28 ms·

Effective altruism has a sexual harassment problem, women say

242 points by s17n 4y ago

s17n 4y ago
(Original title was too long for HN, did my best)
wendyshu 4y ago
A lot of people in EA have poor social skills and a lot of people in the community become friends and lovers. That probably explains most of this phenomenon.
- s17n 4y ago
  You seem to be implying that "poor social skills" are a valid excuse for sexual misconduct?
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    An explanation is not necessarily an excuse.
jmeister 4y ago
Does Time’s readership have any clue about Effective Altruism?
- eddsh1994 4y ago
  After SBF and FTX, yes
- TacticalCoder 4y ago
  Well there's this high profile in the EA community who happened to have its name tied to FTX not just for being SBF's guru but also for being on the FTX payroll in FTX's early days. But not only that: it gets better for he happen to have bought a mansion in the UK, supposedly for EA, with $15m of stolen money SBF gave him. (mansion which may be clawed back, I sure do hope it is). The dude is a teacher at some fancy uni in the UK. Tells me all I need to know about EA and the kind of people higher up the echelons there. It's obviously highly manipulative and I'm not surprised at all to see manipulative gurus misappropriating money and using their manipulative tactics to prey on women. P.S: as he altruistically given back the mansion acquired with stolen money?
  - throwanem 4y ago
    No, see, it's actually very complicated and difficult to maintain an optimal environment for thinking up new ways to mitigate the existential risk posed by an AI that has a .0001% chance to be invented ten million years from now, so really from a standpoint of perfect altruism Bostrom has to keep the mansion.
- 1shooner 4y ago
  I think this may be a bit of a HN bubble. I can't imagine most people have a need for a social or philosophical framework for their philanthropic identity.
willcipriano 4y ago
Back in my day effective altruism was mainly about finding charities that aren't essentially scams (way harder than it looks). Scene has apparently moved on to other things since I followed it a decade or so ago.
- wendyshu 4y ago
  I guess GiveWell still does that, but I'm not really sure what everyone else in the movement does.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    Givewell is certainly my go to.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      Looks good I'll check it out.
  - akavi 4y ago
    Dustin Moskovitz's Good Ventures also seems to focus on more "prosaic" issues like medical research/direct cash transfers/animal welfare.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ketzo 4y ago
  This is a super-simplified summary, but I think it's generally accurate. The basic thesis of EA is "it is your duty to improve/save as many human lives as you can." At some point, a lot of EAs realized that there were many more future humans than present humans. Once you widen your scope in that way, you start realizing that long-term, catastrophic risks (climate change, nuclear disaster, misaligned AI) would affect a lot more human lives -- billions or trillions more -- than basically anything we could do today. So the logic becomes -- why would I spend time/money on mosquito nets when we need to be securing the literal future of the human race?
haunter 4y ago
>Thousands have signed a pledge to tithe at least 10% of their income to high-impact charities. From college campuses to Silicon Valley startups, adherents are drawn to the moral clarity of a philosophy dedicated to using data and reason to shape a better future for humanity. Effective altruism has become something of a secular religion for the young and elite.
- chasd00 4y ago
  I was about to say, tithing 10% sounds like church. Heh the Catholic Church will send you a bill based on your taxes.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    In some countries the government will even collect.
stuaxo 4y ago
Well, this is unsurprising.
jfengel 4y ago
The worst thing about being smart is how easy it is to talk yourself into believing just about anything. After all, you make really good arguments. EA appeals to exactly that kind of really-smart-person who is perfectly capable of convincing themselves that they're always right about everything. And from there, you can justify all kinds of terrible things. Once that happens, it can easily spiral out from there. People who know perfectly well they're misbehaving will claim that they aren't, using the same arguments. It won't hold water, but now we're swamped, and the entire thing crumbles. I'd love to believe in effective altruism. I already know that my money is more effective in the hands of a food bank than giving people food myself. I'd love to think that could scale. It would be great to have smarter, better-informed people vetting things. But I don't have any reason to trust them -- in part because I know too many of the type of people who get involved and aren't trustworthy.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Effective Altruism is just a modern iteration of a thing that's been around for a very long time. The fundamental idea is sound. However, in practice, it all-too-easily devolves into something really terrible. Especially once people start down the path of thinking the needs of today aren't as important as the needs of a hypothetical future population. Personally, I started "tithing" when my first business was a success. In part because it's good to help the less fortunate, but also as an ethical stance. Having a business drove home that no business can be successful without the support of the community it starts in, so it's only right to share in the rewards. So, I give 10% back. I have rules about it: I always give to a local group who directly helps people and who is typically overlooked for charitable giving. I get to know the group pretty well first. I never give to any group that won't keep my identity a secret. I never give to any group that asks me for money. I don't always give in the form of money. Sometimes, it's in the form of my time and effort, or in material goods, etc. I don't give to "umbrella" groups whose purpose is fundraising for a collection of other groups. This isn't because I have a problem with them, but because they're not the ones who struggle the most to get donations.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > I get to know the group pretty well first. I think this is a very, very, very important step. What's more, it's a step that I don't think can be outsourced to someone else, which is why I'm skeptical about claims by, among others, the Effective Altruism movement, to be able to do this kind of thing on your behalf.
lbwtaylor 4y ago
The article links to this EA community post on 'interpersonal harm' in the community, which I found interesting. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NbkxLDECvdGuB95gW/the-community-health-team-s-work-on-interpersonal-harm-in https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NbkxLDECvdGuB95gW/... One item caught my eye: >>There are also cases where I find a report to be alarming and would like to take action, but the person reporting does not want it known that they spoke up. In these cases, sometimes there’s very little that can be done without breaking their confidentiality. Yikes. That would not meet reporting standards at most organizations I've been a part of. There are a lot of hard lessons behind requiring mandatory investigation of credible claims.
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  If you don't respect the desired confidentiality, you'll get fewer people confiding with you. There are similar practices regarding rape - victims can seek e.g. securing the biological evidence without automatically triggering a criminal investigation. The logic being that this (critical) step should be as risk-free / barrier-free as possible. > There are a lot of hard lessons behind requiring mandatory investigation of credible claims. Worth keeping in mind that companies are always primarily trying to cover their backs and these policies often reflect that.
