>“I actually got into EA because I matched with this older guy on a dating app”
This isn't as bad as the other kinds of examples given. It's more of a problem when it's a "much older" guy (or a "much older" person of whatever gender).
To explain why, I see your xkcd comic and raise you this one.
The rule of thumb provided is the Standard Creepiness Rule: Don't date under (your-own-age/2 +7). It's kind of a meme but its enduring power is that it does work decently well. Yet it breaks down into a problem when the stigmatization of a couple dating each other when two people's ages are a decade-ish apart, like 20 and 30, just because they're just so far apart in age, without other evidence of it being a problematic relationship, disrespects the autonomy and privacy of both people in the couple.
On the EA Forum posts discussing the incidences of sexual abuse in the community that broke earlier this year, I remember several commenters alleged that the prevalence of polyamory in the community was a culprit, and a sign that EA is a cult. Meanwhile, there were several other women who remarked that so much peer pressure to just be monogamous instead of polyamorous for the reputational sake of the community/movement or whatever, as an invasion into their personal/private lives, is what made them feel like EA was cult-like.
To stigmatize romantic relationships when there’s a big age gap can often have the same effect, not just in EA, but in any walk of life. The devil of whether there is an element of abuse or predation in a relationship is in the details. If the details are unknown, reacting based on a suspicion is probably going wrong often causes more harm than good. It’s okay to be concerned that something wrong is going on in the relationship, though it’s probably best to privately talk to the person in the relationship you’re worried about, or at least their other friends/peers you also personally know, before you make any assumptions.
>It’s not bad to give your girlfriend a grant! But compared to grantmakers deciding about grants for strangers, someone in your situation is more likely to be biased.
>These stories are all fictionalized
For what it’s worth, there are multiple, real, well-documented incidents like this from years past, that the effective altruists in question have spoken to. The most recent example of this that comes to mind is Holden Karnofsky addressing the fact that his wife is the president and co-founder of Anthropic AI, and formerly employed by OpenAI, back in March.
>Of course, if you take this to its logical extreme, I could end up saying, “That looks bad” to all kinds of completely innocent activities. I could even wind up encouraging people to change based on offensive stereotypes. That’s not good. I simply choose not to take this to its logical extreme, and encourage you not to either.
One problem is that there are those who frequently take it to the logical extreme. That's not what you do, of course, as you mentioned. It's good you're discouraging others from doing so, though unfortunately just mentioning it won't be sufficient to convince others to stop. It needs to be emphasized more.
That stems in part from how the morality of different parts of someone's life may be kind of arbitrary or subjective in how its perceived by different people. Polyamory comes up as an example again. Many people, especially effective altruists, don't recognize any violation of common-sense ethics in polyamory. Yet many people, perhaps most people do. For some people, someone else even slightly violating the bounds of strict monogamy stretches the limit of what they're willing tolerate. For them, polyamory is beyond the pale.
Most people in EA are of course not like that. It may be no more than a small minority of effective altruists who experience much discomfort being part of a social network with a disproportionately high rate of polyamory among its participants. I don't know and I could be wrong.
Yet for however many people would want polyamory to be criminalized, or for lifestyles that lend themselves to polyamory to be criminalized, there are many countries where the lifestyle is legal. It's not even a victimless crime. Indeed, in the countries where most effective altruists live, the human rights that allow and lend themselves to a polyamoryous lifestyle are, at least in theory, enshrined and protected by law. Some effective altruists probably hail from a country where polyamory is practically a crime, though I'd guess most effective altruists think polyamory shouldn't be a crime anyway. That's my opinion, at least.
This is a backdrop on which some polyamorous effective altruists may experience prejudice, discrimination and stigmatization many poly people face. Again, it's not as bad in effective altruism for most, though something that is no violation of what some people consider common-sense morality can be, to many others, a heinous and horrible moral failing.
Another example like that which comes to mind is dietary choices, whether someone eats meat, is vegetarian, or vegan. Not as commonly, or as often, in my experience, but all kinds of behaviour stereotypically associated with poor and/or uneducated people wind up morally stigmatized too.
>“I actually got into EA because I matched with this older guy on a dating app”
This isn't as bad as the other kinds of examples given. It's more of a problem when it's a "much older" guy (or a "much older" person of whatever gender).
