I don’t understand why you think this is “strange and unreasonable”.
I think it’s strange to ask for feedback on a post about a book from someone uninvolved in publishing the book, and unreasonable to ask them to give that feedback without consulting anyone who might actually be able to provide an informed response.
The most natural thing for Wise to do in this situation was to share the draft with MacAskill (or MacAskill’s research team for the book, if he had one). With that option excluded, sharing the draft with Wise was pretty pointless. I think it’s totally reasonable for Wise to have been confused here. (ETA: But it was still wrong to share it given Guzey’s request for confidentiality, as I’ve said several times.)
MacAskill feels personally attacked due to the hostile tone of Guzey’s confidential draft (which he has admitted to in public) and decides to exploit this opportunity to draft a preemptive response to kill Guzey’s post as quickly as possible.
This is the part that seems extremely weak to me. I see zero evidence of anyone trying to “kill Guzey’s post”, and I think preparing a pre-emptive response is both totally reasonable and actively good for the discourse.
tries to cover up the fact that she did this
By “cover up” here, do you mean “not mention”? Because “cover up” to me strongly implies active destruction of evidence, silencing of witnesses, &/or other nefarious activity, and I haven’t seen evidence of this.
The most natural thing for Wise to do in this situation was to share the draft with MacAskill (or MacAskill’s research team for the book, if he had one). With that option excluded, sharing the draft with Wise was pretty pointless. I think it’s totally reasonable for Wise to have been confused here.
I hope that I never have to share a confidential draft with you if those are your standards of proper conduct when someone does so.
This is the part that seems extremely weak to me. I see zero evidence of anyone trying to “kill Guzey’s post”, and I think preparing a pre-emptive response is both totally reasonable and actively good for the discourse.
In that case, MacAskill would have had no reason to conceal the fact that he had read Guzey’s draft. He even placed a line in his response claiming that “Guzey’s post keeps changing” to hedge against the possibility that he might appear to be responding to something that’s not actually in the post.
I can’t understand how you can defend this blatantly dishonest behavior. It’s possible Julia Wise acted in good faith the entire time, but reasonably making this claim about MacAskill seems impossible to me.
By “cover up” here, do you mean “not mention”? Because “cover up” to me strongly implies active destruction of evidence, silencing of witnesses, &/or other nefarious activity, and I haven’t seen evidence of this.
I don’t understand what “evidence” you think they could have attempted to destroy. They actively tried to hide the fact from Guzey by not mentioning it and not admitting it when they were confronted on the subject by Guzey after he caught MacAskill responding to something that was cut from the post prior to publication.
What else would you be looking for to classify what happened as a “cover up”? I don’t understand.
I hope that I never have to share a confidential draft with you if those are your standards of proper conduct when someone does so.
It’s pretty difficult for me to respond to this kind of personal rudeness politely. I don’t think this is the kind of discourse that will make our community better.
I already said several times that Wise shouldn’t have shared the draft with MacAskill, that it was a serious error, that the breach of confidentiality is per se bad, et cetera et cetera. This is not in dispute, even by CEA.
I don’t care if you’re personally rude to me or not. I’m just a throwaway account and I assure you that my feelings won’t be hurt by you failing to be polite on an online forum. If my comment comes across as rude, keep in mind that I don’t write anything I don’t mean to say—I legitimately would not share a confidential draft with you given the views you’ve expressed in this thread so far, because I consider you to be insufficiently trustworthy.
Setting that aside, what I want to understand is how you think Guzey somehow comes across worse in this incident than MacAskill and Wise. I think it’s very hard to tell a story of this incident in which MacAskill was not intentionally deceptive on an issue with only trivial stakes. Julia Wise was at best incompetent and at worst complicit ex post after having leaked the draft by accident, as she didn’t reveal that the draft had been leaked to Guzey.
She looks even worse because this incident wasn’t added to the page of CEA’s mistakes until after Guzey discussed the incident in public 3 years after it took place. I can imagine Wise acting in good faith throughout this episode, but I can’t imagine the same for MacAskill, and it’s MacAskill that I really care about.
I already stated, IMO fairly clearly, why I think Guzey comes across poorly in this incident. I think there’s insufficient evidence of malice here, that your & Guzey’s stories of what a conspiracy to harm Guzey aimed to actually achieve are way too thin, and that the strength of Guzey’s reaction & his accusations are seriously out of proportion to both the strength of his evidence and the actual harm that occurred (in a way that I think is consistent with the many other online dust-ups that Guzey regularly gets into).
I could start going through your comments and responding line by line, but given how low my credence is that you’re actually truth-seeking here, it doesn’t seem like a good use of my time.
I could start going through your comments and responding line by line, but given how low my credence is that you’re actually truth-seeking here, it doesn’t seem like a good use of my time.
This is a typical way in which people in EA shut down discussions of subjects they don’t like, especially when they involve members of the outgroup. You simply accuse the person disagreeing with you of being insufficiently truth-seeking (whatever that means).
