Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by Sharmake
3 min read 0

19

Building effective altruismCommunityDiversity and inclusion
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-spaces-and-competing-access-needs

An important post about how both safe spaces both matter, but also how expansion of safe spaces or radical changes within the safe space can lead to bad outcomes. In this, like almost everywhere else, trade-offs are inevitable for what is safe to one is dangerous to another.

More importantly, it talks about how some people for their own good can't be a support for other people's bad experiences, but that if you are willing to support them, then you need to support them all the way. It's talking about anorexics, but I think it generalizes to marginalized, discriminated or unloved groups.

And yes, the internet is a problem because it places different norms together in places like Twitter and leaves them to fight each other.

Here are the most important quotes, according to me:

Safe spaces are great. Safe spaces are a really important thing. But sometimes I see people talk about them like the point is to expand them outwards and make the entire world a safe space, which sounds great…

and which really won’t work. And the way it fails will hurt a lot of people.

because say there’s a religious community. It’s fair of them to want a safe space where atheists won’t come in and say ‘these beliefs make no sense’ and 'have you looked at double-blind prayer tests?’

And say there’s a person who was raised in an extremely coercive faith community, and now they’ve decided it’s not true, and they’re in the process of angrily rejecting hateful and damaging things that they internalized as religious teachings. (I know several people like this).

These people both need safe spaces. One needs a safe space to practice their traditions without people interrupting to say 'none of this is true’, and the other one needs a space to say 'none of this is true!’ and 'I can’t believe I agreed with this nonsense!’ and 'wow look at these double-blind prayer tests!’ What’s disruptive for one person is healing and important and necessary to another

The problem is the internet.

like, to be clear, I don’t think it’s morally obligatory to support anorexics. There are a lot of people who, for their own mental health, cannot have a supportive healthy relationship with someone who has disordered thoughts around their weight/the desire to lose weight dangerously/scary beliefs about their own body and habits/whatever.

And if you think that it’s just not going to be healthy for you, it’s okay to say to a friend “I can’t be part of those conversations” and if the conversations are turning out to be unavoidable to say “maybe we need some distance”.

What I think is a problem is when people think it’s “supportive” to be there emotionally for your friend only when they’re saying the right things, only when they’re expressing a desire to beat the eating disorder and get to a healthy weight, only when they’re not experiencing distorted thinking. Because that just creates a dynamic where most of our intimate relationships are founded on not admitting (to ourselves or to other people) that we feel conflicted about recovery, that we’ve found mental workarounds that don’t actually challenge our distorted thoughts but which help make us functional, that we actually don’t think of our eating disorder as a separate beast that lunged at us from outside but as a natural outgrowth of our own preferences.

If you say “I can only support you when you’re working on recovery”, what you get is people who will learn, automatically, to lie and assure you they’re working on recovery, and who will have to seek out the actual hard emotional support from someone else.

And if you say “I can only support you while you’re working on recovery, because you expressing your distorted thoughts is an evil and malicious act on your part”, then, congrats, you’ve just given someone with an anxiety/self-loathing disorder something new to be anxious and self-loathing about!

It’s always okay to say “I can’t listen to this”. It’s pretty much never okay to say “how dare you experience this.”

19

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
32
Introducing Effective Accountability: Project and Job Search Accountability Groups
2 authors
· · 2m read
1
1
15
Applications to EAGxCDMX close in a week!
cescorza
· · 2m read
0
0
2
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
View more