  - lbwtaylor 4y ago
    >> There are a lot of hard lessons behind requiring mandatory investigation of credible claims. >Worth keeping in mind that companies are always primarily trying to cover their backs and these policies often reflect that. Your comment was a fair one when it comes to corporations, but I was thinking of churches and community groups more like EA than corporations. Bad actors thrive in secrecy, particularly when they can use their power to create repercussions for people reporting bad acts, creating a culture of silence. Mandatory investigation is one of the few effective ways to resolve that. That's why it's the policy and/or law in many circumstances. If my group had the same policy as EA, I would be very uncomfortable with it.
WeylandYutani 4y ago
Tech bros gonna tech bro. This is the nerd equivalent of highschool football team.
kodyo 4y ago
I suppose if you see yourself as messianic, it’s hard to imagine why someone wouldn’t want to screw you.
theragra 4y ago
If there are less cases of abuse than among generic populace, it is weird to blame the movement. From the article, it is hard to understand that EA is somehow worse than most of the USA. Also, arguments for polyamory are just that, arguments. You certainly can press someone into it, but from the article, the impression that it is more like persuasion. Regarding cult dynamics - any tight knit community feels like this. Be it psychedelics users, health nuts, athletes etc etc. All of these will have takes that outsiders will consider unusual and weird.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > arguments for polyamory are just that, arguments Which have nothing whatever to do with effective altruism. So it's perfectly reasonable for a person who came to a gathering expecting to talk about effective altruism, to be uncomfortable, to say the least, when she finds herself getting proselytized about polyamory.
  - olliecornelia 4y ago
    It’s never who you want to be polyamorous who’s polyamorous.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
      Correction: The people you want to be polyamorous don’t need to go around recruiting partners.
  - theragra 4y ago
    I agree in principle, but isn't it like this often for any activity? People talk, sometimes about sensitive or offensive topics. RN, i encounter people around me that have very strong opinions about war in Ukraine. Sometimes it comes to direct insults, and while this is unfortunate, i won't say some group is responsible. Specific person is responsible for their actions.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  > If there are less cases of abuse than among generic populace Where are you getting this?
sonjat 4y ago
It's unclear if the issue is EA or how to handle misbehavior in organizations without formal structure or hierarchy. It isn't like a workplace, with reasonably well-defined boundaries, but something more akin to religion, where its influence bleeds over heavily into many aspects of ones life. As such, it is probably both more devastating when one is the victim of misconduct and also more difficult to police such misconduct. I am not really sure what the answer here is. "Believe all women" is a great slogan, but I am not a fan of a "guilty until proven innocent" (and I say this as a woman). OTOH, this isn't a criminal procedure and as such, one shouldn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is preying on others to enforce some level of punishment. It's a tough problem.
- Y_Y 4y ago
  You should be able to punish people even though there's reasonable doubt that they are culpable? Are you arguing for a "balance of probabilities" standard? Or that it's worth punishing some innocents so that the guilty are also punished?
  - sonjat 4y ago
    I think I am arguing for a "balance of probabilities". If (to spout off random hypothetical) the punishment is something like a banning of someone from EA conferences, then there definitely needs to be evidence of their misconduct, but that level of evidence doesn't need to be the same as if they are looking at a criminal conviction. The point is balancing the need to protect the victim while not punishing the innocent is a difficult issue outside the criminal courtroom.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    The standard of proof required to ban someone from a once-a-month pub meetup is far lower than the standard required to, say, give someone the death penalty.
ergonaught 4y ago
[flagged]
- supermet 4y ago
  [flagged]
somecompanyguy 4y ago
good
zozbot234 4y ago
This is not about effective altruism as in the generic practice of high-impact giving, it relates to a highly specific subculture of EA proponents. "Polycules", 'nuff said. These are not appropriate topics in a professional discussion among strangers.
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  It's a mission-focused group, and such groups usually include some amount of socializing. It's not the same as a workplace (although people frequently mention their partners in a workplace also) There are certainly polyamorous people who behave poorly, but that doesn't mean people with multiple lovers should be held to different standards than monogamous people are, just because their romantic orientation places them in the minority.
supermet 4y ago
[dead]
cwkoss 4y ago
"Effective Altruism" is one of those things like "All Lives Matter" where what it says on the box is not reflective of the way that people who identify with the ideology practice it.
- prox 4y ago
  So it is a doublespeak?
- scarmig 4y ago
  The best way to fleece a flock is to wrap yourself in a cloak of good intentions. You see it in EA, in churches, in Black Lives Matter. Basically as soon as someone proclaims themselves as beyond criticism because of their superior moral position, start checking for your wallet.
supersour 4y ago
> EA is diffuse and deliberately amorphous; anybody who wants to can call themselves an EA... But with no official leadership structure, no roster of who is and isn’t in the movement, and no formal process for dealing with complaints, Wise argues, it’s hard to gauge how common such issues are within EA compared to broader society. This passage reminded me of this article: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm Moral of the story: be weary of groups with low accountability and vague power structures. In a vacuum, power structures will always emerge, so it's generally better for them to exist in the light than in the dark.
- Sakos 4y ago
  I think it's bizarre EA seems to be a movement with power structures. I always just thought EA was a philosophy and based on that I felt it was an interesting idea. I don't have to worry about sexual harassment when I'm considering Plato or Stoicism. Why is it a thing with EA?
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Something can both describe a philosophy and a movement. The movement always has hierarchies and power structures. The philosophy doesn't, but then again, it's often presented by the movement so the lines get blurry.
    - Sakos 4y ago
      This is insightful, thanks.
  - lbwtaylor 4y ago
    When there is a lot of money moving around, it seems inevitable that power structures will form around it.
    - gruez 4y ago
      That might be true, but there isn't exactly an "Effective Altruism Foundation" that all the donations funnel through. You basically have a bunch of random people that are donating to charities that are well regarded, with a few philanthropists here and there setting up foundations. You might be able to hijack organizations like givewell (ie. organizations that tell people which charities they should donate to), but trying to monetize that is tricky. At the end of the day you don't really control anything, because you're still reliant on individuals following your advice. So if you try to funnel money to your own foundation (for embezzling purposes), you will easily burn any goodwill that you've built up.
freejazz 4y ago
Effective Altruism has a "make me think whoever is involved in this isn't a grifty scammer weirdo" problem
xchip 4y ago
