of this type, but not culty.
I agree with your assessment that the interview process was badly handled. Asking people to belief report during an interview is a bad idea.
You’re directly employed by Leverage research, which has the more severe claims laid against it and is some sort of subsidiary or something of Pareto or vice versa[1], yes? I understand you’ve worked or been involved there in this circle for many years? 10 or so?
Given the above, it’s unclear why you think stating your personal views and your friendships, would be informative. Given the host of other choices you could make, this is unpromising to me. For example, why not release these surveys and the narratives inside of them, and we can read and form opinions about what they mean ourselves?
Furthermore, ungenerously and speculatively, I find it plausible your statements are normalizing/lampshading the issues, e.g. in the class of people above, “friendship” is negative here to me. This very thread and others like it have utility to these organizations—filtering so that people who make it to the funnel are predicably more reliable and pliant.
Now, dropping out of EA forum rhetoric: To be clear, I don’t think this is a cult with literal coolaid. Like, I don’t think you actively plot to harm others. It’s just trashy trash. This is just what happens when someone older dude (30s or 40 now) with an extremely motivated view of his ideas, and is somewhat smarter than average (therefore making them in a genius in EA/rationalist circles) creates a massive information bubble+world conquering view+sketchy hookup/sexual access to his followers. There is a large supply of these “organizations” in the Bay Area, and it’s disappointing this wasn’t put down and we have to read about it in 2022.
it’s really unclear to me what the relationship between these orgs are but in these situations, I round down usefully, e.g. Org A is sort of a “feeder” to Org B, sort of situation.
I would release the surveys from Pareto, but they are the property of CEA, not the property of Leverage Research, so I am not in a position to release them.
Unfounded rumors about Leverage were common in the EA community when I was involved, and it’s disappointing that they continue to be perpetuated. If you’d like to learn more about what Leverage was like, a bunch of information has come out that allows for a more nuanced and accurate picture. Two of the best, in my view, are Cathleen’s post and our Inquiry Report. Also, if you’re interested in what we work on today, feel free to visit our website.
I get that cults are interesting, and the story is much more exciting if Leverage was a cult of some kind. Unfortunately, as is true in so many cases, the truth of the matter is far less interesting.
Unfounded rumors about Leverage were common in the EA community when I was involved, and it’s disappointing that they continue to be perpetuated.
Most of the rumors about Leverage that I heard were along the lines of what Zoe later described (which is also largely consistent with other accounts described here and here). So I wouldn’t call those rumors “unfounded” at all. In this case at least, where there was smoke there turned out to be a fire.
Other rumors I heard were quite consistent with Leverage’s own description (pretty culty in my opinion) of why it terminated an eight year exploratory psychology program:
As our researchers sensitized themselves further, and accessed more and more of what seemed to be unconscious content, several negative effects occurred. Some of the psychological content was itself distressing, there appeared to be psychogenic effects, with individuals negatively affecting each other unintentionally through what appeared to be non-verbal communication, and conflict within the group escalated. After attempting to resolve the problems and making insufficient headway, we shut down the psychology research program and began the process of re-organizing the institute.
Re:
If you’d like to learn more about what Leverage was like, a bunch of information has come out that allows for a more nuanced and accurate picture. Two of the best, in my view, are Cathleen’s post and our Inquiry Report. Also, if you’re interested in what we work on today, feel free to visit our website.
I haven’t read Cathleen’s post, as it apparently takes several hours to read. I skimmed the Inquiry Report, enough to learn that has methodological biases that render it largely useless in my opinion (“Although we reached out to everyone from Leverage 1.0, not everyone chose to speak to us, including those who may have had the worst experiences.”)
I urge anyone who would “like to learn more about what Leverage was like” to read Zoe’s account and the other accounts I link to at the start of this comment instead of or in addition to the material Kerry suggests.
“In response to a comment that “multiple friends who applied to the Pareto Fellowship felt like it was quite unprofessionally run” CEA staff reiterated that an evaluation was “forthcoming”, but it was never published.”
Was and is there going to be any accountability for the cultish aspects of things like the Pareto fellowship? That sounds absolutely bizarre.
