I would share your concern if TurnTrout or others were replying to everything Nate published in this way. But well… the original comment seemed reasonably relevant to the topic of the post and TurnTrout’s reply seemed relevant to the comment. So it seems like there’s likely a limiting principle here that would prevent your concern from being realized.
I would share your concern if TurnTrout or others were replying to everything Nate published in this way. But well… the original comment seemed reasonably relevant to the topic of the post and TurnTrout’s reply seemed relevant to the comment. So it seems like there’s likely a limiting principle here
I think there is a huge limiter. Consider that Nate’s inappropriate behavior towards Kurt Brown happened in 2017 & 2018 but resulted in no consequences until 5 and a half years later. This suggests that victims are massively under-supplying information due to high costs. We do not have an over-supply problem.
Let me share some of what I’ve learned from my own experience and reflection over the last two years, and speaking with ~10 people who recounted their own experiences.
Speaking out against powerful people is costly. Due to how tight-knit the community is, speaking out may well limit your professional opportunities, get you uninvited to crucial networking events, and reduce your chances of getting funding. Junior researchers may worry about displeased moderators thumbing the scales against future work they might want to share on the Alignment Forum. (And I imagine that junior, vulnerable community members are more likely to be mistreated to begin with.)
People who come forward will also have their motivations scrutinized. Were they being “too triggered”? This is exhausting, especially because (more hurt) → (more trauma) → (less equanimity). However, LessWrong culture demands equanimity while recounting trauma. If you show signs of pain or upset, or even verbally admit that you’re upset while writing calmly—you face accusations of irrationality. Alternatively, observers might invent false psychological narratives—claiming a grievance is actually about a romantic situation or a personal grudge—rather than engaging with the specific evidence and claims provided by the person who came forward.
But if abuse actually took place, then the victim is quite likely to feel upset! What sense, then, does it make to penalize people because they are upset, when that’s exactly what you’d see from many people who were abused?[1]
This irrational, insular set of incentives damages community health and subsidizes silence, which in turn reduces penalties for abuse.
Certainly, people should write clearly, honestly, and without unnecessary hostility. However, I’m critiquing “dismiss people who are mad or upset, even if they communicate appropriately.”
I would share your concern if TurnTrout or others were replying to everything Nate published in this way. But well… the original comment seemed reasonably relevant to the topic of the post and TurnTrout’s reply seemed relevant to the comment. So it seems like there’s likely a limiting principle here that would prevent your concern from being realized.
I think there is a huge limiter. Consider that Nate’s inappropriate behavior towards Kurt Brown happened in 2017 & 2018 but resulted in no consequences until 5 and a half years later. This suggests that victims are massively under-supplying information due to high costs. We do not have an over-supply problem.
Let me share some of what I’ve learned from my own experience and reflection over the last two years, and speaking with ~10 people who recounted their own experiences.
Speaking out against powerful people is costly. Due to how tight-knit the community is, speaking out may well limit your professional opportunities, get you uninvited to crucial networking events, and reduce your chances of getting funding. Junior researchers may worry about displeased moderators thumbing the scales against future work they might want to share on the Alignment Forum. (And I imagine that junior, vulnerable community members are more likely to be mistreated to begin with.)
People who come forward will also have their motivations scrutinized. Were they being “too triggered”? This is exhausting, especially because (more hurt) → (more trauma) → (less equanimity). However, LessWrong culture demands equanimity while recounting trauma. If you show signs of pain or upset, or even verbally admit that you’re upset while writing calmly—you face accusations of irrationality. Alternatively, observers might invent false psychological narratives—claiming a grievance is actually about a romantic situation or a personal grudge—rather than engaging with the specific evidence and claims provided by the person who came forward.
But if abuse actually took place, then the victim is quite likely to feel upset! What sense, then, does it make to penalize people because they are upset, when that’s exactly what you’d see from many people who were abused? [1]
This irrational, insular set of incentives damages community health and subsidizes silence, which in turn reduces penalties for abuse.
Certainly, people should write clearly, honestly, and without unnecessary hostility. However, I’m critiquing “dismiss people who are mad or upset, even if they communicate appropriately.”