You should certainly be careful and concerned about what you post on your personal blog if your opinions are out of synch with mainstream. Obviously prominent individuals attract a greater total level of criticism, but expressing an unorthodox opinion could certainly cost you your job, for example.
Ah, OK. Sure, if we’re restricting ourselves to people whose opinions are sufficiently out of synch with the mainstream, I expect something like this is true.
If one considers all of their beliefs it’s likely they have at least one which is extremely out of synch with the mainstream. The non-caricatured version of Larry Summers opinion was not literally insane. It is a widely-held belief among some populations. If the average Less Wrong user faced the same level of scrutiny and had to give a complete index of their beliefs, it seems almost certain they would face similar consequences.
Different availability of aptitude at the high end
Different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search
So more precisely, you can be fired even for a non-mainstream opinion you don’t express, as long as people try hard enough to assign it to you connotationally. When the social norm is to disbelieve X, then saying “we should test X experimentally” suggests that you are not disbelieving enough; otherwise you would consider experimentally testing X a waste of time.
Also, when enough people consider powerful people who believe X and act accordingly a personal threat to them or people they care about, being perceived as a powerful person expressing a willingness to consider X causes lots of people to treat me as a personal threat.
Sure; I would agree that if we (somehow) faced the same level of scrutiny as Larry Summers, we’d likely face similar consequences for our own quirky beliefs. But I also agree with Daniel that prominent individuals attract a greater total level of criticism, which makes the premise implausible.
What I was trying to clarify was whether we were talking about typical scenarios. From Daniel’s response I conclude they weren’t. To clarify I’ll ask you the same question: do you mean to suggest that Larry Summers is typical of the degree to which expressing true personal beliefs leads to sociopolitical attack? As in, for example, if I were to foolishly post to my personal blog about my true personal beliefs I should expect that level of attack in response?
As in, for example, if I were to foolishly post to my personal blog about my true personal beliefs I should expect that level of attack in response?
Of course not. You would receive a lesser response. Those are more like worst case scenarios. The “typical” response of me posting my most non-mainstream views on a personally-identified public blog is that future employers google my name after interviewing me, see that my beliefs differ dramatically from their own, and a certain percentage choose not to pursue any further discussions with me (whether consciously or subconsciously due to lowered perceived value), decreasing my prospects in the labor markets. This matters enough to me that I make specific efforts not to have non-mainstream beliefs associated with my personal information.
Grad students who make up a disproportionate quantity of Less Wrong perhaps can afford to care a lot less about this than others. Undergrads at Less Wrong may lack appropriate perspective to understand the influence this could have on their future. On the other end of the spectrum, no lawyer in his right mind would ever consider posting about such things. They are a worst case scenario because reputation is their only asset and they are essentially “hired” by every client, dozens of times per year.
Thanks for the clarification. For my own part, I doubt that my most nonmainstream views would, were future employers to encounter my articulation of them in any sort of representative context, affect their decision to hire me more than, say, my taste in poetry does. (If it matters, I’m a software professional in my 40s.)
Grad students who make up a disproportionate quantity of Less Wrong perhaps can afford to care a lot less about this than others.
Yep. Once a professor of mine told me “I know your English is good because I saw the stuff you used to write on Facebook when you were in Ireland”—and much of that was stuff that most other people would find quite embarrassing and wouldn’t post under their real name where their superiors could see it.
You should certainly be careful and concerned about what you post on your personal blog if your opinions are out of synch with mainstream. Obviously prominent individuals attract a greater total level of criticism, but expressing an unorthodox opinion could certainly cost you your job, for example.
Ah, OK. Sure, if we’re restricting ourselves to people whose opinions are sufficiently out of synch with the mainstream, I expect something like this is true.
Thanks for clarifying.
If one considers all of their beliefs it’s likely they have at least one which is extremely out of synch with the mainstream. The non-caricatured version of Larry Summers opinion was not literally insane. It is a widely-held belief among some populations. If the average Less Wrong user faced the same level of scrutiny and had to give a complete index of their beliefs, it seems almost certain they would face similar consequences.
Let’s not forget that it even wasn’t his stated opinion. It was one of the three hypotheses he suggested as worth testing experimentally:
So more precisely, you can be fired even for a non-mainstream opinion you don’t express, as long as people try hard enough to assign it to you connotationally. When the social norm is to disbelieve X, then saying “we should test X experimentally” suggests that you are not disbelieving enough; otherwise you would consider experimentally testing X a waste of time.
Also, when enough people consider powerful people who believe X and act accordingly a personal threat to them or people they care about, being perceived as a powerful person expressing a willingness to consider X causes lots of people to treat me as a personal threat.
Sure; I would agree that if we (somehow) faced the same level of scrutiny as Larry Summers, we’d likely face similar consequences for our own quirky beliefs. But I also agree with Daniel that prominent individuals attract a greater total level of criticism, which makes the premise implausible.
What I was trying to clarify was whether we were talking about typical scenarios. From Daniel’s response I conclude they weren’t. To clarify I’ll ask you the same question: do you mean to suggest that Larry Summers is typical of the degree to which expressing true personal beliefs leads to sociopolitical attack? As in, for example, if I were to foolishly post to my personal blog about my true personal beliefs I should expect that level of attack in response?
Of course not. You would receive a lesser response. Those are more like worst case scenarios. The “typical” response of me posting my most non-mainstream views on a personally-identified public blog is that future employers google my name after interviewing me, see that my beliefs differ dramatically from their own, and a certain percentage choose not to pursue any further discussions with me (whether consciously or subconsciously due to lowered perceived value), decreasing my prospects in the labor markets. This matters enough to me that I make specific efforts not to have non-mainstream beliefs associated with my personal information.
Grad students who make up a disproportionate quantity of Less Wrong perhaps can afford to care a lot less about this than others. Undergrads at Less Wrong may lack appropriate perspective to understand the influence this could have on their future. On the other end of the spectrum, no lawyer in his right mind would ever consider posting about such things. They are a worst case scenario because reputation is their only asset and they are essentially “hired” by every client, dozens of times per year.
Thanks for the clarification.
For my own part, I doubt that my most nonmainstream views would, were future employers to encounter my articulation of them in any sort of representative context, affect their decision to hire me more than, say, my taste in poetry does. (If it matters, I’m a software professional in my 40s.)
Yep. Once a professor of mine told me “I know your English is good because I saw the stuff you used to write on Facebook when you were in Ireland”—and much of that was stuff that most other people would find quite embarrassing and wouldn’t post under their real name where their superiors could see it.