This is a free article, and for the same reason in Photography Books, on the cover there is usually a naked lady, in these free articles the story is also always about sex or something that appeals to your instincts. Chances are this story was exaggerated up to a point to make it call your attention so you subscribe. If something is free, you are the product.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  I waded through many, many paragraphs to discover that some of the crimes included people making comments that made others feel uncomfortable. I was kind of expecting more. So, yes, it looks like I was the product here. It made me feel uncomfortable!
  - cactusplant7374 4y ago
    The readers discovered that EA is mixing sex with charity. It’s pretty weird.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      It's weird, but the title isn't saying it's weird. The title is saying people are getting harassed. Technically a cat call is harassment, that shouldn't make the news. This article has a click bait social justice title when in reality the title should comment about how EA is some sort of sexual cult.
  - xchip 4y ago
    Stories, in order to be interesting have to cause emotions, any emotion will do. We even classify movies by the type of emotions they evoke: horror, love, drama, humour,gore,... and this is yet another genre. It is not a free article, it is a bait to get you subscribed.
kazinator 4y ago
[flagged]
empathy_m 4y ago
Is EA still a thing? I thought the post rationalist and e/acc communities were where the forefront of human civilization in the Bay Area is now.
ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
Sounds a lot like the "Peace & Love" movement of the sixties (hippies). A lot of what went on, in those days, would be considered rape, slavery, various types of coercion and larceny, etc., these days.
BWStearns 4y ago
Least surprising thing ever when the movement's logic resembles the philosophical version of pickup artistry (and I'd bet good money that it's a thick middle of the Venn diagram) in terms of justifying some shitty behavior with rhetorical sleights of hand.
mise_en_place 4y ago
[flagged]
eddsh1994 4y ago
You can see the EA forums response to this post here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JCyX29F77Jak5gbwq/ea-sexual-harassment-and-abuse https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JCyX29F77Jak5gbwq/...
raincom 4y ago
You see same set of problems in a movement of super wealthy men, esp if you are a female.
cat_plus_plus 4y ago
[flagged]
snapetom 4y ago
Surprised they didn't mention Dan Price. He should be the poster boy in all this. Some people smelled his $70k/yr bullshit a mile away, most people refused to believe it because it was a great story. Wonder where his supporters are now that there's a felony case against him with multiple accusers.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  That was a fraud to steal the business value from his brother/co-owner.
  - snapetom 4y ago
    It absolutely was fraud, but people refused to believe it. He ran with it under this living wage spin and became some folk hero. But now he's a folk hero rapist.
- akavi 4y ago
  Is Dan Price associated with effective altruism?
zachlatta 4y ago
I was always on the outside of these groups in the Bay Area, but saw enough to know this was happening with the polygamy subculture / group houses of EA. Horrible.
ThrustVectoring 4y ago
Not to say that it isn't a problem or that the community shouldn't do better, but this seems like the sort of stuff you could dredge up about pretty much any group of comparable size. I'm intensely curious about the decision-making process that got this article published.
xyzelement 4y ago
I find that the following is true: those who are very vocal about their own virtue/altruism are usually rotten. Those who aren't, often surprise you with their goodness when it matters. I've found the "I am so good/empathetic/etc" crowd to be either self deluded and useless, or manipulative, specifically for the purpose of trying to work your way in sexually (as in this story)
- Karsteski 4y ago
  You've done a good job of describing a feeling I've had for years now. It really is just such a turn off when anyone is super vocal about how good of a person they are. It's like a code smell.
neilv 4y ago
Why is Time magazine printing the name as uncapitalized "effective altruism"? Those two terms have important generic meanings, and this Effective Altruism thing doesn't appear to be some generic natural combination of the terms.
broof 4y ago
For anyone that actually read the article, idk how much criticism there is for EA, but rather seemed more like a expose on how the Bay Area EA culture is heavily polyamorous with men abusing job connections to pressure women. Seems more like a Bay Area thing than an EA thing. I’m not sure though as I am not involved in any of these…
- bradlys 4y ago
  This read heavily like any of the polyamorous circles that I’ve been in. The poor handles around consent and the desire to maximize their reputation months after such incidents is… well, strikingly familiar to me. I never have been poly and never will be. I wish I didn’t know anyone who was poly but they just find their ways into my circles due to poly being common with some hobbies I have.
fwungy 4y ago
[flagged]
- fwungy 4y ago
  Nature is quite clever. Powerful hormones are triggered in the female cycle that operate outside of the conscious mind. We are not rational creatures, especially when intoxicated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15216427/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15216427/
yosito 4y ago
> 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.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  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.
camillomiller 4y ago
EA can be the scum of Earth and I wouldn’t be surprised that this kind of group could be as it sounds cultish and self-aggrandizing. But conflating their wrongdoings right away with the refusal of monogamy and the practice of polyamory is so annoying and conservative and plainly wrong. It also implies that these practices are one step removed from harassment, which is infuriating. It’s exactly like conflating homosexuality and pedophilia, just wrong and violent. Shame on TIME for using this story to immediately push their conservative agenda.
- droopyEyelids 4y ago
  In a perfect world I agree with you, but at some point you have to ask yourself why non-monogamy keeps going out of style after periods of acceptance. Even with a religion justifying it, Mormons gave up polygamy! I think it's because polygamous relationships lend themselves to manipulative and abusive behavior more easily than monogamous relationships do. Over time that increase in probability of negative outcomes turns into social change and prescription against it.
  - blep_ 4y ago
    Perhaps. I'm skeptical, but I have neither data nor anecdata to support that skepticism, so I won't actually dispute it. But the problem there is still the manipulative and abusive behavior, not the polygamy. It's absurd to argue against healthy polygamous relationships just because there are unhealthy ones.
  - chipsa 4y ago
    Mormons gave it up because the US Government forced them to. It was a requirement for statehood for Utah.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    A culture where men can have many partners but women aren’t allowed to is inherently ripe for abuse. This is completely different from polyamory.
- jojobas 4y ago
scaredginger 4y ago
With the apparent link between tech and EA, I think the article is correct in saying that this harrassment is a reflection of the same problem in broader tech circles. We still have a lot of work to do if we want everyone to feel comfortable in our spaces
cynicalsecurity 4y ago
[flagged]
jrm4 4y ago
This EA thing looks perfectly bad, in that it appears to be charity, with absolutely no skin-in-the-game? Just nothing but consdesencion?
throw5820683 4y ago
