6 ms·

Linked for reference, without endorsement: Aubrey de Grey's response: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=6528005127224941&id=100000465546952 https://m

Linked for reference, without endorsement: Aubrey de Grey's response: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=6528005127224941&id=100000465546952 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=6528005127224941... SENS's response: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4242081739160861&id=138424229526653 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4242081739160861... More info from Laura Deming: https://mobile.twitter.com/LauraDeming/status/1425365212484431880 https://mobile.twitter.com/LauraDeming/status/14253652124844...

JabavuAdams 5y ago
Hitting on a minor, who you know is a minor (17 years old) when you are in a position of power over her is more than just a little mistake. DeGrey admits this. Imagine if a coach or a teacher did this. That alone is a serious serious breach of ethics, and gives some insight into a person's mind and potential other activities.
- stuaxo 5y ago
  As someone pointed out, the age of consent in the UK is 16. But that's really not the point, everything else you said is. And just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's socially acceptable, for all those reasons.
  - JabavuAdams 5y ago
    I don't remember exactly, but in Canada I believe it's significant whether the other person is in a position of authority over the minor. This is to prevent grooming and/or the implicit threat of reprisal if the minor doesn't comply.
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  I've crushed on co-workers; I've had crushes on professors; I've had crushes on classmates. Attraction in a work/study environment is real. The thing is ... you don't have to do or say anything, guys. Just keep that stuff locked down like a non-creep and it will eventually pass. Writing love letters to 17 year olds who work for you? Come on. You should know/do better.
  - RangerScience 5y ago
    > keep that stuff locked down Careful with this. IME, everything you feel gets expressed eventually. You either make some choices about that expression, or it leaks out of you - usually in toxic ways (passive aggression, overly controlling behavior, snipe-comments, etc.) Have close friends (and a therapist!) that you can talk to about just about anything. A lot of times, feelings are signals for exploration; "here be learning", as it were. Aubrey even names it, without realizing it (IMO) when he says "could treat [me] as an equal on every other level". I'm betting that if Aubrey had taken the time to feel and understand, he'd have realized that Deming (at that time) wasn't someone he could actually treat as an equal on every level. (And, probably, that he had a need for more people in his life that he could).
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      From reading his email to her, it's clear that he did realize this, but somehow he also thought he could get away with writing a suggestive email to her about his "adventurous love life" [sic]. (To be clear, referencing such things in a written work email would be regarded as grossly unprofessional no matter what the circumstances, but Laura being 17 and working for him at the time makes it quite outrageous.)
      - RangerScience 5y ago
        Was the email published? All I've got to go off of is the snippet from the OP.
        phnofive 5y ago
        No, but Aubrey confirms it: > "Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17"
        dkersten 5y ago
        He confirms that he wrote an inadvised email. We still do not know the actual content or context around the email, so we don't know if it was malicious, abuse or simply somewhat inappropriate but otherwise malign. We know she felt uncomfortable over it, but we do not know if he wrote it innocently-but-stupidly or if there is more to it.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Hitting on someone who’s much younger and less experienced than you may be legal, but is still wrong. The power the more experienced person can exert on the less experienced one is dangerous and can easily be misused. It often is.
  - JulianMorrison 5y ago
    It's not just that it can be misused. Hitting on them is misusing it. It's putting them between a rock and hard place. Nothing good can come of that.
- JulianMorrison 5y ago
  When you make mistakes, you don't double down and DARVO.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > DeGrey admits this. To be absolutely clear (and play devils advocate to a degree), he did not admit to that. What he actually says is: Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17, but she explicitly states that "I wrote it off as a mistake" He notes she initially wrote it off as a mistake, and the email was inadvisable. He's walking a fine line here, where he's not outright saying she was correct in thinking the email was a mistake (it's also a bit unclear what this means from her, a mistake on his part or a mistake in her interpretation, but I assume the former), and he regrets is, but the reason for that regret is left for us to intuit. You assume (as I do) that it's because he actually was attempting to solicit a relationship, but it's left such that it could plausibly be explained later as him regretting that he was so loose with his words that it could be interpreted that way. I mention this not because I think he's innocent of that specific accusation, but because he's worded this very specifically, and while I think the implication is that yes, he did hit on her, he hasn't actually admitted that, and make statements that he has just confuses the issue to some degree and causes backlash in those that see statements like this and then read the source later, and notice the discrepancy and side with the person in question because "people are obviously out to get him by twisting his words". His words are fairly damning when laid out exactly as they are, so better to use them that way, IMO.
