Lila

Karma: 399

Lila Nov 13, 2017, 12:45 AM
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Kathy_Forth’s comment on: An Exploration of Sexual Violence Reduction for Effective Altruism Potential

I’m convinced that most people have an instinctive reaction to sexual violence which involves psychological trauma being triggered automatically.

There’s no reason that this should be the case.

Yet, if a child is raped, that’s psychologically devastating. The damage can last their whole lives. Explain that.

There are a lot of factors that are difficult to untangle. The ways that adults or peers react can certainly have an influence. I heard one father saying that a sexual abuser “stole his daughter’s innocence”, or something in a similar vein. While I’m sure he meant well, I’m not sure if these types of heavy-handed symbolic declarations are constructive for healing. I think sexual abuse could be prevented and its effects could be mitigated if people could have conversations (including with children) about healthy sexuality versus violence and coercion. Instead, some people seem more upset about the “sexual” side than the abuse side.

Lila Nov 12, 2017, 10:10 PM
17 points
0 ∶ 0
on: An Exploration of Sexual Violence Reduction for Effective Altruism Potential

103 − 607 male rapists in EA

False precision much? This seems like an inappropriately specific number—it makes it sound like you have concrete evidence, but in reality you’re just multiplying the number of men in EA by 6%. I hope that this number won’t start getting spread around.

A more tractable approach to reducing the trauma from sexual violence might be to change perceptions of sexuality. Many people believe that it’s important for women to be sexually “pure”, which is one reason that female victims experience trauma.

Feminists, to their credit, reject such notions, but if anything they interpret sexual violence even more symbolically—as an attempt to have power over women and “violate” them, whatever that means. According to feminist theory, rape is never about sexual gratification. However, there isn’t much evidence for this interpretation. Interviews with convicted sex offenders reveal a mix of motivations. In addition, there does seem to be a relationship between sexual attractiveness and probability of rape. For example, one study looked at female robbery victims, using age as a proxy for attractiveness. (For obvious reasons, we can’t actually study the attractiveness of victims.) Middle-aged and older women were far less likely to be raped by their assailant.

Setting aside the empirical question of whether rape is actually about destroying the victim’s autonomy, it seems unhelpful to interpret negative events in one’s life symbolically, personalize them, or cast them as part of a larger conspiracy. Cognitive behavioral therapy and other techniques may help victims overcome irrational negative beliefs.
What links here?
- xccf's comment on An Exploration of Sexual Violence Reduction for Effective Altruism Potential by Kathy_Forth (Nov 13, 2017, 10:57 AM; 23 points)

Lila Nov 9, 2017, 11:46 PM
0 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Living in an Inadequate World
Treating Candida via diet isn’t accepted science: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/expert-answers/candida-cleanse/faq-20058174

So it’s not surprising a doctor wouldn’t diagnose you.

Lila Nov 5, 2017, 1:42 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: Moloch’s Toolbox (1/2)
I consider GWAS applied, not basic, because it’s not mechanistic. Most biologists I’ve spoken to have a fairly poor opinion of GWAS, as do I. Much of the biological research that gets funded is basic.

Lila Nov 4, 2017, 10:51 PM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Moloch’s Toolbox (1/2)
The p-value critique doesn’t apply to many scientific fields. As far as I can tell, it mostly applies to social science and maybe epidemiological research. In basic biological research, a paper wouldn’t be published in a good journal on the basis of a single p-value. In fact, many papers don’t have any p-values. When p-values are presented, they’re often so low (10^-15) that they’re unnecessary confirmations of a clearly visible effect. (Silly, in my opinion.) Most papers rely on many experiments, which ideally provide multiple lines of evidence. It’s also common to propose a mechanism that’s plausible given the existing literature. In some cases, you can see the fingerprints of skeptical reviewers. For example, when I see “to exclude the possibility that”, I assume that this experiment was added later at the demand of a reviewer. Published biology is often wrong, but for subtler reasons.

