When it comes to the real-life consequences I think we’re on the same page: I think it’s plausible that they’d face consequences for speaking up and I don’t think they’re crazy to weigh it in their decision-making (I do note, for example, that none of the people who put their names on their positive Leverage accounts seem to live in California, except for the ones who still work there). I am not that attached to any of these beliefs since all my data is second- and third-hand, but within those limitations I agree.
But again, the things they’re worried about are not happening on Less Wrong. Bringing up their plight here, in the context of curating Less Wrong, is not Lawful: it cannot help anybody think about Less Wrong, only hurt and distract. If they need help, we can’t help them by changing Less Wrong; we have to change the people who are giving out party invites and job interviews.
I expect that many of the people who are giving out party invites and job interviews are strongly influenced by LW. If that’s the case, then we can prevent some of the things Duncan mentions by changing LW in the direction of being more supportive of good epistemics (regardless of which “side” that comes down on), with the hope of flow-through effects.
I expect that many of the people who are giving out party invites and job interviews are strongly influenced by LW.
The influence can’t be too strong, or they’d be influenced by the zeitgeist’s willingness to welcome pro-Leverage perspectives, right? Or maybe you disagree with that characterization of LW-the-site?
Things get complicated in situations where e.g. 70% of the group is welcoming and 30% of the group is silently judging and will enact their disapproval later. And the zeitgeist that is willing to welcome pro-Leverage perspectives might not be willing to actively pressure people to not discriminate against pro-Leverage folk. Like, they might be fine with somebody being gay, but not motivated enough to step in if someone else is being homophobic in a grocery store parking lot, metaphorically speaking.
(This may not describe the actual situation here, of course. But again it’s a fear I feel like I can’t dismiss or rule out.)
When it comes to the real-life consequences I think we’re on the same page: I think it’s plausible that they’d face consequences for speaking up and I don’t think they’re crazy to weigh it in their decision-making (I do note, for example, that none of the people who put their names on their positive Leverage accounts seem to live in California, except for the ones who still work there). I am not that attached to any of these beliefs since all my data is second- and third-hand, but within those limitations I agree.
But again, the things they’re worried about are not happening on Less Wrong. Bringing up their plight here, in the context of curating Less Wrong, is not Lawful: it cannot help anybody think about Less Wrong, only hurt and distract. If they need help, we can’t help them by changing Less Wrong; we have to change the people who are giving out party invites and job interviews.
I expect that many of the people who are giving out party invites and job interviews are strongly influenced by LW. If that’s the case, then we can prevent some of the things Duncan mentions by changing LW in the direction of being more supportive of good epistemics (regardless of which “side” that comes down on), with the hope of flow-through effects.
The influence can’t be too strong, or they’d be influenced by the zeitgeist’s willingness to welcome pro-Leverage perspectives, right? Or maybe you disagree with that characterization of LW-the-site?
Things get complicated in situations where e.g. 70% of the group is welcoming and 30% of the group is silently judging and will enact their disapproval later. And the zeitgeist that is willing to welcome pro-Leverage perspectives might not be willing to actively pressure people to not discriminate against pro-Leverage folk. Like, they might be fine with somebody being gay, but not motivated enough to step in if someone else is being homophobic in a grocery store parking lot, metaphorically speaking.
(This may not describe the actual situation here, of course. But again it’s a fear I feel like I can’t dismiss or rule out.)