  - JabavuAdams 5y ago
    You are technically correct. I could have been more precise in my wording. As you say, though, it doesn't change my (or your) conclusion.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      That's right. I just think sometimes these are left in as escape hatches, or possibly landmines, for critics. E.g. You and others say he admitted it, later he clarifies what he meant which makes prior statements of others incorrect, which can then be pointed to as evidence of all sorts of things, like a concerted effort to defame or ignore the reality or people lying, which just muddies the waters, and provides a smokescreen for the person to hide behind. The only defense against things like that are to stick to the facts and be clear and correct based on what other people have said and what we think that actually means. e.g. "I think the implication is clear, even if it's not outright admitted." Anything else helps them by giving them ammunition to lob back later.
- RickJWagner 5y ago
  Exactly. Like the Clinton/Lewinsky thing-- it was the start of exposing a predator. (Clinton's accusers came out of the woodwork after that, many with firm evidence, some with settlements in hand.)
  - bigbillheck 5y ago
    > Clinton's accusers came out of the woodwork after that It's not as if there weren't accuser pre-Lewinksy either.
- varelse 5y ago
  A minor that he had mentored since she was 14. If that isn't solid evidence of poor judgment I don't know what is. Also incredibly and disgustingly creepy.
CJefferson 5y ago
That defense post is.. really strange. It seems to suggest the complainants have been brain-washed (by secret behind the scenes people?) and also claims the fact there arent lots of other complaints as evidence of innocence -- there doesn't have to be an "iceberg" of complaints for you to be guilty. Lots of people get convicted of just one crime.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  That defense pose is really strange, and in some aspects really disgusting. "In order to orient you"? "Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17"? Even if this is the watered-down, best-light scenario, this is very weird. And then tries to use Laura's words against her- she previously dismisses it as an honest mistake and then changes her mind when presented with apparent new evidence. And somehow portrays this as them being deceived. Why would anyone try to trick two women into making allegations that a guy is a creep? They fully well know that these allegations will blow up their careers and are very likely to be unsuccessful in influencing Aubrey de Grey's career long term. If one wanted to smear Aubrey de Grey, she-said-he-said creepiness is one of the least effective ways to do it because a wide swath of the population aren't bothered enough to affect someone's career over it-- the only reason consequences are newsworthy is because they're so uncommon.
  - zo1 5y ago
    > "Why would anyone try to trick two women into making allegations that a guy is a creep? They fully well know that these allegations will blow up their careers and are very likely to be unsuccessful in influencing Aubrey de Grey's career long term." From the look of the Twitter feed of one of the accusers, it doesn't look to be doing anything but promoting them and putting them up as brave, etc.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Celine Halioua isn't "anonymous", she's a successful aging researcher and her complaints are if anything, even more damning for Aubrey and the SENS folks: https://www.celinehh.com/aubrey https://www.celinehh.com/aubrey
JulianMorrison 5y ago
Re the idea that because someone interacted casually "the next day", they don't have a case: it's very normal for people who've been harassed to initially shrug things off, because it's just too jarring to their world-view to swerve their opinion of someone from "friend and mentor" to "creep". And it's very normal to come to understand that something was actually sexual harassment gradually, or when a third party says "no wait seriously that isn't right" and makes you face it. And then it's normal to be ambivalent about speaking up and take your time to do so.
- aeturnum 5y ago
  Being able to act without fully processing trauma is a deeply important evolutionary adaptation. Our brains will compartmentalize things to help us cope and survive and continue on, because our ancestors who didn't do it automatically were more likely to die. That's not to say we all react the same to trauma, but a common reaction is one of tiny adjustments and a slow dawning of the fullness of the experience. We also are surrounded by people who are well meaning but make mistakes and our socialization prepares us to be forgiving of them. To give time for repair. Abusers use those social structures (consciously or unconsciously) to give themselves space to do what they like. It's a big move to fully separate yourself from someone, and abusers see that if they can make it more comfortable to simply live further away from them, that they can continue without changing or facing the damage they have caused. I really encourage anyone who doesn't understand why assault or abuse reactions look this way to imagine what actions they might take if their current boss were to suddenly grab their genitals without warning or permission. There's an element of the personal violation that, I think, is difficult to appreciate - but the practicalities of addressing it are, I think, obvious once you start to imagine it. Who would you tell? What consequences would you suffer? How outlandish might you seem to peers, other managers, etc? Personal violations like this are deeply treacherous and the people who commit them take advantage of that fact to keep doing it.
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  More importantly, it may be necessary to act as if nothing happened to avoid retaliation.

