Student of EA and of Cognitive Science at the University of Tübingen with a very broad range of interests. I’m a co-organizer of EA Tübingen and currently the Vice Commissioner of Equality and Diversity for EA Germany.
Jonathan Mannhart
Karma: 165
I value the “it is something that everyone in EA can work on“-sentiment.
Particularily in these times, I think it is excellent to find things that (1) seem robustly good and (2) we can broadly agree on as a community to do more of. It can help alleviate feelings of powerlessness (and help with this is, I believe, one of the things we need.)
This seems to be one of those things. Thanks!
I have a lot of other issues with this comment, but I think just from reading Owen’s statement your portrayal of “if anyone feels feels the need to harm someone’s career to such an extent just because they felt uncomfortable from a single comment” is just objectively false?
who said in a recent email to me “I deliberately did not name you as I want to draw attention to [systemic issues]”
The mischaracterisation of people who come forward like this is something I really really wish nobody in the EA community would do. It can be incredibly hard to come forward. (And comments like this one make it harder.)
(Edit: you edited your comment, and your new wording I also disagree with. It seems to me that “someone’s career deserves to be harmed” wasn’t her motivation. It was drawing attention to systemic issues. Which would make sense and is plausibly very altruistic. To just strongly assume otherwise seems bad faith.
Personally, your phrasing “should grow up” is what I disagree with most. This is a serious conversation and that is not an argument, just an insult, which should have no place here.)
I voted disagree & want to explain why:
I don’t think it’s a “sacred cow” in EA and I don’t think there are a number of reasons our priors should be that way. I very strongly don’t think it can be generalised to that extent. (Background: I’ve been on the receiving end of some bad social dynamics in which polyamory kind of played a role. Think unwanted attention of a person with more social power, not knowing what to do about it, etc. So I think I know what I’m talking about, at least to a small extent.)
I think the main negative prior should be “is there a distinction between professional and romantic/sexual relationships and do people feel pressured/unsafe”.
In the Time piece, in every instance, this has been problematic. I think once social groups remove too many barriers between “professional” and “romantic/sexual”, you can run into problems (i.e. become more “cult-like”). Unhealthy interplay between romantic and professional connections is exactly one of the big things what the community team and people like Julia Wise are concerned with (and what they are for), and I personally think they’re doing a good job.I think it’s perfectly okay (and extremely possible) to be in polyamorous relationships while not violating those boundaries. I think most people do this! (This also shouldn’t matter, but I’m not polyamorous myself.)
I think one can make an argument that goes like “but polyamorous relationships make it more likely for these borders to fade away”. I think that’s not a terrible argument. But again, the job of the people in polyamorous relationships is to not make people uncomfortable and violate their boundaries, especially in professional settings, irrespective of the relationship style they choose! Polyamory itself does not mean “violating people’s boundaries is okay”. So it’s up to the individual people to not behave unethically.
I think if we were to somehow try to intervene in people’s personal lives (i.e. try to discourage or ban polyamorous relationships or try to “inform” people how bad they are), it would go terribly. It’s exactly the kind of lack of separation of professional and romantic spaces that usually leads to problems.We should let people live their personal lives as they wish, as long as they don’t harm anyone. And an insufficient lack of separation between professional and personal spaces (power dynamics making people feel romantically/sexually pressured) counts as harm.
(Edit: While trying to steelman your argument, I came up with this:
I think one can make a very good case for why social groups (like EA) should be really cautious about “are we encouraging people to become poly even if they might not want to”. I think this could be quite bad, and I think it can happen quite easily, even without it being intended. (E.g. most people in one social bubble being poly, it seeming “cool” because it’s modern and open, etc.).
I think that is a dynamic we/EA should be cautious with, and I think it does sometimes play a role in interactions like the ones described in the Time piece, although I absolutely have no idea how often. I’ve also felt small amounts of pressure in that direction myself. But I also see that almost nobody actually intends for that pressure to happen. It’s just a really tricky subject to navigate! But I think “being conscious of that dynamic” is highly likely to be a good thing. And I think your comment is making that argument in a way, which I agree with.)
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Matt and Kelsey are “piling on” in an unfair way here. This thread was about wealth signals & EAG food. I don’t think it’s bad faith criticism comparable to Torres.
In the case of the FTX disaster, people in the thread were speculating that obvious non-frugal behaviour might have been one of the only good signals/red flags regarding SBF prior the public scandal. I think that’s somewhat fair and at least a reasonable hypothesis. CEA spending lots of money on things like food at conferences are also less frugal behaviour compared to the past. I think “being sceptical” is not unreasonable (coupled with the obvious mistakes made regarding trust put in SBF by CEA).
(This doesn’t mean that CEA decisionmaking is obviously flawed in a big way, at all. I don’t think they’re saying that. I think they’re updating something like from CEA making 99.9% correct decisions to 98% correct decisions, non-frugality likely being one of them. We all just have very high standards here!)
“But very very different“.
I think this is not true, at least not in my view. Dehumanising people is really bad, (mostly) independent of which group you’re dehumanising. I think that’s an extremely good social norm to have, and it should be costly to break.
(You seem to argue this specific point a lot, which repeatedly gets downvoted. I thought I’d explain my perspective on why I think that’s the case. I don’t believe your counterpoint works well. “Not great“ is also a serious euphemism for dehumanisation.)