I worry that, due to their high levels of openness and conscientiousness, EAs have an overly high “burden of proof” bar to consider someone a malicious actor. Taking one look at this Émile person’s online content says to me he shouldn’t be taken seriously. I can’t tell if EAs lack a “gut instinct” OR they have one but ignore it to a harmful degree!
I think the main thing is their astonishing success. Like, whatever else anyone wants to say to Émile, they are damn hard working and driven. It’s just in their case they are driven by fear and pure hatred of EA.
Approximately ~every major news media piece critical of EA (or covering EA with a critical lens, which are basically the same thing over the last year and a half) seems to link to/quote Émile at some point as a reputable and credible report on EA.
Sure, those more familiar with EA might be able to see the hyperbole, but it’s not imo out there to imagine that Émile’s immensely negative presentation of EA being picked out by major outlets has contributed to the fall of EA’s reputation over the last couple of years.
Like, I was wish we could “collectively agree to make Émile irrelevant”, but EA can’t do that unilaterally given the influence their[1] ideas and arguments have had. Those are going to have to be challenged or confronted sooner or later.
I basically agree with @JWS’ response. Generally, one should respond to poor-quality criticism when there is a risk that it will actually interfere with mission accomplishment. (This is in contrast to quality criticism, engagement with which will hopefully make EA better).
In general, the default rule for dealing with bad-faith, delusional, wildly inaccurate, etc. criticism on X and in similar places should be to ignore it. Consider the flat-earther movement. Many people have viewed debunkings of the flat-earther beliefs, which were doubtless produced merely for entertainment value because lots of people think it’s fun to sneer at people with such beliefs. The problem is that now many, many more people know there is a flat-earther movement. The debunkers have given their ideas reach and may have even given them a smidgen of legitimacy by implying they are worth debunking.
If Émile were a random person on X, this would likely be the correct approach. However, their ideas have reach and perceived legitimacy due to all the quotations in major media sources. Repeated appearances in such sources (that are not as a target of the piece) is a strong signal to most people that the individual is unlikely to be seriously dishonest from an intellectual perspective, is worth taking at least somewhat seriously, etc.
Unless the reader is doing a lot of their own investigation, the media imprimatur will still carry some weight. Ignoring someone with such a media imprimatur is ordinarily unwise, as it makes it harder for readers inclined to do so independent research to find out what the critical flaws with that person’s views are. Silence also makes it harder for future editors to detect that there are serious problems with the person and/or their views, and they are likely to defer to their colleagues’ prior assessments that the person’s reactions are worth covering in an EA-related story.
I guess it depends what you mean by taking seriously. I would say Émile is (correctly) not being taken seriously in the sense of expecting their criticisms to have merit?
Yeah—based on the use of “consider someone a malicious actor” in the previous sentence, I read it as ~ “dismiss the person as a bad-faith actor who is trolling and ignore them”
Do you see EAs taking Émile seriously? Émile is banned from the forum, and I would guess most people who know the name at all know it as the name of someone who has been persistently unreasonable in their criticisms.
(btw though, your comment says “he didn’t be taken seriously”, but Émile is a they, not a he)
Hi Ben! I suppose it depends on what each of us means by “taken seriously”. I would prefer a post like this didn’t get 185 karma, because I want us to collectively agree to make Émile irrelevant.
I actually think EAs have been rather quick to dismiss outside folks when those folks have different views on the world (that can’t be easily translated into EA speak).
I would be much more careful about opening up to insiders that are widely praised as leading figures in the community (like SBF) than to outsiders whose views are commonly perceived to be in conflict with the community’s aims.
I worry that, due to their high levels of openness and conscientiousness, EAs have an overly high “burden of proof” bar to consider someone a malicious actor. Taking one look at this Émile person’s online content says to me he shouldn’t be taken seriously. I can’t tell if EAs lack a “gut instinct” OR they have one but ignore it to a harmful degree!
If someone semi-regularly gets quoted in major publications, it is impractical to simply write them off as not to be taken seriously.
(Torres uses they/them pronouns, by the way)
Hi Jason! Thanks for the reply. Would mind laying out why you believe it is impractical to ignore Émile? I think this is a crux.
I think the main thing is their astonishing success. Like, whatever else anyone wants to say to Émile, they are damn hard working and driven. It’s just in their case they are driven by fear and pure hatred of EA.
Approximately ~every major news media piece critical of EA (or covering EA with a critical lens, which are basically the same thing over the last year and a half) seems to link to/quote Émile at some point as a reputable and credible report on EA.
Sure, those more familiar with EA might be able to see the hyperbole, but it’s not imo out there to imagine that Émile’s immensely negative presentation of EA being picked out by major outlets has contributed to the fall of EA’s reputation over the last couple of years.
Like, I was wish we could “collectively agree to make Émile irrelevant”, but EA can’t do that unilaterally given the influence their[1] ideas and arguments have had. Those are going to have to be challenged or confronted sooner or later.
That is, Émile’s
I basically agree with @JWS’ response. Generally, one should respond to poor-quality criticism when there is a risk that it will actually interfere with mission accomplishment. (This is in contrast to quality criticism, engagement with which will hopefully make EA better).
In general, the default rule for dealing with bad-faith, delusional, wildly inaccurate, etc. criticism on X and in similar places should be to ignore it. Consider the flat-earther movement. Many people have viewed debunkings of the flat-earther beliefs, which were doubtless produced merely for entertainment value because lots of people think it’s fun to sneer at people with such beliefs. The problem is that now many, many more people know there is a flat-earther movement. The debunkers have given their ideas reach and may have even given them a smidgen of legitimacy by implying they are worth debunking.
If Émile were a random person on X, this would likely be the correct approach. However, their ideas have reach and perceived legitimacy due to all the quotations in major media sources. Repeated appearances in such sources (that are not as a target of the piece) is a strong signal to most people that the individual is unlikely to be seriously dishonest from an intellectual perspective, is worth taking at least somewhat seriously, etc.
Unless the reader is doing a lot of their own investigation, the media imprimatur will still carry some weight. Ignoring someone with such a media imprimatur is ordinarily unwise, as it makes it harder for readers inclined to do so independent research to find out what the critical flaws with that person’s views are. Silence also makes it harder for future editors to detect that there are serious problems with the person and/or their views, and they are likely to defer to their colleagues’ prior assessments that the person’s reactions are worth covering in an EA-related story.
Emile is often the source for articles on EA in the media. (link to duplicate comment in other subthread, with examples)
I guess it depends what you mean by taking seriously. I would say Émile is (correctly) not being taken seriously in the sense of expecting their criticisms to have merit?
Yeah—based on the use of “consider someone a malicious actor” in the previous sentence, I read it as ~ “dismiss the person as a bad-faith actor who is trolling and ignore them”
Do you see EAs taking Émile seriously? Émile is banned from the forum, and I would guess most people who know the name at all know it as the name of someone who has been persistently unreasonable in their criticisms.
(btw though, your comment says “he didn’t be taken seriously”, but Émile is a they, not a he)
Hi Ben! I suppose it depends on what each of us means by “taken seriously”. I would prefer a post like this didn’t get 185 karma, because I want us to collectively agree to make Émile irrelevant.
Unfortunately, that’s not a viable strategy. Emile is often the source for articles on EA in the media. Here are three examples from the guardian.
I actually think EAs have been rather quick to dismiss outside folks when those folks have different views on the world (that can’t be easily translated into EA speak).
I would be much more careful about opening up to insiders that are widely praised as leading figures in the community (like SBF) than to outsiders whose views are commonly perceived to be in conflict with the community’s aims.