Probably some combination of Medlife Crisis videos and the blog debate between ACX and Compass Rose.
DanielFilan
Karma: 1,376
Supplements:
Creatine (in capsule form because I find the powder gross)
Freeze-dried mussel powder (contains B12, I don’t think mussels are sentient in the relevant way).
Vitamin D, altho I’m just going thru my stockpile and don’t think it’s actually useful to take.
Iron (I’m one of the people in EVN’s exploratory trial thing)
I should say: I haven’t actually noticed big differences from any of these, but I’m not convinced that I would notice them even if they were real and mattered.
Sources:
EVN’s stuff seems legit.
Back when I was getting into veganism I read VeganHealth.org, and it seemed like it was less propagandistic than e.g. NutritionFacts.org.
OK apparently Nicole is normally the head but the current head is Chana Messinger, who indeed has a STEM background. At any rate, I think it’s wrong to say that the whole community health team has a STEM background, but I guess that’s not the most important point for the discussion.
It looks like the head of CEA community health is Nicole Ross, whose LinkedIn lists a degree in philosophy, which I also wouldn’t consider a STEM subject.
A brief response:
I think it’s fine to criticize things people write, rather than asking questions (particularly given that in the post you say you won’t be engaging with the comments).
I did read the original post.
At no point did I claim that you were being emotional.
I live in Berkeley and I don’t know who you are (altho it’s possible I haven’t connected your pseudonym to your real-life identity).
I think it’s fine to write things anonymously, as long as you’re fine with people not taking things you say about your identity for granted.
I don’t think “social work and rape are so strongly related that working in one field gives you experience in the other”, I just think that social work and sociology aren’t what I would normally consider “STEM”. [EDIT: I also don’t disbelieve the quoted claim—maybe social work involves talking to rape victims? I just know very little about social work.]
I guess it’s possible that CEA ought to recognize your work more, but the average person reading this isn’t in a state to conclude that one way or the other given that they don’t know who you are and you’ve (maybe correctly) decided to be guarded about what you share.
“I think you also don’t place value getting survivors to tell me their stories”—I don’t know who you are, but for all I know you’re a good person for people to talk to.
“and don’t place value on the effort I’ve put into the other work I do or investigative processes informed by law”—your post includes almost nothing about this, so it would be hard for me to properly appreciate it.
“I strongly feel my work in doing so deserves to be held in high regard”—I think it’s fine to decline to do work without being paid, or to tell people why they should respect your work. But the latter sort of requires you to actually say who you are (so they know who to respect) and what you’ve actually done (so they know why to respect you), which the post is pretty light on.
OP strikes me as hyperbolic in a way that makes me disinclined to trust it.
THAT’S A TOTAL OF 44. DENY THE “ADJACENT’, BUT YOU CAN’T DENY THE THIRTY STRONG THAT I, A SOLO PERSON, PERSONALLY FOUND.
I can’t deny this, in the sense that I don’t know that it’s false, but OP gives no evidence for this beyond the bare claims. OP doesn’t provide any details that people could investigate to verify, and OP writes anonymously on a one-off account, so that people can’t check how trustworthy OP has been in the past or on similar topics.
Now, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying things without proof or evidence—and in fact, it wouldn’t shock me to hear that there were 30 incidents of rape or prolonged abuse in EA circles in something like a 6-year period (I’ve had friends tell me of some sexual infractions, and I don’t see why I would have heard about all of them) - but I think one should own that they’re doing that.
So much so that your CH team not only tried to take credit for some of my work (SEE HERE—https://imgur.com/Rj5eo24)
That link shows an anonymous commenter saying that they reported people to CEA community health, and Julia Wise agreeing, thanking that commenter, and saying that the reports helped CEA keep the accused out of some CEA spaces. Assuming the anonymous commenter is OP, I think it’s misleading to summarize this as the CH team “tr[ying] to take credit for some of [OP’s] work”.
