As to other questions relating to Leverage, EA, funding- and attention-worthiness, etc., Iâve addressed some concerns in previous comments and I intend to address a broader range of questions later. I donât however endorse attack posts as a discussion format, and so intend to keep my responses here brief. The issues you raise are important to a lot of people and should be addressed, so please feel free to contact me or my staff via email if it would be helpful to discuss more.
[Own views]
If an issue is important to a lot of people, private follow-ups seem a poor solution. Even if you wholly satisfy Buck, he may not be able to relay what reassured him to all concerned parties, and thus likely duplication of effort on your part as each reaches out individually.
Of course, this makes more sense as an ill-advised attempt to dodge public scrutinyâbetter for PR if damning criticism remains in your inbox rather than on the internet-at-large. In this, alas, Leverage has a regrettable track record: You promised 13 months ago to write something within a month to better explain Leverage better, only to make a much more recent edit (cf.) that youâve âchanged your plansâ and encourage private follow-ups rather than giving a public explanation. The pattern of âpromised forthcoming explanation that never arrivesâ has been going on about as long as Leverage itself (1, 2, 3).
The reason this is ill-advised is that silence is a poor salve for suspicion. If credible concerns remain publicly unanswered, people adversely infer they are likely âon the moneyâ, and their target is staying quiet as they are rationally calculating the preserving whatever uncertainty remains still looks better than trying to contest the point. The more facially credible the concerns (e.g. Leverage has had dozens of person years and has seemed to produce extraordinarily little), and the more assiduous the attempts to avoid addressing them and obscure relevant evidence (e.g. not only taking down all old research, but doing your best to scrub any traces of it from the internet), the more persuasive the adverse inference becomes, and the more likely people are to start writing âattack postsâ [recte public criticism].
The public evidence looks damning to me. I hope it transpires that this is an unfortunate case of miscommunication and misunderstanding, and soon we shall see results that vindicate Leverage/âParadigmâs efforts so far. I also hope your faith in Bennett is well-placed, that whatever mix of vices led him to write vile antisemitic ridicule on an email list called âmorning hateâ in 2016 bear little relevance to the man he was when with Leverage in ~~2018, or the man he is now.
I also hope your faith in Bennett is well-placed, that whatever mix of vices led him to write vile antisemitic ridicule on an email list called âmorning hateâ in 2016 bear little relevance to the man he was when with Leverage in ~~2018, or the man he is now.
Perhaps itâd be helpful for Bennett to publish a critique of alt-right ideas in Palladium Magazine?
In Bennettâs statement on Medium, he says now that heâs Catholic, he condemns the views he espoused. If thatâs true, he should be glad to publish a piece which reduces their level of support.
Since he used to espouse those views, he has intimate understanding of the psychology of those who hold them. So a piece he edits could help deconvert/âderadicalize people more effectively than a piece edited by an outsider. And whatever persuaded him to abandon those views might also work on others.
Bennet might complain that publishing such a piece would put him in an impossible bind, because any attempt to find common ground with alt-righters, and explain what originally drew him to the movement to do effective deconversion, could be spun as âJonah Bennett doubles down on alt-right ideologyâ for clicks. Bennet might also complain that publishing such a piece would make him a target for alt-right harassment. However, if Bennett is sincerely sorry for what he said, it seems to me that he should be willing to accept these risks. At least he could offer to publish a critique of the alt-right thatâs written by someone else.
If he does publish such a piece, I personally would be inclined to tentatively accept him back into civil societyâbut if heâs unwilling to publish such a piece, I think itâs reasonable to wonder if heâs âhiding his true power levelâ and be suspicious/âcondemnatory.
I do feel we should have some sort of path to forgiveness for those who sincerely wish to leave extremist movements.
[Own views]
If an issue is important to a lot of people, private follow-ups seem a poor solution. Even if you wholly satisfy Buck, he may not be able to relay what reassured him to all concerned parties, and thus likely duplication of effort on your part as each reaches out individually.
Of course, this makes more sense as an ill-advised attempt to dodge public scrutinyâbetter for PR if damning criticism remains in your inbox rather than on the internet-at-large. In this, alas, Leverage has a regrettable track record: You promised 13 months ago to write something within a month to better explain Leverage better, only to make a much more recent edit (cf.) that youâve âchanged your plansâ and encourage private follow-ups rather than giving a public explanation. The pattern of âpromised forthcoming explanation that never arrivesâ has been going on about as long as Leverage itself (1, 2, 3).
The reason this is ill-advised is that silence is a poor salve for suspicion. If credible concerns remain publicly unanswered, people adversely infer they are likely âon the moneyâ, and their target is staying quiet as they are rationally calculating the preserving whatever uncertainty remains still looks better than trying to contest the point. The more facially credible the concerns (e.g. Leverage has had dozens of person years and has seemed to produce extraordinarily little), and the more assiduous the attempts to avoid addressing them and obscure relevant evidence (e.g. not only taking down all old research, but doing your best to scrub any traces of it from the internet), the more persuasive the adverse inference becomes, and the more likely people are to start writing âattack postsâ [recte public criticism].
The public evidence looks damning to me. I hope it transpires that this is an unfortunate case of miscommunication and misunderstanding, and soon we shall see results that vindicate Leverage/âParadigmâs efforts so far. I also hope your faith in Bennett is well-placed, that whatever mix of vices led him to write vile antisemitic ridicule on an email list called âmorning hateâ in 2016 bear little relevance to the man he was when with Leverage in ~~2018, or the man he is now.
But not all hopes are expectations.
Perhaps itâd be helpful for Bennett to publish a critique of alt-right ideas in Palladium Magazine?
In Bennettâs statement on Medium, he says now that heâs Catholic, he condemns the views he espoused. If thatâs true, he should be glad to publish a piece which reduces their level of support.
Since he used to espouse those views, he has intimate understanding of the psychology of those who hold them. So a piece he edits could help deconvert/âderadicalize people more effectively than a piece edited by an outsider. And whatever persuaded him to abandon those views might also work on others.
Bennet might complain that publishing such a piece would put him in an impossible bind, because any attempt to find common ground with alt-righters, and explain what originally drew him to the movement to do effective deconversion, could be spun as âJonah Bennett doubles down on alt-right ideologyâ for clicks. Bennet might also complain that publishing such a piece would make him a target for alt-right harassment. However, if Bennett is sincerely sorry for what he said, it seems to me that he should be willing to accept these risks. At least he could offer to publish a critique of the alt-right thatâs written by someone else.
If he does publish such a piece, I personally would be inclined to tentatively accept him back into civil societyâbut if heâs unwilling to publish such a piece, I think itâs reasonable to wonder if heâs âhiding his true power levelâ and be suspicious/âcondemnatory.
I do feel we should have some sort of path to forgiveness for those who sincerely wish to leave extremist movements.