Talking to Richard and hiring Richard are two different things. It’s plausible to me that all these things are true simultaneously:
Richard would do a great job at contributing useful research directions / thoughts / etc.
Richard would be great for the org culture and treat everyone well / respectfully / etc.
Richard’s politics have substantial admixtures of attitudes that are dumb (both incorrect and harmful), and indicative of general attitudes / thought patterns that are reasonably taken as hostile / toxic / etc.
Other good people have low thresholds for that sort of indication, for good reasons, and in fact would be less likely to join and/or fund the org if Richard is there
The expected net effect of hiring Richard is negative, including integrity / upholding principles (it’s not necessarily unprincipled to be like “I think Richard’s ideas are good enough that it’s worth some tail risk, but I get that lots of other good people wouldn’t have that information, and furthermore have good reason to distrust him for political reasons, so I won’t hire him”)
I would not guess that all of these are true, but I wouldn’t be so confident without, for example, having talked to several potential hires for the org.
Yeah the better comment I’d like to have written engages more with the tradeoffs here. I totally agree there are (or at least might be) real tradeoffs here.
I would not guess that all of these are true, but I wouldn’t be so confident without, for example, having talked to several potential hires for the org.
Absolutely I expect there to be potential hires who are turned off. But, I think the current amount that people expect to be able to work at companies without dealing with people who have politics that feel crazy and bad, are waaaaaaaaaaaay out of whack. (I’m not sure if you disagree particularly or are just pointing out the obvious failure modes and issues).
I don’t actually know that I think Resolution should do something different, given the existing founders and culture at Resolution. I think I am advocating or wishing for a high-skill culturebuilding maneuver that is not, like, a free action anyone can just take.
But, I think it is a negative sign abut their capability as an intellectual org, if they aren’t able or willing to do the culture-setting moves I’d be hoping for here.
Mainly I meant to say “you probably should have substantive uncertainty about the extent to which it’s a sign about their capability, because (I assume) you don’t know the sorts of people they’re trying to hire and how those people orient to politics and whether that’s a good orientation or not”.
I would be quite surprised if I were surprised (upon learning more) about what sort of people they were trying to hire, or how those people relate to politics.
I could still totally be overconfident about the overall frame here but, like, I’m already assuming “they are basically correct about the immediate implications of hiring Richard.” Is there a particular thing you’re imagining I might not be imagining?
Talking to Richard and hiring Richard are two different things. It’s plausible to me that all these things are true simultaneously:
Richard would do a great job at contributing useful research directions / thoughts / etc.
Richard would be great for the org culture and treat everyone well / respectfully / etc.
Richard’s politics have substantial admixtures of attitudes that are dumb (both incorrect and harmful), and indicative of general attitudes / thought patterns that are reasonably taken as hostile / toxic / etc.
Other good people have low thresholds for that sort of indication, for good reasons, and in fact would be less likely to join and/or fund the org if Richard is there
The expected net effect of hiring Richard is negative, including integrity / upholding principles (it’s not necessarily unprincipled to be like “I think Richard’s ideas are good enough that it’s worth some tail risk, but I get that lots of other good people wouldn’t have that information, and furthermore have good reason to distrust him for political reasons, so I won’t hire him”)
I would not guess that all of these are true, but I wouldn’t be so confident without, for example, having talked to several potential hires for the org.
Yeah the better comment I’d like to have written engages more with the tradeoffs here. I totally agree there are (or at least might be) real tradeoffs here.
Absolutely I expect there to be potential hires who are turned off. But, I think the current amount that people expect to be able to work at companies without dealing with people who have politics that feel crazy and bad, are waaaaaaaaaaaay out of whack. (I’m not sure if you disagree particularly or are just pointing out the obvious failure modes and issues).
I don’t actually know that I think Resolution should do something different, given the existing founders and culture at Resolution. I think I am advocating or wishing for a high-skill culturebuilding maneuver that is not, like, a free action anyone can just take.
But, I think it is a negative sign abut their capability as an intellectual org, if they aren’t able or willing to do the culture-setting moves I’d be hoping for here.
Mainly I meant to say “you probably should have substantive uncertainty about the extent to which it’s a sign about their capability, because (I assume) you don’t know the sorts of people they’re trying to hire and how those people orient to politics and whether that’s a good orientation or not”.
I would be quite surprised if I were surprised (upon learning more) about what sort of people they were trying to hire, or how those people relate to politics.
I could still totally be overconfident about the overall frame here but, like, I’m already assuming “they are basically correct about the immediate implications of hiring Richard.” Is there a particular thing you’re imagining I might not be imagining?