Effective altruism has a sexual harassment problem, women say

One approach is to turn up the demand for intellectual rigor until it hurts. For example, I don't want to become a maths crank, so I am learning about computer proof checkers, Lean, ACL2, Coq, those things. But they are painful to use, it hurts!

To broaden the applicability, consider that a clever person goes through life with their bullshit checker set to medium. Normies try to persuade him of stuff, and he quickly spots the flaws in their arguments. But a clever person doesn't lock the setting at medium. They adjust it to suit their adversary. If it is a negotiation for a large business deal, the skepticism gets turned up to a high level.

One can imagine a situation in which an executive, Mr E, for company A discovers that company B has hired away one of company A's due diligence team. Whoops! Mr E thinks "They know what we look for, and will have made very sure that it looks good." One adjusts the setting of ones bullshit detector not just on the raw ability of ones adversary, but also to whether they have access to your thought processes, that they can use to outwit you.

Assume for the sake of argument that the previous paragraph is for real. Adjusting your bullshit detectors to allow for an adversary reading your secrets is an option. Then it leads to actionable advice.

How do you set your bullshit detector when you are trying to avoid deceiving yourself? You use the settings that you use when you fear that an adversary has got inside your head and knows how to craft an argument to exploit your weak spots.

> Yeah, because that's a strawman you imagined in your head.

I've read enough of that argument being made in earnest on this forum that I'm going to have to go with the parent poster.

There are many intelligent people who seriously believe in that strawman. (Although it's also possible that they don't actually believe in it, and are just making the argument because the purpose of colonizing Mars isn't increasing the resilience of Earth, but getting away from the hoi polloi. Those people will be for a rude surprise when they discover that they are also part of the hoi polloi.)

> Wouldn't this devolve into name calling almost immediately?

If it did, 1 week ban. Do it again: 2 week ban. All according to the well explained and agreed upon on a point by point basis in the terms of service that the user agreed to...except in this case, the TOS are actually serious, and not the colloquial meaning of "serious" that people have grown accustomed to.

This would create substantial gnashing of teeth, but I anticipate before too long a few people would be able to figure it out (perhaps by RTFM), demonstrate how to speak and think properly, and a new norm would be established.

Besides: if 95% of people simply cannot cut it, I don't see this as a major problem. Cream is valuable, milk is more trouble than it's worth.

Two things that should never be underestimated:

- the stupidity of humans

- the ability of humans to learn

> On internet arguments it's already implied that you're bringing forth logical points and not just spouting off what you feel in the heat of the moment.

It's even worse: it is perceived as such! This is the problem though: people have never been taught how to reliably distinguish between opinions, "facts", facts, and the unknown (the latter is typically what catches genuinely smart people). So: offer an educational component, maybe integrated into the onboarding process.

Too big of a hassle? Best of luck to you elsewhere (provide links to Reddit, Facebook, Hacker News, etc).

> Invoking the safe word is basically a thinly veiled attempt at calling the other party irrational and emotional.

Take a wild guess what response a comment of this epistemic quality (in the form that it is currently presented) would elicit under the standards I describe above.

Besides: I doubt any unemotional, rational people exist on the planet. It is not a question of "if" someone has these shortcomings, it is a question of "to what degree" they suffer from them. And should we expect any different from people? We don't try to create any of these people, and it's not like they have anyone to emulate.

> men at informal EA gatherings tried to convince her

A lot of people are focusing on the polyamory. While that may have been something that offended people or made them uncomfortable, that is not the issue.

The key issues here are around the words "informal" and "convince".

I have non-traditional views about human sexuality. Even if I had traditional views, I spend a lot of time in different cultures where the traditional views can vary quite a bit.

I also strongly believe in talking about ideas, challenging viewpoints, and being non-judgmental and open to new experiences. I talk openly about my views and experiences. Sometimes, I extend invitations to people with different values than me participate in sexual interactions.

Yet, as much as I believe in being open about my views, there are clear boundaries.

On formality: One boundary is that I never talk about sex or sexuality with professional colleagues, or when I am in a position of power. Simply put, some people are not comfortable talking about these things, and if they are not in a position where they feel they can say no or avoid it, talking about it is not ok. It is harassment to talk about sexual topics at a formal gathering. It may be ok to talk about sexual topics at an informal gathering, but if professional colleagues are there, it's wise to approach such topics cautiously or best not at all.

On convincing: it's always a good idea to accept a no gracefully and respectfully. If someone declines an invitation, don't try to convince them. If someone says they are offended by your views, don't try to change their mind. If someone seems hesitant to talk about a topic, don't continue. On the other hand, if all of the participants of a conversation are eagerly engaged and asking about different viewpoints, then it is ok to try to convince others of your viewpoint.

I think frequent problems in tech and these problems in EA arise not because people have non-traditional views or are open about sexuality. The problems happen because people in these groups tend to be a little bit on a spectrum and unaware of power dynamics, people's comfort level, and how those things can affect people's expressions or lack of expressions about consent.

Some simple rules for those in doubt:

1) Never talk about sex with professional colleagues 2) Never try to convince others of your sexual views unless they ask for your opinion 3) When in doubt, don't talk about sex

I am a firm believer in talking openly and without judgment about sexuality. But in order to do so safely, full awareness and respect for these boundaries are key.

I’m just scrolling here astounded that people have difficulty understanding that you’re not supposed to talk about sex when the context of a gathering is academic or professional, and when no one asked you to.