To explain why, I see your xkcd comic and raise you this one.
https://xkcd.com/314/
The rule of thumb provided is the Standard Creepiness Rule: Don't date under (your-own-age/2 +7). It's kind of a meme but its enduring power is that it does work decently well. Yet it breaks down into a problem when the stigmatization of a couple dating each other when two people's ages are a decade-ish apart, like 20 and 30, just because they're just so far apart in age, without other evidence of it being a problematic relationship, disrespects the autonomy and privacy of both people in the couple.
On the EA Forum posts discussing the incidences of sexual abuse in the community that broke earlier this year, I remember several commenters alleged that the prevalence of polyamory in the community was a culprit, and a sign that EA is a cult. Meanwhile, there were several other women who remarked that so much peer pressure to just be monogamous instead of polyamorous for the reputational sake of the community/movement or whatever, as an invasion into their personal/private lives, is what made them feel like EA was cult-like.
To stigmatize romantic relationships when there’s a big age gap can often have the same effect, not just in EA, but in any walk of life. The devil of whether there is an element of abuse or predation in a relationship is in the details. If the details are unknown, reacting based on a suspicion is probably going wrong often causes more harm than good. It’s okay to be concerned that something wrong is going on in the relationship, though it’s probably best to privately talk to the person in the relationship you’re worried about, or at least their other friends/peers you also personally know, before you make any assumptions.
>It’s not bad to give your girlfriend a grant! But compared to grantmakers deciding about grants for strangers, someone in your situation is more likely to be biased.
>These stories are all fictionalized
For what it’s worth, there are multiple, real, well-documented incidents like this from years past, that the effective altruists in question have spoken to. The most recent example of this that comes to mind is Holden Karnofsky addressing the fact that his wife is the president and co-founder of Anthropic AI, and formerly employed by OpenAI, back in March.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/aJwcgm2nqiZu6zq2S/taking-a-leave-of-absence-from-open-philanthropy-to-work-on?commentId=JJhnJWZo3e4jmBMjf
>Of course, if you take this to its logical extreme, I could end up saying, “That looks bad” to all kinds of completely innocent activities. I could even wind up encouraging people to change based on offensive stereotypes. That’s not good. I simply choose not to take this to its logical extreme, and encourage you not to either.
One problem is that there are those who frequently take it to the logical extreme. That's not what you do, of course, as you mentioned. It's good you're discouraging others from doing so, though unfortunately just mentioning it won't be sufficient to convince others to stop. It needs to be emphasized more.
That stems in part from how the morality of different parts of someone's life may be kind of arbitrary or subjective in how its perceived by different people. Polyamory comes up as an example again. Many people, especially effective altruists, don't recognize any violation of common-sense ethics in polyamory. Yet many people, perhaps most people do. For some people, someone else even slightly violating the bounds of strict monogamy stretches the limit of what they're willing tolerate. For them, polyamory is beyond the pale.
Most people in EA are of course not like that. It may be no more than a small minority of effective altruists who experience much discomfort being part of a social network with a disproportionately high rate of polyamory among its participants. I don't know and I could be wrong.
Yet for however many people would want polyamory to be criminalized, or for lifestyles that lend themselves to polyamory to be criminalized, there are many countries where the lifestyle is legal. It's not even a victimless crime. Indeed, in the countries where most effective altruists live, the human rights that allow and lend themselves to a polyamoryous lifestyle are, at least in theory, enshrined and protected by law. Some effective altruists probably hail from a country where polyamory is practically a crime, though I'd guess most effective altruists think polyamory shouldn't be a crime anyway. That's my opinion, at least.
This is a backdrop on which some polyamorous effective altruists may experience prejudice, discrimination and stigmatization many poly people face. Again, it's not as bad in effective altruism for most, though something that is no violation of what some people consider common-sense morality can be, to many others, a heinous and horrible moral failing.
Another example like that which comes to mind is dietary choices, whether someone eats meat, is vegetarian, or vegan. Not as commonly, or as often, in my experience, but all kinds of behaviour stereotypically associated with poor and/or uneducated people wind up morally stigmatized too.