I think there are a lot of implicit social agreements at work here. I know that a lot of people in positions in power often don’t want to spend much time being questioned or addressing points they find disagreeable.
My impression is that a lot of public statements from major organizations come with expectations like this. But these expectations aren’t typically explicit, which I find makes them difficult to reason about.
Historically, I know that many people with power around OP don’t seem to engage much with comments on the EA Forum. For example, when I look through Holden’s posts, I don’t see many comments/responses from him. (with a good exception being this recent post!)
> I’m not detailing specific decisions for the same reason I want to invest in fewer focus areas: additional information is used as additional attack surface area. The attitude in EA communities is “give an inch, fight a mile”. So I’ll choose to be less legible instead.
(quote emphasized by me)
It seems like Dustin thinks that EA’s fight too much with OP, more than is fair, and therefore Dustin actively chooses to be less legible.
So, what is “fighting”? Is my questioning of the cost-effectiveness me “fighting a mile”? I have no idea.
Perhaps a better way to say, “I’m not sure if I can question this” might be something like, “I’m not sure if me raising this point would significantly frustrate people like Dustin.” I’m not expecting him or others at OP to consider potentially-critical information as the kind that should be, say, legally attacked, but I do expect them to dislike a lot of this sort of conversation, and I don’t feel like I understand where the lines are.
I don’t particularly blame OP / EA leaders for this challenge. More that i think it’s the kind of thing that comes out of most extreme power imbalances, and it takes a good deal of work to get around it.
Thanks, that’s a helpful clarification! “Allowed” still feels like a strong choice of words, but I can see that the line between that and “I’m not sure if this will be perceived as annoying” is blurry, and also, the latter feels frustrating enough.
I’m only speaking in personal capacity here, but my strong preference would always be for these questions to be raised!
Sorry, I was unsure how to express that.
I think there are a lot of implicit social agreements at work here. I know that a lot of people in positions in power often don’t want to spend much time being questioned or addressing points they find disagreeable.
My impression is that a lot of public statements from major organizations come with expectations like this. But these expectations aren’t typically explicit, which I find makes them difficult to reason about.
Historically, I know that many people with power around OP don’t seem to engage much with comments on the EA Forum. For example, when I look through Holden’s posts, I don’t see many comments/responses from him. (with a good exception being this recent post!)
Or see this comment by Dustin Moskovitz:
> I’m not detailing specific decisions for the same reason I want to invest in fewer focus areas: additional information is used as additional attack surface area. The attitude in EA communities is “give an inch, fight a mile”. So I’ll choose to be less legible instead.
(quote emphasized by me)
It seems like Dustin thinks that EA’s fight too much with OP, more than is fair, and therefore Dustin actively chooses to be less legible.
So, what is “fighting”? Is my questioning of the cost-effectiveness me “fighting a mile”? I have no idea.
Perhaps a better way to say, “I’m not sure if I can question this” might be something like, “I’m not sure if me raising this point would significantly frustrate people like Dustin.” I’m not expecting him or others at OP to consider potentially-critical information as the kind that should be, say, legally attacked, but I do expect them to dislike a lot of this sort of conversation, and I don’t feel like I understand where the lines are.
I don’t particularly blame OP / EA leaders for this challenge. More that i think it’s the kind of thing that comes out of most extreme power imbalances, and it takes a good deal of work to get around it.
Thanks, that’s a helpful clarification! “Allowed” still feels like a strong choice of words, but I can see that the line between that and “I’m not sure if this will be perceived as annoying” is blurry, and also, the latter feels frustrating enough.
I’m only speaking in personal capacity here, but my strong preference would always be for these questions to be raised!