I think we have a bunch of unusual norms, but I’d prefer to:
A. Focus on the norms that are causing the most harm (like maybe the professional/personal overlap has some interesting potential interventions that take seriously how enmeshed things are and how costly it is not to be able to date in your community, this is just one potential intervention point, I don’t have a strong take yet on what the highest leverage thing is). I will say that romance within organizations I think it’s already taken pretty seriously in my experience, and then the question is the network/all the social overlap, which is much more complicated and has a whole spectrum of how intense the overlap is (grantmakers are in a different position, some people are independent researchers and more/less reliant on organizational leadership goodwill, the list goes on)
B. Treat intervening there as an experiment, and pull back if we think it’s not worth it
Overall pushing back on weirdness seems to me trying to address too broad of a thing without focusing on the highest leverage parts, and might take away from things that feel important, plus could end up instantiated cruelly, though that’s not my crux. Also seems subject to getting to be used as a weapon, that will change as social mores change.
I also notice in myself a people pleaser streak, that wants the world at large to like me and my community, and I think that makes me more likely on the margin to want to make changes that people on the outside want me to make, and I want to be tracking that and not let it run the show, relative to things I think are actually good ideas (including incorporating my outside view! And including things I think are good for being upstanding allies/trading partners who might give something up that we value for that alliance.) I suspect I am not alone in having this trait, so might be helpful to track in general.
Great point! As well as “focus on the norms that are causing the most harm” I’d want to also add “focus on the norms that promise the least benefit”.
Doing weird things like giving away 10% of your income, or talking about shrimp welfare, or raising the alarm about the dangers of AGI are all very weird, but there are credible worldviews in which it’s really important to do them anyway.
Whereas weird things like having sex with multiple people within your professional network on a regular basis promise mild benefits at best, even according to worldviews which endorse them.
I think we have a bunch of unusual norms, but I’d prefer to:
A. Focus on the norms that are causing the most harm (like maybe the professional/personal overlap has some interesting potential interventions that take seriously how enmeshed things are and how costly it is not to be able to date in your community, this is just one potential intervention point, I don’t have a strong take yet on what the highest leverage thing is). I will say that romance within organizations I think it’s already taken pretty seriously in my experience, and then the question is the network/all the social overlap, which is much more complicated and has a whole spectrum of how intense the overlap is (grantmakers are in a different position, some people are independent researchers and more/less reliant on organizational leadership goodwill, the list goes on)
B. Treat intervening there as an experiment, and pull back if we think it’s not worth it
Overall pushing back on weirdness seems to me trying to address too broad of a thing without focusing on the highest leverage parts, and might take away from things that feel important, plus could end up instantiated cruelly, though that’s not my crux. Also seems subject to getting to be used as a weapon, that will change as social mores change.
I also notice in myself a people pleaser streak, that wants the world at large to like me and my community, and I think that makes me more likely on the margin to want to make changes that people on the outside want me to make, and I want to be tracking that and not let it run the show, relative to things I think are actually good ideas (including incorporating my outside view! And including things I think are good for being upstanding allies/trading partners who might give something up that we value for that alliance.) I suspect I am not alone in having this trait, so might be helpful to track in general.
Great point! As well as “focus on the norms that are causing the most harm” I’d want to also add “focus on the norms that promise the least benefit”.
Doing weird things like giving away 10% of your income, or talking about shrimp welfare, or raising the alarm about the dangers of AGI are all very weird, but there are credible worldviews in which it’s really important to do them anyway.
Whereas weird things like having sex with multiple people within your professional network on a regular basis promise mild benefits at best, even according to worldviews which endorse them.