"The Bay Area rationalist community can not escape sexual misconduct and drama." https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/avu24t/the_bay_area_rationalist_community_can_not_escape/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/avu24t/the_bay_a...
pyuser583 4y ago
For those who don’t click the link, this is a deeply researched piece of journalism. Not an opinion piece.
sacnoradhq 4y ago
If someone (or a group of someones) needs a brand to conduct philanthropy, then they're a. lazy, b. not the sharpest rusty nail foot detector, and/or c. trying to get publicity and approbation for appearing to do good. Philanthropy done right is anonymous, organic, and helps with basic needs as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, it sounds like a cult meets a swindle to me.
otikik 4y ago
> pollute the epistemic environment Double Yikes
marc_abonce 4y ago
TIL a woman even committed suicide as a result of her experiences with sexual harassment in the Effective Altruism groups she was on, according to her suicide note. [1] [1] Kathy Forth's suicide note: https://medium.com/@itai.ilyich/if-i-cant-have-me-no-one-can-kathleen-rebecca-forth-born-april-11-1980-31c49ed15121 https://medium.com/@itai.ilyich/if-i-cant-have-me-no-one-can...
kstenerud 4y ago
I've been around long enough to see this kind of thing time and time again. I still remember my father getting involved with the local "Technocracy" movement, which is as kooky and self-serving as you'd expect from the name (but hey, it was the 90s). Any time someone offers a simple solution or philosophy to solve complex problems, that should be the first giant red flag that they're full of shit and wishful thinking, with self-serving deception just around the corner.
svc0 4y ago
Seems like the issue here is not EA or a rationalist world view. The issue seems to be the lack of compartmentalization of the professional and personal lives, a lack of procedural boundaries around social conduct, and a general lack of maturity. This doesn't seem particularly rational...
antisceptic 4y ago
Sexual harassment is one facet of a what seems to be a power problem. The power in the group derives from reputation and many are willing to go to extreme lengths to scavenge as much of it as they can. How many times are we going to repeat Zimbardo's experiment? Let's not get bogged down with the details of EA, which on paper seems well intentioned. It could be a book club where a sexual harassment problem emerges, if there are power discrepancies within the group. We also need to stop acting surprised whenever there are influential and powerful people in such a group (SBF was mentioned) and something like this emerges. The powerful within the group are effectively laundering money in exchange for sexual capital. Hookup culture, which has a wider audience than many would expect, would cynically view a group like EA as a lead generator for sex. It works until at least one person starts to call foul and the shaky foundation upon which the house of cards is built is exposed. Come to think of it, in the current zeitgeist, if you're being Machiavellian about this sort of thing, then it might be a good strategy to quietly endure the shenanigans and collect information on such a group in order to gain leverage. The payout can be substantial if it captures enough media attention.
bloqs 4y ago
This is a problem as old as human beings. People want sex. Sex happens most for those who are considered most socially valuable (for men anyway). People look for socially popular things, select those that are accessible and adopt them to signal virtue and social value, to try and increase the likelihood they will appear as more sexually valuable. However, this is risky. Discovery of deception of social value causes a much larger loss of social value than was gained from the deception in the first place, this is because it's commonly gamed for this very reason. People who are more interested in things than people (mostly men) really struggle to grasp these interactive social properties in real time, and will often even be so unaware that they will not only openly admit to being deceptive, but get actually angry with the victim when the deception doesn't work. These are called closed contracts, so when losers give gifts to someone in an unprompted fashion, this is not because they want to be altruistic, but because they think the altrusim can be used to present themselves as more sexually attractive. Resorting to trickery out of desperation. These people are very common, and can often saturate movements like this.
- majikaja 4y ago
  As long as the person has a nice appearance no one will worry about sincerity of intentions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bmitc 4y ago
It's a movement invented as yet another way for rich, wealthy, and/or privileged people to feel better about themselves for being so. It isn't surprising to me in the least thay it is rife with other sociopathic behavior.
bmitc 4y ago
It's a movement invented as yet another way for rich, wealthy, and/or privileged people to not just feel better about themselves for being so but for being destined to be so for the supposed benefit of others. It isn't surprising to me in the least thay it is rife with other sociopathic behavior.
Pigalowda 4y ago
So their godless little church has a sexual harassment and abuse problem? Welcome to the club.
deathclassic 4y ago
What? A bunch of autistic male nerds obsessed with how smart they are don't respect women? I'm so suprised. Anyway, I dismissed EA because I dismiss basically all forms of utilitarian ethics. When you try to use math and statistics to form your entire moral basis, you can kinda justify anything you want, and get to some weird contradictory judgements as well.
- epylar 4y ago
  Is autism correlated with disrespect of women?
  - deathclassic 4y ago
    Not directly. But it is directly correlated with disregard for others feelings, and general lack of social awareness. Which in the case of male EA nerds certainly seems to lead to a lot of situations in which women were disrespected to say the least.
braza 4y ago
> She noticed that EA members in the Bay Area seemed to work together, live together, and sleep together, often in polyamorous sexual relationships with complex professional dynamics I personally think that this is a particular problem at the Bay Area EA “movimento” (whatever it mean) than with the EA itself. I am a member of some groups in South America that organise a “big soup” (PT-BR: Sopão) for several homeless kids once a week and we collaborate with some of the Blind Helpers Association (PT-BR: Fundação Dorina Nowill) well before the EA “movement” and for me it’s one of the most fulfilling things that I had in my life and it’s quite sad to read to anecdotical articles like this to classify an entire silent and necessary movement like this. Personally I think EA it’s more about of what an individual can do _without any kind of publicity_ than be part of some group and/or association.
pk-protect-ai 4y ago
This is a problem with all the cargo-cults. Or with cults in general. Make money and indoctrinate ... That is what they are doing. Display versus real deed.
funstuff007 4y ago
I find it very hard to give to charity when any meaningful contribution I make can be immediately dwarfed by a single contribution from a whale. Maybe when / if there are less billionaires, I'll feel differently.
shiroyacha 4y ago
"effective altruism" hurts my ear
thelastquestion 4y ago
As someone who has been invited on several occasions into Bay Area EA groups, my experience has been that many of the people who are involved are more concerned with some grand concept of ethics and skipped over an interest and education in simple decency. While only anecdotal, these reports are consistent with the type of environments I saw that would allow sexual assault/harassment to be more commonplace than in other social settings. Even in college fraternities, you are more likely to encounter someone with the common sense, decency, and willingness to tell guys who take things too far to cut it out. There's much more room for emotional investment and manipulation, and ensuing toxicity, within the groups described in the article.

