4 ms·

Note: this is just an opinion. Close to Oxford (aka PhD students, etc.), maintain the value instead of renting, good nature place for thinking. I don't see th

Note: this is just an opinion. Close to Oxford (aka PhD students, etc.), maintain the value instead of renting, good nature place for thinking. I don't see the issue here if the space is utilized semi-effectively. They might need to think about how to get like 50% of the 15 million "out of the bricks" in order to utilize their capital better (assuming the house prices won't crash more than 50%). EA was always Oxford-ish, culture is culture. No form of rationality will prevail from that (I'm looking at you HN! ;-) ). Given their cultural/emotional make up, I think this is an okay rational decision. It could've been way worse. I don't get the fuss. It's kind of like being upset about the Kardashians or something (by that I specifically mean: it feels trivial and unimportant). It's a 15 million pounds decision that won't even make them lose 15 million pounds but a lot less. So who cares? Let's talk about CRISPR or something actually interesting. Let's live in the future.

n4r9 4y ago
Is it really trivial and unimportant? My understanding is that the organisation's goal is figuring out how to spend money effectively and without bias. If they're spending money in an overtly wasteful and selfish way, that feels important.
- mettamage 4y ago
  > My understanding is that the organisation's goal is figuring out how to spend money effectively and without bias. Sure, but there will always be some bias. It's one of those things: they're wrong if they believe they can do away with all bias. Moreover, they are so wrong, I can't hold them responsible for it, even if they say they will hold themselves responsible for it. It's like a child saying "I will be responsible for building a time machine." You can't hold them responsible. But I get where you're coming from, I used to be more in your camp, but the longer I am out of academia the more I tend to look at the world in "grey terms" (I'm not implying you're still in academia or anything, that's just how my life journey is progressing at the moment). Oxford is one of their biases that they can't seem to get rid off. It's super clear. Also, it's understandable. When I look at where I'd hire the best CS students, I'd go to students that studied VUSEC courses (a research group at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). I've been telling all kinds of people that only top tier CS students can complete their courses. But they haven't seen what I've seen (or they can't convince their managers). It's really a tough bias to get rid of, you understand your own uni intuitively so much more than anyone else's uni. Because does VUSEC really have the best students? Probably not. Is Oxford really the best place to be close to the best intellectual minds? Probably not. And I get that there's a fundamental point to be made (I'm making one myself that one can't get rid of all bias). But when I read the comments I'm reading too much emotion, not enough reason and empiricism. I don't want drama on HN, I want awesomeness about science and the world, which is what I usually find :)
  - n4r9 4y ago
    Sure, I agree that it's impossible even to be aware of the extent of one's own biases, let alone be rid of them. I'm not expecting perfect rationality, and I work hard to consider other perspectives. Imagine the perspective of someone who's consdering where to donate. They're going to have a certain expectation of responsibility from organisations which claim to make rational, ethical use of their money. Unless there's further justification to this purchase, then I could well believe this falls below that expectation. I think a lot of people are attracted to EA because they're put off by many traditional charities spending large proportions of their income on bureaucracy and marketing. This incident doesn't help to make EA look any different.

n4r9 4y ago

Is it really trivial and unimportant? My understanding is that the organisation's goal is figuring out how to spend money effectively and without bias. If they're spending money in an overtly wasteful and selfish way, that feels important.

mettamage 4y ago
> My understanding is that the organisation's goal is figuring out how to spend money effectively and without bias. Sure, but there will always be some bias. It's one of those things: they're wrong if they believe they can do away with all bias. Moreover, they are so wrong, I can't hold them responsible for it, even if they say they will hold themselves responsible for it. It's like a child saying "I will be responsible for building a time machine." You can't hold them responsible. But I get where you're coming from, I used to be more in your camp, but the longer I am out of academia the more I tend to look at the world in "grey terms" (I'm not implying you're still in academia or anything, that's just how my life journey is progressing at the moment). Oxford is one of their biases that they can't seem to get rid off. It's super clear. Also, it's understandable. When I look at where I'd hire the best CS students, I'd go to students that studied VUSEC courses (a research group at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). I've been telling all kinds of people that only top tier CS students can complete their courses. But they haven't seen what I've seen (or they can't convince their managers). It's really a tough bias to get rid of, you understand your own uni intuitively so much more than anyone else's uni. Because does VUSEC really have the best students? Probably not. Is Oxford really the best place to be close to the best intellectual minds? Probably not. And I get that there's a fundamental point to be made (I'm making one myself that one can't get rid of all bias). But when I read the comments I'm reading too much emotion, not enough reason and empiricism. I don't want drama on HN, I want awesomeness about science and the world, which is what I usually find :)
- n4r9 4y ago
  Sure, I agree that it's impossible even to be aware of the extent of one's own biases, let alone be rid of them. I'm not expecting perfect rationality, and I work hard to consider other perspectives. Imagine the perspective of someone who's consdering where to donate. They're going to have a certain expectation of responsibility from organisations which claim to make rational, ethical use of their money. Unless there's further justification to this purchase, then I could well believe this falls below that expectation. I think a lot of people are attracted to EA because they're put off by many traditional charities spending large proportions of their income on bureaucracy and marketing. This incident doesn't help to make EA look any different.