Hi! My name is Charlie, and I am the new executive director of Effective Altruism Norway. I was born and raised in the USA, but I have lived in Norway now for the last 10 years and have dual citizenship.
My interests include animal welfare, future history, politics, and meta-EA questions
Sure! My post definitely refers to Bostrom, and I think your original question does as well, if I am not mistaken.
Which part of his statement do you think he disliked? If he disliked the whole thing and was embarrassed by it, why do include a paragraph making sure everyone understands that you are uncertain of the scientific state of whether or not black people have a genetic disposition to be less intelligent than white people? Why ask that at all, in any circumstances, let alone an apology where it appears that you are apologizing for saying black people are less intelligent than white people, do you ask if there might be a genetic disposition to inferior intelligence?
If he truly believes that was just the epistemically right thing to do, then he needs to check his privilege and reflect on whether that was the appropriate place to have the debate and also consider what I write below:
I would suggest looking at his statement as:
1. I regret what I said.
2. I actually care a lot for the group that I wrote offensive things about.
3. But was I right in the first place? I don’t know, I am not an expert.
This is exactly a type of “apology” that Donald Trump or any other variety of “anti-authority” sceptics provide when making a pseudo-scientific claim. There is no epistemic integrity here, there is an attempt to create ambiguity to deflect criticism, blow a dogwhistle, or to make sure that the question remains in the public debate.
Posing the question is not an intellectual triumph, it is a rhetorical tool.
This is all true even if he does not do so with overt intent. You can be racist even if you do not intend to be racist or see yourself as racist.
Does Donald Trump have epistemic integrity because he doesn’t back down when presented with facts or arguments that show his beliefs to be incorrect? No, he typically retreats into a position where he and his supporters claim that the science is more complicated than it really is and he is being silenced by a mysterious authority (greater than POTUS, somehow) and that they need to hold fast in the face of adversity so that the truth can prevail.
That is doubling down on pseudoscience, not epistemic integrity. Bostrom is not Galileo here, he is not being imprisoned for his science, he is being criticised for defending racism a, pointedly pseudo-scientific concept.
There is no room for racism in EA.
″ Some people are good at noticing when the authorities around them and their social community and the people on their side are making bad arguments. These people are valuable. They notice important things. They point out when the emperor has no clothes. And they literally built the EA movement.”
Just so I understand,
1. Part of your suspicion of the “racism is both bad and a pseudoscience” is that there is a consensus around this that includes “authorities”;
2. Yes there were bad actors but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water;
3. Those arguing for using race to measure people are comparable to early EAers developing the INT criteria for measuring the impact of health and wellbeing interventions?
Also, could you further develop, “Opinions that are stupid are going to be clearly stupid.” and criteria for this?
Where do you draw the line at epistemically indefensible? Is there anything that is not epistemically indefensible?
Also just so I understand, is doubling down on pseudoscience like, for example, race and intelligence, is being epistemically....bold? Integral? Are you willing to make space in EA for flat earth theory? For lizard people in the center of the earth? Anti-semitism? Phrenology?
I hate those words, it is not me.
Look how much I have done for black people.
But are black people genetically inferior? I don’t know, I am not an expert. I am just asking the question.
Donald Trump could have published this. I don’t know if Bostrom understands this, but this formulation is practically a textbook racist dogwhistle .
It does seem clear though that Bostrom is not apologizing for his views, he just regrets getting caught using a slur, and is upset people might actually judge him.
How can CEA be a leader if it isolates itself from the very community it wants to lead when things get difficult and complicated?
Hi Thanks for the reply! I am not a phage expert myself, there is just some interest in this field in Norway as well right now. If there are any further developments I will try to keep you in the loop!
I would have also suggested a prize that generally confirms your views, but with an argument that you consider superior to your previous beliefs.
This prize is similar to the bias of printing research that claims something new rather than confirming previous research.
That would also resolve any particular bias baked into the process that compels people to convince you that you have to update instead of actually figuring out what they actually think is right.
Could you provide a deeper idea of what you mean by “misaligned”?
Thank you for writing this. While recognizing the important role religion plays in society, I feel that even though you take your preferences seriously, you did not consider the religious world-view and the consequences of it.
What if, in fact, there is a God? What if a religion is correct? What if there is meaning to the universe? Unless you ask those questions, in my opinion, you are just using religion as a weathervane to determine human values, not actually addressing the religious experience. You are not explaining why religion is so prominent or why it is so profoundly different than a materialist world view.
To prompt some thinking on this:
Why, in fact, are people religious? What if an AGI began to believe in God, or had a transcendental experience of its own that informed its actions? Would you then call it misaligned? How do you think being religious would affect you?
Another org worth looking at is: UN Principles for Responsible Investment . They work on shareholder advocacy and have a lot of experience now, though they focus on issues EA might not prioritize.
What an awesome write-up Anna, thanks!
Hi Pia,
Thanks for the reply, that is helpful! Hiring is definitely difficult and getting it right has absurdly good benefits! Tangential to this, I think Open Phil has recently been putting a lot of effort into having a good recruitment team. Might be worth getting in touch with them!
Could you write a little about the successes, positive impact, and theory of change of the recruitment industry? My personal and professional experience has not given me a positive perspective on the role of recruiters or their success in finding the right candidates. The success rate of recruited candidates doesn’t seem to be (in my anecdotal experience) any greater than those who are vetted by the org or company in a normal process. Have I just been unlucky?
Hi Nathan,
Thanks for the write up, I am really happy to see more political thinking here on the forum!
Just to pull a little on your thinking of impact in politics, which role in politics do you believe has the most leverage? Do you see more leverage by being a voting member of a party, an expert who lobby’s for a particular cause, or being a politician? Something else?
Also, in terms of cause areas, my impression is that we in EA are reluctant to frame issues in any way other than that which fits the EA moral framework even if that might get more traction for a cause. Do you have any good ideas or examples of how we could frame cause areas in a manner that helps us meet voters and politicians halfway and on accessible terms?
Thanks!
Charlie
Thanks Julia!
Hi Julia, this is a really valuable post. I am curious about what you and the team consider the scope of your responsibilities. Do you feel responsible for all the parts of the EA universe? Or on the other extreme are you only focused on groups and events that are directly affiliated to CEA, either through people or funding? Are there any events or groups that might be considered very EA or EA-aligned where you would say, ‘We are not the right community health team to work on this?’
I have no specific cases or issues that I am alluding to, I am just curious :)
I suspect the curve is even more dramatic now. It would be great if we could get an updated version of that logged-in users graph. Would also be really interesting to see anonymous viewers as well!
I suspect the curve is even more dramatic now. It would be great if we could get an updated version of that logged-in users graph. Would also be really interesting to see anonymous viewers as well!
Interesting stuff and out of my depth! Seems like something I should nerd out on for awhile :) Anywhere you suggest I could start?
Could you elaborate? I would be interested in hearing what you mean by inquisition-y and what parts you are referring to.