Lila Nov 4, 2017, 10:32 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: An Equilibrium of No Free Energy
I’m a current PhD student in computational biology, so I can offer a perspective on academic research in biology. I agree that biologists aren’t optimizing for benefiting humanity—instead, I think high-quality basic research gets the most respect and that academia can’t be beat here in most cases.

EAs attempting to do biology outside academia have two options. They can try to circumvent basic research and simply “hack” biology by experimenting with various interventions. However, given the complexity of biological systems, this seems unlikely to work unless you have access to tens of thousands of organic compounds and a way to screen them, for example. And this obviously puts you in competition with pharmaceutical companies. Or they can try to make novel biological discoveries. (I include “translating” basic research to applications here, given how easy it is to misinterpret findings.) Much of the life extension, genetic engineering, and transhumanism community relies on this. Even if you believe that a field is being ignored by academia for political reasons, you’re still unlikely to advance knowledge outside academia. Academia teaches a framework for studying biology that’s impossible to replicate independently:

“It’s not just that you have to read lots of books, although you do. It’s the experience of working with an advisor and other grad students, of coming up with theories and having them be shot down. Two stories I’ve heard from multiple grad student friends: “I spent two months working on something really cool, and in the first thirty seconds of presenting it to my advisor she came up with a simple proof it could never work” and “I spent two months working on something really cool, and in the first thirty seconds of presenting it to my advisor, she said ‘Oh yeah, that’s Smith’s Lemma, very exciting when it was published forty years ago.’” But eventually you come out of it not just with book learning, but with the thought-patterns and methods of a field baked into your brain, a strong sense of what is or isn’t interesting, can or can’t be done.”

Lila Oct 27, 2017, 1:19 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Chris Leong’s comment on: Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA
Where do we draw the line? Is intrinsic abilities an acceptable topic of casual discussion? Do you think it would be humiliating for people who are being discussed as having less intrinsic ability?

Lila Oct 27, 2017, 12:31 AM
13 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: vipulnaik’s comment on: Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA
I can see 1-3 being problems to some extent (and I don’t think Kelly would disagree)… but “overrepresentation of vegetarians and vegans”?? You might as well complain about an overrepresentation of people who donate to charity.

Lila Oct 26, 2017, 11:58 PM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Askell’s comment on: Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

So I think that if you identify with or against some group (e.g. ‘anti-SJWs’), then anything that people say that pattern matches to something that this group would say triggers a reflexive negative reaction. This manifests in various ways: you’re inclined to attribute way more to the person’s statements than what they’re actually saying or you set an overly demanding bar for them to “prove” that what they’re saying is correct. And I think all of that is pretty bad for discourse.

This used to be me… It wasn’t so much my beliefs that changed (I’m not a leftist/feminist/etc). It was more a change in attitude, related to why I rejected ultra-strict interpretations of utilitarianism. Not becoming more agreeable or less opinionated… just not feeling like I was on a life-or-death mission. Anyway, happy to discuss these things privately, including with people who are still on the anti-SJW mission.

Lila Oct 26, 2017, 11:41 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: xccf’s comment on: Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA
But you don’t want discrimination hypotheses to be discussed either? I guess that could be an acceptable compromise, to not debate the causes of disparities but at the same time focus on improving diversity in recruitment.

Lila Oct 26, 2017, 10:36 PM
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: xccf’s comment on: Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA
I think there’s a bit of an empathy gap in this community. When people are angry for what seems to be no reason, a good first step is to ask whether you’ve done something that made them feel unsafe/humiliated/demeaned/etc, even if that wasn’t your intention. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how unsolicited exploration of “other hypotheses” (cough cough) for racial and gender disparities could be very distressing for the people who are being discussed as if they’re not there.

Lila Oct 26, 2017, 5:24 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: vipulnaik’s comment on: Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA
Politics is rarely used as an example of a positive environment for women.

