All of eukaryote's Comments + Replies

One year later:

Yes, tandem is my alt account, I made the original. Really pleased this resonated with people. I just went to the Bay Secular Solstice and was thinking about these two again, and the work of making the world and ourselves the best we can be. Have one more bonus:

(Jet Lag: The Game is really good, if you like competitive game shows about train logistics. I recommend starting with the first season of Tag Across Europe.)

2
Felix Wolf 🔸
I just revisited this post from my forum wrapped and am glad about the bonus comic. Thank you for the nice content. :)

I didn't do the trial to raise awareness, to be clear, I did the trial to contribute to the treatment research and for money. I suppose I wrote about it to raise awareness.

Right, but "people who are inclined to read many pages worth of material and think deeply on it" very much selects for people who have positive experiences with that material.

2
Milan Griffes
I agree!
3
Michael St Jules 🔸
Also accessible here for readability. Also see this earlier post for more context.

I think this is a great point, and I think it's alright here.

The part of the series that I'm about to go into (as of today) contains a panoply of possible explanations for the apparent paradox, none of which are "it wouldn't actually be that bad" or "it just hasn't occurred to anyone."

And this series is pretty mild in terms of the large body of "are we prepared against X type of bioweapon attack" literature and analyses out there (for which the answer is usually "no, we are not prepared).

The series ... (read more)

7
RomeoStevens
Thanks for the substantive engagement even though I was pretty terse on justification. I'm less concerned when I see engagement with differential infohazard analysis (i.e. some parts of this might have problems and some might not). I still feel a sense of caution about EA getting involved in this area given its poor track record of taking into account existing best practices/chesterton fences. +1 for comparing it to existing works in the area to help reason about this.

It seems quite possible. Japan aside (and those largely weren't "accidents"), the anthrax accidentally released at Sverdlovsk by the USSR program is a major one. I think Alibek describes more in his book Biohazard, but I'm not certain, and nothing else on the scale of that incident. It seems possible that there have been more accidental releases to civilian populations, than just these.

I had an interview with them under the same circumstances and also had the belief reporting trial. (I forget if I had the Peter Singer question.) I can confirm that it was supremely disconcerting.

At the very least, it's insensitive - they were asking for a huge amount of vulnerability and trust in a situation where we both knew I was trying to impress them in a professional context. I sort of understand why that exercise might have seemed like a good idea, but I really hope nobody does this in interviews anymore.

Georgia here - The direct context, "Research also shows that diverse teams are more creative, more innovative, better at problem-solving, and better at decision-making," is true based on what I found.

What I found also seemed pretty clear that diversity doesn't, overall, have a positive or negative effect on performance. Discussing that seems important if you're trying to argue that it'll yield better results, unless you have reason to think that EA is an exception.

(E.g., it seems possible that business teams aren't a good comparison for local g... (read more)

1
Chris Leong
So your research suggests that it improves creativity, innovation, problem solving and decision making, but not performance. That is a rather unexpected result. Do you have any thoughts on why this did not result in an improvement in total performance?

As a relevant piece of data:

I looked into the 4 sources you cite in your article as improving the effectiveness of diverse teams and found the following:

  • 1 didn't replicate, and the replication found the opposite effect with a much larger sample size (which you link to in your article)
  • One is a Forbes article that cites a variety of articles, two of which I looked into and didn't say at all what the Forbes article said they say, with the articles usually saying "we found no significant effects"

  • One study you cited directly found the opposite

... (read more)