242 points by s17n 4y ago

s17n 4y ago

(Original title was too long for HN, did my best)

A lot of people in EA have poor social skills and a lot of people in the community become friends and lovers. That probably explains most of this phenomenon.

s17n 4y ago
You seem to be implying that "poor social skills" are a valid excuse for sexual misconduct?
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  An explanation is not necessarily an excuse.

jmeister 4y ago

Does Time’s readership have any clue about Effective Altruism?

eddsh1994 4y ago
After SBF and FTX, yes
TacticalCoder 4y ago
Well there's this high profile in the EA community who happened to have its name tied to FTX not just for being SBF's guru but also for being on the FTX payroll in FTX's early days. But not only that: it gets better for he happen to have bought a mansion in the UK, supposedly for EA, with $15m of stolen money SBF gave him. (mansion which may be clawed back, I sure do hope it is). The dude is a teacher at some fancy uni in the UK. Tells me all I need to know about EA and the kind of people higher up the echelons there. It's obviously highly manipulative and I'm not surprised at all to see manipulative gurus misappropriating money and using their manipulative tactics to prey on women. P.S: as he altruistically given back the mansion acquired with stolen money?
- throwanem 4y ago
  No, see, it's actually very complicated and difficult to maintain an optimal environment for thinking up new ways to mitigate the existential risk posed by an AI that has a .0001% chance to be invented ten million years from now, so really from a standpoint of perfect altruism Bostrom has to keep the mansion.
1shooner 4y ago
I think this may be a bit of a HN bubble. I can't imagine most people have a need for a social or philosophical framework for their philanthropic identity.

willcipriano 4y ago

Back in my day effective altruism was mainly about finding charities that aren't essentially scams (way harder than it looks). Scene has apparently moved on to other things since I followed it a decade or so ago.

wendyshu 4y ago
I guess GiveWell still does that, but I'm not really sure what everyone else in the movement does.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Givewell is certainly my go to.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Looks good I'll check it out.
- akavi 4y ago
  Dustin Moskovitz's Good Ventures also seems to focus on more "prosaic" issues like medical research/direct cash transfers/animal welfare.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ketzo 4y ago
This is a super-simplified summary, but I think it's generally accurate. The basic thesis of EA is "it is your duty to improve/save as many human lives as you can." At some point, a lot of EAs realized that there were many more future humans than present humans. Once you widen your scope in that way, you start realizing that long-term, catastrophic risks (climate change, nuclear disaster, misaligned AI) would affect a lot more human lives -- billions or trillions more -- than basically anything we could do today. So the logic becomes -- why would I spend time/money on mosquito nets when we need to be securing the literal future of the human race?

haunter 4y ago

>Thousands have signed a pledge to tithe at least 10% of their income to high-impact charities. From college campuses to Silicon Valley startups, adherents are drawn to the moral clarity of a philosophy dedicated to using data and reason to shape a better future for humanity. Effective altruism has become something of a secular religion for the young and elite.

chasd00 4y ago
I was about to say, tithing 10% sounds like church. Heh the Catholic Church will send you a bill based on your taxes.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  In some countries the government will even collect.

stuaxo 4y ago

Well, this is unsurprising.

jfengel 4y ago

The worst thing about being smart is how easy it is to talk yourself into believing just about anything. After all, you make really good arguments. EA appeals to exactly that kind of really-smart-person who is perfectly capable of convincing themselves that they're always right about everything. And from there, you can justify all kinds of terrible things. Once that happens, it can easily spiral out from there. People who know perfectly well they're misbehaving will claim that they aren't, using the same arguments. It won't hold water, but now we're swamped, and the entire thing crumbles. I'd love to believe in effective altruism. I already know that my money is more effective in the hands of a food bank than giving people food myself. I'd love to think that could scale. It would be great to have smarter, better-informed people vetting things. But I don't have any reason to trust them -- in part because I know too many of the type of people who get involved and aren't trustworthy.

JohnFen 4y ago
Effective Altruism is just a modern iteration of a thing that's been around for a very long time. The fundamental idea is sound. However, in practice, it all-too-easily devolves into something really terrible. Especially once people start down the path of thinking the needs of today aren't as important as the needs of a hypothetical future population. Personally, I started "tithing" when my first business was a success. In part because it's good to help the less fortunate, but also as an ethical stance. Having a business drove home that no business can be successful without the support of the community it starts in, so it's only right to share in the rewards. So, I give 10% back. I have rules about it: I always give to a local group who directly helps people and who is typically overlooked for charitable giving. I get to know the group pretty well first. I never give to any group that won't keep my identity a secret. I never give to any group that asks me for money. I don't always give in the form of money. Sometimes, it's in the form of my time and effort, or in material goods, etc. I don't give to "umbrella" groups whose purpose is fundraising for a collection of other groups. This isn't because I have a problem with them, but because they're not the ones who struggle the most to get donations.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > I get to know the group pretty well first. I think this is a very, very, very important step. What's more, it's a step that I don't think can be outsourced to someone else, which is why I'm skeptical about claims by, among others, the Effective Altruism movement, to be able to do this kind of thing on your behalf.

lbwtaylor 4y ago

The article links to this EA community post on 'interpersonal harm' in the community, which I found interesting. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NbkxLDECvdGuB95gW/the-community-health-team-s-work-on-interpersonal-harm-in https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NbkxLDECvdGuB95gW/... One item caught my eye: >>There are also cases where I find a report to be alarming and would like to take action, but the person reporting does not want it known that they spoke up. In these cases, sometimes there’s very little that can be done without breaking their confidentiality. Yikes. That would not meet reporting standards at most organizations I've been a part of. There are a lot of hard lessons behind requiring mandatory investigation of credible claims.

The_Colonel 4y ago
If you don't respect the desired confidentiality, you'll get fewer people confiding with you. There are similar practices regarding rape - victims can seek e.g. securing the biological evidence without automatically triggering a criminal investigation. The logic being that this (critical) step should be as risk-free / barrier-free as possible. > There are a lot of hard lessons behind requiring mandatory investigation of credible claims. Worth keeping in mind that companies are always primarily trying to cover their backs and these policies often reflect that.
- lbwtaylor 4y ago
  >> There are a lot of hard lessons behind requiring mandatory investigation of credible claims. >Worth keeping in mind that companies are always primarily trying to cover their backs and these policies often reflect that. Your comment was a fair one when it comes to corporations, but I was thinking of churches and community groups more like EA than corporations. Bad actors thrive in secrecy, particularly when they can use their power to create repercussions for people reporting bad acts, creating a culture of silence. Mandatory investigation is one of the few effective ways to resolve that. That's why it's the policy and/or law in many circumstances. If my group had the same policy as EA, I would be very uncomfortable with it.

