Okay, sorry for pressing the point. In my view this didn't quite address what I wanted to say but did not say well. You say A, I argue that it’s either B or C, then you say we don't know whether it's B or C. Fine with me! What I wanted to convey is that we should at least point out that C is a serious option, and I think the EA community could become less naive with these things because that's what creates an environment where sneakiness doesn't work anymore. The way I meant this, B or C are not about what the truth is, but what Jacy's approach to facing allegations is. And I agree with your other comment that it could be either option.
You don't know until it happens, but I can see myself reacting this way if someone came at me with a serious accusation that made me feel like a bad person. [Edit: If I was unsure whether I'd done any wrongdoing,] I'd probably instantly want to betray myself rather than face people thinking I was guilty and unremorseful.
But in that state of mind, your apology would sound extremely apologetic rather than very calculated? If the apology sounds calculated (edit: in the sense that many people discuss whether it even is an admission of guilt at all), it's a sign that the person (edit: isn't in the turmoil of gaslighting themselves anymore and) either thinks they have high integrity, or they are comfortable with sneakiness. Unfortunately the two are going to look very similar.
Yes but he would say that either way? One question is whether there's just enough ambiguity to navigate the waters in today's climate, or subtly more ambiguity.
If you wanted to write an apology that assures CEA that things were concluding properly, while also trying to preserve the maximum of plausible deniability for any morally (more) serious allegations, how would you write it when the truth is in fact relatively benign? And how would you write it when the truth was not so benign?
I think it's easy to gaslight yourself and think you actually might have done something seriously wrong without knowing.
True. What's unfortunate is that the type of person who knowingly does inappropriate things (without any sense of remorse) is guaranteed to use what you say as a phony excuse. I'm not alleging that the sentiment expressed in the apology was knowingly insincere; I'm merely pointing out that this gives you zero Bayesian evidence to distinguish two very different kinds of situations.
The fact that CEA has not taken steps to clear up the ambiguities (as other commenters have pointed out) is some evidence in favor of the hypothesis that "today's climate makes things look worse than they are". But there are plausible alternatives for why CEA isn't commenting on that.
even if you lack precise knowledge of what the events in question are.
Living one's own life one would hopefully have some kind of idea. It's a strange emphasis for an apology to say that he received access to one allegation where he didn't initially understand why the behavior was received as problematic, only to add that there are other, unseen allegations "and that this other behavior may have been more problematic". So were some of the things the unseen allegations could refer to problematic in his own opinion (and enough for the response by third parties to seem appropriate)?
(Using a throwaway only to avoid drama, not because I have any extra information.)
Okay, sorry for pressing the point. In my view this didn't quite address what I wanted to say but did not say well. You say A, I argue that it’s either B or C, then you say we don't know whether it's B or C. Fine with me! What I wanted to convey is that we should at least point out that C is a serious option, and I think the EA community could become less naive with these things because that's what creates an environment where sneakiness doesn't work anymore. The way I meant this, B or C are not about what the truth is, but what Jacy's approach to facing allegations is. And I agree with your other comment that it could be either option.
But in that state of mind, your apology would sound extremely apologetic rather than very calculated? If the apology sounds calculated (edit: in the sense that many people discuss whether it even is an admission of guilt at all), it's a sign that the person (edit: isn't in the turmoil of gaslighting themselves anymore and) either thinks they have high integrity, or they are comfortable with sneakiness. Unfortunately the two are going to look very similar.
Yes but he would say that either way? One question is whether there's just enough ambiguity to navigate the waters in today's climate, or subtly more ambiguity.
If you wanted to write an apology that assures CEA that things were concluding properly, while also trying to preserve the maximum of plausible deniability for any morally (more) serious allegations, how would you write it when the truth is in fact relatively benign? And how would you write it when the truth was not so benign?
True. What's unfortunate is that the type of person who knowingly does inappropriate things (without any sense of remorse) is guaranteed to use what you say as a phony excuse. I'm not alleging that the sentiment expressed in the apology was knowingly insincere; I'm merely pointing out that this gives you zero Bayesian evidence to distinguish two very different kinds of situations.
The fact that CEA has not taken steps to clear up the ambiguities (as other commenters have pointed out) is some evidence in favor of the hypothesis that "today's climate makes things look worse than they are". But there are plausible alternatives for why CEA isn't commenting on that.
Living one's own life one would hopefully have some kind of idea. It's a strange emphasis for an apology to say that he received access to one allegation where he didn't initially understand why the behavior was received as problematic, only to add that there are other, unseen allegations "and that this other behavior may have been more problematic". So were some of the things the unseen allegations could refer to problematic in his own opinion (and enough for the response by third parties to seem appropriate)?
(Using a throwaway only to avoid drama, not because I have any extra information.)