I’ve told you what I think most likely happened, and you’ve offered no counterargument other than “I see no evidence of anyone trying to kill Guzey’s post”, even though what happened is obviously evidence (in the Bayesian sense) for MacAskill attempting to do exactly that. It’s not like MacAskill could have prevented the publication of the post on the forum. What he had the power to do was influence the reception of the post, and I believe his response did influence the reception in a negative direction.
Guzey’s post indeed “died” and some of his substantive criticisms of the book were not addressed at all. I think most of this was due to natural dynamics on the forum that were beyond MacAskill’s control, but he certainly tried to accelerate this process and (I believe) succeeded in doing so. Whether that means he tried to kill the post or not is up to your judgment.
I think it’s strange to ask for feedback on a post about a book from someone uninvolved in publishing the book, and unreasonable to ask them to give that feedback without consulting anyone who might actually be able to provide an informed response.
The most natural thing for Wise to do in this situation was to share the draft with MacAskill (or MacAskill’s research team for the book, if he had one). With that option excluded, sharing the draft with Wise was pretty pointless. I think it’s totally reasonable for Wise to have been confused here. (ETA: But it was still wrong to share it given Guzey’s request for confidentiality, as I’ve said several times.)
This is the part that seems extremely weak to me. I see zero evidence of anyone trying to “kill Guzey’s post”, and I think preparing a pre-emptive response is both totally reasonable and actively good for the discourse.
By “cover up” here, do you mean “not mention”? Because “cover up” to me strongly implies active destruction of evidence, silencing of witnesses, &/or other nefarious activity, and I haven’t seen evidence of this.
I hope that I never have to share a confidential draft with you if those are your standards of proper conduct when someone does so.
In that case, MacAskill would have had no reason to conceal the fact that he had read Guzey’s draft. He even placed a line in his response claiming that “Guzey’s post keeps changing” to hedge against the possibility that he might appear to be responding to something that’s not actually in the post.
I can’t understand how you can defend this blatantly dishonest behavior. It’s possible Julia Wise acted in good faith the entire time, but reasonably making this claim about MacAskill seems impossible to me.
I don’t understand what “evidence” you think they could have attempted to destroy. They actively tried to hide the fact from Guzey by not mentioning it and not admitting it when they were confronted on the subject by Guzey after he caught MacAskill responding to something that was cut from the post prior to publication.
What else would you be looking for to classify what happened as a “cover up”? I don’t understand.
It’s pretty difficult for me to respond to this kind of personal rudeness politely. I don’t think this is the kind of discourse that will make our community better.
I already said several times that Wise shouldn’t have shared the draft with MacAskill, that it was a serious error, that the breach of confidentiality is per se bad, et cetera et cetera. This is not in dispute, even by CEA.
I don’t care if you’re personally rude to me or not. I’m just a throwaway account and I assure you that my feelings won’t be hurt by you failing to be polite on an online forum. If my comment comes across as rude, keep in mind that I don’t write anything I don’t mean to say—I legitimately would not share a confidential draft with you given the views you’ve expressed in this thread so far, because I consider you to be insufficiently trustworthy.
Setting that aside, what I want to understand is how you think Guzey somehow comes across worse in this incident than MacAskill and Wise. I think it’s very hard to tell a story of this incident in which MacAskill was not intentionally deceptive on an issue with only trivial stakes. Julia Wise was at best incompetent and at worst complicit ex post after having leaked the draft by accident, as she didn’t reveal that the draft had been leaked to Guzey.
She looks even worse because this incident wasn’t added to the page of CEA’s mistakes until after Guzey discussed the incident in public 3 years after it took place. I can imagine Wise acting in good faith throughout this episode, but I can’t imagine the same for MacAskill, and it’s MacAskill that I really care about.
I already stated, IMO fairly clearly, why I think Guzey comes across poorly in this incident. I think there’s insufficient evidence of malice here, that your & Guzey’s stories of what a conspiracy to harm Guzey aimed to actually achieve are way too thin, and that the strength of Guzey’s reaction & his accusations are seriously out of proportion to both the strength of his evidence and the actual harm that occurred (in a way that I think is consistent with the many other online dust-ups that Guzey regularly gets into).
I could start going through your comments and responding line by line, but given how low my credence is that you’re actually truth-seeking here, it doesn’t seem like a good use of my time.
This is a typical way in which people in EA shut down discussions of subjects they don’t like, especially when they involve members of the outgroup. You simply accuse the person disagreeing with you of being insufficiently truth-seeking (whatever that means).
I’ve told you what I think most likely happened, and you’ve offered no counterargument other than “I see no evidence of anyone trying to kill Guzey’s post”, even though what happened is obviously evidence (in the Bayesian sense) for MacAskill attempting to do exactly that. It’s not like MacAskill could have prevented the publication of the post on the forum. What he had the power to do was influence the reception of the post, and I believe his response did influence the reception in a negative direction.
Guzey’s post indeed “died” and some of his substantive criticisms of the book were not addressed at all. I think most of this was due to natural dynamics on the forum that were beyond MacAskill’s control, but he certainly tried to accelerate this process and (I believe) succeeded in doing so. Whether that means he tried to kill the post or not is up to your judgment.