Re: “was there any accountability”, I’m not aware of any other than CEA now acknowledging this project on their Mistakes page. That page makes it pretty clear that the Pareto Fellowship was not the main reason why the staff who ran it no longer works at CEA (“For a variety of reasons mostly unrelated to this program, neither the staff who directly ran the program nor the management staff who oversaw it still work at CEA.”)
I’m pretty sure the “management staff who oversaw it” was Kerry Vaughan, who was in charge of EA Outreach. Assuming that’s correct, it doesn’t seem like there was much accountability there either. Despite Pareto’s problems, he continued to be given important responsibilities like EA Funds (launched a few months after Pareto’s closing was announced).
As another data point suggesting there hasn’t been accountability, CEA promoted and funded the 2018 EA Summit which was run by one of the Pareto founders.
Re: “is there going to be any accountability” I’d encourage you (and anyone else who cares about this) to support and participate in meaningful governance conversations. The best way to ensure there’s accountability for future projects that go off the rails like this is to have clear standards and expectations about what should happen in those cases. You can comment on this thread and/or communicate your concerns directly to CEA leadership (which can be done anonymously). I’m not sure it’s practical or desirable to have any accountability for the Pareto Fellowship at this point, but we can make sure there’s accountability if/when future projects have similar problems.
This isn’t quite accurate.
I was in charge of the EAO team when two members of my team initially conceptualized Pareto, but mid-way through EAO merged into the rest of CEA , and Will was in charge. Will was responsible for fundraising for Pareto, and he signed off on having it at the 454 building (where many of Leverage’s staff were located).
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Pareto was overall culty or anything like that. I’ve seen the post-program evaluations, and they seem to have been pretty good overall, with high ratings given to much of the content taught by Leverage and Paradigm staff. Also, many of the Pareto Fellows went on to do important work in and around the EA community.
The interview process seems to have been the most problematic part of Pareto and was presumably designed by your team members who ran the project. Who should have nipped that in the bud? If Will didn’t take over until mid-way, would that have been your responsibility? Are you aware of any accountability for anyone involved in the creation or oversight of the interview process?
When Will signed off on having Pareto at the Leverage building, was he aware participants wouldn’t be informed about this?
Were fellows anonymous when submitting their evaluations and confident that their evaluations could not be traced back to them? I imagine they’d have been reluctant to criticize the program (and by extension highly influential EAs involved including yourself) if they could not be completely confident in their anonymity. I’d also note that the fellows likely had very high thresholds for cultyness given that they weren’t turned off by the interview process.
Since CEA never shared the program evaluations (nor published its own evaluation despite commitments to do so), I feel like the most credible publicly available assessment is Beth Barnes’ (one of the Fellows) observation that “I think most fellows felt that it was really useful in various ways but also weird and sketchy and maybe harmful in various other ways.”
I imagine the fellowship itself was less culty than the interview process (a pretty low bar). As to how culty it was, I’d say that depends to some degree on how culty one thinks Leverage was at the time since Barnes also noted: “Several fellows ended up working for Leverage afterwards; the whole thing felt like a bit of a recruiting drive.”
Zoe’s account (and other accounts described here and here) certainly make Leverage sound quite culty. That would be consistent with my own interactions with Leverage (admittedly quite limited); I remember coming out of those interactions feeling like I’d never encountered a community that (in my subjective opinion based on limited data) emitted such strong culty vibes, and that nothing come particularly close.
I don’t doubt at all that many Pareto Fellows went on to do great work. Given the caliber and background of the people who participated, it would be weird if they didn’t. But I’m not aware of any evidence that Pareto positively contributed to their impact.
For the record, while I’m highly critical of the Pareto Fellowship as a program, those criticisms do not extend to the Fellows themselves.
I’m confused and skeptical that the defence of “cultiness” or other negative traits, includes referencing internal evaluations in these comments.
Setting aside how internally conducted evaluations are performative or manipulated subtly and easily by the administrators, I would expect most “highly demanding” organizations to filter and steer internal people, e.g. making sure they are “small” enough.