WeylandYutani 4y ago

Tech bros gonna tech bro. This is the nerd equivalent of highschool football team.

kodyo 4y ago

I suppose if you see yourself as messianic, it’s hard to imagine why someone wouldn’t want to screw you.

theragra 4y ago

If there are less cases of abuse than among generic populace, it is weird to blame the movement. From the article, it is hard to understand that EA is somehow worse than most of the USA. Also, arguments for polyamory are just that, arguments. You certainly can press someone into it, but from the article, the impression that it is more like persuasion. Regarding cult dynamics - any tight knit community feels like this. Be it psychedelics users, health nuts, athletes etc etc. All of these will have takes that outsiders will consider unusual and weird.

pdonis 4y ago
> arguments for polyamory are just that, arguments Which have nothing whatever to do with effective altruism. So it's perfectly reasonable for a person who came to a gathering expecting to talk about effective altruism, to be uncomfortable, to say the least, when she finds herself getting proselytized about polyamory.
- olliecornelia 4y ago
  It’s never who you want to be polyamorous who’s polyamorous.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
    Correction: The people you want to be polyamorous don’t need to go around recruiting partners.
- theragra 4y ago
  I agree in principle, but isn't it like this often for any activity? People talk, sometimes about sensitive or offensive topics. RN, i encounter people around me that have very strong opinions about war in Ukraine. Sometimes it comes to direct insults, and while this is unfortunate, i won't say some group is responsible. Specific person is responsible for their actions.
andrewflnr 4y ago
> If there are less cases of abuse than among generic populace Where are you getting this?

sonjat 4y ago

It's unclear if the issue is EA or how to handle misbehavior in organizations without formal structure or hierarchy. It isn't like a workplace, with reasonably well-defined boundaries, but something more akin to religion, where its influence bleeds over heavily into many aspects of ones life. As such, it is probably both more devastating when one is the victim of misconduct and also more difficult to police such misconduct. I am not really sure what the answer here is. "Believe all women" is a great slogan, but I am not a fan of a "guilty until proven innocent" (and I say this as a woman). OTOH, this isn't a criminal procedure and as such, one shouldn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is preying on others to enforce some level of punishment. It's a tough problem.

Y_Y 4y ago
You should be able to punish people even though there's reasonable doubt that they are culpable? Are you arguing for a "balance of probabilities" standard? Or that it's worth punishing some innocents so that the guilty are also punished?
- sonjat 4y ago
  I think I am arguing for a "balance of probabilities". If (to spout off random hypothetical) the punishment is something like a banning of someone from EA conferences, then there definitely needs to be evidence of their misconduct, but that level of evidence doesn't need to be the same as if they are looking at a criminal conviction. The point is balancing the need to protect the victim while not punishing the innocent is a difficult issue outside the criminal courtroom.
- michaelt 4y ago
  The standard of proof required to ban someone from a once-a-month pub meetup is far lower than the standard required to, say, give someone the death penalty.

ergonaught 4y ago

[flagged]

supermet 4y ago
[flagged]

somecompanyguy 4y ago

good

zozbot234 4y ago

This is not about effective altruism as in the generic practice of high-impact giving, it relates to a highly specific subculture of EA proponents. "Polycules", 'nuff said. These are not appropriate topics in a professional discussion among strangers.

pcthrowaway 4y ago
It's a mission-focused group, and such groups usually include some amount of socializing. It's not the same as a workplace (although people frequently mention their partners in a workplace also) There are certainly polyamorous people who behave poorly, but that doesn't mean people with multiple lovers should be held to different standards than monogamous people are, just because their romantic orientation places them in the minority.

supermet 4y ago

[dead]

cwkoss 4y ago

"Effective Altruism" is one of those things like "All Lives Matter" where what it says on the box is not reflective of the way that people who identify with the ideology practice it.

prox 4y ago
So it is a doublespeak?
scarmig 4y ago
The best way to fleece a flock is to wrap yourself in a cloak of good intentions. You see it in EA, in churches, in Black Lives Matter. Basically as soon as someone proclaims themselves as beyond criticism because of their superior moral position, start checking for your wallet.

supersour 4y ago

> EA is diffuse and deliberately amorphous; anybody who wants to can call themselves an EA... But with no official leadership structure, no roster of who is and isn’t in the movement, and no formal process for dealing with complaints, Wise argues, it’s hard to gauge how common such issues are within EA compared to broader society. This passage reminded me of this article: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm Moral of the story: be weary of groups with low accountability and vague power structures. In a vacuum, power structures will always emerge, so it's generally better for them to exist in the light than in the dark.

Sakos 4y ago
I think it's bizarre EA seems to be a movement with power structures. I always just thought EA was a philosophy and based on that I felt it was an interesting idea. I don't have to worry about sexual harassment when I'm considering Plato or Stoicism. Why is it a thing with EA?
- luckylion 4y ago
  Something can both describe a philosophy and a movement. The movement always has hierarchies and power structures. The philosophy doesn't, but then again, it's often presented by the movement so the lines get blurry.
  - Sakos 4y ago
    This is insightful, thanks.
- lbwtaylor 4y ago
  When there is a lot of money moving around, it seems inevitable that power structures will form around it.
  - gruez 4y ago
    That might be true, but there isn't exactly an "Effective Altruism Foundation" that all the donations funnel through. You basically have a bunch of random people that are donating to charities that are well regarded, with a few philanthropists here and there setting up foundations. You might be able to hijack organizations like givewell (ie. organizations that tell people which charities they should donate to), but trying to monetize that is tricky. At the end of the day you don't really control anything, because you're still reliant on individuals following your advice. So if you try to funnel money to your own foundation (for embezzling purposes), you will easily burn any goodwill that you've built up.

