This answers one of my questions, thank you. I expect you can’t say so directly without making your advisors nervous, but I would gather from this that you may think that FTX was working on a financial frontier where things were moving fast, and that poor internal systems and culture at FTX were all wrapped up into a very complex mess where even a talented and typically quite ethical person could find themselves in a morass and be unsure how to get out.
Fwiw, if I’m close to right on that front, I agree with you! That is not far from my view. And, I think some of those people very clearly should have trained stronger intuitions around redlines they simply don’t cross for the EV when making decisions.
I think you should still be very discerning and careful, to Ben’s point, with the human tendency to assume the best of our peers and take risky action on that basis. I don’t think you’re wrong for assuming Caroline is a smart, empathetic person who can do good work despite her conviction. I think the decision to put her in a core position in your org is wrong, because it disregards some clear “just don’t do that” principles from accumulated deontological wisdom that should really give you more pause. Even in a rapidly changing world, I think we and you should have a much higher bar for ignoring that wisdom.
I don’t follow your question. Can you re-state it differently?
It would not destroy me to come to a different conclusion.
I don’t think this answers your question, but I can easily sympathize with how someone in Austin’s shoes could find reasons to make this call that he sincerely believes are correct, while being a smart and compassionate person. I still strongly disagree with his decision here.
I don’t think you should make decisions like this based on “what’s good for EA reputation.” I am not swayed by those arguments here.
I do think — unless you think Caroline was wrongfully convicted or convicted under a bogus law and you can say that — this seems a shockingly naïve decision.
We’ve seen hubris and in-group biased naïveté before, the kind that treats EAs and EA orgs as if we’re somehow above boring, straight-up sensible, standard safeguards within a business because we’re too smart and too morally evolved for all that or something, or too rational. This attitude caused some of the FTX failures. Now you’re here telling us that you’re ignoring boring, straight-up sensible standard safeguards within a business like “don’t hire someone with a finance-related felony conviction into a finance position.” And only 4 years after the crime was committed. What reasons do you have to ignore that standard?
I can be sympathetic and even forgiving in my heart of Caroline as a person. I don’t need to turn that feeling into a finance job for her. I’d be less concerned if an org were hiring her in a comms role based on her writings or something and could assure everyone that she’d have nothing to do with finances. Still controversial, but not so out of touch.
This is not smart or wise. It’s the kind of willful, wide-eyed foolishness, while fooling oneself into thinking it’s good, that we’ve seen before. It does not bode well.
JWS, do you think EA could work as a professional network of “impact analysts” or “impact engineers” rather than as a “movement”?
Ryan, do you have a sense of what that would concretely look like?
If we look at other professionals, for example, engineers have in common some key ideas, values, and broad goals (like ‘build things that work’). Senior engineers recruit young engineers and go to professional conferences to advance their engineering skills and ideas. Some engineers work in policy or politics, but they clearly aren’t a political movement. They don’t assume engineering is a complete ethos for all major life decisions, and they don’t assume that other engineers are trustworthy just because they are engineers.
I share your appreciation for EA ideas and think they’ll have longevity. I don’t know that there is a way to push back against the pitfallls of being a social movement instead of just being a collection of professionals. But I agree with Ryan that if there were a way to just be a group of skilled colleagues rather than “brethren”, it would be better. Social movements have the pitfalls of religions, tribes, and cults that most professions do not and fall prey to more demagogues as a result.
I understand the usage of “should” in this context. I was noting that it reads oddly to me, like a possible typo, and could be written to read more clearly.
For context on my own vote:
I’d give the same answer for talking about monogamy.
People should clearly be able to say “my partner(s) and I are celebrating my birthday tonight” and “it’s my anniversary!” and look at this cute picture of my metamour’s dog!” and then answer questions if a colleague says, “what’s a metamour?” Just like all colleagues should be able to talk about their families at work.
People should be aware that it’s risky to spend work time nerding out about dating, romantic issues, sex, hitting on people, etc. People should be aware that mono people in the Bay have often reported feeling pressured or judged for not being poly. But just like with any relation type, discussing romance at work is very likely to make someone feel uncomfortable and junior people often won’t feel like they can say so.
That seems much less good than appearing in the SwapCard list of attendees where everyone is scheduling 1:1s already, but I agree that a cheap version of the thing here is very doable even without SwapCard
A hard thing here:
For any project where “learn to work with external partners and train them to work with us” might be a good goal, there is usually a clear, higher priority and time-sensitive outcome in play, like “Make a hire for this role.” The time trade-offs are real, so the lower-priority goal doesn’t happen.
This may be the wrong long-term play.
I am inclined to agree with you that more successful external partnerships would be valuable, but I see why orgs take the more obvious win in the short-term.