JabavuAdams 5y ago

Hitting on a minor, who you know is a minor (17 years old) when you are in a position of power over her is more than just a little mistake. DeGrey admits this. Imagine if a coach or a teacher did this. That alone is a serious serious breach of ethics, and gives some insight into a person's mind and potential other activities.

stuaxo 5y ago
As someone pointed out, the age of consent in the UK is 16. But that's really not the point, everything else you said is. And just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's socially acceptable, for all those reasons.
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  I don't remember exactly, but in Canada I believe it's significant whether the other person is in a position of authority over the minor. This is to prevent grooming and/or the implicit threat of reprisal if the minor doesn't comply.
JabavuAdams 5y ago
I've crushed on co-workers; I've had crushes on professors; I've had crushes on classmates. Attraction in a work/study environment is real. The thing is ... you don't have to do or say anything, guys. Just keep that stuff locked down like a non-creep and it will eventually pass. Writing love letters to 17 year olds who work for you? Come on. You should know/do better.
- RangerScience 5y ago
  > keep that stuff locked down Careful with this. IME, everything you feel gets expressed eventually. You either make some choices about that expression, or it leaks out of you - usually in toxic ways (passive aggression, overly controlling behavior, snipe-comments, etc.) Have close friends (and a therapist!) that you can talk to about just about anything. A lot of times, feelings are signals for exploration; "here be learning", as it were. Aubrey even names it, without realizing it (IMO) when he says "could treat [me] as an equal on every other level". I'm betting that if Aubrey had taken the time to feel and understand, he'd have realized that Deming (at that time) wasn't someone he could actually treat as an equal on every level. (And, probably, that he had a need for more people in his life that he could).
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    From reading his email to her, it's clear that he did realize this, but somehow he also thought he could get away with writing a suggestive email to her about his "adventurous love life" [sic]. (To be clear, referencing such things in a written work email would be regarded as grossly unprofessional no matter what the circumstances, but Laura being 17 and working for him at the time makes it quite outrageous.)
    - RangerScience 5y ago
      Was the email published? All I've got to go off of is the snippet from the OP.
      - phnofive 5y ago
        No, but Aubrey confirms it: > "Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17"
        dkersten 5y ago
        He confirms that he wrote an inadvised email. We still do not know the actual content or context around the email, so we don't know if it was malicious, abuse or simply somewhat inappropriate but otherwise malign. We know she felt uncomfortable over it, but we do not know if he wrote it innocently-but-stupidly or if there is more to it.
rbanffy 5y ago
Hitting on someone who’s much younger and less experienced than you may be legal, but is still wrong. The power the more experienced person can exert on the less experienced one is dangerous and can easily be misused. It often is.
- JulianMorrison 5y ago
  It's not just that it can be misused. Hitting on them is misusing it. It's putting them between a rock and hard place. Nothing good can come of that.
JulianMorrison 5y ago
When you make mistakes, you don't double down and DARVO.
kbenson 5y ago
> DeGrey admits this. To be absolutely clear (and play devils advocate to a degree), he did not admit to that. What he actually says is: Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17, but she explicitly states that "I wrote it off as a mistake" He notes she initially wrote it off as a mistake, and the email was inadvisable. He's walking a fine line here, where he's not outright saying she was correct in thinking the email was a mistake (it's also a bit unclear what this means from her, a mistake on his part or a mistake in her interpretation, but I assume the former), and he regrets is, but the reason for that regret is left for us to intuit. You assume (as I do) that it's because he actually was attempting to solicit a relationship, but it's left such that it could plausibly be explained later as him regretting that he was so loose with his words that it could be interpreted that way. I mention this not because I think he's innocent of that specific accusation, but because he's worded this very specifically, and while I think the implication is that yes, he did hit on her, he hasn't actually admitted that, and make statements that he has just confuses the issue to some degree and causes backlash in those that see statements like this and then read the source later, and notice the discrepancy and side with the person in question because "people are obviously out to get him by twisting his words". His words are fairly damning when laid out exactly as they are, so better to use them that way, IMO.
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  You are technically correct. I could have been more precise in my wording. As you say, though, it doesn't change my (or your) conclusion.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    That's right. I just think sometimes these are left in as escape hatches, or possibly landmines, for critics. E.g. You and others say he admitted it, later he clarifies what he meant which makes prior statements of others incorrect, which can then be pointed to as evidence of all sorts of things, like a concerted effort to defame or ignore the reality or people lying, which just muddies the waters, and provides a smokescreen for the person to hide behind. The only defense against things like that are to stick to the facts and be clear and correct based on what other people have said and what we think that actually means. e.g. "I think the implication is clear, even if it's not outright admitted." Anything else helps them by giving them ammunition to lob back later.
RickJWagner 5y ago
Exactly. Like the Clinton/Lewinsky thing-- it was the start of exposing a predator. (Clinton's accusers came out of the woodwork after that, many with firm evidence, some with settlements in hand.)
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  > Clinton's accusers came out of the woodwork after that It's not as if there weren't accuser pre-Lewinksy either.
varelse 5y ago
A minor that he had mentored since she was 14. If that isn't solid evidence of poor judgment I don't know what is. Also incredibly and disgustingly creepy.