freejazz 4y ago

Effective Altruism has a "make me think whoever is involved in this isn't a grifty scammer weirdo" problem

xchip 4y ago

This is a free article, and for the same reason in Photography Books, on the cover there is usually a naked lady, in these free articles the story is also always about sex or something that appeals to your instincts. Chances are this story was exaggerated up to a point to make it call your attention so you subscribe. If something is free, you are the product.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xhkkffbf 4y ago
I waded through many, many paragraphs to discover that some of the crimes included people making comments that made others feel uncomfortable. I was kind of expecting more. So, yes, it looks like I was the product here. It made me feel uncomfortable!
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  The readers discovered that EA is mixing sex with charity. It’s pretty weird.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    It's weird, but the title isn't saying it's weird. The title is saying people are getting harassed. Technically a cat call is harassment, that shouldn't make the news. This article has a click bait social justice title when in reality the title should comment about how EA is some sort of sexual cult.
- xchip 4y ago
  Stories, in order to be interesting have to cause emotions, any emotion will do. We even classify movies by the type of emotions they evoke: horror, love, drama, humour,gore,... and this is yet another genre. It is not a free article, it is a bait to get you subscribed.

kazinator 4y ago

[flagged]

empathy_m 4y ago

Is EA still a thing? I thought the post rationalist and e/acc communities were where the forefront of human civilization in the Bay Area is now.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

Sounds a lot like the "Peace & Love" movement of the sixties (hippies). A lot of what went on, in those days, would be considered rape, slavery, various types of coercion and larceny, etc., these days.

BWStearns 4y ago

Least surprising thing ever when the movement's logic resembles the philosophical version of pickup artistry (and I'd bet good money that it's a thick middle of the Venn diagram) in terms of justifying some shitty behavior with rhetorical sleights of hand.

mise_en_place 4y ago

[flagged]

eddsh1994 4y ago

You can see the EA forums response to this post here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JCyX29F77Jak5gbwq/ea-sexual-harassment-and-abuse https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JCyX29F77Jak5gbwq/...

raincom 4y ago

You see same set of problems in a movement of super wealthy men, esp if you are a female.

cat_plus_plus 4y ago

[flagged]

snapetom 4y ago

Surprised they didn't mention Dan Price. He should be the poster boy in all this. Some people smelled his $70k/yr bullshit a mile away, most people refused to believe it because it was a great story. Wonder where his supporters are now that there's a felony case against him with multiple accusers.

hgsgm 4y ago
That was a fraud to steal the business value from his brother/co-owner.
- snapetom 4y ago
  It absolutely was fraud, but people refused to believe it. He ran with it under this living wage spin and became some folk hero. But now he's a folk hero rapist.
akavi 4y ago
Is Dan Price associated with effective altruism?

zachlatta 4y ago

I was always on the outside of these groups in the Bay Area, but saw enough to know this was happening with the polygamy subculture / group houses of EA. Horrible.

ThrustVectoring 4y ago

Not to say that it isn't a problem or that the community shouldn't do better, but this seems like the sort of stuff you could dredge up about pretty much any group of comparable size. I'm intensely curious about the decision-making process that got this article published.

xyzelement 4y ago

I find that the following is true: those who are very vocal about their own virtue/altruism are usually rotten. Those who aren't, often surprise you with their goodness when it matters. I've found the "I am so good/empathetic/etc" crowd to be either self deluded and useless, or manipulative, specifically for the purpose of trying to work your way in sexually (as in this story)

Karsteski 4y ago
You've done a good job of describing a feeling I've had for years now. It really is just such a turn off when anyone is super vocal about how good of a person they are. It's like a code smell.

neilv 4y ago

Why is Time magazine printing the name as uncapitalized "effective altruism"? Those two terms have important generic meanings, and this Effective Altruism thing doesn't appear to be some generic natural combination of the terms.

broof 4y ago

For anyone that actually read the article, idk how much criticism there is for EA, but rather seemed more like a expose on how the Bay Area EA culture is heavily polyamorous with men abusing job connections to pressure women. Seems more like a Bay Area thing than an EA thing. I’m not sure though as I am not involved in any of these…

bradlys 4y ago
This read heavily like any of the polyamorous circles that I’ve been in. The poor handles around consent and the desire to maximize their reputation months after such incidents is… well, strikingly familiar to me. I never have been poly and never will be. I wish I didn’t know anyone who was poly but they just find their ways into my circles due to poly being common with some hobbies I have.

fwungy 4y ago

[flagged]

fwungy 4y ago
Nature is quite clever. Powerful hormones are triggered in the female cycle that operate outside of the conscious mind. We are not rational creatures, especially when intoxicated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15216427/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15216427/

yosito 4y ago

> 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.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
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.

camillomiller 4y ago

EA can be the scum of Earth and I wouldn’t be surprised that this kind of group could be as it sounds cultish and self-aggrandizing. But conflating their wrongdoings right away with the refusal of monogamy and the practice of polyamory is so annoying and conservative and plainly wrong. It also implies that these practices are one step removed from harassment, which is infuriating. It’s exactly like conflating homosexuality and pedophilia, just wrong and violent. Shame on TIME for using this story to immediately push their conservative agenda.

droopyEyelids 4y ago
In a perfect world I agree with you, but at some point you have to ask yourself why non-monogamy keeps going out of style after periods of acceptance. Even with a religion justifying it, Mormons gave up polygamy! I think it's because polygamous relationships lend themselves to manipulative and abusive behavior more easily than monogamous relationships do. Over time that increase in probability of negative outcomes turns into social change and prescription against it.
- blep_ 4y ago
  Perhaps. I'm skeptical, but I have neither data nor anecdata to support that skepticism, so I won't actually dispute it. But the problem there is still the manipulative and abusive behavior, not the polygamy. It's absurd to argue against healthy polygamous relationships just because there are unhealthy ones.
- chipsa 4y ago
  Mormons gave it up because the US Government forced them to. It was a requirement for statehood for Utah.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  A culture where men can have many partners but women aren’t allowed to is inherently ripe for abuse. This is completely different from polyamory.
jojobas 4y ago

scaredginger 4y ago

With the apparent link between tech and EA, I think the article is correct in saying that this harrassment is a reflection of the same problem in broader tech circles. We still have a lot of work to do if we want everyone to feel comfortable in our spaces

cynicalsecurity 4y ago

[flagged]

jrm4 4y ago

This EA thing looks perfectly bad, in that it appears to be charity, with absolutely no skin-in-the-game? Just nothing but consdesencion?

throw5820683 4y ago

"The Bay Area rationalist community can not escape sexual misconduct and drama." https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/avu24t/the_bay_area_rationalist_community_can_not_escape/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/avu24t/the_bay_a...