This answers one of my questions, thank you. I expect you can’t say so directly without making your advisors nervous, but I would gather from this that you may think that FTX was working on a financial frontier where things were moving fast, and that poor internal systems and culture at FTX were all wrapped up into a very complex mess where even a talented and typically quite ethical person could find themselves in a morass and be unsure how to get out.
Fwiw, if I’m close to right on that front, I agree with you! That is not far from my view. And, I think some of those people very clearly should have trained stronger intuitions around redlines they simply don’t cross for the EV when making decisions.
I think you should still be very discerning and careful, to Ben’s point, with the human tendency to assume the best of our peers and take risky action on that basis. I don’t think you’re wrong for assuming Caroline is a smart, empathetic person who can do good work despite her conviction. I think the decision to put her in a core position in your org is wrong, because it disregards some clear “just don’t do that” principles from accumulated deontological wisdom that should really give you more pause. Even in a rapidly changing world, I think we and you should have a much higher bar for ignoring that wisdom.
I don’t follow your question. Can you re-state it differently?
It would not destroy me to come to a different conclusion.
I don’t think this answers your question, but I can easily sympathize with how someone in Austin’s shoes could find reasons to make this call that he sincerely believes are correct, while being a smart and compassionate person. I still strongly disagree with his decision here.
I don’t think you should make decisions like this based on “what’s good for EA reputation.” I am not swayed by those arguments here.
I do think — unless you think Caroline was wrongfully convicted or convicted under a bogus law and you can say that — this seems a shockingly naïve decision.
We’ve seen hubris and in-group biased naïveté before, the kind that treats EAs and EA orgs as if we’re somehow above boring, straight-up sensible, standard safeguards within a business because we’re too smart and too morally evolved for all that or something, or too rational. This attitude caused some of the FTX failures. Now you’re here telling us that you’re ignoring boring, straight-up sensible standard safeguards within a business like “don’t hire someone with a finance-related felony conviction into a finance position.” And only 4 years after the crime was committed. What reasons do you have to ignore that standard?
I can be sympathetic and even forgiving in my heart of Caroline as a person. I don’t need to turn that feeling into a finance job for her. I’d be less concerned if an org were hiring her in a comms role based on her writings or something and could assure everyone that she’d have nothing to do with finances. Still controversial, but not so out of touch.
This is not smart or wise. It’s the kind of willful, wide-eyed foolishness, while fooling oneself into thinking it’s good, that we’ve seen before. It does not bode well.
No problem, thanks for the wiki link
Fair.
Having run through the analogy, EA becoming more like an academic field or a profession rather than a movement seems very improbable.
I agree that “try to reduce abuses common within the church” seems a better analogy.
JWS, do you think EA could work as a professional network of “impact analysts” or “impact engineers” rather than as a “movement”?
Ryan, do you have a sense of what that would concretely look like?
If we look at other professionals, for example, engineers have in common some key ideas, values, and broad goals (like ‘build things that work’). Senior engineers recruit young engineers and go to professional conferences to advance their engineering skills and ideas. Some engineers work in policy or politics, but they clearly aren’t a political movement. They don’t assume engineering is a complete ethos for all major life decisions, and they don’t assume that other engineers are trustworthy just because they are engineers.
I share your appreciation for EA ideas and think they’ll have longevity. I don’t know that there is a way to push back against the pitfallls of being a social movement instead of just being a collection of professionals. But I agree with Ryan that if there were a way to just be a group of skilled colleagues rather than “brethren”, it would be better. Social movements have the pitfalls of religions, tribes, and cults that most professions do not and fall prey to more demagogues as a result.
I understand the usage of “should” in this context. I was noting that it reads oddly to me, like a possible typo, and could be written to read more clearly.
For context on my own vote: I’d give the same answer for talking about monogamy.
People should clearly be able to say “my partner(s) and I are celebrating my birthday tonight” and “it’s my anniversary!” and look at this cute picture of my metamour’s dog!” and then answer questions if a colleague says, “what’s a metamour?” Just like all colleagues should be able to talk about their families at work.
People should be aware that it’s risky to spend work time nerding out about dating, romantic issues, sex, hitting on people, etc. People should be aware that mono people in the Bay have often reported feeling pressured or judged for not being poly. But just like with any relation type, discussing romance at work is very likely to make someone feel uncomfortable and junior people often won’t feel like they can say so.
That seems much less good than appearing in the SwapCard list of attendees where everyone is scheduling 1:1s already, but I agree that a cheap version of the thing here is very doable even without SwapCard
A hard thing here: For any project where “learn to work with external partners and train them to work with us” might be a good goal, there is usually a clear, higher priority and time-sensitive outcome in play, like “Make a hire for this role.” The time trade-offs are real, so the lower-priority goal doesn’t happen.
This may be the wrong long-term play. I am inclined to agree with you that more successful external partnerships would be valuable, but I see why orgs take the more obvious win in the short-term.