It’s not just the actual numbers that are concerning (though I disagree with you that a 70% skew can be brushed off). It’s the exclusionary behavior within EA.

Lila Oct 26, 2017, 5:19 PM
10 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA
Thanks Kelly. I agree that this is a problem in EA in ways that people don’t realize. In retrospect, I feel stupid for not realizing how casual discussion of IQ and eugenics would be hurtful. Same thing with applying that classic EA skepticism to people’s lived experiences.

Culture isn’t the main reason I left EA, but it’s #3. And I think it contributes to the top two reasons I felt alienated: the mockery of moral views that deviate from strict utilitarianism, and what I believed were naive over-confident tactics.
What links here?
- Zeke_Sherman's comment on An Exploration of Sexual Violence Reduction for Effective Altruism Potential by Kathy_Forth (Nov 21, 2017, 10:13 PM; -1 points)

Lila Jul 22, 2017, 9:32 AM
6 points
2 ∶ 0
on: An Argument for Why the Future May Be Good

Humans are generally not evil, just lazy

?

Human history has many examples of systematic unnecessary sadism, such as torture for religious reasons. Modern Western moral values are an anomaly.

Lila Feb 20, 2017, 5:02 AM
8 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: kbog’s comment on: Why I left EA
You’re free to offer your own thoughts on the matter, but you seemed to be trying to engage me in a personal debate, which I have no interest in doing. This isn’t a clickbait title, I’m not concern trolling, I really have left the EA community. I don’t know of any other people who have changed their mind about EA like this, so I thought my story might be of some interest to people. And hey, maybe a few of y’all were wondering where I went.

Lila Feb 20, 2017, 2:10 AM
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: kbog’s comment on: Why I left EA

I don’t expect you to convince me to stay.

Maybe I should have said “I’d prefer if you didn’t try to convince me to stay”. Moral philosophy isn’t a huge interest of mine anymore, and I don’t really feel like justifying myself on this. I am giving an account of something that happened to me. Not making an argument for what you should believe. I was very careful to say “in my view” for non-trivial claims. I explicitly said “Prioritizing animals (particularly invertebrates) relied on total-view utilitarianism (for me).” So I’m not interested in hearing why prioritizing animals does not necessarily rely on total view utilitarianism.

Lila Feb 20, 2017, 1:03 AM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Chris Leong’s comment on: Why I left EA

To the extent that we decide to devote resources to helping other people, it makes sense that we should do this to the maximal extent possible

I don’t think I do anything in my life to the maximal extent possible

Lila Feb 19, 2017, 9:53 PM
9 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: ozymandias’s comment on: Why I left EA
That’s a good point, though my main reason for being wary of EV is related to rejecting utilitarianism. I don’t think that quantitative, systematic ways of thinking are necessarily well-suited to thinking about morality, any more than they’d be suited to thinking about aesthetics. Even in biology (my field), a priori first-principles approaches can be misleading. Biology is too squishy and context-dependent. And moral psychology is probably even squishier.

EV is one tool in our moral toolkit. I find it most insightful when comparing fairly similar actions, such as public health interventions. It’s sometimes useful when thinking about careers. But I used to feel compelled to pursue careers that I hated and probably wouldn’t be good at, just on the off chance it would work. Now I see morality as being more closely tied to what I find meaning in (again, anti-realism). And I don’t find meaning in saving a trillion EV lives or whatever.

Why I left EA

LilaFeb 19, 2017, 5:42 PM

48 points

59 comments2 min readEA link

Lila Aug 18, 2016, 3:56 AM
−2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: On making spaces friendlier to parents
“But I think supporting the continuation of humanity and the socialization of the next generation can be considered a pretty basic part of human life.”

Maybe it’s a good thing at the margins, but we have more than enough people breeding at this point. There’s nothing particularly noble about it, anymore than it’s noble for an EA to become a sanitation worker. Sure, society would fall apart without sanitation workers, but still…

You’re entitled to do what you want with your life, but there’s no reason to be smug about it.