pyuser583 4y ago

For those who don’t click the link, this is a deeply researched piece of journalism. Not an opinion piece.

sacnoradhq 4y ago

If someone (or a group of someones) needs a brand to conduct philanthropy, then they're a. lazy, b. not the sharpest rusty nail foot detector, and/or c. trying to get publicity and approbation for appearing to do good. Philanthropy done right is anonymous, organic, and helps with basic needs as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, it sounds like a cult meets a swindle to me.

otikik 4y ago

> pollute the epistemic environment Double Yikes

marc_abonce 4y ago

TIL a woman even committed suicide as a result of her experiences with sexual harassment in the Effective Altruism groups she was on, according to her suicide note. [1] [1] Kathy Forth's suicide note: https://medium.com/@itai.ilyich/if-i-cant-have-me-no-one-can-kathleen-rebecca-forth-born-april-11-1980-31c49ed15121 https://medium.com/@itai.ilyich/if-i-cant-have-me-no-one-can...

kstenerud 4y ago

I've been around long enough to see this kind of thing time and time again. I still remember my father getting involved with the local "Technocracy" movement, which is as kooky and self-serving as you'd expect from the name (but hey, it was the 90s). Any time someone offers a simple solution or philosophy to solve complex problems, that should be the first giant red flag that they're full of shit and wishful thinking, with self-serving deception just around the corner.

svc0 4y ago

Seems like the issue here is not EA or a rationalist world view. The issue seems to be the lack of compartmentalization of the professional and personal lives, a lack of procedural boundaries around social conduct, and a general lack of maturity. This doesn't seem particularly rational...

antisceptic 4y ago

Sexual harassment is one facet of a what seems to be a power problem. The power in the group derives from reputation and many are willing to go to extreme lengths to scavenge as much of it as they can. How many times are we going to repeat Zimbardo's experiment? Let's not get bogged down with the details of EA, which on paper seems well intentioned. It could be a book club where a sexual harassment problem emerges, if there are power discrepancies within the group. We also need to stop acting surprised whenever there are influential and powerful people in such a group (SBF was mentioned) and something like this emerges. The powerful within the group are effectively laundering money in exchange for sexual capital. Hookup culture, which has a wider audience than many would expect, would cynically view a group like EA as a lead generator for sex. It works until at least one person starts to call foul and the shaky foundation upon which the house of cards is built is exposed. Come to think of it, in the current zeitgeist, if you're being Machiavellian about this sort of thing, then it might be a good strategy to quietly endure the shenanigans and collect information on such a group in order to gain leverage. The payout can be substantial if it captures enough media attention.

bloqs 4y ago

This is a problem as old as human beings. People want sex. Sex happens most for those who are considered most socially valuable (for men anyway). People look for socially popular things, select those that are accessible and adopt them to signal virtue and social value, to try and increase the likelihood they will appear as more sexually valuable. However, this is risky. Discovery of deception of social value causes a much larger loss of social value than was gained from the deception in the first place, this is because it's commonly gamed for this very reason. People who are more interested in things than people (mostly men) really struggle to grasp these interactive social properties in real time, and will often even be so unaware that they will not only openly admit to being deceptive, but get actually angry with the victim when the deception doesn't work. These are called closed contracts, so when losers give gifts to someone in an unprompted fashion, this is not because they want to be altruistic, but because they think the altrusim can be used to present themselves as more sexually attractive. Resorting to trickery out of desperation. These people are very common, and can often saturate movements like this.

majikaja 4y ago
As long as the person has a nice appearance no one will worry about sincerity of intentions.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bmitc 4y ago

It's a movement invented as yet another way for rich, wealthy, and/or privileged people to feel better about themselves for being so. It isn't surprising to me in the least thay it is rife with other sociopathic behavior.

bmitc 4y ago

It's a movement invented as yet another way for rich, wealthy, and/or privileged people to not just feel better about themselves for being so but for being destined to be so for the supposed benefit of others. It isn't surprising to me in the least thay it is rife with other sociopathic behavior.

Pigalowda 4y ago

So their godless little church has a sexual harassment and abuse problem? Welcome to the club.

deathclassic 4y ago

What? A bunch of autistic male nerds obsessed with how smart they are don't respect women? I'm so suprised. Anyway, I dismissed EA because I dismiss basically all forms of utilitarian ethics. When you try to use math and statistics to form your entire moral basis, you can kinda justify anything you want, and get to some weird contradictory judgements as well.

epylar 4y ago
Is autism correlated with disrespect of women?
- deathclassic 4y ago
  Not directly. But it is directly correlated with disregard for others feelings, and general lack of social awareness. Which in the case of male EA nerds certainly seems to lead to a lot of situations in which women were disrespected to say the least.

braza 4y ago

> She noticed that EA members in the Bay Area seemed to work together, live together, and sleep together, often in polyamorous sexual relationships with complex professional dynamics I personally think that this is a particular problem at the Bay Area EA “movimento” (whatever it mean) than with the EA itself. I am a member of some groups in South America that organise a “big soup” (PT-BR: Sopão) for several homeless kids once a week and we collaborate with some of the Blind Helpers Association (PT-BR: Fundação Dorina Nowill) well before the EA “movement” and for me it’s one of the most fulfilling things that I had in my life and it’s quite sad to read to anecdotical articles like this to classify an entire silent and necessary movement like this. Personally I think EA it’s more about of what an individual can do _without any kind of publicity_ than be part of some group and/or association.

pk-protect-ai 4y ago

This is a problem with all the cargo-cults. Or with cults in general. Make money and indoctrinate ... That is what they are doing. Display versus real deed.

funstuff007 4y ago

I find it very hard to give to charity when any meaningful contribution I make can be immediately dwarfed by a single contribution from a whale. Maybe when / if there are less billionaires, I'll feel differently.

shiroyacha 4y ago

"effective altruism" hurts my ear

thelastquestion 4y ago

As someone who has been invited on several occasions into Bay Area EA groups, my experience has been that many of the people who are involved are more concerned with some grand concept of ethics and skipped over an interest and education in simple decency. While only anecdotal, these reports are consistent with the type of environments I saw that would allow sexual assault/harassment to be more commonplace than in other social settings. Even in college fraternities, you are more likely to encounter someone with the common sense, decency, and willingness to tell guys who take things too far to cut it out. There's much more room for emotional investment and manipulation, and ensuing toxicity, within the groups described in the article.