CJefferson 5y ago

That defense post is.. really strange. It seems to suggest the complainants have been brain-washed (by secret behind the scenes people?) and also claims the fact there arent lots of other complaints as evidence of innocence -- there doesn't have to be an "iceberg" of complaints for you to be guilty. Lots of people get convicted of just one crime.

KittenInABox 5y ago
That defense pose is really strange, and in some aspects really disgusting. "In order to orient you"? "Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17"? Even if this is the watered-down, best-light scenario, this is very weird. And then tries to use Laura's words against her- she previously dismisses it as an honest mistake and then changes her mind when presented with apparent new evidence. And somehow portrays this as them being deceived. Why would anyone try to trick two women into making allegations that a guy is a creep? They fully well know that these allegations will blow up their careers and are very likely to be unsuccessful in influencing Aubrey de Grey's career long term. If one wanted to smear Aubrey de Grey, she-said-he-said creepiness is one of the least effective ways to do it because a wide swath of the population aren't bothered enough to affect someone's career over it-- the only reason consequences are newsworthy is because they're so uncommon.
- zo1 5y ago
  > "Why would anyone try to trick two women into making allegations that a guy is a creep? They fully well know that these allegations will blow up their careers and are very likely to be unsuccessful in influencing Aubrey de Grey's career long term." From the look of the Twitter feed of one of the accusers, it doesn't look to be doing anything but promoting them and putting them up as brave, etc.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Celine Halioua isn't "anonymous", she's a successful aging researcher and her complaints are if anything, even more damning for Aubrey and the SENS folks: https://www.celinehh.com/aubrey https://www.celinehh.com/aubrey

JulianMorrison 5y ago

Re the idea that because someone interacted casually "the next day", they don't have a case: it's very normal for people who've been harassed to initially shrug things off, because it's just too jarring to their world-view to swerve their opinion of someone from "friend and mentor" to "creep". And it's very normal to come to understand that something was actually sexual harassment gradually, or when a third party says "no wait seriously that isn't right" and makes you face it. And then it's normal to be ambivalent about speaking up and take your time to do so.

aeturnum 5y ago
Being able to act without fully processing trauma is a deeply important evolutionary adaptation. Our brains will compartmentalize things to help us cope and survive and continue on, because our ancestors who didn't do it automatically were more likely to die. That's not to say we all react the same to trauma, but a common reaction is one of tiny adjustments and a slow dawning of the fullness of the experience. We also are surrounded by people who are well meaning but make mistakes and our socialization prepares us to be forgiving of them. To give time for repair. Abusers use those social structures (consciously or unconsciously) to give themselves space to do what they like. It's a big move to fully separate yourself from someone, and abusers see that if they can make it more comfortable to simply live further away from them, that they can continue without changing or facing the damage they have caused. I really encourage anyone who doesn't understand why assault or abuse reactions look this way to imagine what actions they might take if their current boss were to suddenly grab their genitals without warning or permission. There's an element of the personal violation that, I think, is difficult to appreciate - but the practicalities of addressing it are, I think, obvious once you start to imagine it. Who would you tell? What consequences would you suffer? How outlandish might you seem to peers, other managers, etc? Personal violations like this are deeply treacherous and the people who commit them take advantage of that fact to keep doing it.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
More importantly, it may be necessary to act as if nothing happened to avoid retaliation.