Why aren’t the orgs speaking to the mistakes they’ve made that led to the publication of the Time article a wake up to do better instead of indecisiveness, defensiveness, and contradicting each other in public comments in this forum (see: Julia and Chana contradictory statements on the dude in London who wanted a young lady to stay at his house)?
I have no idea what these contradictory statements are, altho I admit to not having followed discussion of this topic on the EA forum carefully. The fact that OP didn’t link them, and the questionable representations elsewhere in the post make me not inclined to trust that there is such a contradiction.
Point (3) - that EA has used me for free work for six years, AND caused me additional harm on top of that (and no one has apologized when I brought this to their attention over a day ago).
As far as I can tell from what OP writes, the situation summarized here as “EA… us[ing OP] for free work for six years” is that people who have been sexually assualted have contacted OP, OP has reported them to CEA, and people from CEA have had conversations with OP. OP also refers to CEA community health as asking or telling OP to ask people who have accused others of sexual assault to contact CEA community health. I guess this is compatible with something like “We would appreciate it if you asked people to report accusations to us” as well as “Tell people to report accusations to us”, but neither strike me as asking OP to do “free work”. Unless “EA” is meant to refer to the people who have been sexually assaulted, or unless there’s more OP hasn’t said, I don’t see how OP’s summary is at all fair.
I’ve never—not once—had a survivor be unhappy with my handling of their situation, and the survivors have commented in my favor HERE (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JCyX29F77Jak5gbwq/ea-sexual-harassment-and-abuse) as well, for the work I’ve done for survivors since November 2016.
Not knowing who OP is it’s hard to tell whether this is right—but guessing at what username OP used in that discussion, I see one person recommending working with them, which is fewer endorsements than I would have guessed from taking this sentence straightforwardly.
Unlike the folks at RP I’ve spoken to and CH @ CEA, my background isn’t in STEM.
Julia Wise’s LinkedIn lists degrees in sociology and social work, as well as experience in social work and mental health clinics. She is on the community health team at CEA, and in fact I think leads it? [EDIT: I’ve now heard that she doesn’t lead the community health team]
Disclaimer: I don’t have any particular inside information about CEA community health, and in particular I don’t know how good a job they do at things.
Here is a full transcript of the episode (not prepared by me): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4NFDwQRhHBB2Ad4ZY/the-filan-cabinet-podcast-with-oliver-habryka-transcript
Can you let me know if you can now find it on stitcher?
I do not read Oli as saying that Tara was at Leverage, and I’ve never heard that she was.
AXRP: Store, Patreon, Video
Thanks for letting me know—it should be added now.
Podcast with Oli Habryka on LessWrong / Lightcone Infrastructure
But my second critique is more substantive. It is that apart from being rationally ignorant on these issues, most voters probably will be irrational on them too.
I’m kind of confused about this point—why expect big funders to be less irrational? You point to ‘incentives’ but AFAICT those incentives will push big donors to do good things given their beliefs, but not to be less irrational about what beliefs to hold (unlike in the for-profit company space where if you make less money you’re less of a thing in the market).
Ah, looks like he tweeted it out https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1613522399269650434
How do we know this is actually him?
Overall I think any reasonable person should have an intuition that the site is dodgy after skimming a few articles
Eh I agree tbh but there’s a gap between “dodgy” and “horrific[ally] racist”, which was “Shakeel’s concern” that you mentioned.
It doesn’t seem that hard to believe that someone could see a far-right website and not notice that they occasionally publish crazy anti-semitic content (e.g. if I look at their front page, many of the articles seem kooky to me, but none seem racist). To be honest, given that the last name Shapiro seems to mostly be used by people with Jewish ancestry, I’d be kind of surprised if his brother knew about that content before submitting (altho I suppose anything is possible).
Podcast interview with Carrick Flynn
I think it doesn’t even make sense at first glance! Anyway I retain my right to complain about bad things that are common.
Re: the MIRI employees, it seems relevant that they’re “former” rather than current employees, given that you’d expect there to be more former than current employees, and former employees presumably don’t have MIRI as a major figure in their lives.