Perhaps because I like saying overrated/underrated.
But also because overrated/underrated is a quick way to provide information. "Forecasting is underrated by the population at large" is much easier to think of than "forecasting is probably rated 4/10 by the population at large and should be rated 6/10"
Over/underrated requires about 3 mental queries, "Is it better or worse than my ingroup thinks" "Is it better or worse than my ingroup thinks?" "Am I gonna have to be clear about what I mean?"
Scoring the current and desired status of something requires about 20 queries "Is 4 fair?" "Is 5 fair" "What axis am I rating on?" "Popularity?" "If I score it a 4 will people think I'm crazy?"...
Like in some sense your right that % forecasts are more useful than "More likely/less likely" and sizes are better than "bigger smaller" but when dealing with intangibles like status I think it's pretty costly to calculate some status number, so I do the cheaper thing.
Also would you prefer people used over/underrated less or would you prefer the people who use over/underrated spoke less? Because I would guess that some chunk of those 50ish karma are from people who don't like the vibe rather than some epistemic thing. And if that's the case, I think we should have a different discussion.
I guess I think that might come from a frustration around jargon or rationalists in general. And I'm pretty happy to try and broaden my answer from over/underrated - just as I would if someone asked me how big a star was and I said "bigger than an elephant". But it's worth noting it's a bandwidth thing and often used because giving exact sizes in status is hard. Perhaps we shouldn't have numbers and words for it, but we don't.
A blogger (Worst Boyfriend Ever) who writes accounts of rapes went to Manifest Summer Camp. He was kicked out
Austin Chen offered him a ticket to manifest, then rescinded it
I looked into Worst Boyfriend Ever. There are some 3rd hand accounts of sexual assualt. He claims his stories are true except for the illegal bits
I said he was probably a rapist. I stand by it.
People from near me on twitter argued that actually he wasn't, or that it was just a kink, or whatever, whatever, whatever
Ugh. Horrible.
I like to call hits and misses. And so, while I have argued this forum is sometimes too sensitive about gender issues or too guilt prone, I would like to give credit that I am glad it seems very unlikely to me that that behaviour would be acceptable here and that it greives me for women to have to read that a guy who writes lurid descriptions of rape would be reflexively welcomed/defended.
My model of poeple who disagree with me is that they would roll their eyes and say 'obviously' and 'we've been saying this for years' and frankly, we still disagree on many things, but it feels right to say "yeah I agree on this point". I don't know what norms should be, but I completely understand why women wouldn't want to be in spaces where they are likely to come into contact with these people.
A single article discussing ~6 cases, written 3 years ago, several of which have been disputed as being EA/rationalist group houses, one of which was someone who has been banned for years (I think) and the other taking place in the UK, does not seem a lot of evidence about current norms in Berkeley.
Wow. This is so hostile. Can you read how you sound?
Is this what we've become? That if I don't use you preferred words, I am "downplay[ing]" "sexual abuse"? I expect this take to age poorly and, as usual for this forum and its comment section to seem deeply defensive and incapable of discussing these issues as we look back.
I have been excluded from events and not told why. It sucks. But I feel like explaining to everyone is a big cost. And only explaining to the easy cases makes the hard cases more obvious. In a world where there are too few events (in my view) I would like event organisers to do as they want without me claiming they have broken some big norm.
But I'm sad exclusions happen, then generally suck, especially for those excluded, but sometimes for the organisers too.
I would like to have some clarity on Community Health's processes:
How many things are reported of what level of concern?
Can they give an example case and how it might be handled?
What are behaviours that might be responded to in different ways.
I think it's reasonable that even if a community doesn't know specific cases, we could know some numbers and a general sense of how things work and what is and isn't acceptable. The fear/inability to have these discussions as a community has, in my view, been a key fracture down the middle of EA for about 5 years.
This feels like a request for the reader to have a specific opinion on how Community Health behaved.
It would make it easier for me to judge here if I knew more about the unpaid work claim. Winning in court doesn't hugely convince me without more details, but if the claim was fair this seems bad and and if it wasn't it seems fine.
