This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Update to @Quantumfreakonomics 's post about EA Drama downthread.
For context:
Basically, a major EA figure was outed as having sexually harassed at least five women, some he had plausible professional power over. The community health team in EA knew about it and essentially did nothing until the TIME article outed it.
Even now, he's getting the kid glove treatment - temporarily resigning and not taking on new mentorships, but continuing all his other duties. Realistically he'll probably still function as an informal board member.
In addition there have been two other major updates, and I cannot overstate the importance here. Both of the heads of the two biggest EA organizations, Holden Karnofsky at Open Philanthropy and Max Dalton at the Centre for Effective Altruism are stepping down. In Holden's case, temporarily to work on AI risk.
Max Dalton at CEA
Holden at Open Phil
If you haven't been following Effective Altruism this may just seem like another set of scandals - it's not. The past 6 months or so have been a constant barrage of issues, starting with SBF's massive fraud and the collapse of FTX, the issues with Nick Bostrom being outed as a racist/HBD enthusiast, the TIME article mentioned above, and finally both of these central figures resigning. There have been many more petty dramas playing out as well.
This is the crucible, the defining moment for Effective Altruism. Whether the movement lives or dies will likely be determined in the next year.
Whoever takes over the reigns of the movement, it's clear that shifts are happening and power is up for grabs. With AGI likely around the corner, this realignment of power in the EA sphere has the potential to determine the singleton who controls the future.
Expect a bloodbath either way.
I guess what I find strange about this whole thing is the idea that effective altruism needs to be a 'community'. I always considered it more of a civilisational meme, like rule of law or double-entry bookkeeping. It's an improvement on the vague altruism that preceded it, but it's not a religion or a social movement.
Like, I would consider myself an effective altruist, inasfar as I donate some of my money to charities recommended by effective altruist organisations. But apparently I've been doing it wrong. What I really need to do is move to San Francisco and join a polycule or something.
I think this is part of why I'm not that worried if organizational EA falls as a result of all these scandals. The kind of number crunching that is the most central part of EA is going to be something that some nerd somewhere is always going to be able to do, and so it will probably always remain possible to - without much effort on one's own part - find the most measurably effective and underfunded charities, and donate to them no matter what state organizational EA is in in a few years.
I know a lot of people were worried about organizational EA becoming parasitic, and growing like a cancer until it takes more and more of the money that should be going to good causes, so maybe all of this will be for the best in the end, as it might lead to a much-needed fracturing and decentralization of an increasingly centralized movement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link