E.g., The people inside these organizations, who would pass the various process, would not be reliable evaluators.
For evidence, this very interview below is designed as part of the system to create the resulting culture that is problematic.
<Insert link/quote to the wildly inappropriate/aggressive/abusive interview I read about (I don’t have time to fully write this comment.)>
Ok I found it, here is the interview for Pareto fellowship.
Yeah totally legit. I’m sure the participants afterwards were in a totally normal environment.
I’m friends with several people who went through the program, I’ve seen the evaluations, they don’t paint a picture of the program as culty. That doesn’t mean everyone enjoyed the program but I think the picture you have in mind is inaccurate. I think the program was probably slightly to moderate weird compared to programs of this type, but not culty.
I agree with your assessment that the interview process was badly handled. Asking people to belief report during an interview is a bad idea.
You’re directly employed by Leverage research, which has the more severe claims laid against it and is some sort of subsidiary or something of Pareto or vice versa[1], yes? I understand you’ve worked or been involved there in this circle for many years? 10 or so?
Given the above, it’s unclear why you think stating your personal views and your friendships, would be informative. Given the host of other choices you could make, this is unpromising to me. For example, why not release these surveys and the narratives inside of them, and we can read and form opinions about what they mean ourselves?
Furthermore, ungenerously and speculatively, I find it plausible your statements are normalizing/lampshading the issues, e.g. in the class of people above, “friendship” is negative here to me. This very thread and others like it have utility to these organizations—filtering so that people who make it to the funnel are predicably more reliable and pliant.
Now, dropping out of EA forum rhetoric: To be clear, I don’t think this is a cult with literal coolaid. Like, I don’t think you actively plot to harm others. It’s just trashy trash. This is just what happens when someone older dude (30s or 40 now) with an extremely motivated view of his ideas, and is somewhat smarter than average (therefore making them in a genius in EA/rationalist circles) creates a massive information bubble+world conquering view+sketchy hookup/sexual access to his followers. There is a large supply of these “organizations” in the Bay Area, and it’s disappointing this wasn’t put down and we have to read about it in 2022.
it’s really unclear to me what the relationship between these orgs are but in these situations, I round down usefully, e.g. Org A is sort of a “feeder” to Org B, sort of situation.
I would release the surveys from Pareto, but they are the property of CEA, not the property of Leverage Research, so I am not in a position to release them.
Unfounded rumors about Leverage were common in the EA community when I was involved, and it’s disappointing that they continue to be perpetuated. If you’d like to learn more about what Leverage was like, a bunch of information has come out that allows for a more nuanced and accurate picture. Two of the best, in my view, are Cathleen’s post and our Inquiry Report. Also, if you’re interested in what we work on today, feel free to visit our website.
I get that cults are interesting, and the story is much more exciting if Leverage was a cult of some kind. Unfortunately, as is true in so many cases, the truth of the matter is far less interesting.
Most of the rumors about Leverage that I heard were along the lines of what Zoe later described (which is also largely consistent with other accounts described here and here). So I wouldn’t call those rumors “unfounded” at all. In this case at least, where there was smoke there turned out to be a fire.
Other rumors I heard were quite consistent with Leverage’s own description (pretty culty in my opinion) of why it terminated an eight year exploratory psychology program:
Re:
I haven’t read Cathleen’s post, as it apparently takes several hours to read. I skimmed the Inquiry Report, enough to learn that has methodological biases that render it largely useless in my opinion (“Although we reached out to everyone from Leverage 1.0, not everyone chose to speak to us, including those who may have had the worst experiences.”)
I urge anyone who would “like to learn more about what Leverage was like” to read Zoe’s account and the other accounts I link to at the start of this comment instead of or in addition to the material Kerry suggests.
Can you please elaborate (or link to somewhere with info)?
It’s discussed in the OP. You’ll find further links there.
“In response to a comment that “multiple friends who applied to the Pareto Fellowship felt like it was quite unprofessionally run” CEA staff reiterated that an evaluation was “forthcoming”, but it was never published.”
...
Oops, sorry. OP is long and I only glossed over it.