Regardless I guess this has been horrible for you.
Having run lots of events, a sense that someone is going to be a pain is a perfectly reasonable reason to exclude them. I generally like event organisers to be able to invite who they want and not who they don't.
Interesting take. I don't like it.
Perhaps because I like saying overrated/underrated.
But also because overrated/underrated is a quick way to provide information. "Forecasting is underrated by the population at large" is much easier to think of than "forecasting is probably rated 4/10 by the population at large and should be rated 6/10"
Over/underrated requires about 3 mental queries, "Is it better or worse than my ingroup thinks" "Is it better or worse than my ingroup thinks?" "Am I gonna have to be clear about what I mean?"
Scoring the current and desired status of something requires about 20 queries "Is 4 fair?" "Is 5 fair" "What axis am I rating on?" "Popularity?" "If I score it a 4 will people think I'm crazy?"...
Like in some sense your right that % forecasts are more useful than "More likely/less likely" and sizes are better than "bigger smaller" but when dealing with intangibles like status I think it's pretty costly to calculate some status number, so I do the cheaper thing.
Also would you prefer people used over/underrated less or would you prefer the people who use over/underrated spoke less? Because I would guess that some chunk of those 50ish karma are from people who don't like the vibe rather than some epistemic thing. And if that's the case, I think we should have a different discussion.
I guess I think that might come from a frustration around jargon or rationalists in general. And I'm pretty happy to try and broaden my answer from over/underrated - just as I would if someone asked me how big a star was and I said "bigger than an elephant". But it's worth noting it's a bandwidth thing and often used because giving exact sizes in status is hard. Perhaps we shouldn't have numbers and words for it, but we don't.
cw rape
Context:
I like to call hits and misses. And so, while I have argued this forum is sometimes too sensitive about gender issues or too guilt prone, I would like to give credit that I am glad it seems very unlikely to me that that behaviour would be acceptable here and that it greives me for women to have to read that a guy who writes lurid descriptions of rape would be reflexively welcomed/defended.
My model of poeple who disagree with me is that they would roll their eyes and say 'obviously' and 'we've been saying this for years' and frankly, we still disagree on many things, but it feels right to say "yeah I agree on this point". I don't know what norms should be, but I completely understand why women wouldn't want to be in spaces where they are likely to come into contact with these people.
Discussing EA drama on the forum might be bad, but discussing it on twitter is, in my view, worse.
A single article discussing ~6 cases, written 3 years ago, several of which have been disputed as being EA/rationalist group houses, one of which was someone who has been banned for years (I think) and the other taking place in the UK, does not seem a lot of evidence about current norms in Berkeley.
If that wasn't your intention, fair enough. Let's try to discuss substance.
What do you think has been reported?
Wow. This is so hostile. Can you read how you sound?
Is this what we've become? That if I don't use you preferred words, I am "downplay[ing]" "sexual abuse"? I expect this take to age poorly and, as usual for this forum and its comment section to seem deeply defensive and incapable of discussing these issues as we look back.
I have been excluded from events and not told why. It sucks. But I feel like explaining to everyone is a big cost. And only explaining to the easy cases makes the hard cases more obvious. In a world where there are too few events (in my view) I would like event organisers to do as they want without me claiming they have broken some big norm.
But I'm sad exclusions happen, then generally suck, especially for those excluded, but sometimes for the organisers too.
I would like to have some clarity on Community Health's processes:
I think it's reasonable that even if a community doesn't know specific cases, we could know some numbers and a general sense of how things work and what is and isn't acceptable. The fear/inability to have these discussions as a community has, in my view, been a key fracture down the middle of EA for about 5 years.
This feels like a request for the reader to have a specific opinion on how Community Health behaved.
It would make it easier for me to judge here if I knew more about the unpaid work claim. Winning in court doesn't hugely convince me without more details, but if the claim was fair this seems bad and and if it wasn't it seems fine.
Regardless I guess this has been horrible for you.
Having run lots of events, a sense that someone is going to be a pain is a perfectly reasonable reason to exclude them. I generally like event organisers to be able to invite who they want and not who they don't.