Posts

Comments

Comment by kieuk on Should EAs participate in the Double Up Drive? · 2019-12-24T19:46:06.807Z · EA · GW

This question has been answered to some extent by Aaron Gertler, regarding the 2018 version of Double Up Drive, here.

This year, it seems like the Drive turned out to be counterfactual for all money raised after $2.4 million, but not necessarily before (we don’t actually know).

Elsewhere on this forum, Aaron also said:

[...] finding out whether a match is actually counterfactual can be a really big deal for the community; I wish I'd worked harder to confirm with the Double Up Drive team whether their match was counterfactual (I think the answer turned out to be "yes", in which case I should have done more promotion, but I'm not actually sure).

I also asked an organiser (Dan Smith) about it directly, on Twitter. He said:

I do the best I can to make Double up Drive a true match. I personally only donate my funds to these causes when the drive fills out. I also think for donors that getting to choose which fund gets matched is impactful relative to other ways to donate.
Comment by kieuk on Are we living at the most influential time in history? · 2019-10-14T17:28:10.437Z · EA · GW

Would someone be willing to translate these sentences from philosophy/maths into English? Or let me know how I can work it out for myself?

That is: P(cards not shuffled)P(cards in perfect order | cards not shuffled) >> P(cards shuffled)P(cards in perfect order | cards shuffled), even if my prior credence was that P(cards shuffled) > P(cards not shuffled), so I should update towards the cards having not been shuffled.
Similarly, if it seems to me that I’m living in the most influential time ever, this gives me good reason to suspect that the reasoning process that led me to this conclusion is flawed in some way, because P(I’m reasoning poorly)P(seems like I’m living at the hinge of history | I’m reasoning poorly) >> P(I’m reasoning correctly)P(seems like I’m living at the hinge of history | I’m reasoning correctly).

I think this type of writing puts a very high accessibility bar on these sentences. I fall into the class of people who might be expected to understand these formalisms (I work in programming, a supposedly mathsy job).

Comment by kieuk on Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA · 2018-05-17T17:00:12.789Z · EA · GW

I'm not really talking about showing how friendly you are

It looks like we were talking at cross purposes. I was picking up on the admittedly months-old conversation about "signalling collaborativeness" and [anti-]"combaticism", which is a separate conversation to the one on value signals. (Value signals are probably a means of signalling collaborativeness though.)

you should probably signal however friendly you are actually feeling

I think politeness serves a useful function (within moderation, of course). 'Forcing' people to behave more friendly than they feel saves time and energy.

I think EA has a problem with undervaluing social skills such as basic friendliness. If a community such as EA wants to keep people coming back and contributing their insights, the personal benefits of taking part need to outweigh the personal costs.

Comment by kieuk on Sexual Violence Risk Reduction - Let's Do Tracking! · 2018-05-14T21:19:28.611Z · EA · GW

Yes. What I'm asking about is coordinating methodology. I think Kathy had been a point of contact for both things.

Comment by kieuk on Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA · 2018-05-14T16:01:15.306Z · EA · GW

But I can control whether I am priming people to get accustomed to over-interpreting.

That sounds potentially important. Could you give an example of a failure mode?

Because my approach is not merely about how to behave as a listener. It's about speaking without throwing in unnecessary disclaimers.

Consider how my question "Could you give an example...?" reads if I didn't precede it with the following signal of collaborativeness: "That sounds potentially important." At least to me (YMMV), I would be like 15% less likely to feel defensive in the case where I precede it with such a signal, instead of leaping into the question -- which I would be likely (on a System 1y day) to read as "Oh yeah? Give me ONE example." Same applies to the phrase "At least to me (YMMV)": I'm chucking in a signal that I'm willing to listen to your point of view.

Those are examples of disclaimers. I argue these kinds of signals are helpful for promoting a productive atomsphere; do they fall into the category you're calling "unnecessary disclaimers"? Or is it only something more overt that you'd find counterproductive?

I take the point that different people have different needs with regards to this concern. I hope we can both steer clear of typical-minding everyone else. I think I might be particularly oversensitive to anything resembling conflict, and you are over on the other side of the bell curve in that respect.

Comment by kieuk on Sexual Violence Risk Reduction - Let's Do Tracking! · 2018-05-14T14:54:25.536Z · EA · GW

Since Kathy is sadly gone*, is there a potential new coordination point for coordinating our tracking methods? If you think it's best to coordinate privately, you can find me on Facebook (David Mears)

*https://www.facebook.com/Kathleen-Kathy-Rebecca-Forth-Memorial-Page-184870828823873/

Comment by kieuk on Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA · 2018-05-13T16:35:30.534Z · EA · GW

You only have control over your own actions: you can't control whether your interlocutor over-interprets you or not.

Your "right approach", which is about how to behave as a listener, is compatible with Michael_PJ's, which is about how to behave as a speaker: I don't see why we can't do both.